MEMORANDUM

TO: Members: House Natural Resources Committee

FROM: Reggie James, Director Consumers Union SWRO

DATE: April 30, 1999

RE: HB 1378 relating to Pesticide Use Reporting Study

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I want to share this news release I downloaded from the National Farm Bureau Web Site. The release points out one of the important reasons why pesticide data collection is in the best interest of the general public and of agricultural producers.

I remind you that HB 1378 by Rep. Naishtat would not establish a requirement for data reporting or collection. HB 1378 merely directs the appropriate agencies to look at the cost and complexity of developing a reporting system that would benefit everyone. Opposition to this concept remains a mystery to me.

Despite the obvious benefits referred to in the attachments, Rep Naishstat agreed to eliminate agriculture from the bill. I concurred because there is currently far more agricultural pesticide use data available to regulators and researchers than there is data relating to non-agricultural uses. Moreover, as you can see from the attachments, there are advocates within the agricultural community for the goals included in HB 1378.

The current hang-up on HB 1378 appears to be opposition from the Texas Farm Bureau to including non-agricultural uses outside of urban areas, especially right-of-way spraying. Again, the grounds for this position are a mystery to me. Agriculture is not the only source, but is currently blamed for many pesticide problems that affect, groundwater, drinking water, and total human exposures that must be considered in Food Quality Protection Act assessments.

Listed below are examples of ways other states are dealing with these issues:

• According to the Oregonian article, the California Farm Bureau believes that pesticide use reporting has worked more to their benefit than to their detriment, because actual pesticide use data has "helped California farmers paint a more positive picture of chemical use than estimates by the federal government." This would seem to imply that the Texas Farm Bureau’s position may actually put Texas agriculture at a disadvantage, compared to other states.

• The Oregon agriculture lobby, led by Oregonians for Food and Shelter, has proposed that the Oregon State University College of Agricultural Science do essentially what HB 1378 proposed: complete a study on the need for the a pesticide use tracking system in Oregon by September 1, 2000. (See attached article from Capital Press).

In Wisconsin, Governor Tommy Thompson is also proposing that the state study the feasibility of a pesticide tracking system (see attached budget request). We understand that the Wisconsin agricultural community supports Governor Thompson’s request.

HB 1378 is a sensible approach to inserting sound scientific reasoning into the debate on pesticides. I would appreciate your reconsideration of this bill – with an amendment excluding agricultural uses and uses that are incidental to agricultural production.

Attachments

cc. Honorable Pete Laney

John Howard, Office of the Governor

Susan Combs, Commissioner of Agriculture

John Baker, Commissioner TNRCC