Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/01/2004 01:37 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 27-TRACKING OF PESTICIDE USE
CHAIR CON BUNDE called the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:37 p.m. Present were Senators
Ralph Seekins, Hollis French, Bettye Davis and Chair Con Bunde.
The first order of business to come before the committee was SB
27.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS moved to adopt CSSB 27(L&C), version \D,
for discussion purposes. There were no objections and it was so
ordered.
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out the changes, which are the result of an
agreement between the administration and the bill's sponsor. On
page 1, line 9, the registration fee is changed to $80; page 2,
line 10, adds a new subsection that requires the department to
compile and make available on the Internet a list of pesticides
registered for use in the state; page 2, line 30, defines notice
of spraying on properties adjacent to the location; page 4, line
24, says the department "shall" conduct this study; page 6, line
19, refers to development of the household survey to be used by
the department to gather information relating to household
pesticides; page 7, line 6, makes the appointments to the board
effective immediately; page 8, line 9, removes a section; page
8, line 20, removes the Pesticide Advisory Board; and page 9,
sections 7 - 9, make the effective date June 30, 2008.
MS. GARAN TARR, Chief of Staff to Senator Johnny Ellis,
acknowledged the changes iterated by Chair Bunde and said that
the CS is supported by the administration, the department and
Senator Ellis.
SENATOR HOLLIS FRENCH asked why the effective date is delayed.
MS. TARR explained that the Pesticide Board didn't have an end
point…the original bill was created with three-year staggered
terms. The department felt that added a layer of bureaucracy
that it wasn't interested in maintaining for the long-term. So,
it was agreed that the board would become responsible for
tangible results like development of the household survey,
helping implement the tracking program, and help retail
establishments with the notification component. Once those
things were done, it would be appropriate to sunset the board
and the department would maintain what it had put in place.
SENATOR FRENCH acknowledged her answer and then pointed out that
changing the registration fee from $150 to $80 is one of the
major changes and asked how that number was chosen.
MS. TARR replied that the nationwide average is actually $135
and the sponsor wanted to stay with that higher number because
the extra revenue could have gone to other important programs
the department maintains or into the general fund. However, the
department felt more comfortable with the $80 fee. A consumer
group wrote a letter saying that manufacturers would be
comfortable with a fee that paid for the program, but didn't
feel they should be charged in excess of that. The $80 fee pays
for all that.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if she was able to win industry support for
the bill's changes.
MS. TARR answered that she wasn't sure they were jumping on
board, even with the changes, but they felt $80 was a more
appropriate fee. She has every reason to believe the department
will make implementation of the program easy for industry,
especially with use of the Internet.
MR. EVERETT WALTON, American Pest Management, said that until a
competitor called an hour ago to tell him about it, he didn't
know anything about the bill and asked that industry be given
more notification in the future. He said his company might buy
only $100 worth of a certain chemical in a whole year and the
$80 registration fee would not be practical in that instance.
The chemicals his company deals with are some of the most modern
with the least toxicity available. New York and California can
charge a $135 fee because they have 30 million or 40 million
people, but there are only 600,000 people in Alaska - mostly in
Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau and Ketchikan - in many instances,
small companies wouldn't have incentive to do any registration
at all.
Right now they are doing blanket registrations because
it's free. If they have to pick and choose, they might
just decide that it's too much trouble, because
there's no profit margin there and that is a concern I
have.
MR. WALTON also pointed out that most of the bill is already
covered by existing municipal or state statutes. All this bill
will do is add to the cost of doing business and it has no
enforcement provisions.
He said the same groups pushing this issue are trying to stop
development all over the state. Of the seven or eight companies
in Alaska, only two have more than one employee. He also thought
that the big chain stores like Fred Meyer and Wal-Mart should
have been invited to have input on this bill. In response to
communities that do not want aerial spraying, he pointed out
that Nebraska has the longest life expectancy in the nation and
also has one of the highest spraying rates. A DEC tracking
system is okay with him, but he didn't want to have to add a
person to the payroll just to feed information to the state.
CHAIR BUNDE pointed out that the bill has two more committees to
go through and there was a substantial amount of time for input
on these issues.
MS. KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), said the
pesticide program is in the laboratory services component of the
department's budget. The registration fees are in alignment with
other states and would be sufficient to cover costs for the
Pesticide Advisory Board, creating the web-based information
system for pesticide use and doing a household use survey of
pesticides. Alaska is currently the only state without a
pesticide fee.
CHAIR BUNDE asked if she felt the $80 fee would be burdensome to
the point of eliminating the availability of pesticides in
Alaska.
MS. RYAN replied that she didn't think so. Many pesticides are
registered because their companies want to be able to say they
are registered in 50 states. If their chemical is not used here,
there is no point in doing so if they would have to pay a fee.
She expected a certain amount of attrition of pesticides names,
but not their use.
CHAIR BUNDE reiterated that the department is not making money
on the $80 fee. It's not a hidden tax.
MS. RYAN said the CS has a new fiscal note and explained the
state has primacy and employs four staff people. The state
contributes a $56,000 match for the revenues it receives from
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
SENATOR GARY STEVENS arrived at 1:55 p.m.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if this bill would require new labeling by
stores like Wal-Mart.
MS. RYAN replied yes. It would require a placard to be posted
for certain chemicals the department thought needed additional
warning. Homeowners are the ones who misuse chemicals most
often; commercial applicators are certified and it's their
business to apply them correctly.
SENATOR FRENCH asked her if she thought Round Up would be
required to have a placard.
MS. RYAN replied that she didn't know, but a recent Washington
state court decision required that to occur for 10 - 15
pesticides.
SENATOR FRENCH commented that he was trying to get a handle on
the burden this law would put on retailers and asked her what
pesticides are commonly used.
MS. RYAN replied that she didn't have any idea right now. Over
500 are registered for use in the state. Maybe 10 percent would
be required to have that placard.
SENATOR RALPH SEEKINS asked if farmers or landowners are
required to register their use of pesticides either by the state
or the federal government.
MS. RYAN replied that the registration process is a
responsibility of the product maker. A product cannot be used or
sold in a state where it is not registered. A farmer would be an
applicator and is required by the federal government to be
certified to use certain pesticides. The state has the
additional responsibility, in regulation, to require a permit
for spraying by airplane or helicopter. If one farmer were to
spray multiple farmers' properties, he would need to get a
permit.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked if section 5 would require a farmer or
private landowner to give notice of applying pesticides.
MS. RYAN answered that only certified applicators have to give
notification.
CHAIR BUNDE said he would hold the bill for more information on
its impact to retailers.
SENATOR SEEKINS asked why information listed on page 6, line 2,
was being gathered if it wasn't going to be regulated in the
future.
CHAIR BUNDE referred the question to Ms. Ryan to answer when the
bill came up in committee again.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|