CCM Statement on Chlorpyrifos Ban

Flawed Data Forcing Cancellation

News Release From California Citrus Mutual

Recently, the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced that they are going to begin the cancellation process of chlorpyrifos. The statement cites scientific findings that chlorpyrifos poses serious public health and environmental risks to vulnerable communities.SaveOurCitrus Logo

“The decision to ban chlorpyrifos is not surprising given the significant pressure from anti-pesticide groups, active legislative proposals, regulatory proceedings, and ongoing court battles,” said CCM President Casey Creamer. “However, this decision relies heavily on an evaluation that was significantly flawed and based upon unrealistic modeling scenarios that are not verifiable by actual results in DPR’s own air monitoring network.”

“California Citrus Mutual and our member growers stand by science that is sound, that properly evaluates risks and puts forward appropriate safeguards to protect ourselves, our employees, and our surrounding communities. We are committed to safe and effective use of chlorpyrifos and other crop protection tools.”

“The process for which this chemical was evaluated was purposely exaggerated to achieve the desired outcome and jeopardizes the scientific credibility of the Department of Pesticide Regulation. This decision sets a terrible precedent for future evaluations and creates a chilling effect on companies planning on making significant investments to bring new products to the market in California.”

“The citrus industry is fighting feverishly to protect itself from the deadly citrus disease, Huanglongbing,” Creamer continued. “In order to do so, we must have the necessary tools in the toolbox for an effective Integrated Pest Management program.”

“The once mighty citrus-producing state of Florida has lost 70% of its production due to this disease, which is expanding exponentially in residential citrus trees in Southern California at this very moment. While our commercial growers will remain vigilant, it is vital that our policymakers recognize the seriousness of the threat and ensure sound scientific procedures are followed.”

“California Citrus Mutual will continue to be actively engaged in the regulatory processes around the cancellation decision and will continue to explore all potential remedies to allow the safe and effective use of chlorpyrifos.”

Chlorpyrifos Under More Scrutiny in California

California Regulators Pursuing Health Protections for Chlorpyrifos

News Release

The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) announced recently that both the California Department of Pesticide Regulations and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment are pursuing health protections on one of the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the nation, chlorpyrifos.

The Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) released an updated draft risk assessment for public comment. This action marks the start of a public and scientific review of the document, which could lead to increased restrictions on chlorpyrifos statewide. DPR is currently developing interim restrictions on use of the pesticide and recommendations will be made to county agricultural commissioners next month.

In addition, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) is referring chlorpyrifos for potential listing as a developmental toxicant under Proposition 65. OEHHA recently posted an announcement that the state’s Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee will consider the listing of chlorpyrifos at its next public meeting.

 “While chlorpyrifos has been protecting crops for more than 50 years, new information in the scientific community leads us to believe the level of risk it poses is greater than previously known,” said CalEPA Secretary Matthew Rodriquez. “We need to better understand the science to ensure our actions protect public health. The actions we are taking today reflect our commitment to the health and safety of all Californians, and the environment.”

Department of Pesticide Regulation

DPR scientists believe chlorpyrifos may pose a public health risk as a toxic air contaminant based on its assessment of the latest studies in the scientific community. However, this new finding, indicated in the updated draft risk assessment has not been peer reviewed and must go through a public comment period and be independently evaluated by other scientists.

On September 15, DPR will hold a public workshop on the updated draft risk assessment at the Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee meeting in Sacramento.

After the 45-day written public comment period, which began August 18, DPR’s updated draft risk assessment will go before an independent panel of nine scientists known as the Scientific Review Panel (SRP). The thorough review process, which may ultimately lead to more restrictions on use, may conclude in December 2018.

Next month, DPR will provide county agricultural commissioners with specific interim recommendations, including:

  • Increasing distances between sites where the chemical is applied and sensitive locations, such as homes and schools. These would be specific to each type of application method.
  • New restrictions on methods used to apply chlorpyrifos.

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

OEHHA will soon open a written public comment period on scientific materials that describe the evidence for the developmental toxicity of chlorpyrifos.  OEHHA will provide the materials and the written public comments to the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee. The committee is an independent panel of 10 scientific experts that determines whether chemicals are added to the Proposition 65 list as causing birth defects and other reproductive harm. The committee will also consider public comments presented at its November 29 meeting.

If the committee adds chlorpyrifos to the Proposition 65 list as a developmental toxicant, businesses that knowingly cause exposures above minimum levels must provide a Proposition 65 warning.

DPR’s updated draft risk assessment and other documents relating to chlorpyrifos are available at:http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/whs/active_ingredient/chlorpyrifos.htm

OEHHA’s notice of the November 29 meeting of the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee concerning chlorpyrifos is available at: www.oehha.ca.gov.

STATE WATER BOARD POSTS QUESTIONS, AGENDA FOR FEB. 18- 19 DROUGHT WORKSHOP

DROUGHT WORKSHOP AGENDA

Public Workshop Regarding the Temporary Urgency Change Petition for the

Central Valley and State Water Projects and

State Water Board Water Availability Actions

February 18 & 19, 2014

 

 

The State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) is holding a workshop to receive input on its drought-related activities affecting water rights holders.

 

The State Water Board will receive input on the January 31, 2014 State Water Board Order, modified on February 7, 2014, approving a Temporary Urgency Change Petition (TUCP) filed by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) and United States Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) (collectively referred to as Petitioners) on January 29, 2014, regarding Delta water quality. The Board will also receive input related to Board drought-related water curtailment actions.

 

On February 26, the State Water Board will receive input on other actions that it is, or should be taking in response to continuing drought conditions. Input may address both water right and water quality related programs. See meeting information at the end of this posting.

 

These will be informational workshops only and no State Water Board action will be taken.

 

To assist workshop participants, below are some of the issues that the State Water Board is interested in receiving input on: 

 

Temporary Urgency Change Order (TUCP) (“Order) for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project

 

Is there additional information the Board should consider related to the following findings?

 

1) Is there an urgent need for the changes? Are the changes necessary to maximize the beneficial use of water? Are there any modifications to the Order that should be made to maximize the beneficial use of water?

 

2) Will the changes injure any other lawful user of water?

 

3) Will the changes have an unreasonable effects on fish, wildlife, or other instream beneficial uses?

 

4) Are the changes in the public interest?

 

In particular, the State Water Board is interested in the following questions:

 

5) Are there any additional modifications that should be made to the Order?

 

6) Is there additional information not provided in the TUCP that would better inform the State Water Board’s findings?

 

7) What “triggers” (such as Delta salinity) would support opening the Delta Cross Channel Gates?

 

8) Should the method used to calculate Net Delta Outflow be adjusted during extended dry periods to better inform measures needed to protect Delta salinity (such as opening the Delta Cross Channel gates)? Specifically, should methods used to estimate in-Delta consumptive use during extended dry periods be adjusted?

 

9) How should the quantity of water conserved through changes authorized by the Order be calculated? How should the water be used?

 

10) Based on current reservoir storage and forecasted snowmelt, how much water will be available for Sacramento River temperature control, north of Delta settlement contractor deliveries, and carryover storage in the event of another dry year?

 

11) What other measures, such as barriers in the Delta, may be needed to protect health and safety and maximize the protection of beneficial uses?

 

Curtailment Notices

 

12) How should the Board prioritize its analysis of watersheds to determine whether to issue curtailment notices, and any subsequent enforcement activities?

 

13) How should the State Water Board determine, measure, and enforce Health and Safety limits for junior domestic water rights holders?

 

14) Are there other reasonable use exceptions that should be made in the application of the water rights priority system?

 

15) What minimum flows and reservoir levels are needed for health and safety throughout the summer months, and should this be factored into determinations on whether to curtail?

 

16) Should all water right holders in some watersheds be required to limit diversions to protect instream beneficial uses under the reasonable use and public trust doctrines? If so, how should the State Water Board determine what flows are necessary?

 

Agenda

 

Tuesday, February 18, 2014 – 9:00 a.m.

 

  • Opening Remarks by State Water Board Chair and Board Members

 

  • Opening Remarks by Gordon Burns, Undersecretary for California Environmental Protection Agency, and Janelle Beland, Undersecretary for California Natural Resources Agency

 

  • State Water Board Staff Introduction (Staff Panel)

 

      • Temporary Urgency Change Petition (TUCP) for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project

 

      • Curtailment Notices

 

      • Other Requests for Transfers and Change Petitions (Russian River TUCP)

 

      • FERC Hydropower Project Flows

 

 

  • Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Presentation (Panel)

 

      • Statewide Hydrologic Conditions

 

      •  TUCP for the Central Valley Project and State Water Project

 

      • Transfers

 

  • Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Presentation (Panel)

 

      • Statewide Issues

 

      • TUCP for the Central Valley Project and State Water Projects

 

  • Real Time Drought Operations Team

 

  • Comments from the Public (parties with similar interests are encouraged to form panels)

 

 

Wednesday, February 19, 2014 – 9:00 a.m.

 

  • Comments from the Public to be continued, if necessary

 

 

State Water Board Actions to Increase Water Conservation, Reuse, 

Recycling and other Drought Related Measures 

Wednesday, February 26, 2014 – 9:00 a.m. 

Joe Serna Jr. – Cal/EPA Headquarters Building

Coastal Hearing Room

1001 I Street, Second Floor

Sacramento, CA 95814