Pesticide Use Reporting:
Once Again, Oregon—The Pioneer

Landmark legislation calls for a statewide system of reporting by all users

by Bruce Pokarney

It can be described as a big train on a fast track. That might surprise some folks, considering that the full program of pesticide use reporting in Oregon will not be implemented until January of 2002. The locomotive will be gathering a lot of steam between now and then—from a scientific review to the establishment of a working group made up of pesticide users, environmentalists, and other interested parties.

Right now, there are still more questions than answers. What kind of pesticide use information is needed? What is the best way of collecting that information? How is information on homeowner pesticide use to be collected? These are the important details—the real guts of the program—that need to be ironed out well before 2002.

Governor Kitzhaber signed HB 3602 this summer amid much fanfare. That signature has set in motion construction of the program. For agriculture as well as others, the message right now is there will be no immediate impact on pesticide users and, again, it will be two more years before the full program is implemented.

The shaping of the program to reside within the Oregon Department of Agriculture will be viewed with interest by supporters and skeptics alike, along with interested parties in other states. If Oregon, the pioneer, does it and does it right, perhaps it will be a model for others.

The spirit and the letter of the law

"The Oregon Department of Agriculture has two real goals in implementing a pesticide use reporting system," says director Phil Ward. "First, we want to gather meaningful information that can help us track pesticide use throughout the state. Secondly, just as importantly, we want to do it in a way that does not become too burdensome for the agricultural community and other pesticide users."

Developing a comprehensive, statewide pesticide use reporting system is to boldly go where no one has gone before. California and New York have put together programs not nearly as ambitious, and have had their share of problems. The carefully crafted Oregon legislation—a monument to compromise—sets up a system that will hammer out details not addressed by the other states.

The plan calls for a scientific review group, utilizing expertise from Oregon State University and Oregon Health Sciences University, to work on identifying the type of information needed in the system and its usefulness. The scientists will also consider the method of collecting that information. At the same time, a work group to be appointed by the governor will also provide input on the program's specifics, interfacing with the scientific review. That group will consist of pesticide users and dealers, environmental and labor organizations, public health organizations, and public water suppliers.

The scientific review is to be completed by this coming May. Recommendations from both groups will help establish a pilot program of pesticide use reporting to be implemented in a specific geographic area of the state by January 2001. Results of that pilot project will be used to finalize rules for the full program. Any proposed rules will go through a public hearings process, probably in August of 2001.

HB 3602 requires a system that is comprehensive, reliable, and cost effective. It must collect, summarize, retain and report information on pesticide use by all categories of users—from farmers to foresters to roadside maintenance crews to homeowners.

"It will provide us information on not only what pesticides are used in Oregon, but in what quantities and, at least in a general sense if not specifically, in what locations," says Chris Kirby, administrator of ODA's Pesticides Division. "That will give us a whole collection of data that we never had before."

Shooting down myths

While the idea of making detailed information on pesticide use publicly available may alarm some farmers, others see an opportunity to put some false assumptions and accusations to rest.

"If we are using pesticides as responsibly as I believe we are, then farmers will benefit by collecting accurate, unbiased data," says Terry Witt, executive director of Oregonians for Food and Shelter (OFS). "We will be able to verify, with numbers, that growers judiciously use these beneficial chemical tools with considerable care, and use far less than the maximum quantities allowed by law as is typically alleged by activists. If the data should identify real problems, OFS will be the first in line to help find real solutions. Farmers and foresters are Oregon's true environmentalists and have the most to gain or lose when it comes to protecting our resources."

As the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency continues its evaluation of pesticides as part of the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA), the current lack of accurate and comprehensive data often leads to a "default assumption"—and overestimation of pesticide use by agriculture.

"Unless they have data to the contrary, EPA presumes that a particular pesticide product is being used at the maximum rate, maximum timing," says Kirby. "Many of us disagree as our experience tells us that less material than allowed by product labeling is actually used."

Hopefully, Oregon's system will show what specific pesticides are being used, at what rates, and the timing of application—all good information for EPA as it does a more accurate evaluation of pesticide products. That, in turn, may help agriculture retain certain pesticide products so critical for production in Oregon.

Water quality, human health, and tracking everyone

There are also many concerns raised about agricultural use of pesticides causing harm to humans, endangered species or impacting water quality. Precise data of what is used, when, and where can either ease those concerns or help agriculture address real problems.

"Now that we've gotten beyond the legislative arena, we need to figure out a way to report pesticide use in a manner that will function easily and provide useful environmental monitoring, human health information, and provide pest management research," says Neva Hassanein of the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP). "What could make this program a model for other states is its comprehensiveness. All categories of users will be captured, not just agriculture. It doesn't make sense to have data on just a portion of pesticide use."

While NCAP and OFS may come from different directions on the issue of pesticide use, both worked long and hard—along with other industry and environmental groups—to get legislation passed that most everyone could live with.

"I think we all have a better understanding of where each other is coming from," says Hassanein. "I'm hopeful we can put our heads together for something not just satisfactory, but excellent."

"I am highly optimistic that if the pesticide user community stays intimately involved in its development over the next year and a half, Oregon will produce a quality reporting program everyone can support —and other states will strive to emulate," says Witt of OFS.

The devil is in the details

"Because of the work group makeup, the scientific review, and the fact that the program resides with ODA, I'm confident we will have the most user-friendly reporting system possible," says George Pugh, Willamette Valley grass seed farmer and chair of the State Board of Agriculture. "We will minimize the burden while, at the same time, get something that is useful. I have faith that this will be as painless as it can be."

It is time to develop answers to all the questions.

Most agricultural producers already keep records on pesticide usage. The new system will now require reporting those records. Can it be done electronically? Is there a better way? How often will reports be due? How accessible for the public will this information be? How will information about individual users be kept confidential while, at the same time, provide data for specific geographical areas?

Can such an ambitious program be adequately funded? General fund dollars have been made available and ODA has been authorized to boost pesticide product registration fees by $10 per product in the initial phase. ODA will explore funding partnerships with federal agencies. Once the program is fully implemented, the product registration fee will be increased to $40. That money will need to be matched by additional funds, yet to be identified. The Governor-appointed work group will also look at funding options.

Then there is the question of how to capture urban use, particularly that of homeowners. These are the challenges to be met over the next several months as everyone's collective sleeves are rolled up.

"I realize this will increase the work load on agricultural users," says Pugh. "But if we gather the data, it will have value in directing research, pointing out appropriate techniques, and show responsible stewardship by agriculture. It will also show how we can improve."

The train has left the station. It appears the major players are on board. Time of arrival at its final destination? January, 2002.