BILL ANALYSIS �
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Alan Lowenthal, Chair
2011-2012 Regular Session
BILL NO: SB 394
AUTHOR: DeSaulnier
AMENDED: February 16, 2011
FISCAL COMM: Yes HEARING DATE: March 23, 2011
URGENCY: No CONSULTANT:Kathleen Chavira
NOTE : This bill has been referred to the Committees on
Education and Environmental Quality. A "do pass" motion
should include referral to the Committee on Environmental
Quality.
SUBJECT : Use of pesticides on school property.
SUMMARY
This bill expands existing prohibitions on the use of
pesticides on schoolsites to allow only self-contained
baits, gels, and pastes used as crack, crevice and spot
treatments, and further prohibits any pesticides containing
specified ingredients or that are labeled with the words
"danger" or "warning" pursuant to specified regulations.
The bill also requires schoolsites to send at least one
person to specified integrated pest management training at
least once every two years.
BACKGROUND
Current law establishes the Healthy Schools Act in the
Education Code (� 17608-17613), which among other things:
Requires schools to annually provide a written notice
to staff and parents with the name of all pesticide
products expected to be applied at the school during
the upcoming year.
Requires schools to post a warning sign at each area
of the schoolsite where pesticides will be applied.
Requires schools to keep records for four years of all
pesticides used at the schoolsite.
SB 394
Page 2
Prohibits the use of a pesticide that has been granted
conditional registration, an interim registration or
an experimental use permit.
Exempts agriculture vocational programs if the
activity is necessary to meet curriculum requirements.
Current law also establishes the Healthy Schools Act in the
Food and Agriculture Code (� 13180-13188) which among other
things:
Requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)
to promote and facilitate the voluntary adoption of
integrated pest management programs for schools and
child day care facilities.
Requires DPR to maintain a website with specific
information, and requires DPR to ensure that adequate
resources are available to respond to inquiries from
schools regarding the use of integrated pest
management practices.
Requires DPR to establish an integrated pest
management training program to facilitate the adoption
of a model integrated pest management program and
least-hazardous pest control practices by schools.
Requires DPR to prepare a school pesticide use form to
be used by licensed and certified pest control
operators when they apply any pesticides at a school.
ANALYSIS
This bill :
1) Expands the provisions of the current Healthy Schools
Acts. More specifically it:
a) Prohibits the use of pesticides on
schoolsites other than self-contained baits, gels
and pastes developed as crack, crevice and spot
treatments.
b) Prohibits the use of a pesticide
on schoolsites if it contains:
SB 394
Page 3
i) An ingredient known to cause
cancer or reproductive toxicity.
ii) Any of seven specified
cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides.
c) Prohibits, beginning January 1,
2014, use of a pesticide on a school site if it
contains any cholinesterase-inhibiting active
ingredients, active ingredients that are
groundwater contaminants or that are designated
as toxic air contaminants or identified as
fumigants, or that are labeled with the signal
word "danger" or "warning" pursuant to
regulations adopted by the Secretary of Food and
Agriculture.
d) Requires all schoolsites, as
defined, to send at least one person at least
once every two years to one of the integrated
pest management training programs currently
required to be offered by the Department of
Pesticide Regulation.
2) Makes a number of related findings and declarations.
STAFF COMMENTS
1) Need for the bill . According to the author, "current
law only requires a right-to-know posting and
notification of pesticides that will be applied to
public schools. While current law requires the
Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to support
schools in an Integrated Pest management (IPM)
program, the program is voluntary and although over
70% have taken IPM training, less than 40% are
actually implementing even half the steps recommended
to help facilitate IPM and only 11% of school
districts have adopted six or more of the seven
voluntary IPM policies and practices." This bill
proposes to address these concerns by expanding
current law to prohibit the use of certain pesticides
and to make voluntary IPM training programs mandatory
for all schoolsites.
SB 394
Page 4
2) Who is affected ? This bill prohibits the use of
pesticides, as specified, at "school sites" defined
within the Healthy Schools Act to mean any facility
used as a child day care facility (including day care
centers, employer-sponsored child care centers, and
family day care homes), or for kindergarten,
elementary, or secondary school purposes. The term
includes the buildings or structures, playgrounds,
athletic fields, vehicles, or any other area of
property visited or used by pupils. "Schoolsite" does
not include any postsecondary educational facility
attended by secondary pupils or private K-12
facilities.
The IPM training requirements apply to all
schoolsites, but specifically exclude family day care
homes.
3) What is integrated pest management ? Current law
defines integrated pest management at school
facilities as "?a pest management strategy that
focuses on long-term prevention or suppression of pest
problems through a combination of techniques such as
monitoring for pest presence and establishing
treatment threshold levels, using non-chemical
practices to make the habitat less conducive to pest
development, improving sanitation, and employing
mechanical and physical controls. Pesticides that pose
the least possible hazard and are effective in a
manner that minimizes risks to people, property, and
the environment, are used only after careful
monitoring indicates they are needed according to
pre-established guidelines and treatment thresholds."
(Food and Agriculture Code � 13181)
4) Does integrated pest management work for schools ?
Schools are currently authorized, but not required, to
adopt integrated pest management practices. The DPR's
School IPM program promotes voluntary adoption of IPM
in public schools primarily by training, outreach, and
assistance with the Healthy Schools Act
implementation. In addition, DPR has established a
comprehensive school IPM website and developed a
variety of technical resources for schools.
SB 394
Page 5
In February 2010, the DPR reported that their training
program had reached nearly three-quarters of the
State's 1,000+ school districts, and that districts
are learning about, and using, the information
resources introduced during the training. In
addition, more California schools are using IPM
compatible practices, and, with the addition of
training in IPM practices specific to individual
districts' pest concerns, the DPR anticipates an
increase in their adoption of IPM and a reduction in
the use of hazardous pesticides.
Finally, a DPR developed series of surveys to define
and measure the progress of schools in implementing
integrated pest management (2007) found that 70
percent of respondents indicated they have adopted an
integrated pest management program and schools
increasingly felt that an IPM resulted in more
effective pest management. This survey also found
that overall, respondents did not see budget
restriction, understaffing, age and condition of
school facilities, inadequate staff training, and
other issues as significant barriers to using
integrated pest management practices.
5) Mandated costs . Legislative Counsel has identified
potentially reimbursable state mandated costs
presumably as a result of the requirement that
schoolsites participate in Department of Pest
Regulation (DPR) IPM training programs. As noted in
comment #4, it appears that the majority of school
districts are participating in the DPR training
voluntarily. Should training be mandated (and paid
for) for all schools in order to capture the 25% of
schools that have not voluntarily participated in DPR
IMP training? Since adoption of an IPM continues to be
voluntary, will the increased costs of mandated
training result in the adoption of IPM techniques or
are their other issues/concerns which have kept some
school districts from fully embracing IPM? Why is it
necessary to mandate training if the bill restricts
pesticide use as a means to ensure the goals of
integrated pest management?
If it is the desire of the committee to require
schools to participate in this training, staff
SB 394
Page 6
recommends the bill be amended to require an
individual from every district rather than each school
site to attend training, and to expand the interval
between trainings, in order to minimize the cost
impacts of the bill.
6) Double-referral . This bill has also been referred to
the Environmental Quality Committee, which generally
reviews issues relative to environmental quality and
toxics, among other things. Issues that may be better
suited to that committee include the following:
What kinds of products are captured under
the bill's provisions?
Is a school district still able to use
products that respond to emergency situations
such as wasp or hornet infestations?
Do these provisions restrict the ability
to use products necessary to ensure public safety
or public health on a schoolsite?
Are the risks associated with these
chemicals greater than the public health benefits
achieved?
1) Prior legislation . SB 1157 (DeSaulnier, 2010), which
was similar to this bill, was heard and passed by this
committee in April 2010 by a vote of 6-2. In its final
form the bill required the adoption of an IPM program
by all California schoolsites and required the DPR to
reimburse school districts for the costs of IPM
training. The Governor's veto message read, in
pertinent part:
This bill requires all school sites in California to
adopt an integrated pest management (IPM) program and
requires the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR)
to reimburse all local agencies and school districts
for the costs of this program.
While currently voluntary in state law, I support the
policy of implementing integrated pest management
programs at schools to the greatest extent possible.
Unfortunately, I cannot support paying for this school
program out of an alternative fund at DPR. To do so
SB 394
Page 7
would start a dangerous precedent for finding
unrelated revenue sources to fund, expand, or create
K-12 programs outside of the Proposition 98 guarantee.
SUPPORT
Breast Cancer Action
Californians for a Healthy and Green Economy
Californians for Pesticide Reform
California Nurses Association
CCOF
Center for Environmental Health
Clean Water Action California
Environment California
Fresno Metro Ministry
Lideres Campesinas
Mothers of Marin Against the Spray (MOMAS)
Parents for a Safer Environment
Pesticide Action Network
Pesticide Free Zone
Pesticide Watch
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Sierra Club
4 Letters from Individuals
OPPOSITION
Consumer Specialty Products Association
Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California
Pest Control Operators of California
The Clorox Company