The interest in and repercussions of my innocent post of last week
re what the bill does have been extraordinary to experience. I suspect
other SANETers might be surprised to know where/who is reading these
messages. Wish you ease-droppers out there would participate, it would no
doubt liven up the dialgue. Hello Ed, Ned, and others who shall remain unnamed.
I have prepared a longer more substantive analysis of the bill and
its implications for California agriculture, in response to a request from
the Office of State Senator Thompson. He is trying to work out the mill-tax
renewal issues in California; a significant portion of DRP (the state's
pesticide regulatory program) comes from a mill-tax on pesticide sales.
Whether and at what level to continue it is the issue, and the Caifornia
legislature is wondering if H.R. 1627 might be relevant. Well, it sure as
_ell is, in my opinion. The letter and analysis is 11 pages total, so I am
not going to post it. I will e-mail it to people ONLY in response to a
private e-mail, so all I have to do is hit "reply" and attach. I think
those of you interested in IPM, pesticides and regulation will find it
interesting and timely. You may pass it along as you wish. Again, please
do not ask for hard copies, faxes, etc, I work for myself and have no way to
cover such costs, but I have a fast connection.
Charles Benbrook 202-546-5089 (voice)
Benbrook Consulting Services 202-546-5028 (fax)
409 First Street S.E. email@example.com [e-mail]
Washington, D.C. 20003