BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1405
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 2, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 1405 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: June 12, 2014
Policy Committee: EducationVote:5-0
Environmental and Toxics 7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires, under the Healthy Schools Act of 2000 (HSA),
schools and day care facilities, if they choose to use certain
pesticides, to post on their Internet web site an integrated
pest management (IPM) plan, to submit pesticide use information
to the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), and to have
specified staff trained in IPM strategies. Specifically, this
bill:
1)Clarifies the intent of the Legislature that all school
personnel involved in the application of a pesticide at a
schoolsite be trained in integrated pest management and the
safe use of pesticides in relation to the unique nature of
schoolsites and children's health.
2)Requires, if a schoolsite chooses to use a non-exempt
pesticide, at the end of each calendar year, or more often at
the discretion of a school designee, the school designee to
submit to DPR a copy of the records of all pesticide use at
the schoolsite for the calendar year, as specified.
3)Authorizes the school designee to develop and post on the
Internet web site of the schoolsite an IPM plan. If the
schoolsite chooses to use a non-exempt pesticide, the bill
requires the school designee to post an IPM on the Internet
web site. If the schoolsite does not maintain an Internet web
site, the school designee is required to include the IPM plan
with the annual pesticide use notification sent to staff and
parents or guardians of pupils enrolled at the schoolsite.
4)Requires the annual written notification on pesticide use
SB 1405
Page 2
provided to all staff and parents or guardians of pupils
enrolled at a schoolsite to include the Internet address where
the schoolsite IPM plan may be found if the school has posted
the plan. Requires the notice to also inform staff and
parents and guardians of pupils enrolled at a schoolsite that
they may view a copy of the integrated pest management plan in
the schoolsite office.
5)Requires DPR to develop a template for an IPM plan to be used
by schoolsites or school districts.
6)Requires, commencing July 1, 2016, the school designee and any
person who applies pesticides at a schoolsite, to annually
complete a training course provided by DPR that includes IPM
and the safe use of pesticides in relation to the unique
nature of schoolsites and children's health.
FISCAL EFFECT
Annual ongoing costs to the Department of Pesticide Regulation
of approximately $420,000 (Department of Pesticide Regulation
Fund) to analyze pesticide use data, develop an IPM template and
provide technical assistance and support of IPM plan
development, maintain and update pesticide hazard information,
and provide education, outreach and support for IPM programs and
practices. This estimate also includes $125,000 in ongoing
contract costs associated with provision of an online training
course.
COMMENTS
1)Purpose . The Healthy Schools Act of 2000 expresses the policy
of the state that the least toxic pest management practices
are the preferred method of managing pests at schoolsites in
order to reduce children's exposure to toxic pesticides.
Among other things, the Act requires the DPR to assist schools
in the development of voluntary adoption of IPM programs.
Since 2001, the DPR has conducted periodic surveys of school
districts to gauge the level of compliance with the Healthy
Schools Act and measure the extent to which school districts
have adopted IPM policies, programs and practices. The last
survey, conducted in 2010, found that of the 330 respondents,
68% have adopted IPM programs.
According to the author, while many schools are adopting IPM
SB 1405
Page 3
plans, others are lagging behind. Highly toxic pesticides are
still being used in and around California schools and
incidents of toxic pesticide exposure in schools go
unreported, indicating the importance for all schools and
child day care facilities to adopt IPM policies and practices.
2) IPM plans . The Healthy Schools Act exempts certain
pesticides from the requirements of the Act, such as
pesticide exempted from regulation by the U.S. EPA, or
antimicrobial pesticides, including sanitizers and
disinfectants. All other pesticides are commonly referred
to as "non-exempt pesticides."
Under current law, schools may voluntarily develop an IPM
plan. This bill would likely substantially increase the number
of IPM plans developed by schoolsites because an IPM plan
would be required if the school site chooses to use a
"non-exempt pesticide."
According to a DPR survey, 82-85% of school districts report
the continued use of at least one non-exempt pesticide.
3) Training . Under current law, the DPR is required to
promote and facilitate the voluntary adoption of IPM
programs for schoolsites. The DPR complies with this
requirement by providing training that teaches basic IPM
principles and practices. The representatives trained,
however, are not necessarily the individuals applying
pesticide.
This bill requires the DPR to develop a new training course to
train the school designee and any person applying pesticides
on a schoolsite. DPR indicates this training would be less
extensive than the training course that DPR currently provides
to assist in the development of IPM plans. Because of the vast
number of people who would be required to annually take this
course throughout the state, DPR anticipates needing to offer
this training online and would most likely need to enter into
an IT contract.
4) Oppose unless amended . California Safe Schools, a
children's environmental health and justice coalition, and
several other environmental justice groups, oppose this
bill unless amended to establish qualifications for the
school designee and require the IPM plans to be adopted
with input from the school community.
SB 1405
Page 4
5) Prior related legislation . SB 1157 (DeSaulnier), 2010,
would have required the adoption of an IPM program by all
schools and required the DPR to reimburse school districts
for the costs of IPM training. The bill was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger with the following veto message:
"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 would start a dangerous
precedent for finding unrelated revenue sources to fund,
expand, or create K-12 programs outside of the Proposition
98 guarantee."
Analysis Prepared by : Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)
319-2081