Senate Standing Committee on Agriculture

The Senate Committee on Agriculture will come to order. Good morning. We are holding our Committee hearings here in the state capital. I ask that all Members of the Committee be present in room 113 so we can establish quorum and begin our hearing.

But since we don't have any Members just yet, we'll go ahead and begin as a Subcommitee. And we do have five bills on today's agenda, two that are bills that are on proposed consent calendar. And we'll begin with item number one, Assemblymember Connolly, on AB 1864. He's here to present. Please, please come on up and present your bill.

Thank you, chair and Members, good morning. I would like to begin by thanking the Committee and staff for their work and input on this Bill. Children attending public schools and daycares in California are intended to be protected by a regulation that restricts the most drift prone agricultural pesticide applications during the school day from 06:00 a.m.

to 06:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. In practice, this regulation is often unenforceable. While notices of intent, as we'll call them NOIs, must be submitted to county agricultural commissioners before using pesticides classified as restricted materials and must be and must include the method of application.

Often the information provided isn't specific enough to determine whether or not the method triggers application or regulations. For example, if the application method listed on the NOI is ground, it's unclear whether that means a ground rig sprayer, which has a distance restriction, or a hand pump sprayer, which does not.

Further, the exact location of applications cannot be verified under current reporting requirements, and exact start and end times are often inaccurately reported.

AB 1864 seeks to make process improvements by requiring annual permits to include method of application and specific site identification and for use reports to include method and timing of application to provide corroboration that laws are adhered to.

This Bill also ensures equity by extending the same protections to children, teachers, and school staff in private schools that public schools and daycares are already afforded. I'm committed to further discussions with stakeholders to address the GIS layer of this Bill and appreciate the feedback they have provided.

So with that, I'll now pass it off to my two witnesses. Jane Sellen, co Director for Californians for Pesticide Reform welcome Jane and Victor Torres, representing future leaders of change. Thanks.

Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Jane Selen. I'm co-Director of the statewide coalition Californians for Pesticide Reform. I'd like to thank assemblymember Connolly for his leadership for authoring this Bill. AB 1864 it's a critical step toward ensuring that all California children are protected from agricultural pesticide exposure at school.

This Bill is needed because in the six years since the California Department of Pesticide Regulation or DPR implemented restrictions on certain pesticide application methods next to schools during the school day, ground truthing by our coalition has revealed some serious issues with enforceability and those issues can be addressed by simple reporting changes.

So we thank the Legislature for stepping in to help strengthen this very important protection and we truly appreciate the acknowledgement by the agriculture industry of the need for some of these measures. This Bill also extends the existing protections to private schools in California which were previously not included in the regulation.

Without these protections, there's nothing to stop aerial applications right up to the school boundary during the school day. At private schools, pesticide exposure at school is a serious and underreported issue.

As you will hear from co sponsor Victor Torres, even an acute illness at school that was reported and resulted in a hospital visit was not included in the state pesticide illness database.

We know that chronic exposure is an issue at schools because DPR's own air monitoring network confirms the presence of multiple pesticides in the air at each of its monitoring stations, several of which are located on school grounds.

So with the passage of AB 1864, the most drift prone applications of agricultural pesticides will no longer occur during the school day within a quarter mile of any school, public or private, and the state and county will have the necessary information to enforce this common sense rule.

Thank you chair and Members, and I'll pass on my testimony to my colleague Victor Torres.

Hello everybody. Good morning. Good morning chair and Members of the Committee. And before anything, I would like to first thank Mister somebody Member Damon Connolly for his leadership and authoring this Bill. Hello, my name is Victor Torres.

I am 17 years old and a new graduate of Greenfield High School in my hometown in the heart of the Salinas Valley. I am a co-founder with future leaders of change based in Greenfield and Watsonville and I am here today to bring awareness about the danger of pesticide application near our schools.

I myself was a victim of pesticide drift at the age of 10 at my local middle school. No child should have to worry about their health in a place of learning. No child should have to be rushed to the emergency room for something out of their control. We need better protections around schools, both public and private.

It is important for us to know the exact location of pesticide application and how the pesticides are applied. This would in fact guarantee that no other 10 year old has to experience the consequences of having such dangerous chemicals applied near their schools. When I was a victim of pesticide drift, there were eight different pesticides involved.

Four of the eight are known to trigger asthma. Another of the eight was dacthol or DCPA. The US EPA now says allowable levels of DCPA are 1500 times more harmful to developing brains than is considered safe. Half of all DCPA use in California is in my county, Monterey County.

There are 29 growers who plan to apply DCPA within one quarter of a mile of 65 schools in Monterey County in the current school year.

We are the future leaders of change in the community, and I ask you all to provide an opportunity for us to not only learn, meet with peers, but to also enjoy our childhood in a safe environment. Thank you. Chair Members of the Committee.

Thank you. Do we have any others in the room in support? Please come up. State your name, position and organization.

Abby Alvarez, on behalf of Stop Oak Expansion Coalition indivisible, Alta Pasadena, the California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, and the Bay Area system change, not climate change.

Good morning. Rebecca Marcus, representing the Center for Food Safety and Kalpergan support. Thank you.

Good morning. Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association and support. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Adele Torres. I'm a co-founder of the Future Leaders of Change and I am in support of this Bill. Hello. My name is Alexia Rankel, co founder of the Future Leaders of Change, and I am in full support with our Bill. AB 1864 and also in behalf of Cap 805, center on race, poverty and the environment, poison free Malibu ricote energy, Alba and GMO science.org.Mina Brilli, started as a part 1864.

Thank you.

Asha Sharma, on behalf of leadership, Council for Justice and Accountability and support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Gracias.

Hello, I'm Jalen Joyce, and I'm here representing CCOF and CFS, Valley Improvement project and California Rural Legal Assistance foundation, and we are in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Bill Allayaud, Environmental Working Group in support. Thank you.

Dolores Huerta. Dolores Huerta foundation in support. Wendy Greenfield, San Jose, 37 years working in education support. Thank you. MJ Kushner, community water center in support.

Hi, my name is Emma Flores. My name is Emma Flores and I'm in support. And I'm supported.

Let's go. Your name?

My name is Emily Flores. Flores, and I support. And I support. What's your name? My name is Elena, and I support. Thank you.

My name is Christina Gutierrez with CPR and I support Clean Earth for Kids, alliance for Nurse for Healthy Environments Ecology Center California for Food and Farming Network and UFCW Western State Council.

Thank you, thank you.

Hello, my name is Edie Sanchez and I am a wife of a farm worker. I support AB 1864. Thank you, thank you. Hi, my name is Mayra Castillo and I support AB 1864. Thank you.

Hola mi nombre is Sandra Garcia madre y apoyamos a AB 1874

Gracias. Gracias.

[Inaudible]

My name is Luper Rascon very angry with all these people. We need the protection of our children and for school teachers and even you guys.

Thank you.

We're the voice and you are the power. Okay, thank you and God bless you guys. Thank you. Thank you.

Mi nombre es Aida Montes, vengo de Fresno y apollo.

Mi nombre es Antonio Lopez De Fresno.

Buenos Dias vengo desde Fresno, California.

Gracias, gracias.

[Inaudible]

Hi, my name is Kaylee, and I'm 14 years old, and I'm here from Fresno, and I want to support the AB 1864. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Fermat Salas. I come from Fresno and I support that initiative about taking all that poison away from the schools. And that's about all. Thank you, have a good day.

Hello, my name is Maggie. I'm here to support AB 1864 and also, I want to tell you guys that this is really important for us because our kids are getting sick, because we have pesticides close to our house and school. So hope we get to. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Buenos dias a todos mi nombre es Lilia Vesaril vengo de Fresno, California.

Okay, okay, seeing no others. One more. All right, we got a few more. Come on up.

Good morning. Ankle Garcia with California Surpassary Reform in support on behalf of Sierra Club California, California nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, SAFAC Safe Schools Coalition Advocating for Pesach Safety, Tulare county as well as the Praxis project.

Thank you, thank you.

Yanneli Martinez, Greenfield, City Councilwoman in full support of AB 1864, also community organizer with Californians for Pesticide Reform. And I'm also going to name a few other organizations who I'm here to speak on behalf. California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Cal, our lobbyist Rebecca Marcus, Breast Cancer Prevention Partners Environmental Working group and the Sunflower alliance in full support.

Thank you. Okay seeing do we have any others in support we're going to wrap up those in support.

Hello, my name is Raul Garcia. I'm from Porterville, California and Tulare County. I am here on the behalf of the coalition advocating for pesticide safety and on behalf of the West Berkeley alliance for Clean Air and Safe Jobs the San Francisco Bay, Physicians for social responsibility, the clean water action, the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council and the people for clean air and clean water of Cattleman city. We all support AB 1864 thank you so much, very much.

Okay, seeing no others in support of this measure we'll go ahead and move to opposition. Do we have any leads? zero, just.

Good morning, Madam Chair Taylor Roshan representing a Coalition of Agricultural Associations we're very glad to remove our opposition to this Bill and I want to thank Mister Connolly and particularly his staff Miss Woodward for working with us along with the sponsors.

There's still an outstanding piece related to GIS data and I just wanted to share the justification behind that CDE at this point along with County Ag commissioners and growers themselves don't know where private schools are at so making sure we have the exact locations of them so that we can draw accurate quarter mile radii and know when and when we submit a notice of intent and when we don't is critical but we look forward to working with the author and thank the staff.

Any others in this room in opposition or.

Yeah Madam Chair Members Chris Reardon, California Farm Bureau. We also want to thank the author as well in terms of opening open mindedness to working with us on this legislation. So we also will remove our opposition.

Good morning chair and Members Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California also removing opposition. Thank the author.

Good morning. Brenda Bass with KP Public affairs on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and we are also removing our opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you Dennis Albion on behalf of the California Seed Association of California Pear Growers, California wheat growers, several other Ag associations we appreciate working with the Members of the staff. Thank you. We remove our opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Matthew Welland with Western Growers Association line similar comments. We appreciate the work with the author and staff and remove. Very neutral on the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay there's a lot of opposition that has been removed. Is there any opposition to this Bill in this room? Okay, seeing none I'll go ahead and bring it back to Committee for any questions or comments. Okay, I'll go ahead. At this moment, before I say a few words, would like to establish a quorum.

So, assistant, if you please, call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Quorum has been established. Okay. Again, any questions or comments from Committee Members on this measure? Senator Cortese.

Madam Chair, let me just thank the author for bringing this forward and obviously working so hard to get the consensus on such an important Bill.

Having been raised in the old Santa Clara valley, where there were, you know, nine houses in my area in a radius of about 4 miles, in an orchard farming community with the only public school essentially right in the middle of that environment, this was a common issue, a very common issue.

Not only common, but visibly in those days also, as some of the folks in the audience here know, in the Committee room, we were also dealing with parathion and DDT and things that we didn't really know how impactful they are.

And kids would actually have evidence of spray that had drifted from those big spray rigs on their bodies, short sleeve shirts and arms sort of freckled with spray material. I say that as someone whose family came from both a farm worker and an agricultural orchard farming background, so it's too late to blame people for it.

It's just a matter of trying to make things safe for kids. So I just wanted to indicate my solidarity with what the author attempted to do here and what the Committee did to work with the author. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator. As you know, a lot of the people that were here in support of the measure from Fresno, as you know, I was born in Fresno, so it's great to see everyone here to come out and support. Thank you for bringing this issue forward. Obviously a very important one.

The other thing that, of course, is, I noticed is, you know, the young kids, and it made me, it made me think of my little niece. She's six years old. She's in school, and I think this Bill would obviously help not just her, but her classmates as well. And so, again, thank you for bringing it forward.

And with your permission, I would like to add as a co-author to this Bill. And with that, I'll just go ahead and leave it up to you to close if you'd like to.

Show that that's really why we're doing this and also for all the stakeholders that really came together on this show, great to work with everyone on this and really appreciate it with that I would respectfully ask.

Thank you. Given that we have established quorum, do we have a motion? We have a motion to move this Bill. Assistant, can you please call the roll file item one.

The motion's on file item one. AB 1864, by assemblymember Connally. The motion is do pass to appropriations Senators. [Roll Call]

Okay, that measure has three votes, and we'll place that Bill on call to allow others the opportunity to vote. Thank you. We will at this time take up the consent calendar. So, assistant, can you please call the roll on the consent calendar?

Yes, the consent calendar was moved by Senator Padilla. There are two items. File items 3 and 5. ABS 2324 and 2721. [Second Roll]

Okay, we'll place those items on call. Okay. Up next, we have file item number two. Assemblywoman Friedman, please come up and feel free to present AB 1963 when you are ready.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Paraquat, first manufactured in 1962, is a highly toxic herbicide or weed killer, used on almonds, pistachios, and walnut orchards, and on grapes and cotton. Paraquat is sprayed to burn down or clear fields before planting and throughout the growing season to manage weeds between crop rows.

Much of the chemical ends up in the soil for years, and it can eventually reach nearby communities via in dust or drift when strong winds occur. This poses an increased risk to people living and working near fields who are exposed to paraquat.

However, the people most at risk of paraquat exposure are agricultural workers who mix, load and apply paraquat or enter paraquat after it's been applied. Recent common peer reviewed science has confirmed that exposure to paraquat greatly increases the risk of developing Parkinson's disease.

Paraquat is banned in more than 60 countries, including those with large agricultural economies like the United Kingdom, China, Brazil, and the members of the European Union. California should follow their lead. Why should we continue to use this pesticide that's been around since 1962 and banned in many countries, including the ones who manufacture it?

We can do better because alternatives to paraquat exist today and are used in those countries very successfully. On Monday, the Legislature passed AB 2113 by Assemblymember Garcia. The bill raises the mill assessment to provide DPR with adequate resources to take on more responsibilities to protect the public.

As soon as the Governor signs it, DPR can begin hiring new staff. The bill directs DPR to prioritize hiring in the registration branch. Reevaluations are done out of this branch. Also, the bill requires DPR to initiate at least one reevaluation a year until 2029, and then two reevaluations a year starting in 2030.

These requirements mean they will need to prioritize hiring for both registration and reevaluations. California's DPR is emphasizing that we need to be using less pesticides and herbicides in their new planning effort titled Sustainable Pest Management. I agree with them that California needs to be the leader in eliminating highly toxic pesticides like paraquat.

Furthermore, the pesticide industry, always proud of their ability to innovate, should step forward and agree to stop producing this product and produce far less toxic weed killers. Testifying in support today is Bill Allayaud with the Environmental Working Group and Dolores Huerta, President of the Dolores Huerta Foundation.

And after my witnesses speak, I would like to discuss the proposed amendments before we move on, if that's okay with you. Or I can do it now, whichever you prefer. Okay. Thank you.

Good morning. Bill Allayaud with Environmental Working Group, the sponsor of the bill. I'll just summarize that there is robust science about the harms that paraquat can have. Let me say the opponents are saying there's no proof that paraquat causes Parkinson's disease. But what we're talking about here is the difference between cause and correlation.

Like we've heard people say, my grandfather smoked in '95 and never got lung cancer. But that does nothing mean there's not a proven correlation between smoking and lung cancer. And 2019 meta analysis, the gold standard for summarizing the science on a particular topic found across 13 studies, occupational and environmental exposure to paraquat increased the risk of developing Parkinson's by 64 degrees, 64%. California DPR and paraquat manufacturers claim that paraquat can be safely used with proper restrictions and that it's a highly restricted use pesticide.

But EWG just completed a survey of violations logged by the county agricultural commissioners in the five counties where paraquat is most heavily used. Kern, King, Fresno, Tulare, and Merced. We found 40 violations reported between 2017 and 2022. And despite DPR adding more use restrictions every year in the last few years, accidents happen and misuse happens.

So just to say it's highly restricted doesn't mean you don't get exposed. So you retire and years later you have Parkinson's. Was it the cause? We don't know for sure, but this is a highly toxic pesticide that we think we can do without.

AB 1963 is structured so that it lets DPR retain their ability to choose what action they will take after completion of a reevaluation of paraquat. So will live with it whatever they choose, as a more restrictions, suspension, or business as usual. What AB 1963 does is let DPR hear from this Legislature that they need an expeditious review of this highly toxic pesticide. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, my name is Dolores Huerta with the Dolores Huerta Foundation. I actually want to talk about paraquat also. First of all, I just want to say that many of the pesticides that we use today in California and in the United States were developed during, in Nazi Germany actually.

Before that, there was not a big use of pesticide in our country. We know that there are a lot of organic farmers in California that do not use pesticides. So we can't say that there is not an alternative. You know, the United States of America, we have the highest cancer rate of any country in the world.

And I do think a lot of this does come from the use of these herbicides and pesticides. So we know that paraquat is banned on golf courses, but it's not bad in our farms for the workers that actually feed the golfers. Right? And I don't know. We can say that a person that plays golf, if their life is more valuable than a person who's a farm worker that feeds all of us.

And I think that the agricultural industry has got to do a lot more work in terms of protecting the health of the people that actually produce the food, that actually helps them grow their industry and actually helps them create the wealth that they have. So I just want to say to the committee here, this is a very serious issue. We know that many farm workers have lost their lives from pesticides and herbicides like paraquat.

And we saw many of them here in this room just a little while ago also testifying members of their family have died from some of the uses of these pesticides. So to me, this is a matter of life and death, and this is something that you really have to take into consideration. So I want to thank Assemblyman Friedman for doing, for presenting this legislation, and I hope that the rest of you take it very seriously.

Thank you. So I just wanted to take a minute to discuss the amendments and to outline where we are. So I appreciate the Chair's willingness to sit down with us on Friday to try to come to an agreement about amendments. The committee was not comfortable with what the bill that had come to this committee through the Legislature, which put in place a moratorium until DPR could do their re-evaluation.

So what we agreed to on Friday was to remove the moratorium on paraquat and to allow the continued use of paraquat until 2028, to say that DPR should finish their evaluation in 2028, and we would live by whatever they decided in that reevaluation, to ban the use or to continue the use or to further restrict the use.

That would be up to DPR. But we did say that if they hadn't completed by 2028, we needed a moratorium in place because we needed to have a real reason for them to complete the evaluation. Otherwise, it's more of a suggestion. If there's no sort of penalty for them, they could just continue indefinitely.

Yesterday, we were told that the committee was now no longer comfortable with having that moratorium and also the date of 2028 and wanted to push the date to 2029 with no moratorium if DPR failed to finish their review. We are fully accepting of pushing the date to 2029.

We'd rather they complete earlier, but we can certainly live with 2029. But we do think it's important to retain that moratorium should they fail to complete their reevaluation. Otherwise, there's nothing to prevent them from simply stalling for another 10 years or from failing to complete.

There's no protection there for the workers who are right now, as you heard, getting Parkinson's disease at a rate almost twice that of the general population. So we think that it's reasonable to say, continue to use the chemical until 2029. DPR finish your review. We will live by that review. But if you haven't finished, put the temporary moratorium in place until the review is finished. And so that is the bill that we are presenting and that we would like you to vote on today.

Thank you. Go ahead and move to others in support of this measure in this room.

It doesn't sound like it's on yet. They're putting it on.

Testing. Testing.

Okay. Jane Sellen, Californians for Pesticide Reform. We came intending to support, but we do not support without firm deadlines from DPR. I just want to note that DPR prioritized paraquat for reevaluation in 2011 and ranked it number two priority in 2014 and has not completed. They do not need five years. They certainly don't need an indefinite period. So we'll move to oppose unless amended.

Thank you. And just please state your name, organization, and your position. Thank you.

Asha Sharma on behalf of Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability in support.

Thank you.

Chair and Members, Nate Solov on behalf of the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jena Price on behalf of Enviro Voters and Consumer Attorneys of California in support.

Thank you.

MJ Kushner from Community Water Center in support.

Thank you. Any others in support? There's people coming in. Okay.

Yanely Martinez, Greenfield City Council Member in support unless amended. So yes. Sorry. It's all crazy right now with the microphone.

Thank you.

Hello again. Raul Garcia from Porterville on behalf of the Coalition Advocating for Pesticide Safety. We will only support the bill if it is amended as previously stated by my colleague Jane Sellen. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Victor Torres. I'm a co-founder of Future Leaders of Change and on behalf we are in support if amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Any additional... Okay, seeing none. We'll go ahead and move into any... Anyone here for lead opposition?

Yes, ma'am. I believe it's just going to be me today.

Yes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Taylor Roschen on behalf of a variety of agricultural associations. So on behalf of American Pistachio Growers, Ag Aircraft Association, California Association of Pest Control Advisors, California Cotton Growers and Ginners, Western Ag Processors, Western Plant Health, Apple, Avocado, Strawberry, and Walnut Commission, California Fresh Fruit Association and many more.

We oppose the bill in print and we've been asked to express opposition to what we thought were committee amendments but now seem to be amended oral amendments on the bill. While it's not recognized in this building, our members work incredibly hard to comply with the state's pesticide laws that are the most stringent in the world and imposed, not imposed on farmers anywhere else in the United States. You've heard from several hearings about why small farmers are closing up shop and the industry is consolidating.

This is an example of why. The goal posts continue to move. And the same science is that's good enough to review product safety for sanitizers, cleaning materials, the things that you touch in your homes every day and on your farm field isn't good enough for farmers.

Nevertheless, throughout the legislative process we've worked hard to propose amendments on pesticide bills that, at their foundation, respect the department's scientific process. I think Mr. Connolly's bill is an example of that hard work. AB 1963, and now with these potential new amendments, they do not respect the process.

The department is in the process of completing an initial scientific assessment to review the data that exists to determine if there is merit to pursue further action. They have told us and the committee they expect to finish this work in the next few months, but rather allow that process move forward.

The bill would obligate a re-evaluation and then set a completely unachievable timeline for the department to actually consider the completion of a re-evaluation. We believe through the existing process the department can determine whether or not a reevaluation is warranted, if more data is needed, or if no additional requirements should be stipulated.

But rather than this process play through, supervised by scientists and toxicologists and human health specialists, this bill and the recent amendments suggest the Legislature should already know the outcome. This not only represents a thumb on the scale of science, it throws the scale out. And what are the consequences of a mandatory reevaluation on paraquat on its face alone?

It means the department is wasting resources and time reevaluating an active ingredient, even if their data and scientific process doesn't substantiate that work needs to be done. That's resources that could and should have been otherwise spent on the number one priority active ingredient or other active ingredients like fungicides and fumigants, rodenticides and herbicides that have not had regulatory action every year for four years like paraquat has. I also want to address some of the comments that were made by the sponsors.

There's an allegation that this product is banned in other countries. That's because of incidental ingestion. California has made modifications to disallow that exposure. The causal link that was suggested, that wasn't my recommendation. That was an industry's recommendation. There was a causal link with paraquat and Parkinson's disease.

US EPA made a determination in March of this year that there was no causal link. I want to speak to the question about violations. We have not seen the data to substantiate a number of violations. If violations are occurring wildly in California, that is the basis for the department to take immediate action.

And they have done that before on other active ingredients. And then lastly, the commentary that it's banned on golf courses. It's not available for use on golf courses. The product literally kills all plant material. I don't know a golf course manager in the universe who would be interested in widely applying a product that kills green material when their livelihood is based on the promulgation of green material.

Finally, last week you voted out of this committee and approved on the floor AB 2113 which does include a significant tax increase on farmers to fund the department to do their job. I want to note the Mill Assessment does not cover the costs associated with reevaluation.

That bill holds them accountable to deliverables like faster reevaluations, not in the universe of the time proposed in this bill, and faster registration so that alternatives can come to bear in a process that's more transparent for the public. So to have this committee, a week later, overturn months of debate and learning on how to invest, expedite, improve and daylight the process at DPR is very concerning. So for those reasons, we request a no vote.

Organization, please.

Hello, Madam Chair and Members. Matthew Allen on the Western Growers Association. We urge a no vote on the bill and align our comments with Ms. Roschen.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Erin Norwood on behalf of the Almond Alliance, also opposed.

Madam Chair and Members, Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California. Urge a no vote. Thank you.

Tatum Ackler with Samson Advisors on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in opposition.

Chris Reardon with the California Farm Bureau in opposition.

Brenda Bass with KP Public Affairs on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, also in opposition. Thank you.

Annalee Augustine on behalf of the California Seed Association and the California Pear Growers Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in this room in opposition? Seeing none. I want to bring it back to the committee, and I want to start by addressing the comments of the author. I know that from the very beginning, we, I committed to you and working with you on this bill to get the amendments just right.

It is my agree... It is my understanding that the amendments that we have in front of us today were actually sent over by your team. And so that's the last... That's my understanding of the amendments that we would be moving forward with, that I could support here today.

I find it surprising that there is change of heart in terms of where you're looking to go in terms of amendments. I wish that those concerns or the change of heart would have came earlier, but it is my understanding the amendments that were agreed upon in good faith were sent over by your team.

You and I spoke on Friday, and I thought that we had walked out with an agreement. Yesterday, your staff had sent us revisions to those amendments, including removing the moratorium completely. Our staffs went back and forth with sort of what you all were thinking, what our team was understanding without any agreement.

When this was brought to my attention that the agreement that I thought that we had on Friday was no longer acceptable to the committee, I reviewed what had been sent over, what had gone back and forth between your staff and my staff, and decided that the moratorium to remove the moratorium after that.

I was fine with the moratorium up until the date they reviewed, but to me, to not have it after really leaves us with a bill that all it does is it says, hey, DPR try to do this by 29. That's all the bill says. Right now, they've been working on this for 10 years at least. They've been told to move this up to the number one or number two position of review.

I don't feel that that particular, that that amendment, the way that it changed between Friday and yesterday, gives us a bill that has any real teeth or anything beyond being almost a resolution urging them to review more quickly. I think without having the moratorium...

If they don't complete the work by 29, I'm fine with pushing the date to 29. But otherwise, you basically have a resolution that urges them to do something without any enforcement mechanism whatsoever or any certainty for the farm workers that, if they don't have a decision, they won't, that they'll be protected.

I feel at the very least, for people who have the concerns, who are working on the crops, and we've had testimony from farmers. We had a testimony from a farmer who came into the Assembly who now has Parkinson's who believes it's from using paraquat as instructed over the years.

These people want to have some kind of certainty or to not have to have to be used this pesticide that has such a strong link that it's been banned in 64 countries. And, by the way, it was banned on golf courses. Golf course operators didn't just decide to not use it. EPA banned its use for golf courses, in my mind, because they feel that, the only explanation I can see is that they feel that people interacting with golf courses are worth more than people interacting with crops. I can't understand.

No one has given me any other explanation as to why EPA went out of their way to ban it, as far as I know, for golf courses. So I understand that yesterday there was a flurry of emails going back and forth, but my understanding was when we walked out of our zoom on Friday, that those were the amendments.

Okay. Well, your team should have said that instead of engaging in continued dialogue back and forth on the language.

But they never accepted. There was a lot of language going back and forth, but there was no agreement that this was the set of amendments that we were agreeing to. There was a lot of back and forth and back and forth throughout the day.

Okay, well, do we have... Do we have questions or comments from Committee Members? Go ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just some clarifying questions. And I certainly share the author's objective and urgency here. This is, you know, again, and I don't want to get ahead of the scientists here or the evaluation, but there seems to be some at least circumstantial evidence, shall we say, that there are problems with this.

And I don't even begin to know whether or not there are reasonable, safer alternatives, which is another piece of this evaluation. But there is no doubt in my mind this is some detrimental stuff if it's not controlled and regulated properly. Let's just leave it at that.

So we have a preliminary exam that is underway, not for the first time, and at least in terms of the amendment language that's been presented to the Members, we have a reevaluation pursuant to 12824 that is much broader in scope and deeper and involves a different level of analysis and required analysis, as a matter of fact. And as I understand it, and it's reiterated in the language, that the DPR has, based upon that particular type of reevaluation, recourse to maintain, cancel or suspend registration. So at the conclusion of that evaluation and there's a suspension of registration, what is the practical effect of the suspension of registration?

Well, at that point I'm assuming that that means that they would no longer be allowing paraquat. And that's again, that's their determination. If they determined that they are going to continue to allow its use, the bill says that's fine.

I guess what I'm, and I share your intent to want an affirmative prescriptive language in the statute that says moratorium if they fail or they're not timely. And I do acknowledge the separate question of making sure the analysis is, a, conducted and done in compliance with the statute. And I thank you for even moving back a year.

I share your frustration with that. But I do take slight issue with the assertion that there isn't an enforcement mechanism when the statute that regulates this level of evaluation already prescribes potential courses of action to include suspending the registration should that be borne out in the analysis. Right. In other words, not allowing its use.

I think, and I would hope, that the parties could come to that meeting because at a bare minimum, this level of evaluation is needed. It is needed timely. It is highly valuable to obtain this data. Because I think one of the things that we're learning is that the science and the knowledge and the analysis around this is evolving. We are understanding and learning impacts to public and human health today in ways we did not understand a few years ago.

And frankly, we're derelict if we don't respond to those based on the science. So my hope is that there's a meeting between the leadership of the committee and the author that we can at least get this data done. We have a date certain for its completion. We also have a prescription in the statute that says, if the analysis itself determines that there is a risk to human health, that they have the right to suspend it.

And obviously, if they're derelict in that, if they're ignoring their own science and evaluation, if they're suddenly reprioritizing the timing, if they're out of compliance with the deadline date, you know, I'm happy to be supportive in this body to take action legislatively to address that because I, like you, don't want to see this ball kick...

This can kick down the road any further. We need the analysis done. And I, for one, I'm not going to, you know, be someone who would be willing to support tolerating that. But I'm hoping for our purposes here today, we can get to a meeting of the minds so that we can at least move on with the analysis and the data and get it done by this deadline. I agree with you. I think this is overly generous in terms of the years because of the history here.

We need the information sooner rather than later. But I also understand the legislative process, and I understand that there's at least some partial agreement here. So, Madam Chair, I hope we can get there, and that would be my sentiments and my questions, and I thank you.

Did you want a quick response?

Okay. Yes.

No, thanks. I totally agree with you, and I really appreciate your comments. And originally, this bill had a moratorium until they completed their review. That was where we started with this. So we have come a long way in saying we're okay with keeping the current status in effect, even though there is so much concern from the farmworker community, from others, from people who live near these farms, et cetera, because of the drift and elsewhere.

But we're willing to trust the process and trust DPR's analysis and to default to that. Our concern is, if this drags out to 2035, 2040, there's no recourse for these people who are right now living with paraquat, using it, and concerned. That's why we thought that it is fair to say, all right, no moratorium now.

But, and like you said, it's generous to go to 2029. But at that point, if they're not moving, if for whatever reason, they're not able to complete this, we think that we do owe it to the people that are using the substance to have that temporary moratorium until the science is done. But we trust their process, when they finish, the bill accepts whatever their decision is.

Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I, too, understand the concern that the author's bringing forward and sponsors bringing forward in terms of having some teeth at the end of this four or five year period. I also understand, being a Committee Chair here, how sometimes the best efforts, going back and forth and back and forth, end up with a little bit of confusion. I've had that happen recently, and I won't get into that, in my own committee.

And we were fortunately, in that case, able, the day of, to get a term sheet put together in writing. That wasn't, obviously, what happened here. Let me just make two points. One on procedure going forward, and one on my general concern about paraquat. I think part of the reason we need this study is because I think some of this stuff that's out there, and as, again, as someone who grew up with this, we used to just call it spray material. You know what it does sometimes, I believe, not a doctor.

I'm just going by what I've seen over a lot of years, and what I see happening to people in my own family at this point is that we have symptoms that mimic Parkinson's. It's horrible symptoms. And doctors start going down that path, you know, trying to prescribe care.

But, you know, we're in that, in that area sometimes, medically, where it's not really Parkinson's. It's something very, very similar and just as devastating to the human being because it was created, you know, introduced into the nerve system by this kind of material, as opposed to through some other process or some other genetic cause.

That said, all the more reason we need this done, and we need it done right. And frankly, if there's a lack of determination in terms of actual cause and effect, to me, but we have all this anecdotal evidence, it's a great reason for a moratorium. Not necessarily a ban, but a moratorium until people can figure it out.

Otherwise, we're literally killing people, maiming people, and destroying their nerve, potentially destroying their central nervous system. I mean, that's the real... That's what's really at stake here. And I don't think it's just farm workers. I think it's everybody who works in the environment, including farmers themselves.

You know, one of the greatest things that came out of the movement back in the day was, you know, people were no longer going to the store who were not farmers or farm workers buying apples with DDT and parathion on them because it was the farm worker movement that came forward and sort of blew the whistle on that and said, our people are dying in the fields.

The rest of you are going to be dying from eating this stuff because nobody washes it. They pick it up right directly from the grocery store and ingest it. It's not good. Going forward, Madam Chair, I would just like to perhaps have you consider, I mean, we're in this situation where if we don't move the bill forward, it doesn't have, the author doesn't have a chance to keep processing here the rest of session and try to get some teeth into this. Maybe it's not a moratorium.

Maybe it's some other fashion of putting some teeth into it that the author can come back with. And I would just wonder if the Chair would be willing to assist with that piece of it going forward. Because the committee staff here has some real experience with this and expertise in this, and I would rather not see us as a committee, just my two cents.

I defer to the Chair, but to call back some remedy or some ability that the author has to put some teeth into this in the future, if there's agreement going forward. It gives everyone a little time to sort of unravel all these emails and everything that went back and forth as well.

And I think if we can do that, we can move the bill forward. And, Madam Chair, with all due respect to you, just have an understanding that the conversation on what happens at the end of five years gets to continue until this bill gets to the floor. That's my suggestion.

Absolutely. I mean, the author, I mean, I committed to her from the very beginning that I wanted to make sure... This is a very important issue. And, of course, I live in Bakersfield. My entire family lives in the Central Valley. So it's something that I don't take lightly. I want to, I feel like I have been honest, transparent, and as fair as possible to make sure that this bill moves forward. I understand. Look, we would all like things to be expedited, right.

And moved along a little bit faster and, but, you know, we know that's not necessarily the case right now with trying to get reevaluations done. So I felt that the amendments at hand had up teeth to hold DPR accountable to doing a reevaluation of paraquat because it's important. I do feel that we have the ability as a Legislature to hold them accountable to that. If this bill gets to the Governor and signed, it's something that, again, I don't take lightly. So...

Thank you. I really appreciate the comments and the lived experience and sharing that. I think we all have the same goal. We want to make sure that, if there's a cause here and a risk here, and there's certainly a lot of evidence, that we get to the bottom of that and make sure we're protective and we want it to be realistic, too. DPR has had two pesticides under investigation, one since 1998 and one since 2003.

So I understand we are increasing the funding and we're trying to help with that. And I really appreciate all of your comments. How do we make sure that we get the expedited review that we need and that we give some certainty to people who are using this chemical and who are concerned about it, that if it's not going to happen, that they have some relief. And I'm certainly willing to continue discussing with the Chair.

And the Chair has definitely acted in good faith. And I really do appreciate your willingness to talk to us on a Friday and get everyone on a zoom with your whole staff. I appreciate that. And we will continue to talk with you. And hopefully, by the time this gets to the floor, we have something that we can all agree on.

So what is... Trying to figure, if you could just bear with me for procedure.

I am sorry for the confusion. It's a crazy time of year.

We're going to go ahead and take a quick recess.

Sure.

Okay. The Senate Committee on Agriculture is going to come back to order. Okay. So we're in the matter of AB 1963, file item number two. We provided the author the opportunity to close. You know, as Chair for the Senate Ag Committee, we... It's not my, it's not within my procedure and rules to negotiate off the dais.

And so we do have the proposed amendments in print. We also have your original language. And so I would just suggest that we either take one of those two items that are in print up for a vote. But I don't feel comfortable, and it's not, to my understanding, it's not Senate procedure for us to negotiate language off the dais.

Let me suggest this. You can pick which version you want to move, but what we're going to bring to the floor, and we'll work with you on this. But what we will bring to the floor is a version that has the 2029 date, which is different from the original version, that does not have a moratorium until then, that allows the use, and then after that has a moratorium or another enforcement mechanism that we negotiate with you.

And I would just like the assurance that we will not be called back. Obviously, we can't go back into committee, we won't have time, that this is the agreement and that we're certainly committed to working with you as to what that final language looks like that we bring to the floor.

But that is our intention to have either a moratorium after 2029 or some other enforcement mechanism that our sponsors agree will put teeth in this. But beyond just what's the committee amendment saying no moratorium now and no moratorium after. So that version we are not going to bring to the floor. So as long as there's a commitment with you that we work with you and that we are both satisfied as. To what that...

You have my commitment on that.

Okay. I appreciate that.

Okay. So we'll go ahead...

Permission to continue with comment?

Yes, please.

So I just want to express my surprise. So I was presenting another committee, and I heard what was happening in here. We do not negotiate in these committee meetings. We vote on the language that is put in front of us. My office was not given any of the items that are being discussed here today, and we are not in any position to negotiate on the amendments.

So my adherence to the Chair is that we honor the procedures of the Senate and the work that's been done by our staff and our consultants to prepare us for today's hearing. I would advise that you continue to work on this bill by resubmitting it next year. Because at this point we are ready to go to the floor on the advisement of this board, this committee, and we have done our due diligence to look at what was presented before us.

And as of today, what you're discussing here was not presented before us. And we have a strict rule to not negotiate at the dais any changes or any amendments. So what was presented to me in print, that is what I'm prepared to vote on. And that is what I asking my colleagues to vote on, is what is in print. That is my motion.

We have a motion on the amendments that are in print suggested by the committee. We'll go ahead and.

Yeah, if I could speak to that.

Okay, Senator Padilla.

Just a note for the record. I think I heard both the Chair and the author, indirectly and with some trepidation, commit to some dialogue about some mechanism of enforcement going forward. And I think I heard that on the record by both, as well as the motion to do pass as amended with what's before us. That's what I heard. And I want to be clear that I heard that come out of both the author and the Chair.

That's what, if I may, through the Chair. That's what I heard, too. And we do have amendments that we can move forward. The motion is do pass to the amendments, but we also have the ability under Senate instruction, the pro tem's rules, to recess if there needs to be an agreement.

My understanding is that recess happened, and I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. My understanding was, in effect, that the Chair will not callback the bill if, but instead cooperate with discussions around an enforcement mechanism without specifying what that enforcement mechanism might be or what that language might look like. That's what I heard during the recess. And, Chair, I if I'm saying putting words in your mouth or going beyond, it's. A good time,

I would need a motion on that.

It's a good time to clear that up, especially for the Senators here.

I would need a motion on that.

Well, I offer... I offer a substitute motions if we already have a motion on the floor.

So I'm sitting here as an equal participant on this committee with not a document in front of me. So whatever side conversations were happening in recess was not privy to a public participation. And so I'm going to object to any side conversations or side deals that were made during recess because that information is not put in front of the public and it's not put in front of me as a voting Member.

We can take a piece of paper and put, no call back and ask the Chair and the author to sign it. I think that satisfies Senate rules, but that's all. That's the language that we use with regard to this kind of a matter where there's a pending issue that is not going to be asserted by the committee until further dialogue happens. But nobody's questioning the amendments that are part of the motion.

So we did get clarification that any further amendments should be taken in Appropriations.

Correct. That's the next stop.

Right. So we have the amendments in print that we suggested, and we have a motion, is...

That's correct, Madam Chair.

Okay. Okay, so we have a motion.

That's correct, ma'am.

Assistant, please call the roll.

File item two, AB 1962.

Point of order. Yes, I believe a substitute motion was proffered by Senator Cortese.

Okay.

By Robert's Rules, a substitute motion would have to be heard first.

Okay.

If the substitute motion passes, then the original motion dies. If the substitute motion doesn't pass, then the original motion would be the next vote taken up.

Okay, we'll go ahead and move with your motion, Senator Cortese. Thank you.

The motion is do pass as amended with any further amendments considered to be taken in Appropriations with the ongoing, with the ongoing supervision of this committee. That's the motion.

Okay, so what does she want us to say then? Go ahead and recess once again, apologize for that. The Senate Committee on Agriculture is back to order. Thank you for your patience, everybody. We're back to file item number two, AB 1963. We had one motion, then we had a subsequent motion.

Withdraw the substitute motion.

Okay, it has been withdrawn. We're going back to the original motion.

Chair, if I could clarify my motion. Yes. My motion is to do pass as amended to Appropriations.

Thank you. Assistant, can you please call the roll?

Motion is on file item two, AB 1963. Motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations with a commitment to continue working in Appropriations on the amendments that were discussed.

Madam Chair, may I speak to the motion before a vote? I just want to point out that essentially what was just articulated, essentially the same thing the Senator was trying to get in a substitute motion. I understand procedurally that may be difficult circumstantially, but I just want to point that out.

That's, I think, essentially what was just articulated about the pending vote is essentially what we've been arguing for, basically trying to find a way forward to solve this. I appreciate the Chair's leadership and patience, and I appreciate that of the author, and I'll be happy to support the motion.

Motion is on file item two, AB 1963, Friedman, do pass as amended to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, that bill has three votes, and we will place that bill on call.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, last but not least, file item number four, AB 2436. The author is not here, so we'll go ahead and take a recess. You're here for item number four. Feel free to begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. All right, my witnesses are good to go. Well, thank you for this opportunity to speak with all of you today about AB 2436. The goal of AB 2436 is to keep the Bureau of Livestock Identification operational and revenue neutral by adjusting statutory fees to align with the actual cost of the Vital Livestock Inspection Services. The Bureau of Livestock Identification under CDFA is fully funded by brand registration fees and inspection fees paid for by cattle producers.

Recently, operational costs have surged due to inflation, increased wages for brand inspectors, the transitions to an electric vehicle fleet to support the state's climate objectives, and other economic challenges. AB 2436 will enable the Bureau to continue protecting cattle producers from theft and misappropriation of livestock. With me today, I have Jason Bryant with the Cattlemen's Association to testify.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Senators. Jason Bryant, on behalf of the California Cattlemen's Association. We're sponsors of the bill. The bill would adjust the statutory cattle inspection fees payable to Department of Food and Agriculture's Bureau of Livestock Identification. There are 60 hardworking brand inspectors providing valuable services to beef producers and dairy farmers in this state.

They've routine inspection of cattle to prevent the loss, theft, or straying or misappropriation of livestock in this state, and it's important that the Inspection Department is funded. This bill helps us do that. I want to make a clear point here.

The bill does not increase inspection fees in practical terms, it does after while it does after the statutory fees. It merely codifies the existing fees which have already been in place since January 1, when the advisory board, made up of producers, voted to increase their fees for that service.

The bill allows then the secretary to adjust those fees accordingly, up or down, depending. And so there's a process that's been in place to engage producers to make sure that the fees are appropriate. The bill reflects that, and we're thankful for the author to bring it forward and appreciate your consideration today and support the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any others in support of this measure in this room? Seeing none. Okay. Do we have any opposition? Seeing none. Okay. Do we have any questions or comments from Committee Members on this measure? Okay, we have a motion to move the bill, and seeing questions or comments, would you like to close?

Ask for respectful aye vote. Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a close. Assistant, please call the roll.

Motion is on file item four, AB 2436 by Assemblymember Alanis. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, the bill has four votes, and that bill is going to be placed on call. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, that wraps up our Committee Hearing. We do have a couple bills that are on call, so we'll go ahead and ask Members of the Committee to come in and for a final vote.

Okay, we're going to lift the call. Assistant, call the room. File item one, AB 1864, by Assemblymember Connelly. The motion is do pass to Appropriations with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Please close the door so that we can conduct our meeting. Thank you.

File item two, AB 1963, by Assemblymember Friedman. The motion is do pass as amended to Appropriations. The current vote is 3-0, Chair voting aye. [Roll Call] So that one's 3-0 on file. Motion is on the consent calendar. File items 3 and 5, AB 2324 and AB 2721. The current vote is three. The Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

Okay, we'll wait for one more Committee Member. Thank you. Okay, we're gonna, we're lifting the call. This is the last one. And, Assistant, please call the roll.

File item one, AB 1864. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. Current vote is 4-0, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

So the vote is 4-0, that measure is out.

File item two, AB 1963, by Assemblymember Friedman. The current vote is 3-0, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

So the vote is 3-0 and that bill is out.

File item four, AB 2436 by Assemblymember Alanis. The motion is do pass to Appropriations. The current vote is 4-0. [Roll Call]

The vote is 4-0. That bill is out.

The motion is on the consent calendar. File items 3 and 5, AB 2324 and AB 2721. The current vote is 4-0, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

The vote is 4-0 and that bill is out. Okay, that wraps up. Thank you, everyone, and we'll see you next time.