 |
||||||
| Voice Your Opinion...AN OPPORTUNITY TO STOP NEUROTOXINS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOODS! THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE IS PLANNING TO MAKE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY A PERMANENT ERADICATION ZONE On Tuesday, October 31st there will be a PUBLIC HEARING pertaining to making SANTA BARBARA A PERMANENT ERADICATION ZONE. This change will potentially impact the health of every man, woman, and child in Santa Barbara. Members of the Santa Barbara community asked for this hearing to have a say in their future. The public has the right to amend this eradication proposal. The same type of poison pesticide applications that took place in Santa Barbara in July, August, and September of this year, MUST NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!! PLEASE email, fax or write TODAY to Stephen Brown, Special Assistant, Permits and Regulation, All statements must be in BEFORE Monday, October 30th (or hand delivered at the Public Hearing) to this ADDRESS: Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, 1220 N Street, Room A-316, Sacramento, California, 95814, (916) 654-1017, FAX (916) 654-1018 or via e-mail to sbrown@cdfa.ca.gov. The public is also invited to attend a PUBLIC HEARING on Tuesday, October 31st. The hearing starts at 2 P.M. at the County Administration Building-Planning Commission Meeting Room, First Floor, 105 E. Anapamu Street (corner of Anapamu & Anacapa Streets), Santa Barbara. The public may both SPEAK and/or SUBMIT written views. Note that all written statements, and speaker slips, must be submitted prior to the meeting (between 1:00 p.m. & 1:45 p.m.) To be be informed of any amendments made to the eradication proposal, a return address must be submitted with written testimony. Speakers may also receive notification of of the hearing results by verbally requesting results at the time they speak. This public hearing affords the public an opportunity to participate in developing an amended eradication plan. This will be one that gives equal concern to the public health. Your concerns will be recorded by submitting written or oral testimony. Note that this hearing does not allow for discussion--only for written and oral statements. Please email Stephan Brown TODAY with your written comments. Also please attend the hearing if possible with your written and/or oral statements. 1. We are requesting the CDFA give equal concern and protection to the public. 2. We are requesting that the CDFA use safer alternatives. 3. We are requesting that the CDFA adhere to their own mission statement. 4. We are requesting that the eradication proposal be amended to eliminate the use of NALED (and other organo-phosphates) as per the CDFA's own requirements (and the warnings of the manufacturer). Public statements should reflect the impact of Naled on individuals, families, our communities, and our environment as well. For more information please email Estelle Foster at: estelle2@cox.net. or call (805) 965-4491 |
||||||
| In the rulemaking process, for the Amendment which includes Santa Barbara County to the eradication area, the following special considerations must be demonstrated. If any of the following considerations affect you or many people that you know, comment on it at the hearing and in writing. THE FOLLOWING BELOW ARE AREAS WHERE PEOPLE CAN COMMENT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT BY HAVING THE AMENDMENT INCLUDE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY THIS WOULD BE BURDENSOME AND CREATE NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE AREA INCLUDING PRIVATE PERSONS, BUSINESSES, SCHOOLS, HOUSING COSTS ETC... 1. The CDFA states: COST IMPACT ON AFFECTED PRIVATE PERSON OR BUSINESSES The agency is not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action. If you feel this statement is inaccurate then state your reasons, for example you have found that the method of application has incurred cost to your health making you sick, miss work,incur health care cost, lose income for days missed etc... 2. COST TO LOCAL AGENCIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS The Department of Food and Agriculture has determined that Section 3591.2 does not impose a mandate on local agencies or school districts and no reimbursement is required for Section 3591.2 under Section 17561 of the Government Code. The Department also has determined that no savings or increased costs to any state agency, no reimbursable costs or savings under Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of the Government Code to local agencies or school districts, no non discretionary costs or savings to local agencies or school districts, and no costs or savings in federal funding to the State will result from the proposed action. Have any school cost incurred to school because of the Naled application. Cost and time in notify people of the application, flyers, stress etc... Did children become ill, did the naled application disrupt the education process for children, teachers, parents? Etc... 3. EFFECT ON HOUSING COSTS The Department has made an initial determination that the proposed actions will not affect housing costs. Speak to Agents, do they feel the cost of housing could be effected by area application. Does this effect real estate prices causing one to lose money on investment or make it difficult to sell a home in an effected area etc.... 4. EFFECT ON BUSINESSES The Department has made an initial determination that the proposed actions will not have a significant statewide adverse economic impact directly affecting California businesses, including the ability of California businesses to compete with businesses in other states. Does the application of Naled impact organic growers, does naled place them out of compliance with the USDA Organic Label? Does this effect their ability to compete with other business? Does the application effect people from missing work due to extreme fatigue(side effect of naled) effecting a business to operate effectively? Etc... 5. ASSESSMENT The Department has made an assessment that the proposed adoption and amendment to the regulations would not (1) create or eliminate jobs within California, (2) create new business or eliminate existing businesses within California, or (3) affect the expansion of businesses currently doing business within California. Do you feel that this is accurate? Your comments 6. ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED The Department of Food and Agriculture must determine that no reasonable alternative considered by the Department or that has otherwise been identified and brought to the attention of the Department would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which the actions are proposed or would be as effective and less burdensome to affected private persons than the proposed actions. Do you feel that safest alternative was used? Do you feel that others should have been considered? Do you believe that the less burdensome method was used for private persons? Did people become ill forcing them to relocate away from treated area incurring travel and accommodation costs etc... plus unknown long term health costs..... These are areas that we all should comment in writing and at the hearing. Bring your personal experience and burden experience. Direct your comment in these 6 Areas listed above so that during the rulemaking are comments will have to be responded to. At the same time our comments will demonstrate that by including Santa Barbara County in the Amendment it will have much negative impact and would not meet compliance. I hope this helps people in preparing for the hearing and makes it a bit clearer? If you have any questions email me, I will try to help. teresabc2002@yahoo.com Teresa ------------------------------------------------------------------- References: California Regulatory Notice Register...page as such 1346 at bottom of page http://www.oal.ca.gov/notice/37z-2006.pdf HOW TO PARTICIPATE IN THE RULEMAKING PROCESS see: http://www.oal.ca.gov/document/HowToParticipate.pdf SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS • An agency must find that no alternative would be more effective in carrying out the purpose for which a regulation is proposed or would be as effective as and less burdensome to affected private persons than the adopted regulation. • A rulemaking agency must determine whether the regulation “may have,” or “will not have” a significant, statewide adverse impact directly affecting business. The agency must solicit alternatives if it “may have.” • A rulemaking agency must describe the potential cost impact of a regulation on a representative private person or business, if known. • A rulemaking agency must assess whether and to what extent the regulation will create or eliminate jobs and businesses. A rulemaking agency must find that any business reporting requirement is necessary for the public health, safety, or welfare. |
||||||
| If you would like to be on the mailing list for our upcoming newsletters please email Estelle here: estelle2@cox.net Subject: newsletter. Include a mailing address if you would like a hard copy mailed to you, otherwise you will recieve it via e-mail. | ||||||
| Information on Naled | ||||||
| Symptoms of Naled | ||||||
 |
||||||
 |
||||||