Agenda Item 5B
October 6, 2015
Action
MEMORANDUM
October
2,
2015
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
County Council
!:fX
1
Josh Hamlin, Legislative Attom/;,f
~
Non-Essential
Action:
Bill 52-14, Pesticides -
Pesticides - Prohibitions
~
Notice Requirements -
Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee recommendation (2-1,
Councilmember Bucker opposed):
Enact Bill 52-14 with amendments
Bill 52-14, Pesticides - Notice Requirements - Non-Essential Pesticides - Prohibitions,
sponsored by then Council Vice President Leventhal and Councilmembers Elrich, Riemer, Floreen,
and Navarro was introduced on October 28. Public hearing on the Bill began on January 15, and
was continued on February 12. The Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment
(T&E) Committee has held worksessions on March 16, March 30, June 15 and September 17.
As introduced, Bill 52-14 would:
(1)
require posting of notice for certain lawn applications of pesticide;
(2)
prohibit the use of certain pesticides on lawns;
(3)
prohibit the use of certain pesticides on certain County-owned property;
(4)
require the County to adopt an integrated pest management program for certain
County-owned property; and
(5)
generally amend County law regarding pesticides.
Background
Bill 52-14
As introduced, Bill 52-14 included provisions related to the application of pesticides on
County-owned and private property, and requires the County to adopt an Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) plan. IPM is a method of pest control which minimizes the use of chemical
pesticides by focusing on pest identification, monitoring and assessing pest numbers and damage,
and using a combination of biological, cultural, physical/mechanical and, when necessary,
chemical management tools.
1
Council President Leventhal explained the purpose of this Bill
in
his October 22, 2014 memorandum to Councilmembers (See ©14-17).
2
http://www.epa.gov
I
oppOOOO 1/factsheets/ipm. htm
For additional background on this Committee's recent consideration of pesticides and pesticide use in Montgomery
County, see the packet for the September 9, 2013 discussion at:
1
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
As introduced, Bill 52-14 would have:
1) Required the posting of notice when a property owner applies a pesticide to an area of lawn
more than 100 square feet, consistent with the notice requirements for when a landscaping
business treats a lawn with a pesticide;
2) Required the Executive to designate a list of"non-essential" pesticides including:
• all pesticides classified as "Carcinogenic to Humans" or "Likely to Be Carcinogenic to
Humans" by the U.S. EPA;
• all pesticides classified by the U.S. EPA as "Restricted Use Products;"
• all pesticides classified as "Class 9" pesticides by the Ontario, Canada, Ministry of the
Environment;
• all pesticides classified as "Category 1 Endocrine Disruptors" by the European
Commission; and
• any other pesticides which the Executive determines are not critical to pest
management in the County.
3) Generally prohibited the application of non-essential pesticides to lawns, with exceptions
for noxious weed and invasive species control, agriculture and gardens, and golf courses;
4) Required the Executive to conduct a public outreach and education campaign before and
during the implementation of the Bill;
5) Generally prohibited the application of non-essential and neonicotinoid pesticides to
County-owned property; and
6) Required the County to adopt an Integrated Pest Management plan.
As introduced, Bill 52-14 had an expiration date of January 1, 2019.
Public Hearings and Correspondence
The Committee held public hearings on the Bill on January 15 and February 12, with 38
people testifying in January, and 30 speaking in February. In addition to the public hearing
testimony, the Bill has been, and continues to be, the subject of a huge amount of written
correspondence. The testimony and correspondence have coalesced around several recurring
themes, which frame major issues for the Committee to examine as it considers the Bill. These
themes include:
(1)
existing regulation of pesticides, particularly at the State and federal level is,
or is not, sufficient; (2) chemical pesticides pose, or do not pose, serious threats to human health;
(3) pesticides threaten, or do not threaten, the health of pollinators and the Chesapeake Bay
watershed; and (4) it is, or is not, possible or feasible to maintain lawns and playing fields without
the use of chemical pesticides.
As mentioned above, the Council has received a large amount of correspondence from
constituents, as well as concerned individuals outside of the County.
An
analysis of
correspondence received as of September 11 has indicated that approximately 1699 unique
individual County residents have submitted correspondence in support of Bill 52-14, and 663 have
http:/lwww6.montgomerycountymd.gov /contentlcounciVpdf/agenda/cm/2013/ 130909/20130909 TE3.pdf. Video of
the discussion is available, beginning at 22:10, at:
http://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view id=6&clip id=5704.
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
submitted correspondence in opposition. In addition to individual correspondence, the Council
has received a number of petitions related to Bill 52-14, with 3011 County residents signing
petitions in support of the Bill and 157 in opposition.
Since the September 17 worksession, in addition to the continued stream of correspondence
from residents and businesses, the Council received correspondence from the Agricultural
Preservation Advisory Board (©35-39), the Agricultural Advisory Committee (©40), and the
Montgomery Soil Conservation District (©41-44), all stating opposition to the Bill both as
introduced and as amended. Also, the Council received a letter from Eric Velasquez, partner and
owner of MegaMart, stating opposition to the Bill in part because many MegaMart customers work
in the landscaping and lawn care business (©45). Garden expert Mike McGrath, on the other hand,
has expressed strong support for the Bill, saying that chemical pesticides are unnecessary for lawn
care purposes.
3
March 16 Worksession
The
T
&E Committee held a worksession on Bill 52-14 on March 16. At that worksession,
the Committee heard from regulators working at the County, State, and federal levels of
government.
4
Representatives of the County's Department of Environmental Protection (the
Department), the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA), and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) described the roles of their respective agencies in the regulation of
pesticides
in
the County. A second panel at the March 16 worksession consisted of physicians
with expertise in environmental health and toxicology, and an environmental chemist specializing
in environmental and human risk assessment, with a focus on pesticides. The physicians, Dr.
Jerome Paulson and Dr. Lome Garrettson, informed the Committee of their views of the human
health risks, particularly to children, of exposure to chemical pesticides. The chemist, Dr. Stuart
Cohen, asserted that the testing protocols used by the EPA are sufficient to determine that
registered pesticides are generally safe when used as directed.
March 30 Worksession
In its March 30 worksession, the Committee heard from experts in environmental impacts
of pesticides and turf management, as well as public- and private-sector landscaping
professionals.
5
Two faculty members at the University of Maryland, Dr. Dennis vanEngelsdorp,
an Assistant Professor of Entomology and
Dr.
Mark Carroll, an Assistant Professor of Plant
Science and Landscape Architecture, spoke about pesticides and pollinator health and attenuation
of pesticides applied to turf, respectively. Dr. Carroll directed the Committee to the Maryland
Fertilizer Law, and its implications for compost application. The Committee also heard from
representatives of the County Parks Department and the Director of Grounds and Environmental
Management at the Maryland Soccerplex, about their current
turf
management practices. Chip
Osborne, an expert in natural turf management, described how
turf
can be maintained without the
use of chemical pesticides. Finally, the Committee heard from four landscaping professionals
See interview at https://youtu.be/hzhxNkQo2YY
The packet for the March 16 worksession can be accessed at:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/cm/2015/150316/20150316 TEI .pdf
s
The packet for the March 30 worksession can be accessed at:
http://www.montgomervcountymd.gov/COUN CIL/Resources/Files/agenda/cm/2015/ 150330/20150330 TE 1.pdf
3
4
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
working in the County, using both traditional and chemical pesticide-free met.hods, about their
practices and results.
June 15 Worksession
On June 15, the Committee held its third worksession on Bill 52-14.
6
The June 15
worksession was structured to address issues that had been raised in the two prior worksessions:
(1)
is the County preempted under State law from implementing a ban on the lawn application of
certain pesticides?; (2) what are the implications of the State's fertilizer law to pesticide-free lawn
care?; (3) what are the specific criteria which lead to a particular pesticide's designation as "non-
essential?; and (4) how are other jurisdictions working to reduce or minimize pesticide use? The
Committee discussed the question of preemption, considering two letters from Assistant Attorney
General Kathryn M. Rowe to members of the General Assembly which concluded that "to the
extent that the bill bars application of a non-essential pesticide to a lawn, subject to certain
exceptions, it is likely to be found to be preempted." Council staff offered a contrary view, that a
very strong argument against preemption could be made.
7
Kelly Love, Urban Nutrient Management Specialist with the Maryland Department of
Agriculture discussed the implications oft.he State fertilizer law as it pertains to the application of
compost, a key component in pesticide-free lawn care. Zack Kline, of AJ.R. Lawn Care, and Chip
Osborne joined the Committee again to describe how they practice
turf
management without non-
essential pesticides while in compliance with the law, and Jody Fetzer of Montgomery Parks
offered the Parks Department's perspective. Environmental Chemist Paul Chrostowski spoke to
the Committee about the means by which pesticides subject to any use restriction could be
identified, and recommended a selection process that linked any restriction to specific policy
objectives. Finally, the Committee heard about approaches taken to reduce pesticide use in
jurisdictions that are preempted from imposing restrictions on private property.
Issues/Committee recommendations
In
its September 17 worksession, the T &E Committee considered a proposal offered by
Councilmember Berliner.
In
a memorandum dated June 16, 2015, Councilmember Berliner
directed staff to draft a series of amendments that would not ban pesticide use on private property,
but would "provide alternative means by which we can address the serious health concerns raised
by pesticide exposure" (©46-48). In the memorandum, Councilmember Berliner cited a number
of reasons why he believed that an alternative to a ban is advisable, including: the County's
obligation to lead on the issue, through education and practice on County property; concern about
the possibility of preemption; lack of "definitive" links to specific health risks; challenges in
enforcing a ban; and uncertainty as to the costs and efficacy of organic lawn care in the County.
Councilmember Berliner circulated his proposal to Councilmembers on September 9,
noting that it would "represent an aggressive and proactive stance towards significantly reducing
pesticide use in the County (See memorandum and fact sheet at ©49-51 ). The Committee
6
The packet for the June 15 worksession can be accessed at:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNClUResources/Files/agenda/cm/2015/150615/20150615 TE3.pdf
7
For a full discussion of the preemption question, see page
5
and© 26-52 of the packet for the June 15 worksession:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/cm/201 5/150615/20150615 TE3 .pdf
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
considered an "alternative" draft of Bill 52-14, reflecting the changes proposed by Councilmember
Berliner. While the proposal did not include a prohibition on the application of pesticides on
private property, it did include a number of measures aimed at reducing the use of pesticides on
both public and private property. The Berliner proposal also retained some parts of Bill 52-14 as
introduced with little or no change.
8
The T&E Committee recommended Bill
The T &E Committee recommended (2-1, Councilmember Hucker opposed) an amended
Bill (©1-21) that reflects most aspects of the Berliner proposal, with a few key changes. The
Committee-recommended Bill
does not
include the ban on private lawns and on playing fields, but
would prohibit the use of certain pesticides on playgrounds and in and on the grounds of children's
facilities such as childcare centers.
It
also would require the Department to develop a pesticide
use reduction plan, with a goal of reducing Countywide use of certain pesticides by 50% by 2018.
The Committee-recommended Bill also incorporates Councilmember Berliner's proposed
requirements that common ownership communities get unit owner approval before applying these
pesticides to common elements and permit unit owners to opt out of applications to individual
units. The amended Bill would also require the Parks Department to take certain steps to reduce
pesticide use, including a playing field pilot, a 25 foot buffer area around streams and waterways,
and an annual reporting requirement timed to coincide with Parks' proposed operating budget.
Finally, the Committee amended the Bill to change the method for determining which pesticides
were subject to restrictions and approval requirements to be more directly linked to carcinogenicity
and toxicity.
The T&E Committee-recommended Bill includes the introduced Bill's provisions
requiring:
the designation of certain pesticides as "non-essential pesticides," although the definition
of term "non-essential pesticides" was amended by the Committee (3-0) to be that of
"restricted lawn care pesticides."
that notice be posted for private lawn applications to areas of more than 100 square feet;
an outreach and education campaign, with the addition of a survey of pesticide use in the
County; and
the use of integrated pest management on County property.
As mentioned above, the Committee-recommended Bill removed the introduced Bill's restriction
on certain pesticide applications to private lawns, and playing fields.
In
addition to this change,
the Bill includes the following changes to the Bill as introduced.
1. Notice
The Committee adopted the Berliner proposal's provisions that would increase the
information required as part of the notice provided by custom applicators to new customers. The
8
The Berliner proposal is discussed at length
in
the packet of the September 17 worksession, which can
be
accessed
at: http://www.montgomerycountyrnd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/cm/2015/150917/20150917 TE l .pdf
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill would now require the notice to include all potential health risks associated with the pesticide
identified by the EPA and the World Health Organization (©9, lines 166-168). Also, a custom
applicator would now be required
to
provide certain information to a new customer about the
existence of altemati ve pest control methods and the practice of IPM (© 10, lines 197-204). Finally,
a custom applicator would be required to obtain written acknowledgement from the customer of
the receipt of the required disclosures, and direction whether or not to use IPM practices (©10-11,
lines 205-213).
2. Children's facilities and playgrounds
The Berliner proposal would have generally required more exhaustive, advance notice of
pesticide applications
to
playgrounds and children's facilities. The Committee approved the
proposal's definitions of"children's facility" (©3, lines 13-17) and "playground" (©5, lines 68-
71), but voted (3-0) to amend the Bill to generally prohibit the application of"restricted lawn care
pesticides" to playgrounds and children's facilities, with certain exceptions (©12-14, lines 257-
293).
3. Countywide pesticide use reduction plan
The Committee approved Councilmember Berliner's proposal to require the Director of
the Department of Environmental Protection to develop a Countywide restricted lawn care
pesticide use reduction plan (©12, lines 242-256). The pesticide use reduction plan would consist
of:
(1)
a baseline estimate of non-essential pesticide use in the County; and (2) a goal of reducing
the non-agricultural use of non-essential pesticides in the County by 50% by 2018.
If
the goal is
not achieved, the Director would be required
to
implement additional measures to further reduce
the use of restricted lawn care pesticides.
4. Common ownership communities
The Committee also approved Councilmember Berliner's proposals to give residents in
common ownership communities greater control over the application of restricted lawn care
pesticides to their individual units and to common elements within their communities (©14-15,
lines 312-343). As recommended by the Committee, Bill 52-14 now includes an opt-out provision
for unit owners prior to the application of restricted lawn care pesticides to their individual units
(©14-15, lines 316-322). The Bill would also require prior approval, by a majority of votes cast
in person or by proxy, of the application of a non-essential pesticide to a common element, and
would require a community association to post the notice currently required of custom applicators
(©15, lines 323-343).
5. County-owned property
Councilmember Berliner proposed, and the Committee approved, a few amendments to
Bill 52-14 with regard to the use of non-essential pesticides on County-owned property (©16-18,
lines 344-406). As recommended by the Committee, the Bill would retain the requirement that
the Department adopt an IPM plan for County property, but would delete the requirement that the
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
plan be adopted by regulation (©17, lines 385-386). A general prohibition on the use ofrestricted
lawn care pesticides and neonicotinoids on County owned property would remain, but would be
limited to "lawns."
9
This change would be consistent with the intent of the original Bill, and would
avoid prohibiting the use of restricted lawn care pesticides for interior and other non-cosmetic pest
control.
The amended Bill also limits the prohibition to County employees and County contractors,
to avoid entanglements with outside entities, such as common ownership communities that may
have agreements to maintain certain county owned property, and protect individuals that may
apply pesticide to County owned property under the mistaken assumption that the individual is the
owner of the property. The amended Bill incorporates the exceptions in Bill 52-14 as introduced
(© 16, lines 3 61-369), but adds an exception "for the maintenance of medians and islands in County
rights-of-way" (©17, lines 370-371). Finally, the amended Bill excludes from the prohibition
"County-owned property that the Parks Department operates or manages for the County." Such
property would be governed by the provisions related to the use of pesticides in County parks,
discussed below.
6. County parks
The Committee-recommended Bill also includes a number of provisions proposed by
Councilmember Berliner to decrease the use of restricted lawn care pesticides and neonicotinoids
in County parks. The provisions would require the Parks Department, subject to appropriation, to
take certain steps to achieve a stated policy to phase out the "use of the most hazardous pesticides
and reduce overall pesticide use while preserving landscape assets, maintaining functionality of
playing fields, and protecting the health and safety of the public and County employees" (©18,
lines 407-415). The steps to be taken by the Parks department would include development and
implementation of a "pesticide-free parks" program and pesticide usage protocols, and annual
reporting to the County Executive and County Council on pesticide usage and the status of the
pesticide-free parks program.
In
a memorandum to Councilmember Berliner dated September 15,
Parks Director Michael Riley stated his support for these steps, and offered a detailed proposal
describing how the Parks Department would achieve them(© 52-56).
Pesticide-free parks
Under the amended Bill, the Parks Department would be required to implement a pesticide-
free parks program, consisting of at least three specific requirements (©18-19, lines 416-428).
First, certain parks must be maintained entirely without the use of restricted lawn care pesticides
or neonicotinoids. The program must also include a program for reducing the use of restricted
lawn care pesticides and neonicotinoids on playing fields, including a pilot program consisting of
at least five playing fields maintained without the use of any restricted lawn care pesticides or
neonicotinoids. Under the program, all other playing fields must be maintained using an IPM
9
The Committee-recommended Bill also includes an amendment to the definition of"lawn" to exclude playing fields;
the implications of this change are addressed in the amended Bill's provisions related to County parks.
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
program.
1
Finally, the program would be required to include a public communication campaign
to inform the public of the program's existence and progress.
Pesticide usage protocols
°
The Parks Department would also be required to develop pesticide usage protocols that
would not permit the use of restricted lawn care pesticides or neonicotinoids on parkland within
25 feet of streams in the County (©19, lines 433-434). These protocols would also not permit the
application of restricted lawn care pesticides or neonicotinoids to playgrounds in County parks
(©19, lines 435-436), and would require, except in emergencies, that the Parks Department post
advance notice of pesticide applications on its website (©19, lines 437-446). These protocols
should have the effect of reducing restricted lawn care pesticide use in County parks as well as
providing additional transparency as to when and why such pesticides are used.
Exceptions
The Committee also approved Councilmember Berliner's proposal to allow the pesticide-
free parks program and pesticide usage protocols to generally permit the use of restricted lawn
care pesticides and neonicotinoids for several specific purposes (©20, lines 447-458). These
purposes include the control of noxious weeds and invasive species, the control of disease vectors
and stinging insects or plants, the protection of tree health, playing field renovation, and where
otherwise necessary to protect human health or prevent significant economic damage.
Annual reporting
The Parks Department would also have to submit an annual report to the County Executive
and County Council on or before the date that its proposed annual operating budget must be
submitted (©20, lines 459-471). This report would include detailed information on non-essential
pesticide and neonicotinoid usage in County parks, and update the Executive and Council on the
status of the pesticide-free parks program. The timing of the report would allow the County and
the Parks Department to engage in dialog about the state of pesticide use in County parks, and
would allow the consideration of program improvements, and any associated costs, in the context
of budget discussions.
7. The list of restricted lawn care pesticides
As introduced, Bill 52-14 provided that the Executive must establish by regulation a list of
non-essential (now "restricted lawn care") pesticides, which are then subject to the application
prohibition in the Bill. The list would be comprised of: (1) all pesticides classified as
"Carcinogenic to Humans" or "Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans" by the
U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency; (2) all pesticides classified by the
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as a
"Restricted Use Product"; (3) all pesticides classified as a "Class 9" pesticide by the Ontario,
Canada, Ministry of the Environment; (4) all pesticides classified as a "Category 1 Endocrine
w
A necessary component of this approach
to
regulating pesticide use on playing fields is the amendment of the
definition of"lawn" to exclude playing fields (©4, lines 42-44).
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Disruptor" by the European Commission; and (5) any other pesticides which the Executive
determines are not critical to pest management in the County.
At the June 15 worksession, environmental chemist Paul Chrostowski advised the
Committee of the problems of relying on the Ontario and European Commission lists, and
recommended the selection of pesticides to be restricted be more directly tied to the County's
public health and environmental objectives. At Council President Leventhal's direction, staff
worked with Dr. Chrostowski to
draft
language implementing such an approach. Under the
approach prepared by staff and approved by the Committee (3-0) (©7-8, lines 106-140), the list
would be directly aligned with the policy goals ofreducing exposure to carcinogenic or otherwise
toxic pesticides, by looking to research done by the EPA and IARC. Starting with a group of
pesticides ("lawn care pesticides") registered with the EPA
and
labelled pursuant to FIFRA for
lawn, garden, and ornamental sites or areas, several filters are applied to generate a list that is
tailored to achieve specific policy objectives.
The filters that identify pesticides on the list are EPA and IARC carcinogenicity
classifications, EPA aquatic toxicity
data,
and EPA (and USGS, FDA, etc.) non-carcinogenic
human toxicity data. Under the Bill as amended by the Committee, all EPA restricted use
pesticides, and any "lawn care pesticide" that is classified by EPA or IARC
11
as anything other
than not likely to be (or probably not) carcinogenic to humans be included on a list of restricted
lawn care pesticides. This would include those pesticides for which there is insufficient evidence
to determine the likelihood of carcinogenicity, consistent with the precautionary principle.
In
addition to these pesticides, the non-essential pesticide list would include all pesticides which are
in the top 25% most toxic ofpesticides evaluated by the EPA or other federal authority for systemic
non-carcinogenic human toxicity, chronic fish toxicity, and chronic toxicity to aquatic
invertebrates. A list generated in this way is not subject to determinations by foreign governments
or institutions, but would directly reflect a desire to avoid or reduce unnecessary human exposure
to, and release into the environment of, known or possible carcinogens and other highly toxic
substances.
8. Clarifying amendments
At the January 15 public hearing, and in subsequent correspondence, questions were raised
regarding the defmition of "lawn" in the Bill as it is critical to the scope of any prohibition on non-
essential pesticide application. The Committee made two clarifying amendments that would
improve the Bill. First, the Committee added a definition of a "garden," which is excluded from
the definition of "lawn" (©3, lines 23-24).
Questions were also raised at the public hearing as to whether trees and shrubs were
included in the definition of"lawn" in the Bill. The Committee amended the defmition of"lawn"
at ©4, lines 38-47, to expressly exclude trees and shrubs from the definition of "lawn."
EPA's classifications are: Group A Carcinogenic to humans; Groups Bl and B2 Likely
to
be carcinogenic to
humans; Group C Suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential; Group D Inadequate information to assess
carcinogenic potential; and Group E Not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
IARC's classifications are: Group I Carcinogenic to humans; Group 2A Probably carcinogenic to humans; Group 2B
Possibly carcinogenic to humans; Group 3 Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans; and Group 4 Probably
not carcinogenic to humans.
11
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Proposed amendments to Bill 52-14 as recommended by the T&E Committee
On October 2, Council President Leventhal and Councilmembers Elrich, Rucker, Riemer,
and Navarro circulated a memorandum and package of amendments to Bill 52-14 in the form of a
substitute bill (©57-87). The amendments would restore the restriction on the use of certain
pesticides on both County-owned and private property, but would substantially alter the method
of determining which pesticides are subject to the restriction. The amendments would also
incorporate the majority of the Committee-recommended Bill's provisions related to County parks,
but with a few significant additions. Finally, the amendments would provide for a phasing of
effective dates, with provisions related to County-owned property and County parks taking effect
July 1, 2016, and provisions related to private property taking effect on January 1, 2017. The
memorandum includes a section-by-section description of the proposed amendments' effects on
Bill 52-14. The key new components of the proposed amendments are discussed below.
1. The proposed new approach to identifying pesticides subject to the use restriction
The most significant proposed amendments to the Bill relate to the restoration of use
restrictions that apply to both County-owned and private property. Preliminarily, it is worth noting
that the proposed amendments also include a new section setting forth legislative findings and
purpose. This new section sets forth the Council's reasons for action, and recognize the value of
pesticides when used to protect the public health, the environment, and the food and water supply.
Since the introduction of the Bill staff
has
worked to
try
to find a method of identifying
pesticides subject to any use restriction. The introduced Bill had defined sets of pesticides that
would be subject to the restrictions, but relied on determinations made by the Ontario, Canada,
ministry of the Environment and the European Commission. As the Committee heard from a risk
assessment expert, relying on these determinations was not appropriate either because they are
made in a wholly different context (Ontario's comprehensive provincial pesticide regulation) or
because they are out-of-date and not necessarily relevant from a risk assessment perspective
(European Commission endocrine disruptors). The Committee amended the Bill to include a more
directly risk-based determination process (discussed above), but at the September 17 worksession
and since, the Department has expressed continued concerns over how
it
would administer the
selection process. It is also virtually impossible for a consumer or business to predict or understand
what pesticides might appear on the list.
The proposed amendments would greatly simplify the process, starting with the general
proposition that pesticides registered with the EPA and labelled pursuant to FIFRA for use on
lawn, garden, and ornamental sites or areas should not be used for cosmetic purposes on lawns,
playgrounds, mulched recreation areas,
12
or children's facilities.13 While "cosmetic purposes" is
not defined in the Bill in a positive sense, it is effectively defined by the proposed exceptions to
any use restrictions (©76-77, lines 361-376). These exceptions, which are the same for both
"Mulched recreation area" is defined in the proposed amendments
to
mean "an area of land covered with natural or
synthetic mulch or wood chips that is not a playground, but is open to the public for picnic or other recreation use."
13
Both the longstanding Connecticut ban on the use of pesticides on athletic fields at public and private schools grades
pre-K through 8, and the New Jersey bill which has been considered
in
recent years, use this categorization as the
definition of the pesticides suoject
to
use restrictions.
10
12
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
County-owned and private property, include use of pesticides to:
(1)
control noxious weeds; (2)
control invasive species listed in a regulation adopted under Subsection 33B-5(c); (3) control
disease vectors; (4) control biting or stinging insects or stinging plants; (5) control organisms that
threaten the health of trees or shrubs; ( 6) maintain property as part of efforts by a public utility to
comply with applicable vegetation management provisions of any federal, state, or local law or
regulation; (7) control indoor pests, if applied around or near the foundation of a building; (8)
control pests while engaged in agriculture; and (9) control a pest outbreak that poses an imminent
threat to human health or prevent significant economic damage if a registered pesticide is not used.
In
addition to the above use-specific exceptions, under the proposed amendments "listed
pesticides" defined under the Bill would also be expressly permitted for any use without restriction.
"Listed pesticides" would
be
defined as
"(l)
a pesticide, the active ingredients of which are
recommended by the National Organic Standards Board
14
pursuant to 7 U.S.C.
§
6518, as
amended, and published as the National List at 7 C.F.R.
§§
205.601and205.602 (see ©88-99); or
(2) a pesticide designated a "minimum risk pesticide"
15
under FIFRA
§
25(b) and listed in 40
C.F.R.
§
152.25(f) (see ©100-103).
By narrowly restricting use of registered pesticides other than listed pesticides for specific
cosmetic purposes, the amendments seek to balance the need for ease of administration and clarity
for consumers and businesses with the desire to minimize risks associated with pesticide exposure.
The Department has indicated that this proposed approach would be acceptable from an
administrative standpoint.
2. Additional provisions related to County parks
The proposed amendments largely incorporate the T&E Committee's treatment of County
parks and playing fields. The amendments do add a requirement that the Parks Department
develop a
plan
for transitioning to the maintenance of all playing fields without registered
pesticides by 2020 (©85, lines 582-584). This plan is expected to evolve as the playing field pilot
program
16
progresses, and a clearer picture emerges as to both the fiscal and functional feasibility
of the transition. It is important to note that the amendment requires a plan, but does not set a
deadline,
per se.
A related addition in the proposed amendments is the inclusion of a requirement
that the playing field pilot be conducted in consultation with an expert in organic turf management,
with experience in successful transitions from conventional to organic
turf
management (©84,
lines 574-577). The Parks Department has already stated the pilot would use an outside consultant,
but this addition is intended to ensure that the consultant is experienced in the specific field.
The proposed amendments also add a requirement that the advance notice of registered pesticide
applications, required to
be
on a Parks Department website in the current Bill, also
be
posted in
the area of the application, and be in place for at least 48 hours after the application. Also, the
Information about the NOSB's process can be accessed here: http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml
Information about EPA's minimum risk pesticide determination process can
be
accessed here:
http://www2.epa.gov/minimum-risk-pesticides/minimum-risk-pesticide-definition-and-product-confinnation
16
In a letter to Council President Leventhal, dated October I, 2015, Parks Director Riley indicated that the Parks
Department "is amenable to including one regional/recreational field in the athletic field pilot program." The Parks
Department had previously said that the pilot program would consist of five local fields. See© l 04.
11
15
14
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
amendments would add certain open data requirements to information related to the Parks
Department's use of pesticides (©86, lines 609-612, and ©87, lines 640-642).
3. Effective dates
The amendments propose phased effective dates, with the County taking the first steps.
Under the proposed amendments, provisions applicable to County-owned property - those
restricting the cosmetic use of pesticides on certain County-owned property and generally
prohibiting the use of neonicotinoid pesticides on County-owned property - are effective on July
1, 2016. The provisions of the Bill requiring the Parks Department to take the steps described
above to reduce pesticide use would also take effect on July 1, 2016. The Bill's cosmetic use
restrictions applicable to private property would not take effect until January 1,
2017~
This phased
approach should allow time for training of landscape professionals in methods of lawn care for
cosmetic purposes allowed under the Bill, and should allow the outreach and education campaign,
already provided for in the Bill, to be effective.
The proposed amendments would expand the outreach and education campaign to include
clear .information about what pesticides are allowed and best practices for organic and pesticide-
free lawn care (©79, lines 427-435). The Councilmembers supporting the amendments also noted
that the nonprofit Beyond Pesticides has indicated that it "is committed to underwriting the cost of
training both county staff and landscapers, commercial operators, and homeowners, and provide
ongoing technical assistance in evaluating soil to make management decisions" (©105-106) This
approach should increase the likelihood of a successful transition to healthy lawns in the County
using fewer toxic chemicals.
This packet contains:
Bill 52-14
Legislative Request Report
Council Vice President Leventhal Memo
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
Recent Correspondence
--Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board
--Agricultural Advisory Committee
--Montgomery Soil Conservation District
--Eric Velasquez
Berliner memo to Hamlin, June 16, 2015
Berliner memo, September 9, 2015
Riley memo to Berliner, September 15, 2015
Memo from Councilmembers, October 2, 2015
Substitute Bill
7
u.s.c.
§
6518
7 C.F.R.
§§
205.601 and 602
40 C.F.R.
§
152.25
Riley memo to Leventhal, October 1, 2015
Beyond Pesticides response to Berliner proposal
F:\LAW\BILLS\1452 Pesticides\Action Memo.Docx
Circle#
1
22
23
27
35
40
41
45
46
49
52
57
61
88
92
100
104
105
12
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill
No.
52-14
Concerning: Pesticides
Notice
Requirements
[[Non-essential
Pesticides - Prohibitions]] Restricted
L.Awn Care
Pesticide~
Revised: September
17, 2015
Draft
N o . - - - - - - - - - -
Introduced:
October
28, 2014
Expires:
April 28, 2016
Enacted: - - - - - - - - -
Executive: - - - - - - - - -
Effective: - - - - - - - - -
Sunset Date: Januarv
1. 2019
Ch. _ _, Laws of Mont. Co. _ __
COUNTY COUNCIL
FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND
By: Council Vice President Leventhal and Councilmembers Eirich, Riemer, Floreen, and Navarro
AN ACT
to:
(1) require posting of notice for certain [[lawn]] applications of pesticide;
(2) [[prohibit the use of certain pesticides on lawns]] reauire a Countvwide pesticide use
reduction plan;
(3) require common ownership communities to take certain steps before the application of
certain pesticides:
!il
prohibit the use of certain pesticides on playgrounds. children's facilities. and certain
County-owned
property~
[[(4)]]ill require the County to adopt an integrated pest management program for certain
County-owned property; [[and]]
[((5)))(6) require the Parks Deoartment to
take
cerajn steps to reduce
the
use of certain
pesticides: and
QJ
generally amend County law regarding pesticides.
By amending
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 33B, Pesticides
Sections 33B-l, 33B-2, 33B-3, 33B-4, 33B-5, 33B-6, and 33B-7
By adding
Montgomery County Code
Chapter 33B, Pesticides
Articles 2, 3, 4, and 5
Sections 33B-8, 33B-9, 33B-10, 33B-l l, 33B-12, [[and)] 33B-13. 33B-14, 33B-15. 33B-16
and
33B-17
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
52-14
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
D2uble underlining
[[Double boldface brackets]]
* * *
Heading or defined term.
Added to existing law by original bill.
Deletedfrom existing law
by
original bill.
Added by amendment.
Deletedfrom existing law or the bill by amendment.
Existing law unqffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
52-14
1
2
Sec.
1.
Sections
33B-1, 33B-2, 33B4, 33B-5, 33B-6
and
33B-7
are
33B-13~
amended, and Sections
33B-8, 33B-9, 33B-10, 33B-ll, 33B-12,
[[and]]
3
4
33B-14, 33B-15, 33B-16
and
33B-17
are added as follows:
ARTICLE 1. General Provisions
5
6
7
8
33B-1.
Definitions.
In
this [chapter] Chapter:
Agriculture
means the business, science, and art of cultivating and managing
the soil, composting, growing, harvesting, and selling sod, crops and livestock,
and the products of forestry, horticulture and hydroponics; breeding, raising, or
managing livestock, including horses, poultry, fish, game and fur-bearing
animals, dairying, beekeeping and similar activities, and equestrian events and
activities.
9
1O
11
12
13
Children's facility
means a building or part of a building which, as part
0£.its
function. is regularly occupied by children under the age of
6
years and is
reguired to obtain a certificate of occupancy
as
a condition of performing that
function
Children's facility
includes
a
child day care center. family dax..care
home. nurserv school. and kindergarten classroom.
14
15
16
17
18
19
Custom applicator
means a person engaged in the business of applying
pesticides.
20
21
22
Department
means the Department of Environmental Protection.
Director
means Director of the Department of Environmental Protection[,] or
the Director's designee.
23
24
Garden
means an area of land used to cultivate food crops, flowers. or othei::
ornamental plants.
25
26
Integrated pest management
means!! process for
managing~
that:
ill
uses monitoring to_ determine pest injury levels;
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
52-14
27
ill
combines biological, cultural, mechanical, physical, and chemical
tools and other management practices to control pests in.§: safe,
cost
effective,
and environmentally
sound
manner that
28
29
30
31
contributes to the protection of public health and sustainability;
ill
uses knowledge about pests, such as infestations, thresholds, life
histories, environmental requirements, and natural control of
pests; and
32
33
34
35
ill
uses non-chemical pest-control methods and the careful use of
least-toxic chemical methods when non-chemical methods have
been exhausted or are not feasible.
36
37
38
39
Larvicide
means~
pesticide designed to kill larval pests.
Lawn
means an area ofland, except agricultural land, that is:
(1)
[Mostly] mostly covered by grass, other similar herbaceous
plants, shrubs, or trees; and
(2)
[Kept] kept trim by mowing or cutting.
40
41
ill
ill
Ql
;glaxing field;
golf cQurse; [[or]]
garden; or
tree Qr shrub..
w
t\law\bills\1452
pesticideslbill
10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
52
53
54
55
56
Neonicotinoid
means
f!
class of neuro-active pesticides chemically related to
nicotine.
Neonicotinoid includes acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran,
imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam.
[[Non-essential pesticide
means
pesticide under Section 33B-4.]]
Pest
means an insect, snail, slug, rodent, nematode, fungus, weed, or other ·
form of plant or animal life or microorganism (except a microorganism on or
in a living human or animal) that is normally considered to
be
a pest or defined
as a pest by applicable state regulations.
Pesticide
means a substance or mixture of substances intended or used to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate any pest;
be used as a plant regulator, defoliant, or desiccant; or
be used as a spray adjuvant, such as a wetting agent or adhesive.
~
pesticide designated as
f!
non-essential
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
However,
pesticide
does not include an antimicrobial agent, such as a
disinfectant, sanitizer, or deodorizer, used for cleaning that is not considered a
pesticide under any federal or state law or regulation.
Playground
means an outdoor
children's=12.la~area
that is on the premises of a
children's facility, school. apartment building or complex. common ownership
community, or park.
Pla;groundJncludes
a mulched oath that is used to enter
a children's play area.
Private lawn application
means the application of
~
pesticide to
~
68
69
70
71
72
lawn on
73
74
property owned
.Qy
or leased to the person applying the pesticide.
Private
lawn application
does not include:
75
76
ill .
applying§!: pesticide for the purpose of engaging in agriculture;
ill
applying
~
pesticide around or near the foundation
of~
building
for purpose of indoor pest control;
77
78
ill
applying
f!
pesticide to
£!:
golf course or turf fann.
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
52-14
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Res(ricted lawn care pesticide
meatlS..Jl oesticide designated
as
a restricted
lawn care pesticide under Section 33B-4.
Vector
or
disease vector
means an animal, insect, or microorganism that
carries and transmits an infectious pathogen into another organism.
_Waterbody
means waters located
within
the County that are:
ill
(2)
subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; or
~e
flowing. unconfined, and above-ground rivers.. streams or
creeks.
[33B-4.] 33B-2. Signs with retail purchase of pesticide.
A
person who sells at retail a pesticide or material that contains a pesticide
must make available to a person who buys the pesticide or material that contains a
pesticide:
(a)
[Notice] notice signs and supporting information that are approved by
the [department] Department; and
(b)
[The] the product label or other information that the federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA} [, 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.,]
requires for sale of the pesticide.
The Department must enforce this Section and must annually inspect each
person who sells at
retail
!!
pesticide or
material that
contains
~
pesticide.
[33B-5] 33B-3. Storage and handling of pesticides.
*
[33B-6] 33B-4. Regulations.
*
*
(a)
The [County] Executive must adopt regulations to carry out this Chapter
under method (2).
(b)
The Executive must include in the regulations adopted under this
[section) Section the minimum size or quantity of pesticide subject to
[section 33B-4] Section 33B-2.
t\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 52-14
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
tru
The Executive must include in the regulations adopted under this
Section
~
list of [[non-essentia1J} restricted lawn care pesticides. The
list of [[non-essential]] restricted lawn care 1:1esticides must be based on
an evaluation of all lawn care pesticides and must include:
ill
[lfill
11esticides]]
each pesticide classified [[as "Carcinogenic to
Humans" or "Likely to Be Carcinogenic to Humans")]
.Qy
the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as:.
(A)
"carcinogenic to humans" {Group A);
"likely to be carcinogenic to humans" {Groups Bl and
B2):
(CJ
"suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential" (Group
C); or
£ID
ill)
inadequate information to assess carcinogenic potential"
(Group D);
ill
ill
[[all
pesticides]]
each pesticide
classified
.Qy
the
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency as
~"Restricted
Use Product";
[[all pesticides classified as
~
"Class 9" pesticide
.Qy
the Ontario,
Canada, Ministry of the Environment]] each pesticide classified
by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as:
(A)
"carcinogenic to humans" (Group 1);
"probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A);
"possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B): or
"not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans"
(Group 3);_
£ID
~
WJ
ill
[[all pesticides classified
as~
"Category
1
Endocrine Disruptor"
.Qy
the European Commission]] each pesticide in the top guartile
of toxicity for pesticides evaluated by the U.S. Environmental
f:\lawlbills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
Protection Agency or other federal government authority for
systemic non-carcinogenic human toxicity; and
ill
[[any other pesticides which the Executive determines are not
critical to pest management in the County]l each pesticide in the
top quartile of toxicity for pesticides evaluated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency for:
(A)
chronic toxicity to fish: and
chronic toxicity to aquatic invertebrates.
an
@
Section
~
The Executive must include in the regulations adopted under this
list of invasive species that may be detrimental to the
environment in the County.
ill
The Executive must review and update the lists of [[non-essential]]
~cted
lawn care pesticides and invasive species designated under
subsections(£} and@Qy July
l
of each year.
[33B-7] 33B-5. Penalty for violating chapter.
(a)
(b)
Any violation of this Chapter is a class C violation.
Each day a violation continues is a separate offense.
ARTICLE 2. Notice Requirements.
[33B-2] 33B-6. Notice about pesticides to customer; acknowledgement and
direction
by
customer.
(a)
In this [section] Section:
( 1)
Customer means a person who makes a contract with a custom
applicator to have the custom applicator apply a pesticide to a
lawn.
(2)
New customer includes a customer who renews a contract with a
custom applicator.
(b)
A custom applicator must give to a new customer:
t.\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
(1)
[Before] before application, a list of:
[a.](A)
used;
[b.]ill}
[The] the generic name of each pesticide that might
[The] the trade name of each pesticide that might be
be used; and
[c.]{£)
[Specific] specific customer safety precautions
1
including all potential health risks identified by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency and the World
Health Organization for each pesticide that might be used;
and
(2)
[After] after application, a list of:
[a.](A)
and
[b.]ill}
[The] the generic name of each pesticide actually
[The] the trade name of each pesticide actually used;
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
used; and
(3)
[A]~
written
notice about pesticides prepared by the [department]
Department under subsection (c) [of this section].
(c)
The [department] Department must prepare, keep current, and provide
to a custom applicator a written notice about pesticides for the custom
applicator to give to a customer under subsection
(b)
[of this section].
179
180
181
(
d)
The notice prepared by the [department] Department under subsection
(c) [of this section] must include:
(1)
[Government] government agency phone numbers to call to:
182
183
[a.]®
[b.]ill}
[Make] make a consumer complaint;
[Receive]
receive
technical
information
on
184
185
pesticides; and
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bm 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 52-14
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
[c.]
(Q
[Get] get assistance m the case of a medical
emergency;
(2)
[A]
~
list of general safety precautions a customer should take
when a lawn is treated with a pesticide;
(3)
[A]
~statement
that a custom applicator must:
[a.)®
[Be] be licensed by the Maryland Department of
Agriculture; and
[b.J.(fil
(4)
[A]
~
[Follow] follow safety precautions; and
statement that the customer has the right to require the
custom applicator to notify the customer before each treatment of
the lawn of the customer with a pesticide.
w
Before applying a pesticide to a lawn. a custom applicator must:
W
inform a new customer of:
(A)
the existence of other means of pest control without the use
of restricted lawn care pesticides: and
an
the nractice of integrated pest . management fIPM1
including a description of the process. of IPM that is
consistent with that of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency: and
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
ill
obtain from a new customer, in writing_pr other electronic format
approved by the Director
.~
(A)
acknowledgement
that
the
customer
received
the
information required under this subsection and subsection
(b): and
an
direction from the customer as to whether or not to use
IPM practices.
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
(t)
A custom applicator must retaip. a acknowledgement from a new
cystomer obtained under subsection (e) for at least one year.
[33B-3] 33B-7. Posting signs after application
by
custom applicator.
(a)
Immediately after a custom applicator treats a lawn with a pesticide, the
custom applicator must [post a sign on the lawn] place markers within
or along the perimeter of the area where pesticides [[will be)] have been
applied.
(b)
A [sign posted] marker required under this [section] Section must:
(1)
[Be) be clearly visible [from the principal place of access to) to
persons immediately outside the perimeter of the property;
(2)
[Be) be a size, form, and color approved by the [department)
Department;
(3)
[Be) be made of material approved by the [department]
Department; (and]
(4)
[Have) have wording with content and dimensions approved by
the [department] Department[.]; and
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
ill
@}
be in place on the day that the pesticide is applied.
33B-8. Posting signs after application
fil::
property owner or tenant.
A person who performs
~
private lawn application treating an area
231
232
233
234
more than 100 square feet must place markers within or along the
perimeter of the area where pesticides ((will be)] have beef! applied.
(Q)
A marker required under this Section must:
ill
G)
be clearly visible to persons immediately outside the perimeter of
the property;
be
~
size, form, and color approved
.Qy
the Department;
be made of material approved
.Qy
the Department; and
235
236
23 7
ill
®
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 52-14
238
239
240
241
242
ti}
have wording with content and dimensions approved
Department; and
hY
the
ill
be in place on the
day
that the 12esticide is awlied.
ARTICLE 3. [[Application restrictions.]] Pesticide use reduction.
33B-9. [[Prohibited application.]] Countywide use reduction plan.
243
244
245
246
247
([£\person must not
mmly
!! non-essential 12esticide to!! lawn.]]
W
The Director must by July 1. 2016 orovide a report to the County;
pxecutive and County Council that outlines options for:
LU
ill
Qi}
determining a baseline estimate of the use of restricted lawn care
pesticides in the County; and
measuring changes in the use of restricted lawn care pesticides in
the County overtime.
248
249
250
251
252
The
Director must then develop a res.trkted lawn care pesticide use
reduction plan. with a goal of reducing, by 2018. the use in the County
of restricted lawn care pesticides other than in agriculture by at least
50% from the baseline established under subsection (a).
253
254
25 5
256
~
If
the reduction goal is not. achieved, the Director must implement
additional measures to further reduce the use of restricted lawn care
pesticides.
257
258
33B-10. [[Exceptions and exemptions]] Playgrounds and Children's Facilities.
[[{fil
A 12erson may
filmly
!! non-essential 12esticide for the following
259
260
261
262
pumoses:
ill
ill
ill
for the control of weeds as defined in Chapter 58, Weeds;
for the control of invasive species listed in !! regulation adopted
under Subsection 33B-4(d);
for pest control while engaged in agriculture; and
for the maintenance of!! golf course.
263
264
ill
®
f:llaw\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
.Qi}
A person may
rumly
to the Director for an exemption from the
prohibition of Section 33B-9
for~
non-essential pesticide. The Director
may
gmm
an exemption to
ill!lliY
~
non-essential pesticide on property
where application is prohibited under Section 33B-9 if the applicant
shows that:
ill
ill
ill
Di}
effective alternatives are unavailable;
granting an exemption will not violate State or federal law; and
use of the non-essential pesticide is necessary to protect human
health or prevent significant economic damage.
A person may
mm}y
to the Director for an emergency exemption from
the prohibition in Section 33B-9
if~
pest outbreak poses an imminent
threat to public health or if significant economic damage would result
from the inability to
use~
pesticide prohibited
!2y
Section 33B-9. The
Director may impose specific conditions for the granting of emergency
exemptions.])
W
Exceptas provided in subsection (b). a person must not apply a
restrictedlawn care pesticide to a playground. children's facjlity. or
the grounds ofa children's facility.
(hl
A person may
apn!y
a restricted lawn care pesticide to a playground,
children's facility, or the grounds of a children's facility only to:
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
ill
(2)
control weeds as defined in Chapter 58, Weeds;
control invasive species listed in a regulation adopted under
subsection 33B-4(d);
ill
Lil
ill
control disease vectors;
control biting or stinging insects or stinging plants;
control organisms that threaten the health of trees or shrµbs; or
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
52-14
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
(fil
cpntrol a pest outbreak that poses an imminent threat.to human
health or prevent significant economic damage if a restricted
lawn care pesticide is not used.
33B-11. Outreach and education campaign.
The Executive must implement
f!:
public outreach and education campaign
before and during implementation of the provisions of this Article. This campaign
should include:
W
(hl
informational mailers to County households;
distribution of information through County internet and web-based
resources;
!£}
radio and television public service announcements;
news releases and news events;
information translated into Spanish, French, Chinese, Korean,
Vietnamese, and other languages, as needed;
302
303
304
305
@
(fil
ill
(g}
extensive use of County Cable Montgomery and other Public,
Educational, and Government channels funded
.Qy
the County; [[and]]
posters and brochures made available at County events, on Ride-On
buses and through Regional Service Centers, libraries, recreation
facilities, senior centers, public schools, Montgomery College, health
care providers, hospitals, clinics, and other venues; and
306
307
308
309
31
o
311
312
(lU
a survey of pesticide use by County residents and custom applicators.
ARTICLE 4. Common Ownership Communities.
313
314
315
33B-12. Defmitions.
In
this article the terms association document. common element, community
association. owner. and unit have the meanings attributed to them in Section
lOB-8 ..
33B-13. Application of pesticide to individual units.
316
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
w
Beginning July
I.
2016. each year. a community association must
provide owners
an
opportunity to.._decline to have a restricted lawn care
pesticide applied to the owner's unit.
au
If a unit owner declines to have a restricted la:Ml.Q_are pesticide aoolied,
the community association or its agent
lawn care pesticide to the unit.
nnist
not apply the. restricted
33B-14. Apolication of pesticide to common elements.
w
Beginning July 1. 2016. each year. the owners in a common ownership
community must approveJ/y a maiority of votes cast. in person or by
proxy. the application of a restricted lawn care pesticide to a common
element during the following year.
au
A community association may apply to the Director for an emergency
exemption from the prohibition or restrictions under this Section if a
pest outbreak ooses an imminent threat to public health or if significant
economic damage would result from the inability to use a
rest~
330
331
332
lawn .care pesticide. The Director may impose specific conditions on
each emergency exemption.
~
333
334
A community association must post notice of each pesticide application
to the
comm~Iements.
335
336
337
338
The notice required
un~
this
subsection
must consist of signs that:
ill
al
ill
ill
ill
are. clearly visible to persons immediately outside the perimeter
of the property;
are in place on the day that the pesticide is applied;
are of a size. form. and color approved by the Department;
are made of material approved by the Department: and
h51ve wording with content and dimensions approved by the
Department.
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
339
340
341
342
343
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 52-14
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
ARTICLE
[[~])
.5.it
County Property and Parks
[[33B-12]]33B-15. Prohibition!!!! County-owned property.
ill)
Prohibition.
Exce11t as provided in subsection (Q1 g [[person]) County
employee or County contractor must not
ru;mly
to any lawn on 1:1roperty
owned
'Qy
the County:
ill
~[[non-essential]]
~
restricted
la~
1:1esticide; or
m
(h)
neonicotinoid.
Exceptions.
ill
A [[person]] County employee or County contractor may use any
larvicide or rodenticide on a lawn on property owned
'Qy
the
County as g public health measure to reduce the spread of disease
vectors under recommendations and guidance 1:1rovided
'Qy
the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, or the State Department of
Agriculture. Any rodenticide used must be in g tamper-proof
product, unless the rodenticide is designed and registered
specific environment inaccessible to humans and pets.
for~
ffi
A [[person]] County employee or County contractor may use g
[[non-essential]) restricted lawn care pesticide or neonicotinoid
on a lawn on property owned
'Qy
the County for the following
purposes [[set forth in Subsection
33B-10(a).]]~
(A)
for the control of weeds as defined in Chapter 58. Weeds;
for the .control of invasive species listed in a regulation
adopted under Subsection 33B-4Cd):
au
~
for pest control while engaged in agriculture;
for the maintenance of a golf course: and
ill)
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 52-14
370
371
372
373
!El
for the maintenance of medians and islands in CoJJillY
rights-of-way.
ill
A [[person]] Countv employee or County contractor may use g
[[non-essential]] restricted
la~
pesticide or neonicotinoid
374
375
on a lawn on property owned
fil'.
the County if the Director
determines, after consulting the Directors of General Services and
Health and Human Services, that the use of the pesticide is
necessary to protect human health or prevent imminent and
significant economic damage, and that no reasonable alternative
is available.
If£!
pesticide is used under this paragraph, the
376
377
378
379
380
Director must, within 30 days after using the pesticide, report to
the Council on the reasons for the use of the pesticide.
~
381
382
3 83
This Section does not apply to County-owned property that the
Parks Department owates or manages for the County.
384
385
[[33B-13]]3~B-16.
Integrated pest management on County pronerty.
.(fil
Adoption
Qf
program.
The Department must adopt[[.i
fil'.
g method
ill
386
387
388
389
390
regulation,]] an integrated pest management program for all property
owned
fil'.
the County.
.(Q)
Requirements.
Any
program adopted under subsection
.(fil
must require:
391
392
393
ill
ill
ill
if}
monitoring the turf or landscape;
accurate record-keeping documenting any potential pest problem;
evaluating the site for any injury caused
determining the appropriate treatment;
using
£!
treatment that is the least damaging to the general
environment and best preserves the natural ecosystem;
ID::
g pest and
394
@
t\law\bills\
1452
pesticides\bill
1
O.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
52-14
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
41 O
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
ill
using
~
treatment that will be the most likely to produce long-
term reductions in pest control requirements and is operationally
feasible and cost effective in the short and long term;
®
{1)
using £! treatment that minimizes negative impacts to non-target
organisms;
using£! treatment that is the least disruptive of natural controls;
using
~
treatment that is the least hazardous to human health; and
exhausting the list of all non-chemical and organic treatments
available for the targeted pest before using any synthetic
chemical treatments.
{fil
.(21
{£}
The Department must provide training in integrated pest management
for each employee who is responsible for pest management.
33B-17. County narks.
W
Policy.
It 1s the policy of Montgomery County to . promote
environmentally sensitive landscape pest management in its parks by
phasing .out the use of the. most hazardous .pesticides and reducing
overall pesticide use while preserving landscape assets, maintaining
functionality of playing fields. and protecting the health and safety of
the public and County employees. To carry out this poliGy. the Parks
Department must subject to appropriation, implement the nrovisions of
this Section.
Lb)
Pesticide-tree parks.
The Parks Department must im__plement a
pesticide-free parks program that. at a minimum. consists of:
ill
the maintenance of certain parks without the use of restricted
lawn care pesticides or neonicotinoids;
ill
a program for reducing the use of restricted lawn care pesticides
and neonicotinoids on playing fields that includes:
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
~
(8)
a pilot program consisting of at least five playing
field~
maintained without the use of restricted lawn care
pesticides or neoni@tinoids: and
!ID
QJ
maintenance of all other playing fields using an integrated
pesttnanagetnentprograrn:and
a public com.munication catnpaign to inform the public of the
~nee
and progress of the pesticide-free parks program.
Pesticide usage protocols.
The
.£arks
Department tnust develop usage
protocols which litnit
the
use
of~cted
lawn care pesticides__an.d
th~
neonicotinoids to the tnaxitnutn extent possible and. subject to
exceptions in subsection {d):
ill
!ll
QJ
do not permit the use of restricted lawn care pesticides or
neonicotinoids within 25-fue.t.fil a waterbody: and
do not permit the application of restricted lawn care pesticides or
neonicotinoids to playgrounds in County parks; an4
except .where immediate application is necessarv to protect
hutnan health or prevent significant economic damage. include
the posting of notice of each planned application of restricted
lawn care pesticide or neonicotinoid on the appropriate Parks
Department
includes:
websit~t
least 48 hours before application. that
!al
!ID
(g
the coromon name of the pesticide:
the location of the application;
the planned date and time of the qimlication: and
the reason for the use of the pesticide.
ml
t\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
UU
Exce-ptions.
The pesticide-free parks program and pesticide usage
protocols may generally permit the application of a restricted lawn care
pesticide or neonicotinoid to:
ill
ill
ill
ii)
control weeds as defined in Chapter 58. Weeds;
control invasive species listed in a regulation adopted under
fil.lbsection 33B-4(d);
control disease
vector~
control stinging insects or plants;
control organisms that threaten the health of trees or shrubs;
remove weeds as part of the renovation of a playing field: and
otherwise protect human health or prevent significant economic
damage.
ill
(fil
ill
ULJ
Reporting requirement.
The Parks Department must submit a report to
460
461
County Executive and County Council on or befol:tlanuary 15 of each
year that:
462
463
464
465
ill
details restricted lawn care pesticide and neonicotinoid usage in
County parks during the preceding year. including;
(A)
~common
name of each .restricted lawn care pesticide
and neonicotinoid
~
466
467
468
469
£fil
~
the location of each application;
t.be date and time of each application: and
the reason for each use of restricM.lawn care pesticide
and neonicotinoid; and
!Ill
470
471
472
ill
describes the status of the pesticide-free parks program
implemented under this Section.
Sec. 2. Initial Lists of [[Non-Essential.]] Restricted Lawn Care Pesticides
and Invasive Species.
The Executive must submit the lists of [[non-essential]]
f:\law\bills\1452 pestiddes\bill 10.doc
473
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
52-14
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
restricted lawn care pesticides and invasive species required by Subsections 33B-4(c)
and (d) to the Council for approval by [[January]]
M~
1, 2016
Sec. 3. Effective Date.
The [[prohibitions on]]
~remeots
for the use of
[[non-essential]] restricted lawn care pesticides in_common ownership communities
contained in [[Section 33B-9]] Sections 33B-12 and 33B-13,,. and the prohibitions
and
reguirements related to the [[on]] use of [[non-essential]] restricted lawn c_are
pesticides and neonicotinoids contained in [[Section 33B-14]] Sections 33B-15...and
33B-17_ take effect on
[[January]]~
1, 2016.
[[Sec.
4. Expiration.
This Act and any regulation adopted under it expires on
January 1, 2019.]]
Approved:
484
485
George Leventhal, President, County Council
486
Approved:
Date
487
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
488
This
is a
correct copy ofCouncil action.
Date
489
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill 10.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
LEGISLATIVE REQUEST REPORT
Bill 52-14
Pesticides
-
Notice Requirements
-
Non-Essential Pesticides
-
Prohibitions
DESCRIPTION:
This Bill would require posting of notice for certain lawn
applications of pesticide, prohibit the use of certain pesticides on
lawns, prohibit the use of certain pesticides on certain County-owned
property and require the County to adopt an integrated pest
management program for certain County-owned property.
Long term use of and exposure to certain chemical pesticides has
been linked to several health problems, including birth defects,
cancer, neurological problems, immune system problems, and male
infertility.
To protect the health of families, especially children, from the
unnecessary risks associated with the use of certain pesticides that
have been linked to a wide-range of diseases.
Department of Environmental Protection
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be requested.
To be researched.
Josh Hamlin, Legislative Attorney
To be researched.
PROBLEM:
GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES:
COORDINATION:
FISCAL IMPACT:
ECONOMIC
IMPACT:
EVALUATION:
EXPERIENCE
ELSEWHERE:
SOURCE OF
INFORMATION:
APPLICATION
WITHIN
MUNICIPALITIES:
PENALTIES:
Class C violation
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\lrr.doc
®
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COUNCIL
ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND
GEORGE LEVENTHAL
COUNCILMEMBER
AT-LARGE
MEMORANDUM
October 22, 2014
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Councilmembers
George Leventhal, Council Vice President
Pesticide Legislation
~~
This coming Tuesday, October 28, I
will
be introducing legislation aimed at protecting the health
of families - and especially children - from the unnecessary risks associated with the use of
certain cosmetic pesticides that have been linked to a wide-range of diseases, and which provide
no health benefits.
As you know, for the better part of the last year, I have been working towards introducing
legislation on this matter. Since the September 2013 meeting of the T&E committee, I have met
with countless stakeholders, on both sides of the issue, to learn more about how pesticides are
being applied in the county, what other governments are doing to ensure that the public's health is
being protected, and what the latest research tells us about their risks. The legislation that I am
introducing on Tuesday incorporates feedback
r
received from proponents and opponents on the
previous draft of the bill, which I shared with your offices back in May. The result is a bill that
balances the rights of homeowners to maintain a beautiful lawn with the rights of residents who
·prefer to not be exposed to chemicals that have known health effects: I view this bill as a starting
point in our discussion which can be tweaked along the way.
I want to preface my concerns by affirming the value of pesticides when they are used to protect
public health, the environment, our food or our water supply, but when pesticides are used solely
to improve the appearance of landscapes, they can cause more harm than good. ln
my
viev,..,
cosmetic pesticides present a substantial threat to the health of today's children. The American
Academy of Pediatrics states that children face the greatest risk from the chemicals they contain,
and that epidemiologic evidence demonstrates associations between early life exposure to
pesticides and pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems such as
1
ADHD. Certain toxic chemicals can cause permanent brain damage in children even at low
2
levels of exposure that would have little to no adverse effect in an adult. A child doesn't even
1
,
Pediatrics,
Pesticide Exposure in Children,
.
Volume 130. No. 6, 1757 -
STELLA B. WERNER OF'FICE BUILDING
1763, December, 2012
- Dr. Phillippe Grandjean, MD, Dr. Phillip Landrigan, MD,
The Lancer
Neurology,
Neurobehavioral Effect-; of
Developmental Toxicitv, Volume 13. lssue 3
1'1Vr\R.
March
1014
240n77-7811
OR
2.40r777-7900,
TTY
240r777-7914, FAX 240r777·7989
WWW.MONTGOMERYCOUNTYMD.GOV/COUNCIL
~uo IVl"A~YLAN'ti"J!;\?ENUE,
6TH
FLOOR,
RDCKVI
LLE, MARYLAND 20650
~PRINTED
ON RECYCLED PAPER
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
have to be directly exposed to a pesticide to suffer negative health outcomes. During pregnancy,
chemicals in women can cross the placenta and result in higher fetal exposure than the mother has
been exposed to. Prenatal exposure to certain chemicals has been documented to increase the risk
of cancer in childhood.
3
Virtually every pregnant woman in the United States is exposed to
multiple chemicals during a sensitive period of fetal development that have been linked to
4
adverse reproductive and developmental outcomes.
Adults are also at risk of developing serious health problems due to pesticide exposure.
Researchers at the National Institutes of Health have linked pesticide use to a wide range of
diseases and conditions. Exposure to certain pesticides has been linked to Parkinson's disease,
diabetes, leukemia, lymphoma, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, dementia, reproductive dysfunction,
Alzheimer's disease, and variety of cancers including breast, colon, prostate and lung cancer.s
In addition to the adverse health effects to humans, pesticides can also affect animals, both pets
and wildlife, and our waterways. A recent study by the United States Geological Survey has
found that 90% of urban area waterways now have pesticide levels high enough to hann aquatic
6
life, and moreover, the
USGS
said the harm to aquatic life was likely understated in their report.
Terrestrial wildlife is also being harmed by the use of certain pesticides. The most concerning
example involves honeybees, which. pollinate nearly one-third of the food we
eat,
and
a
particular
class of pesticides called neonicotinoids. Neonicotinoids have been repeatedly and strongly linked
with the collapse of honey bee colonies. In just the last year, Maryland lost nearly 50 percent of
its honeybee population, an increase over previous years, which averaged about
a
one-third Joss
.
7
annually.
Before
I
describe what this bill does, let me describe what this bill does not do. This bill does not
ban the use of all pesticides; it would, however, restrict the use of certain toxic chemicals that are
most dangerous to human health. This bill does not prohibit the use of any pesticide for gardens.
And this bill would not prohibit the use of any pesticide for agricultural use. What this
bill
does
do is seek to limit children's exposure to hannful pesticides in places where children are most
likely to be exposed to them. That being said, the major provisions of the bill are:
l)
Require the posting of notice when
a
property owner applies a pesticide to an area of
lawn more than
I
00 square feet, consistent with the notice requirements for when a
landscaping business treats a lawn with
a
pesticides;
2)
Require the Executive to designate
a
list of"non-essential" pesticides inCluding:
• all pesticides classified as "Carcinogenic to Humans" or "Likely to Be
Carcinogenic to Humans" by the
U.S. EPA;
• all pesticides classified by the U.S. EPA as "Restricted Use Products;"
American College o/Obsietricians
&
Gynecologists.
Committee Opinion No. 575. American College of Obstetricians
and
Gynecologists. 931-5. October 2013
4
Environme111a! Health Perspec1fres,
Environmental Chemicals in Pregnant Women in the United States: NHANES
3
2003-2004, Tracey J. Woodru!T. Ami R.
Zota.
Jackie M. Schwartz, Volume 119, No. 6, 878-885. June 2011
~Jan
Ehrman.
NIH Record.
Pesticide
Use
Linked to Lupus. Rheumatoid Arthritis.
http:l/nihrecord.nih.Eov/ncwsleuers/2011/03 18
201
l/stp1>•4.htm (accessed
August
3, 2014)
6
U.S. Geological Survey,
An
Overview Comparing Results from Two Decades of Monitoring for Pesticides in the
Nation's Streams and Rivers, 1992-2001 and 2002-2011, Wesley W. Stone, Robert
J.
Gilliom, Jeffrey D. Martin,
http://pubs.usss.gov/sir/2014/5154/pdf/sir2014-5154.pdf (accessed October 20, 2014)
7
Tim Wheeler, Mysterious bee die-off continues, extends beyond winfer,
Baltimore Sun..
htt[l
:/I
artic Ies. balti more.sun. com/2014-Q5- 15/fearures/baJ-mystcrious-bee-di ooff-cont
i
nues·n earIv-ha! f-mai)fand-h ives-
lost-20140515 I bee-informed-partnership-honey-bee-beekemers (accessed October 20, 2014)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
all pesticides classified as "Class 9" pesticides by the Ontario, Canada, Ministry
of the Environment; and
• all pesticides classified as "Category l Endocrine Disruptors" by the European
Commission
Generally prohibit the application of non-essential pesticides to lawns, with exceptions
for noxious weed and invasive species control, agriculture and gardens, and golf courses;
Require the Executive to conduct a public outreach and education campaign before and
during the implementation of the Bill;
Generally prohibit the application of a non-essential or neonicotinoid pesticide to
County-owned property; and
Require the County to adopt an Integrated Pest Management program.
Sunset the act and any regulation adopted under it on January I, 2019
The pesticide industry will respond to this legislation by saying "the science isn't there" and that
"all pesticides are extensively tested and approved as safe by the EPA," but while both statements
sound believable, they belie the truth. In response to the charge that the science isn't there to
legislate, the absence of incontrovertible evidence does not justify inaction. As evidenced by this
memo, the number of studies from respected institutions of science linking pesticides to a variety
of cancers, neurodevelopmental disorders and diseases is abundant and persuasive. Furthennore,
due to the inestimable number of chemical combinations possible from the thousands of products
on the market and the complex interactions with the human body, the research that opponents to
this legislation
will
demand
will
never be possible within the ethical confines of research. The
real danger lies not in being exposed to one chemical, but a mixture of chemicals. The EPA risk
assessment fails to look at the synergistic effects of multiple chemicals, even though studies show
that exposure to multiple chemicals that act on the same adverse outcome can have a greater
effect than exposure to an individual chemical.
8
And to the charge that a pesticide must
be
safe if it has been approved by the EPA, the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found that many pesticides are currently being
approved for consumer use by the EPA without receipt and review of data that the manufacturer
is required to provide on the safety of the chemicals.
9
Alarmingly, in some cases the manufacturer
was given two years to submit studies on the effects of a pesticide, and ten years later no studies
had been received or reviewed by the EPA.
10
What's more, the EPA itself publishes an entire ·
manual -
Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings
-
for healthcare professionals that
acknowledges the toxic nature and effects of many pesticides. As an educated populace, we like
to think that we have a high bar for pesticide safety in this country, but sadly, when a pesticide
has been approved by the EPA,
it
connotes little about its safety.
Lawn care does not have to be poisonous to people, pets, wildlife, or our waterways. It is simply
false to say that you can't have a lush, green lawn - free of weeds - without the use of toxic
pesticides. Through proper management of the soil, along with the use of natural, organic
alternatives to synthetic pesticides, a high quality
land~ape
can be achieved. And under my
8
National Research Council.
Committee on Improving
Risk Analysis Approaches Used
by
the
U.S.
EPA Science
and
Decisions:
Advancing Risk AssessmenL Washington, DC: National Academies Press: 2008
9
United States Government Accountability Office.
Pesticides - EPA Should Take Steps to
Improve
its
Oversight of
Conditional Registrations, hnp://www.gao.gov/assets/660/656825. pdf (accessed October 20, 2014)
10
United Stares Government Accountability Office,
Pesticides - EPA Should Take Steps to Improve its Oversight of
Conditional
Registrations,
hnn://www.r::ao.gov/asscts/660/656825.pdf (accessed
October
20, 2014)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
legislation, residents will still be free to hire any lawn care professional to treat their lawn or to
manage their own lawn care.
Much like the public debate that occurred in the I950's before cigarettes were found to be cancer-
causing, I believe we are approaching a similar turning point in the discourse on pesticides as the
public is made more aware of the known health effects. In a poll taken earlier this year, more than
three-quarters of Marylanders expressed concern about the risk that pesticides pose to them or
their families, and when respondents learned of the adverse health effects that pesticides are
11
linked to, 90% of Marylanders expressed concem.
America lags behind by the rest of the developed world in recognizing the serious risks that
certain pesticides pose to health and life. The GAO' s report confirms that the regulatory approach
taken by the EPA is broken and failing the public. In the face of mounting scientific evidence,
and in the absence of action on the federal level, I find it impossible not to act now
tq
protect the
health of our children. In Montgomery County, we regularly take a precautionary approach to
public health and environmental issues, such as with the forthcoming legislation one-cigarettes
and the Council's action on Ten Mile Creek. Our approach to pesticides should be no different.
I have attached all of the studies that I have cited in this memo for your reference, but I hope you
will take time to review research beyond what I have provided.
If,
after reviewing the research,
you feel compelled to act as I do, l would welcome your co-sponsorship on this bill.
This issue is among the most technically complex which the Council has ever faced. Therefore, it
is critical that we approach this in a thoughtful manner and that we consult with a variety of
experts who are knowledgeable in the field so we can make a well-infonned decision regarding
this important public health issue.
Opinion Works,
Maryland Voter Survey on Pesticides
hnp://www.mdpestnet.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014102/Pesticide-Poll-Memo-2-10-14.pdr(Accessed on October 20. 2014)
11
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVIU.E,
.
MARYLAND
MEMORANDUM
January 26, 2015
TO:
George Leventhal, President, County Council
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Je. nnifer
A.
HughJJk!tt,r,
o
·gement and
Budget
Joseph
F.
Beach,
~;;Detr~
inance
FEIS for Blll 52-14, Pesticides -Notice Requirements -Non-Essential Pesticides
Prohibitions
~~.
Please find attached the fiscal and economic impact statements for the above-
referenced legislation.
JAH:fz
cc: Bonnie Kirkland, Assistant Chief Administrative Officer
Lisa Austin, Offices of the County Executive
Joy
Nunni, Special Assistant
to
the County
Executive
Patrick Lacefield, Director, Public Information Office
Fariba Ka.ssiri, Acting Director, Department of Environmental Protection
Joseph F. Beach, Director, Department of Finance
David Platt, Department of Finance
Matt Schaeffer, Office of Management and Budget
Alex Espinosa, Office
of
Management and Budget
Felicia Zhang,
Office
of Management and Bud6ret
Naeem Mia, Office of
Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Fiscal
Imp~ct
Statement
Bill 52-14: Pesticides - Nptice Requirements - Non-Essential Pesticides - Prohibitions
1. Legislative Sun11n311.
The bill would update county law with regard to pesticides application in the following
manner:
( 1) require posting of notice for certain lawn applications of
pesticide;
(2) prohibit the use of certain pesticides on lawns;
(3) prohibit the use of eertain pesticides on certain County--0wned
property;
(4)
require the County to adopt an integrated pest management program
for
certain County-
o'Yf11ed
property; ,
(5)
genern.Ily amend
County
law
regard~ng
pesticides;
and
(6) require the creation of a media campaign to inform residents and businesses of the change
in county law related to non--essential pesticides.
2. An
estimate
of
changes
in
County revenues and expenditures regardless of whether
the revenues or expehditures are assumed in the recommended or approved
budget.
Includes
source
(}f
information, assumptions,
and methodologies used.
County revenues are Jot expected to be impacted
by
Bill 52-14. The Maryland-National
Capital Park and Planhing Commission (M.:NCPPC) did
report that
there
is a
potential
for lost revenues
if
pl4ying fields
are
not
able to be
adequately
maintained -
this
revenue
has traditionally
coin~
in
in
the fonn of field rental from athletic
l~es.
County departments and agencies perfonned a fiscal impact analysis of the major
provisions and conclupe
the follo"Wing:
o Section 33B-4 requires the county to develop a list
of
non-essential pesticides and
invasive species which
would
be
detrimental
to
the
environment.
'The Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) does not envision a :fiscal impact as a result of these
tasks given
that
many
jurisdictions
have
taken the similar action
with
regards
to
non-
essential pesticides and significant
documentation
exists related to successful
implementation of this type of
prohibition.
If
classification becomes difficult,
a
consultant
may
need
t-0
be
brought
in
to
assist
with
this
task.
o Section 33B-13
requires
the County Executive to create an Integrated Pest
Management
(IPM)
program. TheDepartment
of
General Services (DGS)
reported
no fiscal impact
and
is
currently
operating under
an JPM
and the
Executive
branch
would utilize
this
plan
across county
departments under
Bill 52-14.
o Enforcement of Bill 52-l 4 is
not
clarified
in
great detail
within
the
legislation.
Similar
to
other prohibition
legislation,
executive
staff
recommends a complaint-
driven enforcement model to control costs of implementation.
It
is likely
that
complaint-drive.n enforcement would have a minimal fiscal impact on county
departments
whil~
estimates for a proactive enforcement effort include a dedicated
inspector with estiinated personnel costs of $75,000 and vehicle costs of
approximately $4Q,OOO for a total of $115,000 per inspector.
·
o
Bill
52-14 would
also
require county
departments
and agencies to convert
to
approved landscaping
pr~"tices
outside of the list of banned non-essential pesticides
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
in the cases wherein prohibited pesticides are being used.
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) reportedlhat
it
is likely
that
pesticides
prohibited under Bill 52-14 are being used currently
and
that a conversion cost
estimate would be available after an agreed list of prohibited pesticides is established.
Based on estimates of conversion costs
fot
M-NCPPC fields, the costs of
maintaining similar fields within MCPS are expected to be significant.
Montgomery College reported no fiscal impacts
as a result
of
Bill 52-14.
To maintain the
quality
of fields at the current level, M;-NCPPC reported the
follo\\ing
conversion costs associated with the move
to
allowable treatment methods
on fields:
Athletic Fields:
• 40 athletic fields can. be
organically
treated at the following cost:
$648,048
in supplies
and labor costs;
·
$327,062 to provide a top dressilig;
$100,000 for the purchase of
aerators;
for a total
firstyear
cost
of$1,075,l
10.
Additional costs in subsequent
y~ars
also include: ,
Sod
replacement every two years at a cost of
$20,~0
per field or
$817,600
and
additional
gr~
every four
years
at a tQtal .of $lQ,OOO per field
or
$400,000.
• Five Bermuda
pla,ying
fields cannot
be organically
;treated and would need to be
replaced with treatable sod for $102,200 per :field
dr
a total
co~1:
of $511 ,000.
Optional
replacement costs for a synthetic turf optipn are $1,400,000
per
field
with
$3,700
in annual maintenance or a total capital cost of$56,000,000 and a
$148,000
annual
inai.t1tenance
co.st for all
forty
fields.
Regional Fields:
• 35 regional fields will need irrigation installed to maintain organic
maintenance
standards
at
the
following
cost:
$3,500,000 in capital costs for system installations;
$231 ,000
in annual
water
coots;
$350,000 in annual maintenance costs;
for a first year cost of $4,081,000.
Local Fields:
• 300 local fields would require manual or mechanical weed elimination at a
total
annual cost of$229,860.
·
In total, implementation oosts to bring M-NCPPC fields into compliance (absent a
total conversion to synthetic
turf)
would
oe;
'
Total
first
year
costs
to M-NCPPC
would
be
$5,8%,970.
Recurring annual costs for
M-NCPPCwould
be $8IOJ860.
Sod Replacement costs every two years
would
be
$817,600,
Additional grading costs every four
years
for M..NCPPC would
be
$400,000.
two
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates
covering
at
least the
next 6
fiscal
years.
Total conversion costs to allowable landscaping practices (or the
county would
include an
undetermined amount for MCPS to replace current
pesticiqes
in inventory
and
a six year
@)
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
total
of$12,804,070
f1>r
M~NCPPC
as apart.of converting maintenance practices on
current fields to
allow~ble
practices under Bill
52-14.
M-NCPPC's six-year estimate of
$12,804,070
in conversion
costs
consists of:
$5,896,970 in first
year
costs
$4,054,300 in subsequent annual expenses [$810,&60 X
5
years]
$2,452~800
in
sod replacement costs on athletic fields
[$817,600 X 3
applications]
$400,000
in additionaj grading costs
If
it
is
determined
tha?
a proactive
enforcement
effort is needed to
enforce
the bill. a
dedicated inspet.'tor would
be
required
at a personnel cost of$75,000 and a
vehicle
cost
would of $40,000, for a total of
$115,000
for
the
first year
and
a six year total of
$490,000. The County Executive recommends a complaint-driven enforcement program.
Bill 52-14
also
requir~s
the County Executive to establish
an
awareness campaign
.related
to
the
prohibitions
noted
in the
bill.
Costs related
to the
media campaign will depend on
the scope and size of the media campai.gn. The County .Executive recommends an
education
and outreach program of miniµial
cost
to
the county.
4. An actuarial analysis through the entire amortization period for each bill
that
would
affect retiree pension or group insurance costs.
Not
Applicable.
5. An
estimat.c
of expell,ditures related to County's information technology
(IT)
systems,
including
Enterprise Res()urce
Planning
(EllJ>)
systems.
Not
Applicable.
6. Later actions that
mf;ty
affect future
r~venue
and
expenditures
if
the bill authorizes
future spending.
Not
Applicable.
7.
An
estimate of the staff time needed to implement the bill.
The impact of implementation ofBill 52-14 on staff time will depend on the extent of the
enforcement
required
for the provisions in the bill. Inspections on lawns, commercial
sales establishments
tbr
signage. and other general enforcement actions will have an
impact on
various
co141ty departments similar to other
countywide
ban legislation.
If
Bill
52-14
requires an enforcement
inspector~
approximate personnel costs of an
inspector would
be
$7~,000
and a vehicle would be $40,000 for a
total
of $115.,000 per
inspector.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
If
enforcement of Bi11 52-14 is complaint-driven,, there wolild
be
an impact to current
inspection operations
by
increasing the
extent
of some exikting inspection protocols
but
would result in minimal fiscal impact
t:O
the county.
·
8. An explanation
of
how the addition of new staff responsibilities would
affect
other
duties.
Depending on the enforcement model ofBill
52-14~
the
biU
would impact the t.otal
number of inspection hours re.quired. An inspector carryi-qg out an inspection in a retailer
for health code and other violations, for example, could required to add on additional
inspections for checks of signage and other sales requirements of pesticides to their
nonnal inspection process.
be
9.
An estimate of costs when an additional appropriation 'is needed.
There are three potential areas of cost related to Bill 52-14:
1) Conversion costs related to replacing old pesticides or converting contracts to include
compliant pesticide application- County departments reported no fiscal impacts
considering DOS.already operates an IPM. MCPS
reportO.d
that
there would
be costs
associated with converting
to
approved pesticides from pesticides currently in use an.d
that the extent of these conversion costs
will
not
be
known until a final list of banned
pesticides has been established
by
DEP ·•
M-NCPPC estimates their conversion
costs
to
allowable
l~dscaping
practiees (excluding
a conversion to artificial
turf)
to be $12,804,070 over the next six years. See item 3 for
additional infomiation on M-NCPPC's estimated conversion costs.
2) Costs associated vvith a media campaign-Bill 52-14 requires that the County Executive
establish a
media
campaign to publicize the ban on certain' non-essential pesticides.
Costs related
to
this media
campfilgn
will vary depending on the scope and size of the
campaign; and
3)
Costs as§ociated with enforcement of Bill 52-14-Ifdedfoated enforcement personnel
are needed to
enforce
the provisions
of
Bill
52-14, approximate personnel costs of an
inspector would
be
$75,000 and a vehicle would be $40,000 for a total of$115,000 per
inspector.
10. A description of any variable that could affect revenue and cost estimates.
See Item 9 above.
ll. Ranges of revenue or expenditures
that
arc uncertain
~r
difficultto project.
M·NCPPC reports
that
loss of revenue is likely to occur
if
the spraying of certain
non~
essential pesticides prohibited
in
Bill
52~
14 is eliminated as a part of the current playing
field maintenance program.
M-NCPPC reports that other jurisdictions have seen a loss of
revenue from athletic tournaments leagues choose to take outside of the county.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
12.
If
a
bill
is
likely
to h.-Ve no fiscal impact,
why that is
the case.
Not Applicable.
13. Other fiscal impacts or
comments.
Both M.;.NCPPC and
the Department
of Recreation (REC) are also
concerned about how
this
prohibition will impact recreational and sport fields
throughout the county; There are multiple jurisdictional studies suggesting a
prohibition of this type on sport
fields leads
to
degradation of the playing field and
may lead
to
injury.
14. The foHowing contrifmted to and
concurred
with this
analysis:
Stan Edwards, Depart\llent of
E11vironmental
Protection
James Song,
Montgomery
County Public Schools
David Vismara, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Beryl Feinberg, Department of (]eneral Services
Matt Schaeffer, Office
of
Management and Budget
t/26!1S:__
Date
'
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Bill 52-14, Pesticides .... Notice Requirements - Non-Es5ential Prohibitiom
Background-:
This legislation would require the posting of a notice when a
p~operty
owner applies a
pesticide to an area of lawn more than 100 square feet. Bill 52:-14 requires the County
Executive to designate a list of•'non-essential" pesticides that include the following:
All pesticides classified as ..Carcinogenic
to
Humans" or "Likely to Be.
Carcinogenic
to
Humans"
by
the United States Em·ironmental Protection Agency
(USEPA);
All pesticides classified
by
USEPA
as
"Restricted
Use
Prooucts"';
All pesticides classified as "Class 9" by the Ministry of the Environment and
Climate Change, Government of Ontario, Canada
All pesticides classified as
••category
1 Endocrine Disrupters"
by
the European
Commission;
and
Other pesticides which
the
County Executive
determin~
are not critical
to
pest
management in the County.
·
The Bill would prohibit the application of non..essential pesticides to lawns,
with
ex.ceptions for
noxious
~"red
and invasive· species control,
agriculture
and gardens,
and
golf courses.
The
Bill would
also
require the CoWlty Executive
to
conduct a public
outreach and education campaign
during
the implementation ofBill 52-14, and would
prohibit the application of non-essential and neonicotinoid pesticides
to
County-owned
property.
l. The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies
used.
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
SafeLawns.org
Diffen.org
The Fertilizer Institute (TH)
Grassroots Environmental Education
2. A description of any variable that
could
affect the economic impact estimates.
The variable
that
could affect the economic impact estimates is the cost differential
between organic pesticides
and
chemical pesticides. However, according to
SafeLawns.org, the cost differential is comparing apples to oranges since one product
provides a short-term solution while the other product aims to provide a long-tenn
solution. Organic products "function
by
building up life inthe soil (soil
biology)
and
their payoff is long-tenn and lasting" ·while synthetic
produc~
which are
instantaneous, are applied frequently and in greater amounts. Therefore,
SafeLa:wns.org indicates that the
users
of organic products will spend less money on
la\\'n care over a
nvo-yeat period
than users of chemical or synthetic pesticides.
Page 1 of2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Bill 52-14,
Pestkitl~
-
Notice
Requirements -
Non-Essential Prohibitions
According
10
Diffen.otg, organic pesticides are much more expensive than synthetic
or chemical pesticides
.because
synthetic or chemical pe!>1icides have more
concentrated levels of uutrients per weight of product than organic pesticides. The
user of organic
pestici~es
needs several pounds of organic pesticide that would
pr9vide the same
nutrient
levels as synthetic or chemical pesticide.
That
differential
in the amounts would
fesult
in
a higher cost
·Of
organic pesticide.
Therefore,
there
is a conflict between
the
information
pro,ided
by
SafeLawns.org
and
Diflen.org
regarding~
cost differential between organic and synthetjc/chemical
pt..'Sticides.
SafeLawns.org suggests there
is
less
application of
organic to
synthetic/chemical
pe$.icide while according to Diffen.org, one needs a higher
quantity of organic
pesticide
to synthetic/chemical pesticide to achieve the same
nutrient
level.
3. The Bill's
positive
or ;negative effect,
if
any on employment, spending, saving,
investment, incomes, and property values in the County.
Because of the differences of opinions, in terms of the amount
of
application of
organic versus synthetic/chemical pesticide as stated in paragraph #2,
it
is uncertain
whether Bill 52-14 wuuld have economic impact on employment, spending, saving,
investment, incomes, and property values
in
the County. Because of the specific
climate and soil type
endemic
to Montgomery County, more consultation with the
experts and
r~search
ate
needed to determine the
economic
effect on
the
County.
4. If a BiH
is
likely to
have
no
economic
impact,
why
is
that the
case?
It
is uncertain
if
Bill
5t*l4
has
an economic impact.
5. The
f
ollOl\'ing
contributed to or concurred ·with
this analysis: David
Platt
and Rob
Hagedoom, Finance,
and
Stan Edwards, Department of Environmental Prote\..-'tion.
...,..,.,•..,..,Director
Department of Finance
Date
,
Page 2,of2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
AGRICULTURAL PR£S[RVATION ADVISORY BOARD
September 16, 2015
The HonorabJe Roger
Berliner~
Chair
Montgomery County Council
Transportation, Infrastructure. Energy
&
Environment Committee (T
&
E)
100 Maryland
Avenue
Rockville.
Maryland
20856
RE:
Amendments
to Bill 52-14 Pesticides-Notice Requirements-Non-Essential
Pesticides-Prohibitions
Dear Councilmember Berliner:
On behalf of
the
Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board (APAB), please accept this
correspondence from the
APAB
regarding the amendments to Bill 52-14-Pesticides-Notice
Requirements-Non-Essential Pesticides-Prohibitions. The
APAB
met on September 15.
2015
to
review the amendments proposed to Bill
52-14
for the T
&
E Committee on September 17.
2015.
We
respectfully request our comments
be
considered as
pa1t
of the public record.
As
you
may be
aware, the
APAB
is in opposition to Bill
52-14
as
drafted
by the bill's
sponsor (attachment A). We understand
that
the amendments are
being
offered to help ease the
concerns
of the agricultural community
and make Bill 52"14
more palatable
overall. The APAB
is appreciative of your efforts
to
improve
the bill
and we recognize
that your
amendments
represent an improvement. Unfornmately after discussing the amendments and our continuing
concern
about
the
potential
of future amendments to the law
that
would prohibit certain
pesticides for
agricultural
use,
we crumot support
any
bill
that would
circumvent the
authority
of
State (Maryland Department of Agriculture) and Federal (Environmental Protection Agency)
govemment in the area
of
pesticide
regulation and use. This bill represents a slippery slope
where futw·e impacts cannot
be
mitigated
once this bill is
adopted
into law.
We
strongly feel that
any bill that prohibitions pesticide use and application would be disastrous for Montgomery
County's
agricultural future.
·
As a legislator and a
lawyer, you understand that
no
bill
once
adopted into law can
prevent future Councilmembers from introducing changes to law that could expand prohibitions
to agriculture.
These
concerns must be thoroughly vetted before adopting BiU 52-14 into law. In
reality~
the
only
way
to
ensure
the
prohibitions
being considered under Bill 52-14 do
not
result
in
Oi:pnrtmcnt of Economic [)evclopment·Agricultural Services Division
ll!4 IO Munc11uc:r Ruad • l>ern·ood, Mar)'lonJ :!085.S • 3Ul/590-21fll.
FA~
llllf59<l-l839
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
mission creep that would negatively affect agricultural lands in the future would be not to adopt
Bill 52· l 4
at
all.
The AP AB believes rather than the Council pursuing the prohibition of certain pesticides
in the
County.
a
better approach would
be
to
aid
in
enforcement
of existing State and
Federal
laws that are ah'eady in place.
TI1e
APAB also believes the Cotmty should undertake a major
public
awareness and
educational
campaign
to educate County
residents on
pesticide
use. The
best
way
to change public perception a.bout these chemicals is through education. We have
already
seen
the impact
educational
outreach
efforts can
have on public behavioral
change.
Many resisted
recycling
waste at
first. but
as the
County increased the
awareness
of the
importance and impact of recycling through outreach and education, greater acceptance followed
and
this
resulted in more people taking personal responsibility
to
recycle.
The
APAB believe if
a
similar public
awareness
campaign is promoted that every
resident can
be
better informed as well as gain better an understanding on the safe handling and
application
of
pesticides.
Education. not
prohibition, is the key
to
success on how these
chemicals can be used safely in our County.
111e
APAB would like
to
thank
you
for the opportunity to present our views on the
amendments to Bili 52-14. unfortunately as indicated above. we respectfully cannot
supp011
any
bill that would circumvent the authority of State and Federal government in the area of pesticide
regulation. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Attachments
cc:
County Council
APAB
Jeremy V. Criss, OED
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD
January
5,
2015
The Honorable George Leventhal, President
Montgomery County Council
100 Maryland Avenue
Rockville. Maryland 20856
RE:
Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board (APAB) Written Testimony:
Bill 52· 14 Pesticides-Notice
Requirements~Non-Essential
Pesticides-Prohibitions
Dear Council President Leventhal:
On behalf of the Agricultural Preservation Advisory
Board
(APAB), please accept this
correspondence as APAB testimony in opposition to Bill 52-14 - Pesticides-Notice
Requirements-Non-Essential Pesticides· Prohibitions.
As with most legislation. there are generally individuals and special interest groups that
take positions of both for and against and Bill
52-14
is no exception. Some view the Bill as
being of paramount importance because it takes steps
to
provide for the safety and protection of
our children. Others view concerns that this Bill as being unnecessary as pesticides are al.ready
regulated at the State and Federal level where labeling
and
other required record keeping
practices for use are already in place. Thereby ensuring the safe use and handling of these
pesticides. Bill 52· l 4 however goes much further than state and federal regulations by outright
prohibiting the use of certain non-essential pesticides within the County.
While Bill 52-14 currently provides for an agricultural exemption, if this legislation is
adopted and becomes law, nothing can prevent future council's from introducing amendments
for the purpose of prohibiting the use of certain pesticides on agricultural land despite being
approved for use by State and Federal Government.
WhiJe
the AP AB believes the intent behind Bill 52-14 is to provide a means to reduce
exposure of certain pesticides among at risk individuals, it also provides for a slippery slope
lkp11nmcn1 of
Economic
Development·A&ricultur11l Services Di\ ision
184 IO Muncuter Road • Der\\ nod.
Man
land Wi15S •
lll
11590-2823. FAX
31111;<m.~8J9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
whereby public perception could influence lawmakers to ignore the scientific research on how to
safely use and handle pesticides for agricultural use.
This potential outcome is of great concern to the agricultural community. The
agricultural community in partnership with Montgomery County has worked to make
the
County's Agricultural Reserve a cherished resource. Through making the agricultural reserve a
working agricultural landscape in tandem with perpetual agricultural and conservation
easements. we have over
70.000
acres
that have been protected for agricultural
use
for future
food and fiber production. As our population continues to grow, the need for boosting yield
production on a per acre basis will be driven by an ever growing and hungry population. Over
the past
100
years, efticiency in agricultural production has increased significantly and this
outcome can be is directly linked to both advanced agricultural research and
the
use of pesticides
to reduce losses brought on by agricultural pests. The APAB understands that the Agricultural
Advisory Committee recommends that more education and less regulation
are
needed in the
County for Pesticide usage. The APAB is also
in
agreement with this recommendation.
Pesticides
if
properly applied can result in improved agricultural crop production. They
can
reduce productions costs; increase crop yields which results in increased agricultural
profitability. No one knows better than the agricultural community that
if
pesticides
are
not
properly used that they can create negative impact to the environment. It is important to
understand, that regulations for pesticides applications and applicators are already a matter
of
State and Federal law. Just as with any commercial applicator. fanners
also
must be certified to
use pesticides.
While the Bill's sponsors cannot guarantee what the future may hold for this Legislation
and
its
impact on agricultural land uses.
we can
say with some degree of certainty that any
pesticide approved
for
use by the State and Federal Government on agricultural land that
becomes prohibited under a future amendment to this Bill would
be
disastrous for Montgomery
County agriculture.
It
could provide a catalyst for landowners to abandon agriculturaJ operations
in favor open space preservation thereby jeopardizing the viability of this working agricultural
landscape. It is for these reasons APAB is opposed to BiJI 52-14 due to the ramifications and
unintended consequences
this
legislation could create in the future. These concerns must be
thoroughly vetted before adopting Bill 52· l 4 into law. In reality, the only way to ensure these
prohibitions do not result
in
mission creep effecting agricultural lands in
the
future would
be not
to adopt Bill 52-14.
The APAB would like to thank you for the opportunity to present our views on Bill 52-14
Pesticide Legislation. The APAB
will
participate in the Council Work Sessions on this
important issue to better understand
the
legislation and to address the questions and concerns that
we have raised in this testimony. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
..
Robert Cissel, Chairman
Agricultural Preservation Advisory Board.
~~
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
cc:
Montgomery County Council
Joseph Hamlin, Legislative Attorney
AAC Board Members
APAB Board Members
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files