July 26, 2005 -- Pesticide Use Reporting Act Finally Funded
For Immediate Release: Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Contact: Matt Blevins, 503-810-9375; Karen Lewotsky, 503-222-1963 ext 112
Pesticide Use Reporting Act Finally Funded After Six-Year Stalemate in Oregon Legislature
Oregon Environmental Council agrees to watershed-level reporting for farmers in a move to reduce polarization and avoid damage to the Oregon Department of Agriculture
Salem, OR – Breaking a six-year stalemate, the Pesticide Use Reporting Act has been fully funded as part of the budget for the Department of Agriculture outlined in the budget agreement unveiled yesterday by Oregon state legislators.
Known as PURS, the program requires the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) to collect basic information about pesticide use from all commercial and government users of pesticides statewide. Although the legislation establishing the program passed in 1999 with overwhelming support by the legislature, full implementation of the program has been stalled for six years, due to a stalemate led by pesticide lobbyists and a group of House Republicans.
The funding breakthrough came after a major compromise made yesterday by the Oregon Environmental Council. OEC agreed to a change in the reporting rules for agricultural pesticide users, clearing the way for an agreement between the House and Senate to include funding for PURS in the ODA budget.
OEC’s willingness to move to watershed reporting should silence the opponents of PURS. Those opponents, including the pesticide lobby, have stalled implementation of the program for years by insisting that the requirement for agricultural users to report location of pesticide use by section, township and range is overly onerous for agricultural pesticide users.
In explaining OEC’s decision, Executive Director Jeff Allen expressed concern for the impact of the continuing stalemate on other important programs at the Oregon Department of Agriculture, from helping farmers protect water quality to conducting food safety inspections. “Up until the last minute, House Republicans were completely unwilling to negotiate on this issue, making it clear that they would fight implementation of the program regardless of reporting location requirements. They seemed willing to play ‘chicken’ with ODA’s budget, and risk a major train wreck, but we were not,” said Allen.
Allen also expressed hope that this decision would reduce polarization between farmers and environmental advocates. “The pesticide industry has successfully used the pesticide reporting program as a bogey-man to spread fear, distrust, and hate throughout Oregon’s agricultural community,” noted Allen. “That kind of polarization helps them further their agenda, but it’s bad for farmers and it’s bad for Oregon. I hope our decision helps put an end to the empty rhetoric of the industry extremists, and makes it easier for farmers and environmentalists to work together toward our many shared goals.”
Senator Kurt Schrader (D-Canby) praised OEC for its role. “OEC has worked tirelessly to get this important program implemented,” noted Schrader, “yet they were willing to compromise for the sake of ODA, and because they care about building bridges with Oregon farmers. OEC’s leadership has helped us avoid a political train wreck.”
While health researchers have advocated for more specific reporting data, Allen noted, “Even with these changes, this program will still provide accurate data to help parents better protect their children from harm.” As part of the reporting program, pesticide use on schools, parks, and roadways will still be reported by exact location, while commercial users of pesticides in urban areas, such as landscaping firms, will still have to report by zip code.
- 30 -
8-18-2005 UPDATE/CLARIFICATION: Contrary to the last sentence of the above press release, all pesticide reporting in urban areas (including schools, parks and roadways) will be by zip code. In rural areas, it will be by watershed. We regret any confusion that may have resulted.
