Senate Joint Environmental Safety EQ — 2026-08-11

Thank you. 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 want to 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 176 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 established 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 roadmap, 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 Office will also determine whether state laws or regulations need to be changed to ensure consistent enforcement of our state pesticide laws I want to thank in advance all the panelists and we 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.

Thank you, Senator, and we are happy to acknowledge Assemblymembers 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.

Thank you.

Thank you both.

Yeah, thank you for the question. I think also regarding the La Dere Ranch 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 it's going into our body and the amount that it's actually 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.

I believe it does It almost feels and we talked about amongst ourselves it almost like a walk 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 for a lot of other chemicals, for example, the medicines, we need to prove safety before these chemicals are approved. For some of the environmental toxicants we're commonly exposed to through our day-to-day life, like PFOS, PFOA, and other chemicals like phenols, it's the opposite. The chemicals are approved for their use. 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 glasses rather than one at a time. Science is not 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 fentanyl 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.

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, an appellate court case, that made it clear that state agencies, and in this case, DPR, need to 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. And we'll continue, I think, to see some litigation over what the contours of those obligations look like. But if I can take a step back, and underneath that question is this notion, 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, and 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 alternatives and the response is, 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 alternatives assessment try to emphasize the notion that it's really hard to do. I have no out 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 it. Training for staff, resources to do that work, but also at a more meta 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, as far as I can tell, all that exists are sort of checklists that don't provide really substantive direction about how to make these choices. Thanks.

I think it's clear that PCAs are an important and valuable resource for farmers, for growers, and that 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 the relative tradeoff 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 – 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 imprint tour of the agency so that we know it's being done consistently across the state. With respect to whether there are incentives created by having pest control 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 been other studies that suggest it doesn have the impact I can just tell you this if I may there 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 involve toxic chemicals like perchloroethylene There was an alternative that was safer, and it turned out it was cheaper than perchloroethylene, but they couldn't understand why it was not being adopted 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 perchloroethylene technology, and they did not have an incentive to push the safer technology with their customers. Now, 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 want to pretend that I do.

Thank you very much. A couple of questions. And speaking on behalf of non-scientists, the public, and wrestling with these facts, which sound 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 very at the macro level. how do we get to the molecular level or to the square inch, the square foot, the acreage level? How do we get to that information?

Well, I appreciate that, and I thank you for that. 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. Maybe it's just a matter of redesign. Do you have a response to that too, ma'am?

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 hard. 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 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 is happening in that area, the composition of the chemical and the pesticide 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.

Are you familiar with that? No.

Can the average person access that EnviroScreen Yes but it takes some learning I mean I think there are resources available on that website and folks that can help But, yeah, it's very complicated stuff, so it's hard for me to say 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.

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.

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 have taken to improve the system. A few of these 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 these are only incremental. And they do not fix the core structural problems that keep California tethered 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 costs 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 meal 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, our workers, our children, our 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.

Sorry. Good afternoon, Chair Connelly and Blake Spear. My name is Bianca Lopez. I am a co-founder 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 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 truth in 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 drift incidents, the information that we receive at the local level by the Ag Commissioners is very different. 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 participation on School Notify goes unaddressed. There is a lack of outreach to schools and the implementation of this actual protective measure varies across counties and 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 in the nation. It's the first public advanced notification system for agricultural pesticide use And literally thousands of community 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. 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 the beginning of implementation, not at the end. Communities 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.

Yeah, I can start it off and would invite my colleagues to also give their input on this. Yeah, so whenever we go to the communities and we share that much of the department's budget is tied to the sales 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 reconcile the fact that an agency's budget is dependent on the sales. It just continues this cycle of pesticide dependency Now as for the adoption of a tiered MILFI I think that can be one way to start that conversation because by encouraging the push for revisiting what they're going to be using, we're hoping that that will really encourage to look into other ways of adopting pesticides or products that are not going to be harming the community. So we do feel that we got to also push for a system that allows for people, for growers, for the system to explore and break away from this paradigm where it's only pesticides and doesn't matter the damage that they cause, but they're all going to be just the demophies will be the same. What we want is something that if it's less harmful or is the least harmful, then let's go ahead and recognize that and provide bigger incentives to it.

um well for pesticide re-evaluation i mean you have put in place some you know a certain number that have to be started every year maybe more would be good and and uh and importantly a deadline for um 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 developing and implementing mitigations. And I think that's 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 that to try to put some of the same requirements on completion of risk assessments in the continuous evaluation process which more what I was getting okay appreciate that um and miss Lopez you you spoke

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 Stanislaus County. That's evidence for us that the buffer zone that 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 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. But then we go to DPR, and they'll say, no, 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.

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

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

The experience at the community level for a lot of the concerned public is that there is, and it remains very unclear and blurry, where what the DPR and that 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 involved 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 unclear to the community who is tasked with enforcing and implementing pesticide policy at the local level And it's also important to note that the 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 ad commissioners have said to the Department of PESA regulation director, to their face, that their bosses are the board of supervisors and not DPR. So that to us is, yeah, it just really leaves the whole conversation very unclear as to who do we go to when it comes to pesticide policy in California. My commissioner has said, well, we do have a MOU in place with the Department of Pesticide Regulation, but that's not legally binding. That's all very good.

Good afternoon, Chair Connolly and Chair Blakespeare and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to make comments today. My name is Christopher Finarelli 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 of my colleagues on today's panel, we'll 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. any insect propellant, disinfectant, or pet flea product reaches a California store shelf, it has already gone under 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 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 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 roadmap. 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 timeframes 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 want to 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 want to 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. It is modernizing the registration process through a new electronic system. It provided clear guidance to applicants about registration expectations. It 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 July of next year to judge whether or not there 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.

Hi, my name is Hannah Call, 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 work includes hosting field days centered around farmer expertise developing resources providing one technical assistance and funds for SPM practices conducting on research supporting on translating resources into Spanish While others have focused on regulating pesticides piece of DPR mission I focus more on fostering sustainable pest management solutions And I 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.

Thank you, Taw3. Go ahead and ask a question of each. Mr. Finarelli, yeah, you read my mind as well in terms of like milestones 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 timelines. 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?

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

Yeah, of course.

to support implementation plans?

Great. And finally, Ms. Call, 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?

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

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

And now we've 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 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 giant circle.

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. So 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, thank you. I'm happy to answer that.

Okay, thank you very much. Appreciate it.

I will look forward to those conversations. Okay.

Good afternoon, Chair Connolly, Chair Blake Spear, members of the committee. My name is Chris Nise 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 Nazca 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 Pestside Regulation, DPR, and California County Agricultural Commissioners. While DPR establishes statewide policy, registers pesticide products, and provides oversight, County Agricultural 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. Every day, County Agricultural Commissioner staff work directly with growers, pest control businesses, licensed 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 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 costs have 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 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 incidents, these activities are the most directly protect public health and in the environment. With respect to our relationship with DPR I want to emphasize that County Agriculture Ministries and DPR share the same mission We want a pesticide regulatory program that is science consistent transparent and protective. We appreciate DPR's technical expertise, training programs, licensing support, scientific resources, and the professionalism of many departmental staff. Daily communications between county staff and DPR's 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 don't agree on every policy or regulatory issue, there's a shared commitment to open dialogue, mutual respect, and collaboration. County Agricultural Commissioners feel that their expertise and perspectives are valued and that they are 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 during policy development. Many agricultural commissioners need to be involved early in this process, not after a major policy decision has already been made. Because commissioners are responsible for implementing many of DPR's policies at the local level, 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 pest side 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 is 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 the 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 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 complementary roles each plays within the California PESI regulatory system. California PESI regulatory program has an earnest reputation because it combines strong statewide standards with knowledgeable local implementation. That partnership remains the foundation of our success. County Ag Commissioners are proud of the work our staff performs every day. They respond to complaints at all hours, conduct thousands of inspections annually, investigate complex incidents, educate pestilence, users and work diligently to protect workers, communities, agriculture and the environment. We remain committed to working collaboratively with DPR, the legislature, 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.

a lot in that question there let me start with the cumulative and alternative topic there our role as county ed commissioners is issuing restricted material permits evaluating that proposed application and providing mitigation or conditions to that permit should that application needs some mitigating circumstances. When it comes to the alternatives, our role really is to ensure that the application meets the requirements and regulations of the state laws and regulations. We want to be kind of careful in our approach to this because we don't want to kind of go into the lane of pest management, providing pest management program recommendations to them. We don't want to offer an alternative product. there could be potential issues with that in the sense of 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 rule is, is to mitigate any issues that might 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 in the news we've seen a lot, you know, where there's distrust and quite honestly we trust isn 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 would recommend that they would reach out to their county commissioner. County Ag Commissaries are more than willing to discuss things they can that are appropriate.

Department of Ag Regulation have created a community engagement fund where it allows us to go out and interact with 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.

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 environment, provide stability to California's healthy food supply, and to protect critical infrastructure. I want to begin my remarks with some background on the Sustainable Pest Management Roadmap and the recent budget action in 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 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 visionary strategic planning for what the future of pest management could look like in California Released in January of 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 roadmap further envisions that 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 roadmap 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 roadmap 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 20 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 roadmap. 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 re-evaluation. 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 want to 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 for lower risk or non-chemical 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 five million dollars to a range of innovative projects earlier this year. This included nearly two million dollars 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 million in funding, but were 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 in practice, recently funding a regional approach to naval orangeworm 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. AB 2113 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 awareness and discussion of how we prioritize our work and focus our resources on the areas of greatest potential risk first. I want to take a moment to expand on re-evaluations as a part of our continuous evaluation program. Re-evaluation, as I mentioned, is a formal science-driven process to assess pesticide risks and mitigate those risks when necessary. It includes five general steps, identify a problem and initiate the re-evaluation, collect needed data, evaluate the data to determine risk, develop strategies to reduce risk, and implement mitigation measures.

Assemblymember Schultz.

So I appreciate the question. 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.

Maybe if I can add one point to that, if I may, is that as a part of – so we have currently 10 open re-evaluations within the departments and are actively working through data reviews for many of those. So I don't want to undervalue where we are working quite closely with companies and 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 authority, I think it's important for us to be looking at all of those pieces together. Thanks.

Thank you for the question, Chair, and I appreciate the chance to chat with you about this. last week as well. And I want to reflect that we fully understand that our work on our denicides is a priority for the legislature. It's a priority for the departments. I'm very mindful that 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 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 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 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.

So we're looking at a couple of different factors within that. And again, I want to emphasize these are draft proposals and we are still 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.

So we've been in active conversation with CDFW. And again, this is an 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 rulemaking. And so we're very mindful of that requirement and are continuing to engage with our partners at CDFW as a part of that development.

So I really appreciate the question and for the conversation earlier today around the importance of evaluating exposure where use is not a perfect proxy for exposure. And 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 do some of that work that we work in partnership with and happy to follow up with 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 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.

Yeah. So I think as was noted in an earlier panel, the state of our registration program and timelines, if you had asked me two years ago, 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.

Yeah. So in terms of tracking, and specifically tracking availability of new products, So that's something that we do look 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 UC 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 broader, more holistic perspective, which we know that many PCAs do consider, but perhaps not all. And again, looking at full range of different regulatory levers that we can have to be able to help support awareness and availability of those products.

Yeah so appreciate the question And I think reflecting and this was noted in an earlier panel about 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 enforcement where we are balancing supporting local action but also maintaining statewide consistency where appropriate first and I mentioned this earlier we currently have rulemaking that the first comment period just recently closed of updating our enforcement response regulations it has that the last time these were substantially updated was about 20 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 at 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 level 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 day-to-day oversight training support as well as the broader enforcement that we do in this space.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Elizabeth Pavia and I am an outreach worker with the with the organization Lideres Campesinas in Merced. Pero toda mi vida fui campesina. I have been a farm worker my entire life. Y he trabajado en muchas diferentes clases de trabajo, desde el tomate, la uva. And I have worked in several car-ops, like the tomatoes and the grapes. But the most terrible experience I had was when I was working on the asadon in the algodon One of the most difficult situations that I encountered was working in the cleaning of the cotton. the cotton. And I was sprayed multiple times due to a pesticide aviation plane that was spraying the neighboring fields. Y no solo eso, toda mi vida he trabajado, he vivido en las áreas rurales, que son áreas más vulnerables. 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. Uno de ellos tiene ADHD y el otro tiene problemas respiratorios. So one of them has ADHD and the other has respiratory problems. dolor crónico de por vida debido a actritis reumatoides, dicen los doctores, y inflamación en el hígado crónico. 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 want to emphasize that none of us are exempt to pesticide exposure because we all eat the food, drink the water, live off the same land, and so we're all exposed to the dangers. Y por último, que debemos de tomar responsabilidad. Todos y cada uno de nosotros tenemos responsabilidad en este asunto. Muchas gracias. And that everyone has responsibility to address these issues and dangers. Thank you very much.

Tenga muy buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Victoria Poz. Soy de aquí de Sacramento. Soy representante de Líderes Campesinas. Y hemos venido aquí por un propósito que... My name is Victoria Poz. I am from Sacramento, and I am a farm worker and a member of Líderes Campesinas. And she first introduced herself in her language, K'iche, from Guatemala. I worked in the field, and unfortunately what is happening today, that they have taken care of the medical, and when I worked in the field, I caught a pic of it and I couldn't go to a hospital, So I have worked in the fields and I've been exposed to pesticides. I have had rashes on my arms and have had to go to the doctor and ended up with a very expensive bill and was also impacted because of the cuts to medical where I could not see a regular doctor. Y cuando trabajábamos eso de porrear almendras, porque a veces las almendras se quedan unos prendidos en las matas y eso es nuestro trabajo de ir a porrear. Cuando baja el helicóptero, empiece a regar el veneno y nosotros estamos trabajando. And so she has had experiences when pruning the almond trees where they are spraying pesticides and it ends up on her. We are the ones that harvest the food, that bring food to your tables, to everyone's tables, and yet are still not being seen. And so as her, as a farm worker, she's exposed to these chemicals as well as everyone who eats this food. And I ask you all my heart to support us in that way, because we are the ones who served the people with all the fruits and vegetables. And that you have a good afternoon, and that God bless you in the name of God. And she just would like to thank you for listening, and that you hopefully can do everything you can to protect the workers from being exposed to pesticides. Thank you so much.

para venir a exponer las necesidades de los campesinos a raíz de los pesticidas. And so my name is Gloria and I'm here on behalf of Lideres Campesinas to share the experiences of many of the workers that don't have the opportunity to share what they encounter. igual que mi compañera. Tengo esclerosis, mis huesos ya están frágiles, tengo asma, tengo mis nietos, mi mamá. La mayoría de mi familia está enferma del problema de la respiración a raíz de los pesticidas. And I forgot to mention that she is coming from Fresno and is 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 exposure to pesticides as well. Y agradecemos el grupo de las personas latinas que estamos acá para que tomen conciencia y hagan acción en regular los pesticidas. Muchas gracias. I have two children who live in the middle of the field, in ranch, and these children were raised around the pesticides and, to today, they are adults, but they convulsion. They have no life free or happy. So, I and my person, please, I ask you to take into account and thank you for this opportunity that you have given us. 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.

Good afternoon.

And so I said, 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 earth is bad. The dirt is bad. So, so sorry. I feel sad for the kids from the school when they are playing outside and they can drink water because the water is not good. So I ask you to put more attention in my country, in my town, because nobody knows over there. Thank you. Good afternoon, my name is Mariela Fernández de Vallejo. I am a member of TCS CAP 559 and I live in the area of ABC 617. I am a member of Fresno, I believe we deserve a protection of at least around our schools, homes and communities. Esta protecci ayudar a reducir las exposiciones y dispersi de pesticidas en el aire Nuestros ni deben estar protegidos en todo momento principalmente mientras juegan en su educaci f and dispersion of pesticides in the air Our children must be protected at every moment especially while they play in their physical education within schools or more strict regulations for industries as necessary. I thank you for your attention and I hope we support our children, which we as parents want the best for them. Thank you. So, good afternoon. My name is Maricela Fernandez from Vallejo, and I'm a resident of Fresno. Okay. And I live in the area of... I'm a resident of Fresno, and I think that we deserve a zone of... of a protection zone at least a mile around the schools and homes from spring pesticides. This kind of protection would help reduce the exposure 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. Buenas tardes a todos. Mi nombre es Eulalia Mendoza, organizadora comunitaria con la organización Proyecto Mixteco Indígena and represent the CAPS 805 and the indigenous community in the County of Ventura. I worked more than 20 years in agriculture. I was exposed to pesticides. I was diagnosed with a cancer of the matrix and I retired from the matrix. I also saw a lot of colleagues who worked with me in the fields. In the County of Ventura, known for its production of fresh fruit, we use the 1-3D fumigant that we are worried about for our health. Today I receive notifications of Spray Day constantly. I feel that they are bombarding me, but many times we don't have the exact location of where the pesticide will be applied. How can we protect ourselves if we don't have the precise information and time? We ask transparency, clear information and the right to protect our health and the of our family. Our community is being heard and protected. Thank you very much. My name is Eulalia Mendoza, and I'm an organizer with the organization Mixteco Indígena, MECOP, also representing CAPS and 805, and our indigenous community that works in the fields. I worked for more than 20 years in agriculture in California, and I've been exposed to pesticides, and I was diagnosed with cancer of uterus, I think. También, sorry, let's see. I've seen many people die from cancer. Some of them are my friends and partners from work that worked in the fields with me. This has happened also in Ventura County, which is known for its production of strawberries and uses the 1,3-D 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 lots of times it doesn't have the actual location where this pesticide is being sprayed. How can we do more to protect ourselves if we don't have the exact information 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 communities deserve to be heard and protected. Thank you very much. I'm Tutui, and born in Visalia. I want to 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 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 abusing Mother Earth and abusing everything that walks, lives on this land. I just want to say that much about that. Thank you. Hola, buenas tardes. My name is Elena. I'm a young indigenous woman. And today I come from Santa Maria to be able to launch my voice. Hi, my name is Elena and I'm a young indigenous woman. And I'm coming from the area of Santa Maria. My parents have worked in the field my whole life, and I started working in the fields at age 11, and a lot of my friends also work in the fields. Muchas de las veces que he estado trabajando, podía mirar que pasaban, tiraban las pesticidas, no al lado de nosotros, pero aún así el viento lo traía, donde estábamos nosotros. A lot of times that I been working in the fields with my co we have been exposed to pesticides not because they spraying right on the fields where they working but in the neighboring fields where the wind blows the pesticides on them Y aunque no lo crean, en el campo hay muchos jóvenes y niños trabajando ahí desde los 11 años o menos. I also had to see women in the field working in the field or things like that. Many people might not have seen or believed, but 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. Tal vez piensen que sus padres son bastante malos porque los ponen a trabajar desde muy pequeños, pero si estuvieran en nuestro lugar, que vienen de otro lugar y tienen que ganar el dinero para pagar la renta, la comida y todo eso, verán que los padres no empiezan to work because they are bad parents, but they really take the help to earn more money. 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 income as well as from their child. And just like you all, as parents, you might not want to see your children working in the fields, but many of the parents, 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. Gracias. 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 11 months my partner and I tested water from the three different water drinking fountains 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 out 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. Buenas tardes. Soy Merali López. Merali López. Good afternoon. My name is Merali López. Y vengo representando la organización Campesinas Unidas del Valle Central de San Joaquín. She's here representing Campesinas Unidas del Valle de San Joaquín. Del área del Condado de Tulare. Tulare County Area. Estoy representando a las madres, a los bebés, a los niños que están expuestos a estos pesticidas. I'm here to talk about the mothers, the children, all who are exposed to pesticides. Y que por esta exposición ellos están sufriendo de asma y problemas respiratorios. Many of which are exposed to asma and respiratory problems. Pedimos a la DPR que informe anualmente sobre la reducción de pesticidas peligrosos. Debemos de saber qué es lo que están haciendo. Anualmente? Anualmente. We're asking that DPR please alert of all the pesticides that are being sprayed annually. Y avisar previamente si vamos a estar expuestos a estos pesticidas. and to please notify beforehand if they are going to be exposed to any pesticide spraying. Por favor, ayúdenos a cuidar a nuestros hijos y a nuestra siguiente generación. Gracias. Please help us protect our children and the next generations. Thank you. Tenga todos muy buenas tardes. I'm from Modesto, from the state of Stanislaus. I want to be aware of everything that is happening in my community. That's why I'm aware of the air, the water and what I'm consuming is contaminated with chemicals by pesticides and herbicides. I joined the movement. What we want is to stop or to be better. We want to stop using chemicals, pesticides and herbicides to treat the soil, the siembring and the crops, and so our water and water and the products that we consume are clean and healthy for all of us. And so we can achieve the life we deserve free of chemicals and especially our children that are growing now and that this is Good afternoon everyone I am a mother and I am coming here today from Modesto, Stanislaus County. When I found out how much our air and water is contaminated and what we are consuming, all of the chemicals that we are consuming, I decided to join this movement. I am also a parent, and 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 soil and in the dirt, 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 protect our children and our families so that we cannot breathe contaminated air and eat poisoned food. Good afternoon Chair Connolly, Chair Blakespear, members of the committee, Melissa Kosachuk with Western Growers. Thank you for the hearing today, and we are aligning our comments with those provided by Ms. Truffle 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 and VCAC and California's a 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 30 years, and so my concern is that I agree that we have 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 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. We need to look at 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 when people are dehydrated, they're not going to get 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, but 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 U.S. 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 think it's 30 years old. And really, it's time for one of our most advanced agencies that looks at pesticide risk to start incorporating consideration 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 Plasencia. I work with Valley Improvement Projects a nonprofit focused on social and 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 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 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 12,000 years without the use of synthetic pesticides. So to hear that we won't have transition until 50 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 1900s after World War II and began utilizing a lot of leftover chemicals that were used during war and now used for fertilizers and pesticides. Before that wartime, communities and households and public yards were utilized for community gardens, growing up to 40 percent 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 one in autism, number one ADHD, number one ADD. Top reason for death among young people 12 to 21 years old is suicide. Because of the pesticides, they are destroying our kids' microbiome in our gut, which is where all of the neurotransmitters are being created. It is 1,000 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 percent 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 exists 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 Arangel. I'm from Greenfield, California, and I am also a co-founder 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. 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. TPR'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 continued 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 co-chair for the Central Coast Democratic Socialists of America. but yes I'm going to 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 50-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 50 years is too long. Assemblymember Connolly, I do not know how old you are, but I do know that in 50 years, 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 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 50 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 are from. It all impacts them and it impacts if they will be able to have an equitable and livable future So my last comment is that brown bodies are not expendable And that is all I have to say. Good afternoon. Thank you, first of all, Assemblymember 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. and 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 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 Gallagher. I'm from Sonoma County. I am here today to say we should be investing 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 in 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 Durgan, and I am a co-founder of a new nonprofit that was established this last month over in Plumas County, which is Northern California. And this nonprofit grew out of an 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 website. work on spraymapca.org. And our homepage is the map itself. When you click on a bubble, it's going to 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, Team Chiris 856, United Farm Workers, and UFCW Local 5. Those are the three unions that represent agricultural workers, along with the California Nurses Association and the California Federation of Teachers and CSCA, 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 ag commissioner, appoints and not hires, and they have no power over-regulating, when we go to DPR and they point the finger at the ag commissioners to do something, and the Act Commissioners point to DPR to take action, something is broken. The way that the fees are structured with mill fees 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 PIRFOS just a day ago after many years of action. So as the labor movement, as community, as everybody that came here today from across the states, 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 Mr Conley for giving us the space to speak on behalf of all these communities

Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. My name is Rocio Madrigal, and I'm here at CCEJN. We are a nonprofit in Fresno, and we've been a longtime partner with Californians for Pesticide Reform. We would like to ask mostly for three things. Informed 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 armed enforcement with ag commissioners The director mentioned unique partnerships. We'd like to know what those are because they don't include enforcement. I myself make some of the reports I've made, too, 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 I provided the information I was at the site. But since I did not take a video and I don't have the sticky proof on my 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 farmworker advocate, and in my life in the last year and two months, I have buried three farmworkers 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 farmworker, a bracero, also died of cancer. We are dying. We don't have 15 years, 20 years, 10 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.

Hello, good evening. My name is Juanita Chavez, and I'm here representing my mother, Dolores Huerta, who regrets that she could not be with you in person today. But this issue is so important to her heart. We did see her this morning. That was great. Wonderful. Okay, so she was commenting at that time, and I think it bears repeating, which is, why are we still fighting this? Progress is going forward, not going backwards. We set up agencies to regulate, to make things better for communities, not to leave things as they were or make them worse. So it's regretful the DPR is failing in its mission now to protect communities, and it needs massive reform, more legislative oversight, and most importantly, accountability. Discourage it needs to discourage the use of the most hazardous pesticides by adopting a tiered mill fee that charges significantly more for the use of the most hazardous pesticides and. Stop funding DPR from pesticide sales and this conflict of interest that makes DPR's budget dependent on the sale of pesticides and therefore encourages the use of pesticides. Let's rapidly move to phase out the most hazardous and drift-prone classes of pesticides, including organophosphates and fumigates, and hold county agricultural commissioners accountable to the communities for rigorous, consistent enforcement of pesticides. Thank you very much. Have a good evening.

Good afternoon. My name is Jacob Sanoval. I'm state director for California LUNAC, the League of United Latin American Citizens. Thank you for the hearing and thank you for the patience. Have you heard the stories of the farm workers? You know, they feed the nation. Unfortunately, they've been highly impacted by pesticide use. Their health is not valued the same as other families across California. Spray days was an important move forward. Unfortunately, a one square mile isn't notification enough. California has the technology whenever there's chemical issues or wildfires, real-time notice should be given to a lot of these families with spray days. That's a big ask we're making. If DPR is unwilling to do it, then we're asking it for it to be legislated. I've been at meetings with county commissioners when they're requested to give alternatives, and the will is not there. I think they keep pushing it back and forth. And so a lot of the stories I hold today, we really hope that you can help support those efforts. And I know you have because we appreciate the patience for the hearing today. Thank you.

Hi Tara Thornton co of Freedom Angels and also Protect Tahoe Yes thank you for this hearing We appreciate it I not going to go over the details of our letter we submitted I'm just going to talk to what I, you know, the plain points of what I think this moment in time requires, and that is that we need bold action. We need an immediate off-ramp to every one of these issues we're having with pesticides. Pesticides just in the last six months, California has been in the national news on four tragic situations. One, Ladera Ranch, where six young children have been identified with the rare Ewing sarcoma. Now, there is no understanding right now of what the cause is, but what we do know is environmental exposures are a big factor, and you have to look at the low-hanging fruits. And pesticide use is a low-hanging fruit that we don't have to wait for data for. We can make common sense decisions and we can choose safer alternatives. That's what that community is seeking for their HOA. They are an unincorporated city, so they're under an HOA. What you'll see in cities like that is that there are incentives to use more herbicides and pesticides. And I think the conversation I want to bring up is the incentives all the way up the channel, whether it's a little town, a county, a city, or the state or the administration. Another issue, Orange County, the creeks were in the news for the channelized creeks being sprayed with conventional herbicides right out into the ocean. Another issue, Driscoll's and the strawberry fields and farms and the workers and the children in those areas and the rise of childhood cancer around the school in the areas there. And then in the forests, like Tahoe, where I live, the spraying of glyphosate for wildfire mitigation in the forest was unaware to most people. No one really knew it was happening until Mother Jones exposed it this year. I work on a broad spectrum of issues, and I can tell you, other than child trafficking, there is no more universally agreed-upon issue that we want less pesticides and poisons than more. and that any legislator in every single district has all the support they need within their community to build the world we want. And we have to invest in, we have to put the money into the solutions we want. To modify behavior, we have to take away the incentives to what we don't want, and we have to give the incentives where we want it. And we want it on safe alternatives to the conventional and synthetic pesticides. The situation with the DPR being funded, that is absolutely insane and unacceptable. When an agency is funded by the industry, it's made to regulate. That is industry capture, and everybody knows that nobody's voice, whether it's children, workers, consumers, the environment, animals, anybody, nobody gets represented. That has to be addressed immediately. We also need to look at, like, what San Mateo County did. They put in a statewide, I mean, a countywide prohibition on contracts that give kickbacks to the use of increased use of pesticides. That's something the state can do in all their contracts everywhere you have authority. And then also, I would just ask for bold action like AB 1603. That should have been passed. All the people out there want it. The legislators did not represent the people by letting that thing get gutted to be meaningless. And right now there's two other bills, AB 2410 and SB 1370, that are the wildfire mitigation bills that have wildfire glyphosate loopholes within them that incentivize the use of giving an incentive, a state incentive you have, which is good to get the work done. You're incentivizing more conventional herbicide use instead of less. So the solution is to remove that, incentivize the work you want done. Thank you. What we want is bold action. Fund the Regen Ag. Fund all the other programs and the communities. We will all lock arms and back you. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? Come on up. I believe you're our last one.

Thank you. All right. I believe that was our last speaker. I want to say thank you so much to everyone. And that was truly amazing to hear from everyone. Thank you for staying so long in many cases. And also, as we heard, a lot of folks traveled a great distance and even got up quite early to be here. We truly heard kind of local perspectives from around the state in this hearing. And those are really the voices that should and indeed do shape what we do up here. I want to thank Chair Blakespear for the amazing partnership. Appreciated doing this with her. I wanted to thank our colleagues who came and offered insights Of course our amazing staff Thank you you guys And really just some final thoughts because our work is definitely continuing on all the issues that were raised today. But throughout the hearing, I really couldn't help but look around the room and note how many people are invested in having a dialogue about pesticide use and regulation in California. As we heard today, this is an issue that matters to families, communities, growers, farm workers, our state and local regulators, and many other stakeholders. I think it's critical that we have the kinds of discussions we've had today. It's vital to California's identity and economy that we continue to have thriving growers, but it's equally vital that our communities and our environments are protected from pesticide-driven harm. I want to thank everyone again who took the time to contribute your voices, including panelists, DPR, everyone who jumped into the public comment line or just came to listen. We valued hearing from all of you, and I hope that you will continue to remain engaged. With that, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you.