MEETING BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD HEARING ROOM CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD 2020 L STREET SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 8:30 A.M. Nadine J. Parks Shorthand Reporter PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 ii MEMBERS PRESENT John D. Dunlap, III, Chairman Joseph C. Calhoun Lynne T. Edgerton M. Patricia Hilligoss Jack C. Parnell Barbara Riordan Doug Vagim Staff: Jim Boyd, Executive Officer Mike Scheible, Deputy Executive Officer Mike Kenny, Chief Counsel Terry McGuire, Chief, Technical Support Division Don McNerny, Chief, Modeling & Meteorology Branch, TSD Arndt Lorenzen, Manager, Meteorology Section, TSD Jim Wright, Staff, Technical Support Division Leslie Krinsk, Staff Counsel Peter Rooney, Executive Director, State Board of Food & Agriculture Bob Barham, Research Division Patricia Hutchens, Board Secretary Wendy Grandchamp, Secretary Bill Valdez, Administrative Services Division PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iii I N D E X PAGE Proceedings 1 Call to Order and Roll Call 1 AGENDA ITEMS: 95-10-2 Research Proposal Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 2 Motion by Riordan to Approve Resolution 95-43 2 Board Action 2 Questions/Comments 3 Announcements and Comments by Chairman Dunlap 3 95-10-1 Draft Report to Legislature on Progress to Date of Implementation of the Connelly-Areias-Chandler Rice Straw Burning Reduction Act of 1991 Introductory Remarks by Chairman Dunlap 3 Staff Presentation: Jim Boyd Executive Officer 7 Jeff Wright Staff Technical Support Division 9 Peter Rooney CDFA 28 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Loyd Forest Rice Straw Burning Alternatives Committee 32 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 iv INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 95-10-1 Questions/Comments 37 Michael Picker Appearing for Mayor Joe Serna 39 Erik Oleson Citizens Against Rice Burning 42 Merlin Fagan, Jr. California Farm Bureau Federation 46 Norm Covell APCO Sacramento Metro Air Quality Management District 48 Robert Sutton Rice Ad Hoc Committee 51 Joe A. Carrancho Rice Ad Hoc Committee 61 Earl Withycombe American Lung Association 68 Robert L. Felts Citizen 75 Duane Peterson Sacramento Valley Toxics Alliance 78 Dennis Lindberg Rice Farmer 82 Danae Atchison Remy & Thomas 86 Margaret Felts Citizen 89 Bonnie Holmes Sierra Club 92 Questions/Comments 95 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 v INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 95-10-1 Mark Molin Eco Thermal Structural Building Technology 96 Matthew Glasser California Public Interest Research Group 100 Gary Patton Planning & Conservation League 101 Loretta Pigg Citizen 104 Questions/Comments 104 Valjean Breinke Citizen 106 Teresa Jones Citizen 110 Ed Romano Glenn Co. APCO 112 Dale A. Secord Citizen 115 Chris McKenzie Farmer 118 Christopher Weaver Citizen 121 Questions/Comments 125 Marc Turtletaub Citizen 127 Howard Carnahan Rice Farmer 130 Lawrence Lingbloom Citizen 132 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 vi INDEX, continued. . . PAGE AGENDA ITEMS: 95-10-1 Record Officially Closed by Mr. Parnell 132 Direction to Staff 133 Item Carried Over to October 26, 1995 as first item on agenda 134 Adjournment 134 Certificate of Reporter 135 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 1 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 --o0o-- 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We'll reconvene. This is the 4 second half of the September Air Resources Board meeting. 5 Pat, I know you're busy over there, but I'd like 6 you to call the roll, and we'll get the meeting going. 7 MS. HUTCHENS: Boston? 8 Calhoun? 9 MR. CALHOUN: Here. 10 MS. HUTCHENS: Edgerton? 11 MS. EDGERTON: Here. 12 MS. HUTCHENS: Hilligoss? 13 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Here. 14 MS. HUTCHENS: Lagarias? 15 Parnell? 16 MR. PARNELL: Here. 17 MS. HUTCHENS: Riordan? 18 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Here. 19 MS. HUTCHENS: Roberts? 20 Silva? 21 Vagim? 22 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Here. 23 MS. HUTCHENS: Chairman Dunlap. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Here. Very well. Thank you. 25 What I would like to do, in the interest of time, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 2 1 is take the two items we have today out of order. I'd like 2 to switch them and start with the second item first, which 3 is one research proposal. 4 Have all my colleagues on the Board had an 5 opportunity to review the proposal sent in our packet? 6 Are there any additional concerns or comments by 7 members of the Board on this item? Okay. 8 Mr. Barham, do you have brief comments, or Mr. 9 Boyd? 10 MR. BARHAM: I have nothing if the Board has no 11 questions. 12 MR. BOYD: Just to respond to your questions, Mr. 13 Chairman. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. The proposal looks fine. 15 Do I have a motion and a second to adopt the proposal? 16 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: I would so move, Mr. 17 Chairman. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Do we have a second? 19 MR. PARNELL: Second. 20 MAYOR HILLIGOSS: Second. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. We have a motion and a 22 second. I think I'm going to do this via voice vote. All 23 in favor of adopting the research proposal, say aye? 24 (Ayes) 25 Any opposed? Thank you. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 3 1 Do we need to take any action on a resolution or 2 anything on that, Pat? 3 MS. HUTCHENS: You can do it by voice vote. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Do we have it? 5 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: I included it in my motion. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: It was included? All right. 7 Very good. It's included 8 MR. BOYD: I heard it that way. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Then, Resolution 95-43 10 passed. 11 I would like to remind those in the audience 12 today, as we take up the second item, which formerly was the 13 first time, if you would like to present testimony to the 14 Board, please sign in with the Board Secretary to my left. 15 If you have a written statement, please give 20 copies to 16 the Board Secretary. 17 The second item on the agenda today is 95-10-1, a 18 public meeting to consider the first biennial report to the 19 Legislature on Connelly-Areias-Chandler Rice Crop Burning 20 Reduction Act of 1991. 21 This item for the Board's consideration is a draft 22 report to the Legislature on the progress to date of the 23 implementation of the Connelly-Areias-Chandler Rice Straw 24 Burning Act. 25 The law phases down the burning of rice straw in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 4 1 the Sacramento Valley. 2 The law also requires that beginning in 1995, the 3 Board the California Department of Food & Agriculture 4 jointly report to the Legislature on the progress of the 5 phase-down of rice straw burning. 6 If there are problems with the phase-down, the 7 Board and the California Department of Food & Agriculture 8 are expected to assess these problems and provide 9 recommendations to the Legislature on how the phase-down 10 should be changed. The draft report, which was prepared 11 jointly by both agency staff, is to be the first of these 12 biennial reports. 13 I recognize the burning of rice straw has long 14 been a contentious issue in this Valley. The rice growers 15 have traditionally relied upon burning to dispose of rice 16 straw and to control plant diseases that damage rice. 17 Residents of the Valley who object to the smoke 18 have just as traditionally complained about the practice. 19 As urban development has penetrated further into the once 20 agricultural reaches of this Valley, the conflict has 21 heightened. 22 In the early 1970s, the Legislature directed the 23 Board to reasonably regulate but not prohibit agricultural 24 burning. The management of the smoke from ag burning that 25 is now being carried out by the Board, the Valley air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 5 1 pollution control districts, and the growers has been one of 2 the most underrated success stories of air resources 3 management. 4 However, the burning of rice straw still, on 5 occasion, results in excessive smoke in urban parts of the 6 Valley. In 1991, that concern was so great that it resulted 7 in the enactment of the phase-down law. I wish we could 8 report that alternative uses for rice straw were widely 9 available, and that farm income was increasing, while 10 burning was decreasing. Unfortunately, as we all know, this 11 is not the case. 12 Alternatives to burning, other than incorporation 13 of straw into the soil, are not widely available. The 14 phase-down has worked to date, but has resulted in cost to 15 growers and has reduced their incomes. 16 The staff's investigation indicates that, while 17 further progress can be made, it does not seem reasonable to 18 maintain the current phase-down schedule in the Act. This 19 is a serious issue to growers. 20 Both the Board and the Department of Food & 21 Agriculture recognize that we must further reduce the 22 impacts of smoke and particulate matter on the air of our 23 Valley while preserving the rice industry, which is a major 24 component of the economic background of the Valley. 25 In the search for ways to both, our staffs have PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 6 1 devoted countless hours to working with rice growers, 2 scientists, environmental groups, and others to enhance both 3 our and their understanding of all sides of this issue. 4 I have personally met with some of the parties to 5 see the best win-win position that we can find. 6 It is clear that some changes in the law are 7 needed. Our job today is to determine what we believe is 8 the best way to accommodate the concerns of all parties. 9 I realize that there are many strongly held views 10 about the burning of rice straw. And some of those views 11 will be mutually exclusive. It is the Board's intention to 12 hear you all and to be sure that the report and our 13 recommendations fully reflect and fairly consider all points 14 of view. 15 Though it may take a while, we will listen to all 16 who wish to speak. Please help us to be as efficient as 17 possible by keeping your remarks to the point by avoiding 18 repetition and by offering comments that are specific. 19 We're missing a few members of the Board today, and we're 20 likely to lose our quorum around -- shortly after eleven 21 o'clock. So, I really need you to be considerate of that 22 fact and make sure that you are direct and to the point with 23 your comments, and use our time wisely. 24 At this point, I'd like to ask Mr. Boyd to 25 introduce the item and begin the staff's presentation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 7 1 Mr. Boyd. 2 MR. BOYD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 3 Board members. Good morning to the members of the audience. 4 As the Chairman has already stated, the staffs of both the 5 Air Resources Board and the Department of Food & Agriculture 6 have jointly prepared this draft report that is before you 7 today. 8 As indicted, the Act that brings us to this report 9 today, requires that the Agency submit a report on the 10 progress of the phase-down of rice straw burning every two 11 years, beginning in this year, 1995. Each biennial report 12 is to include an economic and an environmental assessment of 13 the phase-down. 14 It's to include the status of feasible and 15 cost-effective alternatives to rice straw burning,the status 16 of the work of the rice straw burning alternative advisory 17 committee on the development of alternatives to rice straw 18 burning, and any other recommended changes to the Act or any 19 other issues related to the requirements of the Act. 20 And you'll see that all brought to you today in 21 the staff's report. 22 The staff of your Board's Technical Support 23 Division prepared the report with assistance from our 24 Compliance and our Research Divisions. This has been an 25 interdisciplinary effort on our part. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 8 1 Mr. Peter Rooney, who's the Director of Planning 2 and Policy Development of the Department of Food & 3 Agriculture worked closely with our staff and directed his 4 staff in helping us in the preparation of this report, and 5 participated in all the public workshops that you'll hear 6 more about. 7 We appreciate his work, and we appreciate his 8 presence here today with us at the staff table. 9 You will hear of the extensive work done to carry 10 out the requirements of the Act. You will also hear a brief 11 description of the extensive work done down through the 12 years by the Air Resources Board and its staff to mitigate 13 the impacts, the adverse public health impacts of smoke from 14 burning agricultural commodities, including rice straw. 15 And you will also hear of the efforts that we have 16 made in our years of determination to protect the public 17 health of the people of the State, of the work that we've 18 done working with the farm community, and working with the 19 air pollution districts in Northern California to have the 20 annual plan for burning of rice straw reflect the need to 21 reduce the amounts of rice that are burned, particularly in 22 the fall of the year, which is the adverse health effects 23 time of the year. 24 And I would just note that on at least two 25 occasions in my tenure here for many years as Executive PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 9 1 Officer, I have had to reject that plan and return it to the 2 Air Basin people, and ask that greater steps be taken to 3 meet the public health need that has been expressed time and 4 time again, and modify the plan to continue the phase-down 5 of rice burning in advance of the bill that we're now 6 speaking about today that mandated a phase-down. 7 So, there has been a concern for years about the 8 health of the public of the people of this area, while at 9 the same time, we have worked with the farm community to 10 address the economics and the disease issues that face them 11 as they deal with this very important commodity. 12 With that brief introduction, I'd like to turn the 13 presentation over to Mr. Jeff Wright of the meteorology 14 section of our technical support division, who will present 15 you the summary of the report. 16 Mr. Wright. 17 MR. WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. 18 Good morning, Chairman Dunlap, members of the 19 Board. 20 I would like to start off this morning with some 21 background information, then I will discuss the progress in 22 implementing the Connelly-Areias-Chandler Rice Straw Burning 23 Reduction Act of 1991. 24 In addition to reporting progress, I'll will 25 briefly explain the status of alternatives to burning rice PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 10 1 straw, and the economic and environmental effects 2 experienced because of the Act. 3 Finally, I'll end the discussion with 4 recommendations for changes to the Act. 5 For the background information, I'll talk about 6 the requirements of the Act, the outreach that was made, the 7 health and air quality effects from rice straw burning, the 8 extent to which these problems are dependent upon the season 9 of year, and the agricultural burning smoke management 10 programs that are in effect in the Valley. 11 The Act was adopted to address the health impacts 12 that rice straw burning has on the over 2 million people 13 leaving in the Sacramento Valley. 14 The Act requires that rice straw burning in the 15 Valley gradually be phased down until August 31st, 2000. 16 After that date, the burning of rice straw is prohibited, 17 except where crop yields have been shown to have declined 18 significantly because of rice disease. 19 The Act also requires that an advisory committee 20 be appointed to study alternative uses of rice straw. This 21 committee has been active since early 1993. 22 The California Air Resources Board and the 23 California Department of Food & Agriculture are jointly 24 responsible for overseeing the phase-down. The ARB and the 25 CDFA are required to submit joint, biennial reports to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 11 1 Legislature on the progress of the phase-down of rice straw 2 burning, the first of which is due this month. 3 The report which is submitted today for your 4 approval covers the period from 1992 through 1994. 5 Subsequent reports will be required in 1997, 1999, and 2001. 6 The Act requires that each biennial progress 7 report address the following: the progress of the phase- 8 down, economic and environmental assessments of the phase- 9 down, the status of alternatives to burning, recommendations 10 from the rice straw burning alternatives advisory committee 11 on the development of alternatives to rice straw burning, 12 and recommended changes to the Act. 13 In preparing this progress report, the staff of 14 the ARB worked with the staff from the CDFA, the California 15 Rice Industry Association, the University of California 16 Cooperative Extension Service, research scientists, the rice 17 straw burning alternatives advisory committee -- which I'll 18 explain further in a moment -- air pollution control 19 districts, rice growers, and environmental groups. 20 Four workshops were jointly held throughout the 21 Valley by the staffs of the ARB and the CDFA and the by the 22 alternatives advisory committee in early June to hear 23 comments from the public. 24 The combined attendance at these workshops was 25 about 175 people. Suggestions regarding the progress of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 12 1 phase-down to date, impacts of the phase-down, and 2 recommended changes to the Act were received at those 3 workshops. 4 Also, the Board and the CDFA staffs met with 5 interested environmental groups to discuss a preliminary 6 draft of the report. A preliminary draft of this report was 7 made available for public comment in July. 8 This final draft reflects the comments received 9 in that document. Now, I would like to provide the Board 10 with some information on the effects on air quality and the 11 health problems that result from the burning of rice straw. 12 The open field burning of rice straw emits large 13 amounts of particles and gases into the air. These 14 pollutants are recognized to be both harmful and irritating 15 to people, and public complaints about burning are common 16 when the Sacramento Valley area skies are smoky. This slide 17 depicts a typical rice field burn day burn (sic) on a good 18 day for smoke dispersion. 19 The principal component of rice smoke that is of 20 health concern is directly particles of ash and combustion 21 products that are smaller than 10 microns in diameter. 22 These particles are called PM10. 23 The medical community generally agrees that PM10 24 particles are harmful, especially of people with existing 25 vascular or respiratory illness, the aged and the young. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 13 1 Exposure to such particles may worsen existing 2 disease conditions, producing symptoms ranging from 3 breathing difficulties to increased respiratory infections, 4 and they have been linked to an increase in the death rate. 5 Observations of a clear association between high 6 ambient concentrations of PM10 particles and these effects 7 have been reported in numerous studies across the nation and 8 throughout the world. 9 These reports are the basis for State and national 10 ambient air quality standards. 11 When smoky days occur, people with existing 12 respiratory disorders, such as asthma, allergies, and 13 bronchitis, tend to experience discomfort and deteriorated 14 health. 15 Physicians and hospitals report that they see more 16 people with such conditions during smoky days. Although it 17 is not possible to quantify the health impacts of rice straw 18 smoke on the public, there is little doubt within the 19 medical community that reduced exposure to smoke in the air 20 will benefit public health. 21 Next, I would like to point out that the impact of 22 rice smoke on air quality varies rather dramatically by 23 season. The amount of smoke downwind from a rice field burn 24 is largely dependent upon the meteorological conditions 25 which vary from season to season. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 14 1 Because of the Valley's meteorology, the impact of 2 smoke emissions is most pronounced during the fall when the 3 atmospheric capacity to disperse smoke is poor. During the 4 fall, ambient temperatures near the ground tend to remain 5 cool for most of the day, while warmer air exists aloft. 6 This layer of warmer air acts as a lid, as shown in this 7 slide, trapping air pollution near the surface. 8 On the other hand, the most favorable 9 meteorological conditions for smoke dispersion occur during 10 the spring when ambient temperatures near the surface become 11 much warmer than the air immediately aloft, thereby raising 12 this lid to a much higher level in the atmosphere. 13 In this slide, the lid is high enough, allowing 14 the smoke from rice straw burning to be mixed into a much 15 deeper layer of the atmosphere, resulting in lower 16 concentrations near the ground. 17 On average, when a field is burned in the spring, 18 the ground level concentrations of smoke are expected to be 19 much lower than if the field is burned in the fall. Many 20 air quality measurements confirm this. Historically, both 21 PM10 and haze are lowest during the spring months and peak 22 during the fall and winter months as illustrated in this 23 slide, even when the amount of burning during the spring on 24 average was more than the amount during the fall. 25 Another example is this slide which shows that a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 15 1 much greater proportion PM10 standard violations occurs 2 during the fall burn season. As can be seen, PM10 3 exceedance days are infrequent during the spring. 4 The frequency of complaints from the public about 5 smoke from agricultural burning is a third indicator of air 6 quality. The ARB receives overwhelmingly more complaints 7 about burning during the fall than during the spring. 8 During the last four years, we received an average 9 of 116 complaint calls about burning in the fall and four 10 complaints during the spring. 11 The last bit of background information that I want 12 to offer is a description of the smoke management program 13 that has been in effect in the Valley since before the Act 14 was enacted. 15 The smoke from all agricultural burning has been 16 managed in California since the 1970s. And in 1981, this 17 program was improved substantially for rice straw burning in 18 the Sacramento Valley. 19 This slide shows the number of smoky hours 20 reporting at Sacramento under three different generations of 21 the smoke management programs. Under the current variable 22 acreage program, the ARB staff determines whether the 23 atmosphere can tolerate burning for every day during the 24 fall rice straw burning period. 25 If the determination is yes, the staff estimates PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 16 1 the number of acres that may be burned. And this allocation 2 is distributed among the districts. The distribution is 3 based on each district's air quality, prevailing 4 meteorological conditions, the amount of acres ready to 5 burn, and the amount of rice planted. 6 The ARB staff and the districts collectively 7 manage the spatial distribution of agricultural burning. On 8 days when the meteorology and air quality are not conducive 9 to clean air, agricultural burning is not allowed. 10 On days when the ventilation is good, thousands of 11 acres may be burned. 12 When this smoke management program is working 13 well, and it usually is, impacts of rice smoke on people are 14 limited to those near the fire. A good burn day, for which 15 several thousands of acres are allocated, is typically 16 perceived in the Valley's urban areas as a clean day. 17 On the other hand, because of the lack of 18 atmospheric mixing that is inherent to no burn days, they 19 typically appear hazy and polluted, even though no rice 20 fields are burned. Although the Valley's meteorology varies 21 year to year, typically between 125,000 and 140,000 acres 22 are burned during a fall season. 23 Depending on the total number of acres planted, 24 that accounts for between 20 and 45 percent of the planted 25 acreage, and the remaining acres, except for acres excluded PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 17 1 from burning because of the phase-down, are burned during 2 the spring. 3 With that background I will now discuss the 4 progress of the phase-down required by the Act. The phase- 5 down, which began in September, 1992, with a limit that only 6 90 percent of the planted acreage could be burned, and which 7 limited the 1994 burning to 70 percent of the acres planted, 8 has been more than met for all three years. 9 The districts have implemented this law by 10 requiring that each rice grower phase down the burning of 11 rice straw according to that year's limit. Each year, the 12 amounts actually burned were less than allowed. 13 For example, last year, when 70 percent of the 14 acres could have been burned, only slightly above 60 percent 15 was burned. Over the three year life of the Act, it has 16 prevented the burning of slightly over 400,000 acres. This 17 slide indicates the effect of the Act on how it will 18 continue to phase down burning in the future. 19 As the slide shows, the current law began to phase 20 down acres burned in 1992. For projecting future burning, 21 this slide assumed that the planted acreage will level out 22 in 1997, at the 20-year average of 400,000 as depicted by 23 the top yellow area. 24 Note that the lower right-hand corner illustrates 25 when up to the 25 percent of the acreage may be burned for PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 18 1 disease eradication only. 2 A key finding of this draft report is that, so 3 far, the phase-down has proceeded as specified in the Act. 4 However, as expected, the phase-down has not yet reduced the 5 amount of rice straw burning during the fall when most air 6 quality problems occur. 7 Instead, fall burning is limited by the annual 8 Sacramento Valley agricultural burning plan, which will be 9 the controlling factor until 1997 or 1998, when burning 10 allowed by the Act may become less than the others typically 11 allowed to be burned during the fall under the Sacramento 12 Valley agricultural burning plan. 13 Now, I would like to talk about the status of the 14 alternatives to burning rice raw. 15 In addition to mandating the phase-down, the Act 16 required the ARB and the CDFA to establish a rice straw 17 burning alternatives advisory committee. 18 The Act further required that today's progress 19 report include recommendations from the advisory committee 20 on the development of alternatives to rice straw burning. 21 Although the advisory committee has not yet 22 finished its report, its principal finding is clear. Other 23 than incorporation into the soil, feasible alternatives to 24 burning for use or consumption of significant quantities of 25 rice straw are virtually nonexistent at this time. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 19 1 This situation is likely to prevail at least the 2 next several years. Mr. Loyd Forest, the Chairman of the 3 Advisory Committee, is available to answer questions about 4 the committee's work after my presentation. 5 The advisory committee has identified many 6 potential off-farm alternatives to burning rice straw. 7 Unfortunately, most of these alternatives are not expected 8 to consume significant amounts of straw during the next five 9 years due to economic and technical constraints. 10 The advisory committee believes that there are 11 some alternatives to burning which may consume significant 12 amounts of rice straw after 2000. Another key finding of 13 our review is that virtually all of the straw not burned to 14 date because of the phase-down has been incorporated into 15 the soil. 16 However, while incorporation has worked to date to 17 greatly decrease burning, there are serious questions 18 whether this one alternative is sufficient to fully 19 implement the phase-down. 20 The incorporation of rice straw into the soil may 21 adversely affect the subsequent crops in several ways. It 22 can result in yield losses because of increased incidence of 23 disease affecting rice plants, and it can deteriorate soil 24 conditions. 25 Also, incorporated rice straw may compete with the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 20 1 rice crop for soil nitrogen, requiring the application of 2 more nitrogen fertilizer. 3 Other possible straw incorporation effects on the 4 rice crop include a decreased availability of 5 micronutrients, the formation of undesirable decomposition 6 products in the soil, and an increase in algablooms in the 7 growing crop. 8 Straw incorporated soils have been reported to dry 9 more slowly in the spring, which may delay planting 10 operations in rainy spring seasons. 11 Delayed planting can reduce crop yields or require 12 the use of less profitable but quicker growing strains of 13 rice. 14 At the current level of incorporation, these 15 potential problems have not yet been significant for the 16 industry as a whole. 17 Average crop yields have not changed during the 18 phase-down. Some growers have reported higher yields or new 19 yield changes during the past three years, while others have 20 reported yield losses of up to 10 percent. 21 However, so far, incorporation on the same fields 22 for more than one consecutive year has been rear. Previous 23 research on disease buildup has shown yield losses can be 24 expected after several years of incorporation on the same 25 field. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 21 1 Next, I will talk about the economic and 2 environmental effects of the phase-down. Growers are 3 concerned that the added costs of incorporation, coupled 4 with crop yield losses, could make their operations 5 unprofitable. It costs on the average $32 to incorporate an 6 acre, and the straw can be burned for about $3.00 per acre. 7 With the phase-down, a typical small Sacramento 8 Valley grower had an average profit of $55 per acre during 9 1994. Because of differences in farming conditions, some 10 growers lost $20 per acre and others earned up to $120 per 11 acre. 12 The profit from a typical 400-acre farm would be 13 about $22,000 pear year, and the grower would make about 14 $22,000 more in salary for a net income of $44,000. These 15 dollar amounts are an example. 16 Differences in farming conditions and land 17 ownership, leasing or sharecropping, can greatly change the 18 financial picture. In our example, a grower who owns his or 19 her land and does not have lease or other land costs would 20 realize an additional $60,000 profit. A 10 percent 21 reduction in yield would reduce that income by about 22 $27,000, and be extremely damaging to a typical grower that 23 makes an average profit. 24 Total rice revenues in the Sacramento Valley 25 during 1994 was about $400 million. In addition to concerns PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 22 1 about yield losses, environmental effects could result with 2 the large scale use of soil incorporation. Most fields into 3 which the straw has been incorporated are flooded during the 4 fall to enhance the decomposition. 5 This creates concerns for a number of reasons. 6 The salmon fishery may be affected by the diversion of young 7 salmon from the river into the fields. Bird habitat could 8 be damaged, since incorporation of rice straw before 9 flooding can make feeding more difficult for some birds. 10 Water districts are concerned about having to 11 deliver water during the fall, a time during which they need 12 to drain distribution systems in order to perform needed 13 maintenance. 14 Flood control officials are concerned that too 15 much flooded area could result in downstream flooding, 16 because flooded fields immediately run off virtually all the 17 rain which falls on them, while dry ground is able to absorb 18 significant amounts of precipitation. 19 None of these problems see insurmountable, but 20 they must all be dealt with. At this point, I would like to 21 summarize what I've told you about the findings of the draft 22 report. 23 Rice straw burning contributes to elevated 24 concentrations of fine particles in the air which can have 25 significant adverse health effects. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 23 1 The requirements of the phase-down have been met 2 almost exclusively by the use of soil incorporation. 3 Because it appears that there will be no other alternative 4 for the disposal of rice straw other than incorporation 5 through at least the year 2000, the Act can be implemented 6 on its current schedule only if incorporation is suitable 7 for all acres to be practical year after year. 8 The growers, the rice industry, and the academic 9 community believe that the full impacts of incorporation are 10 yet to be fully understood. Rice growers were able to 11 designate nearly 40 percent of their acreage, nearly 10 12 percent more than the 30 percent required by the law, as 13 no-burn in 1994 at an average additional cost of $29 per 14 acre incorporated. 15 The total incorporation cost will rise as the 16 phase-down continues. Most rice growers prefer to burn as 17 much rice straw as possible during the fall, because this 18 increases the time that they have in the spring to work 19 their fields. 20 Unfortunately, the ability of the atmosphere to 21 disperse smoke is much worse in the fall than it is in the 22 spring. 23 Now, I'd like to present the recommendations the 24 ARB's and the CDFA's staffs are making in light of our 25 findings. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 24 1 Because the only current alternative to burning is 2 soil incorporation, we believe that maintaining the phase- 3 down schedule in the current law poses significant risk to 4 the growers. This is because of the very real potential for 5 yield loss that could occur as fields are incorporated year 6 after year. 7 Accordingly, we recommend five changes to the 8 current Act for consideration by the Legislature. 9 The most significant recommendations are the first 10 two. First, pause the annual phase-down schedule at the 50 11 percent level for three additional years, then resume the 12 annual phase-down until the Act is fully implemented in 13 2003. 14 Second, maintain the current phase-down schedule 15 to phase down fall burning to the 25 percent level until 16 2003. 17 These recommendations were designed with two major 18 goals in mind. First, we wanted to preserve to the greatest 19 degree possible the health benefits that would occur with 20 the implementation of the current Act. Second, we strove to 21 identify changes that help ensure that the phase-down could 22 be met, albeit on a slightly extended time frame. 23 The three-year pause in the phase-down schedule 24 would provide time to fully study incorporation and for the 25 development of alternative uses for rice straw. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 25 1 This would allow for, on average, each rice field 2 to be burned every other year. Maintaining this burn 3 frequency should limit rice diseases. 4 The recommendation to continue the Act's burning 5 limit for the fall season would preserve the most 6 significant air quality benefits of the present law during 7 the fall when rice straw burning results in air quality 8 problems. 9 Recommendation number two does not make fall 10 burning allocations more stringent than allowed by current 11 law. It will allow burning of as much acreage during the 12 fall as the current law allows for each burn year until 13 2001. The table shown in this slide illustrates the 14 percentage phase-down that would be required by these 15 recommendations, both in the fall and for the entire year. 16 This slide is similar to the slide I showed 17 earlier depicting the existing phase-down schedule. The 18 darker red area illustrates the time and added amount of 19 burning that would be allowed by the pause. 20 The phase-down would then continue after the 21 pause. 22 We are also making a third significant policy 23 recommendation, one that would allow growers to voluntarily 24 purchase burn rights for additional acres. The cost of 25 incorporation varies substantially among growers to as high PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 26 1 as $53 per acre. 2 To afford some flexibility to growers for whom the 3 costs are high, the present smoke management program 4 provides an option, whereby growers can sell excess burn 5 credits. 6 However, as the phase-down requirements become 7 more restrictive, available burn credits may become scarce. 8 Accordingly, the report recommends that growers be allowed 9 to burn additional acres, up to 25 percent beyond that 10 allowed by the phase-down schedule if they pay a compliance 11 fee equal to the average cost of incorporation. 12 The proceeds from this fee would be devoted to 13 research and development to promote a development of new 14 alternatives to burning. 15 This approach addresses two problems. First it 16 ensures growers who face extremely expensive incorporation 17 costs will have a safety salve. Second, it provides money 18 to develop alternatives. Because the extra burning will be 19 done during the spring, there should not be an air quality 20 problem. 21 The details of the burning alternatives research 22 program would be developed in the legislation modifying the 23 Act and in implementing regulations. One option is that the 24 fees could be collected and administered through their Rice 25 Research Board, with oversight by the ARB and the CDFA. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 27 1 Rice Research Board is a nonprofit administrative agency 2 operating under the authority of the Director of Food & 3 Agriculture. 4 The Board then would invest the funds in research, 5 grants, and equity capital for finding and implementing 6 alternative uses for rice straw. 7 The report makes two additional recommendations, 8 which are more technical in nature. They are: to amend the 9 definition of administrative burning to include the burning 10 of rice straw at the California Cooperative Rice Research 11 Foundation and to establish a problem to conduct research 12 into the long-term disease impacts caused by alternative 13 methods for rice straw management. 14 This concludes the staff presentation. 15 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Boyd, do you have anything 16 to add? 17 MR. BOYD: In consideration of the time 18 constraints, Mr. Chairman, I'll defer any comments to the 19 end of the day if we have time. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very well. Any questions 21 from my colleagues on the Board of the staff at this 22 juncture? 23 Okay. Then we'll move into our witness list. 24 I have a partial list here before me, so I'm going 25 to call three names. I would ask those that I call to queue PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 28 1 up along the side, be cognizant of the limited time we have. 2 I mentioned earlier that we're likely to lose our quorum 3 around eleven o'clock. So, use our time wisely. 4 We'll start off with Mr. Loyd Forest, who's -- 5 MR. BOYD: Mr. Dunlap, excuse me for interrupting 6 you, but this is our error. We should have asked that Mr. 7 Rooney be incorporated into our presentation as part of the 8 joint team that's making this recommendation. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Please, Mr. Rooney, say a 10 few words. 11 MR. ROONEY: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I am 12 appreciative of your time constraints. I do have a prepared 13 statement that we could just enter into the record or, if 14 you'd rather I read it into the record, it's at your 15 pleasure. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Go ahead. 17 MR. ROONEY: Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and 18 members of the Board for the opportunity to provide these 19 comments regarding the draft of the progress report on the 20 phase-down of rice straw burning in the Sacramento Valley 21 Air Basin. 22 On behalf of Secretary Veneman and the Department, 23 I wish to convey to you our sincere appreciation for the 24 cooperation and the effort provided by your organization in 25 meeting our joint responsibilities under the Act. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 29 1 We must also note with appreciation the efforts of 2 the rice industry to accept the challenges and the 3 difficulties associated with the phase-down of this 4 important agronomic tool. As you will note from the report, 5 the industry has, as a whole, met and exceeded the 6 requirements of the Act in each of the three years under 7 review. 8 The Legislature has imposed a continuing duty on 9 both your Board and our department to monitor the progress 10 of the implementation of the Act and to recommend midcourse 11 corrections. This report and its recommendations are but 12 the first of a series of four such reviews. 13 It is our sincere belief that the intent of the 14 Act to reduce the harmful effects of burning, consistent 15 with a timetable that maintains a viable industry in the 16 region, will be best served by the adoption of the 17 recommendations contained in the report. 18 In this, the first joint review, our organizations 19 have detailed the history and progress and have identified 20 areas which retard long-term solutions. This is an 21 important industry for all of Northern Sacramento Valley, 22 equally, everyone -- the rice farmers, the members of the 23 public, and those who have worked in this report - accept 24 the need to maintain the health of the residents of this 25 region. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 30 1 It is clear at this point the only alternative to 2 burning is incorporation. This alternative is far from 3 perfect. Incorporation increases costs, may cause long-term 4 damage to the soil research, and raises new environmental 5 issues in such areas as impacts on fish and migratory bird 6 populations, and increases the risk of flooding over much of 7 the Valley floor. For a number of reasons, many far removed 8 from the rice fields, hope for alternatives have not 9 materialized. 10 For example, the economic slowdown is cited as the 11 reason the ethanol plant in Northern Sacramento County has 12 fallen behind schedule. Let me note, and I'm sure you 13 realize, the amount of straw which this plant would be 14 capable of consuming is significant. Yet, while the plant 15 is behind schedule, the relentless progression of the phase- 16 down continues. 17 Recently, there have been concerns raised in the 18 local media to suggest a trend towards increased rice 19 plantings which offset the benefits of the phase-down. Rice 20 acreage, like that of most annual crops, rises and falls in 21 market-driven cycles. 22 I have a chart which I can show later that shows 23 that point of the cyclical nature of the rice industry. 24 But let me continue. The report does detail the 25 Sacramento Valley planted acreage through 1994. The PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 31 1 California Agricultural Statistics Service on September 12th 2 of this year released the 1995 acreage for the entire State 3 at 448,000 acres. 4 And you will note that this compares with roughly 5 484,000 acres in the Sacramento Valley that's indicated in 6 the report for last year. 7 This is a reduction of 7.6 percent from last 8 year's plantings. And these statistics are on a statewide 9 basis. The Sacramento Valley acreage is therefore 10 considerably less than last year. 11 The rice acreage cycle may have peaked in 1994, 12 and may be in a downward phase for the immediate years 13 ahead, which are the subject of the proposed 14 recommendations. 15 One other piece of information that I should pass 16 along to you is new research that has been introduced just 17 recently since the report went to press concerning rice 18 yields from the 1994 crop. There is one piece of 19 information that staffs of both organizations haven't fully 20 investigated the research data, but it is a troubling piece 21 that tends to indicate that there may be more to the story 22 than what we now know. 23 And I offer that mainly as pointing out to you 24 that, as was said in the staff report, we're into this three 25 years, but there's a lot of uncertainty still as to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 32 1 ramifications. 2 Let me close by saying that our department is 3 ready to transmit the report as drafted. Today, we would 4 request that you vote to concur in the transmittal to the 5 Legislature. 6 Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board members, for 7 your time. And I appreciate the opportunity to participate 8 in your hearing today. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Rooney. If there 10 are no questions of Mr. Rooney, we'll move into the 11 testimony. 12 Loyd Forest, would you come forward, followed by 13 Mike Picker from Mayor Serna's office, and Erik Oleson from 14 Citizens Against Rice Pollution. 15 Good morning. 16 MR. FOREST: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank 17 you. My name is Loyd Forest. I'm the Chairman of your 18 advisory committee on alternatives to burning. And I wanted 19 to give you just a brief status report on the advisory 20 committee's findings. 21 I think you have in your package, and they are out 22 on the table, the executive summary, which isn't final, of 23 the work done by the advisory committee. 24 I do have a few extra copies here that I brought 25 just in case members of the audience may have an interest in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 33 1 it. 2 I think there was reference by your staff earlier, 3 the advisory committee was appointed. It was a statutorily 4 derived committee in the phase-down legislation. It's 5 really a microcosm of all the stakeholders involved in this 6 rice straw and finding alternatives to burning it. 7 On your committee, which was appointed by both 8 your Board and the Food & Ag Department, are members of the 9 rice industry, rice growers, researchers, some of the top 10 experts in rice growing, rice cultivation -- who, by the 11 way, Jack Williams is another committee member who's in the 12 audience of the ten committee members appointed -- 13 environmentalists are represented and health specialists. 14 The medical faculty member was head of pulmonary medicine at 15 U.C. Medical Facility. 16 And what's been of comfort to me -- here we have 17 the same stakeholders, I think are represented in the public 18 and the industry on this committee. And it's probably one 19 of the better committees that I've had the pleasure of 20 working with. We took the approach of what could we all 21 agree upon in the way of findings and recommendations, and 22 those reflected in this executive summary in your package. 23 And I guess we have some good news and some bad 24 news, as has been referenced earlier. The good news is, 25 since the legislation passed, the Committee's identified PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 34 1 about 50 technically feasible alternatives, either for 2 cultivation or offsite use in the economic market, and tens 3 of millions of dollars have been spent by the rice industry 4 and the end user industries in trying to commercialize 5 these. 6 The bad news is that, as of today, and if you 7 continue business as usual through the year 2000, which is 8 what our report finds, there's likely to be an insignificant 9 amount used commercially in the commercial market. 10 And we've made a series of recommendations that 11 could speed that up. And in your package, may be a good way 12 of summarizing our findings and our recommendations, would 13 be to turn to page 9 of the advisory committee executive 14 summary. And you'll find a chart on there that basically 15 reflects the three alternatives for disposing or using rice 16 straw. And in that chart, there are two columns, "Where are 17 we today?" And if you continue business as usual, "Where 18 will you likely be by the year 2000?" 19 Where are we today? About, as your staff 20 indicated, about 61 percent has been disposed of by burning 21 in the recent year. 22 On the off-farm alternatives, only about 23 six-tenths of one percent is being used commercially, about 24 7800 tons from 2600 acres. And that would be 7800 tons out 25 of about 1.4 million tons generated rice straw annually. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 35 1 And on the infield cultivation incorporation or 2 rotation farming cultivation, about 38.4 percent has been 3 incorporated as a disposal technique by the growers. 4 If you continue business as usual, based on our 5 looking at existing technologies and commercialization, it's 6 likely that by the year 2000, you'll only have about 2.1 7 percent used in the commercial market, about 29,800 tons, 8 again, out of -- if you assume a current base of about 1.4 9 million. 10 If you turn to page 12, then the advisory 11 committee wrestled with what recommendations could we agree 12 upon and make to the agency and incorporate it with your 13 report to the Legislature. And if those recommendations 14 were implemented, how much additional rice straw could be 15 used off the farm in the commercial activities? 16 And here we have a chart that really summarizes 17 the key alternatives that are commercially viable for using 18 rice straw in the marketplace. And with the recommendations 19 we made, if they were implemented, in our judgement, about 20 30.8 percent of the rice straw or about 427,000 tons, under 21 an optimistic case, could be utilized in the commercial 22 market by the year 2000. 23 Now, the recommendations are in the front of this 24 summary. And I'll just touch upon a couple of them, the 25 major ones. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 36 1 I think there's another conclusion that the 2 committee came to. Here we are four years into the 3 implementation of the phase-down legislation, and despite -- 4 as I mentioned -- a lot of investment in the private sector 5 by both the growers and the end use industries, we're not 6 much further along in using commercial rice straw in the 7 marketplace than we were four years ago. 8 And one finding, and really recommendation here, 9 is that we don't think that the rice industry, the end users 10 potentially in the marketplace, or the government agencies, 11 or the environmentalists, or the public in general, any one 12 of these stakeholders, unilaterally solve this problem by 13 the year 2000 or the even the year 2003. 14 It's going to take a lot more working together, 15 joint initiatives in addressing and subsidizing the kinds of 16 alternatives if you want to speed their use up by the year 17 2000. 18 And, again, the recommends reflect an approach and 19 a very specific way or path for doing that. Our concerns, 20 certainly mine professionally is that in the marketplace, 21 and in the world, nothing happens without a major commitment 22 and a major amount of energy, effort, and resource. 23 And we could be having and you could be having 24 this same conversations in the year 2000 if those 25 initiatives aren't taken. Now, all the initiatives would PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 37 1 do, in our opinion, would be to speed up the process of 2 bringing those commercialization alternatives online. 3 And that's really the essence of what we've 4 concluded in our report. The status of the report, we met 5 week before last. What you see before you are the final 6 recommendations and findings, and the report itself will be 7 out in November. We were going to try to get it out in 8 October, but the growers on the committee are in harvest 9 season, and they didn't want to meet this month. And so, in 10 November, the final report backing up these will be 11 produced. We have a meeting on November 10th. 12 I'll be happy to answer any questions. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Forest? Any 14 questions? Mr. Boyd? 15 MR. BOYD: I'd just like to make a comment, Mr. 16 Chairman, while Mr. Forest is at a podium. 17 I'd like to thank him for the incredible 18 investment in time and effort that he and the committee has 19 made on this subject. I've known Mr. Forest for a long 20 time. I know him as a very sincere and dedicated 21 individual. I know this was an almost thankless task, and I 22 think the group has done a wonderful job of bringing a very 23 diverse, but necessary, group of people together to look at 24 this issue. 25 As he indicated, we had citizens, we had farmers, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 38 1 we had public health, pulmonary experts. We had the whole 2 cross-section of people there trying to deal with this 3 interdisciplinary problem. 4 I'd also like to say that I know they were 5 interested and concerned that the Air Resources Board 6 continue to protect the public health of the citizens of 7 this area to the maximum extent feasible. And I would just 8 add that it's my view that we need to work with the kinds 9 of people who are on this committee, and I hate to see it go 10 away. 11 And maybe we can revitalize it to direct more of 12 this rice straw to alternative uses, which means we have to 13 work with all the stakeholders in this group of 14 representative stakeholders. 15 We have to work somehow or other to incentivize 16 alternative commercial uses, and get the popular support, 17 get citizen support for doing that. And I would hope that 18 if the community at large, which is heavily represented in 19 this room, would go away from this hearing with some feeling 20 to expend some time and invest some effort to help this take 21 place -- since it's so vital to this large Sacramento Valley 22 community -- that maybe we can accomplish the goals that are 23 paid out in the advisory committee's recommendations that 24 were laid out in the original law. And that is the desire 25 of your staff and the Department of Food & Agriculture, and PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 39 1 the recommendations that we made to you today. 2 So, thank you. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Boyd. 4 Mr. Forest, thank you for your time and effort. 5 And it's a pleasure to meet you, at least I've heard you 6 many times. 7 MR. FOREST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'd 8 also like to thank the members of the committee. This is 9 the best committee I've worked with as a group. People 10 really pull together and sincerely address the issues, and 11 set aside -- each of them, I'm sure, would individually have 12 a different recommendation in terms of their role and their 13 positions. But they did come together very well. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: It's good to hear. Thank you. 15 Mr. Picker, Mr. Oleson and Mr. Fagan. 16 Good morning. 17 MR. PICKER: Thank you. I'm Michael Picker. I'm 18 here on behalf of Sacramento's Mayor, Joe Serna, Jr., who, 19 as some of you may know, is a fulltime college professor. 20 So, he's with his students now, and he ends his regrets and 21 his congratulations. 22 The Mayor does urge you to take no action to 23 interfere with the current rice burning phase-down plan. In 24 the past, the city has seen massive citizen complaints 25 relating to rice burning. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 40 1 Most recently, last fall, we received numbers of 2 calls on a specific period when there were inversions in the 3 area, and no-burn day. We identified at that point, I 4 think, a defect in the valleywide rice burn plan. I think 5 we can count on our staff to avoid that kind of problem 6 again, but it underlines for us the absolute sensitivity of 7 this issue. People called us to report anecdotal health 8 symptoms. They reported a number of complaints. And 9 overall, they expressed a lack of confidence in our general 10 air quality strategies. 11 That's very important to us at the city. We've 12 just gone through a period where we actually saw the air 13 quality management district elevated from a county agency to 14 a true regional agency. 15 We've gone through a number of structural efforts 16 to make that agency more effective, to increase the 17 participation of the cities, and hopefully to actually make 18 more progress on a countywide -- eventually a regional 19 problem. 20 We think that citizen lack of confidence in air 21 quality management is growing. That means that their 22 efforts to comply with our voluntary efforts to phase-down 23 nonpoint-source emissions will decrease. We need your help 24 to maintain that confidence. We believe, based on our 25 experience, with these complaints, that if you step away PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 41 1 from the current schedule, that we will see an increasing 2 conflict between urban and rural areas that will undercut 3 all of our efforts towards air quality. 4 I'm afraid that, having looked very carefully at 5 the report, that the report itself does not strongly support 6 the recommendations. Some of that citizen lack of 7 confidence will be justified. 8 Let me go through a couple of issues that we 9 believe undercut the credibility of the recommendations, 10 solely looking at the reports. 11 And, again, last year, according to this report, 12 despite the phase-down but due to the increase in 13 agricultural lands brought into rice production, we saw more 14 complaints than any other previous year where complaints 15 were recorded. 16 There were no findings of disease, which argues 17 that at the same time that costs may be increasing, the 18 impacts, the people are arguing, are also not increasing. 19 We found that the economic were very weak; that 20 the benefits that were surveyed and the costs that were 21 surveyed were very selective and largely limited to the rice 22 industry. 23 In my experience, that's useful from a modeling 24 point of view, because you reduce the amount of uncertainty 25 in terms of data and issues you look at. However, at any PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 42 1 time that you seek to increase certainty by ignoring 2 uncertainty, you have bad public policy and bad science. 3 I think, in that context, it's very hard for us to 4 continue to marshal public support for our overall problems. 5 We do agree that there's more need for research. We do 6 agree that it's probably important to begin to incorporate 7 some of the increasing rice production in the San Joaquin 8 Valley. Those issues are real. We think they make sense to 9 address. But to back away from the phase-out after years, 10 and years, and years of conflicts between urban and rural 11 areas at a critical point in our construction of an air 12 quality management program that people have confidence we 13 think would be devastating. 14 So, we urge that you stick to the plan. We urge 15 that we continue to monitor this problem. but given the 16 fact that there's no demonstrable problem with disease, we 17 recommend that we stay the course. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Very well. Erik 20 Oleson, CARP; Merlin Fagan. Please come forward. 21 Again, I'll ask the witnesses, please try to 22 gravitate more towards the front of the room. 23 MR. OLESON: Sorry. I've got a long train here. 24 (Speaking of children dressed in costume and gas masks.) 25 Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Erik Oleson. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 43 1 I'm here representing Citizens Against Rice Pollution. 2 Ten years ago, a young couple moved from the city 3 to the country, to the foothills, to Auburn. They bought a 4 house with a panoramic view overlooking the Sacramento 5 Valley; on one side, the could see Mount Diablo; on the 6 other side, the Marysville Buttes. And straight out in 7 front, they could see the coastal range. 8 They loved their new house, especially the 9 beautiful view. But one day, in their first fall there, 10 smoke started pouring in, gray stinking smoke that 11 surrounded their house. They could no longer see the 12 Buttes. They could no longer see Mount Diablo. They could 13 no longer see the coastal range. They couldn't even see the 14 Valley. 15 They couldn't see their neighbor's house a hundred 16 yards away. And it happened again and again. And they 17 began to watch. Where was this smoke coming from? And they 18 could see -- from the rice farms in the Valley. They could 19 see pillars of smoke rising up. 20 Some days, those pillars of smoke were blown in 21 other directions. Some days, they were blown right up 22 toward them. And they wondered what happened to people who 23 where the smoke was blown in the days it didn't come up 24 toward them. They had children. And their youngest one had 25 a problem with allergies, and particularly in the fall when PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 44 1 the rice burning was going on, he would often be up all 2 night coughing. 3 Those of you who are parents, do you know what 4 it's like to be up with your kid all night long when he's 5 coughing? 6 That young couple now, somewhat older and a little 7 bit wiser, is myself and my wife Mary Lee. That child is my 8 son Nathan. 9 And I want to tell you a brief story about another 10 child who's here with us today. Her name is Mikoya. Mikoya 11 has asthma. And usually it's controlled, but during the 12 fall. When the ricing burning goes on in the fall, Mikoya's 13 asthma is uncontrollable. She has to be taken out of school 14 it's so bad. 15 We all know about the health hazards of rice 16 smoke, how it's a potent carcinogen, and how it makes people 17 with lung diseases even sicker. Now, I happen to like rice. 18 I eat it almost every day. I eat rice grown by the Lundberg 19 Brothers. The Lundberg Brothers grow a lot of rice, and 20 they don't burn any of it, and they're very, very 21 successful. 22 But what we hear now is that many of the other 23 rice growers want a roll back the 1991 agreement. That 24 agreement was a hard fought compromise, and the growers 25 agreed to it. Now they want to raise the percentage of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 45 1 crop they can burn or leave it where it is. 2 I understand from the rice industry they actually 3 want to raise it. That just doesn't make sense. 4 I've a friend who's a doctor. She could ask her 5 patients to have unnecessary tests; it would make her more 6 money. Why doesn't she do it? Because it would hurt 7 people, and because it just isn't right. 8 I've got a friend who's a salesman. He could 9 exaggerate the claims for his product. It would be easier. 10 He could make more money. Why doesn't he do it? Because it 11 would hurt people. And because it just isn't right. 12 I'm a licensed psychotherapist. I could have my 13 clients come in longer than they need to. It would help me 14 make more money, make my life easier. Why don't I do it? 15 Because it would hurt people, and because it just isn't 16 right. 17 And now we have the rice growers asking to burn 18 more of their fields so they can make a few extra bucks. 19 Why shouldn't they do it? Because it would hurt people, 20 especially kids, like my friend Mikoya here and my son 21 Nathan. And besides, ladies and gentlemen, burning rice and 22 polluting the air, it just isn't right. 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 25 Mr. Fagan, California Farm Bureau Federation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 46 1 Norm Covell, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 2 District. Next is Joe Carrancho, Rice Ad Hoc Committee. 3 MR. FAGAN: Mr. Chairman and members, I'm Merlin 4 Fagan with the California Farm Bureau Federation. 5 Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this 6 report. We have been involved in this issue for many years. 7 As your staff pointed out, there have been a number of basin 8 plans, a number of activities. 9 And we have now seen a more dramatic change with 10 this new law that's been in force for three or four years. 11 At the time that law was moving forward, we were a 12 group that had -- representing the rice growers -- had a 13 variety of concerns. It was a rather dramatic sweeping 14 change, as your staff pointed out. The ability to burn rice 15 will go to zero; as your staff report so well points out, 16 that can have rather dramatic consequences. At the time 17 this Act was moving through, everybody had these grand plans 18 where there would be all kinds of alternatives; that people 19 would be waiting in line to buy fiberboard made out of rice 20 straw, converting rice straw to all these other 21 alternatives; that there would be no problems. 22 And we said, well, what happens if this doesn't 23 develop and we're stuck with zero means of disposal because 24 we can't burn it anymore? 25 And so, we were able to finally have this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 47 1 reporting component added to the Act, because we believed it 2 was important to sit down and review at a variety of times 3 the consequences of this sweeping Act that would push to 4 zero and have those economic consequences that your staff 5 pointed out earlier. 6 And so, we think it's important, as all laws 7 should be, to periodically be reviewed and see what their 8 consequences are. Your staff has done a very good job of 9 identifying what the consequences would be from the economic 10 side, but also the health side. We hope that there will be 11 many alternatives developed. But it's clear at this stage 12 they are not. And you're outreach meetings brought together 13 a lot of different interests, many of which are here today, 14 to come up with some recommendations as the law requires. 15 The law requires you to develop a report and that 16 report can include recommendations, and we think that it 17 does that very well. In fact, we are in support of that. 18 Again, I want to compliment your staff on the work 19 they did. I've been involved in this issue for a long time. 20 Not everybody would be so diligent, because they know, as 21 the Chairman pointed out so well, that this is a 22 controversial, confrontational issue; so, they went the 23 extra mile to have all of that included. 24 We think that the report should go forward, should 25 go to the Legislature. And this is not the last stop. If, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 48 1 in fact, the recommendations are converted into amendments 2 to the Act, there will be many of the same constituencies in 3 the legislative process, either supporting or opposing those 4 recommendations as they must be translated to changes in the 5 law. 6 So, again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for this 7 opportunity. And I'll answer any questions if there are 8 any. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Doesn't appear to be 10 any. Appreciate it. 11 Norm Covell. And I'd like to call up jointly 12 Robert Sutton and Joe Carrancho from the Rice Ad Hoc 13 Committee to follow Mr. Covell. 14 Good morning, Norm. Norm, we're the beneficiaries 15 of your written comments. So, we all have them and have had 16 a chance to look at them. So, don't feel as if you need to 17 run through them all. 18 MR. COVELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members 19 of the Board. I'm Norm Covell, the Air Pollution Control 20 Officer for the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 21 Management District. 22 The comments you have before you pretty much 23 express my position as the director of our district 24 operations. I know that our Basin Control Council member 25 Supervisor Illa Collin, is on record as supporting the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 49 1 phase-down halt as proposed by Basin Control Council. 2 Our Board does not have a specific position 3 regarding the report or what should be done regarding the 4 phase-down. 5 As evidenced in my testimony, I feel that the 6 variable acreage program that we've had in place since 1981 7 has done a tremendous job in terms of reducing the number of 8 complaints received by the Air District. 9 As you probably well understand, rice burning is 10 the most visible air quality problem that we deal within our 11 air basin, although it's safe to say, the use of the motor 12 vehicle, especially in the urban areas of Sacramento, is the 13 major problem that we're confronted with. 14 Unfortunately, that's not as visible, and we don't 15 hear the hue and cry and concern expressed by the public. I 16 wish we did. 17 So, as we have formed a community coalition to 18 deal with our motor vehicle problems, I think it's important 19 for us to continue with the coalitions that we have 20 developed to work with the rice growers and the public 21 regarding this problem as well. 22 I think the key points within my testimony point 23 to the need to -- understanding that we have this problem 24 with the lack of alternatives which have emerged since we 25 began this program, that something must be done to bring a PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 50 1 shift-about in the amount of burning that does occur in the 2 fall. 3 If you look at -- I think it's 4-6 in your report, 4 you'll see a table that indicates the comparative acres that 5 have been burned to those planted. And you'll see that it's 6 a relatively flat line in terms of acres burned during the 7 fall of the year. 8 As evidenced by your staff report already, you 9 understand that this air basin is the most sensitive to 10 receiving a pollution burden like that in the fall months. 11 I think something has to be done to move, as much as we 12 possibly can, to the spring of the year until we find 13 acceptable alternatives. 14 The other key point, I think, is that what we've 15 done thus far with the legislation is require alternatives 16 to be looked at. But I think we need more of a systems 17 approach to dealing with this problem. We need to find ways 18 to incentivize that research happening, and to incentivize 19 and promote pilot projects occurring once research 20 alternatives are identified, and I think we need to follow 21 through with changes in other laws that may be needed to 22 enhance the use of byproducts, for instance. 23 I think we need building code changes that may be 24 necessary so that rice byproducts can be utilized within the 25 building trades. And I think a complete program has to be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 51 1 developed here, so that we're taking this problem from A to 2 Z, through correction of the problem as well as enhancements 3 of its solutions. 4 So, I'll stop at that point, and attempt to answer 5 any questions you have. Appreciate the opportunity to be 6 here this morning. 7 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Norm. I appreciate 8 it. 9 MR. COVELL: Thank you. 10 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Mr. Sutton and Mr. 11 Carrancho from the Rice Ad Hoc Committee. And, gentlemen, 12 go in whatever order you'd prefer. 13 MR. SUTTON: Okay. My name is Robert Sutton. I'm 14 a rice farmer in Maxwell, which is located 70 miles north of 15 Sacramento. I'm also Chairman of the Rice Ad Hoc Committee. 16 I believe you received a handout this morning; it 17 has a green front like this. 18 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Right. 19 MR. SUTTON: Okay. And I'm making -- I would like 20 to make a notation of the recommendations of the Rice Ad Hoc 21 Committee that we would like your report to reflect. 22 And that is to freeze the phase-down to 20 percent 23 for the fall of '95. This is to give us a chance to recover 24 from the floods. Increase the phase-down to 30 percent for 25 the fall of '96, and then the phase-down to remain at 30 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 52 1 percent for the fall of '97 and beyond, until viable 2 alternatives are found. 3 And then at whatever rate the alternatives show 4 up, we would be happy to reduce our burning. The Rice Ad 5 Hoc Committee is composed of about 20 members, farmers, and 6 we're from eight counties representing the major rice 7 producing areas in the North State. 8 I'm here today to share with you some of my final 9 comments that I would like you to seriously consider prior 10 to making your final decision. I would like to share with 11 you my personal feelings as well as comment on the problems 12 of straw decomposition, and the potential issues of cause 13 and effect, which are often overlooked. 14 The ad hoc committee represents the people who 15 will have to implement and pay the costs, both financially 16 and in cultural practices, of straw incorporation. In view 17 of all the support, over 26 letters, the Rice Ad Hoc 18 Committee has received, that's why I'm here today. 19 For example, I would like you to note these 20 following organizations, and everyone here has adopted the 21 position of the ad hoc committee verbatim. 22 Under Boards of Supervisors, I have Del Norte, 23 Tehama, Siskiyou, Amador, Colusa, Glenn. 24 Under Ag Commissioners, I have Sutter, Colusa, 25 Glenn, and Yuba Counties. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 53 1 Farm Bureaus, I have Glenn County Farm Bureau, 2 Colusa County Farm Bureau. 3 I have the Sacramento Valleywide Air Basin Control 4 Council, Family Water Alliance, Colusa-Glenn Farm Credit, 5 Mark Reisner. However, he is noted at the 40 percent level. 6 Salmon Trollers of Fort Bragg, the Golden State 7 Trollers of San Francisco, the Tehama Fly Fishers, the 8 Golden Gate Fishermen Association, Pacific Coast Federation 9 of Fishermen's Association, the Salmon Restoration 10 Federation, Salmon Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Sacramento 11 River Preservation Trust, Assemblyman Tom Woods, 2nd 12 District. 13 I believe this is a very impressive list of those 14 who are close to the heart of the North Valley. Their 15 voices should be heard. How can we ignore these groups that 16 have the greatest investment in their community's livelihood 17 and their own health? 18 Unfortunately, smoke is visible. The visible 19 smoke of rice burning causes some people to become 20 concerned. Admittedly some people are more sensitive than 21 others, but we all have the same concerns, and that is for 22 the quality of air that we breathe. 23 We, as farmers, are closest to the source of the 24 smoke and, as such, have the highest amount of risk. A 25 Study sponsored by the California Rice Research Board, which PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 54 1 examined 464 farmers, concluded that the lung function of 2 this group was equal to or superior to the lung function of 3 the general public. 4 Unfortunately, the general public perception is 5 that rice smoke is very harmful to your health, and is the 6 main contributor to PM10. However, a more recent study done 7 by the ARB, dated September 8th, 1995, which was not 8 included in the final draft -- and I may need to be 9 corrected on that, but I have the study with me, and if it's 10 not, I would like to have it included in the final draft 11 report -- clearly indicates that PM10 contributions from 12 rice smoke on an average burn day was recorded as 13 contributing only 1.6 percent of the problem, while motor 14 vehicles contributed 20 percent; fugitive dust, 46 percent; 15 unexplained is 24 percent; and the balance is sulfates, 16 nitrates, and crude oil. 17 Based on this study, it can be concluded that rice 18 burning is not a major contributor to the PM 10 levels. 19 This only begs the question, why is rice being singled out 20 when rice burning is not the major problem? 21 On an annual basis, the emissions from rice fields 22 are considered to be 2 percent of the problem for air 23 quality. I contend, when burning is conducted with 24 favorable winds, that one-quarter or less of these emissions 25 reach urban areas. And I believe it's way less than that, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 55 1 but I'm using this in my example. 2 Based on this assumption, this reduces the total 3 contribution of emissions from rice fields to one-half 4 percent of the total annually. We, as rice farmers, have 5 already contributed in the past to just such an effort. We 6 have spent over $5 million on trying to find alternatives to 7 burning. This research began in 1970. And in 1980, our 8 assessment was raised by 2 cents per hundredweight, devoted 9 primarily to finding alternatives. This 2 cents raised 10 about $720,000 annually for the past 15 years, and will 11 continue. 12 This amount of money does not include the efforts 13 of CRIA and Farm Bureau. We also have contributed and 14 worked on the fall ag burn program. We have developed rice 15 plants with a lack of pubescence, which was the hairy things 16 on rice that made it itchy and contributed to PM10. They 17 are now gone. We have shortened the straw length. There's 18 less to burn. We have developed varieties that use less 19 water, and have improved water quality by 99.5 percent, all 20 at no cost to the public, and on a volunteer basis. 21 This demonstrates how responsible and reactive the 22 rice farmer has been to improve our water and air quality. 23 Our industry needs to be recognized for these contributions. 24 The growing of rice in California is very 25 environmentally friendly. Over 22 sensitive species live in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 56 1 the rice fields. Should rice production become economically 2 infeasible due to excessive regulation, the rice farmer may 3 have no choice but to select alternative crops, which would 4 be less environmentally friendly, thus impacting greatly the 5 22 sensitive species. 6 Here again, we must make a decision: What is more 7 important to us? A small improvement in air quality or 8 these sensitive species? We will bear the burden of such a 9 decision. 10 There are great difficulties with straw 11 incorporation. Some of these have been touched on, but I'll 12 go as fast as I can. 13 It's very expensive. One thing to keep in mind 14 is, at the 30 percent level, round numbers 150,000 acres 15 incorporated, $50 per acre, that's $7,500,000 annually 16 that's being spent to incorporate in the North Valley only 17 at the 30 percent level for a very small gain. 18 There are income loss problems. There's yield 19 loss. We lose a premium -- this is one point that wasn't 20 made. We might lose the income from a premium variety which 21 has a premium price, because the season is so long for that 22 variety. Disease, weed populations. There's also a timing 23 problem. A lot of farmers work alone. They harvest their 24 crop, and then they do other things. 25 And for some of the people that don't hire anybody PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 57 1 and the situation's only up to them. By the time they 2 finish harvest they may not physically be able to do this. 3 Winter delivery of water limits ditch and levee 4 maintenance. 5 Early delivery of water is causing subbing (sic) 6 into unharvested crops. That's one thought that wasn't 7 brought out in the report. And we don't know what's going 8 on with our soil. We have a cause and effect for unknowns 9 for the community and the environment. First of all it 10 should be pointed out that straw incorporation is not a 100 11 percent net gain in air quality. There are problems with 12 straw incorporation. 13 The activities to get the straw incorporated -- 14 there's gases given off during the decomposition process. 15 And the picture's being painted that this just takes care of 16 it and there are no problems. 17 Another problem that really concerns me is we have 18 a loss of food for ducks and geese. We have reports on file 19 that show that when you incorporate straw, 80 percent of the 20 food that is normally available for ducks and geese isn't 21 available. And it's very difficult for them to get. 22 You have a greater flooding potential to the 23 public. This was brought out. You also have a loss of 24 habitat for upland game. We have a lot of space out there. 25 And it's been open. Some's been burned. Some's been PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 58 1 unburned (sic). We're now at the 30 percent incorporated 2 and flooded. 3 And we are causing things to change that no one 4 has studied and we may look back on and have a big problem. 5 And I don't think this has really been looked at. So, the 6 fear of going any farther than 30 percent disturbs me 7 greatly. 8 The use of winter water -- we just came out of 9 eight years of drought. And as a farmer who was cut back to 10 50 percent of my income because of water usage, it's really 11 in the front of my mind. But we have -- we're going to be 12 using a winter water source that we have not used before. 13 There's a need for the fisheries. There's a need for 14 people. There's a need to keep reserves. There's a need 15 for next year's crops. 16 There's a need for downriver water quality in the 17 Delta and salt intrusion (sic). We will change the Valley 18 unknowingly. And that really bothers me. 19 There is a need to use more chemicals when 20 incorporating rice straw. Your report reflected this. And 21 I just want to say it is true. There's a little bit of left 22 over decay at the time of the next spring planting and we 23 wind up using more chemicals. It is necessary to cultivate 24 the soil more where the straw's been incorporated. That's 25 the following spring. My experience is one to two extra PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 59 1 passes. 2 So, that's more fuel and dust, and it contributes. 3 Have we explored all of the options? Some other 4 potential ideas to consider may be -- and these are my own 5 ideas that are not formally endorsed by the Rice Ad Hoc 6 Committee. So I have to separate myself here for a minute. 7 I'm speaking as a farmer. 8 However, they are ideas of options that have not 9 been tried and only demonstrate that all options have not 10 been explored. I believe special consideration for those 11 burning close to urban areas burn when the winds are right 12 and blow the smoke away. And if you don't impact the people 13 a tremendous difference. 14 Rice farmers close to urban areas could be 15 subsidized to voluntarily incorporate 100 percent of their 16 acreage, if feasible, and if the correct soil type. I don't 17 want to pit farmer against farmer here. This could be 18 funded from other rice growers. This could eliminate almost 19 all urban contact with rice burning emissions. That's if 20 you couple Item 1 and Item 2. This hasn't really been 21 examined, because we've never been willing to take the 22 closest look at the rice closest to the urban areas. 23 We've tried to just blanket the whole Valley with 24 one regulation. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Mr. Sutton in the interest of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 60 1 time, can I get you to wrap up? 2 MR. SUTTON: I have one minute left or less. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Very good. 4 MR. SUTTON: Thank you. And I apologize for the 5 length. 6 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Well, I understand you're 7 representing industry and it's important for these things to 8 be covered. 9 MR. SUTTON: Thank you. I am very close too 10 closing. 11 We could continue to improve the fall ag burn 12 program. There have been such ideas as miniature test fires 13 to find the best places in the Valley to burn. We could 14 minimize the marginal days get rid of the days that really 15 bother the people. 16 Maximize good burn days. When way to accomplish 17 this might be to take advantage of modern cellular equipment 18 which would allow for adjustments of a proactive management 19 plan, possibly a low-power AM broadcast radio to expand or 20 limit acres so we could always shut the burning off and have 21 complete control of those people in the field. 22 In closing, over the past year, I've submitted to 23 you numerous documents, which are all referenced in the 24 final draft report. Conclusions and comments suggested 25 today can be supported in the draft. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 61 1 Please give considerations to the 30 percent 2 that's in your documents, the Rice Ad Hoc Committee. I want 3 to thank you very much for the opportunity to talk, and 4 thank you for listening to me. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Mr. Carrancho do you 6 have anything to add sir? Mr. Sutton gave a very thorough 7 presentation. 8 MR. CARRANCHO: I just wrote down some things here 9 and I don't have any -- any prepared speech or nothing, but 10 it kind of goes in with what Mr. Sutton has said. 11 And I want to emphasize to you, you probably see 12 there's four of us farmers here that I can see anyway. 13 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: I noticed you were here early 14 though. I saw you very early today. 15 MR. CARRANCHO: Very early, but I got up this 16 morning, as a matter of fact, at four o'clock in the 17 morning. But we're all harvesting. 18 It seems like all these meetings come when we're 19 harvesting, so we're not very well represented here. I 20 admire the other organizations that are here in force. 21 The price here was brought up at $29 per acre. 22 I'm just going to give you a fast example of a field that I 23 have that I have been trying -- and farmers are the ones who 24 have found all the alternatives that we have to date. 25 Everything's been the farmer who's found it. I have been PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 62 1 doing this since '69. 2 But I have this field that I did this specifically 3 for. In '89 a got a yield of 77.3 sacks. Now, we're 4 talking about a sack, roughly $10 a sack. I incorporated 5 that rice straw to find out how this is going to work. In 6 '90, my yield dropped to 44 sacks per acre. Now the reason 7 for that is ignorance. I didn't know what the scum was 8 going to do. I didn't know what the straw was going to do. 9 I didn't know about a lot of the diseases that were coming 10 in. 11 I had weed seeds that you wouldn't believe 12 multiplied on me. So I burned it that year. I wanted to 13 get myself clean back up. 14 In '91, my yield went back up to 87 sacks to the 15 acre. So, let me try it again. I incorporated. In '92, my 16 field dropped back down to 94 (sic). And I put a crop in 17 called 204 which was a higher producer. Still, I lost down 18 to 84. 19 So I burned it again. In '93 my crop went to 20 97.7. That was with this higher producing variety. 21 Well I tried it again. Let's try it one more 22 time. I incorporated again. This year, I had a beautiful 23 looking crop. I put money into that you wouldn't believe to 24 make that crop come up. However, my yield still dropped to 25 84 sacks. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 63 1 Now, $10 a sack, figure that out. This $29 isn't 2 going to get it. It's costing us a lot more than that. 3 As far as your fall weather we don't really agree 4 with the 25 percent. We think the ARB -- people like Eric 5 Lindsay and so on are doing a great job of determining when 6 we can burn and we can't. Let's let that be the determining 7 factor the weather. 8 I would hate to see you chop us off at 25 percent, 9 when we have good burn days. If it's only enough to allow 10 us to burn 10 percent, so be it. But let the weather be the 11 judge, not a limiting factor. 12 I'd like to explain and east/west position we have 13 here. Right now, as you know, we can sell rice burn from 14 one county to the other. Right now, the major ground that 15 is being burnt -- first off, there's 450,000 acres more or 16 less of rice being burnt or being planted. 17 150,000 acres of that is the type of land that 18 lends itself to incorporation; 300,000 is not. Right now, 19 with the 30 percent, have been shifting the burn from east 20 to west, because the east side is mainly the ground that 21 incorporates this straw best. 22 What that does, that takes burn out of Placer 23 County, Sutter County, and Yuba County, moves it over to the 24 Colusa County/Glenn County side. That takes some of the 25 smoke away from Sacramento, and I believe that's one of the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 64 1 reasons that you'll that after a burn day, we have cleaner 2 air than we had before a burn day. 3 We are shifting it over. It is working.That does 4 improve some of the air quality. You brought up collecting 5 money to pay for the extra. I think that was at $32 an 6 acre. And you suggested the Rice Research. I'm a member of 7 the Rice Research, but I would like to maybe amend that. 8 Instead of the Rice Research, we would like to have that 9 money, if this has to be done -- and it really sticks in my 10 craw to be paying to burn, but it goes to the ARB or the 11 Department of Food & Ag. And let them use something like 12 the burn alternatives committee, maybe put another banker or 13 so into it, and let them disperse the money. 14 We don't feel that we should have the rice 15 industry controlling the money entirely. We would rather 16 see the Air Resources -- ARB or the Department of Food & Ag. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: So, you want to give money to 18 government. Is that what you're telling me? 19 I just want to get that clear. 20 SUPERVISOR RIORDAN: Not quite. Not quite. 21 MR. CARRANCHO: You're pinning me here. 22 (Laughter.) 23 MR. CARRANCHO: We don't want to give money to the 24 government, but we, as farmers, have to breathe this year, 25 also. And we know it is not hurting us. We had -- I think PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 65 1 that CRIA is here, and they can testify as to that. But we 2 had a study done on farmers, and we found that the farmers 3 who are in the middle of the smoke are healthier than your 4 average urbanite. 5 And it is not the rice smoke. I mean, you've got 6 all kinds of things that says it isn't. 7 Mr. Lundberg's farm was brought up here today. I 8 would like to emphasize to you people that Mr. Lundberg is a 9 very successful farmer. He's doing a tremendous job. God 10 bless him. I wished I had his ground. Unfortunately, we 11 don't all have the type of ground he has. 12 Our land, some of this land, does not lend itself 13 to incorporation. He also has a niche market in the organic 14 market. If we all went into the organic market, he wouldn't 15 have a niche market anymore. Some of us grow for everyone. 16 And he also has enough land that he can rotate. 17 We do not have. There's people out here that have land that 18 will grow nothing but rice. If you try to tomato seed out 19 there, it'd probably jump ten feet high with fear. 20 We'd like to also emphasize that last winter was a 21 very good example of what could happen. We have straw piled 22 up on the roadsides, we have straw piled up in our ditches. 23 What happened is we had all this rain. We couldn't burn. A 24 lot of the fields were flooded. Now, when these fields are 25 flooded, you not only have the field flooded, you have all PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 66 1 the canals charged. 2 And when it starts raining, by the time that water 3 fills all these canals, fills all the rice fields, and so 4 on, it absorbs a lot of water. With this scenario that you 5 have now, everything's saturated. It's flooded. Gallon in, 6 gallon out. 7 So, we've encouraged floods. And we all know what 8 the floods have done to Northern California this year. 9 I am going to go a little out of what we're here 10 for today, but I would like to encourage both the ARB and 11 the Department of Food & Ag to enforce or to help us with 12 E95-1, which was what the Governor gave us in allowing us to 13 burn and get around the ESA for this year to help us get 14 cleaned up. 15 We have a lot of damage that has to be fixed that 16 hasn't been able to be done. 17 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: This is the executive order 18 you're talking about? 19 MR. CARRANCHO: That's right. The executive 20 order. It hasn't been done. And we do need a little help 21 now. I would suggest, you know, it gave us burn a hundred 22 percent. I don't think that we need that. I think if we 23 could go back to 20 percent, it'd put the farmers on their 24 feet. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: On that point, I would be happy PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 67 1 to entertain your ideas. But you're getting out of the path 2 here. 3 MR. CARRANCHO: Yes, I just wanted to bring that 4 up. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Sir, you've had a very 6 informative presentation to us. I appreciate it. Can I get 7 you to wrap it up so we can move on? I have 20 other 8 witnesses I need to get to? 9 MR. CARRANCHO: One last thing. We are not -- as 10 farmers, we're not out here to pollute. We want clean air 11 just like anyone else. And I would encourage -- you all 12 have my name -- any of you, as some of you people have said, 13 "breathers," any of you who are -- who would like to talk to 14 us, we certainly want to cooperate. None of the farmers 15 want to pollute, whoever you be. We do not want to pollute. 16 We want to clean this air up. And we would like 17 to work with you. But we need a little break. We have to 18 be able to find alternatives and we need a little break. 19 That's all we're asking for. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you very much. Earl 22 Withycombe from the Lung Association, followed by Robert 23 Felts and Duane Peterson. Again, if I could appeal to the 24 witnesses. We're going to run into some problem with losing 25 our quorum around eleven o'clock, so please be efficient in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 68 1 your use of the time. 2 MR. WITHYCOMBE: Mr. Chairman, my name is Earl 3 Withycombe. I'm a member of the Board of Directors of the 4 Sacramento Emigrant Trails affiliate of the association, and 5 also of the American Lung Association of California, Board 6 of Directors. 7 I'm also speaking here in behalf of, as a Board 8 member, of the Environmental Council of Sacramento today. 9 We've heard a lot of testimony regarding the 10 impacts to the agricultural industry. The American Lung 11 Association provides services, works closely, and advocates 12 on behalf of breathers, many of whom in this community have 13 to struggle with each breath to breathe. 14 We oppose the recommendation to pause the phase- 15 down of rice straw burning because of the need to improve 16 air quality in our region, not to let our focus on that goal 17 be diverted. 18 Within Sacramento County, 58,000 residents suffer 19 from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease -- bronchitis, 20 chronic bronchitis, emphysema, debilitating diseases. 21 36,000 residents suffer from childhood or adult asthma, and 22 suffer attacks on foreign agents, like smoke, of one sort or 23 another that are prevalent in high concentrations in the 24 environment. 159,000 people in this county alone, including 25 preadolescent children and the elderly, are sensitive to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 69 1 elevated pollutant levels. These figures do not include the 2 populations of the surrounding counties where rice burning 3 may impact people at higher levels. 4 One of the main concerns that we have with this 5 report is that it does not answer health questions regarding 6 the existing impacts of agricultural burning, especially 7 rice straw burning, nor does it address and quantify the 8 health impacts that would be caused by the pause that you're 9 not being asked to recommend and support. 10 In our community in the Sacramento larger urban 11 area, the prevalence of pediatric -- childhood -- asthma is 12 increasing at a rate nearly 20 percent greater than of the 13 population. We can't explain why this is happening. We 14 don't know the mechanism. But we know that the number of 15 people suffering from adverse impacts from air pollution is 16 increasing. 17 On November 1st, 1994, rice straw burning smoke 18 inundated the Sacramento Metropolitan area. PM10 levels 19 went from 35 micrograms per cubic meter at two o'clock in 20 the afternoon to over 220 micrograms per cubic meter by four 21 o'clock in the afternoon. 22 Those levels stayed constant above 200 micrograms 23 per cubic meter for a four-hour period, and then began to 24 drop. Averaged over a 24-hour period, we saw an increase of 25 about 70 micrograms per cubic meter above what the level PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 70 1 would have been without the rice burning smoke that severely 2 impacted our community because of a call on a marginal day 3 that turned to disaster. 4 According to the statistics that EPA's generated 5 with respect to the relation/correlation between early 6 premature mortality, the death of those people who have 7 maybe one year to live, who are suffering daily with chronic 8 obstructive pulmonary disease, their early death in relation 9 to PM10 episodes such as we saw, suggests that episode in 10 the Sacramento urban area killed, statistically, one person. 11 We feel that that is a very significant health 12 effect. We want those health effects evaluated, studied, 13 and reported side by side with the economic data that has 14 been studied so well and reported eloquently and addressed 15 eloquently here before you. 16 It's a simple request. We know that it will take 17 money. We're dismayed that this research has not been going 18 on for the last four years that the rice phase-down program 19 has been conducted. We can't even tell you what the impacts 20 in the communities, the county seats of the rice burning 21 counties have been, because the data has not been gathered. 22 We can't tell you what the exposure levels are in 23 the Sacramento area, because the effort to distinguish the 24 source signature or rice burning smoke from residential wood 25 combustion smoke has not been done. And I suggest to you, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 71 1 because the silicon levels in rice burning smoke are far 2 higher than the silicon levels in any other kind of 3 vegetative smoke, that that should not be a terribly 4 difficult task. 5 But have we marched forward to address that fact? 6 Even your report indicates that the rice farmers don't have 7 the data they would like to have to show that rice burning 8 is not a significant impact on the urban areas. 9 In failing to quantify these impacts, we feel that 10 it is better than you, as a Board, not the rice preservation 11 Board, but the California Air Resources Board err on the 12 side of public health. We want that data in hand. We would 13 like you to have that data in hand before you make a 14 decision and a recommendation. 15 What will be the impacts, possibly, of the phase- 16 down? We came into this debate as signatories to the 17 Connelly bill, which was a finely tuned and long-developed 18 and debated agreement between the rice industry, other 19 components of the agricultural community, environmental 20 groups, the lung association, and citizen's groups. 21 We're dismayed that there's a proposal to tinker 22 with that in a major way, to turn back the clock almost and 23 allow for increased burning. 24 We anticipated under the bill that we would see 25 reductions in the first four years. Instead, as your report PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 72 1 confirms, we've seen no overall reduction in fall burning, 2 primarily because the number of acres being grown has 3 increased. 4 If the pause is put into place and the sales to 5 Japan, four percent of their rice consumption as reported in 6 the Business Journal two weeks ago, go in a major fashion to 7 California's rice industry, will we not see further 8 increases in the acres planted and further increases in the 9 number of acres burned? 10 While the EPA has undertaken significant studies, 11 developed significant concern with respect to the health 12 effects of fine particle exposure, we have been doing very 13 little here looking at this question. We think it's time 14 that this be addressed. 15 The November 1st episode indicates that not only 16 should the Connelly bill be maintained in its present 17 position, we feel strongly that the fall burning plan must 18 be tightened up to reduce the probability of bad burn calls. 19 We feel that the data that's in hand and developed by the 20 Federal Environmental Protection Agency urges us to do a 21 better job looking at fine particulates. Their direction 22 and internal discussions are to consider PM2.5 standard on a 23 24-hour basis. 24 If that kind of episodic standard is put into 25 place, then the whole control program in California and in PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 73 1 the Central Valley, then Sacramento will shift toward 2 combustion sources, you're going to have to look very much 3 closer at that point at burning. 4 What are the economic advantages to the industry? 5 We feel that waiting for alternatives to burning will only 6 delay finding those alternatives. As long as it is cheaper 7 to burn, there will be little incentive to pursue 8 alternative strategies. As long as burning is free, no 9 alternative will ever be cost-effective. 10 I appreciated the comments that were offered to 11 you by -- especially Mr. Sutton of the industry. We have 12 met in a series of meetings, both in development of the 13 Connelly bill and in providing initial comments to this 14 report. 15 We welcome that opportunity to explore 16 alternatives. One of our considerations is that, because 17 there's strong incentives right now to burn in the fall 18 season and not in the spring, and because the program causes 19 disasters, as it's now organized -- periodic disasters like 20 November 1st, '94, that a fee-based disincentive to burning 21 on those marginal days be imposed in the plan to allow those 22 members of the agricultural community who can put their 23 burning off till the spring to enjoy an economic incentive 24 to do so. 25 We hesitate to add additional reporting systems PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 74 1 and calculation systems for fees, but if the industry feels 2 that this will do a better job, we wholeheartedly support 3 those kinds of approaches. 4 But we've got to fix some existing problems and 5 not turn back the clock and move backwards. 6 In conclusion, because of the lack of health data 7 that we so eagerly seek and we feel that you have to have to 8 make a recommendation, that we cannot support -- and, in 9 fact, we oppose at this point the recommendation to pause 10 the phase-down of the rice burning program. 11 We urge that the prescriptions of fall burning 12 plans be tightened up to reduce the probability of bad burn 13 calls and smoke impacts in populated areas, such as occurred 14 on November 1st. 15 We urge that an increased effort be made to 16 address the lack of public exposure data and health effect 17 information associated with rice straw burning. 18 The phase-down legislation represented and 19 continues to represent a very carefully balanced agreement 20 between the rice industry, the American Lung Association, 21 environmental groups, and the Legislature. To set that 22 aside, to set that agreement aside is to ignore the many 23 breathers whose hopes of reduced suffering were raised and, 24 as we believed and were assured in the process four years 25 ago, would be guaranteed by this legislation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 75 1 Thank you. And I'd be happy to answer any 2 questions. 3 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Very well. Robert 4 Felts, followed by Duane Peterson, and Dennis Lindberg. 5 Again, I would ask the witnesses, please try not to be 6 redundant and be respectful of our limited time, 7 particularly if we're going to deal with this item today. 8 MR. FELTS: Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I have 9 prepared a written statement, which I would like to read 10 some excerpts from. But I would like that written 11 statement, if possible, to be entered into the record. 12 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: It will be. 13 MR. FELTS: My name is Robert Felts, and I'm a 14 resident of Wilton. I am one of Sacramento's many citizens 15 who suffer from asthma, chronic bronchitis, and allergies. 16 I have become extremely sensitive to respiratory irritants 17 since moving to Sacramento in 1982, and was hospitalized in 18 both March of 1994 and '95 for respiratory problems. 19 Each year, the season of rice field burning causes 20 me considerable respiratory distress, such as shortness of 21 breath and wheezing, since it is impossible for me to 22 completely avoid the smoke for the entire burning season. 23 Now, I find that, in the face of what is known to 24 be harmful and on the heels of one of the worst 25 environmental weeks the Valley has ever had, the Air PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 76 1 Resources Board is recommending that a major air polluter, 2 the rice growers, be granted relief from meeting their 3 obligations under current legislation. 4 Their proposal is an affront to all residents of 5 the Valley and especially to people with health problems 6 like me. Rice growers should be allowed, as everyone, to 7 pursue an occupation in a manner that does not endanger 8 anyone else. However, they are allowed to willfully pollute 9 the air for the sake of profits, something that no other 10 individual or industry in this State is ever allowed to do. 11 There is absolutely no reason they should continue 12 to be favored. 13 The Air Board should have public welfare as a 14 primary concern, but it appears that the Board wants to 15 manipulate present law without regards for public health. I 16 cannot understand how the Board can conclude in its report 17 that exposure to the smoke could possibly even result in 18 death, yet propose the burning be extended for three more 19 years. 20 Last November, as the wind shifted and smoke 21 permeated the damp air and everything else in South 22 Sacramento, I was at work selling cars in Elk Grove. The 23 smoke was so bad, I could scarcely breathe. And when I 24 arrived home sick from breathing the air, I smelled like I'd 25 been in a fire. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 77 1 Yet I had to be outside trying to earn my living 2 in spite of severe interference from something that is 3 positively controllable. 4 Last Saturday and Sunday, our home in Wilton was 5 once again blanketed with smoke so thick that I was unable 6 to go outside. A brief five-minute excursion outdoors left 7 my lungs burning and my throat irritated and dry. My 8 evening cardiovascular exercise had to be cancelled both 9 days. This, after a week of remaining indoors because of a 10 high PSI. 11 These are only two examples of many intrusions 12 into my personal life and health by the rice smoke, and it 13 is time to stop. 14 The members of the Board should support State 15 residents who've had enough of this insane policy that 16 consistently favors a few individuals at the expense of 17 many. 18 Thank you. 19 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Mr. Peterson, 20 followed by Mr. Lindberg -- do you need to change? Sir, 21 hold on just for a moment for our court reporter. 22 (Thereupon, there was a pause in the 23 proceedings to allow the reporter to 24 replenish her paper.) 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Please, Mr. Peterson, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 78 1 proceed. 2 MR. PETERSON: I'll keep this to, I believe, four 3 minutes or less, and I pledge to make an important point 4 that's not been made before. 5 Mr. Chairman and members, my name is Duane 6 Peterson, I, like many of you, wear multiple hats. I work 7 as Chief of Staff to Senator Tom Hayden and the Senate 8 Committee on Natural Resources, which he chairs. 9 I address you today, though, as the President of 10 the Sacramento Valley Toxic Campaign, with a membership of 11 3,000. We are the region's largest local environmental 12 organization. 13 The Toxics Campaign was a cosponsor of AB 1738 14 five years ago, after being brought to the issue by the 15 hundreds of complaints we received from citizens during rice 16 burning season. They asked for our help in cleaning the air 17 that was making them ill. 18 We held eight extensive community meetings 19 throughout the Sacramento Valley and heard from residents 20 who wanted to regulate rice burning at the local level. We 21 successfully argued that a regional approach would be better 22 than such a patchwork quilt if it could be tough enough to 23 yield results. 24 We then participated in the long negotiations with 25 the rice industry, air quality regulators, public health PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 79 1 advocates, and others to help fashion the Connelly-Areias- 2 Chandler Rice Burning Act that we are here to discuss today. 3 Now in its fourth real year of implementation, you 4 are considering a report that recommends that law be 5 weakened. Based on the data and findings of that report, 6 the Toxics Campaign adamantly opposes relaxing this air 7 quality protection. 8 Industry advocates frequently invoke the need to 9 rely on science -- I may add, typically when it suits their 10 purposes. We hear the need for rigorous cost/benefit 11 analyses in crafting our pollution cleanup costs. 12 Ladies and gentlemen, we would welcome that 13 scrutiny on this issue. But the report before you does not 14 allow such a scientific analysis, because the data simply is 15 not there. 16 Nowhere does this report describe the costs to the 17 community of weakening this air quality law. No analysis of 18 the increased pollutants that would be admitted under a 19 moratorium, no discussion of their health effects, the 20 premature deaths, the lost workdays due to illness, the 21 stay-at-home days from school, no economic impact analysis 22 of the cost to our community and its citizens from the 23 effects of increased air pollution under the proposal. 24 What the report does provide is a little data on 25 the benefits to one industry. Table Roman Numeral VI on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 80 1 page 5-3 asserts that the direct costs of the phase-down to 2 date has been $1.3 million the first year, $2.9 million the 3 second, and $4.9 million the third. 4 We heard earlier some anecdotal evidence from some 5 farmers on data. But I draw your attention to the data your 6 own staff presented in the report. 7 Extrapolated into the next three years, the time 8 period for which your report urges no further reductions in 9 rice acreage burning, we figure that the recommended 10 moratorium would yield a savings of 1.6 million the first 11 year, 3.2 million the second, and $4.8 million for the third 12 year. Those are the data from your report, the actual 13 direct cost savings to the industry. 14 That averages about $3.2 million annually. So, 15 the net benefit, based on the ARB's own data, would be on 16 the order of $3 million annually as compared to what the 17 increased phase-down would cost. 18 To put that figure in perspective, California 19 Farmer magazine, a noted source, calculated the value of the 20 State's 1994 rice crop at $481 million. You're, therefore, 21 weighing a proposal to save the rice industry all of a 22 fraction of just one percent of its annual revenues by 23 weakening our air pollution law. 24 That doesn't seem to us like much benefit. And 25 we, along with other public health advocates, believe the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 81 1 public cost would be much greater. But again, your study 2 precludes a comparison because it lacks data on the health 3 effects of the proposal. 4 These effects can be calculated. We have a report 5 here commissioned for the South Coast Air Quality Management 6 District, and another one published recently in the Journal 7 of Science that calculate the direct cost to the public of 8 the air pollution in the South Coast District to be $19 9 billion a year based on statistical methodology, based on 10 premature death and lost work and school days. 11 They took the time to calculate these morbid, but 12 necessary, statistics. Aren't you interested in examining 13 how the proposed benefit of $3 million a year to one 14 industry compares to the damaged health of the people who 15 live in our community. Isn't it the job of the State's air 16 pollution control agency to assess the so-called external 17 costs borne by the citizenry when weighing whether to grant 18 a benefit to an industry? 19 There's not much science going on in this report. 20 We're asking for a better analysis of public costs versus 21 private benefits. The toxics campaign urges you to reject 22 the proposal in favor of a more rigorous analysis that would 23 yield an informed discussion of the harm to our health in 24 this region in exchange for the quite minor benefit to the 25 rice industry. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 82 1 Thank you for considering our views. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Mr. 3 Lindberg. Good morning, sir. 4 MR. LINDBERG: Thank you. I'm Dennis Lindberg. I 5 was told you wanted to keep it brief, and I was told not to 6 tell my life history. I'm going to violate, though, and 7 tell you that I have been farming rice for this my 54th 8 consecutive crop year. 9 And I'm one of the few living, working farmers 10 that date back to -- although I didn't physically work 11 horses, I saw them working in the fields, and have 12 physically worked myself planting and harvesting the crops 13 every year since. 14 And because I've been there for a long period of 15 time doesn't mean that I'm stodgy and don't want to change 16 my ways. If you'll ask my neighbors, you will see that we 17 have kept our farm up with the times, with the exception of 18 now, the requirement to have to incorporate rice straw, 19 which in the finality of AB 1378, will require it all to be 20 incorporated by the year 2000, unless we have some relief 21 somewhere along the way. 22 I wish to emphasize and again on the basis of 23 updating -- the first harvester I had, a push harvester, I 24 could harvest -- I was likely if I could get four to five 25 hundred sacks in a day. The harvester I just ran yesterday, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 83 1 I can get almost that much in an hour. So, I've kept up 2 with the times. 3 I'm not here in the spirit of confrontation. I'm 4 here to find solutions, but amicable solutions to the 5 problem. I want to clean up the air as most every farmer I 6 know does want to. 7 I like the concept -- if you will review the Ad 8 Hoc Committee presentation -- that is the green-fronted 9 there -- it makes a reference in there to a one-third, one- 10 third, one-third. That means burn one-third in the fall, 11 one-third incorporated, and one-third in the spring. 12 Is think there's a balance in there that will work 13 quite adequately that we can dispense with the smoke in a 14 manner that will not really seriously impact. I don't like 15 to separate myself from other counties. As I say, I'm from 16 Butte County. That's about 80 miles north. Colusa County 17 and Glenn Counties, those counties are far enough removed 18 from Sacramento, though we have our own little -- we have 19 Oroville, Paradise, Chico in Butte County. Due to the 20 efforts of Eric Lindsay and Less Fife, we've been able to, 21 yes, once in a while offend people, but there is a way to 22 burn that straw in a manner that would be less offensive to 23 people. 24 We just need the time and the manner to work it 25 out. I would mention that, yes, I served for 15 years on PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 84 1 the Butte County Rice Growers Association Board of 2 Directors, not recently, but again I'm going back and 3 reminiscing, I guess. But we have been progressive. 25 4 years ago, that co-op spent thousands of dollars trying to-- 5 we saw this thing coming. We spent thousands of dollars 6 trying to find ways to feed it to cattle, the ways to make 7 particle board, and all those things. 8 We've been progressive -- the rice industry has-- 9 for years in meeting these problems. 10 And we put in for a Federal grant for a methane 11 gas plant; it was turned down. It's just as well as it was 12 25 years ago. Because I don't think the technology was here 13 then to do that, it is here today, I guess in a sense, but 14 you run everytime you go down these channels, you run up 15 against the impact. In trying to feed cattle, you run up 16 against alfalfa hay. In trying to make other materials, you 17 run up against wood products. 18 But I have faith in the fact that there has to be 19 a way to this. Now, again, I said not to separate myself 20 from other counties, but I understand they're allowed to 21 burn in the San Joaquin Valley. Okay? Then Sacramento 22 County and Yolo County maybe should stop. But we counties 23 that are far away, I think we can dispense with it in a 24 manner that would be less offensive to people. 25 I happen to farm where there's a flood channel PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 85 1 that goes down through it, called Cherokee Canal. And last 2 winter, it just darn near erupted and went for the 71 years 3 I've lived around there, first time I've ever seen it come 4 so close to going into the community there of Richvale. 5 And it was caused because, designed for a flood 6 channel, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife enacted the Endangered 7 Species Act so that we're not allowed to keep the channel 8 clear, keep the debris away so that the floodwater can flow 9 down readily. 10 Now, when it will it be that I have to -- my rice 11 farms are on either side of the channel. When will it be 12 that when I'm out there incorporating that ground that they 13 won't even let me incorporate the straw because of the 14 garter snake? 15 What's happening is, I'm being inundated with 16 regulations that are going too put me out of business, I 17 fear. Pardon me if I get -- I'm not that good a speaker. 18 But I do want to emphasize that, yes, we're removed from 19 Sacramento. Butte County, I served on the Grand Jury of 20 1981-82. At that time, the budget in Butte County was $62 21 million. It's tripled and four times that now. Our count 22 has to come to Sacramento every year and beg for funds to 23 keep going. We are being throttled. Our ability to pay 24 taxes to support the services and goods we need in our 25 county are being just stifled and cut way back. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 86 1 With that, I'll close. Thank you. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Ms. Atchison from 3 Remy & Thomas, followed by Margaret Felts and Ms. Lee from 4 Citizens Against Rice Pollution. Again, time is short, so 5 I'll remind the witnesses, please keep it brief. 6 MS. ATCHISON: Good morning. My name is Danae 7 Atchison. And I'm with the Law firm of Remy & Thomas. I'm 8 speaking with you today on behalf of the firm and, in 9 particular, on behalf of partners Tina Thomas and Jim Moose. 10 Ms. Thomas and Mr. Moose participated in the original 11 negotiations that resulted in the Rice Straw Burning Act of 12 1991. They both have a continuing commitment to reducing 13 all forms of air pollution in the Sacramento Valley, and are 14 particularly interested in the rice straw burning issue. 15 I'll keep my comments brief today. 16 At the outset, I would like to commend the staff 17 for putting together a progress report that is well written 18 and generally easy to understand. 19 Substantively, Remy & Thomas is somewhat 20 disappointed that a moratorium is currently on the table. 21 We are concerned about the impacts of rice straw burning on 22 human health, particularly those impacts that occur in the 23 fall when atmospheric conditions are least favorable for 24 dispersing smoke. 25 Our concerns are particularly based on the fact PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 87 1 that, as the progress report indicates, the level of 2 pollutants, total pollutants being emitted has been level 3 over the past years with the Act. And we can expect those 4 levels to increase as increased acreage is planted. To the 5 extent that a moratorium on the phase-down is necessary, 6 however, we do support what the staff is currently 7 recommending, which is a phase-down that will continue in 8 the fall, while allowing a different percentage in the 9 spring. 10 Continuing the fall phase-down as planned will 11 ensure that air quality is not going to deteriorate during 12 the most difficult months when the public will have the most 13 serious health impacts to that smoke. 14 This is a sensible and commendable element of the 15 proposed moratorium that we can support. In addition, Remy 16 & Thomas will support the establishment of that moratorium 17 at 50 percent. We also believe that that 50 percent level 18 is a sensible compromise between many of the recommendations 19 that have been put forth to you. 20 The most important issue we see, however, is the 21 issue of alternatives. A credible effort is necessary to 22 promote research and development on finding alternatives to 23 rice straw burning. As Mr. Forest pointed out to you, 24 without financially feasible and technically feasible 25 alternatives to rice straw burning, it is going to be very PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 88 1 difficult to continue. These alternatives are the key to 2 continually and successfully finishing the phase-down 3 burning in the Sacramento Valley. 4 We are therefore concerned that the progress 5 report indicates that the details of a potential burning 6 alternatives research program have not been established and 7 will be delayed until legislative and regulatory stages. 8 A clearly defined program is necessary to inform 9 all of the interested parties about the likelihood that 10 these alternatives to rice straw burning will, in fact, be 11 developed in the future. There has been a substantial 12 history on this issue and, at this point, as has been very 13 well indicated to you, financial and technically feasible 14 alternatives are not appearing as expected. 15 Any such program that will be developed must be 16 based on a commitment to continue the phase-down of rice 17 straw burning as soon as possible in order to provide the 18 key incentive necessary for research and development 19 activities. Without the stick of a pending phase-down, 20 research and development may not continue appropriately. 21 Further, we encourage that, when development of 22 this burning alternatives research program is developed, 23 that the staff involved in that effort will work to address 24 the particular needs of the rice growing industry. The rice 25 growing industry is unique and different from other PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 89 1 industries that have been susceptible to technology forcing 2 in the past, such as automakers. 3 And we hope that the individual specific needs of 4 this agricultural industry will be addressed and people will 5 understand that this industry may not be susceptible to 6 technology forcing in the same ways as other industries in 7 the past have been. 8 We look forward to the guidance that the will be 9 provided in the advisory committee report on alternatives, 10 and I must just close in emphasizing that we encourage the 11 establishment of a sound, credible program facilitating 12 development on research and development on alternatives to 13 straw burning. 14 Only through such a program can we assure that the 15 phase-down will continue as recommended in the progress 16 report, and that it will continue in a way that it is 17 acceptable to the farmers and to the general public in a way 18 that will also protect public health. 19 Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Ms. Felts? Followed 21 by Mary Lee, Citizens Against Rice Pollution, and then 22 Bonnie Holmes from the Sierra Club. Good morning. 23 MS. FELTS: Good morning, Chairman Dunlap. I'm 24 Margaret Felts. My husband testified earlier. I am a 25 resident of Wilton, California, the place where the smoke PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 90 1 comes down. And I'm here to tell you it may go up during 2 the day in the afternoon, but in the evening when the air 3 cools, it comes down along the foothills. 4 And we breathe it; we don't grow it, but we 5 breathe that smoke. 6 I wanted to bring a slightly different angle to 7 the discussion. I have 18 years of environmental history 8 behind me as an environmental manager and environmental 9 engineer. And I'd like to say that solutions to these type 10 of problems rarely surface until there's a significant 11 economic impact that's impending. 12 We draw the line in the sand, and the suddenly the 13 solution arrives when somebody's going to have to face 14 dealing with it. So, what happens when you do what you're 15 proposing today of sliding out of schedule and making it 16 longer, you delay the time it'll take for that solution to 17 arise. 18 That's all you're doing. And in the meantime, 19 when you're doing is your trading public health for the 20 health of a crop, most of which is being sent overseas. We 21 don't even eat the rice. 22 I'm going to make this short. For a State that 23 proposes -- or pretends and has claimed to be at the 24 forefront of air emission standards and air emission 25 controls, I sure think we have our head in the sand on this PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 91 1 one. Every other industry in the United States has had to 2 face air quality standards, hazardous waste standards. 3 they've all had to suffer the cost of complying with our 4 environmental laws. And they've all managed to survive. 5 And I think one of the things that's happened here 6 is that we're only considering the alternative as 7 incorporating the straw back into the ground. Let's burn 8 it. Let's use the "I" word. How about an incinerator in 9 Northern California? Take that stuff out of the ground and 10 burn it. Is that a problem? 11 There have been many industries that have tried to 12 put up an incinerator with best available control technology 13 in this State and not been able to obtain the permit. And 14 yet you're sitting here today saying that it's okay to go 15 out and openly burn your waste. 16 I think this is insane. I'd suggest that you 17 stick to your guns. I was really pleased when this law was 18 enacted. And we were going to see zero emissions from the 19 fields. Well, I'm still breathing that air every evening. 20 I'm burning electricity every evening, because I 21 can't open my house. And I'm living with somebody who's 22 life is going to be shortened because of this decision. And 23 I don't appreciate that. 24 Thank you. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Ms. Lee and then PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 92 1 Bonnie Holmes, Sierra Club. 2 Mary Lee, Citizens Against Rice Pollution here? 3 Okay. Bonnie, you are up. 4 We'll follow Bonnie with Mark Molin from Eco 5 Thermal Structural Building Technologies. 6 Good morning. 7 MS. HOLMES: Good morning. I'm Bonnie Holmes, and 8 I'm representing Sierra Club, California. And I'm here to 9 ask you not to adopt the staff recommendation. As you have 10 been told several times, the Connelly bill was a consensus 11 bill. And we believe that any changes in the bill that are 12 considered should be a consensus solution. 13 And that must include a consensus of the concerned 14 public. We ask you not to take the phase-down schedule in 15 the bill lightly. This is the heart of the legislation that 16 guaranteed air that should be virtually free of rice smoke 17 by the year 2000. 18 We consider this phase-down schedule a hard won 19 step forward that should be taken seriously. At the time 20 the legislation was passed, ten years seemed like a very 21 long stretch; however, we were willing to work with all 22 interests to develop a phase-out schedule that everyone 23 could live with. 24 Now, just four years later, this schedule could be 25 disrupted. When the ARB staff first presented this idea of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 93 1 pausing the phase-out, we were very concerned about the 2 idea, but we took a step back and we looked at all the data 3 in the report, especially the health data. 4 And we asked hard questions about the impact of 5 this proposed pause on public health on the levels of smoke 6 in the air. We asked for more information on ARB's past 7 experience with bad smoke episodes, and the resulting health 8 impacts from those episodes. 9 Based on our discussions with the staff and the 10 final staff report that we reviewed, we do not find an 11 appropriate justification for reopening this legislation to 12 freeze the phase-down for three years. 13 The PM10 health effects are just too costly, and 14 ou have heard a very excellent summary of the PM10 health 15 experts, the respiratory disease, the mortality impacts. 16 As noted in your report, the PM10 contributions 17 from burning are very significant on burn days. Others have 18 mentioned that in the overall, when you look at a year, PM10 19 contribution may not be a large contribution. But when you 20 look at the burn days, those contributions are extremely 21 large. 22 What is there to guarantee that if we pause the 23 phase-down now there won't be a similar effort in three or 24 four years to delay it even further. When are we going to 25 enact the final phase-out of rice straw burning? PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 94 1 I have to join with the chorus of the Lung 2 Association, others who have stated that there is no 3 information on how this pause that is being proposed will 4 affect human health. There is no plan to improve collection 5 of PM10 data, even if the pause were enacted to better 6 monitor smoke levels and health impacts. 7 In fact, the report appears to somewhat give up on 8 being able to make these kinds of linkages and findings. In 9 the health effects section, the report says it's not 10 possible to calculate or quantify the adverse impacts of 11 rice straw combustion. We're disappointed with that 12 conclusion. 13 In addition to our serious concerns about the 14 health impacts, we fundamentally believe that alternatives 15 to burning will never be economical until the easy, cheap 16 practice of burning rice straw is not an option. 17 We understand this transition to no burning will 18 be painless. But we do believe that once alternative 19 industries, such as the rice to ethanol and particle plants 20 do come on line, harvesting and selling rice straw will 21 become a profitable enterprise. 22 The only way to get past the initial obstacles, 23 however, is to phase out the burning and thereby increase 24 the pressure for developing alternatives. We ask you not to 25 adopt the staff recommendation. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 95 1 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 2 MS. EDGERTON: The thing that is -- I know we're 3 trying to get through with this; however, at some point in 4 this discussion, I think it's important to remind ourselves 5 that when an act is passed -- at least it's my understanding 6 with this Act -- that there are many different provisions in 7 it. And one of the provisions in this Act was that the Air 8 Board and the Department of Agriculture make a report to the 9 Legislature. 10 We don't have before us amending the statute. We 11 don't have before us eliminating the phase-down. In fact, 12 the recommendation doesn't even ultimately do that. 13 This is a report, and the statute asks us to 14 report on the problems that have been encountered with 15 alternatives to burning. As I see it, when the Legislature 16 asked us to do that, we have to report on the problems. The 17 problems are the problems. 18 And that's one of the efforts -- that's a key 19 effort that we've tried to -- that I see in this report. 20 So, I just wanted to make a couple of comments to put this 21 back in context. I understand that this will have to go 22 with the Legislature. This is a report only in this case. 23 Thank you. 24 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Yes, I think that's a good 25 point. Thank you, Bonnie. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 96 1 Mark Molin, followed by Matt Glasser. 2 MR. MOLIN: I'm going to make this fairly short. 3 Today, we've heard about all the problems. Everybody's 4 concerned about the problems. Rice burning produces 88 5 percent of the PM10 when it is burned. Everybody says 6 there's no viable solution. 7 Well, for two years now, I've worked on Eco 8 Thermal Structural Building Technology. And for ten years, 9 I've worked on appropriate technologies and renewable 10 energy. Well, straw-built construction is here today. 11 There's no more research to be done. We cannot find the 12 start-up capital necessary to get this online. I want to 13 know where all these millions of dollars in research funding 14 has gone. Because I've contacted the National Institutes of 15 Science and Technology in Washington, D.C., Argon National 16 Laboratories. I am on the CEC high performance wall system 17 collaborative. I can beat any developer here in Sacramento 18 on cost and quality of the home. 19 Right now, everybody on this Board, if I sat down 20 with you and showed you my house compared to your house, the 21 home of choice is going to be my home. And it's made out of 22 rice straw bales, very simple. 23 Very simple. Three times the fire code, super 24 energy efficient, low maintenance. It's aesthetically more 25 beautiful. We're going to build our own house here. We PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 97 1 have one already in Sacramento. It's going to be after 2 January 1st that we're going to build here in Sacramento. 3 I spent a year trying to get in touch with Phil 4 Angelides, to sit down and say, Phil, let's look at really 5 solving this problem here. He never had any time. So now, 6 I basically want to do it myself. And I want to find one 7 honest investor, and I want to go head to head with every 8 developer in Sacramento. 9 I'm tired of everybody saying there's no 10 solutions. It's here. I concentrate on the solutions, 11 because everybody knows what the problem is. They said 12 Rancho Seco was our only means if power in Sacramento. 13 Well, I was one of the guys that said, "Conservation and 14 Solar Power." Right now, the conservation program is 127 15 percent over their budget as far as conserving energy. 16 They're worried about saving too much energy. 17 And when people start seeing these homes on the 18 market, this is the home that they're going to go towards. 19 So, I just want to find, like I say, a good investor and I 20 want the help of the California Rice Industry Association, 21 and I want the help of the Rice Growers Association, because 22 I've simply got the answer. 23 Before, I said to myself, maybe it's me that's 24 made this mistake here. Maybe I'm not good enough at 25 raising capital. So, I went to Sac State and found an PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 98 1 accounting and finance student. And he laughed, he goes, 2 straw bale houses? And then we sat down. I went over what 3 I had as far as the new technologies that we can use to 4 incorporate into these houses. 5 He said, this is too good of an idea. You should 6 be able to finance this overnight. Well, now, he doesn't 7 even want to talk to this Board, because he's so frustrated 8 with all the people we've already talked to. 9 Another thing, too. I want to mention that I 10 tried to go to Habitat for Humanity, because there's the 11 two-pronged effort that's needed here. 12 We wanted an umbrella of a nonprofit, because 13 there's a nonprofit side and a for-profit side that has to 14 be created. 15 Another thing I should say that I was the person 16 who introduced the solar air conditioning into the State of 17 California. It was 400 percent more expensive than anything 18 else. They said it couldn't be done. I have done it. I've 19 got two national environmental awards for that. 20 This is so much easier, just so much easier. 21 We're a like a cake mix right now. You add the money and 22 you're going to have the cake. 23 There's nothing very complicated about it. This 24 person that I was working with was there at the meeting with 25 Habitat for Humanity. We said this is what we want to do; PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 99 1 we want to provide advocacy, training, and promotion of this 2 type of technology. What exactly happened is now, they want 3 to do it themselves. 4 So, I'm getting a little tired of those types of 5 things, and I would appreciate that anybody that's 6 interested in this, call the California Energy Commission, 7 talk to Jamie Patterson of the High Performance Wall System 8 Collaborative if you want to get in touch with me. And 9 also, read my 18-page report that I concluded, what, a year 10 ago now, that I've handed to everyone. We're going to go 11 from there, because this is probably the last time you're 12 going to see me at a meeting, because -- like I say, my 13 degree is in public administration. And if I knew now -- if 14 I had any knowledge of what was going to happen to me ten 15 years ago, I would never try to be entrepreneur in 16 California. Never. 17 And these ideas are too good. They're too simple. 18 And I've had no help. And I've contacted an awful lot of 19 people. And anyway, the solutions are here. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: We'll make a point of reviewing 21 your report. 22 MR. MOLIN: Right. I'm just saying the solutions 23 are here and the best building product is here. And I think 24 it will be self-evident once you see the buildings go up. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. Thank you. Matt Glasser, PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 100 1 followed by Gary Patton. 2 I'll just caution the audience, in roughly ten 3 minutes, we're going to lose our quorum. 4 MR. GLASSER: Hi. I'm Matthew Glasser, 5 representing the California Public Interest Research Group. 6 We're a watchdog organization that works on environmental 7 and consumer issues. And I don't wish to be repetitive. 8 We've heard quite eloquently from representatives from the 9 American Lung Association and as well as residents from the 10 neighboring communities about the detrimental effects of 11 rice burning. 12 I'd like to comment on the comment that this is 13 simply a report. Unfortunately, this report makes the 14 recommendation to pause rice burning coming from the 15 authority of the topic, the Air Resources Board. 16 I think there'll be great weight given, once it 17 does reach the Legislature, to that recommendation. And I 18 think we need to consider what recommendation we're making 19 here today. Unfortunately, we object to the fact that this 20 recommendation to stop the phase-out was made without regard 21 to public health risks, and without regard to the health 22 consequences of neighboring communities. 23 Many experts have said that the data is just 24 simply not there to make these evaluations. And I think 25 that we need to consider those and develop the data before PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 101 1 we can move ahead with making a recommendation to pause this 2 program. 3 Finally, if the moratorium is enacted, the 4 initiative to find alternatives to rice burning is also 5 eliminated. If the status quo is maintained, what incentive 6 will there be to seek alternative technologies other than 7 rice burning? 8 And how can we guarantee that in the future 9 another moratorium is not implemented? 10 If the current technology makes the phase-out too 11 expensive, then new substitutes must be developed and will 12 be developed as we've seen in countless other cases. The 13 old adage that innovation -- that the necessity leads to 14 innovation to clearly the case in this particular issue. 15 So, CALPIRG opposes the proposed pause in the 16 phase-down, and we all on the ARB not only to submit a 17 recommendation, but to go further and investigate the health 18 consequences, and seek the data that we are lacking in 19 making the decision. 20 Thank you. 21 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Mr. Patton. 22 MR. PATTON: Mr. Chairman and members, I'm Gary 23 Patton. I'm the General Counsel of the Planning and 24 Conservation League, and appreciate very much the 25 opportunity to testify today. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 102 1 Board Member Edgerton just talked about what the 2 law requires this Board to do, and you're responding to the 3 law. And I thought, since I'm an attorney, I'd like to 4 focus on this law. 5 What this law said -- it's very basic provision -- 6 was that rice straw burning in counties in the Sacramento 7 Valley Air Basin shall be phased down beginning September 8 1st, 1992. Now, your report reveals, but it does not 9 highlight that that has not happened. Because of the way 10 this law was structured, rice straw burning has really not 11 been phased down. The percentage of a growing base -- 12 there's been that declining percentage, but the base has 13 been growing, and essentially the health effects that we 14 hoped, as the people of the State of California, to achieve 15 have not been achieved. 16 Now, you're supposed to make a report to the 17 Legislature, and the specific commandment to you is on or 18 about September 1st, 1995, just a bit late. The State Board 19 and the Department shall jointly report to the Legislature 20 on the progress of the phase-down of rice straw burning. 21 Now, I am here to urge you to specifically tell 22 the Legislature there has been no progress; there has been 23 no phase-down. The same amount of pollutants are going into 24 the air before this law passed. And if you say that, I 25 would hope then, when you adopt any recommended changes to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 103 1 this section of law, that you would adopt a recommendation 2 to amend the law. 3 If you're going to recommend changes to the law, 4 recommend along with any other changes you want to make, 5 recommend, in fact, that the law be amended so that the 6 phase-down has to occur against the limited number of 7 acreage that was actually in production prior to the first 8 date of this law. That will start a phase-down that 9 actually will be successful. 10 As the Chairman knows and maybe members know, I 11 was privileged to serve on this Board briefly. And I've 12 always been proud of the staff and this Board over all of 13 the various administrations and changes, because it has time 14 after time, faced down the major industries in the world and 15 in our State and said, "You can do better. We know if we 16 draw the line in the sand or set the standard, and we set it 17 appropriately, you're going to find a way to do what you 18 need to do for the economy and for your health and well 19 being that also supports the health and well being of the 20 people of this State. 21 Now, the Legislature wanted this phased down. It 22 hasn't been phased down. You need to tell the Legislature 23 they need to phase it down, because rice straw is 24 particularly dangerous. It's not only just PM10. It's got 25 particular allergenic properties, as I think members know. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 104 1 You need to study that. But it's a particular problem. And 2 PM10, if you look at your status report, which shows real 3 progress in air quality throughout this State, PM10, the 4 line is going up. 5 Do something about it. Ask the Legislature to 6 make a real phase-down work, and that means to reject what's 7 been presented to you and do it the other way around. 8 And I thank you for that. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Patton. 10 Loretta Pigg and Valjean Breinke. 11 Good morning. 12 MS. PIGG: Good morning. I'm Loretta Pigg. And, 13 as you can see by my lines, I'm on an oxygen tank. I am a 14 COPD patient. And my question this morning, breathing is my 15 main problem. And anything you can do to clean it up, make 16 it so those of us in this predicament can breathe, we would 17 appreciate. 18 Please, in your negotiations and in your planning, 19 think about the people. And I thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. 21 MS. EDGERTON: I just wanted to ask the staff. 22 Mr. Patton said report on the progress of the phase-down. 23 Did you agree with his characterization? 24 MR. SCHEIBLE: No. The law was explicitly 25 designed to require a percentage of the acreage to be phased PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 105 1 out. If less acres were planted because of the economic 2 conditions, then the burning phase-down would have proceeded 3 on a faster rate. If more acres are planted, then it would 4 proceed at a slower rate. 5 So, the law, as written -- and I have to assume 6 the Legislature and the parties knew how it was structured-- 7 allowed the industry to -- the production to go up and down, 8 or the acreage to go up and down, and the phase-down to 9 proceed off of that base as opposed to a set acreage. 10 And what we're seeing this year are fewer acres 11 being planted. So, you're going to get actually an element 12 of progress this year that you hadn't seen before in terms 13 of total acreage burned. 14 MS. EDGERTON: So, if I understand you right, the 15 progress -- that's a word, it's not a progress in phasing 16 down burning entirely? 17 MR. SCHEIBLE: There's two ways of looking. If 18 this law wasn't in place, 400,000 acres of rice land would 19 have been burned over the last three years that weren't 20 burned because of the law. That's a very substantial 21 amount. 22 MS. EDGERTON: That was my understanding from 23 reading the report. It seemed to me that there had been 24 progress. 25 MR. SCHEIBLE: But because in the first couple of PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 106 1 years, planting went up as the burning restriction kicked 2 in, the net acres burned did not decrease at the 10 percent 3 a year level that most people just assumed it would. 4 Because they don't read in the difference between the acres 5 planted versus the phase-down schedule. 6 MS. EDGERTON: So, it depends on what you're 7 comparing it to. 8 MR. SCHEIBLE: Yes. 9 MS. EDGERTON: Comparing it to what it would 10 otherwise have been, assuming that the acreage had gone up. 11 MR. SCHEIBLE: Right. And it turns out that 1991 12 was a relatively light year in terms of planting, with only 13 350,000 acres planted. Most years are substantially above 14 that. 15 MS. EDGERTON: Thank you. 16 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Please. 17 MS. BREINKE: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, 18 I'm Valjean Breinke. And I thank you very much for allowing 19 me this opportunity to offer comments on the report. 20 Although there have been a lot of concerns cited 21 regarding the phase-down of the rice burning, it appears 22 that the decision to relax and suspend the burning phase-out 23 is based on an economic comparison of burning versus 24 incorporation. 25 So, let's talk about economics. According to the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 107 1 report, on Roman Numeral V-1, there's no demonstrable 2 difference between in rice yields between the burn versus 3 the nonburning. Thus, the gross revenue per acre is 4 unchanged. Rice grows as well under each condition. The 5 expenses of cutting and disking are based on a survey of the 6 rice producers. 7 In this survey, the rice producers reported a 8 range of between $16 and $53 per acre. This is according to 9 the rice producers surveyed. With an average of $32 per 10 acre for the cost of the -- of doing the -- of the disking 11 and the cutting. However, a cost of $17.45 was cited in 12 the report monitoring rice straw management practices. 13 And the difference between those two is almost two 14 to one, with the survey from the farmer growers citing a 15 cost of $32 and the actual cost being closer to $17.45 an 16 acre. 17 This discrepancy is about two to one, which is a 18 considerable difference. A range of values from between 19 $1.00 to $3.50 per acre was cited for burning the rice 20 stubble. However, the Extension Service report, "Rice 21 Production of Colusa, Glenn, and Yolo Counties," cites a 22 single cost of $2.91 per acre. 23 So, a casual reading of this report would suggest 24 that there's thirty-fold difference between the cost of 25 burning versus the cost of incorporation. That is the $1.00 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 108 1 value versus the $32 values. 2 But a more accurate comparison would be a five- 3 fold increase, $3.00 for burning and $17 for incorporation. 4 The progress report of the phase-down tends to 5 portray this cost difference as being an adversity, an 6 economic adversity. But in 1989, the rice production costs 7 from Colusa, Glenn, and Yolo Counties states that the rental 8 charge per acre was $185 per acre. Accordingly, according 9 to a phone call to U.C. Farm Advisor, Steve Scardocci, 10 rental charge per acre is approximately $230 per acre. 11 This is a $45 increase, which should be considered 12 a reflection on the rice growers' production, and 13 willingness to pay more per acre for the privilege of 14 cultivating rice. 15 Hence, a relative increase has been realized. The 16 phase-down report cites a total cost of $765 per acre. Now, 17 recall that the survey of the rice growers, the additional 18 cost for cutting and disking was about $32, about $30 an 19 acre. But according to my calculations, it's closer to 20 about $14 per care. That is the $3.00 difference between 21 the $17 and the -- the $14 was realized between the $17, 22 subtracting out the cost for burning, which was $3.00. 23 Okay. So, this increase in total costs for not 24 burning amounts to about 2 to 4 percent of what the farmers 25 are actually having to pay for their gross costs. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 109 1 That's a pretty small amount. And they've already 2 bid up the rent per acreage at $45 per acre. There are 3 externalities, and the costs borne by individuals is not 4 recognized by the rice producers. These costs are 5 admittedly very difficult to quantify. Even so, asthma and 6 breathing problems, and emphysema, and mortality are costs. 7 Medi-Cal, insurance, lost workdays and school days, 8 medications, and ultimately funeral costs are reflected. 9 The report on the phase-down includes a letter 10 mentioning that the taxpayer bears the cost to administer 11 the burn program. No mention is made as to how many people 12 are on the staff monitoring and studying the rice stubble 13 burning. No mention is made as to the costs associated in 14 preparing this voluminous report. The report mentions the 15 possibility of yet another report to study the effects of 16 disease on incorporated fields. 17 No mention is made of what the taxpayers' costs 18 will be. Quite frankly, I think that this phase-down report 19 and its conclusions are a disappointment for the people of 20 the Sacramento Valley. Production costs are exaggerated to 21 make it seem like it's an adversity to the farmers. But the 22 costs borne by the taxpayers and in the health of the people 23 of this Valley is not considered. 24 Whether this duplicity is a result of political 25 appointees, U.C. Extension personnel beholden to the rice PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 110 1 industry, or bureaucrats doing their jobs, it really doesn't 2 matter. The people have been let down. 3 MR. PARNELL: Thank you. Are there any questions? 4 Thank you very much. 5 Teresa Jones, are you here? 6 MS. JONES: I didn't prepare anything specific. I 7 just want to speak from my heart. And I hope that all of 8 you can feel what I feel. 9 I've been a Registered Nurse in Sacramento since 10 1986, and been subject to the air quality in Sacramento. 11 I've worked in critical care and intensive care emergency 12 rooms for most of my career. 13 I've seen people literally gasping for air as they 14 died. It's an extremely hard thing to see. I've seen on 15 the increase during rice field burning. I know it was 16 during rice field burning, because the characteristic brown 17 air and the horrible smell accompanied these sick people to 18 my intensive care unit. 19 The specific case that I can remember, which when 20 I worked in the intensive care unit between the years of '88 21 and '90, I knew there was rice field going on. A co-worker 22 was admitted to the intensive care unit on the ventilator, 23 breathing through on a ventilator -- I don't know if any of 24 you have ever been on one -- is like breathing through a 25 straw. People have to be sedated while they're on the PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 111 1 ventilator in order to tolerate it. 2 This girl was a nonsmoker, an asthmatic, who was 3 subject to the air in Sacramento because she has to live 4 here and work here. 5 Over the weekend, this last weekend, I have a 6 friend whose daughter-in-law's mother died of an acute 7 asthma attack. The air was brown this weekend. I don't 8 know if there was rice field burning going on. But I pretty 9 much assumed that there was. 10 I saw people in my emergency room who are chronic 11 patients of ours who I haven't seen for months. I saw them 12 there twice this weekend. And people who don't normally 13 have lung problems, my own son, has developed asthma this 14 year. 15 I'm a nonsmoker; my husband's a nonsmoker. We 16 specifically avoid cigarettes. But my son now has asthma. 17 And this isn't a genetic thing in my family. There's nobody 18 in my family with asthma. There's nobody in my husband's 19 family with asthma. 20 I'm very upset with the idea of the rice field 21 burning phase-down being paused. We, the people, in 22 Sacramento count on you, the members of our air quality 23 board -- our Air Resources Board to represent us and help us 24 overcome the horrible air in Sacramento. And it's getting 25 worse. This is not the time to phase -- to pause the phase- PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 112 1 down. And I really urge you to abandon this view and 2 represent the people that really count on you. 3 Thank you. 4 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. We only a few more 5 witnesses. So, I'd like to conclude the public testimony. 6 So, I'd ask Ed Romano to come forward. 7 MS. EDGERTON: While he's coming up, could someone 8 comment on whether there was rice burning the last week or 9 weekend? 10 MR. BOYD: I had the same question, and I just got 11 some information. I'm going to invite the Felts family to 12 come in here and talk to staff about things, because a lot 13 of -- there was no rice burning. There was tule fire 14 apparently at that point in time. I've lived here all my 15 life. I have a great difficulty believing rice smoke gets 16 to Wilton. But there is smoke from other activities that 17 take place in this area. 18 MS. EDGERTON: It was my understanding it wasn't 19 rice burning that caused so many problems. Thank you. 20 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Good morning. Good to see you. 21 Please be brief. 22 MR. ROMANO: You called me up here to end the 23 public testimony; you said you'd like to conclude it, so you 24 call up Ed Romano. That sounds good. 25 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: There's more after you, Ed. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 113 1 MR. ROMANO: Some kind of special ability. 2 I've been involved in controlling rice burning for 3 a number of years, having come to work in 1970 before they 4 wrote the first air pollution regs in the Sacramento Valley. 5 I've participated and written a lot of the 6 programs that's regulated, and went to the variable of 7 regulation of ag burning. And we have cleaned up the air. 8 We have made it better. 9 We've reduced the load in the critical fall period 10 significantly over 1980 when we first started the program. 11 And probably why you haven't seen a lot of improvement when 12 the phase-down was put in, was because we'd made the major 13 amount of phase-down. 14 Possibly, we can do a better job, and we keep 15 trying it. They talked about the day on November 1st. We 16 looked at the day, we've made some changes. I know Eric has 17 in his program on his side to try to assure that those kind 18 of mistakes don't happen, which it happened to me. 19 Fortunately for Glenn County, we didn't participate in that 20 mistake. 21 But I'd like to point out a few things. First, 22 I'd like to say I think this report's a good step in the 23 right direction. There is a need to pause and look at 24 what's happening to the program. So, I think you've done a 25 good step -- taken a great step in pausing and looking at PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 114 1 the program. There's other things that needs to be looked 2 at. A prior speaker mentioned one of the problems -- there 3 are a lot on alternatives. There's just no good program to 4 get started to get those alternatives going, because you're 5 facing stiff competition. 6 If you're going to make particle board, you have 7 the wood products particle board, and people don't like to 8 bring a new product in to propose those. 9 So, I think that rather than doing more research, 10 some of that funding should be directed towards low-interest 11 loan programs, maybe even some grants in putting those 12 alternatives to work. 13 One of the other things is that -- I like to 14 mention is that we've seen -- there was a discussion about 15 disease. We've received more reports in the last couple of 16 years, especially this year on disease impact. We'd like, 17 when you do your next report, to have you look at, if we 18 want to clean up the air, about the fact that if they can 19 burn, how many acres are they going to burn? 25 percent, if 20 we get to that point, only for disease. And it's going to 21 be hard to go out to some farmer and see him have a ranch 22 that's 400 acres and 200 acres impacted with disease, and 23 allow him to burn 100 acres of that. 24 If we're just looking at the disease maybe we 25 should let him burn what's diseased, or we should remove PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 115 1 ourselves from going through the administrative paper work 2 and just allow the 25 percent to be burned and let the 3 farmers make that decision. 4 And if you have any questions, I'd be happy to 5 answer them. I think you've taken a good step. We need a 6 pause. We need to look at it and see what happens in the 7 next two years before we make the next report. 8 Thank you. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you, Mr. Romano. We're 10 pleased to have you as a key member of the Air Pollution 11 Control Officer Corps in our State. Appreciate your fine 12 work there. 13 MR. ROMANO: Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. There's a few more 15 witnesses. I'd like to ask those that still wish to testify 16 to come forward. Mr. Secord, Mr. McKenzie, Mr. Weaver, Mr. 17 Turtletaub, Mr. Carnahan -- two farmers and three citizens. 18 Gentlemen, is there anything new that we need to 19 hear about? We've come through some 28 witnesses thus far. 20 MR. SECORD: Yes, I'd like to speak before the 21 Board and take a few minutes of your time. 22 My name is Dale Secord, and I live in the City of 23 Sacramento. 24 I recently learned that my wife has asthma, and I 25 have decided to speak up after 14 years of remaining silent PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 116 1 on this issue of rice burning in the Sacramento Valley. 2 I have submitted a letter on the draft report, and 3 now I appear before this Board asking you not to approve the 4 staff recommendation to pause the phase-down. 5 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Okay. 6 MR. SECORD: Instead of recommending a pause in 7 the phase-down, this Board should recommend legislative 8 changes to strengthen the law to eliminate this pollution 9 source. What I'm asking you to do is recommend legislative 10 changes to set a baseline acreage so that the percent 11 reduction is not based upon varying acres of rice planted, 12 but the prospects of increased rice planting in anticipation 13 of opening of the Japan market, more acres of rice raw will 14 be burned and the violations of the health-based standards 15 will continue. 16 The 30 percent phase-down has been cancelled out 17 by a 36 percent increase in the rice acreage planted. 18 The Board should also recommend legislation to 19 increase the penalties for violations. At the present, with 20 the limited State and local enforcement, there is little 21 likelihood of being caught burning rice fields illegally 22 and, if caught, the result has been a light slap on the 23 wrist. 24 Rice is a subsidized welfare crop. Crop 25 subsidies, water subsidies, and rice burning subsidies. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 117 1 It's time for this Board to stop the rice burning subsidies 2 by increasing the burning permit fees. Please recommend 3 legislative changes that would improve the fee -- that would 4 impose a fee that's equivalent to the cost of incorporation 5 of the straw into the soil. Maybe then we will see less 6 burning and have adequate funding for enforcement and 7 development of alternative methods too manage the rice 8 straw. 9 For the past 14 years, the concept behind 10 agricultural burning programs has been dilution is a 11 solution to the pollution. This is reminiscent of the 12 philosophy of the use of taller and taller smokestacks of 13 the 1960s. 14 Several speakers have commented upon last November 15 1st when the Sacramento Metropolitan area was blanketed with 16 rice burning smoke. Sure, it's an isolated case, isolated 17 incident. The agriculture burning plan requires that 18 burning be minimized when there is a north wind, so it will 19 not directly impact the populated Sacramento Metropolitan 20 area. 21 However, for those communities and those citizens 22 in the northern portion of the Sacramento Valley, the rice 23 burning pollution is a frequent occurrence. One only needs 24 to look at the PM10 data to verify that. 25 And with the advent of a forthcoming EPA standard PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 118 1 on PM2.5, it's critical that we continue to reduce rice 2 burning, since combustion will be one of the primary sources 3 of PM2.5. 4 In summary, please reject this concept of pausing 5 the phase-down, instead seek legislative to reduce the straw 6 burning pollution. Please protect the health of the 7 citizens of the Sacramento Valley. 8 Thanks. 9 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. Mr. McKenzie. 10 Again, I just appeal to the few remaining witnesses, if we 11 could conclude this, we could get on with the deliberative 12 aspects of this issue. Anything new to tell us, sir? 13 MR. MC KENZIE: No, I just -- well, a couple minor 14 things. I did submit a report that you have for entry into 15 the record. I'm a rice farmer. I'm in the Pleasant Grove 16 area, which is just north of Sacramento. 17 Prior to that, I have an MBA in finance. Prior to 18 that, I spent about 13 years financing agriculture through 19 the Comptroller of the Currency, and with the Federal Farm 20 Credit System. 21 Since then, with the death of my father, I went 22 back and started operating the family farm. We are blocked 23 right up against Sacramento County on the north and are 24 subject to -- for the last, oh, almost eight years, to a no- 25 south burn, you know, to keeping the pollution away from PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 119 1 Sacramento. 2 I have a little different aspect and concern. I 3 recognize that the air pollution law deals strictly with 4 organic haze and the PM10s that are generated in the rice 5 smoke. 6 It does not really consider the overall aspects of 7 pollution. Right now, I have 450 horsepower chopping up 8 rice straw and trying to put it in the ground. I have 9 provided in my report here expenses. There's been a lot of 10 expenses batted around by people who don't pay those 11 expenses. I have summarized here that to date -- and I'm a 12 single owner/operator kind of guy. I've spent $15,000 13 direct expenses, amortized expenses. My actual capital 14 outlay included a $60,000 tractor and a $13,000 chopper, 15 which we had never had on the farm before. 16 The concern I have is that the Board needs to look 17 at the overall environmental impact and alternatives that 18 have not been provided when SB 1378 was approved, and 19 consider the staff's recommendations and comments. My only 20 concern is that the staff made a considerable effort to 21 understand the realities, the problems involved in this 22 situation. 23 When the bill was passed, we were not involved. 24 There's been a lot of discussion about how the rice farmers 25 were there, and than goodness, today, there are a few of us PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 120 1 here. 2 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Very good, sir. 3 MR. MC KENZIE: I would like to comment on the 4 overall environmental impact. Our property's located on 5 Riga Road, just across Sutter County line. I have concern 6 that rice production produces in the neighborhood of a -- 7 removes in the neighborhood of a thousand times the carbon 8 dioxide from the air that the total PM10s and carbon 9 monoxide produces during burning. 10 The report indicates -- and my report indicates 11 here that the report indicates a $20 or $30 cost. And, 12 consequently, a 200,000 gallon utilization of diesel fuel to 13 accomplish the same thing. The report indicates on page 4, 14 that when you use the intensive incorporation techniques 15 that I do, the new particulate matter, plus the diesel fuel 16 pollution, closely approximates the net gain of burning. I 17 think these types of things need to be studied. 18 The other factor which is mentioned in here is 19 that the techniques utilized here do not result in 400,000 20 gallons but closer to 600,000 gallons of diesel fuel. 21 My question is, are we really making any net gain? 22 And my real concern is that if an acre of rice is not 23 produced because of this law, it can be demonstrated that 24 air quality in the carbon equation will decrease in this 25 Valley in the worst months, which is June, July, and August. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 121 1 Where we are located, right across Sutter County 2 line, we had the opportunity to become a new town. That's 3 now gone away, and we have the opportunity now to pave it 4 and become a Darlington 500 type raceway. I think we need 5 to look at the overall impact and do the research on disease 6 and cost. There's some cost data involved in here, too. 7 Thank you very much for your time. 8 CHAIRMAN DUNLAP: Thank you. I appeal to the 9 remaining witnesses, is there anything new to tell us? Mr. 10 Weaver? 11 MR. WEAVER: Yes. My written testimony is brief. 12 I'll try to make my oral testimony even briefer. I think I 13 do have some new things to add. 14 First off, I'm speaking as an air quality 15 professional, as a taxpayer, citizen, and the father of two 16 asthmatic children. 17 And on behalf of my sons, as well as the rest of 18 Sacramento Valley's population, I'd like to urge you to 19 reject the recommendations contained in this report. 20 There is clear epidemiological evidence linking 21 exposure to high PM10 concentrations to increased incidence 22 of respiratory illnesses, asthma, hospital admissions, and 23 death. 24 The staff report says that it's not possible to 25 quantify those. I think a more accurate statement would be PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 122 1 that the staff has not chosen to quantify those in this 2 case. In studies in Bangkok, Sao Paolo, Santiago, and 3 Mexico City, we have calculated the excess mortality due to 4 PM10 exposure to be between a few hundred to more than a 5 thousand excess deaths per year, while excess respiratory 6 illnesses and asthma attacks are in the millions and tens of 7 millions respectively. 8 In calculating these results, we have relied on 9 dose response factors estimated by Dr. Bart Ostrow, the 10 Department of Health. Due in large part to your efforts and 11 those of your predecessors on this Board, PM10 levels in the 12 Sacramento Valley are much less than these Third World 13 cities. And the threats to human life and health are 14 accordingly lower. 15 It is not yet time for complacency, however. Even 16 a few tens of excess deaths per year, a few tens of 17 thousands of excess respiratory illnesses are cause for 18 concern when it is within your power to prevent them. 19 The report before you recommends a three-year 20 delay in the phase-out of rice straw burning, including a 21 three-year delay in limits during the critical fall period, 22 when the effects on air quality are the worst. 23 In the present political climate, there's no 24 question that this recommendation will provide the political 25 cover needed to allow the Legislature to further delay or PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 123 1 even possibly repeal the phase-down program. From the data 2 presented in this report, it is clear that the economic 3 benefits of further delay would be minor; that they would -- 4 and that they would accrue principally to a few individuals 5 who are already well-to-do and heavily subsidized. 6 The cost of such delay in medical expenses, lost 7 productivity due to illness, human suffering, and premature 8 death are not quantified. In my judgment, these health 9 costs must certainly exceed the benefits to the rice growers 10 by a wide margin. 11 As a matter of public policy, therefore, any delay 12 in the elimination of rice straw burning would be unwise. 13 At the very least, before this Board could responsibly 14 recommend to the Legislature such a delay, it would be 15 necessary to quantify the health cost impacts and the excess 16 deaths that would result from the proposed delay. 17 Rather than justifying a further delay in the 18 phase-out of rice straw burning, I believe that the data in 19 this report completed by an appropriate health benefit 20 analysis would clearly justify an acceleration of the phase- 21 out, including an immediate ban on rice straw burning and 22 administrative burning during the critical fall and winter 23 months. 24 I urge you to direct your staff to carry out such 25 an analysis and to revise the report accordingly before you PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 124 1 approve it for transmittal to the Legislature. 2 Thank you. 3 MR. PARNELL: Thank you very much. Are there any 4 questions? 5 MS. EDGERTON: I wanted to ask the staff to 6 comment on what Mr. Weaver said about the health aspects of 7 the report. 8 MR. SCHEIBLE: We looked -- we obviously have 9 access to the same health data, and said, can we segregate 10 the impacts of rice smoke on PM10 levels, given our current 11 knowledge, and do a reliable estimate of the health effects. 12 Although an estimate would be potentially possible, we don't 13 believe that the medical evidence to date allows for totally 14 adequate quantification; secondly, it's very frustrating to 15 look at this rice pollution; overall, it's about 2 percent 16 of the total PM10. And it's managed in a fashion so that 17 when the air is relatively clean with good dispersion, we 18 allow burning. On the days when the air is relatively dirty 19 and there's poor dispersion, we constrain burning. 20 So, we would have to go in and do an awful lot of 21 additional work. At this time, we don't have the 22 information to go over the actual concentration of the PM10 23 on all of the days. So, we looked at it more from a 24 relative stance. What does the current Act provide in terms 25 of additional health protection, and what would our PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 125 1 recommendations afford? 2 We believe our recommendations would afford 3 virtually all of the health protection through to the year 4 2000 that the current Act provides. 5 That's because most of the health effects and 6 problems with the large exposure to smoke occur in the fall 7 period, and our recommendations retain the phase-down as it 8 applies to the fall burning. As we showed you in the slides 9 before, in the spring, only two percent of the days exceed 10 the State ambient standard for PM10. Two percent of the 11 days are just a couple of days in the spring. Those are not 12 burn days. 13 MR. PARNELL: Does that answer your question 14 sufficiently? 15 MS. EDGERTON: Yes. I just thought we should -- I 16 know we are pressed for time. But when folks come up with 17 the concerns about their children and asthma, I think it's 18 important that we stop just for a minute and say, that at 19 least your analysis -- and I read it carefully, did conclude 20 that there wasn't an increase in the health effects. 21 MR. SCHEIBLE: And, as we said, a basic goal was 22 preserving -- 23 MS. EDGERTON: From what the statute was. 24 MR. SCHEIBLE: -- preserving the benefits that the 25 statute would achieve to the year 2000, we believe that if PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 126 1 the Legislature implemented our recommendations, they would 2 do that. 3 MS. EDGERTON: But, you know, it may be a good 4 idea, in terms of air quality for there to have been a 5 number against which the percentage was to apply, a certain 6 number of acres, 400 acres, or whatever, so that you did get 7 an assurance of a net decrease. But that wasn't in the 8 statute, I don't believe. Thank you. 9 MR. WEAVER: May I respond to one point? 10 MR. PARNELL: Very briefly, if you would, please. 11 MR. WEAVER: Okay. Is that two percent 12 contribution number that you cited, sir, based on the 13 inventory or on receptor analysis? 14 MR. SCHEIBLE: It's based on the inventory. 15 MR. WEAVER: Our experience in a number of cities 16 has been that the inventories are grossly misleading, that 17 they typically show that the inventory is 80 to 90 percent 18 dust; whereas, what you see actually in the air is no more 19 than 20 or 30 percent dust. The difference is due to the 20 fact that the fine combustion generated particulate stays in 21 the air a lot longer. 22 And that fact is referenced in the report. So, 23 you can't say that two percent of the inventory is 24 responsible for only two percent of the ambient 25 concentrations or PM10 exposure. PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 127 1 MR. PARNELL: All right. Thank you. We're not 2 going to have time to debate each and every point of each 3 and every testimony today, and we'll not tolerate that. 4 So, what we need to do is move along, get the 5 testimony. Because of the sensitivity of this issue, we're 6 probably not going to bring it to fruition today. We're 7 probably going to have to carry it over for the October 8 Board meeting. So, I will say, continue with the 9 testimonies, and let's be as brief as we can. 10 And if you have new information to bring forward, 11 so be it. If it's a redundant statement, then we would 12 appreciate brevity. 13 MR. TURTLETAUB: I will be hopefully not redundant 14 and certainly brief. 15 I'm Marc Turtletaub, and I wanted to talk about 16 two issues. First of all, the context of the enactment of 17 this legislation. I was there at the birthing; and, second, 18 to talk about the methodology of the study. And I'll be 19 very brief, because I missed the beginning of the meeting, 20 so I don't know what you've covered already. 21 First of all, I'm the president of a company which 22 has over a thousand employees here in town, that represents 23 over a thousand families in the Sacramento area. I worked 24 hard five years ago to organize other businesses, because we 25 were concerned about the air quality in Sacramento, as I PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 128 1 know all of us are. 2 I should tell you that I was in the room with 3 Congressman (sic) Connelly, with members of the Rice Growers 4 Association, as this Act was negotiated, if you will. I 5 should tell you it was a marriage between a developing 6 metropolis, if I could use an image, with serious health 7 concerns and a long-standing business segment with economic 8 concerns. 9 It was a modern arranged marriage, to continue 10 this analogy. It was arranged by Lloyd Connelly. One with 11 an extended honeymoon provided for with a prenuptial 12 contract, if you will. Ultimately, it was a marriage of 13 equals, which would have the needs of each -- time for the 14 economically motivated groom to prepare for the cost, yet 15 ultimately protection for the health of the community bride. 16 It was well-negotiated. The Rice Growers 17 Association was there, John Roberts was there, I was there, 18 the Sacramento Valley Toxics Campaign. It was about 12 of 19 us. I'll speak slower, because I can see you're trying to 20 type all this. 21 After several intense days of negotiation, we did 22 agree. And they were intense days. All of us went into it 23 with our eyes open. From our side, those that were 24 concerned principally about air quality, we were dismayed at 25 first by Congressman Connelly's position that we needed to PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 129 1 have a phase-out. But, ultimately, we understood that this 2 was the only way that we would have an agreement that was 3 acceptable to both sides. 4 The rice growers on their side, their association, 5 was fully aware of the costs and verbally agreed to live 6 with those -- and in writing, to live with those costs if we 7 could push them out down the road, further down the road. 8 So, what we have today is really no surprise. The 9 notion was always there that there would be an increasing 10 cost over time. The rice industry bargained for it and 11 accepted it. 12 To suggest now that these costs are surprising or 13 burdensome, is at best irrelevant and at worst disingenuous. 14 We all knew there was a cost to be paid and to back away 15 from it now would be a mistake. 16 Now, the second issue. To look at it from a 17 businessman's perspective, I must mention that the 18 cost/benefit study, while well thought out, addresses only 19 one-half the equation. I know you've heard this before. 20 Clearly, it will cost the rice growers. We know that now; 21 we knew that four years ago. That hasn't changed. The only 22 thing that has changed is that there are more acres being 23 burned, and that there's a bigger and closer metropolitan 24 population to be impacted. 25 To look only, however, at the economic impact is PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 130 1 both old news and partial news. If we're to reopen that 2 part of the equation, we must also address the economics, 3 the cost/benefit on our community; that is, the health of 4 our families. 5 In closing, I urge you to support the negotiated 6 marriage with the rice industry. The bride has waited for 7 four years. The groom knew he would have to stop smoking. 8 He agreed to it. Well, the honeymoon is over. It's now 9 time to honor our vows. 10 (Applause.) 11 MR. PARNELL: Thank you very much. Thank you very 12 much. Are there any questions of this witness? 13 Howard Carnahan, is it? Howard? 14 MR. PARNELL: I feel like Judge Ito. I want to 15 encourage you to be as brief as you possibly can. 16 MR. CARNAHAN: My comments will be brief. I'm a 17 member of the Ad Hoc Committee. I live in Chico. 18 Our group is the only one, I believe, that's 19 attended every one of these committee meetings involving 20 alternatives to rice straw burning. 21 I've been amazed here today to see so many people 22 with blinders on looking down one narrow path of the 23 environment. I think the real education to those of us on 24 the Ad Hoc Committee was to become aware and more 25 broadminded about the overall problems as the discussions PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 131 1 went on. 2 Every living organism requires air, requires 3 water, requires food, and requires shelter or habitat, if 4 you wish. AB 1378, if fully implemented, would have serious 5 negative impacts on several aspects to the environment. 6 I think that -- I was a scientist for my career. 7 Working on rice the last 25 years. And in that capacity, we 8 always felt it was good to do a pilot study before you 9 plunge in headlong on an experiment. I think that the early 10 part of this experience is in accord with good science. 11 And if you don't look at what's been learned 12 during this early part, you're not a good citizen. I would 13 like to make one comment about -- if you implement it now, 14 it's my understanding, with the U.S. Department of 15 Agriculture and other aspects of the Federal Government 16 becoming short on funds, there's going to be a reduction in 17 subsidies for probably every crop, and also there's a plan 18 to increase the amount of flex acreage, which is the acreage 19 that you plant that's not qualified for subsidy. An 20 increase in flex acreage from 15 percent up to 25 percent 21 would give you a 10 percent bonus on eliminating straw for 22 burning. 23 So, that's something that may or may not happen. 24 But it seems like the real thing. And this reduction in 25 subsidy, I think is real. Everybody would like to have it PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 132 1 do away with it completely if it was possible to stay in 2 business economically. And so, it is going to happen not 3 only for rice farmers, but for everybody else. 4 This is going to have a very serious impact on 5 their economy, and particularly in combination with other 6 government driven regulations. 7 I think every environmentalist should ask the 8 question, what would the Valley be like without rice? 9 Because rice is a major contributor to good environmental 10 impacts. 11 Thank you. 12 MR. PARNELL: Thank you very much. Are there any 13 questions of this witness? 14 We have I think only one remaining witness; is 15 that right? Mr. Lawrence Lingbloom. 16 MR. LINGBLOOM: Thanks. I'm not going to break 17 any new ground. I appreciate the opportunity to testify 18 briefly. 19 I'm Lawrence Lingbloom, resident of Davis. And I 20 just wanted to urge you, as a person who only developed 21 respiratory problems, asthma, after moving to the Sacramento 22 area in 1990, to not adopt the staff report and do what you 23 can to control pollution in the Sacramento area. 24 Thanks. 25 MR. PARNELL: Thank you very much. Are there any PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 133 1 questions? 2 Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes 3 to testify at this time? 4 If not, we're going to close the record on this 5 item, and we're going to carry it over to the October Board 6 meeting. 7 It will be the first item on the -- stop me, Mr. 8 Kenny, if I concern you in any way. 9 MR. KENNY: You're absolutely fine. 10 MR. PARNELL: We're going to carry it over. It 11 will be the first item on the October Board meeting. I'm 12 going to ask that the record be made available to all of the 13 absent Board members, ask that they read the record, and 14 that we come back in October and engage in whatever debate 15 there will be on the issues that have been presented. 16 I thank each and every one of you -- 17 MR. BOYD: Mr. Parnell, we have to have a date 18 certain for this. So, I'd just like to advise you that it's 19 October 26th here in this building. 20 MR. PARNELL: October 26th in this building, 21 beginning at 9:30 in the morning. 22 SPEAKER FROM THE AUDIENCE: Are you going to be 23 accepting written comments? 24 MR. PARNELL: The record is closed, as I 25 understand it, Mr. Kenny, is that correct? Can we accept PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 134 1 written comment after this -- 2 MR. KENNY: You actually can accept written 3 comments. It's your discretion as to whether you wish to or 4 not. 5 SPEAKER: Will you accept written comments for a 6 period of, say, up to ten days? 7 MR. PARNELL: We will accept written comments up 8 to ten days from today. 9 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Mr. Chairman, on the October 10 meeting, will that be closed then for public comment? 11 MR. PARNELL: It will be closed for public 12 comment. That's my understanding. 13 And this will be just a deliberative session among 14 the Board members. 15 SUPERVISOR VAGIM: Thank you. 16 MR. PARNELL: So, we thank each and every one of 17 you for coming. We apologize that we've run a little 18 longer, and we're not able to take action, but we'll do so 19 at the October meeting. 20 So, with that, this meeting is adjourned. 21 (Thereupon, the meeting was adjourned 22 at 11:45 a.m.) 23 --o0o-- 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345 135 1 CERTIFICATE OF SHORTHAND REPORTER 2 3 4 I, Nadine J. Parks, a shorthand reporter of the 5 State of California, do hereby certify that I am a 6 disinterested person herein; that the foregoing meeting was 7 reported by me in shorthand writing, and thereafter 8 transcribed into typewriting. 9 I further certify that I am not of counsel or 10 attorney for any of the parties to said meeting, nor am I 11 interested in the outcome of said meeting. 12 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand 13 this day of , 1995. 14 15 16 Nadine J. Parks 17 Shorthand Reporter 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PETERS SHORTHAND REPORTING CORPORATION (916) 362-2345