49910 / 41.1% Yes votes ...... 71446 / 58.9% No votes

See Also: Index of all Measures

If the County relies primarily on farmers and biotechnology firms ("producers") to voluntarily comply, then costs could be minimal. However, should the level of compliance prove unacceptable, then the Agricultural Commissioner's Office would need additional funding to monitor producers and search for violations. This cost is estimated at $200,000 per year initially, and more in the future. There are no known existing revenues to offset this cost. County general revenues would be utilized, thus reducing funding available for Public Safety, Health and Social Services, Parks, Roads, and other services provided by the County.

If violations are suspected, then the measure requires notification to the producer, consideration of evidence submitted, and eventual confiscation and destruction of the prohibited organisms. These costs cannot reasonably be projected, but are likely to be significant. Expensive laboratory testing and legal challenges would be expected before a grower would agree to destruction of his crop or before a pharmaceutical development firm would relinquish its research base materials. If the producer is found to be in violation of the ordinance, the measure provides that the Agricultural Commissioner shall impose a monetary penalty. Revenue from the penalty would be available to partially offset the County's investigation and abatement costs, but actual collection from a producer losing his product would often not be possible.

Should genetically engineered organisms become more prevalent, there will be general impacts on the local economy, potentially resulting in gains or losses of revenues to San Luis Obispo County. For example, if farmland becomes more or less valuable, then property tax revenues would increase or decrease. If jobs in farming or life science industries are gained or lost, there would be more or fewer workers making purchases that generate sales tax revenue. Some believe this measure will benefit local farming operations by making their products more saleable. Others contend that the measure will prevent utilization of profitable new varieties and technologies, cost jobs, and make County agricultural commodities less competitive in the marketplace. Accordingly, we are not able to reasonably estimate the fiscal impact from general economic effects if this measure is adopted.

/s/ Gere W. Sibbach, CPA
Auditor-Controller

• Official WWW Site

Pursuant to Elections Code section 9118, the County Board of Supervisors has decided to submit to the voters of the County the question of whether an ordinance should be established prohibiting the growing of genetically engineered organisms within the County.

The ordinance makes any genetically engineered organism (as defined by the ordinance) subject to confiscation and destruction by the County Agricultural Commissioner. The ordinance authorizes the Agricultural Commissioner to notify any person (which includes an individual, partnership, corporation, or organization) who may be in violation of the ordinance that such organisms are subject to confiscation and destruction. The ordinance provides for a person that receives such notification from the Agricultural Commissioner to respond with evidence that such organisms are not in violation of the Ordinance. The ordinance requires the Agricultural Commissioner to consider the evidence presented by the person notified, together with any other evidence that is presented or which is relevant to a determination of the violation. The Agricultural Commissioner is required to make a determination as to whether there is a violation of the ordinance before any genetic pollution might occur, and to confiscate and destroy any organism subject to the ordinance before any genetic pollution might occur. The ordinance also provides for the imposition of a monetary penalty by the Agricultural Commissioner, which shall take into account the amount of any actual or potential damage, and the willfulness of the person charged with the violation.

The ordinance would exempt from the prohibitions of the ordinance the use of genetically engineered organisms to be used by a fully accredited college or university for the purpose of engaging in scientific research or education under secure, enclosed laboratory conditions. The ordinance also exempts the provision of diagnoses, care or treatment to any patient by a licensed healthcare practitioner.

If the measure passes, the ordinance may be subject to legal challenge based on principles of preemption by federal or state law and procedural and substantive due process.

A "yes" vote on this measure is a vote in favor of adopting an ordinance prohibiting any person or entity from propagating, cultivating, raising, or growing genetically engineered organisms in the County.

A "no" vote on this measure is a vote against adopting an ordinance prohibiting any person or entity from propagating, cultivating, raising, or growing genetically engineered organisms in the County.

s/ JAMES B. LINDHOLM
County Counsel