Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and diphacinone, as defined, in a wildlife habitat area, as defined. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure a trend of statistically significant reductions to the detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites, as provided. Existing law also prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed any pending reevaluation of diphacinone and, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure a trend of statistically significant reductions to the detectable levels of diphacinone or any of its metabolites, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or diphacinone from these prohibitions under certain circumstances, including for agricultural activities. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor.

This bill would additionally prohibit the use of a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide, defined as a pesticide product containing the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin, in a wildlife habitat area, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in the state and would require chlorophacinone and warfarin to be considered restricted materials, unless that prohibition is suspended by the director, as specified. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of the above-described provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law. The bill would require recovered civil penalties to be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and would require those funds to be available for expenditure for specified purposes.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and diphacinone, as defined, in a wildlife habitat area, as defined. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure a trend of statistically significant reductions to the detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites, as provided. Existing law also prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed any pending reevaluation of diphacinone and, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure a trend of statistically significant reductions to the detectable levels of diphacinone or any of its metabolites, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or diphacinone from these prohibitions under certain circumstances, including for agricultural activities. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor.

This bill would additionally prohibit the use of a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide, defined as a pesticide product containing the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin, in a wildlife habitat area, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in the state and would require chlorophacinone and warfarin to be considered restricted materials, unless that prohibition is suspended by the director, as specified. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of the above-described provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law. The bill would require recovered civil penalties to be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and would require those funds to be available for expenditure for specified purposes.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and diphacinone, as defined, in a wildlife habitat area, as defined. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites, as provided. Existing law also prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed any pending reevaluation of diphacinone and, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of diphacinone or any of its metabolites, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or diphacinone from these prohibitions under certain circumstances, including for agricultural activities. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor.

This bill would additionally prohibit the use of a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide, defined as a pesticide product containing the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin, in a wildlife habitat area, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in the state and would require chlorophacinone and warfarin to be considered restricted materials, unless that prohibition is suspended by the director, as specified. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of the above-described provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, in the name of the people of the state and by request of certain departments or officials, to bring an action against a person who is alleged to be in violation of the above-described provisions, as specified. The bill would require recovered civil penalties to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which the bill would establish in the Wildlife Restoration Fund, Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund, and would require those funds to be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, expenditure for specified purposes.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and diphacinone, as defined, in a wildlife habitat area, as defined. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites, as provided. Existing law also prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed any pending reevaluation of diphacinone and, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of diphacinone or any of its metabolites, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or diphacinone from these prohibitions under certain circumstances, including for agricultural activities. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor.

This bill would additionally prohibit the use of a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide, defined as a pesticide product containing the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin, in a wildlife habitat area, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in the state and would require chlorophacinone and warfarin to be considered restricted materials, unless that prohibition is suspended by the director, as specified. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of the above-described provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, in the name of the people of the state and by request of certain departments or officials, to bring an action against a person who is alleged to be in violation of the above-described provisions, as specified. The bill would require recovered civil penalties to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which the bill would establish in the Wildlife Restoration Fund, and would require those funds to be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for specified purposes.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and diphacinone, as defined, in a wildlife habitat area, as defined. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites, as provided. Existing law also prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed any pending reevaluation of diphacinone and, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of diphacinone or any of its metabolites, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or diphacinone from these prohibitions under certain circumstances, including for agricultural activities. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor.

This bill would additionally prohibit the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area, and prohibit the use of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide, defined as a pesticide product containing the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin, in a wildlife habitat area or within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in the state and would require chlorophacinone and warfarin to be considered restricted materials, unless that prohibition is suspended by the director, as specified. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the definition scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of the above-described provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, in the name of the people of the state and by request of certain departments or officials, to bring an action against a person who is alleged to be in violation of the above-described provisions, as specified. The bill would require recovered civil penalties to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which the bill would establish in the Wildlife Restoration Fund, and would require those funds to be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for specified purposes.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and diphacinone, as defined, in a wildlife habitat area, as defined. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites, as provided. Existing law also prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed any pending reevaluation of diphacinone and, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of diphacinone or any of its metabolites, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or diphacinone from these prohibitions under certain circumstances, including for agricultural activities. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor.

This bill would additionally prohibit the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area, and prohibit the use of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide, defined as a pesticide product containing the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin, in a wildlife habitat area or within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in the state and would require chlorophacinone and warfarin to be considered restricted materials, unless that prohibition is suspended by the director, as specified. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of the above-described provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law. The bill would authorize any person to commence a civil suit to enjoin the Attorney General, in the name of the people of the state and by request of certain departments or officials, to bring an action against a person who is alleged to be in violation of the above-described provisions, as specified. The bill would require recovered civil penalties to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which the bill would establish in the Wildlife Restoration Fund, and would require those funds to be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for specified purposes.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and diphacinone, as defined, in a wildlife habitat area, as defined. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites, as provided. Existing law also prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed any pending reevaluation of diphacinone and, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of diphacinone or any of its metabolites, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or diphacinone from these prohibitions under certain circumstances, including for agricultural activities. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor.

This bill would expand the definition of a wildlife habitat area to include an open-space land, as defined. The bill would additionally prohibit the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area, and prohibit the use of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide, defined as a pesticide product containing the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin, in a wildlife habitat area or within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in the state and would require chlorophacinone and warfarin to be considered restricted materials, unless that prohibition is suspended by the director, as specified. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of the above-described provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law. The bill would authorize any person to commence a civil suit to enjoin a person who is alleged to be in violation of the above-described provisions, as specified. The bill would require recovered civil penalties to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which the bill would establish in the Wildlife Restoration Fund, and would require those funds to be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for specified purposes.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and diphacinone, as defined, in a wildlife habitat area, as defined. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites, as provided. Existing law also prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed any pending reevaluation of diphacinone and, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of diphacinone or any of its metabolites, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or diphacinone from these prohibitions under certain circumstances, including for agricultural activities. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor.

This bill would expand the definition of a wildlife habitat area to include an open-space land, as defined. The bill would additionally prohibit the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide within 5,000 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area, and prohibit the use of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide, defined as a pesticide product containing the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin, in a wildlife habitat area or within 5,000 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in the state and would require chlorophacinone and warfarin to be considered restricted materials, unless that prohibition is suspended by the director, as specified. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of the above-described provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law. The bill would authorize any person to commence a civil suit to enjoin a person who is alleged to be in violation of the above-described provisions, as specified. The bill would require recovered civil penalties to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which the bill would establish in the Wildlife Restoration Fund, and would require those funds to be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for specified purposes.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and diphacinone, as defined, in a wildlife habitat area. area, as defined. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites, as provided. Existing law also prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed any pending reevaluation of diphacinone and, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of diphacinone or any of its metabolites, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or diphacinone from these prohibitions under certain circumstances, including for agricultural activities. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor.

This bill would expand the definition of a wildlife habitat area to include an open-space land, as defined. The bill would additionally prohibit the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide within 5,000 feet of a wildlife habitat area, and prohibit the use of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide, defined as a pesticide product containing the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin, in a wildlife habitat area or within 5,000 feet of a wildlife habitat area, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in the state and would require chlorophacinone and warfarin to be considered restricted materials, unless that prohibition is suspended by the director, as specified. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of the above-described provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law. The bill would authorize any person to commence a civil suit to enjoin a person who is alleged to be in violation of the above-described provisions, as specified. The bill would require recovered civil penalties to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which the bill would establish in the Wildlife Restoration Fund, and would require those funds to be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for specified purposes.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Existing law regulates the use of pesticides and authorizes the Director of Pesticide Regulation to adopt regulations to govern the possession, sale, or use of pesticides, as prescribed. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide and diphacinone, as defined, in a wildlife habitat area. Existing law prohibits the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that, among other things, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides or any of their metabolites, as provided. Existing law also prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until the director certifies to the Secretary of State that the Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed any pending reevaluation of diphacinone and, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions that are necessary to ensure significant reductions to the detectable levels of diphacinone or any of its metabolites, as provided. Existing law exempts the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or diphacinone from these prohibitions under certain circumstances, including for agricultural activities. Existing law requires the director, and each county agricultural commissioner under the direction and supervision of the director, to enforce the provisions regulating the use of pesticides. A violation of these provisions is a misdemeanor.

This bill would expand the definition of a wildlife habitat area to include an open-space land, as defined. The bill would additionally prohibit the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide within 5,000 feet of a wildlife habitat area, and prohibit the use of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide, defined as a pesticide product containing the active ingredients diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin, in a wildlife habitat area or within 5,000 feet of a wildlife habitat area, as specified. The bill would prohibit the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in the state and would require chlorophacinone and warfarin to be considered restricted materials, unless that prohibition is suspended by the director, as specified. By imposing additional duties on county agricultural commissioners, and expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of the above-described provisions liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law. The bill would authorize any person to commence a civil suit to enjoin a person who is alleged to be in violation of the above-described provisions, as specified. The bill would require recovered civil penalties to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which the bill would establish in the Wildlife Restoration Fund, and would require those funds to be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for specified purposes.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2552

Author:(Friedman)

As Amended Ver:August 15, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Expands the existing prohibition on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to include a prohibition on the use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) chlorophacinone and warfarin, and imposes civil penalties on the unlawful use of FGARs and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs).

Senate Amendments

1. Delete provisions that would have exempted the use of a SGAR or FGAR by a medical waste generator, as specified, in a wildlife habitat area.
2. Delete the prohibition of the use of a SGAR or FGAR within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area.
3. Allow the use of a SGAR or FGAR for vertebrate pest control research that the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) funds to protect the food system and the environment.
4. Delete provisions that would have authorized actions brought pursuant to the provisions of this bill by a city attorney, a county counsel, or a city prosecutor in a city or city and county having a full-time city prosecutor.
5. Delete the provision that a plaintiff who prevails in an action brought pursuant to the provisions of this bill is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
6. Delete provisions that would have required the civil penalties recovered pursuant to this bill be deposited into several specified funds, and instead require the funds to be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund to cover DPR's costs in administering and enforcing rodenticide prohibitions and restrictions.
7. Require that any remaining civil penalties, after covering the costs described above, be available for expenditure for vertebrate pest control research.
8. Delete the requirement that an action brought pursuant to provisions of this bill be commenced within two years of the occurrence of the violation.
9. Make other technical and conforming changes.

COMMENTS

Rodents: Rodents native to California play an important ecological role, and are a major food source for predators and scavengers. Some types of rodents, especially non-native species like Norway rats, roof rats, and house mice, however, are pests when they infest houses, threaten public health, and destroy property. The most important and effective steps in eliminating and preventing rodent infestations are keeping living spaces clean; preventing rodent access; and, eliminating potential nesting areas (sanitation and exclusion). Other options to control rodent infestations include lethal traps, live traps, and chemical control (rodenticides).

Rodenticides: Rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents through ingestion, but the ingestion of, or sometimes contact with, rodenticides can have the same type of effect on any mammal. Contact with rodenticides can also affect birds and fish. Many rodenticides cause secondary poisoning, which can occur if a non-target animal consumes another animal that has been poisoned by a pesticide, and the predator is then weakened or dies as a result of exposure to the poisoned prey. Most of the rodenticides used in the U.S. are anticoagulant compounds, either first or second generation, that interfere with blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding.

SGARs: SGARs are more likely than FGARs to kill after a single night's feeding, and tend to remain in animal tissue longer than first-generation compounds. SGARS are no longer nationally registered for use in products geared toward consumers and are registered only for the commercial pest control and structural pest control markets. Certain SGAR ingredients have been prohibited for many uses in California since January 1, 2021.

FGARs: FGARs include chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and warfarin and were developed as rodenticides before 1970. Diphacinone has been prohibited for many uses in California since January 1, 2024.

Dangers of rodenticides: Poison baits used to control rodents have injured and killed thousands of nontarget wild animals and pets throughout California. While all rodenticides pose a threat to nontarget animals, anticoagulant rodenticides have been found to be a particular problem, especially due to secondary exposure. In addition to secondary exposure due to consuming poisoned rodents, large predators, such as mountain lions, can additionally be impacted by consuming smaller predators that have preyed upon poisoned rodents.

Recent legislation restricting the use of rodenticides: To address the concerns posed by exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1788 (Bloom, Chapter 250, Statues of 2020), which prohibits the use of the four SGARs throughout the state, with some exemptions, including for public health and agricultural activities, until DPR completes its SGAR reevaluation and adopts additional restrictions to minimize impacts on nontarget wildlife. The provisions of AB 1788 went into effect on January 1, 2021. Last year, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023), which prohibits the use of the FGAR diphacinone in the state (with exemptions) until DPR completes a reevaluation and adopts further restrictions on its use, as specified. The provisions of AB 1322 went into effect on January 1, 2024.

This bill: AB 2552 builds upon existing statute that prohibits many uses of SGARs and the FGAR diphacinone by prohibiting the use of the remaining FGARs, chlorophacinone and warfarin, in wildlife habitat areas, except for use for specified health and safety activities. Like existing statute for SGARs and diphacinone, the bill also prohibits, except for specified health, safety and agricultural activities, the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin throughout the state until the director of DPR makes a certification that DPR has completed a reevaluation of chlorophacinone and warfarin, respectively, and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified.

According to the Author

"The Poison-Free Wildlife Act (AB 2552) builds upon previous legislation restricting some of the most dangerous rodenticides, anticoagulant rodenticides, which have been linked to widespread poisonings of non-target wildlife, pets, and children. AB 2552 adds the remaining First Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional poisoning, while maintaining exceptions for their use to protect public health, water supplies and agriculture."

Arguments in Support

A coalition of supporters, including 60 environmental, animal welfare, and community groups, writes, "AB 2552 is narrowly targeted to the most dangerous class of rodenticides until state regulators can develop better safeguards on their use and specifically exempts agricultural activities, public health protections, water supply infrastructure, biotech, and emergency pest infestations… Anticoagulant rodenticides pose an unreasonable risk to children and pets. The National Poison Data System documented over 2,300 cases of anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning of children under the age of 6 years old in one year alone… More than 100 pets needlessly die each year due to rodenticide exposure. Anticoagulant rodenticides pose an unreasonable risk to wildlife. [DPR] has documented anticoagulant rodenticide poisonings in at least 38 different nontarget species in California such as eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, bobcats, mountain lions, and even the imperiled San Joaquin kit fox, northern spotted owl, and California condor. The problem is so severe that over half of wildlife tested in California are exposed to rodenticides… There is a wide array of cost-effective alternatives available on the market today to better address rodent infestations. Sealing buildings and eliminating food and water sources are a necessary first step. Sustainable rodent control strategies that involve snap traps, electric traps, fertility control, and other non-toxic methods can then be implemented to address any infestations. Several types of less toxic rodenticides are available as well."

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of opponents, including pesticide manufacturers, pest control operators, and agricultural trade organizations, writes, "… Pesticide products are already heavily regulated, evaluated, and restricted as appropriate at the federal and state level… But rather than utilize this established and thorough process to scientifically evaluate the need for further restrictions on rodenticide use, AB 2552 unilaterally prohibits use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides warfarin and chlorophacinone in the state. … Existing law places a prohibition on use, with limited exemptions, on second-generation anticoagulants and diphacinone. AB 2552 would add two other first-generation anticoagulants, warfarin and chlorophacinone, to this existing ban. …Because rats and rodents do not stay within the confines of a habitat area and are nuisance pests seeking high population areas, a ban would have substantial impact to the safety of nearby communities. …An appropriate pest management program will use the appropriate pesticide at the right time, in the right environment, under the right circumstances, including not using a product if not warranted. Arbitrarily removing pesticide tools undermines this holistic approach…The provisions of AB 2552 do not follow the scientific process, threaten public health, are inconsistent with [integrated pest management] practices and impose new penalty standards on rodenticide use."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, enactment of this bill could result in one-time costs of $258,000 and ongoing costs of $193,000 annually to DPR for one position to handle anticipated increases in follow-ups and complaints associated with investigating sales and restricted materials; ongoing revenue loss to DPR of an unknown amount, likely in the thousands of dollars annually, due to a reduction in registration and renewal fees as well as in the mill assessment collected by DPR for pesticide products that contain chlorophacinone and warfarin; ongoing revenue loss of an unknown amount for the Vertebrate Pest Control Research Advisory Committee at the California Department of Food and Agriculture due to forgone FGAR surcharges; costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the Department of Justice resulting from increased referrals from its client, DPR; cost pressures to the courts to adjudicate enforcement actions filed by public prosecutors; unknown, potentially significant costs to county agricultural commissioners for expanded mitigation, inspection, and enforcement related activities; and, potential revenue impacts due to the extent civil penalties created by this bill are collected.

VOTES:

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 4-2-1

YES: Garcia, Connolly, McKinnor, Reyes

NO: Hoover, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Papan

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 8-4-3

YES: Papan, Bennett, Bonta, Garcia, Hart, Luz Rivas, Schiavo, Weber

NO: Alanis, Gallagher, Davies, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Alvarez, Villapudua

ASM JUDICIARY: 9-2-1

YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Reyes

NO: Dixon, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin

NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Villapudua

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 48-14-18

YES: Addis, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Santiago, Schiavo, Ting, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO: Alanis, Chen, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Lackey, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Bains, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Holden, Jackson, Mathis, Stephanie Nguyen, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Soria, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron

SENATE FLOOR: 28-11-1

YES: Allen, Archuleta, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Bradford, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Eggman, Gonzalez, Laird, Limón, McGuire, Menjivar, Min, Newman, Padilla, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Wiener, Wilk

NO: Atkins, Dahle, Dodd, Glazer, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Nguyen, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Seyarto

ABS, ABST OR NV: Alvarado-Gil

UPDATED

VERSION: August 15, 2024

CONSULTANT: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0004928

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 2552

Author:(Friedman)

As Amended Ver:August 15, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Expands the existing prohibition on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to include a prohibition on the use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) chlorophacinone and warfarin, and imposes civil penalties on the unlawful use of FGARs and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs).

Senate Amendments

1. Delete provisions that would have exempted the use of a SGAR or FGAR by a medical waste generator, as specified, in a wildlife habitat area.
2. Delete the prohibition of the use of a SGAR or FGAR within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area.
3. Allow the use of a SGAR or FGAR for vertebrate pest control research that the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) funds to protect the food system and the environment.
4. Delete provisions that would have authorized actions brought pursuant to the provisions of this bill by a city attorney, a county counsel, or a city prosecutor in a city or city and county having a full-time city prosecutor.
5. Delete the provision that a plaintiff who prevails in an action brought pursuant to the provisions of this bill is entitled to an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
6. Delete provisions that would have required the civil penalties recovered pursuant to this bill be deposited into several specified funds, and instead require the funds to be deposited into the Department of Pesticide Regulation Fund to cover DPR's costs in administering and enforcing rodenticide prohibitions and restrictions.
7. Require that any remaining civil penalties, after covering the costs described above, be available for expenditure for vertebrate pest control research.
8. Delete the requirement that an action brought pursuant to provisions of this bill be commenced within two years of the occurrence of the violation.
9. Make other technical and conforming changes.

COMMENTS

Rodents: Rodents native to California play an important ecological role, and are a major food source for predators and scavengers. Some types of rodents, especially non-native species like Norway rats, roof rats, and house mice, however, are pests when they infest houses, threaten public health, and destroy property. The most important and effective steps in eliminating and preventing rodent infestations are keeping living spaces clean; preventing rodent access; and, eliminating potential nesting areas (sanitation and exclusion). Other options to control rodent infestations include lethal traps, live traps, and chemical control (rodenticides).

Rodenticides: Rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents through ingestion, but the ingestion of, or sometimes contact with, rodenticides can have the same type of effect on any mammal. Contact with rodenticides can also affect birds and fish. Many rodenticides cause secondary poisoning, which can occur if a non-target animal consumes another animal that has been poisoned by a pesticide, and the predator is then weakened or dies as a result of exposure to the poisoned prey. Most of the rodenticides used in the U.S. are anticoagulant compounds, either first or second generation, that interfere with blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding.

SGARs: SGARs are more likely than FGARs to kill after a single night's feeding, and tend to remain in animal tissue longer than first-generation compounds. SGARS are no longer nationally registered for use in products geared toward consumers and are registered only for the commercial pest control and structural pest control markets. Certain SGAR ingredients have been prohibited for many uses in California since January 1, 2021.

FGARs: FGARs include chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and warfarin and were developed as rodenticides before 1970. Diphacinone has been prohibited for many uses in California since January 1, 2024.

Dangers of rodenticides: Poison baits used to control rodents have injured and killed thousands of nontarget wild animals and pets throughout California. While all rodenticides pose a threat to nontarget animals, anticoagulant rodenticides have been found to be a particular problem, especially due to secondary exposure. In addition to secondary exposure due to consuming poisoned rodents, large predators, such as mountain lions, can additionally be impacted by consuming smaller predators that have preyed upon poisoned rodents.

Recent legislation restricting the use of rodenticides: To address the concerns posed by exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1788 (Bloom, Chapter 250, Statues of 2020), which prohibits the use of the four SGARs throughout the state, with some exemptions, including for public health and agricultural activities, until DPR completes its SGAR reevaluation and adopts additional restrictions to minimize impacts on nontarget wildlife. The provisions of AB 1788 went into effect on January 1, 2021. Last year, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023), which prohibits the use of the FGAR diphacinone in the state (with exemptions) until DPR completes a reevaluation and adopts further restrictions on its use, as specified. The provisions of AB 1322 went into effect on January 1, 2024.

This bill: AB 2552 builds upon existing statute that prohibits many uses of SGARs and the FGAR diphacinone by prohibiting the use of the remaining FGARs, chlorophacinone and warfarin, in wildlife habitat areas, except for use for specified health and safety activities. Like existing statute for SGARs and diphacinone, the bill also prohibits, except for specified health, safety and agricultural activities, the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin throughout the state until the director of DPR makes a certification that DPR has completed a reevaluation of chlorophacinone and warfarin, respectively, and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified.

According to the Author

"The Poison-Free Wildlife Act (AB 2552) builds upon previous legislation restricting some of the most dangerous rodenticides, anticoagulant rodenticides, which have been linked to widespread poisonings of non-target wildlife, pets, and children. AB 2552 adds the remaining First Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional poisoning, while maintaining exceptions for their use to protect public health, water supplies and agriculture."

Arguments in Support

A coalition of supporters, including 60 environmental, animal welfare, and community groups, writes, "AB 2552 is narrowly targeted to the most dangerous class of rodenticides until state regulators can develop better safeguards on their use and specifically exempts agricultural activities, public health protections, water supply infrastructure, biotech, and emergency pest infestations… Anticoagulant rodenticides pose an unreasonable risk to children and pets. The National Poison Data System documented over 2,300 cases of anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning of children under the age of 6 years old in one year alone… More than 100 pets needlessly die each year due to rodenticide exposure. Anticoagulant rodenticides pose an unreasonable risk to wildlife. [DPR] has documented anticoagulant rodenticide poisonings in at least 38 different nontarget species in California such as eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, bobcats, mountain lions, and even the imperiled San Joaquin kit fox, northern spotted owl, and California condor. The problem is so severe that over half of wildlife tested in California are exposed to rodenticides… There is a wide array of cost-effective alternatives available on the market today to better address rodent infestations. Sealing buildings and eliminating food and water sources are a necessary first step. Sustainable rodent control strategies that involve snap traps, electric traps, fertility control, and other non-toxic methods can then be implemented to address any infestations. Several types of less toxic rodenticides are available as well."

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of opponents, including pesticide manufacturers, pest control operators, and agricultural trade organizations, writes, "… Pesticide products are already heavily regulated, evaluated, and restricted as appropriate at the federal and state level… But rather than utilize this established and thorough process to scientifically evaluate the need for further restrictions on rodenticide use, AB 2552 unilaterally prohibits use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides warfarin and chlorophacinone in the state. … Existing law places a prohibition on use, with limited exemptions, on second-generation anticoagulants and diphacinone. AB 2552 would add two other first-generation anticoagulants, warfarin and chlorophacinone, to this existing ban. …Because rats and rodents do not stay within the confines of a habitat area and are nuisance pests seeking high population areas, a ban would have substantial impact to the safety of nearby communities. …An appropriate pest management program will use the appropriate pesticide at the right time, in the right environment, under the right circumstances, including not using a product if not warranted. Arbitrarily removing pesticide tools undermines this holistic approach…The provisions of AB 2552 do not follow the scientific process, threaten public health, are inconsistent with [integrated pest management] practices and impose new penalty standards on rodenticide use."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee, enactment of this bill could result in one-time costs of $258,000 and ongoing costs of $193,000 annually to DPR for one position to handle anticipated increases in follow-ups and complaints associated with investigating sales and restricted materials; ongoing revenue loss to DPR of an unknown amount, likely in the thousands of dollars annually, due to a reduction in registration and renewal fees as well as in the mill assessment collected by DPR for pesticide products that contain chlorophacinone and warfarin; ongoing revenue loss of an unknown amount for the Vertebrate Pest Control Research Advisory Committee at the California Department of Food and Agriculture due to forgone FGAR surcharges; costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount to the Department of Justice resulting from increased referrals from its client, DPR; cost pressures to the courts to adjudicate enforcement actions filed by public prosecutors; unknown, potentially significant costs to county agricultural commissioners for expanded mitigation, inspection, and enforcement related activities; and, potential revenue impacts due to the extent civil penalties created by this bill are collected.

VOTES:

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 4-2-1

YES: Garcia, Connolly, McKinnor, Reyes

NO: Hoover, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Papan

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 8-4-3

YES: Papan, Bennett, Bonta, Garcia, Hart, Luz Rivas, Schiavo, Weber

NO: Alanis, Gallagher, Davies, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Alvarez, Villapudua

ASM JUDICIARY: 9-2-1

YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Reyes

NO: Dixon, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin

NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Villapudua

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 48-14-18

YES: Addis, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Santiago, Schiavo, Ting, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NO: Alanis, Chen, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Lackey, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis

ABS, ABST OR NV: Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Bains, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Holden, Jackson, Mathis, Stephanie Nguyen, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Soria, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron

UPDATED

VERSION: August 15, 2024

CONSULTANT: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0004928

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 2552

Author: Friedman (D)

Amended: 8/15/24 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE: 4-3, 6/19/24

AYES: Allen, Gonzalez, Menjivar, Skinner

NOES: Dahle, Hurtado, Nguyen

SENATE NATURAL RES. & WATER COMMITTEE: 9-2, 6/25/24

AYES: Min, Allen, Dahle, Eggman, Grove, Laird, Limón, Padilla, Stern

NOES: Seyarto, Hurtado

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 8/15/24

AYES: Caballero, Ashby, Becker, Bradford, Wahab

NOES: Jones

NO VOTE RECORDED: Seyarto

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 48-14, 5/23/24 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Pesticides: anticoagulant rodenticides

SOURCE: Animal Legal Defense Fund

Center for Biological Diversity

Raptors are the Solution

DIGEST:

This bill expands the existing prohibition on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to include the use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) chlorophacinone and warfarin, and imposes civil penalties on the unlawful use of FGARs and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs), as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the state's pesticide regulatory program and mandates the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to, among other things, provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber; for the protection of public health and safety; and, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) § 11401 et seq.).
2. Defines "second generation anticoagulant rodenticide" (SGAR) as any pesticide product containing any of the following active ingredients: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, or difethialone (FAC § 12978.7(a)).
3. Prohibits, except as specified, the use of a SGAR in a wildlife habitat area, as defined (FAC § 12978.7(b)).
4. Prohibits, except for specified health and safety activities, the use of a SGAR in the state until the director of DPR makes a certification that DPR has completed a reevaluation of SGARs and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified (FAC § 12978.7(c)).
5. Prohibits, except for specified health and safety and agricultural activities, the use of the FGAR diphacinone in the state and designates diphacinone as a restricted material until the director of DPR makes a certification that DPR has completed a reevaluation of SGARs and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified (FAC § 12978.7 (d and i)).
6. Permits the use of SGARs and diphacinone for public health activities, to protect water supply infrastructure, for mosquito and vector control, to eradicate nonnative invasive species, for research purposes related to the reevaluation of SGARs, for medical waste generators, for facilities for producing drugs or medical devices, and for agricultural activities (FAC § 12978.7 (e – f)).

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations about the public value of wildlife, conservation, and biodiversity policy, the intrinsic value of animals, and the deleterious impact of rodenticides on animals, including non-target animals.
2. Defines an FGAR as a pesticide product containing any of the following active ingredients: diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin.
3. Prohibits, except for use for specified health, safety, and agricultural activities, the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin in the state unless the prohibition is suspended by the director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), as specified.
4. Authorizes the director of DPR to suspend the prohibition on chlorophacinone and warfarin if the director certifies that DPR has completed a reevaluation of chlorophacinone and warfarin and that DPR has adopted restrictions necessary to reduce harm to wildlife from the allowable use of chlorophacinone and warfarin, as specified.
5. Designates chlorophacinone and warfarin as restricted materials.
6. Provides that a person who sells or uses an FGAR or an SGAR in violation of this bill is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law.
7. Provides that a court may enjoin the unlawful sale or use of an FGAR or an SGAR, and may compel specific performance of an act or course of conduct necessary to protect a person, animal, crop, or property.
8. Specifies that any civil penalties recovered pursuant to the bill will be deposited into the DPR Fund for expenditure to cover the department’s costs in administering and enforcing the prohibition or for other specified activities.

Background

1. Rodents. Many species of rodents inhabit California, including squirrels, chipmunks, beavers, gophers, rats, and mice. Rodents native to California play an important ecological role and are a major food source for predators and scavengers. Some types of rodents, especially non-native species, however, are pests when they infest houses, threaten public health, and destroy property. These rodents damage and destroy critical habitats, native plants and animals, crops, property, and food supplies. They also can spread diseases to humans both directly and indirectly, posing a serious risk to public health.
2. Rodenticides. Rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents that can have significant impacts on property, crops, and food supplies, as well as spread diseases. Though rodenticides are designed to target these pests, the ingestion of, or sometimes contact with, rodenticides can have the same type of effect on any mammal. Rodenticides are usually formulated as baits that are designed to attract rodents, but these baits can also be attractive to nontarget wildlife, children, and pets. Additionally, many rodenticides cause secondary poisoning risks to predators. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), most of the rodenticides used in the United States are anticoagulant compounds, either first or second-generation, that interfere with blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding. Death typically occurs between four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.
3. First- versus second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs and SGARS). Anticoagulant rodenticides are a category of blood-thinning rodent poisons that cause animals to slowly bleed to death. Anticoagulant rodenticides are classified as either first-generation or second-generation. First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) were developed before the 1970s and lose their initial effectiveness over time and require the pest to feed multiple times. An apparent developed resistance by rats and mice to FGARS eventually led to the development of the second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) beginning in the 1970s.

FGARs include diphacinone (already prohibited in California as a result of the chaptering of AB 1322, Friedman, in 2023), as well as chlorophacinone and warfarin (the subject of this bill). Chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and warfarin are registered to control rats and mice in the United States. Chlorophacinone and warfarin lethality generally require that an animal consumes multiple doses of the bait over several days and are thus known as multiple-dose anticoagulants. This bill proposes to expand this prohibition to cover the use of the remaining two FGARs chlorophacinone and warfarin as well.

SGARs include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. SGARs are more likely than FGARs to kill after a single night's feeding and tend to remain in animal tissues longer than first-generation compounds. Because of this, SGARs pose greater risks to nontarget species that might feed on bait only once or that might feed upon animals that have eaten the bait.

1. California’s legislation restricting the use of anticoagulant rodenticides. To address the concerns posed by exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, in 2014, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1788 (Bloom Chapter 250, Statutes of 2020), which prohibits the use of all four SGARs throughout the state, with some exemptions, including for public health and agricultural activities, until DPR completes its SGAR reevaluation and adopts additional restrictions to minimize impacts on nontarget wildlife. Last year, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023), which prohibits the use of the FGAR diphacinone in the state (with exemptions) until DPR completes a reevaluation and adopts further restrictions on its use.

This bill proposes to restrict or prohibit the use of the remaining FGARs, chlorophacinone and warfarin. Like existing statute, the bill prohibits, except for specified health, safety and agricultural activities, the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin throughout the state until the director of DPR makes a certification that DPR has completed a reevaluation of chlorophacinone and warfarin and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified. This bill also requires the department’s restrictions to include a requirement to implement sustainable pest management and integrated pest management before the use of anticoagulant rodenticides.

1. Diverse rodenticide use in California. Rodenticides can be used in a number of both urban and agricultural settings for rodent management. AB 1788 (Bloom, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2020), the prohibition on SGARs, included several exemptions, including for agricultural activities, such as a warehouse used to store foods for human or animal consumption or an agricultural food production site, for governmental agency employees for the purposes of protecting water supply infrastructure, or for a public health need, among other exemptions.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "The Poison-Free Wildlife Act (AB 2552) builds upon previous legislation restricting some of the most dangerous rodenticides, anticoagulant rodenticides, which have been linked to widespread poisonings of non-target wildlife, pets, and children. AB 2552 adds the remaining First Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional poisoning, while maintaining exceptions for their use to protect public health, water supplies and agriculture."
   
2. Dangers of anticoagulant rodenticides to target and non-target species. The function of a rodenticide is to kill rodents that may be sources of contamination or spread disease (a target species). Unfortunately, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), the use of poison baits to control rodents has injured and killed thousands of wild animals and pets throughout California. While all rodenticides pose a threat to nontarget animals, anticoagulant rodenticides have been found to pose a particular problem, especially due to secondary exposure, throughout the state. Secondary exposure occurs if an animal consumes another animal that has been poisoned by a pesticide. The predator is then weakened or dies as a result of exposure to the poisoned prey. Large predators, such as mountain lions, can additionally be impacted by consuming smaller predators that have preyed upon poisoned rodents. There is significant evidence of anticoagulant rodenticide residues in the remains of nontarget species such as mountain lions, bobcats, owls, and condors. A 2023 DFW report documenting necropsies on wildlife remains showed that 81% of wildlife tested in 2022 were exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides.
3. Alternatives to anticoagulant rodenticides. According to DFW and DPR, the most effective and safest ways to address rodent issues are through exclusion and sanitation—by eliminating factors that allow rodents to reproduce and thrive. DPR notes that rodenticides do not eradicate rodents and may not reduce their numbers for long. In addition to exclusion and sanitation, traps and electrocution devices can also be employed to address rodent pests. The sponsors of the bill also point to rodent fertility control as a potential alternative, which appears to already be in use by the city of San Francisco. While sanitation and exclusion are the most effective methods for long-term rodent control, should the prohibition on warfarin and chlorophacinone be enacted through this bill, acute toxicant rodenticides would still be allowed and would likely be the only chemical tool for rodent management.
4. Balancing public and wildlife safety. This takes an important step to protect California’s fragile and unique wildlife. A statewide prohibition of all FGARs and SGARs in wildlife areas and buffer zones, as well as a prohibition on the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin until DPR completes a reevaluation, would very likely reduce exposures. Passing this bill would mean that all anticoagulant rodenticides are restricted or prohibited in California in these areas.

This bill retains several exemptions for uses of rodenticides that are currently exempted under AB 1788 (Bloom, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2020). Anticoagulant rodenticides are permitted for use by: governmental agencies or public utilities to protect water supply and hydroelectric energy generating infrastructure; offshore islands to eradicate nonnative invasive species; any rodent infestation associated with a public health need, as determined by the State Public Health Officer or a local public health officer; among others (the full list of covered exemptions is in Section 12978.7(g) and (h)(1) of the bill). Agricultural activities, as defined, are exempt from the prohibition, except for within a wildlife habitat area, which mirrors the existing exemption from AB 1788. The bill would also add an exemption for the use of an anticoagulant rodenticide for research that DPR funds to protect the food system and the environment.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) estimates one-time costs of $258,000 and ongoing costs of $193,000 annually (DPR Fund) for one position to handle anticipated increases in follow-ups and complaints associated with investigating sales and restricted materials.
• Ongoing revenue loss to DPR of an unknown amount, likely in the thousands of dollars annually (DPR Fund), due to a reduction in registration and renewal fees as well as in the mill assessment collected by DPR for pesticide products that contain chlorophacinone and warfarin (DPR Fund).
• Ongoing revenue loss of an unknown amount for the Vertebrate Pest Control Research Advisory Committee (VPCRAC) at the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) due to forgone FGAR surcharges. According to CDFA, this bill would impact the department’s Vertebrate Pest Control Program (VPCP). VPCRAC is directly funded by a surcharge associated with the sale of FGARs. By reducing FGAR sales, CDFA notes this bill would result in a loss of funding for the program.
• The Department of Justice (DOJ) anticipates costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount (Legal Services Revolving Fund) resulting from increased referrals from its client, DPR. Costs to DOJ would be reimbursable through direct billings to the client agency, and the bill would entitle a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to this bill to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
• Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to the courts to adjudicate enforcement actions filed by public prosecutors. Actual costs will depend on the number of violations and the number of cases filed by prosecutors. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. If 10 cases are filed statewide and each requires two days of court time to resolve, the resulting workload cost to the courts would be about $160,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposed $83.1 million ongoing from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
• To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines the costs to county agricultural commissioners for expanded mitigation, inspection, and enforcement related activities are reimbursable state mandates, unknown, potentially significant costs (General Fund or DPR Fund).
• To the extent civil penalties created by this bill are collected, potential revenue impacts of an unknown amount (DPR Fund and VPCRA) depending on the number of violations and the level of enforcement brought by the AG and other public prosecutors.

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/16/24)

Animal Legal Defense Fund (co-source)

Center for Biological Diversity (co-source)

Raptors are The Solution (co-source)

All About Owls
Animazonia Wildlife Foundation
Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy
Brentwood Alliance of Canyons & Hillsides
CA Urban Streams Partnership
California Association of Professional Scientists
California Environmental Voters
California Wildlife Center
Canyon Back Alliance
Citizen for Los Angeles Wildlife
Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW)
Cleanearth4kids.org
Coastal Ranches Conservancy
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Defense Center
Felidae Conservation Fund
Friends of Griffith Park
Friends of Plumas Wilderness
Greenspace - the Cambria Land Trust
Happy Hen Animal Sanctuary
Hills for Everyone
Humane Wildlife Control
In Defense of Animals
International Fund for Animal Welfare
Klamath Siskiyou Connectivity Project
Kyotousa
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Mojave Desert Land Trust
Morro Coast Audubon Society
Mountain Lion Foundation
National Association for Wildlife Emergency Services
Ojai Raptor Center
Old Agoura Homeowners
Pathways for Wildlife
Poison Free Agoura
Poison Free Conejo Valley
Poison Free Malibu
Preserve Wild Santee
Project Coyote

San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society
San Diego Humane Society
Save Joshua Tree Wildlife
Sc Wildlands
Sea and Sage Audubon Society
So Cal 350 Climate Action
Social Compassion in Legislation
Teranga Ranch Wildlife
The Cougar Fund
The Escondido Creek Conservancy
The Human Society of The United States
The Nature of Wildworks
The River Otter Ecology Project
The Wildlands Conservancy
Thousand Oaks; City of
Unchainedtv
United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (UN4LA)
Urban Wildlife Research Project
Ventura Land Trust
Voters for Animal Rights
Wildearth Guardians
Wisdom Good Works
Wishtoyo Foundation
Women United for Animal Welfare

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/16/24)

Agricultural Council of California
Almond Alliance of California
American Pistachio Growers
Association of California Egg Farmers
California Agricultural Commissioners & Sealers Association
California Association of Pest Control Advisers
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Bean Shippers Association
California Business Properties Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California League of Food Producers
California Pear Growers Association
California Rice Commission
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Strawberry Commission
California Tomato Growers Association
California Walnut Commission
California Warehouse Association
Household and Commercial Products Association
Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
Pest Control Operators of California
Responsible Industry for A Sound Environment - Rise
Rodenticide Task Force
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to a coalition of wildlife and environmental supporters, including the sponsors of the bill, “AB 2552 extends the existing moratorium on dangerous anticoagulant rodenticides to include the entire class of anticoagulant rodenticides, buffer zones to better protect wildlife habitat areas, and civil penalties for public enforcement of legal violations. AB 2552 is narrowly targeted to the most dangerous class of rodenticides until state regulators can develop better safeguards on their use and specifically exempts agricultural activities, public health protections, water supply infrastructure, biotech, and emergency pest infestations.

“In a recent editoral, the Los Angeles Times endorsed AB 2552 as “crucial to ridding the environment of these toxins that kill wildlife and pets and have been known to poison people—usually children—as well.” In 2023, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife found that 81% of animals tested had exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, including 88.2% of tested birds with 56.7% dying as a result of anticoagulant poisoning. Greater restrictions are needed.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to a coalition of agricultural and industry members, “Because California conducts its own review after a product is approved for use by U.S. EPA, products sought to be sold and used in California must also be approved by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), which considers the ingredients of the pesticides, crops, or sites where they’re to be used, the amount, frequency, and timing of use, among other things. DPR can impose additional standards for licensed applications, use mitigations, and restrictions or prohibit uses entirely. This is in addition to the localized oversight and enforcement of product uses at the County level. And at any time, should users, researchers or generally interested parties raise concerns about products and their impacts to human health, the environment, or nontarget species, they can submit additional data to DPR which can draw products into reevaluation and lead to subsequent restrictions, mitigations, or prohibitions.

“But rather than utilize this established and thorough process to scientifically evaluate the need for further restrictions on rodenticide use, AB 2552 unilaterally prohibits use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, warfarin and chlorophacinone in the state. It then states that DPR may (but is not obligated) permit use, under incredibly limited circumstances, only after it has completed reevaluations. It also mandates that restrictions must achieve a near-impossible standard for levels in wildlife samples (with questionable sampling methodology). The bill specifies that DPR is not obligated to complete any reevaluations but, should it do so, and find that no additional restrictions are warranted, both warfarin and chlorophacinone would still be automatically and arbitrarily deemed restricted use products, without scientific justification.”

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 48-14, 5/23/24

AYES: Addis, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Connolly, Mike Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, McCarty, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Rendon, Reyes, Santiago, Schiavo, Ting, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Robert Rivas

NOES: Alanis, Chen, Davies, Dixon, Flora, Vince Fong, Gallagher, Hoover, Lackey, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Sanchez, Ta, Wallis

NO VOTE RECORDED: Aguiar-Curry, Alvarez, Bains, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Megan Dahle, Essayli, Holden, Jackson, Mathis, Stephanie Nguyen, Luz Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Soria, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron

Prepared by: Holly Rudel / E.Q. / (916) 651-4108

8/19/24 17:46:28

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2552 (Friedman) - Pesticides: anticoagulant rodenticides

Bill Summary:

This bill would expand the existing prohibition on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to include the use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) chlorophacinone and warfarin, and impose civil penalties on the unlawful use of FGARs and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs), as specified.

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 15, 2024

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) estimates one-time costs of $258,000 and ongoing costs of $193,000 annually (DPR Fund) for one position to handle anticipated increases in follow-ups and complaints associated with investigating sales and restricted materials.
• Ongoing revenue loss to DPR of an unknown amount, likely in the thousands of dollars annually (DPR Fund), due to a reduction in registration and renewal fees as well as in the mill assessment collected by DPR for pesticide products that contain chlorophacinone and warfarin (DPR Fund).
• Ongoing revenue loss of an unknown amount for the Vertebrate Pest Control Research Advisory Committee (VPCRAC) at the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) due to forgone FGAR surcharges. According to CDFA, this bill would impact the department’s Vertebrate Pest Control Program (VPCP). VPCRAC is directly funded by a surcharge associated with the sale of FGARs. By reducing FGAR sales, CDFA notes this bill would result in a loss of funding for the program.
• The Department of Justice (DOJ) anticipates costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount (Legal Services Revolving Fund) resulting from increased referrals from its client, DPR. Costs to DOJ would be reimbursable through direct billings to the client agency, and the bill would entitle a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to this bill to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
• Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to the courts to adjudicate enforcement actions filed by public prosecutors. Actual costs will depend on the number of violations and the number of cases filed by prosecutors. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. If 10 cases are filed statewide and each requires two days of court time to resolve, the resulting workload cost to the courts would be about $160,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposed $83.1 million ongoing from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
• To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines the costs to county agricultural commissioners for expanded mitigation, inspection, and enforcement related activities are reimbursable state mandates, unknown, potentially significant costs (General Fund or DPR Fund).
• To the extent civil penalties created by this bill are collected, potential revenue impacts of an unknown amount (DPR Fund and VPCRA) depending on the number of violations and the level of enforcement brought by the AG and other public prosecutors.

Author Amendments:

These amendments would reallocate civil penalty revenue to the DPR Fund and the Vertebrate Pest Control Research Account for use, upon appropriation, by CDPR and CDFA to cover reasonable administration, operational, and enforcement costs associated with implementing the provisions of this bill and vertebrate pest control research activities, respectively. They would also exempt CDFA from provisions of this bill.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2552 (Friedman) - Pesticides: anticoagulant rodenticides

Bill Summary:

This bill would expand the existing prohibition on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to include the use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) chlorophacinone and warfarin, and impose civil penalties on the unlawful use of FGARs and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs), as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) estimates one-time costs of $258,000 and ongoing costs of $193,000 annually (DPR Fund) for one position to handle anticipated increases in follow-ups and complaints associated with investigating sales and restricted materials.
• Ongoing revenue loss to DPR of an unknown amount, likely in the thousands of dollars annually (DPR Fund), due to a reduction in registration and renewal fees as well as in the mill assessment collected by DPR for pesticide products that contain chlorophacinone and warfarin (DPR Fund).
• Ongoing revenue loss of an unknown amount for the Vertebrate Pest Control Research Advisory Committee (VPCRAC) at the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) due to forgone FGAR surcharges. According to CDFA, this bill would impact the department’s Vertebrate Pest Control Program (VPCP). VPCRAC is directly funded by a surcharge associated with the sale of FGARs. By reducing FGAR sales, CDFA notes this bill would result in a loss of funding for the program.
• The Department of Justice (DOJ) anticipates costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount (Legal Services Revolving Fund) resulting from increased referrals from its client, DPR. Costs to DOJ would be reimbursable through direct billings to the client agency, and the bill would entitle a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to this bill to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
• Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to the courts to adjudicate enforcement actions filed by public prosecutors. Actual costs will depend on the number of violations and the number of cases filed by prosecutors. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. If 10 cases are filed statewide and each requires two days of court time to resolve, the resulting workload cost to the courts would be about $160,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposed $83.1 million ongoing from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
• To the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines the costs to county agricultural commissioners for expanded mitigation, inspection, and enforcement related activities are reimbursable state mandates, unknown, potentially significant costs (General Fund or DPR Fund).
• To the extent civil penalties created by this bill are collected, potential revenue impacts of an unknown amount (Poison-Free Wildlife Account) depending on the number of violations and the level of enforcement brought by the AG and other public prosecutors.

Background:

Anticoagulant rodenticides are a category of blood-thinning rodent poisons that cause animals to slowly bleed to death through internal hemorrhaging, loss of blood due to wounds that cannot clot, or by contributing to chronic disease or organ dysfunction. Anticoagulant rodenticides are classified as either first-generation or second-generation. FGARs were developed before the 1970s, lose their initial effectiveness over time and require the pest to feed multiple times. An apparent developed resistance by rats and mice to FGARS eventually led to the development of SGARs beginning in the 1970s. FGARs and SGARs share a similar mechanism of action, but SGARS have increased toxicity, prolonged half-lives, and persistence in fats.

According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the use of poison baits to control rodents has injured and killed thousands of wild animals and pets throughout California. While all rodenticides pose a threat to nontarget animals, anticoagulant rodenticides have been found to pose a particular problem, especially due to secondary exposure, throughout the state. Secondary exposure occurs if an animal consumes another animal that has been poisoned by a pesticide, and the scavenger or predator is then weakened or dies as a result of exposure to the poisoned prey. Large predators, such as mountain lions, can additionally be impacted by consuming smaller predators that have preyed upon poisoned rodents.

CDFW’s 2023 "Pesticide Exposures & Mortalities in Nontarget Wildlife," which documents necropsies on wildlife remains, indicates that 81% of wildlife tested in 2022 were exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides.

According to CDFW and DPR, the most effective and safest ways to address rodent issues are by eliminating factors that allow rodents to reproduce and thrive. DPR notes that rodenticides do not eradicate rodents and may not reduce their numbers for long. If there is an area-wide population of rodents, rodents from the edges move into the available space vacated by the poisoned rodents. Rodent numbers surge when people leave unpicked fruit on trees and pet food outside. Rodents find shelter when people ignore clutter and overgrown vines and allow access inside houses and garages.

To address these issues, DPR and CDFW suggest that people who have identified a rodent population eliminate rodent entrances to the structure (seal holes, fill cracks, and install door sweeps); remove brush piles and debris near the structure; and, remove other food sources, such as pet food, wild bird seed, and fruit from trees. In addition to exclusion and sanitation, traps and electrocution devices can also be employed to address rodent pests.

Proposed Law:

This bill would expand the existing prohibition on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to include the FGARs chlorophacinone and warfarin, and would impose civil penalties on the unlawful use of FGARs and SGARs. Specifically, this bill would:

1. Define an FGAR as a pesticide product containing any of the following active ingredients: diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin.
2. Prohibit, except for use for specified health and safety activities, the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in a wildlife habitat area.
3. Prohibit, except for use for specified health, safety, and agricultural activities, the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin in the state unless the prohibition is suspended by the director of DPR, as specified.
4. Authorize the director of DPR to suspend the prohibition on chlorophacinone and warfarin if the director certifies that DPR has completed a reevaluation of chlorophacinone and warfarin and that DPR has adopted restrictions necessary to reduce harm to wildlife from the allowable use of chlorophacinone and warfarin, as specified.
5. Designate chlorophacinone and warfarin as restricted materials.
6. Provide that a person who sells or uses an FGAR or an SGAR in violation of this bill is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law.
7. Provide that a court may enjoin the unlawful sale or use of an FGAR or an SGAR, and may compel specific performance of an act or course of conduct necessary to protect a person, animal, crop, or property.
8. Provide that actions described by this bill may be brought by specified public attorneys in the name of the people of the state or by request of DPR, CDFW, or CDFA.
9. Authorize a prevailing plaintiff to receive an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and provide that civil penalties recovered pursuant to this bill are to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which this bill establishes, and be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified.
10. Make related findings and declarations.

Related Legislation:

AB 2509 (Kalra, 2024) would define IPM to mean an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties.

AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023) prohibits the use of the FGAR diphacinone in wildlife habitat areas and prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until DPR has completed a reevaluation and developed and adopted further restrictions on its use. Makes changes to existing restrictions on the use of SGARs consistent with those placed on diphacinone.

AB 1788 (Bloom, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2020) prohibits the use of SGARs until the director of DPR certifies a completed reevaluation of SGARs.

AB 1687 (Bloom, 2017) would have prohibited the use of any pesticide that contains one or more of nine specified active ingredients (including all FGARs and SGARs and some acute toxicants). AB 1687 was referred to the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee but never heard at the request of the author.

AB 2596 (Bloom, 2016) would have prohibited the use of SGARs. AB 2596 was referred to the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee but never heard at the request of the author.

AB 2657 (Bloom, Chapter 475, Statutes of 2014) prohibits the use of SGARs in wildlife habitat areas.

Staff Comments:

According to CDFA, this bill would impact the department’s Vertebrate Pest Control Program. CDFA is required to establish the VPCP to investigate effective, economical, and environmentally safer alternative methods for the control of vertebrate pests. The Vertebrate Pest Control Research Advisory Committee (VPCRAC) sets priorities for vertebrate pest research projects and recommends research projects that should be funded. VPCRAC is directly funded by a surcharge associated with the sale of FGARs. By reducing FGAR sales, CDFA notes this bill would result in a loss of funding for the program. According to CDFA, in FY 2022-23, county sales for diphacinone alone totaled $197,065. Administrative and research support through the CDFA VPCRAC program totaled $291,585. Currently, CDFA-VPCRAC funding supports one position and all associated operational and administrative program costs, including the manufacturing positions at county offices who work on behalf of CDFA.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER

Senator Dave Min, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 2552 Hearing Date: June 25, 2024

Subject: Pesticides: anticoagulant rodenticides

SUMMARY

This bill would expand the existing prohibition on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to include the use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) chlorophacinone and warfarin, and impose civil penalties on the unlawful use of FGARs and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs).

BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW

Background:

Rodents. Many species of rodents inhabit California, including squirrels, chipmunks, beavers, gophers, rats, and mice. Rodents native to California play an important ecological role and are a major food source for predators and scavengers, including hawks, eagles, foxes, coyotes, and bobcats. Some types of rodents, especially non-native species like Norway rats, roof rats, and house mice, however, are pests when they infest houses, threaten public health, and destroy property. These rodents damage and destroy critical habitat, native plants and animals, crops, property, and food supplies. They also can spread diseases such as hantavirus, leptospirosis, and salmonella to humans both directly and indirectly, posing a serious risk to public health.

Rodenticides. Rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents, but the ingestion of, or sometimes contact with, rodenticides can have the same type of effect on any mammal. Contact with rodenticides can also affect birds and fish. Rodenticides are usually formulated as baits that are designed to attract rodents, but these baits can also be attractive to nontarget wildlife, children, and pets. Additionally, many rodenticides cause secondary poisoning risks to predators. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), most of the rodenticides used in the United States are anticoagulant compounds, either first or second generation, that interfere with blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding. Death typically occurs between four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.

First- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs and SGARs). Anticoagulant rodenticides are a category of blood-thinning rodent poisons that cause animals to slowly bleed to death through internal hemorrhaging, loss of blood due to wounds that cannot clot, or by contributing to chronic disease or organ dysfunction. Anticoagulant rodenticides are classified as either first-generation or second-generation. FGARs were developed before the 1970s, lose their initial effectiveness over time and require the pest to feed multiple times. An apparent developed resistance by rats and mice to FGARS eventually led to the development of SGARs beginning in the 1970s. FGARs and SGARs share a similar mechanism of action, but SGARS have increased toxicity, prolonged half-lives, and persistence in fats.

Dangers of rodenticides. According to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the use of poison baits to control rodents has injured and killed thousands of wild animals and pets throughout California. While all rodenticides pose a threat to nontarget animals, anticoagulant rodenticides have been found to pose a particular problem, especially due to secondary exposure, throughout the state. Secondary exposure occurs if an animal consumes another animal that has been poisoned by a pesticide, and the scavenger or predator is then weakened or dies as a result of exposure to the poisoned prey. Large predators, such as mountain lions, can additionally be impacted by consuming smaller predators that have preyed upon poisoned rodents.

CDFW’s 2023 "Pesticide Exposures & Mortalities in Nontarget Wildlife," which documents necropsies on wildlife remains, indicates that 81% of wildlife tested in 2022 were exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides.

Alternatives to rodenticides. According to CDFW and Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), the most effective and safest ways to address rodent issues are by eliminating factors that allow rodents to reproduce and thrive. DPR notes that rodenticides do not eradicate rodents and may not reduce their numbers for long. If there is an area-wide population of rodents, rodents from the edges move into the available space vacated by the poisoned rodents. Rodent numbers surge when people leave unpicked fruit on trees and pet food outside. Rodents find shelter when people ignore clutter and overgrown vines and allow access inside houses and garages.

To address these issues, DPR and CDFW suggest that people who have identified a rodent population eliminate rodent entrances to the structure (seal holes, fill cracks, and install door sweeps); remove brush piles and debris near the structure; and, remove other food sources, such as pet food, wild bird seed, and fruit from trees. In addition to exclusion and sanitation, traps and electrocution devices can also be employed to address rodent pests.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The U.S. EPA, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and many pest control professionals, believe that prevention is the most effective way to control disease-carrying pests and their associated public health risks. The combination of preventive measures and reduced-risk treatment methods to reduce the reliance on, and therefore the corresponding risk from, the use of chemical pesticides is generally known as IPM. Best practices of IPM include, but are not limited to, minimizing access to food and water, closing off entryways, and using pesticide products that minimize risk of exposure to non-targets.

The University of California IPM Program created and endorses the following definition of IPM:

IPM is an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. Pesticides are used only after monitoring indicates they are needed according to established guidelines, and treatments are made with the goal of removing only the target organism. Pest control materials are selected and applied in a manner that minimizes risks to human health, beneficial and nontarget organisms, and the environment.

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the state's pesticide regulatory program and mandates DPR to, among other things, provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber; for the protection of public health and safety; and, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) §§11401 et seq..
2. Defines an SGAR as any pesticide product containing any of the following active ingredients: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, or difethialone. FAC §12978.7(a).
3. Prohibits, except as specified, the use of an SGAR in a wildlife habitat area, as defined. FAC §12978.7(b).
4. Prohibits, except for specified health and safety activities, the use of an SGAR in the state until the director of DPR makes a certification that DPR has completed a reevaluation of SGARs and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified. FAC §12978.7(c).
5. Prohibits, except for specified health and safety and agricultural activities, the use of the FGAR diphacinone in the state and designates diphacinone as a restricted material until the director of DPR makes a certification that DPR has completed a reevaluation of SGARs and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified. FAC §12978.7 (d and i).
6. Permits the use of SGARs and diphacinone for public health activities, to protect water supply infrastructure, for mosquito and vector control, to eradicate nonnative invasive species, for research purposes related to the reevaluation of SGARs, for medical waste generators, for facilities for producing drugs or medical devices, and for agricultural activities. FAC §12978.7 (e – f).
7. Defines, for the purposes of the SGAR and diphacinone prohibitions, “wildlife habitat area” as any park or wildlife refuge managed by a state agency, regional government, or quasi-government agency, or by a special district. FAC §12978.7(a)(4).
8. Defines, for the purposes of the SGAR and diphacinone prohibitions, a "public health need" as an urgent, nonroutine situation posing a significant risk to human health in which it is documented that other rodent control alternatives, including nonchemical alternatives, are inadequate to control the rodent infestation. FAC §12978.7(e).
9. Designates as “restricted materials” pesticides containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone. Title 3, California Code of Regulations §6400.

PROPOSED LAW

This bill would:

1. Define an FGAR as a pesticide product containing any of the following active ingredients: diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin.
2. Prohibit, except for use for specified health and safety activities, the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in a wildlife habitat area and within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area.
3. Prohibit, except for use for specified health, safety, and agricultural activities, the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin in the state unless the prohibition is suspended by the director of DPR, as specified.
4. Authorize the director of DPR to suspend the prohibition on chlorophacinone and warfarin if the director certifies that DPR has completed a reevaluation of chlorophacinone and warfarin and that DPR has adopted restrictions necessary to reduce harm to wildlife from the allowable use of chlorophacinone and warfarin, as specified.
5. Designate chlorophacinone and warfarin as restricted materials.
6. Provide that a person who sells or uses an FGAR or an SGAR in violation of this bill is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law.
7. Provide that a court may enjoin the unlawful sale or use of an FGAR or an SGAR, and may compel specific performance of an act or course of conduct necessary to protect a person, animal, crop, or property.
8. Provide that actions described by this bill may be brought by specified public attorneys in the name of the people of the state or by request of DPR, CDFW, or the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).
9. Authorize a prevailing plaintiff to receive an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and provide that civil penalties recovered pursuant to this bill are to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which this bill establishes, and be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified.
10. Make findings and declarations about the public value of wildlife, conservation, and biodiversity policy, the intrinsic value of animals, and the deleterious impact of rodenticides on animals, including non-target animals.

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT

According to the author, “The Poison-Free Wildlife Act (AB 2552) builds upon previous legislation restricting some of the most dangerous rodenticides, anticoagulant rodenticides, which have been linked to widespread poisonings of non-target wildlife, pets, and children. AB 2552 adds the remaining First Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional poisoning, while maintaining exceptions for their use to protect public health, water supplies and agriculture. The bill also prohibits the use of anticoagulant rodenticides within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area."

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION

According to the Pest Control Operators of California (PCOC), this bill would add four primary points that add considerable challenges to rodent control. These include the following:

1. The severe reduction of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides with the active ingredients Chlorophacinone and Warfarin;
2. Categorizing first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides as restricted materials;
3. Permitting civil action for violations; and
4. 2,500 foot buffer zones.

PCOC concludes that they agree “...that the protection of California’s wildlife and precious ecosystems is paramount, but this bill seeks to forego scientific conclusion, and legislate over the established regulatory authorities charged with performing these very investigations. For these reasons, we oppose AB 2552.”

COMMENTS

Dual referral. This bill was referred to the Senate Environmental Quality Committee and this Committee. The former committee passed the bill 4-3 on June 19, 2024, without amendments. Elements of the bill that are within this Committee’s jurisdiction are primarily related to expanding the existing anticoagulant rodenticide ban to include FGARs in wildlife habitat areas and the addition of the 2,500 foot buffer zone around these areas. As such, the discussion below primarily focuses on these elements.

Conservation buffer zones. The importance of buffer zones in conservation management has long been recognized as being essential for protecting and maintaining the integrity of a protected area. Buffer zones are clearly delineated areas outside a protected area and adjacent to its boundaries which contribute to the protection, conservation, management, and sustainability of the area. Although buffer zones are not regarded as part of the protected area, they should be seen as an integral component to the protection, conservation, and management of a protected area.

Despite extensive scientific literature on the functions and design of buffer zones, and a general consensus of the value of these zones and their direct importance to the environment, there is still much conflict and debate as to their most appropriate design and implementation. Additionally, the size of buffer zones may vary greatly depending on the type of protected habitat and wildlife. For example, according to the US Forest Service, buffer zones of 250 to 1000 feet for upland landscapes around wetlands have been recommended for turtles and amphibians. For wildlife reserves or parks, recommended buffer zones may need to be several miles wide.^[1]

The buffer zone around wildlife habitat areas proposed in this bill appears to align with the conservation management approach of reducing human disturbances to wildlife and important habitat areas. Specifically, AB 2552 would reduce the deleterious exposure to poisons introduced by humans around important habitat for wildlife. However, the size of the buffer needed is likely to be highly dependent on the specific location and the species targeted for protection. Additionally, conservation buffer zones would typically entail several human-activity limitations such as certain land-use and development restrictions. However, this bill sets a single statewide standard of a 2,500 foot buffer for rodenticide prohibition. It is unclear whether this is the appropriate size because creating a buffer where the prohibition of a harmful substance to wildlife is a somewhat novel approach that has not been studied by the scientific community. For example, in certain landscapes where wildlife do not venture from a protected area into a developed one, this prohibition is likely too large. On the other hand, for widely traveled birds of prey, mountain lions, and other animals, this buffer size is likely not large enough.

Expanding rodenticide ban in wildlife habitat areas. AB 2657 (Bloom, Chapter 475, Statutes of 2014) prohibits the use of SGARs in wildlife habitat areas. This bill would expand on AB 2657 by also banning FGARs in wildlife habitat areas and adding a 2,500-foot buffer prohibiting both around wildlife habitat areas. The bill would retain several exemptions for uses of rodenticides that are currently exempted under AB 1788 (Bloom, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2020). Anticoagulant rodenticides are permitted for use: by governmental agencies to protect water supply infrastructure; on offshore islands to eradicate nonnative invasive species; and for any rodent infestation associated with a public health need, as determined by the State Public Health Officer or a local public health officer; among others (the full list of covered exemptions is in Section 12978.7(g) and (h)(1) of the bill). These uses would still be allowed in wildlife habitat areas and the 2,500-foot buffer zone.

However, it is unclear what impact the addition of the 2,500-foot buffer zone would have on existing activities within those new buffer zones. For instance, it is unclear what impact these new prohibitions would have on existing agricultural or commercial activities within the designated zones. Additionally, it is also unclear how landowners will be informed as to whether or not they are located within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area and are now subject to new prohibitions and potential civil penalties.

Requiring alternatives first. Contemporary wildlife management strategies are moving towards requirements to implement nonlethal or less harmful strategies prior to approving kill permits as a last resort. For example, in 2023, the CDFW director issued an updated and modernized beaver depredation policy that (1) requires CDFW to document all nonlethal measures taken by the landowner to prevent damage prior to requesting a depredation permit; (2) requires landowners to implement feasible nonlethal corrective actions to prevent future beaver damage; (3) requires CDFW to determine whether a property is located within the range of listed species and add permit terms and conditions to protect native wildlife; and, (4) assures that CDFW will continue to prioritize issuing depredation permits in cases of imminent threat to public safety. Similarly, the 2021 Budget Act appropriated $3 million to CDFW to develop a
Wolf–Livestock Compensation Pilot Program to help minimize the impact of wolves on livestock producers by paying for direct livestock losses, nonlethal deterrents, and human presence.

The IPM strategy aligns with the contemporary approach to managing wildlife by requiring alternative approaches prior to using pesticides as a last resort.

Author amendments. The Committee wave may wish to consider approving proposed amendments on behalf of the author that were submitted to the Committee past the author amendment deadline. These amendments would remove the 2,500-foot buffer zone from wildlife habitat areas. See Amendment 1.

Addressing challenges raised by buffer zones. Should the author seek to address concerns raised about buffer zones around wildlife habitat areas in the future, the author may wish to consider the following:

• • • • Require study on appropriate buffer zone sizes. As mentioned above, conservation management science is clear that buffer zones around protected areas play an essential part of protecting the habitat and wildlife in those areas. However, the size of buffer zones should be science-based, dependent on specific landscapes and species, and take into account potential detrimental impacts to existing infrastructure and activities in the proposed buffer zones.
• Implement IMP strategies for activities within the buffer zones. This bill would exempt some activities from the rodenticide ban in the buffer zones, while not others such as food storage and food production. Rather than considering which activities are exempt or banned from using rodenticides within the buffer zones, the author may want to consider moving towards implementing IMP strategies. Requiring alternatives according to the IMP strategy prior to applying rodenticides can move the conversation away from who is banned and who is exempt, and into a more equitable treatment of various types of activities.
• Notification requirements for landowners located within the buffer zones. Across the state, agricultural, commercial, and residential landowners would be exposed to civil penalties if they use a prohibited rodenticide if their property is located in the buffer zone. However, it is unclear how these landowners will know whether they are within the buffer zone, what the new restrictions are, and that violating these restrictions will expose them to civil penalties.

Prior legislation.

AB 2509 (Kalra, 2024) would define IPM to mean an ecosystem-based strategy that focuses on long-term prevention of pests or their damage through a combination of techniques such as biological control, habitat manipulation, modification of cultural practices, and use of resistant varieties. This bill is set for hearing in this Committee on June 25, 2024.

AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023) prohibits the use of the FGAR diphacinone in wildlife habitat areas and prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until DPR has completed a reevaluation and developed and adopted further restrictions on its use. Makes changes to existing restrictions on the use of SGARs consistent with those placed on diphacinone.

AB 1788 (Bloom, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2020) prohibits the use of SGARs until the director of DPR certifies a completed reevaluation of SGARs.

AB 1687 (Bloom, 2017) would have prohibited the use of any pesticide that contains one or more of nine specified active ingredients (including all FGARs and SGARs and some acute toxicants). AB 1687 was referred to the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee but never heard at the request of the author.

AB 2596 (Bloom, 2016) would have prohibited the use of SGARs. AB 2596 was referred to the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee but never heard at the request of the author.

AB 2657 (Bloom, Chapter 475, Statutes of 2014) prohibits the use of SGARs in wildlife habitat areas.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS

AMENDMENT 1:

Section 12978.7 (b) Except as provided in subdivision (g) or paragraph (1) of subdivision (h), and notwithstanding subdivisions (c), (d), and (e), the use of a second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide is prohibited in a wildlife habitat area or within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area.

SUPPORT

Center for Biological Diversity (co-sponsor)

Animal Legal Defense Fund (co-sponsor)

Raptors are the Solution (co-sponsor)

All About Owls

Animazonia Wildlife Foundation

Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy

Brentwood Alliance of Canyons & Hillsides

CA Urban Streams Partnership

California Association of Professional Scientists

California Environmental Voters (formerly CLCV)

California Wildlife Center

Canyon Back Alliance

Citizen for Los Angeles Wildlife

Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW)

City of Thousand Oaks

Cleanearth4kids.org

Coastal Ranches Conservancy

Defenders of Wildlife

Endangered Habitats League

Environmental Defense Center

Felidae Conservation Fund

Friends of Griffith Park

Friends of Plumas Wilderness

Greenspace - the Cambria Land Trust

Happy Hen Animal Sanctuary

Hills for Everyone

Humane Wildlife Control

In Defense of Animals

International Fund for Animal Welfare

Klamath Siskiyou Connectivity Project

Kyotousa

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District

Mojave Desert Land Trust

Morro Coast Audubon Society

Mountain Lion Foundation

National Association for Wildlife Emergency Services

Ojai Raptor Center

Old Agoura Homeowners

Pathways for Wildlife

Poison Free Agoura

Poison Free Conejo Valley

Poison Free Malibu

Preserve Wild Santee

Project Coyote

Raptors are the Solution

San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society

San Diego Humane Society

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

Save Joshua Tree Wildlife

SC Wildlands

Sea and Sage Audubon Society

So Cal 350 Climate Action

Social Compassion in Legislation

Teranga Ranch Wildlife

The Cougar Fund

The Escondido Creek Conservancy

The Human Society of the United States

The Nature of Wildworks

The River Otter Ecology Project

The Wildlands Conservancy

Unchainedtv

United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (UN4LA)

Urban Wildlife Research Project

Ventura Land Trust

Voters for Animal Rights

Wildearth Guardians

Wisdom Good Works

Wishtoyo Foundation

Women United for Animal Welfare

OPPOSITION

Agricultural Council of California

Almond Alliance of California

American Pistachio Growers

Association of California Egg Farmers

California Agricultural Commissioners & Sealers Association

California Association of Pest Control Advisers

California Association of Wheat Growers

California Association of Winegrape Growers

California Bean Shippers Association

California Business Properties Association

California Cattlemen's Association

California Citrus Mutual

California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association

California Fresh Fruit Association

California Grain and Feed Association

California League of Food Producers

California Pear Growers Association

California Rice Commission

California Seed Association

California State Floral Association

California Strawberry Commission

California Tomato Growers Association

California Walnut Commission

California Warehouse Association

Household and Commercial Products Association

Pacific Egg and Poultry Association

Pest Control Operators of California

Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment - Rise

Rodenticide Task Force

Western Agricultural Processors Association

Western Growers Association

Western Plant Health Association

-- END --

1. See: https://www.fs.usda.gov/nac/buffers/guidelines/2_biodiversity/8.html#:~:text=Buffers%20and%20corridors%20are%20linked,connect%20the%20buffered%20landscape%20patches. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Senator Allen, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 2552

SUBJECT: Pesticides: anticoagulant rodenticides

DIGEST: Expands the existing prohibition on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to include the use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) chlorophacinone and warfarin, and imposes civil penalties on the unlawful use of FGARs and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs).

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Authorizes the state's pesticide regulatory program and mandates the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) to, among other things, provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber; for the protection of public health and safety; and, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides by prohibiting, regulating, or ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides (Food and Agriculture Code (FAC) § 11401 et seq.).
2. Defines "second generation anticoagulant rodenticide" (SGAR) as any pesticide product containing any of the following active ingredients: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, or difethialone (FAC § 12978.7(a)).
3. Prohibits, except as specified, the use of a SGAR in a wildlife habitat area, as defined (FAC § 12978.7(b)).
4. Prohibits, except for specified health and safety activities, the use of a SGAR in the state until the director of DPR makes a certification that DPR has completed a reevaluation of SGARs and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified (FAC § 12978.7(c)).
5. Prohibits, except for specified health and safety and agricultural activities, the use of the FGAR diphacinone in the state and designates diphacinone as a restricted material until the director of DPR makes a certification that DPR has completed a reevaluation of SGARs and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified (FAC § 12978.7 (d and i)).
6. Permits the use of SGARs and diphacinone for public health activities, to protect water supply infrastructure, for mosquito and vector control, to eradicate nonnative invasive species, for research purposes related to the reevaluation of SGARs, for medical waste generators, for facilities for producing drugs or medical devices, and for agricultural activities (FAC § 12978.7 (e – f)).
7. Defines, for the purposes of the SGAR and diphacinone prohibitions, “wildlife habitat area” as any park or wildlife refuge managed by a state agency, regional government, or quasi-government agency, or by a special district (FAC § 12978.7(a)(4)).
8. Defines, for the purposes of the SGAR and diphacinone prohibitions, a "public health need" as an urgent, nonroutine situation posing a significant risk to human health in which it is documented that other rodent control alternatives, including nonchemical alternatives, are inadequate to control the rodent infestation (FAC § 12978.7(e)).
9. Designates as “restricted materials” pesticides containing brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone (Title 3 California Code of Regulations § 6400).
   

This bill:

1. Makes findings and declarations about the public value of wildlife, conservation, and biodiversity policy, the intrinsic value of animals, and the deleterious impact of rodenticides on animals, including non-target animals.
2. Defines an FGAR as a pesticide product containing any of the following active ingredients: diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin.
3. Prohibits, except for use for specified health and safety activities, the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in a wildlife habitat area and within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area.
4. Prohibits, except for use for specified health, safety, and agricultural activities, the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin in the state unless the prohibition is suspended by the director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), as specified.
5. Authorizes the director of DPR to suspend the prohibition on chlorophacinone and warfarin if the director certifies that DPR has completed a reevaluation of chlorophacinone and warfarin and that DPR has adopted restrictions necessary to reduce harm to wildlife from the allowable use of chlorophacinone and warfarin, as specified.
6. Designates chlorophacinone and warfarin as restricted materials.
7. Provides that a person who sells or uses an FGAR or an SGAR in violation of this bill is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law.
8. Provides that a court may enjoin the unlawful sale or use of an FGAR or an SGAR, and may compel specific performance of an act or course of conduct necessary to protect a person, animal, crop, or property.
9. Provides that actions described by this bill may be brought by specified public attorneys in the name of the people of the state or by request of DPR, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, or the Department of Food and Agriculture.
10. Authorizes a prevailing plaintiff to receive an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and provides that civil penalties recovered pursuant to this bill are to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which this bill establishes, and be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified.
    

Background

1. Rodents. Many species of rodents inhabit California, including squirrels, chipmunks, beavers, gophers, rats, and mice. Rodents native to California play an important ecological role and are a major food source for predators and scavengers, including hawks, eagles, foxes, coyotes, and bobcats. Some types of rodents, especially non-native species like Norway rats, roof rats, and house mice, however, are pests when they infest houses, threaten public health, and destroy property. These rodents damage and destroy critical habitats, native plants and animals, crops, property, and food supplies. They also can spread diseases such as hantavirus, leptospirosis, and salmonella to humans both directly and indirectly, posing a serious risk to public health. The most important steps in eliminating and preventing rodent infestations are keeping living spaces clean; preventing rodent access; and, eliminating potential nesting areas (sanitation and exclusion). Other options to control rodent infestations include lethal traps, live traps, and chemical control (rodenticides).
2. Rodenticides. Rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents that can have significant impacts on property, crops, and food supplies, as well as spread diseases. Though rodenticides are designed to target these pests, the ingestion of, or sometimes contact with, rodenticides can have the same type of effect on any mammal. Contact with rodenticides can also affect birds and fish. Rodenticides are usually formulated as baits that are designed to attract rodents, but these baits can also be attractive to nontarget wildlife, children, and pets. Additionally, many rodenticides cause secondary poisoning risks to predators. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), most of the rodenticides used in the United States are anticoagulant compounds, either first or second-generation, that interfere with blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding. Death typically occurs between four days and two weeks after rodents begin to feed on the bait.
3. First- versus second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs and SGARS). Anticoagulant rodenticides are a category of blood-thinning rodent poisons that cause animals to slowly bleed to death through internal hemorrhaging, loss of blood due to wounds that cannot clot, or by contributing to chronic disease or organ dysfunction. Anticoagulant rodenticides are classified as either first-generation or second-generation. First-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) were developed before the 1970s and lose their initial effectiveness over time and require the pest to feed multiple times. An apparent developed resistance by rats and mice to FGARS eventually led to the development of the second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) beginning in the 1970s. FGARs and SGARs share a similar mechanism of action, but SGARS have increased toxicity, prolonged half-lives, and persistence in fats.

FGARs include diphacinone (already prohibited in California as a result of the chaptering of AB 1322, Friedman, in 2023), as well as chlorophacinone and warfarin (the subject of this bill). Chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and warfarin are registered to control rats and mice in the United States. Chlorophacinone and warfarin lethality generally require that an animal consumes multiple doses of the bait over several days and are thus known as multiple-dose anticoagulants. This bill proposes to expand this prohibition to cover the use of the remaining two FGARs chlorophacinone and warfarin as well.

SGARs include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone and were developed beginning in the 1970s to control rodents that were resistant to FGARs. SGARs are more likely than FGARs to kill after a single night's feeding and tend to remain in animal tissues longer than first-generation compounds. Because of this, SGARs pose greater risks to nontarget species that might feed on bait only once or that might feed upon animals that have eaten the bait. Due to these risks, SGARS are no longer nationally registered for use in products geared toward consumers and are registered only for the commercial pest control and structural pest control markets. Brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone have been prohibited for many uses in California since January 1, 2021 (AB 1788, Bloom, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2020).

There is also a third category of rodenticides, which are those considered acute toxicants. Acute toxicant rodenticides have differing ways of affecting rodents, including affecting the nervous system, causing heart and kidney failure, and reacting to stomach acid to cause rapid death. In this category, bromethalin, zinc phosphide, and strychnine kill rodents after one feeding, often within a few hours. Formulated as baits, they are highly toxic to people, pets, and wildlife.

1. California’s legislation restricting the use of anticoagulant rodenticides. To address the concerns posed by exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, in 2014, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1788 (Bloom) Chapter 250, Statues of 2020, which prohibits the use of all four SGARs throughout the state, with some exemptions, including for public health and agricultural activities, until DPR completes its SGAR reevaluation and adopts additional restrictions to minimize impacts on nontarget wildlife. Last year, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1322 (Friedman) Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023, which prohibits the use of the FGAR diphacinone in the state (with exemptions) until DPR completes a reevaluation and adopts further restrictions on its use.

AB 2552 proposes to restrict or prohibit the use of the remaining FGARs, chlorophacinone and warfarin. Like existing statute, the bill prohibits, except for specified health, safety and agricultural activities, the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin throughout the state until the director of DPR makes a certification that DPR has completed a reevaluation of chlorophacinone and warfarin and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified. AB 2552 also expands the existing prohibition on FGAR and SGAR use in wildlife areas to include a 2,500-foot buffer zone.

1. Diverse rodenticide use in California. Rodenticides can be used in a number of both urban and agricultural settings for rodent management. AB 1788 (Bloom, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2020), the prohibition on SGARs, included several exemptions, including for agricultural activities, such as a warehouse used to store foods for human or animal consumption or an agricultural food production site, for governmental agency employees for the purposes of protecting water supply infrastructure, or for a public health need, among other exemptions.
2. Public health pesticides. The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is a comprehensive act that dictates, among other provisions, federal Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) rodenticide policy. FIFRA defines public health pesticides as “any minor use pesticide product registered for use and used predominantly in public health programs for vector control or other recognized health protection uses…” Rats and other rodents frequently carry fleas, which themselves may carry pathogenic microorganisms, and are an important vector to control from a public health perspective. According to a 2010 study in the Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, an average of 1.75 million pounds of public health pesticides were used annually in California, accounting for less than 1% of total state pesticide use. Of these, the vast majority were used to control mosquitoes. The US EPA formally recognizes rats as a “pest of significant public health importance.”

In 2022, the EPA issued an interim decision for its review of rodenticide safety for 11 rodenticides, including the seven anticoagulant rodenticides that are included in this bill. According to their website, “EPA is proposing mitigation measures to protect human health and mitigate ecological risk to non-target organisms, including potential effects on federally listed endangered and threatened (i.e., listed) species.” The final evaluation is expected to be completed in November 2024. This will be followed by a formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

1. Integrated Pest Management. The US EPA, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and many pest control professionals, believes that prevention is the most effective way to control disease-carrying pests and their associated public health risks. The combination of preventive measures and reduced-risk treatment methods to reduce the reliance on, and therefore the corresponding risk from, the use of chemical pesticides is generally known as Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Best practices of IPM include, but are not limited to, minimizing access to food and water, closing off entryways, and using pesticide products that minimize risk of exposure to non-targets.

Comments

1. Purpose of Bill. According to the author, "The Poison-Free Wildlife Act (AB 2552) builds upon previous legislation restricting some of the most dangerous rodenticides, anticoagulant rodenticides, which have been linked to widespread poisonings of non-target wildlife, pets, and children. AB 2552 adds the remaining First Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional poisoning, while maintaining exceptions for their use to protect public health, water supplies and agriculture. The bill also prohibits the use of anticoagulant rodenticides within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habit area."
   
2. Dangers of anticoagulant rodenticides to target and non-target species. The function of a rodenticide is to kill rodents that may be sources of contamination or spread disease (a target species). Unfortunately, according to the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), the use of poison baits to control rodents has injured and killed thousands of wild animals and pets throughout California. While all rodenticides pose a threat to nontarget animals, anticoagulant rodenticides have been found to pose a particular problem, especially due to secondary exposure, throughout the state. Secondary exposure occurs if an animal consumes another animal that has been poisoned by a pesticide. The predator is then weakened or dies as a result of exposure to the poisoned prey. Large predators, such as mountain lions, can additionally be impacted by consuming smaller predators that have preyed upon poisoned rodents. There is significant evidence of anticoagulant rodenticide residues in the remains of nontarget species such as mountain lions, bobcats, owls, and condors. A 2023 DFW report documenting necropsies on wildlife remains showed that 81% of wildlife tested in 2022 were exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides.

In addition to prohibiting the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin until DPR completes a reevaluation and makes a determination that appropriate restrictions (as specified) have been set, AB 2552 would prohibit the use of any FGAR or SGAR in wildlife habitat areas or within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area. This is recognition of the fact that nontarget wildlife, especially birds, have large hunting radii and thus may be exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides from consuming prey outside of a designated wildlife habitat area. Opponents of the bill raise concerns that this buffer zone (about half a mile) is too wide of an area and would encompass large swaths of the state.

1. Alternatives to anticoagulant rodenticides. According to DFW and DPR, the most effective and safest ways to address rodent issues are through exclusion and sanitation—by eliminating factors that allow rodents to reproduce and thrive. DPR notes that rodenticides do not eradicate rodents and may not reduce their numbers for long. If there is an area-wide population of rodents, rodents from the edges move into the available space vacated by the poisoned rodents. Rodent numbers surge when people leave unpicked fruit on trees and pet food outside. Rodents find shelter when people ignore clutter and overgrown vines and allow access inside houses and garages.

To address these issues, DPR and DFW suggest that people who have identified a rodent population eliminate rodent entrances to the structure (seal holes, fill cracks, and install door sweeps); remove brush piles and debris near the structure; and, remove other food sources, such as pet food, wild bird seed, and fruit from trees. In addition to exclusion and sanitation, traps and electrocution devices can also be employed to address rodent pests. The sponsors of the bill also point to rodent fertility control as a potential alternative, which appears to already be in use by the city of San Francisco.

While sanitation and exclusion are the most effective methods for long-term rodent control, should the prohibition on warfarin and chlorophacinone be enacted through this bill, acute toxicant rodenticides would still be allowed and would likely be the only chemical tool for rodent management. Under the provisions of the bill, rodenticides with the active ingredients bromethalin, zinc phosphide, strychnine, and cholecalciferol, can still be used, with some restrictions based on container size and specific uses. These rodenticides all carry risks. For example, bromethalin, a nerve toxicant that is designed to kill in a single feeding, causes symptoms such as lack of coordination, tremors, seizures, paralysis, and often death. Should a child or pet ingest bromethalin, antidotes do not exist. Zinc phosphide kills rodents quickly because their stomach acid reacts with phosphide to produce toxic phosphine gas. Predators and scavengers can be poisoned if they eat enough of the gut content of animals recently killed with zinc phosphide. Strychnine is a neurotoxin that acts as an antagonist of glycine receptors, resulting in uncontrollable muscle contractions. A lethal dose of strychnine can cause convulsions that lead to rapid asphyxiation and death. DFW reports that it has seen an increase in the number of strychnine-related wildlife losses in recent years.

By prohibiting and restricting FGARs and SGARs, it seems likely that consumers and pesticide applicators will simply turn to other chemical rodent controls, such as acute toxicants, when specific rodenticides are prohibited. Given the intent of AB 2552 is to protect wildlife from the harmful effects of toxic chemicals, it would seem that setting more robust requirements for IPM models in conjunction with specific chemical bans would be dually effective in meeting that goal.

1. Balancing public and wildlife safety. AB 2552 takes an important step to protect California’s fragile and unique wildlife. A statewide prohibition of all FGARs and SGARs in wildlife areas and buffer zones, as well as a prohibition on the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin until DPR completes a reevaluation, would very likely reduce exposures. Passing AB 2552 would mean that all anticoagulant rodenticides are restricted or prohibited in California in these areas.

AB 2552 retains several exemptions for uses of rodenticides that are currently exempted under AB 1788 (Bloom, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2020). Anticoagulant rodenticides are permitted for use by: governmental agencies to protect water supply infrastructure; offshore islands to eradicate nonnative invasive species; any rodent infestation associated with a public health need, as determined by the State Public Health Officer or a local public health officer; among others (the full list of covered exemptions is in Section 12978.7(g) and (h)(1) of the bill). These uses would still be allowed in Wildlife Habitat Areas and the 2,500-foot buffer zone.

So then, what are some use cases that are notably not exempt from the prohibition in wildlife habitats and the buffer zone? Agricultural activities (as defined in Section 12978.7(h)(2) and (3) are still subject to the prohibition, meaning they would not be allowed to use any anticoagulant rodenticide. Investor-owned utilities would also not be exempt, meaning only local publicly owned utilities (operated by the government) would be allowed to use anticoagulant rodenticides.

Opposition to the bill raises concerns about the public health consequences and impact on agricultural production of such a prohibition, given that rats and mice can contaminate or destroy food or cause significant damage to irrigation lines or dams due to burrowing rodents. Of note, only agricultural facilities within a wildlife habitat area and the 2,500-foot buffer zone would be subject to the prohibition. Supporters, including the sponsors of the bill, point to numerous alternatives, especially IPM controls such as exclusion, sanitation, and physical controls, or fertility control products to reduce rodent populations. They contend that AB 2552 builds upon existing legislation that has allowed the pest control industry to adapt to the use of new products without demonstrated data about upticks in rodent outbreaks while continuing to allow exceptions for threats from rodents to public health or agriculture.

1. Enforcement authorities. AB 2552 authorizes specified public attorneys to bring legal action at the request of DPR, DFW, or the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), or in the name of the people. A person in violation of this prohibition may be liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day. These penalties are to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which is established under this bill. As written, the bill expands which departments can request action by a public prosecutor. Currently, DPR can take civil enforcement action through the Attorney General’s Office for any violations of pesticide-related prohibitions. There is currently a Memorandum of Understanding between DPR, the County Agricultural Commissioners, and DFW that establishes procedures for coordinating investigations of incidents involving injury or dealth of non-target fish and wildlife. The author may wish to consider amending the bill to reflect the existing coordinative enforcement processes between DPR, CDFA, and DFW.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 1963 (Friedman, 2024), prohibits the use of pesticide products containing paraquat dichloride until DPR has completed a reevaluation and determined to set appropriate restrictions on its use. This bill is set to be heard in the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on June 19.

AB 1322 (Friedman, Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023) prohibits the use of the FGAR diphacinone in wildlife habitat areas and prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until DPR has completed a reevaluation and developed and adopted further restrictions on its use. Makes changes to existing restrictions on the use of SGARs consistent with those placed on diphacinone.

AB 1788 (Bloom, Chapter 250, Statutes of 2020) prohibits the use of SGARs until the director of DPR certifies a completed reevaluation of SGARs.

AB 1687 (Bloom, 2017) would have prohibited the use of any pesticide that contains one or more of nine specified active ingredients (including all FGARs and SGARs and some acute toxicants). AB 1687 was referred to the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee but never heard at the request of the author.

AB 2596 (Bloom, 2016) would have prohibited the use of SGARs. AB 2596 was referred to the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee but never heard at the request of the author.

AB 2657 (Bloom, Chapter 475, Statutes of 2014) prohibits the use of SGARs in wildlife habitat areas.

DOUBLE REFERRAL:

If this measure is approved by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, the do pass motion must include the action to re-refer the bill to the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee.

SOURCE:

Center for Biological Diversity, Raptors are the Solution, Animal Legal Defense Fund

SUPPORT:

All About Owls
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animazonia Wildlife Foundation
Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy
Brentwood Alliance of Canyons & Hillsides
CA Urban Streams Partnership
California Environmental Voters (formerly Clcv)
California Wildlife Center
Canyon Back Alliance
Center for Biological Diversity
Citizen for Los Angeles Wildlife
Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife (CLAW)
Cleanearth4kids.org
Coastal Ranches Conservancy
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Habitats League
Environmental Defense Center
Felidae Conservation Fund
Friends of Griffith Park
Friends of Plumas Wilderness
Greenspace - the Cambria Land Trust
Happy Hen Animal Sanctuary
Hills for Everyone
Humane Wildlife Control
In Defense of Animals
International Fund for Animal Welfare
Klamath Siskiyou Connectivity Project
Kyotousa
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Mojave Desert Land Trust
Morro Coast Audubon Society
Mountain Lion Foundation
National Association for Wildlife Emergency Services
Ojai Raptor Center
Old Agoura Homeowners
Pathways for Wildlife
Poison Free Agoura
Poison Free Conejo Valley
Poison Free Malibu
Preserve Wild Santee
Project Coyote
Raptors are The Solution
San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society
San Diego Humane Society
Save Joshua Tree Wildlife
Sc Wildlands
Sea and Sage Audubon Society
So Cal 350 Climate Action
Social Compassion in Legislation
Teranga Ranch Wildlife
The Cougar Fund
The Escondido Creek Conservancy
The Human Society of The United States
The Nature of Wildworks
The River Otter Ecology Project
The Wildlands Conservancy
Unchainedtv
United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (UN4LA)
Urban Wildlife Research Project
Ventura Land Trust
Voters for Animal Rights
Wildearth Guardians
Wisdom Good Works
Wishtoyo Foundation
Women United for Animal Welfare

OPPOSITION:

Agricultural Council of California
Almond Alliance of California
American Pistachio Growers
Association of California Egg Farmers
California Agricultural Commissioners & Sealers Association
California Association of Pest Control Advisers
California Association of Wheat Growers
California Association of Winegrape Growers
California Bean Shippers Association
California Business Properties Association
California Cattlemen's Association
California Citrus Mutual
California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association
California Fresh Fruit Association
California Grain and Feed Association
California League of Food Producers
California Pear Growers Association
California Rice Commission
California Seed Association
California State Floral Association
California Strawberry Commission
California Tomato Growers Association
California Walnut Commission
California Warehouse Association
Household and Commercial Products Association
Pacific Egg and Poultry Association
Responsible Industry for A Sound Environment - Rise
Rodenticide Task Force
Western Agricultural Processors Association
Western Growers Association
Western Plant Health Association

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT:

According to a coalition of wildlife and environmental supporters, including the sponsors of the bill, “AB 2552 extends the existing moratorium on dangerous anticoagulant rodenticides to include the entire class of anticoagulant rodenticides, buffer zones to better protect wildlife habitat areas, and civil penalties for public enforcement of legal violations. AB 2552 is narrowly targeted to the most dangerous class of rodenticides until state regulators can develop better safeguards on their use and specifically exempts agricultural activities, public health protections, water supply infrastructure, biotech, and emergency pest infestations.

“In a recent editoral, the Los Angeles Times endorsed AB 2552 as “crucial to ridding the environment of these toxins that kill wildlife and pets and have been known to poison people—usually children—as well.” In 2023, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife found that 81% of animals tested had exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, including 88.2% of tested birds with 56.7& dying as a result of anticoagulant poisoning. Greater restrictions are needed.”

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:

According to a coalition of agricultural and industry members, “Because California conducts its own review after a product is approved for use by U.S. EPA, products sought to be sold and used in California must also be approved by the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), which considers the ingredients of the pesticides, crops, or sites where they’re to be used, the amount, frequency, and timing of use, among other things. DPR can impose additional standards for licensed applications, use mitigations, and restrictions or prohibit uses entirely. This is in addition to the localized oversight and enforcement of product uses at the County level. And at any time, should users, researchers or generally interested parties raise concerns about products and their impacts to human health, the environment, or nontarget species, they can submit additional data to DPR which can draw products into reevaluation and lead to subsequent restrictions, mitigations, or prohibitions.

“But rather than utilize this established and thorough process to scientifically evaluate the need for further restrictions on rodenticide use, AB 2552 unilaterally prohibits use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, warfarin and chlorophacinone in the state. It then states that DPR may (but is not obligated) permit use, under incredibly limited circumstances, only after it has completed reevaluations. It also mandates that restrictions must achieve a near-impossible standard for levels in wildlife samples (with questionable sampling methodology). The bill specifies that DPR is not obligated to complete any reevaluations but, should it do so, and find that no additional restrictions are warranted, both warfarin and chlorophacinone would still be automatically and arbitrarily deemed restricted use products, without scientific justification.”

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2552

Author:(Friedman)

As Amended Ver:April 24, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Expands the existing prohibition on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to include the use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) chlorophacinone and warfarin, and imposes civil penalties on the unlawful use of FGARs and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs).

Major Provisions

1. Defines an FGAR as a pesticide product containing any of the following active ingredients: diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin.
2. Prohibits, except for use for specified health and safety activities, the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in a wildlife habitat area and within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area.
3. Prohibits, except for use for specified health, safety, and agricultural activities, the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin in the state unless the prohibition is suspended by the director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), as specified.
4. Authorizes the director of DPR to suspend the prohibition on chlorophacinone and warfarin if the director certifies that DPR has completed a reevaluation of chlorophacinone and warfarin and that DPR has adopted restrictions necessary to reduce harm to wildlife from the allowable use of chlorophacinone and warfarin, as specified.
5. Designates chlorophacinone and warfarin as restricted materials.
6. Provides that a person who sells or uses an FGAR or an SGAR in violation of this bill is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law.
7. Provides that a court may enjoin the unlawful sale or use of an FGAR or an SGAR, and may compel specific performance of an act or course of conduct necessary to protect a person, animal, crop, or property.
8. Provides that actions described by this bill may be brought by specified public attorneys.
9. Authorizes a prevailing plaintiff to receive an award of reasonable attorney's fees and costs and provides that civil penalties recovered pursuant to this bill are to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which this bill establishes, and be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified.

COMMENTS

Rodents: Rodents native to California play an important ecological role, and are a major food source for predators and scavengers. Some types of rodents, especially non-native species like Norway rats, roof rats, and house mice, however, are pests when they infest houses, threaten public health, and destroy property. The most important and effective steps in eliminating and preventing rodent infestations are keeping living spaces clean; preventing rodent access; and, eliminating potential nesting areas (sanitation and exclusion). Other options to control rodent infestations include lethal traps, live traps, and chemical control (rodenticides).

Rodenticides: Rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents through ingestion, but the ingestion of, or sometimes contact with, rodenticides can have the same type of effect on any mammal. Contact with rodenticides can also affect birds and fish. Many rodenticides cause secondary poisoning, which can occur if a non-target animal consumes another animal that has been poisoned by a pesticide, and the predator is weakened or dies as a result of exposure to the poisoned prey. Most of the rodenticides used in the U.S. are anticoagulant compounds, either first or second generation, that interfere with blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding.

SGARs: SGARs are more likely than FGARs to kill after a single night's feeding, and tend to remain in animal tissue longer than first-generation compounds. SGARS are no longer nationally registered for use in products geared toward consumers and are registered only for the commercial pest control and structural pest control markets. Certain SGAR ingredients have been prohibited for many uses in California since January 1, 2021.

FGARs: FGARs include chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and warfarin and were developed as rodenticides before 1970. Diphacinone has been prohibited for many uses in California since January 1, 2024.

Dangers of rodenticides: Poison baits used to control rodents have injured and killed thousands of nontarget wild animals and pets throughout California. While all rodenticides pose a threat to nontarget animals, anticoagulant rodenticides have been found to be a particular problem, especially due to secondary exposure. In addition to secondary exposure due to consuming poisoned rodents, large predators, such as mountain lions, can additionally be impacted by consuming smaller predators that have preyed upon poisoned rodents.

Recent legislation restricting the use of rodenticides: To address the concerns posed by exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, in 2014, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1788 (Bloom) Chapter 250, Statues of 2020, which prohibits the use of the four SGARs throughout the state, with some exemptions, including for public health and agricultural activities, until DPR completes its SGAR reevaluation and adopts additional restrictions to minimize impacts on nontarget wildlife. The provisions of AB 1788 went into effect on January 1, 2021. Last year, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 1322 (Friedman) Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023, which prohibits the use of the FGAR diphacinone in the state (with exemptions) until DPR completes a reevaluation and adopts further restrictions on its use, as specified. The provisions of AB 1322 went into effect on January 1, 2024.

This bill: AB 2552 builds upon existing statute that prohibits many uses of SGARs and the FGAR diphacinone by prohibiting the use of the remaining FGARs, chlorophacinone and warfarin, in wildlife habitat areas, except for use for specified health and safety activities. Like existing statute for SGARs and diphacinone, the bill also prohibits, except for specified health, safety and agricultural activities, the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin throughout the state until the director of DPR makes a certification that DPR has completed a reevaluation of chlorophacinone and warfarin, respectively, and has adopted restrictions to protect wildlife, as specified.

According to the Author

"The Poison-Free Wildlife Act (AB 2552) builds upon previous legislation restricting some of the most dangerous rodenticides, anticoagulant rodenticides, which have been linked to widespread poisonings of non-target wildlife, pets, and children. AB 2552 adds the remaining First Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional poisoning, while maintaining exceptions for their use to protect public health, water supplies and agriculture. The bill also prohibits the use of anticoagulant rodenticides within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habit area."

Arguments in Support

A coalition of supporters, including environmental and animal welfare organizations and community groups, writes, "AB 2552 is narrowly targeted to the most dangerous class of rodenticides until state regulators can develop better safeguards on their use and specifically exempts agricultural activities, public health protections, water supply infrastructure, biotech, and emergency pest infestations… In 2023, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife found that 81% of animals tested had exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides, including 88.2% of tested birds with 56.7% dying as a result of anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning. Greater restrictions are needed… Anticoagulant rodenticides pose an unreasonable risk to children and pets. The National Poison Data System documented over 2,300 cases of anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning of children under the age of 6 years old in one year alone… More than 100 pets needlessly die each year due to rodenticide exposure. More protections for California families are necessary… Anticoagulant rodenticides pose an unreasonable risk to wildlife. [DPR] has documented anticoagulant rodenticide poisonings in at least 38 different nontarget species in California such as eagles, hawks, falcons, owls, bobcats, mountain lions, and even the imperiled San Joaquin kit fox, northern spotted owl, and California condor. The problem is so severe that over half of wildlife tested in California are exposed to rodenticides… There is a wide array of cost-effective alternatives available on the market today to better address rodent infestations. Sealing buildings and eliminating food and water sources are a necessary first step. Sustainable rodent control strategies that involve snap traps, electric traps, fertility control, and other non-toxic methods can then be implemented to address any infestations. Several types of less toxic rodenticides are available as well."

Arguments in Opposition

A coalition of opponents, including pesticide manufacturers, pest control operators, and agricultural trade organizations, writes, "…products sought to be sold and used in California must also be approved by [DPR], which considers the ingredients of the pesticides, crops, or sites where they're to be used, the amount, frequency and timing of use, among other things... But rather than utilize this established and thorough process to scientifically evaluate the need for further restrictions on rodenticide use, AB 2552 unilaterally prohibits use of the first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides warfarin and chlorophacinone in the state. …This additional prohibition is not required to be substantiated by a finding of wildlife species impact, a reevaluation by DPR, or any other state specified scientific method. This arbitrary, one-half mile buffer zone around these newly determined areas would have substantial impact to the safety of nearby communities and in many counties, serve as a de facto ban. … Between expansive new buffer zones and increased litigation risk, AB 2552 significantly erodes the exemptions for agriculture if production sites, storage or food processing is occurring within the 2,500-foot buffer zone, which will result in significant public health, food safety, and security risks, and other impacts to agricultural production. …Arbitrarily removing pesticide tools undermines [integrated pest management's] holistic approach. To that end, AB 2552 foregoes these principles rather than being consistent with them."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, enactment of this bill could have the following fiscal effects: ongoing annual costs to DPR of an unknown amount, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for workload associated with product compliance and enforcement and the potential development and adoption of mitigation measures; annual revenue loss to DPR of an unknown amount, likely in the thousands of dollars, due to a reduction in registration and renewal fees as well as in the mill assessment collected by DPR for pesticide products that contain chlorophacinone and warfarin; loss of funding for the Department of Food Agriculture's Vertebrate Pest Control Research Advisory Committee, which is directly funded by a surcharge associated with the sale of FGARs; costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount for the Department of Justice resulting from increased referrals from its client, DPR, relating to client representation and litigation arising from this bill; cost pressures to the courts to adjudicate enforcement actions filed by public prosecutors; unknown costs to county agricultural commissioners for expanded mitigation, inspection, and enforcement related activities; costs to the Department of Fish and Wildlife of an unknown, likely minor, amount; and, penalty revenue of an unknown amount resulting from enforcement actions brought by public prosecutors.

VOTES

ASM ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND TOXIC MATERIALS: 4-2-1

YES: Garcia, Connolly, McKinnor, Reyes

NO: Hoover, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Papan

ASM WATER, PARKS, AND WILDLIFE: 8-4-3

YES: Papan, Bennett, Bonta, Garcia, Hart, Luz Rivas, Schiavo, Weber

NO: Alanis, Gallagher, Davies, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Alvarez, Villapudua

ASM JUDICIARY: 9-2-1

YES: Kalra, Bauer-Kahan, Bryan, Connolly, Haney, Maienschein, McKinnor, Pacheco, Reyes

NO: Dixon, Sanchez

ABS, ABST OR NV: Waldron

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 10-4-1

YES: Wicks, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin

NO: Sanchez, Dixon, Jim Patterson, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Villapudua

UPDATED

VERSION: April 24, 2024

CONSULTANT: Shannon McKinney / E.S. & T.M. / (916) 319-3965 FN: 0002986

Date of Hearing: May 15, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2552

Author:(Friedman) – As Amended Ver:April 24, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: Yes

SUMMARY:

This bill expands an existing prohibition on the use of anticoagulant rodenticides to cover the use of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (FGARs) and imposes civil penalties on the unlawful use of FGARs or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs).

Specifically, this bill, among other things:

1. Defines an FGAR as a pesticide product containing any of the following active ingredients: diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin.
2. Prohibits, except as specified, the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin in a wildlife habitat area.
3. Prohibits, except as specified, the use of SGARs or FGARs within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area.
4. Prohibits, except as specified, the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin in the state unless the prohibition is suspended by the director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), as specified. Designates chlorophacinone and warfarin as restricted materials.
5. Provides that a person who sells or uses an FGAR or an SGAR in violation of this bill or any regulations adopted pursuant to this bill is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed $25,000 per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law.
6. Provides that actions seeking the civil penalties described in 5, above, may be brought by the Attorney General (AG) in the name of the people of the state by request of the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), DPR, or the Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), or by a city attorney, by a county counsel, or by a city prosecutor in a city or city and county having a full-time city prosecutor.
7. Provides that, in addition to the civil penalties described in 5, above, a public prosecutor described in 6, above, may seek injunctive relief to protect a person, animal, crop, or property.
8. Authorizes a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to 5, above, to receive an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
9. Provides that civil penalties recovered pursuant to 5, above, are to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account, which this bill establishes in the Wildlife Restoration Fund, and shall be available for expenditure, upon appropriation by the Legislature, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1) DPR estimates ongoing annual costs of an unknown amount, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (DPR Fund), for workload associated with product compliance and enforcement and the potential development and adoption of mitigation measures.

Annual revenue loss to DPR of an unknown amount, likely in the thousands of dollars, due to a reduction in registration and renewal fees as well as in the mill assessment collected by DPR for pesticide products that contain chlorophacinone and warfarin (DPR Fund).

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the DPR Fund is in a structural deficit – with its ongoing revenues failing to keep pace with its increased expenditures – and is projected to be insolvent in fiscal year (FY) 2024-25. As part of the FY 2024-25 budget, the Governor proposes to increase the mill assessment – a tax levied on pesticides when first sold into or within the state – to address the structural deficit within the DPR Fund and to support various programmatic expansions for the department.

2) According to CDFA, this bill impacts the department’s Vertebrate Pest Control Program (VPCP). CDFA is required to establish the VPCP to investigate effective, economical, and environmentally safer alternative methods for the control of vertebrate pests. The Vertebrate Pest Control Research Advisory Committee (VPCRAC) sets priorities for vertebrate pest research projects and recommends research projects that should be funded. VPCRAC is directly funded by a surcharge associated with the sale of FGARs. By reducing FGAR sales, CDFA notes this bill will result in a loss of funding for the program. CDFA-VPCRAC funding supports 2.5 positions and all associated operational and administrative program costs. CDFA contends there is no reasonable alternative product available that will fill the void created by a reduction of FGAR products in the marketplace, and the revenues generated by FGAR sales encompass the entirety of CDFA’s programmatic activities.

3) The Department of Justice (DOJ) anticipates costs of an unknown but potentially significant amount (Legal Services Revolving Fund) resulting from increased referrals from its client, DPR, relating to client representation and litigation arising from this bill. Costs to DOJ will be reimbursable through direct billings to the client agency, and the bill entitles a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to this bill to an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.

4) Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to the courts to adjudicate enforcement actions filed by public prosecutors. Actual costs will depend on the number of violations and the number of cases filed by prosecutors. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. If 10 cases are filed statewide and each requires two days of court time to resolve, the resulting workload cost to the courts would be about $160,000. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposes $83.1 million ongoing from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.

5) Costs of an unknown amount (General Fund or DPR Fund) to the extent the Commission on State Mandates determines the costs to county agricultural commissioners for expanded mitigation, inspection, and enforcement related activities are reimbursable state mandates. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years.

6) Costs to DFW of an unknown, likely minor, amount.

7) Penalty revenue of an unknown amount (Poison-Free Wildlife Account) depending on the number of violations and the level of enforcement brought by the AG and other public prosecutors.

COMMENTS:

1) Purpose. According to the author:

The Poison-Free Wildlife Act (AB 2552) builds upon previous legislation restricting some of the most dangerous rodenticides, anticoagulant rodenticides, which have been linked to widespread poisonings of non-target wildlife, pets, and children. AB 2552 adds the remaining First Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides…to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional poisoning, while maintaining exceptions for their use to protect public health, water supplies and agriculture. The bill also prohibits the use of anticoagulant rodenticides within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habit area.

2) Background. Rodenticides are pesticides designed to kill rodents through ingestion, but the ingestion of, or sometimes contact with, rodenticides can have the same type of effect on any mammal. Contact with rodenticides can also affect birds and fish. Many rodenticides cause secondary poisoning, which can occur if a non-target animal consumes another animal that has been poisoned by a pesticide, and the predator is weakened or dies as a result of exposure to the poisoned prey. Most of the rodenticides used in the U.S. are anticoagulant compounds, either first or second generation, that interfere with blood clotting and cause death from excessive bleeding.

SGARs. SGARs are more likely than FGARs to kill after a single night's feeding, and tend to remain in animal tissue longer than first-generation compounds. SGARS are no longer nationally registered for use in products geared toward consumers and are registered only for the commercial pest control and structural pest control markets. Certain SGAR ingredients have been prohibited for many uses in California since January 1, 2021.

FGARs. FGARs include chlorophacinone, diphacinone, and warfarin and were developed as rodenticides before 1970. Diphacinone has been prohibited for many uses in California since January 1, 2024. This bill proposes to expand this prohibition to also cover the use of chlorophacinone and warfarin. The bill adopts the existing law’s exceptions to the prohibition for agricultural use, various public health uses, and use required by federal law. This bill authorize DPR to study the prohibition and reauthorize the use of the prohibited chemicals in limited circumstances.

3) Related Legislation. AB 1322 (Friedman), Chapter 836, Statutes of 2023, prohibits the use of the FGAR diphacinone in wildlife habitat areas and prohibits the use of diphacinone in the state until DPR has completed a reevaluation and developed and adopted further restrictions on its use. AB 1322 also makes changes to existing restrictions on the use of SGARs consistent with those placed on diphacinone.

Analysis Prepared by: Nikita Koraddi / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Ash Kalra, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2552

Author:Friedman – As Amended Ver:April 17, 2024

As Proposed to be Amended

SUBJECT: Pesticides: anticoagulant rodenticides

KEY ISSUES:

1. should the use of specified first generation ANTICOAGULANT RODENTICIDES be prohibited in this state?
2. should the unlawful use of prohibited anticoagulant rodenticides be punishable by the imposition of a civil penalty sought by a government prosecutor?

SYNOPSIS

Invasive rodent species can pose a significant threat to public health and California’s native habitats. These rodents can carry and expose humans, pets, and wildlife to hantavirus, leptospirosis, and salmonella. Additionally, these invasive rodents can infest homes and businesses and wreak havoc on sensitive native plants and other fragile ecosystems. Seeking to combat these rodents, for decades, humans have been using anticoagulant rodenticides to eliminate unwanted rodent populations. Unfortunately, a growing body of evidence is suggesting that these anticoagulant rodenticides can be toxic to wildlife and pets that eat a rodent that has previously consumed bait laced with an anticoagulant rodenticide. In fact, the Department of Fish and Wildlife contends that exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides has led to the unnecessary death of thousands of wildlife and pets in recent years. Accordingly, in 2014, state regulators banned the use of highly lethal second generation anticoagulant rodenticides.

Recognizing that dangerous first generation anticoagulant rodenticides remain on the market, this bill would ban the use of these chemicals in most instances. The bill provides a carve out, most notably for public health reasons, on the prohibition of the use of first generation rodenticide. This measure also permits rodenticide use in agricultural settings subject to a buffer zone around habitat areas. Of note to this Committee, as proposed to be amended, this measure adopts a civil penalty regime to be enforced by the Attorney General, city attorneys, and county counsels in consultation with state regulators.

This measure is supported by a broad coalition of animal and environmental advocates. The supporters of this measure highlight the risks anticoagulant rodenticides pose to wildlife, pets, and crops. They argue that less toxic alternatives can control the rodent population without unnecessary risk. This bill is opposed by a coalition of agricultural and business advocates. The opposition argues there is insufficient scientific evidence to ban the use of first generation rodenticides. The opposition is also stridently opposed to this bill being enforced through the use of a private right of action. Proposed committee amendments will eliminate the private right of action in favor of government enforcement. While these amendments appear to address all of the opposition’s concerns relevant to this Committee’s jurisdiction, it is unclear if they are sufficient to wholly remove opposition to this bill. The bill was previously heard and approved by both the Committee on Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, as well as the Committee on Water, Parks, and Wildlife.

SUMMARY: Enhances the existing law’s prohibition on the use of specified anticoagulant rodenticides, and imposes civil penalties on the unlawful use of first or second generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the use of a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in a wildlife habitat area or within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habitat area, except as specified.
2. Prohibits the use of rodenticide containing chlorophacinone or warfarin and deems the product a restricted material.
3. Provides that the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation may suspend the provisions of 2) if specified findings are made.
4. Exempts from the prohibition of 2) the following uses of rodenticide:
   1. By a governmental agency employee who uses the rodenticide for public health purposes;
   2. By a mosquito or vector control district to protect public health;
   3. For the eradication of nonnative invasive species inhabiting or found to be present on offshore islands in a manner that is consistent with all otherwise applicable federal and state laws and regulations;
   4. Whenever the Department of Fish and Wildlife determines the use of rodenticide is required to control or eradicate an invasive rodent population for the protection of threatened or endangered species or their habitats;
   5. To control an actual or potential rodent infestation associated with a public health need, as determined by a supporting declaration from the State Public Health Officer or a local public health officer;
   6. For the purposes of assisting the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation to reevaluating the uses of rodenticide, as specified;
   7. By a medical waste generator, as specified; and
   8. By a facility registered and annually inspected pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
5. Provides that the prohibition of 2) does not apply to agricultural activities, except use in wildlife habitat areas and the 2,500 foot buffer zone, including use at the following locations:
   1. A warehouse used to store foods for human or animal consumption;
   2. An agricultural food production site, including, but not limited to, a slaughterhouse or cannery;
   3. A factory, brewery, or winery;
   4. An agricultural production site housing water storage and conveyance facilities; and
   5. An agricultural production site housing rights-of-way and other transportation infrastructure.
6. Authorizes the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation to suspend the prohibition on the use of first-generation anticoagulant rodenticides if the Director makes a determination and certifies that both of the following have occurred:
   1. The Department of Pesticide Regulation has completed a reevaluation of chlorophacinone or warfarin, respectively; and
   2. The Department of Pesticide Regulation, in consultation with, and with the concurrence of, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, has adopted any additional restrictions necessary to ensure a trend of statistically significant reductions in the mean concentration values of detectable levels of chlorophacinone or warfarin, respectively, or any of their metabolites, in tested tissues of a scientifically representative sample of wildlife, and that these restrictions include a requirement to implement integrated pest management alternatives, such as biological control, habitat manipulation, and modification of cultural practices, before the use of chlorophacinone or warfarin, respectively.
7. Provides that a person who sells or uses a first-generation anticoagulant rodenticide or second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide in violation of this bill or any regulations adopted pursuant to this bill is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per day for each violation, in addition to any other penalty established by law.
8. Provides that actions seeking the civil penalties described in 7) may be brought by the Attorney General in the name of the people of the state by request of the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Pesticide Regulation or the Department of Food and Agriculture, or by a city attorney, by a county counsel, or by a city prosecutor in a city or city and county having a full-time city prosecutor.
9. Provides that in addition to the civil penalties described in 7) a public prosecutor described in 8) may seek injunctive relief to protect a person, animal, crop, or property.
10. Authorizes a prevailing plaintiff in an action brought pursuant to 7) to receive an award of reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
11. Provides that civil penalties recovered pursuant to7) are to be deposited into the Poison-Free Wildlife Account and may be appropriated by the Legislature, as specified.
12. Defines the following terms:
    1. “Chlorophacinone” means a pesticide product containing chlorophacinone;
    2. “First-generation anticoagulant rodenticide” means a pesticide product containing diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin;
    3. “Warfarin” means a pesticide product containing warfarin.
13. Adopts various findings and declarations.
14. Adopts standard language related to the imposition of a state mandated local program.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Authorizes the Department of Pesticide Regulation to, among other things, provide for the proper, safe, and efficient use of pesticides essential for the production of food and fiber, for the protection of public health and safety, for the protection of the environment from environmentally harmful pesticides, and to assure agricultural and pest control workers safe working conditions where pesticides are present by prohibiting, regulating, or otherwise ensuring proper stewardship of those pesticides. (Food and Agriculture Code Section 11401 et seq.)
2. Defines "second generation anticoagulant rodenticide" as any pesticide product containing any of the following active ingredients: brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, or difethialone. (Food and Agriculture Code Section 12978.7 (a).)
3. Prohibits, generally, the use of a second generation anticoagulant rodenticide in a wildlife habitat area. (Food and Agriculture Code Section 12978.7 (b).)
4. Prohibits, generally, the use of diphacinone (a first generation anticoagulant rodenticide) in the state and designates diphacinone as a restricted material until the Director of the Department of Pesticide Regulation makes a certification that the Department has completed a reevaluation of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides. (Food and Agriculture Code Section 12978.7 (d).)
5. Defines for the purposes of 3) “wildlife habitat area” as any park or wildlife refuge managed by a state agency, regional government, or quasi-government agency, or by a special district. (Food and Agriculture Code Section 12978.7 (e).)
6. Defines “emotional distress” for the purposes of assessing civil damages to include suffering, anguish, fright, horror, grief, anxiety, worry, shock, humiliation, and shame. (Cal. Civil Jury Instructions CACI No. 1620.)
7. Clarifies that domestic partners are entitled to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress to the same extent that spouses are entitled to do so under California law. (Civil Code Section 1714.1.)

FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.

COMMENTS: When many Californians think of rodents, they frequently conjure images of invasive household pests like roof rats and house mice. However, rodents actually encompass a large classification of native wild animals including squirrels, chipmunks, beavers, and gophers. Many wild rodents are an important part of the state’s ecology and the food chain for other wildlife. Accordingly, if these rodents are poisoned using highly toxic rodenticide, the impacts can reverberate through the ecosystem. Accordingly, this bill seeks to limit the use of highly toxic rodenticides to better protect all wildlife. In support of this bill, the author states:

The Poison-Free Wildlife Act (AB 2552) builds upon previous legislation restricting some of the most dangerous rodenticides, anticoagulant rodenticides, which have been linked to widespread poisonings of non-target wildlife, pets, and children. AB 2552 adds the remaining First Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides (“First Generation Anticoagulants” or “FGARs”), chlorophacinone and warfarin, to the existing rodenticide moratorium to better protect wildlife from unintentional poisoning, while maintaining exceptions for their use to protect public health, water supplies and agriculture. The bill also prohibits the use of anticoagulant rodenticides within 2,500 feet of a wildlife habit area. It further allows community members to bring legal action against illegal use or sale of anticoagulant rodenticides to reduce enforcement costs on state and local officials.

Although native rodent populations help support California’s natural environment, invasive rodents can pose significant public health and ecological threats. California’s large rodent population consists of a variety of native and non-native species. Native rodents, including squirrels, chipmunks, beavers, and gophers, play an important role in maintaining the health of many of this state’s natural ecosystems. For example, California’s native squirrel population plays a critical role in pollinating plants and dispersing seeds through California’s woodlands. Additionally, these small animals are a vital cog in the state’s wildlife food chain, as they are a critical food source for hawks, eagles, foxes, coyotes, and bobcats.

However, unlike their native relatives, non-native rodents pose significant threats to public health and the natural environment. Invasive rodents, including Norway rats, roof rats, and house mice, can pose significant public health threats when they infest residential or commercial properties. These rodents can carry, and expose humans and household pets to, viral and bacterial diseases including hantavirus, leptospirosis, and salmonella. Additionally, non-native rodents are known to damage native plant life, endanger smaller native mammal species, and destroy crops and aspects of some buildings.

Given the scope of the threats posed by non-native rodents, several state agencies are tasked with managing rodent-related issues. The Department of Fish and Wildlife ensures that non-native species do not harm native populations. The Department of Food and Agriculture sets rules related to dealing with rodent issues as they pertain to crops and livestock rearing. Finally, because rodent management has frequently required chemical interventions, the Department of Pesticide Regulation oversees the rodenticides utilized to manage rodent populations.

Although effective, rodenticide can be highly toxic to several types of wildlife. Given the significant threat that rodents pose to public health, humans have sought to manage rodent populations for hundreds of years. In the last 50 years, the use of chemical rodenticides has grown significantly. Prior to the 1970s, scientists discovered that anticoagulant chemicals work well on many unwanted rodent populations. One such chemical, warfarin, while safe at low doses in humans, can be toxic to rodents. As an anticoagulant, the drug interferes with blood clotting and eventually kills rodents through excessive bleeding. However, because of the concentration of warfarin used in rodent traps, as well as the chemical’s reaction with a rodent’s natural body chemistry, typically these first generation anticoagulants require a rodent to feed on the bait multiple times before the chemical is successful.

Seeking to expedite the speed by which rodents were killed using rodenticides, in the 1970s, a second generation of chemicals was introduced to the market. These stronger compounds were significantly more likely to kill a rodent after one feeding, and even if the animal survived, the compounds would linger in the animal for a far greater period of time. Within short order, however, the collateral risks of the second generation anticoagulant drugs became apparent. In the event a rodent that ingested the anticoagulant was subsequently eaten by another predator, the high concentration of the anticoagulant in the rodent would transfer the chemicals to the other predator. Due to the strength and concentration of the chemicals, scientists were quickly discovering these rodenticides were unintentionally poisoning other wildlife. Indeed, the Department of Fish and Wildlife suggests that unintentional exposure to anticoagulant rodenticides has killed thousands of wild animals as well as pets across California.

Seeking to reduce the harm posed by anticoagulant rodenticides, in 2011, the Department of Fish and Wildlife requested that the Department of Pesticide Regulation designate all second generation anticoagulant rodenticides restricted materials. In 2014, after studying the issue, the Department of Pesticide Regulation did just that. Subsequent legislation, AB 1788 (Bloom) Chap. 250, Stats. 2020, codified this designation. By designating second generation anticoagulants as restricted materials, the law deems these chemicals to have a high potential to cause harm to public health, farm workers, domestic animals, honeybees, the environment, wildlife, or crops compared to other pesticides. Accordingly, with certain exceptions, these rodenticides may only be purchased and used by or under the supervision of, a certified commercial or private applicator under a permit issued by the County Agricultural Commissioner. However, first generation anticoagulants have never been designated restricted materials, and despite their similar risks to wildlife and pets, may still be used in California without significant regulation or oversight.

This bill recognizes the ongoing threat to wildlife, pets, and human health posed by exposure to first generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Building on the existing legal framework related to second generation anticoagulants adopted by AB 1788, this measure would prohibit the use of a rodenticide that contains anticoagulant chemicals, including diphacinone, chlorophacinone, or warfarin. The bill adopts the existing law’s exception to the prohibition for agricultural use, various public health uses, and use required by federal law. This bill would authorize the Department of Pesticide Regulation to study the prohibition and reauthorize the use of these chemicals in limited circumstances.