SACRAMENTO: LBAM HEARING 4/16 GOOD NEWS & BAD NEWS

[isabelle]

THANK YOU TO ALL WHO MADE THE TIME AND EFFORT TO COME TO SACRAMENTO!

A short summary of what happened today in Sacramento and a HUGE THANK YOU to the roughly 250 people who came and spoke in support of the aerial spray bills.

THE BILLS

Two bills and 1 resolution survived the meat grinder of the Assembly Agriculture Committee, which is a tribute to our powerful presence at the hearing. It is clear that the Agriculture Committee and lobbyists now understand the magnitude of the opposition they are facing. Two bills did not survive the committee, unfortunately one of those that died was the most important bill in my view, AB 2892 (Swanson), requiring voter consent for aerial spray in urban areas. The other bill that died was Assemblymember Hancock's, which would have required the Governor rather than the Dept. of Agriculture, to declare an emergency for aerial spraying to take place over an urban area.

Interestingly, Swanson's bill lost because 3 of the committee's 5 Democrats abstained rather than vote against it and thus it did not get enough votes to pass. The Agriculture Committee chair voted for it, which we had not expected. The abstentions rather than "no" votes are a small victory and a tribute to the heartfelt testimony of Mike De Lay, Pacific Grove resident who was sickened by the spray and coordinator of the Coalition of California Cities to Stop the Spray, John Russo of Stopthespray.org, and pediatrician Dr. Elisa Song.

So did we win a victory to get 3 pieces of legislation out of the Agriculture Committee which notoriously stops all legislation of this kind? Yes.

Did we stop the spray? No.

If Swanson's bill had passed in combination with Assemblymember Leno's AB 2760 (if Leno's bill successfully gets through the Assembly with its urgency clause, which allows it to take effect immediately), these two bills together would have effectively stopped the spray. No other combination of bills will do that. Leno's bill alone will delay it until an Environmental Impact Report is done, but only voter consent would have given us a mechanism to stop it permanently. Now we must rely on an executive order by the Governor or action state Attorney General or the success of one or more of the lawsuits filed against the state to stop the spray. Or a reclassification of the pest by federal agricultural officials.

Leno's bill was the only aerial spray bill that was not sent to the Agriculture Committee. It passed the Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday. It goes next to the Appropriatons Committee (which Leno chairs). Because of its urgency clause, it will require a 2/3 vote instead of simple majroity to pass the full assembly, so we will need to actively lobby to get some Republicans to support it. More on that when we know who to target.

The bills that passed:
AB 2763 (Laird), which requires advance planning for invasive species, review of health impacts of any proposed treatment action including impacts on adults and children with compromised immune systems, wildlife, and pets. It also requires independent review and disclosure of all active and inert ingredients in any pesticide to be used. All of the requirements are conditional on available funding.
Pros: more in-depth and independent review of heath and environmental consequences of spraying.
Cons: the advance planning list could easily become a list of future planned aerial spray campaigns, particularly given the State Ag. Agency's history of aerial spraying, and advance hearings are unlikely to be widely attended.

ACR 117 (Laird) A nonbinding resolution which has similar provisions to his blll above -- essentially an advisory to the governor.
Pros: same as above.
Cons: this is non-binding, a symbolic gesture.

AB 2765 (Huffman) requiring disclosure of pesticide ingredients and a public hearing on alternatives to aerial spray.
Pros: requires that we know what will be sprayed and that alternatives to aerial spray be considered.
Cons: The bill was amended at the last minute to give manufacturers the right to refuse to disclose the so-called "inert" ingredients in a pesticide, which are often of most concern, and manufacturers typically will not disclose them because they are considered "proprietary business information." However, the Laird bill above requires disclosure of the inerts also, so this change in Huffman's bill is moot.

PRESS CONFERENCE
At a press conference before the hearing, Stop the Spray's John Russo announced a new initiative -- Green Agriculture -- which will, among other things, pursue a ballot initiative to reform governance of California agriculture and halt aerial spraying. Stay tuned as this effort develops.

[isabelle]

What's next?

While planning future steps, there are still 2 bills and 2 resolutions that need our continued support.

Immediate attention needs to be given to Senator Migden's resolution that faces equally tough resistance in the Senate Agriculture Committee, where it will be heard within the next weeks.

Send a fax, write a letter, organize a postcard campaign to support SCR 87!

San Franciscans, write to Senator Yee and ask him to join Senator Migden in calling for a moratorium to the spraying! A group of moms met with Yee on April 16, he needs to hear from us now and become an active advocate for the city he represents.

Monterey Bay Area residents: keep writing to Senator Maldonado, chair of the Agriculture Committee!

[bpm4327]

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Media Contacts:
Paul Schramski, 916.216.1082
Nan Wishner, 510.524.5185
Legislature Agriculture Committee Passes Some, Kills Other Key Aerial Spray Reform Bills Two Bills Champion Efforts to Protect Communities from Aerial Pesticide Spraying

The California Assembly Agriculture Committee today killed 2 of the 5 bills introduced to regulate the state’s controversial Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM) aerial spray program that began last fall and is scheduled to expand to the San Francisco Bay Area this summer. Today’s committee room spilled over with concerned Californians from throughout the state, with at least 250 children and adults sharing their concerns in testimony. “We are encouraged by the passage of the bills today that give Californians better information about aerial pesticide spraying and create a better system for planning for pest problems. Yet, we are disappointed that key bills that would protect the rights of communities to oppose spraying failed today,” said Paul Schramski, State Director, Pesticide Watch.

The Committee voted down bills by Assemblymembers Sandré Swanson (D-Oakland), Loni Hancock (D-western Alameda and Contra Costa) but supported bills and passed bills by Jared Huffman (D-Marin), and John Laird (D-Monterey). Swanson’s AB 2892 would have fundamentally reformed state aerial spray procedures, requiring a vote of affected residents when an aerial spray zone included an urban area. The 2 bills that passed modify the state’s aerial spray practices, requiring disclosure of pesticide ingredients (AB 2765, Huffman), a governor-declared state of emergency before aerial spraying could proceed in an urban area (AB 2764, Hancock), and advance planning for invasive species with independent review of health and environmental consequences of treatment plans, including review of the impact on children and adults with compromised immune systems (AB 2763, Laird). A resolution which has advisory power by Assemblymember Laird, ACR 117, with similar provisions to his bill, also passed.

“This vote today is a clear indication that science does not weigh in to the Agriculture Committee’s decision making any more than it has in the Department of Agriculture’s justification of the apple moth eradication program. Citizens need to take our power back and break state agriculture’s decades-long addiction to pesticides in our food supply and now over our cities,” said Nan Wishner, Chair of the City of Albany Integrated Pest Management Task Force. Among the bills that failed today, was a bill supported by over 20,000 Californians (though a signed online petition), AB 2892, The Voter Consent and Inform Act, which received the support of over 250 Californians that gave the bill a standing ovation at today’s Agriculture hearing.

"The outcry for a halt to the spraying of over 7 million people for up to five years continues to be deafening. Hundreds of individuals in my district alone, as well as city and county governments across the Bay Area, lobbied myself, other bill authors, and the Agriculture committee for a legislative solution to this spraying. The people have a right to petition their government, and deserve a voice on such a critical issue. When government fails to protect our citizens, they have a constitutional right to protect themselves. If a solution cannot be reached legislatively, they will push for one through the ballot box and through lawsuits. The people will not be ignored," said Assemblymember Sandre Swanson (D-Oakland).

Two bills, AB 2763 & AB 2765, marked victory in efforts to provide better information and a public review process for aerial pesticide spray campaigns, as well as a program to better plan for future invasive pests.
“I am delighted that AB 2765 moved from committee, and I appreciate all the hard work the supporters put into helping it advance. This bill is part of a broad and growing consensus about how to approach pesticide use. We see that openness and information are critical in the public process. We look forward to working with our supporters in moving this bill toward the Governor,” said Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael).

Bay Area pediatrician and environmental medicine expert Dr. Elisa Song testified before the Agriculture Committee today and later noted that the aerial spray poses special risks to children who “absorb more toxins than adults, but more of toxins will pass into their developing brains. And children have immature liver detoxification capacities, further compounding their vulnerability.” Dr. Song also noted that a report released by the state last week purporting to have investigated the more than 600 health complaints filed after spraying in Monterey and Santa Cruz last fall was not only inconclusive but incomplete. “This was not a scientific study of the complaints and does not reassure us in the medical community about the safety of the spray,” Dr. Song testified.

In addition to the Governor, every member of the Assembly Agriculture Committee that voted today, received donations from Stewart Resnick, owners of Suterra, the company that manufactures the pesticide Checkmate that was sprayed over Monterey and Santa Cruz counties last fall. Following that spraying, more than 600 people reported adverse health effects. The state released a cursory study of those health reports last week that concluded “It is not possible for several reasons to conclusively determine whether or not there is a link between the reported symptoms and the aerial spraying.”

“Sacramento isn’t listening. Today’s vote shows that a few big producers control agriculture in California. The cities consume the food. And consumers have no voice in Agriculture in Sacramento. We need to support farmers that respect customers that demand organic and natural foods free from chemicals,” said John Russo, Monterey area farmer and founder of StoptheSpray.org. “We are launching GreenAgriculture.ORG to introduce ballot initiatives and reform a system whose prejudice is to spray the planet, and now the people too.”

On Tuesday, the lone bill that was not sent to a legislature Agriculture Committee for review, AB 2760 (Leno, D-San Francisco), passed through the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. That bill would require that an Environmental Impact Report be completed before spraying for the apple moth could resume. Because the Leno bill contains an urgency clause that would allow it take effect immediately upon passage by the full Assembly and Senate rather than next year as is normal, it would require a 2/3 vote to pass.

Source:
http://www.lbamspray.com/00_Legal/20080 ... update.htm