Posted on 02/15/2005 7:01:55 PM PST by NormsRevenge
FRESNO, Calif. (AP) - Pollutants carried in runoff from farms affect the water supply of more than 20 million Californians and taint prime fishing grounds across the state, according to a recent report.
The pollution is the byproduct of pesticide use, but it doesn't have to be, said Gary Wolff, chief economist at the Oakland-based Pacific Institute, an environmental research group.
Wolff, who wrote the institute's "Investing in Clean Agriculture" report, said educating farmers is key to cleaning the state's water.
But he acknowledges that education doesn't come cheap, so Wolff's study suggests raising taxes on pesticides to pay for classes. Farmers who enroll will receive rebates that would more than make up for the tax increase, according to the report.
"They would actually be making money," Wolff said.
Pesticides are now taxed in California at 2.1 percent of wholesale value. The group proposes an additional tax of 7.9 percent, for a total of 10 percent. The tax would be in effect for three years, long enough to provide the education, and then revert to 2.1 percent.
"This is not ... a call for the end of farming as we know it," the report states. "It is in our opinion the only way to escape long-term social forces that could be very detrimental to farms and farmers and food security."
The total pesticides applied on acreage throughout California in 2003 jumped 4 percent from a year earlier to about 175 million pounds, according to the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.
"Pesticide expenditures as a percent of profit have been rising steadily," Wolff said. "By getting a handle on when and where they can use less pesticides, farmers are going to improve their bottom line."
Farmer David Sarabian doesn't agree. He takes offense at the notion that growers aren't already educated and doing their best to protect the land.
Sarabian, who grows peaches, plums, nectarines and grapes in the San Joaquin Valley, said new taxes aren't necessary. He said most farmers already are involved in continuing education about pesticides.
"We're an educated group of people," he said. "We know there are alternatives and sometimes you use them, and sometimes they work, but sometimes they are cost-prohibitive. I'm against any tax increase."
Wolff's report notes similar tax increases have worked elsewhere.
In Denmark, for example, a program started in 1986 reduced pesticide use by more than 50 percent within 10 years, according to the report.
Wolff said the tax increase would bring $60 million a year back into the farming sector to partially pay for the programs. The rest would be returned to farmers. Urban buyers of all sorts of chemicals, such as chlorine for pools, also would pay the added tax and bear some of the costs for the farmers' classes.
"My proposal provides public financial support to pay for part of what farmers are going to have to do, anyway," Wolff said.
Glenn Brank, a spokesman for the state Department of Pesticide Regulation, said officials are aware of the need for reductions on pesticide use but said Wolff's plan is a bit too lofty.
"The very complicated accounting scheme suggested in the report seems to ignore a simple principle," Brank said. "Good, workable ideas sell themselves. They don't need a lot of gimmicks."
Brank said the department is working to develop a plan for more environmentally sound pest management practices.
He said Wolff has the right idea, but it's too complicated, adding that the scheme would need organizers to handle classes and distribute funds.
Jenny Derry, executive director of the Santa Clara County Farm Bureau, said similar programs funded by grants began in coastal farming communities three years ago.
"The first year was really slow. It was like pulling teeth to get these people to participate. Now, our classes have waiting lists," she said. "If you can use less pesticides, it's better for the pocketbook and better for the environment."
Lynn McBride, director of government relations for the California Farmers Union, said her organization would support an incentive-driven proposal such as Wolff's.
"We would consider this to be very proactive, forward thinking," McBride said, noting that the added tax would be "a nominal increase in order to reap major benefits."
"We need to find a way to make it affordable to be out there actively working to improve the environment, and this sounds like a good way."
One of the herbicides I use costs me nearly $500 per gallon. What makes these idiots think farmers use them profligately?
OTOH, they could get them to back off on herbicides so that they can bust them for weeds later!
I don't understand. In order to "be making money," the rebates would have to exceed increased taxes. Then, how would the tax revenues fund the classes?
Pesticides are now taxed in California at 2.1 percent of wholesale value. The group proposes an additional tax of 7.9 percent, for a total of 10 percent. The tax would be in effect for three years, long enough to provide the education, and then revert to 2.1 percent.
How much would the rebates be? Over or under 7.9%?
He should make out like a bandit if he is correct. And he wouldn't have to create another tax, another government bureau, and more red tape.
In the next three years, they will find a reason to extend the tax, since it's always easier for the politicians to continue an existing tax than it is to start a new tax.
When pesticides and herbicides began approaching the price of gold, farmers were forced to educate themselves and market forces conspired to dictate minimum application rates that still allowed the material to be cost effective.
The era of "If a little bit works, a lot more will work a lot better." ended as our government forced the relatively inexpensive WWII era materials off the market and substituted much, much more expensive and environmentally friendly "designer drugs".
This is simply another tax scheme which will make additional revenue available to be transfered to the general fund in "tight times".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.