The Texas Department of Agriculture's Structural Pest Control Advisory Committee met in Austin last week. I have served on the committee for two plus years, and have written about the advisory committee in the past (search this site for the term "advisory committee"). The committee represents the public and the pest control industry, and meets quarterly to get updates, and offer suggestions and feedback to TDA, on rules and regulations pertaining to pest control in Texas.
Budget Update & Department news
This quarter's meeting included an update on TDA's budget status in the legislature. House Bill 1(HB 1) (in this session the House takes the lead in drafting the state budget, next session the Senate takes the lead) proposes a 45% cut in the TDA budget. This seemed incredibly high to me for an agency budget cut, but I wasn't detecting any feeling of panic among Assistant Commissioner Jimmy Bush or other TDA staffers at the meeting. According to Bush, while such cuts will likely mean a major restructuring of the Agency, TDA does not see any major impacts on the operation of the Structural Pest Control Service (the division of TDA that oversees and regulates the pest control industry in the state). Much of the cuts being proposed would come from programs at TDA that do not bring in revenue through licenses or fees, namely marketing and the rural economic development divisions of the agency.
The committee was introduced to two TDA attorneys that have recently been assigned to the Structural Pest Control Service. Mary Luedeker and Lisa Hoyt will take over all new structural pest control cases, working with the agency and with industry to interpret and enforce laws and rules relating to pest control in Texas.
Legislative Updates
Deputy Assistant Commissioner Dr. Ambrose Charles reported that the Texas Council on Environmental Quality has drafted a discharge permit plan for pesticide applications near water which has been accepted by the U.S. EPA. He noted that the deadline for implementing this program was recently delayed until October 31, but that there is some question whether this new permitting program will ever go into effect. He reported that H.R. 872 was recently passed out of the U.S. House of Representatives by a wide margin. This bill would exempt pesticides labeled under FIFRA from being subject to the Clean Water Act permit system. A companion bill, S. 718, was also introduced into the Senate. If that passes and both houses agree on a joint version of the bill (there are differences), Congress could effectively bypass the recent court decision that would require permits for pesticide applications for aquatic weed control, forest pest control, mosquito control and other pest control around water. The paperwork and manpower requirements, supporters say, will be expensive to communities and agencies, and will not result in improved water quality. Environmental groups oppose HR 872, saying it would be a vote for dirty water. If you have question about how the Texas water permit system works, Dr. Charles is familiar with the provisions of the Texas permitting system.
Katherine Wright-Steele gave a legislative update on four bills relating to the pest control industry that are currently in the Texas state legislative process. Senate Bill 3, containing language that would repeal all school IPM regulations in the state, has been previously discussed here. HB 2741, HB 2742, and HB 2743 were introduced by Representative Tim Kleinschmidt, R-Lexington. All appear to have been introduced with the support of the Texas Pest Control Association. House bills 2741 and 2742 serve to give TDA more leverage in regulating advertising, restoring some of the authority lost in the last legislative session. The house bill 2743 seeks to restructure the Advisory committee, eliminating the university (yo!) and department of State Health Services representatives and making six of the nine positions filled by pest control professionals (three would be public members). Status of these bills is still uncertain and there are currently no companion Senate bills.
Wood Destroying Insect Reports
The committee received some homework from Jimmy Bush. Members were asked to review and provide input into the Wood Destroying Insect (WDI) Report (Form No. SPCS/T-4), WDI report inspection procedures (Rule 7.175), and the chapter on WDI inspections in the AgriLife Extension Study manual (B-5075). This follows discussion from other meetings on ways to reduce the numbers of complaints received each year from the public about WDI reports and inspections. In 2010 the TDA received 20 complaints related to WDI inspections, approximately 10% of all complaints received. While some felt that this number of complaints is very low compared to the number of inspections conducted each year, there does seem to be room for improvement. Improvements to the form itself, as well as the need for improved training and certification for WDI inspectors was discussed.
A group of industry members (Eric Melass, Mike Dickens and Debbie Aguirre) appointed by the committee late last year recommended that enforcement of existing rules rather than new regulations was what was most needed. They also suggested that all WDI inspectors be required to carry a certified applicator's license and that CA tests have a section devoted to WDI issues. If this change did not result in fewer problems, only then should TDA consider creating a special license subcategory for WDI inspectors.
CEU courses
The committee was also charged with reviewing staff recommendations on restructuring CEU course offerings. A group of SPCS staff reviewed the two existing rules (Section 7.134 and Section 7.135) and offered a draft version of the rules with suggestions for improvement. One of the most significant concessions in the new version is to allow the use of an online course to meet someone's entire annual recertification requirement. The only limitation under this proposal would be that online courses could not be used in any two consecutive years to meet CEU requirements. This is because there is concern that, despite recent improvements in technology, the department is still unconvinced that online courses can fully substitute for face to face training.
Other changes in Section 7.135 would include eliminating speaker qualification forms, and doing away with a requirement that online course takers pass an exam with at least a 70% to get their CEU credit and be proctored by a certified applicator. It's not clear under the draft rule how sponsors will guard against abuse of online courses without the proctor requirement. In public testimony time, Don Ward, Executive Director of the Texas Pest Control Association, expressed the association's general support of online courses if abuse issues can be addressed. He also expressed a preference for certifying speakers over courses, seemingly the opposite of the new rules.
If you have suggestions for improvements to the CEU or WDI report process, you should contact one of the Advisory Committee members before July 28, or plan to attend the next committee meeting on that date.
Showing posts with label federal legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal legislation. Show all posts
Friday, May 6, 2011
Friday, August 20, 2010
NPDES legislative update
Earlier this month I sent a long post trying to summarize the latest legal developments concerning the Clean Water Act, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and commercial pesticide applications. I'm not going to be long-winded today, other than to say that there has been a lot of opposition to the court's decision to consider label-approved pesticide applications to, or over, water as a discharge of pollutants. As a result, legislation was introduced on August 5th to explicitly exempt pesticides from other permitting requirements when pesticides are applied according to an approved label. If passed, the bill would essentially side-step the legal ruling that declared certain pesticides as pollutants and requiring them to obtain an NDPES permit. According to Senator Lincoln (D-AR), the bill's sponsor,
I've not had time to study response to this legislation, but I thought I would let you know about it before it's old news. Here's a link to the bill at govtrack. It's interesting that the drafters decided to amend FIFRA rather than the Clean Water Act. This strategy is likely due to the hope that the bill will receive a more sympathetic hearing in the Agriculture Committee, and is therefore more likely to be passed out of committee. Stay tuned for more developments in this lively bit of pesticide history.
“Our legislation is very simple: as long as a producer is complying with FIFRA, then no Clean Water Act permit will be required. During the more than 35 years since the enactment of the Clean Water Act, the EPA has never required a permit for the application of FIFRA-registered crop protection products. Our bill would extend this common-sense approach and avoid duplicative, unnecessary burdens on our farmers, foresters, and ranchers.”
I've not had time to study response to this legislation, but I thought I would let you know about it before it's old news. Here's a link to the bill at govtrack. It's interesting that the drafters decided to amend FIFRA rather than the Clean Water Act. This strategy is likely due to the hope that the bill will receive a more sympathetic hearing in the Agriculture Committee, and is therefore more likely to be passed out of committee. Stay tuned for more developments in this lively bit of pesticide history.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Be careful what you wish for
Many of you know that for more than 15 years many committed people in our state have worked very hard to bring meaningful change to the way we conduct pest control programs in Texas public schools. In 1990 the Texas legislature passed a school integrated pest management (IPM) law requiring all schools to practice IPM by allowing pesticides to be applied only by certified applicators, appointing a trained IPM coordinators in each school district to oversee pest control, and set up a system for encouraging the use of less-hazardous pesticides. Since then, the law has succeeded, in my opinion, through diligent attention to careful and wise rule-making (aided by lots of public and professional input), daily enforcement activity by our structural pest control regulatory agency and lots (and lots) of training.
Today Texas has one of the best records in the country at getting schools to change the way they do pest control. The result has been not only reducing reliance on scheduled pesticide applications and encouraging the use of safer pesticides in schools, but also better pest control. All of these things work together to make schools safer, more pleasant places to work and study.
The process of change has been painful at times, and there have been mistakes made along the way, but it has been satisfying watching people pull together in the spirit of wanting to do the right thing for kids and schools. Part of the satisfaction many of us feel about school IPM in Texas is that we made it work, it is our program, and it works for us in our state with all its glorious fire ants, giant waterbugs and other unique pest challenges.
Meanwhile, other states around the country have struggled to bring an IPM approach to public school programs with varying levels of success. Progress has been slow enough that some have called for a national school IPM program. I agree that some form of federal legislation could be useful in encouraging school IPM implementation--after all state legislation has been the driving force for change in Texas. Such legislation, if passed, should require schools to follow IPM principles, establish training and certification criteria for those who conduct pest control and apply pesticides on school facilities, and let the states figure out the rest.
But that's not what H.R. 4159 the School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) of 2009, introduced by U.S. Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) looks like at all. This bill provides an object lesson in the old warning to be careful what you wish for. The bill is a modified version of bills that have been repeatedly introduced over the past several congresses, and which have never made it out of committee... for good reason. Among other things, the bill bypasses the regulatory label approval process used today by the U.S. EPA. It will essentially eliminate the right of schools to use most (I would guess more than 95% of) registered pesticides that are currently in use. It requires schools to notify parents every time a pesticide is used that is not on the (highly restrictive) list of "least toxic pesticides". It will essentially eliminate the ability of schools to use herbicides on grounds or sports fields. It (inexplicably) prohibits schools from using synthetic fertilizer, forcing them to use only more expensive organic fertilizers. It will establish a federal advisory committee that has the power to create a list of approved pesticides for all states. And it does all this without authorizing Congress to appropriate money to spend on IPM education or administration of the program, or for states to pay for enforcement of what will be highly unpopular regulations.
In my opinion, the approach taken by this bill will hurt the progress we've made in Texas on school IPM, and will likely set back progress toward IPM implementation in other states as well. In nearly all aspects of its construction, bill H.R. 4159 is more restrictive than Texas's laws and regulations. Supporters of the bill claim that it will not preempt existing state school IPM regulations, but that is only true when federal law is less restrictive than state law. The fact is that no state or school district in the U.S. have school IPM regulations stricter than this bill.
It seems to me that chances for passage of H.R. 4159 are slim, given the cost and burden it will pose on the nation's schools. Nevertheless the persistent return of this legislation year after year suggests that the blanket anti-pesticide advocates (those who oppose nearly any and every pesticide regardless of its usefulness or benefits) are not ready to give up. The shift in the balance of power in Washington, however, means that what has happened over the past several years may not be a faithful guide to what will happen this year. It is important that professionals who understand IPM read this bill and make their opinions known.
By the way, it's never been easier to read and comment on federal legislation. After a simple registration process, you can make comments on this bill at the Open Congress website at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4159/text . Using this site you can register your support or opposition and even write your legislators about any bill with a click of the button.
Today Texas has one of the best records in the country at getting schools to change the way they do pest control. The result has been not only reducing reliance on scheduled pesticide applications and encouraging the use of safer pesticides in schools, but also better pest control. All of these things work together to make schools safer, more pleasant places to work and study.
The process of change has been painful at times, and there have been mistakes made along the way, but it has been satisfying watching people pull together in the spirit of wanting to do the right thing for kids and schools. Part of the satisfaction many of us feel about school IPM in Texas is that we made it work, it is our program, and it works for us in our state with all its glorious fire ants, giant waterbugs and other unique pest challenges.
Meanwhile, other states around the country have struggled to bring an IPM approach to public school programs with varying levels of success. Progress has been slow enough that some have called for a national school IPM program. I agree that some form of federal legislation could be useful in encouraging school IPM implementation--after all state legislation has been the driving force for change in Texas. Such legislation, if passed, should require schools to follow IPM principles, establish training and certification criteria for those who conduct pest control and apply pesticides on school facilities, and let the states figure out the rest.
But that's not what H.R. 4159 the School Environmental Protection Act (SEPA) of 2009, introduced by U.S. Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) looks like at all. This bill provides an object lesson in the old warning to be careful what you wish for. The bill is a modified version of bills that have been repeatedly introduced over the past several congresses, and which have never made it out of committee... for good reason. Among other things, the bill bypasses the regulatory label approval process used today by the U.S. EPA. It will essentially eliminate the right of schools to use most (I would guess more than 95% of) registered pesticides that are currently in use. It requires schools to notify parents every time a pesticide is used that is not on the (highly restrictive) list of "least toxic pesticides". It will essentially eliminate the ability of schools to use herbicides on grounds or sports fields. It (inexplicably) prohibits schools from using synthetic fertilizer, forcing them to use only more expensive organic fertilizers. It will establish a federal advisory committee that has the power to create a list of approved pesticides for all states. And it does all this without authorizing Congress to appropriate money to spend on IPM education or administration of the program, or for states to pay for enforcement of what will be highly unpopular regulations.
In my opinion, the approach taken by this bill will hurt the progress we've made in Texas on school IPM, and will likely set back progress toward IPM implementation in other states as well. In nearly all aspects of its construction, bill H.R. 4159 is more restrictive than Texas's laws and regulations. Supporters of the bill claim that it will not preempt existing state school IPM regulations, but that is only true when federal law is less restrictive than state law. The fact is that no state or school district in the U.S. have school IPM regulations stricter than this bill.
It seems to me that chances for passage of H.R. 4159 are slim, given the cost and burden it will pose on the nation's schools. Nevertheless the persistent return of this legislation year after year suggests that the blanket anti-pesticide advocates (those who oppose nearly any and every pesticide regardless of its usefulness or benefits) are not ready to give up. The shift in the balance of power in Washington, however, means that what has happened over the past several years may not be a faithful guide to what will happen this year. It is important that professionals who understand IPM read this bill and make their opinions known.
By the way, it's never been easier to read and comment on federal legislation. After a simple registration process, you can make comments on this bill at the Open Congress website at http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h4159/text . Using this site you can register your support or opposition and even write your legislators about any bill with a click of the button.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)