Senate Standing Committee on Environmental Quality

Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this joint hearing of the Assembly Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee and the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. Before we jump in, I want to acknowledge Chair Blakespear and thank her for her committee's partnership in putting this together. We'll be hearing from her in a minute. I also wanna thank members of the public for making the trek to join us today and the interpreters who are providing simultaneous interpretation for audience members in the room. With that, let's get started.

The title of today's hearing is "Putting Public Protection First, Is California's Pesticide Program Achieving Its Purpose?" That gets straight to the heart of why we're here today, to learn about our state's pesticide program and hear how the Department of Pesticide Regulation, or DPR as we'll be calling it, tackles its mission of ensuring that pesticide use doesn't come at the cost of human health or the environment. This is a critical conversation. California is an agricultural powerhouse.

We produce nearly half of the vegetables and over three quarters of the fruits grown in the entire United States.

Our agricultural sector employs hundreds of thousands of people. And in 2023, there were a 176,000,000 million pounds of pesticides applied across the state. A majority of that was for production of agriculture, but some of it was for other uses, like structural pest control. With a scale that huge, I think we can all say why it's, so essential that pest management is not just effective, but also safe and sustainable. It's important we remember that the same properties that make pesticides effective can also make them dangerous.

Along these lines, I'm encouraged that the state has articulated a goal of transitioning away from the most dangerous pesticides towards sustainable pest management or SPM. I'm also encouraged that a couple of years ago, the legislature passed AB 2113, which increased DPR's funding, initiated much needed improvements, to some of DPR's processes, and establish the legislature's intent to advance SPM and safer alternatives. But as I think we'll hear today, our work is not done.

It's been two years since, AB 2113's enactment, three years since the state released the SPM road map, and nearly a decade since the last oversight hearing on DPR. Now is a great time to review the state's pesticide program.

Indeed, this is the very reason that last year, I proposed an audit to examine the enforcement and oversight relationship between DPR and county agricultural commissioners. That audit, which is underway at the California State Auditor's Office, will also determine whether state laws or regulations need to be changed to ensure consistent enforcement of our state's pesticide laws. I wanna thank in advance all the panelists, and we'll be hearing from some great folks for sharing their perspectives and expertise with us today.

And director Morrison for coming to share DPR's work. I'll turn it over now, to my colleague, Chair Blakespear.

Well, thank you. Hello, everybody, in the audience. It's nice to see so many of you here today. Hello. I would like to start by saying a big thank you to Chair Assembly member Connolly for your remarks and also for your leadership on this committee on and on so many environmental topics.

He's really a great partner, and we work together, the Senate and the Assembly, on these important things. I'm looking forward to hearing all of the testimonies today that address DPR's reform measures and progress in our efforts to advance the use of safer alternatives and sustainable pest management practices. The title of this hearing starts with putting public protection first, and as my colleague said, that really does say it all. We must prioritize public health as we support agricultural production with pest control.

We've seen how damaging heavy pesticide use can be on people's health.

Studies have detailed the harm done to individuals, especially those on the front lines of agricultural production, our farmworker community. This has provoked calls for reform and more thoughtful oversight of pesticide use. Reform also addressed various inefficiencies and deficits that the department faced. As we continue to implement these measures, we also seek accountability and partnership to support the department's success. The issue regarding pesticides and their regulation is front of mind for me and for my community.

My Senate district, which covers Northern San Diego County and Southern Orange County, includes a community of Ladera Ranch, where recently, a handful of rare childhood cancer cases have raised serious questions. It is heartbreaking, and I want to acknowledge that nothing is worse than watching children suffer and potentially lose their lives at a very young age.

I also want to acknowledge the grief and loss to this community as well as the grief and loss that is felt in communities across the state that have grappled with uncertainty when similar incidents occur. In Ladera Ranch, we hear you. And for those who are watching and listening in, I want you to know that the California Department of Public Health has already begun an investigation into the concerns that we've all raised to them and whether those cancer cases are connected to environmental factors.

The final report will be completed this fall. In a briefing last week, alongside assembly member Sanchez, Orange County supervisor Katrina Foley, and a representative from congressman Mike Levin's office, we made it clear to CDPH we expect a thorough report with a comprehensive scope to capture any and all potential links to cancer. We also made it clear to CDPH that we expect a transparent and public process that is open and accessible to the community.

Although a cause has not been determined, the community is understandably concerned about the use of pesticides and herbicides, and there has been a lot of conversation about taking precautions and proactively addressing their use through integrated or sustainable pest management. Whether pesticides are related to the concerns in Ladera Ranch or not, I'm encouraged that in my district and in the state, we are working to transition away from the use of harmful chemicals and looking toward advancing practices that are more protective of public health.

From communities near the coast like Ladera Ranch to the farmworker communities of the Central Valley and across the state, Californians deserve to be protected from the hazards of pesticides, and DPR's mission and programs are critical to that. I wanna thank my colleagues in the Assembly for leading our efforts to improve DPR and everyone else who's working toward the same goal.

I also wanna say thank you to director Morrison and the panelists who will be speaking with us today and providing us with vital information on pesticides management and the department's progress on reform. I also wanna say thank you to the public who is all here today. I will now hand it back to you Assembly member Connolly to get us started if there are no other members who would like to make opening statements.

Thank you, Senator. And we are happy to acknowledge Assembly members Dixon and Sanchez who are joining us today. Welcome. I think with that, we'll dive right into panel one, pesticides, human health, and California's pesticide program. We will have two panelists.

Welcome. Whenever you're ready, just dive right in.

How about now? Yes. Great. Good afternoon. Chair Connolly, check Chair Blakespear, and members of the committees, thank you so much for your attention today and the opportunity to be here today with you.

My name is Anna Maria Mora. I'm a physician by training. I'm also an environmental epidemiologist trained at UC Berkeley, and I work at the Center for Environmental Research and Community Health at the School of Public Health at Berkeley. I wanna start where I come from. I grew up in a rural community in Costa Rica, and I trained as a physician, as I mentioned before.

Early in my career, I worked as a primary health care doctor in a coffee growing town where many of my patients were farm workers and their families. In the exam room, I saw what it means to live and work surrounded by pesticides. And I saw that the people most exposed were often the people with the least protection. That is what brought me to this work. That's what brought me to UC Berkeley.

And since 2008, it has been my focus here in California. Since then, I've worked in the study called CHAMACOS, the Center for Health Assessment of Mothers and Children in Salinas. It's one of the longest running studies on pesticides health effects in the country. Beginning in 1999, we enrolled 601 women from clinic serving farmworker families in the Salinas Valley, the salad bowl of the nation where more than half a million pounds or of organophosphate pesticides were applied each year.

We have followed their kids from birth into mid adulthood.

These babies are now in their mid twenties. Along the way, we have collected more than 400,000 biological samples and measured in real families with living near agriculture means for their health. So let me share four things that I have learned, and I'll keep them as simple as I can. One, exposure to pesticides is universal, and it begins before birth.

When we measure pesticide breakdown products in the urine of pregnant women in our study, we found them in every single woman at levels much, much higher than in the US average.

We found these chemicals in ninety seven percent of the breast milk samples that we collected and in nearly all dust samples from the homes that we collected. So a child in this community is exposed since the time they're in the womb through the dust in the air in their homes and also through the food that they take in. And this is not a rare event. Two, the health effects we measured are serious and they're long lasting.

We focused first on organophosphates, which is a class of pesticides or insecticides that attack the nervous system.

Children whose mothers had higher exposures during pregnancy had shorter pregnancies and more abnormal reflexes at birth. As they grew, we saw problems of attention at age five, poor working memory executive function by age 12, and more traits associated with autism at age 14. Using brain imaging in our teenagers, we found that those exposed before birth show reduced activation in parts of the brain that are used to solve problems in our daily lives.

We also found that pesticide exposure was linked to poorer lung function in childhood and to markers of liver inflammation and cardiometabolic outcomes in young adulthood. The third point I wanna share is that children are not small adults.

They're genuinely more vulnerable. Our bodies use an enzyme called PON1 that helps us detoxify or break down the organ of phosphates, this class of insecticides that I'm referring to. Young children make far less of it than adults do. So the same dose that an adult can detoxify can do real harm to a developing child.

This is exactly why your why organophosphates and the pesticide chlorpyrifos in particular have been such a concern and why California ended most of the uses of chlorpyrifos by the end of 2020.

But chlorpyrifos was one chemical in a really large family of of pesticides. Others remain in use, and newer concerns like the rising use of glyphosate and neonicotinoids are growing. The lesson is that we should evaluate these chemicals as classes, but also as mixtures, not one molecule at a time. And the fourth point I wanna share that I've learned, and this is the heart of it, is that the burden is not shared equally. The families in our study are overwhelmingly immigrant, Spanish speaking, and low income.

When we look closely, we found that the harm from pesticides was stronger in the kids who face poverty and other social stressors at home. In one analysis, prenatal exposure to organophosphates was linked to a two and a half point drop in IQ in children with lower in lower adversity homes compared to an eight point drop of IQ in the kids living with higher adversity.

Pesticides and social stress are like a double jeopardy or a double burden, and they fall hardest on the children who can least absorb them. So what does this mean for how California attracts and protects health? I want to be constructive because the state has taken real steps.

The chlorpyrifospan, the launch of spray days California last year, the nation's first state wise pesticide notification system, and the sustainable pest management road map are all meaningful progress. But from a scientist Chair, I see four gaps. The first one is that we need we do track chemicals better than we track people. California knows a great deal about which pesticides are applied and where through its pesticide use reporting system.

The most comprehensive in the nation and the envy of a lot of countries around the world, including Costa Rica.

Trust me. But we do not systematically measure what actually ends up in people's bodies. I would urge the state to build ongoing biomonitoring in agricultural communities so we can track exposure in something closer to real time, not only through one time research studies. Our Tamacus women were pregnant in 2000. Much has changed in pesticide use then, and we need to know now what exposure is occurring to those who live near agricultural fields as well as to the general population through food sources.

The second gap is that we need to connect the exposure to health. Linking pesticide use data to birth outcomes, developmental and school data, and other vital statistics data such as cancer registries so that the state can see the harm as it emerges, not many years later or never. Third, we need to regulate for cumulative impact and for the most vulnerable window.

That means protecting pregnancy and early childhood with real buffers around homes, schools, and childcare centers, and evaluating chemicals as mixtures, which my colleague, professor Mali, will speak to. And fourth, I really encourage investing in independent community based research, the kind that produced this evidence in the first place.

I'll close what I have begun. To me, these are not data points. These are the children that we have watched grow up. From ultrasound pictures to graduation photos. They did not choose to live where they were born, and they cannot choose what to breathe.

We have the science, and we have the tools. What we owe to these families is the will to use them. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Connolly, Chair Blake Spear, and committee members. Thank you for inviting me to come here today and speak. My name is Tim Malloy. I'm a recently retired professor of law at UCLA School of Law. And for the last fifteen years or so, I and my colleagues at the School of Public Health and at the Institute of Society and Genetics have been studying the scientific, legal, and real world aspects of the regulatory system in California.

And this afternoon, I'd like to share with you some of the things that we've learned. But let's start with the regulatory system. In your packet, I've attached a graphic that I'd like to walk through. It illustrates that we have this unique system in California that operates at two tiers. So the top line of my graphic illustrates the the state tier.

Before any pesticide product can be marketed in California, it must be registered with the state of California, specifically the, California Department of Pesticide Regulation or DPR. Upon receiving an application for registration, DPR staff scientists collect extensive data, including data submitted by the applicant, and perform an evaluation of the human health and ecological risks and concerns presented by the specific uses of that pesticide. And DPR may require various mitigation approaches for the use of the pesticides such as buffer zones or use restrictions, personal protective equipment.

And for certain types of pesticides of particular concern, DPR can identify them as, quote unquote, restricted materials, which are subject to more robust regulation. So that's the first tier.

If you look at the second line of the graphic, you'll see the second tier of regulation in California, which is at the county level. This is what I'd call on the ground implementation of pesticide regulation, and it's performed by the county agricultural commissioners. 56 county agricultural commissioners operate in the state covering 58 different counties. Growers wishing to use a restricted material must obtain a restricted material permit from their local CAC. The CACs have authority to add additional restrictions in the event local conditions call for it.

In evaluating the permit application, the CAC must determine whether there are substantial adverse environmental impacts that might result from the use. And if so, consider if there are feasible alternative pesticide or mitigation measures, the so called safer alternative, that could reduce that impact. So that's the basic regulatory system, but there's actually much more to it than the kind of a raw legal structure that we've created. Other entities are important in the process.

So at the far right of the graphic, you'll see the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment or what we call OHIA.

This is a unique lead agency in the state that provides scientific, expertise regarding risk and hazards to a variety of state agencies, and in particular, in our case, DPR. It provides valuable input to DPR when they're evaluating hazards and risks of pesticides and also help them identify means of preventing those risks. Down and to the left on my graphic, you'll see the University of California, in particular, the Agricultural Natural Resources Program or ANR. ANR is also science based.

They provide scientific information regarding pest and pest management to growers and other parties.

ANR is also a global leader in integrated pest management or IPM. This is an ecologically based approach to pest management that seeks to use a combination of techniques to control pests and mitigate their impact. ANR involves itself in demonstration projects, research, and also consultation with growers and with agencies. Finally, up and to the left on my graphic, you'll see the pest control advisor or the PCA.

Now a PCA is a licensed professional who provides growers with recommendations regarding pest management and pest control, including the use of pesticides.

The PCA is a key partner for growers in selecting pest control approaches. And while some PCAs are independent, others are may be associated with particular pesticide distributors or receive commissions based on the pesticides that are purchased by their clients. Okay. So that's the structure. Now I wanna just say a little bit more about, the practices by the agencies here.

And I wanna reiterate what my colleague here said that California state program is the most comprehensive, robust state program in the country, And it complements and sometimes even exceeds what's done at the federal level in terms of pesticide regulation. In particular, there's three aspects of our regulatory program that I'd like to point out that set it apart.

First, as has already been mentioned, we have in our state an extensive pesticide use reporting system that provides decades worth of data and real time data now about where pesticides are used, what kinds, where, how much, and for what purpose. This information provides DPR researchers and the public more generally with really fine grain picture of pesticide use over time and in particular places. Second, California law requires the DPR and CACs to consider the cumulative impacts of pesticide use, which doctor Mora has mentioned before.

Now this had cumulative impacts need to be taken into account during the decision about registration and decision about issuance of restricted material permits. Agricultural workers, as well as folks who live, work, or attend school near agriculture operations are often exposed to mixtures of different pesticides. Sometimes this happens because the pesticide product being used itself has several active ingredients or other ingredients that may create hazards.

Sometimes this happens unintentionally because you may have, you know, two growers applying different pesticides close in space and close in time, creating an environmental mixture to which workers and bystanders may be exposed. Assessment of cumulative exposures is absolutely necessary to ensure adequate protection of workers and the public health.

And lastly, California law also calls for DPR and the CACs in their decision making to consider the availability of alternatives to pesticides. This is a simple principle. Right? Why would you use something that is very toxic if something that is safer is available and is, effective? This is also a principle that is embedded in the sustainable pest management strategy and in, IPM itself.

Well, now just take a step back and as despite the many laudatory aspects of the California system, as you will hear today, in numerous ways, the pro the system itself does fall short of reaching its potential. I'm gonna focus on two areas. First, cumulative exposure and then assessment of alternatives. So let's start with cumulative exposure. Our research has shown that, DPR during the registration process, with certain very limited exceptions, does not consider cumulative exposures associated with intentional or unintentional mixtures.

Now numerous factors, come into play because of this. One has to do with the fact that, DPR doesn't have the information, has not created the information to identify where these cumulative exposures are occurring. It's not because the data and the capacity are not there. The pesticide use reporting system provides ample information for DPR to identify potential cumulative exposures and then prioritize them. But it's not doing that except in very limited circumstances.

So the old adage is you manage what you measure. And if we're not measuring where cumulative exposure is happening, it's very difficult to manage the effects of that. The other second the second limitation on managing cumulative exposures is a perception that it's just too complex scientifically and administratively. Right? That the methods you often hear folks saying that the methods for assessing cumulative exposure, rigorous scientific methods are not available.

The fact is that federal and state governments have been regulating and remediating cumulative exposures in the environment for decades using various methods and platforms. So, for example, in the Federal Superfund program and in California's own air toxics, hot spots program for, air exposures, there have been methods used to estimate and predict where cumulative exposures will occur. I'll also say at the county level, the CACs also do not engage in assessment of cumulative exposures.

As with cumulative exposures, there's also much room for regarding the implementation of looking at safer alternatives. While DPR is making efforts to encourage the development and identification and registration of safer alternatives, the agency itself that's not explicitly engaged in looking at for safer alternatives during the registration process, again, with very narrow exceptions.

At the county level, alternatives assessment, the search for safer alternatives is required, and there is a structure in place for that to happen. The CACs have relied upon the pest control advisors and the growers themselves to evaluate the existence of safer alternatives. But there's no consistent framework, method, or oversight to these actions by the private PCAs and the growers. So it's difficult, as we found in our research, to identify what level of analysis was actually done in any of these cases.

Building capacity for the alternative assessment is essential for making this requirement and, in fact, the sustainable pest management program itself viable.

The CACs recognize the obligation to engage in AA, but have offloaded that responsibility to other parties. Part of that can be traced to the fact that they simply do not have, direction or assistance from, DPR in terms of how to make those sorts of difficult evaluations. In closing, I wanna just offer four general principles, I think, that could guide our search for improving this unique regulatory system. First, implement what is feasible now.

It is true that cumulative exposure analysis is and can be very complicated, but recognizing that the perfect should not overcome the feasible or the good is an important element here.

We can take advantage of some interim measures to take care of the evaluation of cumulative exposures now while spending time and resources to develop more particular assessment methods that can be used in the future. Second, make use of the existing resources that we have. DPR has access to many useful resources that can support their growth. We have both already mentioned the pesticide use reporting program that can help DPR identify common cumulative exposure situations.

Resources and, expertise of DPR sisters agencies can also be helpful here, such as the Department of Toxic Substances Control, which has a very robust program developing alternative assessment methods that can be used in various industrial settings, and the Air Resources Board toxic air contaminant modeling programs, which already allow for interim assessment of cumulative exposures to toxic chemicals.

Third, we have to remember that when we optimize public health in the environment, we also have to do that through cost effective means. So the cost of enhancing registration and permitting processes will increase the costs of to industry, to agencies, and to consumers. Principles of good regulation and the structures of state administrative law emphasize the importance of making sure that this regulation achieves its goals in a cost effective way. And then lastly, I think it's important to establish sustainable and sufficient funding.

Implementation of meaningful reforms in these areas will require additional funding for DPR, for the CACs, for OHIA, and for other agencies.

The legislature and administration should be taking steps to identify and implement stable funding strategies to support these efforts as we've seen done with respect to other agencies facing the need to reform their programs. Thank you again for the opportunity to talk to you about these matters, and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you both. I have a couple questions for each panelist, and I'll look to my colleagues. Doctor Mora, starting with you, you said that as a state, we're pretty good at tracking pesticide use, but not so good at tracking exposure. Do you think we could be more proactive in pesticide regulation if we had the kind of biomonitoring data, that you're describing. I'm thinking about, for example, situations like what's happening in Chair of Blakesphere's district.

I'm sure she'll be speaking to that later, where it seems like we're investigating a human health problem, but only after it's already caused serious harm to the community.

Yeah. Thank you for the question. I think also regarding the La De Laurent situation, it's really hard to go back in time if we haven't been tracking them over time in terms of their exposure. Regardless of that, I was talking to professor Malloy, dealing reducing these exposures in general for the population is beneficial from every point of view, not only reducing the risk of cancer, but other health effects like the ones I presented during my testimony.

I think having biomonitoring data would be able would allow us to assess not only the amount of pesticide that it's actually getting into people's bodies, which is very different than the amount it's being registered.

Because pesticides are processed in different ways and metabolized, degraded in different ways in the environment, And it's not always the same amount that it's being applied near us if we live in an agricultural community compared to the amount that is going into our body and the amount that it's actually that being excreted and how much it remains in our body stored over time.

So I think a biomonitoring program would allow us to better understand the sources of exposure of agricultural communities and also track the body burden of these chemicals for these populations.

Yeah. Picking up on another part of your testimony, as you know, in recent years, the legislature has had a lot of conversations about looking at chemicals as a class. For example, and I'm looking at Assembly member Schultz. We've talked about that with respect to PFAS and bisphenols and consumer products. But we haven't really talked about that approach in turn or used that approach in terms of pesticides, at least not until this year with the Schultz bill.

Do you think taking a chemical by chemical approach might, in some cases, cause us to miss important health risk, especially when it comes to cumulative exposures?

I believe it does. It almost feels and we've talked about amongst ourselves. It's almost like a walk a mole game. The way the chemicals are approved and then regulated within the pesticide realm seems a little bit counter, it doesn't quite make sense to me in the sense that in for a lot of other chemicals, for example, the medicines, we need to prove safety before before these chemicals are approved.

For some of the environmental toxicants we're commonly exposed to through our day to day life, like PFOS, PFO, and other, chemicals like phenols, it's the opposite.

The chemicals are approved where they're used. And until we prove that they're harmful for people's health, they're not banned or extracted from our products. It feels like a similar method to what we're using to medicine should be used also in other products that are exposed to. So I think it's a great idea to think about classes rather than one at a time. Science is now moving as fast as these chemicals are being introduced in our daily lives.

So looking at them as a class and also thinking about the mixtures that were exposed, because we don't live in one bubble at a time. We don't get exposed to fennels when we use shampoo. There's also phthalates. There's also microplastics. What else are we bringing into our bodies?

So we need to think about how they interact with each other and how we do live in a chemical world and how do we deal with the exposures.

Thanks. And then, Professor Malloy, in terms of need and improvements, you talked about two things, cumulative exposure and safer alternatives. First, am I understanding correctly that DPR is required not as to consider cumulative exposures and avail availability of alternatives in its decision making? And in your view, does DPR need to do more to support our local ag commissioners in complying with requirements, pertaining to cumulative exposure evaluations and alternatives assessments?

Thank you for that. The well, let me address front that question of is it mandatory, and then I'll say a few words beyond that. There is a case law that came out in 2017 appellate court case that made it clear that state agencies, and in this case, DPR, need to re in take into account substantively cumulative impacts of the regulatory actions they take, which in this case would be registration. And, also think about alternatives to those acts, which again, would be registration.

So I think there's no doubt that there's an obligation to do that.

With most things, the devil's in the details. Right? So I think there's still some, scrimmaging over what that looks like in real life. So and we'll continue, I think, to see some litigation over what the contours of those obligations look like. But if I take a step back and underneath that question is this notion, you know, should it be done, it's legally required, I believe, as do others.

I don't think there's any doubt that DPR accepts the notion. Of course, they can speak to this, that these are both important aspects of regulatory decision making which should be done. And the question here is, you know, how do they build it into an already complicated regulatory system? So, for example, take alternatives assessment.

I have seen decision making documents from DPR going years back where at the registration level, in response to comments that, hey, in approving this or registering this particular product, you didn't look at alternative and the responses.

Well, that's really something that's done at the local level where the CAC can make judgments on local conditions about whether another pesticide would be useful. The problem is when that is then shifted to the CACs, do they have the capacity to make that judgment which addresses the second part of your question? AA can be hard. And to a certain degree, folks who are less enthralled with the notion of doing alternative assessment try to emphasize the notion that it's really hard to do.

I have no doubt that it's difficult.

I believe that the CACs are not equipped to do it now because they have not been given the resources necessary to do training for staff, resources to do that work. But also at a more metal level, the development of methods for making the judgments, helping make the decision about what does safer mean, when is an alternative safer in a particular setting. We need to develop, you know, tractable, usable methods that the CA staff can apply in the real world of restricted materials permitting, which moves fast.

So they need those tools to be developed. And right now, all as far as I can tell, all that exist are, sort of checklists that don't provide really substantive direction about how to make these choices.

Thanks. You also testified about the role of pest control advisors, PCAs. One of the goals articulated in the SPM roadmap is that by 2030, advice given by PCAs will be guided by sustainable pest management, and that their recommendations won't be driven by pesticide sales commissions. I'm curious. What are your thoughts on this recommendation based on your research?

I think it's clear that PCAs are an important and valuable resource for farmers, for growers, and that it's we can't really expect individual growers to develop their own expertise on how to make decisions about alternatives. Certainly, they make the decision, but the guidance, the kind of how do you figure out, you know, the relative trade off between one pest control measure and another, that's something which they need professional support, and that's the PCA. So that's a remarkably important part of decision making in the state.

If we really want to move towards sustainable pest management, if we really want to integrate the principles and precepts of integrated pest management, sustainable pest management into our agricultural system, then the entree into that is ensuring that pest control advisors have the capacity and the knowledge and experience to do alternatives assessment. And right now, based on you know, I have not surveyed all pest control advisors.

We've had focus group studies and talked with folks. And some of them are very good at it intuitively, and some have training in IPM, and others don't. So there needs to be training. There needs to be methods developed that have the imprimatur of the agencies so that we know it's being done consistently across the state. With respect to whether, you know, there are incentives created by having pest control over advisors receiving commissions, I think that's a difficult question to answer.

I know there's been some studies that indicated that commissions do bias them towards the pesticides, and maybe intuitively, we can see why that might be the case. And then there's been other studies that suggest it doesn't have the impact. I can just tell you this that if I may, there's a similar situation where years ago, the South Coast Air Quality Management District was looking to encourage dry cleaners to adapt an existing cleaner technology for doing dry cleaning that didn't involve toxic chemicals like Perchlorothylene.

There was an alternative that was safer, and it turned out it was cheaper than perchlorothane. But they couldn't understand why it was not being adopted by by the dry cleaners.

And one of the reasons it wasn't being adopted was because the folks who were distributing the safer technology were also distributing the more costly, perchlorethylene technology, and they did not have an incentive to push the safer technology with their customers. Now that that was established as a reason why we didn't see it picking up. So that's the best I can do. I don't have direct knowledge about PCAs, and I don't wanna pretend that I do.

No. I appreciate your perspectives on that. Colleagues, questions for panel one?

Thank you very much. Couple questions. Speaking on behalf of nonscientists, the public, and, and wrestling with these facts, which are not very complete, but looking at the residential level, the urban level, it's really hard to get information and understand it. This is what I hear from a lot of residents. And the Pesticide Use Report, it's, it's very at the macro level.

How do we get to the molecular level or to the, the, the square inch, the square foot, the acreage level? How do we get to that information?

Thank you. Alright. Well, I can tell you, I think you're right. The—there is a great portal for downloading data and taking advantage of it. There are kind of reports that are generated, kind of by default, that are very useful.

But if you're, you know, you live in one small town near an agricultural field, while you can figure out what's being used around you, it's hard to understand kind of those bigger questions about what's impinging on you directly. So, so, I think there there is a need for intermediaries, folks who can take that data and convert it to ways in which it can be used for various uses, whether it's residential, commercial, or otherwise.

When we did our study, we did a study looking at cumulative exposures, and it was very difficult converting the data because the PUR data isn't—wasn't—set up to answer these questions. You have to go through, you know, sort of a very careful, statistical type work to get it down to a smaller level than—basically, it's not a census tract, but it's a very large area that the data is available for.

So, you have to build in certain assumptions and things like that. So, there would have to be work done to get more information. And if I can just add one other thing. I'm sorry to go on so long about it. But, you know, at the county level, there is a, a, a, a platform, Cal—CalAg permits—which the CACs use to keep track of what farmer is using what material.

That's not currently available generally. Right? But this is a, a platform that would allow, in real time basis, for folks to see based on where they're living, who's been applying what, and on what date. It would need more work to make it scientifically useful, but for the general resident, being able to see that information, could be also extremely useful.

So, it just gets back to my point of we already have some resources that can be leveraged to make them available. DPR also, I'm sure they'll talk about their notification system that is a new development that also gives the public more information about the pesticides that are, be using, but that's not an area of my expertise.

Well, I appreciate that, and I thank you for that. It, it just—I hear the frustration from residents when they're just trying to get information, obtain information, analyze information. It's just almost impossible, and then when they reach out, it's just confusing.

I think having an informational hearing, like you're doing today, is very helpful. I wish I could bring it down to the community level because people are really frustrated, are trying to access the portal and access information and know what the facts are. And it's just very difficult. So, I thank you. May—maybe it's just a matter of redesign.

Oh, you have a response to that too, ma'am?

I, I—what I wanted to add is that it's part of our study. We have used PR data. A lot of the chemicals that our population is—are exposed to—cannot be measured in in biological matrices. For example, methyl bromide, it's a gas. They cannot—we don't have a biomarker or something that you can use to determine how much is getting into the body.

So, we use PR data, and you can go down to a mile or a half a mile near your residence. So, the way we have used PR data to look at cumulative exposure is that we have tracked that residences from the people in our study since the woman was pregnant and now until the kid is—and they're 25 years old now. And so, we can estimate what their exposure has been throughout their life using PR data.

What it's really important to take into account, that Timothy was saying, or Professor Malloy, is that when patterns have to take into account in temperature and other variables that affect how much of that pesticide is actually getting to your home, and that requires more processing of the data.

And so, I think that's a missing, a missing step, so that the public can take advantage of the data that are being collected.

It, it becomes an issue, I mean, just from my own understanding of the problem, and the issue is how do you know what questions to ask? And it's, it's hard. And, and knowing how to probe and get to that missing data, who to ask and get a response, I think that's problematic. So, maybe we'll be hearing this from, from other speakers.

But that's what I'm trying to get at, how information can be accessible and available for reaction and understanding from where, in what plot of land, whether it's a football field or a median strip, what, what is happening in that area, at the composition of the chemical, and the pesticide, and, and how they absorb that or how they just deal with that information intellectually.

It's very difficult. It's all at a macro level.

Another useful tool, although I have not looked at it lately, is Cal EnviroScreen, which is an online—are you familiar with that?

No.

It's an online platform, I guess, is the word for it, that Ohia has created that allows you to put in your address or an area, and it pulls together data from, like, from all different sources to allow you to see air, water, soils—to allow you to see the cumulative impacts of all of this.

So, it's a, it's a tool, and it's, for example, that's another tool that could be leveraged by the agencies in thinking about cumulative exposure. Although we're not there yet, it's kind of a beginning.

So, that's another...

Can the average person access that EnviroScreen?

Yes. But it takes some learning. I mean, I think there are resources available on that website.

Okay.

And folks that can help. But, yeah, it's very complicated stuff. So, it's, you know, it's hard for me to say, you know, how much you get out of it.

Well, I'll look into that. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate both of you. Thank you.

Assemblymember Schultz.

Yes. Thank you very much, Mister Chair. Thank you to both of the panelists. The Chair actually asked my questions, so I'll just offer the briefest of comments. Look, I, I understand and I appreciate that DPR has this this very laudable commendable goal of phasing out eliminating the use of high risk and priority by 2050.

And I think the Chair nailed it in his question, and I so appreciated your answer. I'm gonna clip it and share it with all my friends in industry. I think if we're serious about meeting that goal, we have to start looking at entire classes of active ingredients and products as opposed to taking it case by case.

Because the reality is what is on the market today, what is being used in California, contains active ingredients with linkages to childhood cancer, to neuro—neurodevelopmental disorders—and the step-by-step approach is not working, and we're not moving nearly fast enough at DPR. So, just from one legislator's perspective, we have got to do better, and our constituents deserve better.

Thank you all so much. Thank you, Mister Chair.

Thank you. Seeing no other—no other comments—or questions, thank you very much to Panel One. Appreciate it. Okay. We'll move to Panel Two, Perspectives on California's Pesticide Program from Frontline Communities and Environmental Justice. Come on up.

Welcome. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, members of the committee and Chair Connolly. My name is Angel Garcia. I am with Californians for Pesticide Reform and I wanna start off by saying that California is often and and rightly recognized for being ahead of the curve in protecting the environment and human health. But when it comes to pesticides, more can be done.

California is behind the times and allows in continued use of some of the most highly hazardous pesticides and in failing to adequately support growers' transition to safer, more sustainable agricultural practices. Now, the scale of the problem is alarming for families. California still allows the use of dozens of pesticide active ingredients that have been banned in other important agricultural economies. And we can list all those, but that would take up the whole hearing of all the countries.

But I will say that—that we're not talking about obscure or lightly used products.

We're talking about some of the most hazardous pesticides. And just to list one, we can go with 1,3-dichloropropene, a carcinogenic soil fumigant linked to cancer and serious respiratory harm and has been banned in 40 countries. In California, more than 7,000,000 pounds of 1,3-D were used on crops in 2023.

And while we welcome yesterday's DPR announcement of paraquat's voluntary cancellation, we wanna note that the EU banned paraquat almost 20 ago, and we are concerned to note that the existing stocks can still be used for two more years. Now, to remind us, paraquat is an extremely toxic herbicide associated with acute poisonings and lon- term neurological damage.

So, question here, why is California, a supposed environmental leader, so far behind the times on this? And I just wanna point out two—three things—that I think can get the conversation started. But one of them is the mill fee conflict of interest. So, the Department of Pesticide Regulation, the very agency charged with protecting human health and the environment, relies heavily on pesticide sales to fund its operations.

In other words, DPR's budget, roughly 80—80%—of it, is tied to the continued sale and use of the very chemicals it is supposed to regulate.

And this is not a hypothetical. In fact, in recent fiscal assessment related to legislation on PFAS containing pesticides, DPR explicitly, explicitly stated that reducing the use of pesticides of this category would undermine its own ability to function because it would reduce mill fee revenue. So, the mill fee also makes no distinction between pesticide products that are particularly hazardous and the ones that are less toxic. Each is subject to the same fee rate with no incentive to use best practices or products less likely to cause harm.

The other point I wanna point out to is the failure to account for the true cost of pesticide use.

When potential restrictions on pesticides are being considered, state processes routinely require an analysis of the potential financial impact on the pesticide industry and growers, but not a comparable rigorous assessment of the financial and social costs born by the public. That is, for example, health costs, hospitalizations for triggered asthma attacks and other emergencies, chronic cancers, developmental disorders such such as ADHD, lowered IQ, and other neurodevelopmental harms in children. Then, there's also economic costs.

For example, lost wages due to illness among farm workers and rural residents, missed school days, and this was an important one—potential reduced lifetime earning potential for children harmed by early life exposure.

And then, we also have the environmental and cleanup costs, that is contamination of groundwater and surface waters, expensive cleanup efforts. We have long-term damage to the soil, biodiversity in the climate, and harm to pollinators and other beneficial species essential to many of our crops here in California. So, by focusing exclusively on potential short-term cost to industry while ignoring these massive ongoing cost to people, communities, and ecosystems, our state's regulatory framework is fundamentally skewed in favor of continued pesticide use.

And lastly, we have, and I think it's been pointed or at least touched on, the built in bias in pest, pest management advice. That is, California allows pest control advisors, the professionals many growers depend on for guidance on how to manage pests, to work directly for pesticide manufacturers and distributors and to receive commission based on pesticide sales.

This creates a profound conflict of interest. Advisors whose income depends on selling pesticides cannot be expected to consistently prioritize non-chemical approaches, integrated pest management, or other safer and more sustainable alternatives. So, today, you will hear DPR highlight a list of actions that they've had taken to improve the system. A few of these action steps, or a few of these highlights, are real steps and are tangible. There's the language access and education through initiatives like the Language Access hub.

There's also the Spray Days that many of us maybe have heard of or at least are aware of. But they—but these are only incremental, and they do not fix the core structural problems that keep California tethered to an outdated—to outdated hazardous pesticides—and prevent us from moving swiftly towards safer, more resilient agricultural systems.

So, as long as DPR's budget depends on pesticide sales, as long as we refuse to account for true cost to people in the environment, and as long as we tolerate conflicted pest management advice, California will remain dangerously behind the curve. So, to conclude, California must act now and adopt a tiered mill fee system that incentivizes the use of less hazardous pesticides. They should require accounting of the health, environmental, and social cost of pesticide use in regulatory decisions.

They should accelerate support for growers to adopt safer alternatives and more sustainable agricultural practices. California has the resources, the innovation, the responsibility to lead. On pesticides, we are failing to do so, and every year of delay means more preventable harm to our communities, or workers, or children, or environment.

So, I urge members of the committee here to treat this as an urgent structural crisis, that it is, and to commit to exploring both systemic reforms that will finally bring our state's pesticide policies with our stated values and with global best practices. Thank you for your time.

I'll pass it over to my colleagues.

Good afternoon, Chair Connolly and Blakespear and committee members. I'm Ann Katten, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Pesticide and Work Health and Safety Specialist. Based on extensive oversight, I conclude that DPR is failing in its mission to protect human health and the environment, and farm workers and other residents in agricultural areas are suffering both immediate and long-term health impacts as a result. DPR takes years to complete risk assessments and reevaluation and even more time to implement mitigations.

AB 2113 improves the process somewhat for reevaluations only.

DPR is not acting in the face of clear evidence of harm as the following examples illustrate. Organophosphate pesticide share a neurotoxic mode of action, and the CHAMAKA Study has linked exposure with elevated risks of neurodevelopmental problems and asthma in children. Yet, alarmingly, use of four organophosphates—acetate, benzylid, malathion, and dimethylate—actually increased in California between 2021 and 2023, and a recent study found that in 2021, half of pregnant people in Monterey County lived within one kilometer of fields treated with organophosphates.

The soil fumigant, chloropicrin, has been in reevaluation for twenty five years.

Meanwhile, use and air levels of this potent respiratory irritant that may cause cancer have risen. For the pesticide carbaryl, DPR identified very high cancer risks to farm workers twelve years ago, but has taken no action yet and just recently delayed initiating mitigations for another eighteen months. For total release foggers, or bug bombs that are sold over the counter, DPR logged an average of 56 illness incidents per year between 2018 and 2024, but a reevaluation wasn't initiated until just last month.

Both OEHHA and CDPH have urged DPR to look at the combined toxic effects of exposure to the soil fume against 1,3-D and chloropicrin since they're often applied together but to no avail. DPR almost never looks at the combined impacts of exposure to multiple pesticides applied in the same tank mix or the same area.

When DPR does adopt pesticide use restrictions, they often fall far short of adequately protecting people's health because of DPR's apparent reluctance to take—change—pesticide use patterns. As a prime example, use of the carcinogenic soil fumigant, 1,3-D, was suspended in 1990 after air levels posing high cancer risk were measured. Five years later, 1,3-D was brought back under a regulatory use cap framework managed by the manufacturer of 1,3-D.

Under industry pressure to allow even more use, DPR first relaxed the use cap unscientifically and then weakened the cancer potency calculation over OEHHA's objection to allow much higher air levels. As a result of litigation, DPR was compelled to adopt regulations, but the regulations were designed to protect communities to a cancer regulatory level 14 times less protective than OEHHA's Prop 65 No Significant Risk Level, and it included no protection for workers laboring in nearby fumigated—near to fumigated fields.

Follow-up legal action compelled DPR to work with OEHHA to develop a regulation to protect these farm workers. But unfortunately, further litigation is now underway challenging the adequacy of DPR's health protections for residents, inconsistency between the regulations, and underestimated a farm work—underestimation of farm workers' exposure to 1,3-D.

Since the regulation was adopted, 1,3-D use has actually increased statewide in 2025, and air levels have increased at a majority of air monitoring sites even though new application methods were supposed to reduce air emissions of 1,3-D. To begin to address these problems, DPR needs to follow, rather than ignore, OEHHA's recommendations to reduce exposures to more health protective levels.

DPR also needs to actively link the sustainable pesticide pest management roadmap process to policy changes to reduce pesticide exposure burden on workers and rural communities.

This must include timelines that begin the phase out of priority pesticides now. We cannot afford to wait until 2050. Thank you for convening the supported hearing.

Good afternoon, Chair Connolly and Blakespear. My name is Bianca Lopez. I am a cofounder of a grassroots organization in the Central Valley, located in Stanislaus County. And today, I'd like to share a little bit about lack of governance and implementation at DPR.

Most Californians don't get to interact with the Department of Pesticide Regulation. Our direct connection at the local level for regulatory systems is through the county ag commissioners. Over the past several years, our organization has worked alongside parents, farm workers, schools, county ag commissioners, and the Department of Pesticide Regulation to respond to pesticide incidents, report violations, and improve protections. Community reporting after the Modesto Christian Private School pesticide drift that occurred in 2023 helped lead to expand protections to private school students through AB 1864 and improvements in pesticide notification requirements.

Today, we are also now helping do the ground truth implementation of that law and have shared our concerns, with DPR. That experience has taught me something important. Passing a law or adopting a regulation is only the first step. Most communities assume these laws are being implemented as intended. The only reason we know implementation gaps exist is because community organizations like ours are doing the work of and verifying implementation ourselves.

We have to become our own data analysis, our own advocates, our own lawyers, our own scientists. That raises what I believe is the central governance question for this committee: how does DPR know its policies are being implemented consistently across California? DPR develops important regulations, guidance documents, and statewide initiatives. Those are valuable tools.

But guidance alone does not ensure implementation. Our coalition is currently ground truthing AB 1864 and is already identifying implementation gaps between what the law requires and what communities are experiencing. Good governance doesn't assume implementation. It verifies it. California establishes statewide minimum protections, but implementation often varies across counties, and I'll share some examples of what that looks like at the ground level.

When families report pesticide drift or possible pesticide—pesticide drift incidents—the information that we receive at the, at the local level by the ag commissioners is very different. Some communities will receive very thorough information, the name of the actual pesticides that people were affected or possibly affected by, and other communities will not get that information. School Notify, as mentioned earlier, is a statewide system for schools and farmers to share information, but the lack of, of participation on School Notify goes un—unaddressed.

There is a lack of outreach to schools, and the implementation of this actual protective measure varies across counties and is very—has very—low participation across the state. Language access. The Language Access Hub is a great thing, but guidance has not been implemented consistently across CAC offices. They couldn't even get ag commissioners to participate thoroughly in the survey.

Farm workers continue to report pesticide exposures and worker rights violations involving labor contractors, yet many workers remain unfamiliar with the role of the CAC or how to access protections already provided under California law, as Ms. Dixon shared earlier.

Lastly, I'd like to just mention something relevant about Spray Days. Spray Days is a California system that was implemented. It's the first of it's—in the nation. It's first, it's the —it's the first public advanced notification system for agricultural pesticide use, and literally, thousands of community members, members, have requested exact field application location from the beginning so that people can help protect their families. DPR has explained that the state currently lacks the infrastructure to provide that level of precision.

California has said that it can build precise location based notification systems for other public safety issues like wildfires, sex offenders, air quality. Communities deserve the same commitment when it comes to pesticide exposure. These examples are not arguments against local innovation. Many of California's strongest protections began at the local level before becoming statewide standards. The question is whether DPR is consistently evaluating implementation, identifying gaps, and learning from local successes to strengthen statewide protections.

My recommendation is simple. Guidance should be beginning—the beginning of implementation—not at the end. Community shouldn't have to verify whether statewide protections are being implemented as intended. That should be the core responsibility of the agency responsible for overseeing California's pesticide regulation system. Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you. And I have a question for each of you. Mr. Garcia, starting with you, and you noted the fact that much of the Department's revenue actually comes from pesticide sales. So, potential conflict in that does that create a situation where it could hurt the state's ability to implement its SPM goals? I, I was interested in your mentioning of the use of a tiered approach to funding and whether that might be better than what than what we currently have.

Can you say a bit more about how that might work?

Yeah. I can, I can start it off and, and, and put—invite my colleagues to also give their, their input on this? Yeah. So, whenever we go to the communities and we share that much of the, the Department's budget is, is tied to, to the sales of, of pesticides, it really—the reactions are always the same. It's always a shock followed by frustration and anger.

And I think that for us, that is really hard to to reconcile the fact that an agency's budget is dependent on the sales. It just continues this cycle of of pesticide dependency.

Now, as for the, the adoption of a tiered mill fee, I think that can be one way to start that conversation because by encouraging and the push for revisiting what they're gonna be using, it will—we're hoping that that will really encourage to look into other ways of, of, you know, adopting pesticides that or, or products that are not gonna be harming the community.

So we do feel that, you know, we we gotta we gotta also push for a system that allows for people, for growers, for for for the system to explore and break away from this paradigm where it's only pesticides. It doesn't matter the damage that they cause, but there are gonna be just the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the the same.

What we want is something that if it's less drained—harmful—or is the least harmful, then let's go ahead and recognize that and and provide bigger incentives to it. Right.

Ms. Katten, from what I understand, reevaluation is one of DPR's main tools for looking at the safety of a registered pesticide. The legislature has heard loud and clear that the process does need major improvements. And I think you noted that, especially with respect to transparency reporting and timelines. That's one of the reasons we passed AB 2113. But what I'm hearing now is that we need to do more work on this front.

If the Legislature were to pick up this issue again, what additional improvements do you think we need to consider for pesticide reevaluation?

Well, for pesticide reevaluation, I mean, you have put in place some, you know, a, a certain number that have to be started every year, maybe more would be good, and, and, and importantly, a deadline for doing for developing mitigations and then putting them in place. I guess what I was alluding to is that for the pesticides that are under continuous evaluation instead of reevaluation, those same requirements aren't in place.

There's no deadline for, for developing and implementing mitigations, and I think that's a a really big gap. And there are a lot of pesticides that the risk assessment hasn't been completed for decades.

And so, they never even get to the continuous evaluation. So, to try to put some of the same requirements on completion of, of risk assessments and the continuous evaluation process, which more of what I was getting at.

Okay. Appreciate that. And, Ms. Lopez, you, you spoke compellingly about, from a community level perspective, most of the interaction is with the county ag commissioners. And another issue we're very interested in is really what role do, do you wish, or should the DPR play when communities encounter local enforcement problems? So, kinda speaking to that under our system, that inner interface, if you will.

Yeah. So, while counties have the authority and the ability and the autonomy to increment or increase protections at the local level when we show data or, for example, the pesticide drift incidents that happened in in Stanislaus County, you know, those are—that's evidence for us that the buffer zone that is right, right now is just currently a quarter mile, should be extended or be considered at the local level here in Stanislaus County. The ag commissioner will, will point to DPR and say, "Well, no. That's DPR's responsibility."

That's a statewide regulation. And if they want to extend it, then they should do that. Right? Even though—but then we go to DPR, and as they know, the ag commissioner, that's their responsibility to be more localized and create better protections at the local level if they see the need. So, there is just a direct finger pointing of "No, it's them. No, it's them."

But DPR lacks the leadership and the ability to implement its authority at the local level. We do have other communities who do have the extended buffer zones beyond a quarter mile, and I just wish that the Department of Pesticide Regulation will implement the most protective measures across the state, as one example.

Yeah. Appreciate that. Other members? Yes, Assembly member.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Just to follow-up on that, I, I have had meetings, just background briefing meetings, with Agriculture and the Department of Messaging and Control, and I, I've seen this happen. Has the, has DPR initiated a proactive—do they follow-up? Have they issued a—or have they performed an examination or research or investigation with those reports? Did they do it on their own?

As far as I've known, you know, that information, if they're doing it, we are not becoming aware of that. They recently released the pesticide exposure report, and I don't know the exact name of the report, from 2023, where they did list the 19 students that were affected of the pesticide drift incident at Modesto Christian School. And my direct and immediate question was, like, so what is DPR going to do to extend protections at the local level?

And, and that was, you know, my simple question to them. Obviously, they said, we'll get back to you.

We'll get this to the right—your question to the right person.

And nothing ever happened?

Well, it—that was just recent. But usually, you know, they go back and, and talk about it amongst themselves, and they—there is no actual implementation with better protections.

I, I, I can understand that. I've experienced that myself. Just a—there's just a lot of overlap, and everybody's doing what, in their lane, and it's just bringing conclusions from that is difficult. I understand that. Well, thank you very much.

Thank you.

Other questions or comments in relation to Panel Two?

If I may.

Yes.

Absolutely.

Just real quick.

The experience at the community level for a lot of the, the concern—public—is that there is and it remains very unclear and blurry where—what the DPR and our commissioner relationship is at. As my colleague pointed out, they point at each other in terms of who is tasked with additional enforcements at the local level.

And the experience has been that, to the point that we've involve US EPA to be part of those conversations so that we get a better sense of where the buck stops, because at this moment, it's unclear to the community who is tasked with enforcing and implementing pesticide policy at the local level.

It's also important to note that the act commissioners are appointed by the local board of supervisors. And we have documentation and we have witnesses that have pointed to the fact in instances where act commissioners have said to the Department of Pest and Regulation Director, to their face, that their bosses are the board of supervisors and not DPR. So, that to us is—yeah.

It, it just really leaves the whole conversation very unclear as to who, who do we go to when it comes to pesticide policy in California.

Yeah. My act commissioner has said, well, we do have a MOU in place with the Department of Pesticide Regulation, but that's, that's not legally binding.

That's all very good. I've experienced the same thing. I think they're well-meaning people. It's just the, the lines of authority and regulation follow-up is just they're—it's not defined. And I, I think it could be helpful to clarify those lines of responsibility.

Thank you.

Yeah. Point well taken. And I'll just note again, this is kind of an ongoing conversation, with regard to the audit that's underway now, that we've asked for. So, with that, thank you again for coming.

We're gonna move to Panel Three, Perspectives on California's Pesticide Program from Regulated Entities. If you guys can come on up.

Welcome.

Good afternoon, Chair Connolly, Chair Blakespear, and Members of the committees. Thank you for the opportunity to make comments today. My name is Christopher Fenarelli, and I'm here on behalf of the Household and Commercial Products Association. HCPA represents companies that manufacture trusted household and commercial products used every day by Californians, including pesticides like disinfectants, insect repellents, and pet products.

Because my colleagues on today's panel will be discussing this issue from an agricultural perspective, I'd like to focus my remarks on DPR's registration program from a consumer product perspective.

I'd like to start with a simple point. Few consumer products undergo the level of federal and state scientific review required of pesticide products. Before any insect repellent, disinfectant, or pet flea product reaches a California store shelf, it has already gone undergone months, often years of scientific evaluation at the federal level. And unlike most states, California conducts its own independent scientific evaluation before registering pesticide products. That additional review makes California's program the most scientifically rigorous in the country.

It's a an additional safeguard, and HCPA appreciates that this is led by science. And so the issue has never been whether California should have a rigorous registration program. The issue from our perspective is predictability. Scientific review takes time, and companies understand that. But extended and unpredictable timelines create uncertainty for businesses trying to bring products to California's consumers, including products that are essential for public health.

You know, my daughters just came back from summer camp, and I sent them with plenty of mosquito spray before they left. Families rely on those products to protect from diseases like West Nile virus. So let's consider a company that has developed a new mosquito repellent well before the summer season. Say this product has already completed the full federal scientific review. Yet if California's registration process is delayed and unpredictable, the product may miss the entire summer season.

Not because it failed any safety standards, but because no one could predict when it would be approved. That uncertainty affects manufacturing, inventory planning, and decisions about when and whether to introduce new products into California. It also delays Californians access to the next generation of products. And that piece is an important, element when it comes to the implementation of the SPM road map. Unfortunately, that scenario that I just laid out wasn't just a hypothetical example.

For years, registration decisions have taken far longer than expected, and applications have accumulated in a growing backlog. Those challenges created uncertainty for companies and ultimately prompted the legislature to act. That's why AB 2113 is so important. AB 2113 established statutory timelines requiring DPR to make registration decisions within defined time frames beginning in July of next year. AB 2113 was never about making California's scientific review less rigorous.

It was about making the rigorous review more predictable. And I wanna thank the legislature for recognizing that challenge and establishing a framework to improve the registration process while preserving California's high scientific standards. And I also wanna recognize the real progress DPR has made on this issue. I spent years working with DPR, this legislature, and stakeholders on these issues. I believe we're in a much better place today than we have been for years.

The department has increased staffing, dedicated to registration. It has improved transparency around application timelines. Is modernizing the registration process through a new electronic system, it provided clear guidance to applicants about registration expectations, and has also worked collaboratively with stakeholders on a pilot program to identify process improvements. Director Morrison and her team deserve credit for that work. Those are serious and tangible changes.

They are doing the hard work of improving the registration system. At the same time, I don't believe we're at the point where we can declare success. Companies still need greater confidence that registration decisions will occur consistently on schedule. For many of our members, predictability is just as important as the speed of the process. They can plan around reasonable timelines, but it's much harder to plan around uncertainty.

So we're at a pivotal moment with just one year remaining before AB 2113's timelines take effect. This hearing is both timely and critically important. DPR has additional resources and has put internal reforms in place. The question now is whether implementation will deliver the results the legislature intended. That means measuring progress against clear milestones, including reductions in that backlog that I mentioned, rather than waiting until, you know, July of next year to judge whether or not there's been a successful implementation.

The legislature, stakeholders, DPR, we should all share a common understanding of those milestones and report progress so everyone knows whether implementation remains on track. California will continue to have one of the most scientifically rigorous pesticide registration programs in the country, but rigor and predictability are not competing goals. California can and should deliver both. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to today's discussion.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair, Members, and staff. Taylor Triffo on behalf of a broad coalition representing California's food and agricultural community, farmers, food processors, retailers, pest management professionals, manufacturers, and distributors. I wanna begin by recognizing, so much of my colleagues that twenty one thirteen represented a very difficult but very meaningful negotiation. There were strong opinions held on different sides, but ultimately, we reached an understanding built on two important principles. One, California's pest programs need to become more efficient, transparent, and accountable, including DPR.

Second, and if farmers, not manufacturers, farmers are gonna dub pay to double the department's budget, they ought to see meaningful improvement in the services that support agriculture and public health. And in that, we have seen progress for all the reasons that my colleague noted. And I hope doctor Morrison has an opportunity to speak about a variety of activities the departments has undertaken including Spark and EJAC.

With the influx of the new staff funded by the agricultural community, DPR is now the third largest staffed agency in the world on pesticides, only behind the EU and the US EPA, but only by 50 staff. That's a meaningful improvement in the department staffing capacities.

So we appreciate that work and the progress. But I also wanna be candid. Despite improvements, our farmers here in California are often still waiting three to five years longer than every other state to have access to newer, safer, more targeted tools. We share the comments made about made today about the need to transition, but we have to have something to transition to.

Similar to my colleague's point about manufacturers missing marketing windows, imagine you're one of the five asparagus growers left in California and there's a new pest.

There's nothing on the market to manage it, but your neighboring state and that farmer has something that works. You're an incredibly small market and the time and money it would take to get a product registered just isn't worth it for the manufacturer. And so as a farmer, you're left to watch your field die. This happened two years ago in cotton and has happened with many over many other commodities year over year.

These costs and delays have serious consequences, not just for agricultural productivity, but also for environmental stewardship.

Many of these newer products are designed to reduce application rates, avoid non target species, have lower toxicity profiles, and fit better into SPM or IPM. Delayed access means delayed environmental and public health benefits too. And unfortunately, the challenge are only gonna become even more complex. Climate change is putting more stress on crops. Implementation of Sigma will lead to the following of a million acres in the Central Valley, creating unmanaged landscapes that will be reservoirs for pests and diseases.

We have a rodent epidemic in the Central Valley because of the amount of trees and vines that have been pulled up and provide biomass and food for these rodents. And California's role in global trade continues to increase our exposure. The growth of ecommerce, international shipping, and goods movements means pests can arrive more quickly and through more pathways than ever before. Last year, California detected exotic fruit fly never seen before, requiring an extensive emergency response effort.

And we have a current outbreak, as you know, of glassy winged sharpshooter.

Looking ahead, international events like LA twenty eight will dramatically increase exposures as well. And the reality is that the threats are accelerating faster than farmers' ability to respond. And that's why we all share the same SPM goal, expanding access to newer, safer, and more sustainable tools and improving the registration process and the pace at which it goes is one of the most important ways to accomplish that. But we have to avoid creating a system, that in practice is register one and eliminate another.

California's agriculture is extraordinarily diverse.

Different crops face different pest pressures, emerging diseases, pest crop combinations, evolving resistance, and changing conditions all necessitate us to expand our toolbox, not to contract it. And the implementation of of SPM requires our capacity to respond to problems we don't even know exist today. This is why we believe that community members as well as farmers, manufacturers, PCAs, and researchers all need a meaningful seat at the table.

We all know where the gaps exist, what tools are needed and aren't being offered, and what the unintended consequences look like when they arise. The department just simply does not have the expertise to do this, similar to what doctor Malloy noted.

They're not agronomists. They don't understand this, which is why we have a UC ANR system, and we're very grateful for that. If this is really essential if California is gonna continue to reduce risk while maintaining agriculture. Finally, I wanna conclude with, I believe, our most important point. During the development of the SPF road map, which I was a part of as a member of the original work group, there was a broad agreement that the strategy rested on two equally important pillars.

The first was accelerating transition to lower risk pest management tools, which you've heard many times today through registration innovation and the adoption of safer technologies. But the second and equally important pillar was aggressively investing in pest prevention because the safest pesticide application is one that never has to occur. If there is no pest, there is no pesticide use and no exposure. Throughout the SPM process, we held these two objectives at equal weight.

We understood that preventing pest establishment would reduce pesticides more than any single regulatory action.

Unfortunately, since those discussions, much of the focus has remained on the first pillar. And I can understand today is a is an oversight of DPR and not CDFA. But while cont California continues to annually fund this work, the state has not made a corresponding investment to strengthen pest prevention infrastructure.

We have not supported CDFA's pest detection and exclusion programs, border protection stations, pest and weed management areas, expanded trapping and mapping networks, or increased public education efforts to try and prevent the introduction and the spread of invasive species. And while the all the while, federal funding has been cut.

And yet these programs represent California's first and best line of defense. Every invasive pest stopped at the border, every infestation detected early, every weed eradicated represents a pesticide use that never has to occur, economic loss that never materializes, and environmental and public health impacts that never happen. This is what SPM envisioned. So as you continue to conduct the oversight hearing, I encourage you all to continue supporting improvements in registration efficiency while also seeking to restore the balance that SPM intended about making prevention our highest priority.

If we truly want fewer pesticides in California, our greatest opportunity is prevent pests in the first place. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Hannah Kahl, and I am with Community Alliance with Family Farmers, which is a nonprofit that serves the needs of family farmers statewide. At CAF, I lead our work on ecological pest management, which aims to aid farmers in transitioning to more sustainable pest management practices. Our EPM work is part of our broader ecological farming team, which also works on assisting farmers with adopting healthy soils and climate resilience practices.

Some of my day to day work includes hosting field days centered around farmer expertise, developing resources, providing one on one technical assistance and funds for SPM practices, conducting on farm research, supporting on translating resources into Spanish.

While others have focused on regulating pesticides piece of DPR's mission, I'll focus more on fostering sustainable pest management solutions. And I'd offer that if we focus more on attention on pest management upstream, then we can deal with fewer pesticide challenges downstream. But this isn't easy. This requires holistic approaches rather than plug and play solutions, but also has significant benefits for farms, environment, and community health. I want to second what my colleague said about climate change, meaning pest problems will likely get worse.

Changing practices is also financially risky for farmers, and a majority of smaller and mid sized producers in particular are already struggling to get by. We are losing four farms per day on average. The challenges of managing pest and pest management regulations are not operating in a vacuum as farmers also continue to have to navigate increased challenges in growing their crop and often difficult to navigate rules across state and federal agencies.

It's often hard for growers to access the right kind of information or support to suit their individual SPM needs. The SPM roadmap offers some meaningful solutions and more investments are needed.

Here are recommendations we have for DPR. One, help reduce risk of SPM transitions by creating more incentives for farmers to pilot or continue SPM practices. From mating disruption to hedgerows, SPM practices can be expensive, particularly in the beginning. While some programs like CDFAs, healthy soils or organic transitions, can be used to provide support, they are not specifically targeting pest management, and the funding is not consistently available.

To help manage farmer financial risk and create smoother transitions to SPM, there really needs to be dedicated, consistent incentive programs to support farmers trialing SPM practices.

Two, resource agricultural extension, farmer to farmer learning, and one on one support around pest management, and continued education opportunities for pest control advisors or PCAs. Farmers and PCAs have limited time and have identified the need for more support on pest management on the ground. Investments are needed not only for support on practice implementation, but also for farm level pest ID and monitoring. For the past few years, there has been limited state and DPR investment in this kind of localized support for assistance.

Three, support the translation of SPM resources into other languages.

Non English speaking or farmers with English as a second language particularly struggle accessing resources as there are often few SPM resources available in their language. Four, continue to increase coordination across other agencies, boards, and departments. Land tenure, market opportunities, and water access, for example, all influence pest management. I would like to share a story of how farmer led SBM changes to offer concrete examples of a path forward.

Northern San Joaquin Valley walnut growers have led a movement around biologically integrated farming systems using biological and cultural practices to reduce inputs with CAF since the nineties.

This has created a robust system around SPM. Through CDFA opka funding, we have been able to now support co learning with multiple generations of farmers. The newer farming generation remembers being kids playing in a sea of cover crop and following their parents around, setting up mating disruption, back when these practices were uncommon. These farms continue to innovate and adapt. For example, continuing transitioning to organic and incorporating hedgerows.

This has taken farmer leadership and decades of area focused community knowledge sharing efforts. There are many regions where growers are curious and engaged and want to lead SPM shifts, and community driven change can happen statewide with more support. As you've heard, DPR has adopted a roadmap, hired new personnel, created new structures that enable it to better deliver on its mission of sustainable pest management.

Now it needs to coordinate better with other agencies and ensure those investments can reach farmers and are feasible to utilize, particularly for historically underserved farmers. And the legislature needs to ensure to continue to invest the right programs in and around in and outside DPR with both MILFI and General Fund to ensure farmers can farm in the most sustainable way as possible.

Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

Thank you to all three. Go ahead and ask a a question of each. Mister Fineralli, yeah, you read in my mind as well in terms of, like, milestones and and quantifiable results. And we'll note as you did, it sounds like transparency and communication have improved, which is a good sign. But there are still some outstanding questions about time lines.

Are there specific milestones registrants need to see over the coming, year to feel confident that DPR is on track to meet the, 2027 timeline requirements?

Yeah. I think a consistent measurement of where the backlog stands over time, that everyone understands, is probably the most, critical. And then beyond that, you know, the time it takes for a product to undergo evaluation, applications are introduced to DPR, and then they sort of sit on the proverbial desk as they wait to get through that backlog. And so the time it takes to get to that point of evaluation, is another point of measurement.

To the credit, the process it takes to go through the evaluation has significantly improved as staffing has been as the department has increased staff and done some of these other reforms, but that initial process is is definitely where there's a bottleneck.

And in some ways, it's a little opaque about where that what that happens there. So those are some suggestions that I would have in terms of looking at measurements of success.

Great. And if anyone else wants to chime in on any of the questions, feel free. Yeah.

If I may, Joe. Yeah. Of course. So there are multiple evaluation stations, and I agree with Mister Franarelli's proposal. I think one of the challenges we have is agricultural products are evaluated the same but differently.

Right? There's more evaluation stations hypothetically that an agricultural use pesticide should go through versus a hand sanitizer. And that makes sense. Right? Different exposure, different levels.

And so sometimes when the report is released about how quickly we're moving through registration, the report isn't disaggregated between how long did it take agro products registered and how long did it take home use products registered. So it's very easy to ignore the outliers on the system, which are typically agriculture because we've got so many of the other middle of that bell curve. So I do think having more transparency of the ag products versus the non ag products on that registration would be helpful.

That way, we can see are there resources lacking? Is there information registrants aren't providing in advance?

I think that would be really helpful for the ag community to see.

Great. Also wanted to note that you really kind of well stated two priorities. Shifting towards lower risk pest management and strengthening the state's focus on pest prevention. I know during the development of the SPM road map, there was an effort to bring stakeholders with a lot of diverse perspectives together, have both DPR and c d CDFA at the table. To your knowledge, has anything like that happened since the roadmap's release to support implementation plans?

The only thing is there is a resurgence of the SPM group, not all of us, but in an advisory capacity. And I just like, I I just feel the need to say this was co- chaired. This was CDFA and DPR collectively making those decisions. And so for only tending to one of those interests, it does leave us at a disadvantage of not being able to adequately implement the road map.

Great. And finally, miss Kahl, are there existing DPR programs that can support the kind of work you described, very well, kind of helping farmers adopt to SPM? Or is there something new DPR needs to develop maybe in partnership with the CDFA?

There there are grant programs that assist with farmers adapting and for research for sustainable pest management practices. Every year annually, DPR has research and outreach grants that I actually serve on the committee to evaluate. So I'm I'm familiar with that. However, what I was referring to more are programs where growers can apply throughout the year for funds that they that they need that are more more grower focused, where growers can apply and access access assistance they need when they need it.

And there are programs that I alluded to, like the Healthy Soils program, right.

Like the Organic Transition program. But there's nothing that really targets pest management funds getting directly to farmers in a live, kind of throughout the year application period.

I mean, are there things that have you've seen work that, in turn, could be scalable to a larger extent? Or

I believe there has been conversations about scaling things like the Healthy Soils program. But one thing that I would advise is to make sure that folks that have the expertise and knowledge around pest management are there... because healthy soils and pest management, there there are overlaps, especially when you're managing the entire system. But there are really specific things that you should look for when you are developing pest management strategies that someone with the expertise has to be at the table developing.

Makes sense. Other questions or comments, from colleagues on panel three?

Thank you, Mister Chair. Quick question to Mister Finarelli. I'm intrigued by the notion of pest elimination. How do we do that? And I mean, there are pests everywhere.

Have we identified the real culprits and have there been studies on which pests cause the most problems that create the need for pesticides? I mean, going to the root cause, I think, is a really smart thing to do. How do we even mosquitoes, ants, what is it?

Well, you know, look, I think as a general rule, you know, when we're we're looking at pesticide use, I don't know that it's necessarily appropriate to focus on complete elimination. I think it's, what's the appropriate, approach. And so integrated pest management is an important approach to, pest management. It, looks at, prevention. It looks at sanitation.

It looks at exclusion and builds up to pesticide use. That is a sort of holistic approach of pesticide application. Now when you have an infestation, for example, we we recently had here in Sacramento at a department building and 1,500 employees had to go work from home as a result of that. You know, there's gonna be certain tools in your toolbox that you're gonna wanna use that include pesticides at that point. Right?

So I think it's more of a focus of using the products appropriately. Lastly, I'll just say, you know, look, we have here in California the most comprehensive, evaluation system in the country, and that's after what happens at the EPA in looking at toxicology, in looking at human health, and looking at in environmental impact. So when there's a product on the shelf and when there is a product used, people know that it is meeting the state standard for safety and public public health.

Presuming they use it the the the product as as prescribed on the label, which is very important. So I think having a holistic approach of pest management is the most effective approach and the best approach in when it comes to environmental impact and public health.

Okay. Just a quick follow-up. Alright. My very limited knowledge of integrated pest management at the local level when I was on the city council, and various school districts were wanting to deal with the artificial turf or get rid of the grass and put in artificial turf. And now several years have passed and now the movement has shifted to maybe it's the problem is artificial turf that's causing problems.

And it's integrated pet pest management trying to determine how to reduce the pesticide application and the timing and the frequency, but we're still back to square one and trying to understand what we're trying to get rid of or treat or so I feel like we're going in a in a giant circle.

Yeah. Well well, I guess what I'll say to that is is, there are gonna be pests that exist. Right? There are cockroaches or rodents, and those are gonna exist. And they introduce certain health risks to the public, and we have certain tools in order to address them.

I can't speak to the the turf issue specifically, but I can tell you that when you're looking at a facility at a school, you're gonna take certain approaches to that facility in terms of sanitation, in terms of blocking entryways for insects or rodents, for example, in order to prevent them from be showing up in the first place so that you are either doing fewer applications of pesticides or not using them at all if you don't have the presence of of a pest.

So I again, can't speak to the turf issue, but I still would look at it more holistically in terms of trying to prevent first and then and move from there.

Another question. As you say these, I think of other things. Okay. If it's not pests, then we hear about invasive species. So these are plants that come from somewhere else.

And they need to be presumably eradicated because they are causing damage to the native species. I always hear about eradicating invasive species. Are they highly problematic? And what data exists to identify what is a good native species and what is a not good native species?

Yeah. Well, I would defer to my agricultural partners on that question, which is really where that invasive species issue comes up.

Yeah. Thank you. I'm happy to answer that. So CDFA has a comprehensive pest rating system where they've looked at and the the numbers don't align, but right A is the highest priority pest, and I'm sure the agricultural commissioner can explain more. But they put in a tiered system.

Is this pest new? Is it endemic? And is it damaging enough to the ecosystem or the environment? Or is it a is it a haven for a vector for diseases? So much so that we have to do an elimination.

Anything less than that, we monitor, we trap, we we treat where we need to around high priority facilities. And then anything less than that, we'll decide to not do a statewide eradication project. And so there is an entire pest rating system at the state level and at the federal level that manages and guides growers, commercial applicators, County Ag commissioners, and the state in just what decision they make overlaid with an IPM framework.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

One note that I would add that I think relates to this is just, although most of what I mentioned speaks more to non-pesticide, sustainable pest management measures, I will also say that the what a lot of folks have brought up with the pesticide use report database is really, really strong and powerful. But in relation to, I think, where you're getting at, one gap is that with that database, we don't know what pest is tied to pesticides that are used.

There are efforts, to do strategic working groups that others have alluded to, to try to get more at, okay, what are the what are the pests that these pesticides are used for? But having and supporting that discussion really provides a fuller picture to try to navigate these conversations.

I would look forward to those conversations. Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you, panel. Appreciate it. We're gonna move to panel four, perspectives from local California's local enforcers, County AG commissioners. We have one witness. Welcome.

Push that button, if you will. There we go.

There we go. Now we're working. Good afternoon, Chair Connolly, Chair Blakespear, and members of the committee. My name is Chris de Nijs. I am the current agricultural commissioner for the County Of Nevada as well as the president of the California Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer Association, also known as CASA.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today on behalf of the California Agricultural Commissioners and Sealers Association, which represents the agricultural commissioners and sealers from all 58 counties. California's pesticide regulatory program is widely recognized as one of the most comprehensive and protective pesticide regulatory systems in the world. That success is built on a unique partnership between the Department of Pesticide Regulation, DPR, and California County Agricultural Commissioners. While DPR establishes statewide policy, it registers pesticide products and provides oversight.

County agriculture commissioners are responsible for implementing and enforcing those laws at the local level.

Together, this partnership protects public health, agricultural workers, the environment, and California agriculture. In our communities, County Agricultural Commissioner serves as the face of California's pesticide regulatory program. Everyday, County Agricultural Commissioner staff work directly with growers, pest control businesses, license applicators, workers, schools, neighboring communities, and local government. Simply put, we educate, we inspect, we investigate, and enforce pesticide laws in our own communities. Our responsibilities are extensive.

Commissioners issue permits for restricted material pesticides, evaluate proposed pesticide applications to ensure compliance with state regulations and local conditions, conduct inspections of pesticide applications, agricultural use records, worker safety training records, pesticide dealers, and pest control businesses. We also investigate pesticide illnesses and drift complaints, respond to emergencies, collect pesticide use information, and take enforcement actions when we find violations. County agricultural commissioners also bring something that cannot be replicated at the state level. That's local knowledge.

We understand crops being grown, local weather conditions, surrounding communities, environmental sensitive areas, water resources, and unique county specific concerns.

That local expertise allows us to make informed permitting decisions and respond quickly when issues arrive. While this partnership has served California well for decades, the responsibilities placed upon the agencies have continued to expand significantly. Today, commissioners are expected not only to enforce pesticide laws, but also to implement new technologies, respond to increasing complex regulations, address emerging pests, investigate pesticide incidents, engage in public outreach, and respond to heightened public expectations regarding transport transparency and environmental justice.

Unfortunately, the resources available to counties have not kept pace with these expanding responsibilities. Many counties face ongoing staffing shortages, difficulty recruiting and retaining qualified inspectors and biologists, increasing training requirements, and rising operational cost have really has contributed to these shortfalls.

The complexity of investigations have also increased dramatically. Modern investigations often involve extensive documentation, electronic records, laboratory analysis, GIS mapping, interviews, and detailed technical review. These investigations require highly trained staff and considerable amount of time. At the same time, commissioners are being asked to implement new DPR or legislative initiatives without always having sufficient funding or implement implementation guidance to do so effectively. Another challenge is the increasing administrative workload.

Every new reporting requirement, training mandate, database implementation, or policy directive requires local staff time. And while each individual requirement may seem manageable, collectively, they reduce the amount of time inspectors in the field conducting inspections where we need them most. Educating applicators and responding to instance, these active activities are the most most directly protect public health and in the environment. With respect to our relationship with DPR, I want to emphasize that county agriculture measures and DPR share the same mission.

We want a pesticide regulatory program that is science based, consistent, transparent, and protective.

We appreciate DPR's technical expertise, training programs, licensing support, scientific research resources, and the and professionalism of many departmental staff. Daily communications between county staff and DPR subject matter experts often work very well, particularly when addressing complex technical questions or emerging situations. We have many examples of productive collaboration that ultimately benefit Californians.

While we have experienced significant communication challenge in the past and have previously shared concerns with this body, I am pleased to say that our working relationship with the department's current leadership continues to be constructive and productive. Although we do don't agree on every policy or regulatory issue, there's a shared commitment to open dialogue, mutual respect, and collaboration.

County agriculture commissioners feel that their expertise and perspectives are valued and that they're being treated as a true partner in implementing and enforcing California's pesticide regulatory program. That a collective approach has strengthened communication, improved problem solving, and better positioned us to serve the people of California. Perhaps the most critical element of a successful state local partnership is meaningful engagement engagement during policy development. County agricultural commissioners need to be involved early in this process, not after a major policy addition has already been made.

Because commissioners are responsible for implementing many of DPR's policies at the local level, our opt our, operational expertise provides valuable insight into practical challenges, the resources needed, and the potential unintended consequences.

Engaging counties from the outset leads to more effective, implementable policies, reduces delays and confusions during rollout, and ultimately strengthens California's pesticide regulatory program. We are encouraged by the substantial progress that has been made in this area and look forward to continuing on building that momentum through the early meaningful collaboration with the department. There's also opportunity to strengthen the partnership through greater recognition that California's counties vary considerably. A one size fits all implementation approach does not always reflect diversity of California agriculture.

What works in one county may not be appropriate in another due to difference in crops, geography, climate, staffing levels, or community needs.

Maintaining appropriate local flexibility while ensuring statewide consistency has long been one of the strengths of California's pesticide regulatory system. As a legislator considers way to strengthen California's pesticide program, we offer several recommendations. First, invest in local agencies responsible for implementing the program. Stable and adequate funding for county pesticide regulatory programs is essential if California expects timely permitting, inspections, investigations, and enforcement. Second, Engage County agricultural commissioners early when developing new policies, regulation, and implementation strategies.

Counties provide practical implementation experience that can provide policy outcomes while reducing unintended consequences. Third, ensure that new responsibilities are accompanied by sufficient implementation resources, training, technology support, and realistic timelines. Successful implementation depends on having the capacity to carry out new programs new programs effectively. Finally, continue to strengthen the communication and collaboration between DPR and county agricultural commissioners. The regular engagement, shared problem solving, and mutual respect for complimentary roles each plays within the California Pesticide Regulatory System.

California pesticide regulatory program has earned its reputation because it combines strong statewide standards with knowledgeable local implementation. That partnership remains a foundation of our success. County Ag Commissioners are proud of the work our staff performs every day. They respond to complaints at all hours, collect thousands of inspections annually, investigate complex incidents, educate pesticide users, and work diligent to protect workers, communities, agriculture, and the environment.

We remain committed to working collaboratively with DPR, the legislator, growers, applicators, environmental organizations, labor representatives, and all stakeholders to continue to improve California's pesticide regulatory program.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, commissioner, and do appreciate your perspectives, the work you and your colleagues do. I have a few comments and then leading up to a a couple of questions. In recent years, DPR and county agricultural commissioners have been the subject of several investigations, including a US EPA audit and an LA Times investigation that focused on farmworker pesticide exposures.

One top line concern emerging from these investigations pertains to inconsistencies in how Ag commissioners identify pesticide violations and levy penalties, and whether penalties are too low to serve as effective deterrent. Another concern pertains to whether Ag commissioners consider cumulative exposures and perform alternatives assessments during the permitting process for restricted materials, which are the most dangerous pesticides used in California.

In addition, one of our earlier speakers found through his research that alternative assessments are often performed by pest control advisors who might be paid commission based on pesticide sales with little to no substantive review or oversight by Ag Commission staff. So, appreciate, from your testimony that Ag Commissioners are under resourced. That's something we need to work with you on.

But what are you going to what are you doing to make sure our pesticide laws pertaining in pertaining to cumulative exposure evaluations, alternatives, assessments, and farmworker protections are being enforced? And would better tools from DPR help with implementing these laws?

It's a lot in that question there. Let me start with the cumulative and alternative, topic there. Our role as county act commissioners is issuing restricted material permits, evaluating that proposed application, and providing mitigation or conditions to that permit should that application need some mitigating circumstances. When it comes to the alternatives, our role really is to ensure that the application meets the requirements and regulations of of the state laws and regulations.

We wanna be kinda careful in our approach to this because we don't want to kinda go into the lane of pest management providing pest management program recommendations to them.

We don't want to offer an alternative product. There may be there could be potential issues with that in the sense of, you know, trying to understand all the mitigating circumstances of why a specific pesticide was recommended by the grower or their PCA. So we really rely on what our role is, is to mitigate any issues that might be arise from that pesticide and to enforce the standards within the laws and regulations.

As far as field workers, you know, our every county commissioner is committed to protecting field workers. You know, there is always and in the news, we've seen a lot, you know, where there's distrust and and quite honestly, trust isn't given to us.

We have to earn that trust by the actions we do every single day. The way we respond to complaints in the community, the way we are transparent in our approach to enforcement. We have to earn that trust every single day. I know all county commissioners are committed to earning that trust. And so, you know, I would welcome anybody that has concerns with how, you know, things are being done in those counties.

I recommend that they would reach out to their county commissioner. County ag commissioners are more than willing to discuss, you know, things they can with that that are appropriate.

Great. And then kind of some specific tools or resources you feel that would better help serve the mission.

Yeah. I'm very thankful recently. The Department of SI Regulation have created a community engagement fund where it allows us to go out and interact with, you know, the stakeholders. It's a fund that allows us to, really help serve those underserved communities, helps us engage in direct communications with that. And so that's something that's fairly new recently and very thankful for that.

Great. Other questions from, committee members? Comments? Not seeing any. Well, thank you so much again.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

We're gonna move to our final panel, number 5, Department of Pesticide Regulation. We're expecting Karen Morrison, director of DPR. There she is.

If you can press that button there.

Good afternoon. Thank you. I appreciate the time the committee is setting aside today to consider the important work of managing pests and pesticides. I'm reminded daily that our work impacts many and appreciate the reflection of that by the communities, researchers, regulated industries, and regulatory partners who have spoken today about their work in this area. The department's mission is to protect human health and the environment by fostering sustainable pest management and regulating pesticides with a vision of pest management that is safe, effective, and sustainable for everyone.

This mission is critical because while pesticides have inherent risks, they are designed to kill or deter pests. Effective pest management is critical to protect the health of our urban and rural communities and the environments, provide stability to California's healthy food supply, and to protect critical infrastructure.

I wanna begin my remarks with some background on the sustainable pest management road map and the recent budget action in twenty fourth 2024, and then we'll transition into updates on our implementation of AB 2113 and other key programmatic work. The goal is to give you a comprehensive understanding of a a list of topics, as a part of today's hearing and to show how our department's coordinated efforts and recent updates safeguard both human health and the environment.

So in 2021, DPR, alongside CalEPA and CDFA, convened a diverse cross sector work group to recommend a course of action to accelerate a system wide transition to SPM in agriculture and urban environments that supports agriculture and our communities.

This was the first time DPR had taken on this type of long term visionary strategic planning for what the future of pest management could look like in California. Released in January 2023, the SPM roadmap envisions a future where approaches to pest management promote human health and safety, ecosystem resilience, agricultural sustainability, community well-being, and economic vitality.

The road map further envisions the implementation of these approaches will help steward the state's natural and cultural resources, enabling healthy lives for all and an abundant healthy food supply for future generations. In 2023 and 2024, DPR gathered feedback from interested parties, including California tribes, community based organizations, impacted communities, growers, regulated entities, and regulatory partners on how to accomplish the goals identified in the road map and create systems to support statewide adoption.

This feedback informs DPR's five year strategic plan, which included measurable year specific milestones for DPR as well as our broader approaches for implementation.

Now this implementation of the SPM road map requires investment, both in people and processes to be successful. DPR's work to evaluate and regulate pesticides relies on the dedication of our highly skilled and trained professionals, including the hundreds of scientists employed by the department across a range of disciplines. This work is supported by fees. DPR's primary funding source, the mill assessment that comes from the first sale of a pesticide in California, had been fixed statutorily for twenty years.

In 2023, an independent study found that DPR was critically underfunded and that existing resources did not adequately support the department's statutory and programmatic responsibilities, limiting DPR's ability to implement the goals identified in the SPM road map.

In 2024, the legislature made significant investments into DPR's mission and vision of sustainable pest management as reflected in the passage of the budget act and AB 2113. The budget included 120 new positions, representing a 25% department expansion phased in over three years, as well as a four year phased in increase in the mill assessment.

AB 2113 includes statutory requirements to use our new resources to expand the efficiencies, urgency, and transparency of our work, including our registration timelines and actions in our continuous evaluation and mitigation program through reevaluation. Full implementation will take time as reflected in our five year strategic plan. However, and importantly, DPR is already taking significant action and leveraging the newly allocated resources to provide a strong foundation to meet or exceed the associated legislative obligations while building additional capacity to accomplish our broader goals.

So I wanna transition into more specifically discussing our work at the department to implement AB 2113 and other priorities, specifically focusing on four areas, availability of tools to manage pests, continuous evaluation, mitigation, and enforcement, all of which are informed by our public engagement. DPR is actively involved in two areas of work to support the availability of tools to manage pests. The first is investing in research and demonstration projects to lower risk for lower risk or nonchemical techniques to manage pests.

Starting with the 2024 budget, DPR increased the amount of grants by five times the previous baseline to support alternative pest management. Through the SPM grant program, we awarded over $5,000,000 to a range of innovative projects earlier this year.

This included nearly 2,000,000 to SPM approaches to control some of the most challenging pests in California, including diamondback moth and rodents. This grant program is significantly oversubscribed. We received 71 applications requesting over $40,000,000 in funding, but we're only able to support eight projects.

Additionally, we have implemented other measures to advance the adoption of safer pest management alternatives, including approving 320 continuing education courses for pest control advisors and pest management professionals that are consistent with SPM, pilot projects to demonstrate SPM effectiveness and practice, recently funding a regional approach to naval orange worm management, and continued exploration of other incentive programs through procurement and recognizing IPM innovation through our annual award program.

DPR also reviews all registered pesticide products to evaluate potential human health and environmental effects prior to approving their sale or use in California.

Products are first reviewed by US EPA and again by DPR to layer on California specific conditions and necessary requirements for safe use in the state. The registration process can be a lengthy one, as you've heard, due to the department's thorough scientific process to evaluate the toxicity of the pesticides, determine their environmental fate, and consider potential exposure routes to the most sensitive population.

All pesticides go through the same rigorous scientific evaluation process regardless of how the product is being applied, what it's being used on, or its product formulation. A v twenty one thirteen created timeline and reporting requirements for DPR's review and evaluation of new pesticide registrations.

With the increased staff in the registration related branches, short term initiatives, and transitioning from a paper based to electronic registration system, DPR has built the capacity to move through backlogs and implement efficiencies that best position us to meet the registration timelines that go into effect in one year.

As of today, our registration process is moving two times faster for most products and four times faster for our most complex reviews of new active ingredients without sacrificing scientific integrity or rigor. Once a product has been registered, we continue to evaluate the pesticide products after their approval. This allows DPR to respond to changes in scientific knowledge, use patterns, or other factors.

The continuous evaluation of pesticides includes comprehensive collection and evaluation of a variety of data, including pesticide sales and use, reported illnesses, and ongoing monitoring of air, groundwater, surface water, and ecosystems. DPR may further analyze this data by initiating a targeted risk assessment to quantify risk or launching a formal reevaluation to collect additional data where there may be gaps.

Collectively, these actions inform DPR's understanding of pesticide impacts and regulatory actions to mitigate risks. To further support this work, DPR recently established a new advisory committee, the Scientific Prioritization and Review Committee or SPARC. SPARC met publicly for the first time last week and will provide a science driven platform for broad awareness and discussion of how we prioritize our work and focus our resources on the areas of greatest potential risk first.

I wanna take a moment to expand on reevaluations as a part of our continuous evaluation program. Reevaluation, as I mentioned, is a formal science driven process to assess pesticide risks and mitigate those risk when necessary.

It includes five general steps, identify a problem and initiate the reevaluation, collect needed data, evaluate the data to determine risk, develop strategies to reduce risk, and implement mitigation measures. A key strength of the reevaluation program is DPR's authority to require new scientific studies when data gaps are identified. A reevaluation can take years to complete. The duration varies considerably depending on the complexity of any new data required and the extent of existing use of the product, for example, on a large number of different crops or sites.

DPR submitted a report to the legislature in July that provides a more detailed overview of the process of reevaluation and our current work to increase efficiencies and transparencies in the process.

The report also notes some areas that may be challenging in the future. Since the passage of AB 2113, DPR has met the annual reevaluation requirements, including its most recently initiated reevaluation for total release foggers and our work on paraquat.

DPR will keep assessing needed capacity or other changes to strengthen reevaluations and maintain scientific rigor and timely responses to emerging risk and continue working with interested parties and the legislature to improve policies, programs, timelines, ensuring the state's pest management framework stays current, protective, and responsive. When a risk is identified either through a risk assessment or a reevaluation, DPR can take action to regulate the pesticide, adopt mitigation measures, or work to change the label requirements to reduce the potential for exposure.

One specific way would we medic mitigate pesticide exposure is by designating a pesticide as a restricted material, and this is based on the potential for a product to cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment when used according to label directions.

Pesticides that are designated as restricted materials have additional use requirements imposed on them, which may include some or all of the following, applicator certification from DPR or the commissioners, enhanced supervision requirements for uncertified applicators, restricted material permitting from the commissioners, or additional requirements established by regulation. More broadly, the public can follow depart the department's progress on reevaluations, risk assessment, and other mitigation action through our website, and these metrics are now updated every six months.

The rules and requirements I just described are only effective when they are followed. And so to support community health and environmental protections and to provide a level playing field for businesses, DPR conducts and oversees a robust statewide enforcement program. DPR is responsible for overall statewide enforcement of pesticide use and laws and regulation, which includes a unique partnership with the 55 county agricultural commissioners covering all 58 counties and their combined 500 inspectors throughout the state.

DPR is required to evaluate every county's pesticide program at least once every three years and conducts more than 400 oversight inspections of commissioners annually, including assessing how inspections are conducted, how consistently commissioners' enforcement actions are, and how knowledgeable individual staff are. DPR also provides ongoing guidance to commissioners on how to enforce new requirements to ensure enforcement uniformity across the state. To update and provide stronger enforcement in California, particularly for repeat or egregious violations, DPR noticed a proposed rulemaking in June of this year.

We're currently reviewing comments submitted, but see this as an important step as a part of our statewide enforcement role. DPR is also the primary enforcer for pesticide sales into California, licensing, pesticide residue, and more.

We ensure compliance with sales through on-site and online surveillance to ensure products that are being sold into California are registered for that use. We take licensing action, which may include civil penalties, suspension, or revocation of a license against bad actors, and conduct continuous produce inspections to verify that produce residues are within federally established thresholds. We strive to make our work more transparent and decision making process more inclusive by engaging groups and individuals in academia, impacted communities, regulated entities, tribes, and more.

To accomplish this, we have launched three new committees. One, SPARC, I already mentioned, but also the environmental justice advisory committee and SPM Advisory Committee to provide an avenue for interested parties and members of the public to formally engage and inform our decision making processes.

We want all of these committees to be successful in their stated goals. And with any new endeavor, we expect there to be some adjustments over the next year to align committee functions with current needs. We have also launched new tools such as Spray Days, which provides a notice to the public before the scheduled application of restricted materials requiring a permit used in production agriculture. And moving forward, we will maintain a strong emphasis on transparency and meaningful engagement.

The four topics I just described, availability of tools to manage pests, continuous evaluation, mitigation, and enforcement, are key areas of focus for the department and are supplemented by our work around outreach, education, and engagement.

At DPR, these efforts our active pursuit of our mission of protecting human health and the environment by promoting sustainable pest management and regulating pesticides. This is reflected in our strategic plan and our daily work to lower risk to register lower risk pesticides, evaluate and mitigate ongoing risks as needed, and enforce those requirements consistently throughout California.

We are still in a transitional period relative to the full vision of the SBM road map and the goals in AB 2113, but we are making significant and measurable progress. And I expect that work to continue to accelerate as we are fully staffed, trained, and implementing our new programs. Thank you again for the opportunity to share our work, and I look forward to any questions you may have.

Thank you. Assemblymember Schultz.

Thank you very much, Mister Chair. Thank you to the witness for your testimony today. For the sake of time, I have just one question. You mentioned Paraquat. Yesterday, the department put out a press release stating that all manufacturers of pesticide products containing Paraquat have voluntarily canceled their product registrations, beginning the phase out of the use of paraquat in California.

For just a little bit of background, as early as 2011, DPR identified paraquat as a pesticide of high concern, yet didn't do anything about it in my estimation, including putting it into the reevaluation process. In fact, it wasn't until the legislature passed AB 1963 by my predecessor, Laura Harabedian, in 2024, which required the reevaluation that the department began of of Paraquat.

DPR requested and this is probably the most important part of the lead up to my question that I think the public should be aware of. DPR requested registrants to submit scientific data by 06/05/2026 to address newly identified gaps in DPR's human health toxicology database among other requirements. Rather than submit the data to the department as requested, the manufacturers began voluntarily canceling registration of paraquat pesticide products in California.

The point of my question is, shouldn't we, as a legislative branch of the state government and more broadly, shouldn't we as the public be concerned when pesticide manufacturers decide to voluntarily cancel registration of their products rather than providing the data requested by the department regarding their impact on human health and the

environment? So I appreciate the question, and I think this is something that we have been very mindful of more generally as a part of our reevaluation processes, where we review a significant amount of data prior to the registration of products and scientific knowledge continues to advance. There continue to be other issues that come up as a part of that.

I think what we have found in looking at our reevaluation process as a whole is that, historically, there has been slow responsiveness to provide data to the departments. And I think to your broader point where that creates gaps in terms of protections for the risks that we have identified that have initiated that reevaluation.

I think a key priority for us as a part of Paraquat specifically to use that as an example was to stay very much on top of the timelines that we're moving through, mindful of the statutory deadline in 2029 to complete the reevaluation and to make sure that delays in providing data were not allowing for the companies to not be accountable to the requirements under state law as a part of that.

Well, thank you very much. I know that was a tough question. You did well in answering it. And I would just say, Mister Chair, thank you for having today's hearing and letting me be part of it. I appreciate that this step is being taken to the benefit of all California consumers.

But I do think we should all be incredibly troubled that some of these folks in industry would not provide the data as requested and rather take the product off the market. That, I think, paints the picture that I'm trying to paint, and we should all be, very critical, quite frankly, of those decisions being made. Thank you.

And maybe if I can add one point to that, if I may, is that as a part of so we have currently 10 open reevaluations within the departments and are actively working through data reviews for many of those. So I I don't want to undervalue where we are working quite closely with companies in a number of other places to be able to gather the data, provide it to the department, and to do our review.

But I think looking at the full scope of our authorities, I think it's important for us to be looking at all of those pieces together.

Thanks. So I wanna take a few minutes and discuss rodenticides. As we heard today, d p a DPR has processes in place to evaluate the safety of registered pesticides. But in recent years, the legislature has at times deemed it necessary to compel the department to take action for some especially concerning pesticides. For anticoagulant rodenticides, the legislature has passed multiple bills over the last several years to increasingly restrict their use because we now know that they pose serious risk to non target wildlife and pets.

Among other things, we pass bills that enact a moratorium on their use until DPR completes reevaluations and adopts regulations that restrict their use. Last fall, DPR released draft proposed regulations even though the scientific assessments, which I understand to be crucial to the reevaluation process, weren't yet complete. Director, can you help us understand why DPR released draft proposed regulations well before the scientific assessments were completed?

In other words, how could DPR know that these draft proposed regs would be sufficiently protective of wildlife and public health when the scientific assessments were not yet done and and, frankly, still are not done?

Thank you for the question, Chair, and appreciated the chance to chat with you about this Yes. Last week as well. I wanna reflect that we fully understand that our work on rodenticides is a priority for the legislature. It's a priority for the departments. I'm very mindful that the the management of rodents straddles this really challenging line of rodents are carriers of disease.

They can cause significant economic damage in large enough populations, and also that the control measures that are in place that are that could be used to manage them, including the anticoagulant rodenticides, have significant secondary impacts to non target wildlife. And so, we are very interested in how we can consider both of those elements as a part of appropriately restricting the use of rodenticides in a permanent fashion beyond the moratorium, and to do so in a way that is practical, to be able to implement.

And so as a part of that with the release of the, I think, early stage draft proposal last year was to work in parallel to the scientific evaluation on risk to also get early feedback on potential mitigation measures to be able to address, those concerns, including looking at elements of what sites are appropriate, what length of duration of having a bait out and available is appropriate, and how does that reflect where we could look at measures to be able to reduce exposure.

We received quite a lot of feedback for that, and that is coming back and and influencing our scientific evaluation as well. It's an opportunity to provide to have that sort of input for additional information.

We're also continuing to work with NGOs and industry groups on some of their proposals for how we can further refine how we think about practical mitigation measures, make best use of technology or other tools, to be able to, again, balance all of these different factors that we're including. I can confirm that we are, currently working toward completing our scientific evaluation toward the end of the year, and that would support any regulatory action by the department.

Yeah. Thanks. The draft regs also expanded the use of rodenticides to new places like grocery stores and restaurants as we also discussed the other day, which is a bit concerning. What, decision making process or evidence brought DPR to that proposal?

So we're looking at a couple of different factors within that. And, again, I wanna emphasize these are draft proposals, and we are still kind of working through what a final, regulation would look like within this space. I think, one, we were looking at consistency of types of sites, including those that were allowed for use under the moratorium, as well as looking at the complete list of sites allowed on registered pesticide labels.

We're also very mindful of, reports through public health departments around where they are commonly seeing issues with rodents as a way to be able to guide and inform what sites might be most necessary for the use of pesticides.

And then one more rodenticide question. The legislature specified in its bills that in identifying restrictions, DPR is supposed to consult with and get concurrence from the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Last fall, I and several of my fellow legislators sent a letter to DPR that, among other things, asked the department to explain its engagement with DFW, which is responsible for tracking rodenticide exposures among wildlife. Did DFW agree that its finding supported your department's proposed expansion of rodenticide use to new sites?

So we've been in active conversation with CDFW. And, again, this is a early draft proposal to be able to get some initial feedback. It was discussed with CDFW prior to release. The formal concurrence will come as a part of the rule making. And so we're very mindful of that requirement and are continuing to engage with our with our partners at CDFW as a part of that development.

Great. Thanks. A lot of things we can go over. I'm gonna focus on just a couple of issues. One is on, monitoring, potential exposures or pesticide exposures.

It seems pretty important as I'm sure you agree that we have programs in place to monitor for pesticide exposures, especially among vulnerable and frontline populations like children and farm workers? We heard a lot of testimony on that today. How does DPR monitor for pesticide exposures in people? Do you think the current monitoring we have in place is sufficient for allowing us to proactively identify and address human exposures before they become a crisis?

So I really appreciate the question and for the the conversation earlier today around the importance of evaluating exposure where use is not a perfect proxy for exposure. And, you know, I'm I firmly believe that more data is always helpful in being able to identify issues early and to be able to respond appropriately and efficiently to those. The department does not specifically do human biomonitoring as a part of our work.

There are other state agencies that that do some of that work that we work in partnership with and happy to follow-up with some of some additional details on some of those programs. We have been expanding our work around air monitoring in particular as a proxy for exposure.

But again, it's not directly, addressing your issue or or your suggestion around additional biomonitoring, but very supportive of how we can think about those additional ways to identify potential exposure and to be able to better link that to risk impacts and needed mitigation if appropriate.

Great. And then on registration, we've heard today important the availability of safer alternatives will be, if we're really going to move the SPM road map forward and give growers the tools to shift away from the most dangerous pesticides. Actually, I had a follow-up question.

Let's start with this. With the new money DPR got under AB 2113, how is the department identifying and prioritizing the registration of safer alternatives, which was stated as part of the intent for AB 2113?

Yeah. So I think it was noted in an earlier panel, the state of our registration program and timelines, if you'd asked me two years ago, was was not in good shape. And so first and foremost, priority for the department has been, addressing the overall structure and efficiency of the registration program as being a necessary first step for how we think about any additional prioritization within that work.

I think I just found mine. Okay. So interested in track how will DPR track registration and makes also make sure our growers and PCAs know about them.

Yeah. So in terms of tracking and specifically tracking availability of Yeah. New products. So that's something that we do look at at an annual basis of kind of what new active ingredients have we registered.

I don't have the current numbers, but I can tell you from two years ago, we registered more new biopesticides than new conventional chemicals within the state, which is really exciting as we're thinking about lower risk alternative products and having a range of different tools, which is helpful for pest resistance, as well as many of the other goals within the SPM umbrella.

In terms of access and folks then picking up and using those tools, I think there's a number of different factors. One, we really appreciate the work that You See It does in this space as a part of their engagement through the Cooperative Extension program and others. We've also been expanding, the training that we're looking at to pest control advisors to include more SPM principles.

As I mentioned, we've approved 320 courses, that have an SPM component to them, and we are looking at additional ways to be able to develop and support, and incentivize kind of that that broader, more holistic perspective, which we know that many PCAs do consider, but perhaps not all. And again, looking at full, the range of different regulatory levers that we can have to be able to help support awareness and availability of those products.

Several investigations have revealed inconsistencies and weaknesses in how county agricultural commissioners enforce the state's pesticide laws. This includes the laws that are intended to protect our farm workers from exposures and ensure that restricted materials aren't used without some attention given to cumulative impacts as we've heard today and the availability of alternatives. DPR's oversight of local enforcement activities is essential, given that the bulk of enforcement for our pesticide program happens at the county level.

In DPR's view, what are the root causes of these inconsistencies, that we've been hearing about Again today? What has DPR done to improve its oversight of Ag commissioners and make sure that local enforcement is robust and consistent throughout the state?

Yeah. So appreciate the question. And I think reflecting, and this was, you noted in an earlier panel about you know, the value of local awareness of particular situations, sensitive sites, other considerations, I think, is valuable for the program, and it has the real potential for slight differences in priorities of work, particular attention or response to types of investigations.

I'm looking at this in a variety of different ways about how we think about our role as the oversight agency relative to pesticide use enforcement, where we are balancing supporting local action, but also maintaining statewide consistency where appropriate. First, and I mentioned this earlier, we currently have a rule making that the first comment period just recently closed of updating our enforcement response regulations.

It has the last time these were substantially updated was about twenty years ago, and so it's an important step for us in thinking about what are those areas of consistency and priority for the state. We also recently received a new statutory authority to be able to take pesticide use enforcement cases at the state level rather than just the county level. And this gives us an opportunity for commissioners to be able to refer cases to the state.

For example, if there's an individual who is violated in multiple different counties, that's appropriate to be able to move up to the state levels so that we can be taking a consistent and potentially stronger approach if we're seeing that kind of repeat violation in different areas. It's an area of ongoing, work around both our our day to day oversight training support, as well as, the the broader enforcement that we do in this space.

Appreciate it. Seeing no colleagues at this point. That, is the last of my question. So thank you again for appearing and and participating today.

With that, we actually are gonna open it up, for public comment now. Would love to hear from you. I would ask our attendees to allow our Spanish speakers, to go first so they can speak while we have, our interpreters here. So folks can go ahead and line up. Again, priority for Spanish speakers just with availability of interpreters.

And if you can hold it to about a couple minutes each, that would be great.

Would you would you like to go first with the Spanish speakers?

There's some Spanish speakers that they're asking because the interpreters Yeah.

Why don't we go ahead and provide that?

So they go ahead? Yeah. The Spanish speakers.

Yep. Go ahead.

Hi. My name is Elizabeth Pavia, and I am an outreach worker with the organization in Merced. I have been a farmworker my entire life. And I have worked in several crops like the tomatoes and the grapes. One of the most difficult situations that I encountered was working in the cleaning of the of the Weeding.

Weeding of the of the cotton. And I was sprayed multiple times due to a pesticide aviation claim that, was spraying the neighboring fields. I have also lived in the most rural communities that are very vulnerable as well to pesticides. I didn't realize what the consequences of this would be. Now I do have two young boys that suffered the consequences of myself being exposed to pesticides while pregnant.

Of the cotton. And I was sprayed multiple times due to a pesticide aviation claim that, was spraying the neighboring fields. I have also lived in the most rural communities that are very vulnerable as well to pesticides. I didn't realize what the consequences of this would be. Now I do have two young boys that suffered the consequences of myself being exposed to pesticides while pregnant.

So one of them has HD ADHD and the other has respiratory problems. I myself have had to suffer chronic conditions, such as liver problems and, arthritis, rheumatoid arthritis as the doctors have said. And so today, I just wanna, emphasize that none of us are exempt to pesticide exposure because we all eat the food, drink the water, live off the, you know, the same land, and so we are we are all exposed to the dangers. And that everyone has responsibility to address these issues and dangers.

Thank you very much.

My name is Victoria Poz. I am from Sacramento, and I am a farmworker and a member of Lideres Campesinas and she first introduced herself in her language, Quiche, from Guatemala. So I have worked in the field and have been exposed to pesticides. I have had rashes on my arms and have had to go to the doctor and ended up with a a very expensive bill and was also impacted because of the cuts to Medi Cal where I could not, you know, see see a regular doctor.

And so she has had experiences when pruning the the almonds, almond trees where they are spraying pesticides and it ends up, on her.

We are the the ones that that harvest the food, that bring food to your tables or to everyone's tables, and yet are are still not not being seen. And so as as her as a farmworker, she's exposed to these chemicals as well as everyone who eats this food. And she just would like to thank you for for listening and that you hopefully can do everything you can to protect the workers from being exposed to pesticides.

Thank you so much. We really appreciate. Reminding folks if we can do two minutes just because we have dozens of speakers, that would be great.

And so my name is Gloria, and I'm here on behalf of Lidres Campesinas to to share the experiences of many of the workers that don't have the opportunity to share what they encounter. And I forgot to mention that, she is coming from Fresno and, is the the last generation right now of her family that has worked in the field, but she came, followed her mom's footsteps to work in the field.

And like other people that have spoken has also been impacted with scoliosis and other issues that have to do with the exposure to pesticides as well. And so she's just sharing that she also has two children that suffer of chronic conditions and she herself has also been diagnosed with cancer. And so she said thank you.

Hi. My name is Blanca Gomez, and I come from, Cantuah Creek. And so as she mentioned, she has lived in Cantuah Creek for 32 years, and she is from the community that is predominantly made up of farm workers. And, these are people that are also retired and many of them are sick from asthma and other allergies, as well as cancer, and a lot of children that have autism. The local authorities like the agricultural commissioner is not protecting the community.

Our homes are are surrounded by all four sides by pesticides and they're being constantly exposed to pesticides in their homes and in their schools and where the people work. And they would like to ask that DPR protect the health of all of the the community and the workers. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Maria Molita Diaz. I arrived here when I was 14 years old, and I start working on fields. I'm lucky because I'm I feel I'm not too good, but I feel good. And but I have some of my family than my my mom, she died for cancer.

She had lupus, and I have on my family some of the people who has lupus. Some of the kids has some problem. My my son has an allergies. And so when I when people ask me where you came from, and I say, Cantuah Creek. Where's Cantuah Creek?

And say, it is in a small town. And we live in the mirror of the campus, almonds, pistachios, garlic, onion, so everything. Now I feel happy when I lay down on the grass right here, the gardens. And in my home, I can step outside because the ants came out and start biting my feet. And so I say, I need to use some pesticides to kill it.

So we use a lot of pesticides. We have we don't have the water is bad. The air is bad. The dirt is bad. So so sorry.

I feel I feel sad for my the kids from the school when they are playing outside and they can drink drink water because the water is not good. So I ask you to put more attention in my country, in my town because nobody know over there. Thank you.

So good afternoon. My name is Maricela Fernandez. I'm from Vallejo, and I'm a resident of Fresno. De Vallejo? Fresno.

Okay. And I live in the area of I'm I'm a resident of Fresno, and I I think that we deserve a zone of of a protection zone at least a mile around the the schools and homes from spring pesticides. This kind of protection would would help, reduce the ex exposure and, to the pesticides in the air. Our children deserve to be protected, in every moment, especially when they're working or I'm sorry. When they're at school doing PE and exerting themselves physically in other ways.

And, these regulations, these strict regulations for industry is very important and necessary, and I appreciate your attention. Thank you.

My name is Eulalia Mendoza, and I'm a organizer with the organization Mixteco Indigena, Mico, also representing CAPS and 805, and our indigenous community that works in the fields. I worked for more than twenty years in agriculture in California, and I've been exposed to pesticides. And I was diagnosed with cancer of uterus, I think.

Tamien wait. Wait. Sorry. Let's see. I've I've seen many people die from cancer.

Some of them are my friends and partners from work and that worked in the fields with me. This is how happened also in Ventura County, and which is known for its production of strawberries and uses the 13D, pesticide. This, worries us because of the risks to our health. I have received, notifications on spray days constantly and I feel that I'm being bombarded by them. But a lots of times, it doesn't have the actual location where this pesticide is being sprayed.

How can we do more to protect ourselves with if we don't have the exact information of of the exact location and time that the spraying is happening. We ask for transparency and clear information on how we can protect our families and our own health. Our own our communities deserve to be heard and protected. Thank you very much.

I'm Tutuhi, and I'm born by Visalia. I wanna first ask permission of our ancestors, the spirit of these lands, the original people of these lands, and also forgiveness. I'm not here to offend anybody or insult anybody to connect to connect, not divide. We're in a hearing. I have to ask, are we listening to all my relations?

Those are also not just the two legged, the four legged, those multi legged, the feathered, those in the water, the plants, those seeds, those that are rooted. And to ask because we're here, what's going on? Why is this happening? We know what our intentions are, what my are what my intentions are, what my purpose is, and how. How?

H, honesty. O, open mindedness. W, willingness so that we can begin some transformational healing to all. All. The other last thing is I haven't heard anything about real consequences for people to continue, right, abusing mother earth and abusing everything that walks, lives on this land.

I just wanna say that much about that. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Alina, and I'm a young indigenous woman. And I'm coming from the area of Santa Salina? Santa Maria. Santa Maria.

My parents have worked in the fields my whole life, and I started working in the fields at age 11. And a lot of my friends also work in the field. A lot of times that I've been working in the fields with my coworkers, we have been exposed to pesticides, not because they're spraying right on the fields where they're working, but in the neighboring fields where the wind blows the pesticides on them.

And many people might not have seen or believe, but many there are many young children working in the fields, even younger than 11 at times. And there's also many pregnant women working in the fields as well.

And you might think that parents might be bad or irresponsible for sending their children to work in the fields, but they don't mean any harm and they just have to they don't have enough income and they need to depend on the the income as well as a as their for their child.

And just like you all, as parents, you might not want to see your your children working in the fields, but many of the parents of including herself and her friends, they have no other choice. So I'm coming here to represent, you know, my parents, my friends, and other people working in the field so that we could better help them. And this inspires me to be able to continue with my own education and be able to help my own people.

Good afternoon. My name is Alicia Blanco. I am from Santa Maria, California, and I am going into my junior year in high school this year. My biggest problem with pesticides at the moment, I think, is the agricultural runoff. In my sophomore year, in my chemistry class, I did a project with my classmates where we tested the water quality in three different water fountains all around our campus for the entirety of the school year, which is almost 11 months.

In class, we were taught that nitrate levels of above 10 parts per million are considered unsafe for consumption. Over the span of eleven months, my partner and I tested water from the three different water drinking fountains at on campus, as I said. And at the end of the project in June, we graphed all the data we collected. Only in the month of August was that water safe to drink. 10 of 11 months had nitrate levels between 80 and 160 parts per million.

My chemistry class showed me a direct result of agricultural runoff. We are always told that we should keep hydrated throughout the school day to be focused on our studies and be able to pay attention in class, but how will we be able to do that if the water we are told to drink is unsafe for human consumption? My school, with around 2,416 students enrolled, drink this water daily, And we perform all our student activities drinking this unsafe water.

The strawberry fields just down the road I think are responsible for this contamination in our drinking water. They spray pesticides, and it is not even a mile away from our school.

Yeah. Thank you.

Good afternoon my name is Mirali Lopez. I am here representing Campesinas Unidas Del Valle de San Joaquin.

I'm here to talk about the the mothers, the children, all who are exposed to to pesticides.

Many of which are exposed to asthma and respiratory problems. We're asking that DPR please alert of all the pesticides that are that are being sprayed annually. And to please notify beforehand if they're going to be exposed to any pesticide spraying. Please help us protect our our children and the next generations. Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I am a mother, and I am coming here today from the from Modesto, Stanasquale County. When I found out how much our air and water is contaminated and what we are consuming, you know, all all of the chemicals that we are consuming, I decided to join this movement. I am also a parent. And and we for us, it's very important that the agricultural workers are no longer exposed to these pesticides.

Also, the way that they are exposed through not just the harvest of our fruits, but also in the in the soil and in the dirt, and as well as in the air and in our water and all of the products that we consume. We hope that we can do everything possible to keep these healthy and clean for all of us.

And that way that we could be able to to protect our our children and our families so that we cannot breathe contaminated air and eat poisoned food.

Good afternoon, Chair Connolly, Chair Blake Spear, members of the committee. Melissa Kosicek with Western Growers. Thank you for the hearing today, and we are aligning our comments with those provided by miss Trefo earlier. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Connolly and members of the committees who are with us in spirit, I'm sure. I'm Brenda Bass with KP Public Affairs, and I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on behalf of the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California. MVCAC and its members strategically use pesticides to prevent disease outbreaks, like West Nile virus, dengue, and other emerging mosquito borne viral threats.

We use a variety of control measures, chemical and non, and we go through a whole decision tree process to figure out what is the most effective means to curb, mosquito borne disease. And sometimes that best solution is a chemical product, a pesticide.

We do operate under strict use controls in the state, apply product in small quantities to target specific control scenarios, and sometimes have no viable substitute for several key ingredients used to protect public health. MVCAC and, California's local mosquito and vector control agencies share the committee's, goal of a pesticide program that protects public health and the environment. But we do ask that the state, continue to clearly, distinguish and protect a well funded pathway for mosquito and vector control, products that defend California communities from mosquito borne diseases.

So thank you for your time today.

Good evening, and thank you for staying so long. I'm a family nurse practitioner who's been practicing in the Central Valley over thirty years. And so pests, but I don't think there's been enough when I look at risks versus benefits that there's not enough known about the pesticides that we are making assumptions that the pesticides are better for us than the actual disease process or what the what the vectors are bringing.

And I don't think there's been enough research actually to say that even though we continue to say that. I believe very much in public health.

I think the other thing that we need to do is we need to look at compounding effects. Pesticides along with heat and not just individually where we're talking about needing to look at different pesticides together. But I also think we need to see how they're being impacted by heat in the body. Once we know rid of pesticides as well in the body. When they're in heat, working in the heat, and then also exposed to these pesticides.

So I think it's important for us to look at, how its compounding effects are impacting people also and then continue to look at the drift that we're talking about in wind and in the water that's impacting us. I know that several nurses from Madera have really talked to us about the increase in premature babies and things like that happening. So we see all kinds of medical impacts happening, and I think we need to do a better job at making decisions versus using assumptions. Thank you.

Thank you, for, having this hearing. I'm Emily Marquez. I'm a scientist at Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network. Pan's mission is to end reliance on hazardous pesticides and achieve health resilience and justice in the food and farming system. There's too many things to comment on.

So I'm but I I think I have two minutes only. I've been working with other scientists from Stanford, UCSF, and the Silent Spring Institute on a project funded by the California Breast Cancer Research Program. Previous work by the Silent Spring Institute identified gaps in how the US EPA considers breast cancer risk. There's several pesticides with breast cancer risk associations used in California, and they've been found in the air and water here. Californians are being exposed, and our state can definitely do better.

DPR should be asking the pesticide industry for more data on mammary tumors because there are large gaps there, a lot of uncertainties. And also, DPR should review current independent science on endocrine disruption. This is a field of study that's over 20 years old. I I think it's 30 years old. And and, really, it's time for, one of our, you know, most advanced, agencies that looks at, pesticide risk to start incorporating, consideration of of how pesticides affect hormones, because this affects development, reproduction.

A recent bill also would have stopped the use of PFAS pesticides, and some of those are also breast cancer risk related. After passing, that bill was heavily amended, but that doesn't diminish the real world human health concerns around PFAS pesticides and their breakdown products because Californians are being exposed to them in their drinking water. This problem is compounded in frontline and, farmworker communities. And, PFAS pesticides deserve a closer look, more scrutiny, for their breakdown products. For instance, short chain PFAS, which is persistent and highly mobile.

The EU recently made a declaration around one of them, TFA. So finally, the human health risks are too concerning for PFAS and breast cancer risk related pesticides to not be more effectively and fully addressed by DPR. Thank you.

Hi. Good evening. My name is Laura Placencia. I work with Valley Improvement Projects, a nonprofit focused on social environmental justice in Stanislaus County. I am here as a concerned resident to the cumulative impacts of the extensive chemical exposure in our food and products and in our environment.

Overall, I my parents and various family members have been farm workers and worked across, various different crops, fruits, vegetables, and nuts. Therefore, exposing them to various different chemicals throughout their lifetime. I am concerned because I lived in the San Joaquin Valley where we already have the geographical, burden. Therefore, the air the pollution that we create in the valley ends up staying in the valley due to that lack of, airflow, and that is why I feel that pesticides is, such a huge concern.

I believe that a metric for society's health can be measured by how well, vulnerable communities like children and pregnant women are being protected, and I don't believe that this country is doing enough to protect our vulnerable communities.

And I also want to remind everyone that, pregnant women, who are carrying a a female, child, will also be impacted of the eggs that that baby is carrying. So, therefore, it's not just impacting the two generations, it's therefore impacting three generations as a whole. I to bring a little bit of history, humans have practiced, agriculture for around twelve thousand years without the use of, synthetic pesticides. So to hear that we won't have transition until fifty years is really depressing to hear.

I believe that we, need to transition our way that we're doing agriculture so that we can, use that as a strategy to actually transition out of this extensive synthetic pesticide exposure. Industrial agriculture, began in

the mid to late, nineteen hundreds after World War two and began utilizing a lot of leftover, chemicals that were used during war, and now used for fertilizers and pesticides. With before that wartime, communities and and households and public yards utilized, were utilized for community gardens, growing up to 40% of all of the nation's fresh vegetables and produce.

I heavily, want to advocate for a transition into, adopting traditional indigenous culture, integrating polycultures, companion planting, resilient seeds, and crop diversity, and integrating higher biological pesticides and maintaining, resilient seed sovereignty and not giving our power to the mega corporations like Monsanto. Thank you for your time.

Hello. My name is Larry Ortega, and I'm from Los Angeles County. DPR is a failed experiment. It is intentionally harming children, and intentionally harming children is child abuse. California number 1 in autism, number 1 ADHD, number 1 ADD.

Top reason for death among young people 12 to 21 years old is suicide. Because of the pesticides, they are destroying our micro our kids' microbiome in our gut, which is where all of the newer transmitters are being created. It is a thousand percent unacceptable that a business like a Driscoll's in Watsonville that has been allowed to spray within a quarter mile of some schools.

This can be interpreted as child abuse and especially disgusting that they've made it part of their business plan, and it is a acceptable cost they are willing to acknowledge and observe. The speakers from the panels earlier spoke earlier in saying that the DPR process is good, yet oblivious to the fact that 75% of the weeds can now tolerate glyphosate, now which has led to a chemical concoction that DPR is unable to test on this combined effect of the children.

This committee is created to ensure Californians are protected from pesticides, and this is not happening. Thousands of years, literally, millenniums of evidence exist that food can be grown without pesticides. We can do this. I'm not here to complain. I'm here to say, let's rethink this.

Let's be honest with ourselves and say that DPR does not work, and it must be abandoned immediately. We need immediate protection for our children because our future economy is being harmed right now, and there will be no economy if we continue to allow the pesticide use near the schools as we currently have it. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Alexia Rangel. I'm from Greenfield, California, and I am also a cofounder of Future Leaders of Change. California should prioritize eliminating the pesticides that pose the greatest risk to children, farm workers, and who are in mostly Latino rural communities and the environment. People deserve meaningful notice before hazardous pesticide applications, not after exposure, to do what they can to protect themselves. Advanced notice should be field specific exact location.

Advanced notice should be field specific exact location.

Hello. My name is Noemi Chico. I'm from Greenfield, California, and I'm an educator and a member of Safe Act, Safe Schools. My parents are campesinos. DPR's budget should never depend on continued pesticide sales creating a perverse incentive.

Revenue should support safer farming and stronger oversight, not create incentives that are tied to continue use of hazardous pesticides. We also want exact location, children, family, and campesinos should be protected.

Good evening. Hello, everyone. My name is Ari. I'm from Monterey County, member of also new member of SAS and also the cochair for the Central Coast Democratic Socials of America. But, yes, I'm gonna keep my comments very brief.

Assemblymember Connolly, I think you have heard all of the comments today from individuals speaking about their personal experience, to family members developing cancer, to children working to provide for their family due to affordable cost of living. We've heard conversations from DPR and what they claim to be working on and what they're striving for in their fifty year plan, and we've heard about the concerns of agricultural transition and that that needs to occur in order to address all the multitude of different things.

I think my only thing is is that fifty years is too long. Assembly member Connolly, I do not know how old you are, but I do know that in fifty years, the the policy that you pass now will impact me and my children and the people's children here and the young folks who are speaking up and advocating for their community. I feel that they're this is a critical time now if this is not addressed.

On top of the multitude of different things with climate change, that will be our problem in the next fifty years to deal with, from water to external heat, rising temperatures in South County, where many of the folks who have spoken in Monterey County here that I'm with have are from, it it all impacts them, and it impacts if they will be able to have an equitable and livable future.

So my last comment is is that brown bodies are not expendable, And that is all I have to say.

Good afternoon. Thank you, first of all, Assembly member Connolly for being so out in public and really supportive of human health. Because I think that's the biggest issue that we have right now, and I think everyone here is exactly to hear in reality to speak about human health. So after hearing this, and thank you for the oversight hearing, it is really mind blowing to just see this agency, which is the Department of Pesticide Regulation, really not do its duty.

Its duty is to serve more than one stakeholder. And at the end of the day, after hearing all the testimonies, I feel that they're only serving serving one stakeholder, and that is a shame. They talked about spray days. They talked about, having this eject. That was all because of these individuals in the room making it happen, passing legislation, working on legislation. So it's always us, the community, fighting to protect ourselves, and that is a shame.

Because, again, this agency, DPR, is working it should be working for more, stakeholders, not just one in particular. And, again, thank you for your time.

Hi. Good evening. My name is Heather Gallaher. I'm from Sonoma County. I am here today to say we should be in vesting in growers transition to alternative practices that benefit the soil crop health, human health, and environment.

It's time for change. We need our representatives and elected officials to hold California Department of Pesticide Regulation accountable for making sure pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides are safe and safely handled. We need to ban ones that are hazardous to the health and fragile ecosystems. We've learned of many that have been banned in other countries, and we can look at them as a model to ban the ones that are extremely dangerous. Also, people have been advocating for exact location transparency.

The benefit of having this is families and community members have a chance to voice concern with parks and recs, City Council members in their area to ask for their partnership and advocating for safer practices. It also gives us a chance to remove ourselves from direct exposure and exposure to drift. Thank you.

Hello, everybody. My name is Taylor Durgin, and I am a cofounder of a new nonprofit that was established this last month over in Plumas County, which is Northern California. And this nonprofit grew out of a accelerating amount of concern towards the herbicide spraying that's being conducted in the Plumas National Forest in regard to the forest service itself, the timber industry, and other private sectors. To circle back to, what Diane Dixon said, we've been advocating strongly for a simplified map that gives us all this information.

And so part of our grassroots effort was sending out PRA requests as well as FOIA requests in regard to PERS and water quality testing.

It's not just for Plumas County. It's for every single county in California. You can access our work on spraymapca.org, and our homepage is the map itself. When you click on a bubble, it's gonna tell you all the information that was collected from the PERS report itself as well as the water quality testing report.

And all that information entails who owns that specific land in addition to what types of spraying is being done, top ingredients, how many applications, the years in which it was applied, map coordinates, as well as individuals to reach out to verify our information is factual as well as raising concern.

In addition to this public pesticide map, we're also working towards offering independent water quality testing because your standard panel for water quality testing does not have pesticides on it. In addition to that, we're supporting permacultural based methods for fuels reduction. And out in our county, we just had a fundraiser over the weekend to raise funds towards goat grazing as one of them.

Again, I am here today to represent my community over in Plumas County and its concern towards lack of transparency for herbicide use out in our forest and to also extend our hand towards yourself as well as the Department of Pesticide Regulation itself and whoever else that wants to link arms with what we're doing. Thank you so much for your time. Appreciate you.

Good afternoon, Cesar Lara, staff at the California Federation of Labor Unions, here representing the Monterey Bay Central Labor Council, Teamsters eight fifty six, United Farm Workers, and UFCW Local five. Those are the three unions that represent agricultural workers along with the California Nurses Association and the California Federation of Teachers and CSEA, the school employees union. You've heard a lot of stories. I could come up with data and facts. By this time, they're all swimming in your head.

But at the end, the labor movement stands with community to say that the system is broken. When we have a board of supervisors that appoints an ad commissioner appoints and not hires, and they have no power over regulating, when we go to DPR and they point the finger at the ad commissioners to do something, and the ad commissioners point to DPR to take action, something is broken. The way that the fees are structured with MOFEs is is unfair to community, and it's not protecting California.

So we ask to move forward. We have many chemicals that are banned in more than 70 countries that California still continues to use, and they refuse to take action.

They just took action on PureFOS just a a day ago after many years of action. So as the labor movement, as community, as everybody that came here today from across the state, we need to take action to protect California. Somehow, it got broken somewhere in the middle. Maybe it was designed that way.

But when we have an act commissioner saying I'm not his constituency, he cares about the growers and the farm workers, which is great for him to hear, but he doesn't listen to the farm workers and doesn't talk to community just in one county, and that's consistent across the state.

Something is broken. So thank you for the hearing today, and we want to support moving forward. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Mister Connolly, for giving us a space to speak on behalf of all these communities. I'm actually, for myself, I'm coming from the Central Valley, especially from the Kern County area. I brought folks in. It got a little bit tired.

We got up since three in the morning, so you could tell that it's been a good it's been a good long day for us. But part of what we wanted to talk to you about was the effect to that pesticides have given in the in the area, and yet DPR has not done anything. One of the things I wanted to share is that, hearing everybody's comments and understanding that this is a health concern that is happening all all across California.

And, with the new regs that are coming in and the regulations that are coming in do really don't make sense because it only benefits profit, the profit of the growers, not the profit of the community as a community's health should be. I myself am a community organizer for Center of Race, Poverty, and the Environment.

I work through the AB 617. I don't know if you know about it, but it's an air protection program, which is designed for residents to, come up with ideas to air reduction items, and one of them is pesticide. We've brought it up since the first year communities as in Shafter when we had we had the elections for Shafter.

That's where we came that's where the residents found out that telome was one of the highest highest use, and DPR recognized it as one of the highest contaminations in the Shafter community. And they implemented 12 regulations because of that, but yet, there's continuing high elevations in Shafter.

So that's concerning because we brought it up six years ago. We're almost done with the program, and still DPR has not done anything with it. They actually slapped us in the face and told us there's two regulations for for t loan, a bystander and a residential, which is, as I mentioned, is a slap in the face for residents. They're wanting to make more time so they could continue using that product in the area and still affect community health.

And residents keep coming into their into their hearings, into the, Kern County Board of Supervisors, into the act commissioner.

Nobody wants to listen to us. Through the AB 617, we were able to allocate a $250,000 to do the spray day. And our commissioners in our face, in the public settings told us that he's not gonna do anything until somebody's being affected, until he sees somebody being sprayed. That's actually a slap in the face. Now we're coming to you trying to find it as find ways we could protect our communities how.

We won't we wouldn't not drive at two or three in the morning to come and talk to you, to listen what you what you have to say, Because this is this is alarming, and this is concerning for all the communities and communities that we all work in. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Fresno, and we've been a long time partner with California and Sir Pesticide Reform. We would like to ask mostly for three things. Inform notification because our spray days is lacking. Buffer zones that are longer for both schools and farm workers that are sprayed consistently.

And accountability by DPR to have some kind of arm enforcement with Ag Commissioners. The director mentioned unique partnerships. We'd like to know what those are because they don't include enforcement. Some of the reports. I've made two in the last two weeks.

One of them has not moved forward because they've not been able to reach the Spanish speaking client. And the other one for myself might move forward even though, car to show them, it may not move forward. And even when they move forward, they make it very clear to us. We have three years to conduct the investigation. So please be patient.

That is unfair. In my life, I'm the senior farm worker advocate. And in my life in the last year in two months, I have buried three farm workers with stomach cancer. My mother is a breast cancer survivor. My coworker's mother died of cancer.

My father died at 67 of cancer. And my grandfather, a farm worker, a bracero, also died of cancer. We are dying. We don't have fifteen years, twenty years, ten years. We are dying.

That's why everybody came here today. Please hear our plight. This is not somebody's crop. And the fact that people say, oh, we need pesticides. No.

You don't. We are a very humble organization that has a grant. We have two small farms that are organic, completely organic. The families raise their own food. They are not allowed to use any kind of chemical whatsoever, and we invite you to come see it, and we invite you to come taste the food.

It can be done. Please stop sacrificing our brown, impoverished communities. Thank you.

Thank you. First of all, Assembly member for sticking it out with everybody and staff as well. My name is Andrea Ventura, and I am the legislative and policy director for Clean Water Action. And the reason I'm here, I wish it wasn't me. I wish it was my colleague, our our organizer in Kern County, Jesus.

We started the office in Kern County thinking we had other issues to work on, and pesticides became one of the biggest concerns of the communities there that we work with because they are seeing higher cancer rates. They are seeing respiratory disease in their children. They're seeing a whole bunch of different kinds of health. You you you've heard from more important voices than mine today on those issues.

That experience has created extreme, distrust of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, and it tells us that it is not living up to the goals that you asked at the beginning of this hearing.

I would there was a lot I was gonna say, and I one of the people I wanna channel is Mister Garcia who spoke earlier today because he said a lot of the things I would wanna say. So I'll I'll try to just cover some things that I think haven't been said yet.

I don't believe and Clean Water Action doesn't believe that it is not possible to do things differently, that it's, yes, there are complications in their science on alternatives and all that, but it's not that we don't know how to do any of this pesticide pest control better than we're doing it. It's a lack of will. It's a lack of will because we believe there are conflicts of interest out there.

And I'll give you two examples where I think this comes through, and then I'll pass it on to the next speaker. First of all, DPR is out of sync with its sister agencies within Cal EPA, and a perfect example is Mister Schulz's bill. Because California established a definition for PFAS, which is what his bill in pesticides covers years ago. The legislature established that. DTSC has established that.

The biomonitoring program that they spoke about working with has established that definition, but they came back with that bill trying to change the definition of a PFAS. They don't they're not talking to their sister agencies and they're not in line. That's a lack of will. The other thing is the PowerQuad. We were delighted about that decision yesterday or what came through.

But somebody said something about we knew since '20, 2011 about PowerQuad. I was in college in 1978, and we knew about it at UC Santa Barbara because paraquat was being used by the government to poison illegal crops like Marijuana. So students knew what Paraquat was and how dangerous it was. There's been a lack of will and it was the legislature that led to that that changed finally. One last comment.

I know that many of you in the legislature are dealing with budget issues and you're looking for money. How do we do the safer program for water is one major problem right now that the state is facing. Well, if we get DPR and other agencies like it to do their jobs, we have less of those problems in water. We have to take the step back. So with that, I'll close.

Thank you very much for hearing me.

Hello. Good evening. My name is Juanita Chavez, and I'm here representing my mother, Dolores Huerta, who regrets that she cannot be with you in person today. But this issue is so important to her heart. And We did see her this morning. That that was great. Wonderful.