Agenda Item 1
February 12,2015
Public Hearing
Continuation
MEMORANDUM
February 10,2015
TO:
FROM:
County Council
A7
l~
Josh Hamlin, Legislative
Attome~
SUBJECT:
Continuation of Public Hearing:
Bill 52-14, Pesticides - Notice Requirements ­
Non-Essential Pesticides - Prohibitions
Bill 52-14, Pesticides - Notice Requirements - Non-Essential Pesticides - Prohibitions,
sponsored by then Council Vice President Leventhal and Councilmembers EIrich, Riemer, Floreen,
and Navarro was introduced on October 28. A public hearing on the Bill began on January 15, and
38 people testified on that date. A Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment
Committee worksession is tentatively scheduled March 16,2015 at 9:30 a.m.
Bill 52-14 would:
(1)
require posting of notice for certain lawn applications ofpesticide;
(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.
Council Vice President Leventhal has explained the purpose of this Bill in his October 22,
2014 memorandum to Councilmembers (See ©14-17).
Background
The Regulatory Framework
The regulation of pesticides is the shared responsibility of federal, state, and local
governments.
This shared approach, known as "environmental federalism," is consistently
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
applied among several federal environmental protection laws,
l
and has evolved largely over the
last 50 years.
At the national level, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA") is
the primary vehicle for pesticide regulation. FIFRA was enacted in 1947, and has evolved from
being primarily a labeling statute to become a somewhat more broad regulation.
In
1972,
administration of FIFRA was transferred to the newly created Environmental Protection Agency
("EPA"), which is responsible for classifying pesticides based on a review of the scientific
evidence of their safety and impact on the health of individuals and the environment. FIFRA also
requires EPA to maintain a registry of all but "minimum risk" pesticides.
2
In
addition to the
classification and registry of pesticides, FIFRA provides a uniform national standard for labeling
pesticides. FIFRA does not comprehensively regulate pesticides, however, and does not include
public notice or permit requirements for the use of pesticides.
Under FIFRA, the states are the primary enforcers ofpesticide use regulations, and FIFRA
expressly authorizes states to enact their own regulatory measures concerning the sale or use of
any federally registered pesticides in the state, provided the state regulation is at least as restrictive
as FIFRA itself. In Maryland, pesticides are regulated by the Maryland Department ofAgriculture,
through the enforcement of Subtitles 1 and 2 of Title 5 ofthe Agriculture Article ofthe Maryland
Code.
3
Maryland law and regulations generally create a pesticide registration and labeling regime
at the state level, and a licensing program for the application ofcertain pesticides. Title 5 does not
include any express preemption language, and does not appear to generally regulate pesticides so
comprehensively that preemption can be implied. As a general matter, therefore, the County may
regulate pesticides, at least as restrictive as, and consistent with, federal and State law.
The authority of local governments to regulate pesticide,s was the subject of significant
litigation in the 1980s, with a County law struck down as preempted by FIFRA.
In
Maryland Pest
Control Assn.
v.
Montgomery County, Maryland,
646 F. Supp. 109 (D. Md. 1986), the U.S. District
Court held that FIFRA preempted the County's local law imposing pesticide posting and notice
requirements. The Court held that if Congress had wanted to include local governments in the
regulation of pesticides, it would have expressly done so. However, in
Wisconsin Public
Intervenor
v.
Mortier,
111 S. Ct. 2476 (1991), the U.S. Supreme Court held, contrary to the
Maryland Pest Control Assn.
decision, that a unit of local government has the power, under
FIFRA, to regulate pesticides
within
its own jurisdiction, provided that the local regulation is at
least as restrictive as, and consistent with, FIFRA and any applicable state law. Since
Mortier
was
decided, many states have expressly preempted local jurisdictions from regulating pesticides, but
Maryland is one of seven states which do not preempt local regulation ofpesticides.
4
The County
1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Toxic
Substances Control Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Oil Pollution Control Act of 1990 all
provide for state and local regulatory roles.
2
Minimum risk pesticides are a special class of pesticides that are not subject to federal registration requirements
because their ingredients, both active and inert, are
demonstrably
safe for the intended use. Information about
EPA's treatment of minimum risk pesticides can be found at:
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppdJlbiopesticides/regtools/25b/25b-faq.htm
3
Subtitle 1 is entitled the "Maryland Pesticide Registration and Labeling Law." Subtitle 2 is the "Pesticide
Applicator's Law."
4
http://www.beyondpesticides.org/lawn/activistidocuments/StatePreemption.pdf
1
The
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
currently imposes certain notice, storage, handling, and consumer infonnation requirements in
Chapter 33B of the County Code.
Health Concerns and Pesticides
There is growing evidence ofhannful effects associated with long-tenn use of or exposure
to chemical pesticides.
5
While there is not at present a consensus on causation, pesticide exposure
has been linked to the following health problems: birth defects
6 ;
numerous cancers, including non­
Hodgkins lymphoma
7;
Parkinson's disease and other neurological disorders
8;
immune system
problems
9 ;
and male infertility.lo
In
addition to potential links to human health problems,
neonicotinoids, a class ofinsecticide chemically related to nicotine, have been linked to population
declines in bees, which serve an important function in pollination.
11
Council Vice President Leventhal
has
discussed many of the health issues surrounding pesticide
use in his memorandum at ©14-17.
Laws in Other Jurisdictions
Due to the fact that the vast majority of states have preempted local jurisdictions from
regulating pesticides, there are only two examples oflocal jurisdictions that have banned pesticide
use on public and private property12: Takoma Park, Maryland
13,
and Ogunquit, Maine.
I4
Several
local jurisdictions have enacted legislation or adopted administrative policies related to pesticide
reduction on public property, integrated pest management, and pesticide free parks.
15
Perhaps the most comprehensive pesticide restriction law in North America took effect in
the Canadian province of Ontario in 2009.
16
The Ontario law contains several classifications of
pesticides, and generally bans the cosmetic use ofover 100 pesticides.
I7
Six other provinces, have
followed Ontario in restricting cosmetic use ofpesticides.
18
http://www.nrdc.org/healthikidsJocar/chap5.asp
6
http://www.webmd.comlbaby/news/20090327 Ido-pesticides-make-birth-defects-crop-up
7
http://www.cfp.calcontentl53IIOfl704.short
8
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/parkinsons-disease-and-pesticides-whats-the-connectionl
9
http://www.
wri.orglpublication/pesticides-and-immune-system
10
http://weedingtech.com/new-study-suggests-exposure-to-roundup-herbicide-could-Iead-to-male-infertilitv-21
11
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/news/20
12/03/291
10921493-neonicotinoid-pesticides-tied-to-crashing-bee­
populations-2-studies-find
12
http://www.telegraph.co. uklnews/worldnewsl I0959057IEnd-of-the-perfect-American-Iawn-Campai gners-call-for­
pesticide-ban.html
13
http://www.takomaparkmd.gov/safegrow
14
http://ogunquitconservation.orglogunquitconservation.orgiPesticide Ordinance Overview.html
15
http://www.beyondpesticides.orglla'\-\11Iactivist/
16
http://www.davidsuzuki.orglissues/healthlscience/pesticides/highlights-of-ontarios-cosmetic-pesticide-banl
17
https:llwww.ontario.calenvironment-and-energy/pesticides-home-Iawns-and-gardens
18
http://news.gov.mb.calnews/index.html?item=30526
5
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill
52-14
Bill 52-14 includes 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.
19
Bill 52-14 will:
1) Require 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) 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;"
• 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 prohibit the application of non-essential pesticides to lawns, with exceptions for
noxious weed and invasive species control, agriculture and gardens, and golf courses;
4) Require the Executive to conduct a public outreach and education campaign before and
during the implementation of the Bill;
5) Generally prohibit the application ofnon-essential and neonicotinoid pesticides to County­
owned property; and
6) Require the County to adopt an Integrated Pest Management program.
Bill 52-14 has an expiration date of January 1, 2019.
This packet contains:
Bill 52-14
Legislative Request Report
Council Vice President Leventhal Memo
Fiscal and Economic Impact statement
F:\LAW\BILLS\1452 Pesticides\Continued PH 2-12-15.Docx
Circle
#
1
13
14
18
19
http://www.epa.gov/oppOOOOl/factsheets/ipm.htm
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No.
52-14
Concerning: Pesticides
Notice
Requirements
Non-essential
Pesticides - Prohibitions
Revised: October 22,2014
Draft No. ---"'9_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Introduced:
October 28,2014
Expires:
April 28, 2016
Enacted: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Executive: --'-_ _ _ _ _ _ __
Effective: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
Sunset Date: January 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:
(I)
require posting ofnotice for certain lawn applications ofpesticide;
(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.
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-IO, 33B-l1, 33B-12, and 33B-13
Boldface
Underlining
[Single boldface brackets]
Double 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 unaffected by bill.
The County Council for Montgomery County, Maryland approves the following Act:
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Bill No. 52-14
1
Sec. 1.
Sections
33B-1, 33B-2, 33B4, 33B-5, 33B-6
and
33B-7
are
2
3
amended, and Sections
33B-8, 33B-9, 33B-IO, 33B-ll, 33B-12,
and
33B-13
are
added as follows:
ARTICLE 1. General Provisions
4
5
6
33B-l.
Definitions.
In
this [chapter] Chapter:
Agriculture
means the business, science, and art of cultivating and managing
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
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.
Custom applicator
means a person engaged in the business of applying
14
15
16
pesticides.
Department
means the Department of Environmental Protection.
Director
means Director of the Department of Environmental Protection[,] or
17
18
the Director's designee.
Integratedpest management
means
~
process for managing pests that:
19
20
21
ill
ill
uses monitoring to determine pest injury levels;
combines biological, cultural, mechanical, physical, and chemical
tools and other management practices to control pests in
cost
effective,
and environmentally
sound
~
safe,
22
23
24
manner that
contributes to the protection ofpublic health and sustainability;
ill
uses knowledge about pests, such as infestations, thresholds, life
histories, environmental requirements, and natural control of
pests; and
25
26
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\biIl9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
27
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.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Larvicide
means
~
pesticide designed to kill larval pests.
Lawn
means an area of land, except agricultural land, that is:
(l)
[Mostly] mostly covered by grass, other similar herbaceous
plants, shrubs, or trees; and
(2)
[Kept] kept
trim
by mowing or cutting.
~
35
36
Lawn
includes an athletic playing field other than
not include
~
garden.
golf course.
Lawn
does
37
38
39
Neonicotinoid
means
nicotine.
~
class of neuro-active pesticides chemically related to
Neonicotinoid includes acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran,
imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam.
40
41
42
43
44
45
Non-essential pesticide
means
pesticide under Section 33B-4.
~
pesticide designated as
~
non-essential
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 defmed
as a pest by applicable state regulations.
46
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.
47
48
49
50
51
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.
52
f:\Iaw\bills\14S2 pesticides\bill9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
53
Private lawn application
means the application of
~
pesticide to
~
lawn on
54
55
property owned
Qy
or leased to the person applying the pesticide.
Private
lawn application
does not include:
56
57
58
59
60
ill
ill
ill
applying
~
pesticide for the purpose of engaging in agriculture;
applying
~
pesticide around or near the foundation of
~
building
for purpose of indoor pest control;
applying
~
pesticide to
~
golf course or turf farm.
Vector
means an animal, insect, or microorganism that carries and transmits an
infectious pathogen into another organism.
[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.
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
*
[33B-6] 33B-4. Regulations.
(a)
*
*
The [County] Executive must adopt regulations to carry out this Chapter
under method (2).
f:\Iaw\bills\14S2 pesticides\bill9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
(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.
W
The Executive must include in the regulations adopted under this
Section
~
list of non-essential pesticides.
The list of non-essential
pesticides must include:
ill
all pesticides classified as "Carcinogenic to Humans" or "Likely
to Be Carcinogenic to Humans"
Qy
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency;
85
86
87
88
ill
ill
all pesticides classified
Qy
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency as
~
"Restricted Use Product";
all pesticides classified as
~
89
"Class 9" pesticide
Qy
the Ontario,
90
91
Canada,
Ministry
ofthe Environment;
ill
ill
@
all pesticides classified as
~
"Category
1
Endocrine Disruptor"
Qy
the European Commission; and
any . other pesticides which the Executive determines are not
critical to pest manAAement in the County.
92
93
94
95
96
The Executive must include in the regulations adopted under this
Section
~
list of invasive species that may be detrimental to the
97
environment in the County.
98
99
100
W
The Executive must review and update the lists of non-essential
pesticides and invasive species designated under subsections (£) and
@
Qy
July
1
of each year.
101
102
103
104
[33B-7] 33B-5. Penalty for violating chapter.
(a)
(b)
Any violation ofthis Chapter is a class C violation.
Each day a violation continues is a separate offense.
ARTICLE 2. Notice Requirements.
f:lJaw\bills\1452 pesticideslbill9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
105
106
107
108
109
[33B-2] 33B-6. Notice about pesticides to customer.
(a)
In
thls [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.
110
III
112
(b)
A custom applicator must give to a new customer:
113
114
(1)
[Before] before application, a list of:
[a.](A)
used;
[b·]illJ
[The] the generic name of each pesticide that might
[The] the trade name of each pesticide that might be
115
116
117
118
119
be used; and
[c.](g
[Specific] specific customer safety precautions for
each pesticide that might be used; and
(2)
[After] after application, a list of:
[a.](A)
and
[b.](ID
120
121
[The] the trade name of each pesticide actually used;
122
123
[The] the generic name of each pesticide actually
124
used; and
(3)
[A]
~
written notice about pesticides prepared by the [department]
125
126
127
Department under subsection (c) [ofthls 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) [ofthls section].
(d)
The notice prepared by the [department] Department under subsection
(c) [ofthls section] must include:
t\law\bills\1452 pesticides\biIl9.doc
128
129
130
131
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 52-14
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
(l)
[Government] government agency phone numbers to call to:
[a.](A)
[b.]@}
[Make] make a consumer complaint;
[Receive]
receIve
technical
information
on
pesticides; and
[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.](A)
[Be] be licensed by the Maryland Department of
Agriculture; and
[b.]@}
(4)
[A]
§:
[F
ollow] 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 ofthe customer with a pesticide.
[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 ofthe area where pesticides will be applied.
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
(b)
A [sign posted] marker required under this [section] Section must:
(l)
[Be] be clearly visible [from the principal place of access to] to
persons immediately outside the perimeter ofthe 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]
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\bill9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL No. 52-14
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
(4)
[Have] have wording with content and dimensions approved by
the [department] Department[.]; and
ill
!ill
be in place on the day that the pesticide is applied.
33B-8. Posting signs after application
~
property owner
Q!
tenant.
A person who performs
~
private lawn application treating an area
more than 100 square feet must place markers within or along the
perimeter of the area where pesticides will be applied.
(hl
A marker required under this Section must:
ill
ill
be clearly visible to persons immediately outside the perimeter of
the property;
be
~
size, form, and color approved by the Department;
be made of material approved by the Department; and
have wording with content and dimensions approved by the
Department; and
ill
ill
ill
be in place on the day that the pesticide is applied.
ARTICLE 3. Application restrictions.
33B-9. Prohibited application.
A person must not
rumlY
~
non-essential pesticide to
~
lawn.
33B-IO. Exceptions and Exemptions.
ill
A person may
purposes:
mmlY
~
non-esssential pesticide for the following
ill
ill
ill
ill
for the control ofweeds as defmed in Chapter 58, Weeds;
for the control of invasive species listed in
under Subsection 33B-4(d);
for pest control while engaged in agriculture; and
for the maintenance of
~
golf course.
~
regulation adopted
t\law\bills\1452 pesticides\biIl9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
®
A person may
mmlY
to the Director for an exemption from the
prohibition of Section 33B-9 for
g
non-essential pesticide. The Director
may grant an exemption to
mmlY
g non-essential pesticide on property
where application is prohibited under Section 33B-9 if the applicant
shows that:
ill
ill
ill
(£}
effective alternatives are unavailable;
gnmting 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
mmlY
to the Director for an emergency exemption from
the prohibition in Section 33B-9 if g pest outbreak poses an imminent
threat to public health or if significant economic damage would result
from the inability to use g pesticide prohibited.Qy Section 33B-9. The
Director may impose specific conditions for the granting of emergency
exemptions.
33B-ll. Outreach and Education Campaign.
The Executive must implement g public outreach and education campaign
before and during implementation of the provisions of this Article. This campaign
should include:
203
204
205
ill
®
(£}
@
informational mailers to County households;
distribution of information through County internet and web-based
resources;
radio and television public senrice announcements;
news releases and news events;
information translated into
Spanish, French, Chinese, Korean,
206
207
208
209
UU
Vietnamese, and other languages, as needed;
f:\law\bills\14S2 pesticides\bill9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL NO. 52-14
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
ill
(g)
extensive use of County Cable Montgomery and other Public,
Educational, and Government channels funded
!2y
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.
ARTICLE 4. County Property
33B-12. Prohibition on County-owned property.
{ill
Prohibition.
Except as provided in subsection (Q1
apply to any property owned
!2y
the County:
~
person must not
ill
ill
~
non-essential
pesticide; or
~
nionicotinoid.
!hl
Exceptions.
ill
A person may use any larvicide or rodenticide on property owned
!2y
the County as
~
public health measure to reduce the spread of
disease vectors under recommendations and guidance provided
!2y
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
~
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
tamper-proof
~
product, unless the rodenticide is designed and registered for
specific environment inaccessible to humans and pets.
ill
ill
A person may use
~
non-essential pesticide or neonicotinoid for
the purposes set forth in Subsection 33B-l O(a).
A person may use
~
non-essential pesticide or neonicotinoid on
property owned
Qy
the County if the Director determines, after
consulting the Directors of General Services and Health and
Human Services. that the use of pesticide is necessary to protect
f:\lawl,bills\1452 pesticides'lbill9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No.
52-14
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
human health or prevent imminent and significant economic
damage, and that no reasonable alternative is available.
If
~
pesticide is used under this paragraph, the Director must, within
30 days after using the pesticide, report to the Council on the
reasons for the use ofthe pesticide.
33B-13. Inte2rated pest management.
(ill
Adoption
gf
program.
The Department must adopt,
Qy
~
method
ill
regulation, an integrated pest management program for property owned
Qy
the County.
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
®
Requirements.
Any program adopted under subsection
(ill
must require:
ill
ill
ill
ffi
ill
monitoring the
turf
or landscape;
accurate record-keeping documenting any potential
~
problem;
evaluating the site for any injury caused
Qy
determining the appropriate treatment;
using
~
~
pest and
treatment that is the least damaging to the general
environment and best preserves the natural ecosystem;
using
~
treatment that will be the most likely to produce long­
~
term reductions in
control requirements and is operationally
feasible and cost effective
in
the short and long term;
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
®
ill
@)
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.
(2)
®
f:\law\bills\14S2 pestlcides\bil/9.doc
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
BILL
No. 52-14
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
(£}
The Department must provide training in integrated pest management
for each employee who is responsible for pest management.
Sec. 2. Initial Lists of Non-Essential Pesticides and Invasive Species. The
Executive must submit the lists of non-essential pesticides and invasive species
required by Subsections
33B-4(c)
and (d) to the Council for approval by October
1,
2015.
Sec. 3. Effective Date.
The prohibitions on use of non-essential pesticides
contained in Section
33B-9
and the prohibitions on use of non-essential pesticides
and neonicotinoids contained in Section
33B-12
take effect on January
1,2016.
Sec. 4. Expiration. This Act and any regulation adopted under it expires on
January
1,2019.
Approved:
274
275
George Leventhal, President, County Council
276
Approved:
Date
277
Isiah Leggett, County Executive
Date
278
This is
a
correct copy ofCouncil action.
279
Linda M. Lauer, Clerk of the Council
Date
f:\law\bills\1452 pesticides\biIl9.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 ofpesticide, 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 offamilies, 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:
GOALSAND
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
MONTGOMERVCOUNTY COUNCIL
ROCKVILL.E, MARYLAND.
GEORGE LEVENTHAL
COUNCILMEMBER
AT-LARGE
MEMORANDUM
October 22, 2014
TO:
Councilmembers
George Leventhal. Council Vice President
Pesticide Legislation
FROM:
SUBJECT:
~
This coming Tuesday. O<:tober 28, I
will
be introducing legislation aimed at protecting the health
of families- and especially children -
from
the
ullnecessaryrisks
associated with the use of
certain cosmet1cpesticides that have been linked to a wide-range of diseases, and which provide
no health benefits.
As you know. for the beuer part ofthe·
last
year, 1 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
ofthe issue,
to
learn more about how. pesticides are
being applied in the c{)unty, what other governments are doing to ensure
that
the public's health is
being protecteil, and what the latest research tells us about their risks. The legislation that 1 am
introducing on
TUe;sday
incorporates feedback
J
received from proponents and opponents on the
previous draft ofthe bill, wh.ieh I shared with your offices back in
May.
The result is a
bill
that
balar.ices
the
rights
of homeowners to maintain a
beautifull1i~n
with the
rights
ofres.idents who
prefer to not be exposed to chemicals that have known health effects;
J
view this bill as a starting
point in
ollr discussion which
can
be
tweaked along the
way.
1
want to preface
my
concerns
by
affirming the value of pesticides when they are used to protect
public health, the environment,ourfooo or our water supply, but \vhen
~'ticides
are used solely
to improve theappeardJIce
of
landscapeS,
they
can
cause more harm than good.
In
my view.
cosmetic pesticides present a substantial threat to the health of today'
$
children.
The AmerIcan
Academy of Pediatrics states that children
face
tbe greatest risk from the chemicals
they
contain,
and that epidemioiQgic evidence demonstrates associations between early life exposure to
pesticides and pe.diatriccancerS, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems such as
ADHD.
I
Certain ioxic chemicals can cause pennanent brain damage in children even at low
levels ofexposure that would have little to no adverse effect in an
adult.2
A child doesn
't
even
Pudiatrics.
Pesticide Exposure in Childrtm, Volume 130,
No.6,
1757 - 1163, December, 2012
.
2
Dr.
l>hiHippe Grandjcan. MD,
Dr.
Phillip Landrigan, MD,
Tire Lancet Neurology,
Neurobehavioral Efiects of
J
STEP~e)rf'W~1~~~X~~I~&~l(}rL~.,J~~u~3.,tl8t1j,,~}~~'b:;QJ~NWE:,
6TH
FLOOR.
ROCKVILLJl:.IvtARYLAND,Zoa50
2401777-7611 OR
240n77"7900.
TTY
24Dn77-7$114,
FAX240n77-7969
WWW.MONTGOMERYCOWNTYMO.GOV/C;OUNCIL
tf,
PRINTEP ON
RECYCI.£D
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 bas been doc.umented to
increas~the
risk
ofcancer in chiIdhood.
l
Virtually every pregnant woman in the United States is exposed to
multiple chemicals during a SMsitive period of fetaf development that have been linked to
advel'sereprod.uctive
and
developmental outcomes.
4
Adults are also
at
risk of developing serious health
problems
duc to pesticide exposure.
R¢searchers
at
the
Nationallnstitlltes of
Health
have linked
pestici~e
use to
a
\\'1dersnge
of
diseases and conditions. Exposure
to
certain pesticides has been linked to Parkinson's disease,
diabetes,
leukemia, lymphoma., lupus,
rheumatoid
atthritis,
dementia, reproductivedysfUnctiotl,
s
Alzheimer's
disease, and variety of cancers including breast,
colon,
prostate and lung cancer.
In addition to the adverse health effects to humans, pesticides can also affect animals, hothpets
and wildlife, and our waterways. A recentstudy by the United States GeologicaJ Survey has
found that 90% ofurban area waterways now have
pefiticide
levels high enough to hann aquatic
life, and moreover,
the
USGS said the hann to aquatic life
waslikeJyunderstated
in their report.
6
Terrestrial
wildlife
is also being
hanned 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 ealled nennicotinoids. 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
incre~
over previous years, which averaged about a one-third .loss
annually.?
Before
J
describe
what
this bill
d~,
let me describe what
this
bill dOes not do. This bill dQe$ not
ban the use ofall pesticides;
it
would. however, restrict the use of certain toxic chemicals that are
most
dangerous to hll1Tlal1 health. This
bill
does
not
prohibit the use of
any~sticide
for gardens.
And this bill would not prohibit the use of
any
pesticide for agricultural use. Whatthis bill does
do is seek to limit .children's exposure to harmful pesticides in places where children are most
likely
to
be
exposed to them.
That
being said, the
major provisions ofthebiU
are:
1) Require the posting of notice w.hen a property owner applies a pesticide to
an
area
of
lawn more than 100 s'luare feet, conSistent with the notice requirements for when a
landscaping business treats a
la\VI1
with a pesticides;
2) Require the Executive to designate a list of"'non-essential" pesticides including:
• an
pes,ticides classified as
"Carcinogenic
to
Humans"
or "Likely to
ae
Carcinogenic to Humans"
by
the U.S. EPA;
• aU pesticides classified by the U.S. EPA a$ "Restricted Use Products;"
3
American
Coliegel!!lObsJetricians
&
Gynrcologis!s.
Commiuee Opinion
No. 575. American
CoHege.bfObsletrtcialls
and Gynecologists.
931-5.
October 2o.B
4
Environmental Health
fimpcclives,
Environmental Chemicals in Pregnlillt Women in the Unite4 States:NHANES
2003-2004, Tracey J. Woodruff.
Ami
R.Zota, JackieM.
SChwart7~
Volume
I J9, No.6,
878-885. J1.loe
201 I
5
Jan
Ehrman,
NIH Record,
Pesticide lIse Linked to Lupus. Rheumatoid Arthritis.
bttp:ffnihrecon:Lnih,gnv!newslenersf201 UO) 18
2m
I!SlO!:,y4.htm (accesS\.."{\ August 3,
2014)
6
US Geological
Survey.
An Overview Comparing ReSUlts from Two Decades of Monitoring
for
Pesticides
lnthe
Nation's
Streams
and Rivers. 1992-2001
and
2002·20! 1.
Wesley W. Stone, Robert
J.
Gilliom, Jeffrey D. Martin,
http://pubs.usgs,govisir12Q14/5154fl?9!!sir2QI4-5154.pdf (accessed
October 20, 2014)
1
Tim Wheeler,. Mysterious bee die-oll'
continues, extends
beyond
winter,
Baltimare Sun,
ht1p:!!artide.~,bi\ttimwesYn,£QmaQI4-!li:J$![~dt\lreslbat.o.m\'lilerious-b~.gie()ff·oont~vDel!tl~·hl.\lf·~land-hi
ves­
lost·20 !:!Q,uLLQyc-infQrmed-partoershi/rhQoey-bee;beekeepers
(accessed Oetuber20,
2014)
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
• all pesticides. classified as
"Class 9"
pesticides
by
~be
Ontario,
Canada, Ministry
of
the Environment;
and.
• all pesticides
classified
as
"Category
1 Endocrine
Disruptors" by
the European
Commission
Generally prohibit the application
ofrion~essential
pesticides
to
lawns,
with exceptions
for
no:xiou~
weed
and invasive
species
contTO~
agrlcuJtureand gardens,
and
golf courses;
Require the Ex.ecutive to conduct
a.
public outreach and
edlJcatioo
campaign before and
during
the
implementation of
the
Bil1;
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
l, 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
notjustify inaction.
Aseviden~dby
this
memo, the number
of
studies from respected institutions of
science
linking pesticides
10a
variety
of
can~ers,
ncurodevelopmental disorders
and
diseases
is abundant and persuasi've. FiJrthennore,
due. to the
inestimable
number of chemical combinations possible
from
the thousands of
products
on
the.n1arket
and
the
complex. interactiollswitll
the human
body.
the research
that
opponents
to
this legislation will
demand
wiH
never be possible within
the
ethical confines of research. The
real
danger
lies not in being ex.posed toone chemical, but a .inix,ture of chemicals. The EPA risk
assessment
fails to look
at
the synergistic
eff~'ts
of mUltiple
chemicals,
ev¢n though studies
show
that
exposure
to
multiple chemicals
that act on
the same adverse
outcome can have a
greater
e·ffect than exposure to
an
individual chemical.s
And to the cbarge
mat
a pesticide must
be
safe
if it
has been
approved
bythe
EPA•. the
Government
Accountability
Office (GAO) ha.'> found that many pesticides are currently beIng
approved
for
consumer
use
by
the EPA without receipt and rev.iew ofdata
that
the manufacturer
is required
to provide
on
the
satety
of the chemicals.
9
Alanningly, in some cases the.manufacturer
was
given
two years to submit studies on the
eff~"'ts
of
a
pesticide.
and ten years later no studies
ha.d
been received or reviewed by
the
EPA.
10
What's more.
the
EPA
itself pUblishes
an
entire
manual
Recognition and Managemerzt o/Pesticide Poisonings.
~
for
healthcareprofessipnals
that
acknowledges the toxic nature and effects of many pesticides. As an educated populace, we like
to
think that we have a high bar
fot
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 \,vaterways,
It is simply
false to say
that
YOIl
can't
have a
Jush" green la\\<D -
free of weeds -
without
the use of toxjc
pesticides. Through proper
management
of the soil, along
witbthe
use
of natural, organic
altematives
to synthetic
pesticides, a high quality landscape can
be
achieved. And under
my
Natitinal Research Council,
Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used
by
the
u.S.
EPA.
Sciel1ce
and
Decisi9ns.: Advancing Risk
Assc:ssment.
Wasnington.
DC:
National
Academies
Press; 2008
9
Unfled Stafes Govcrnment AccoulIlahility Offici'"
Pesticides •... EPA Should TIlke Steps
to
Improve
its Oversight of
p>nditional
Registrations.htW:I/www.g.ao.g()vfWlSets!660!6568~..J.ljf
(accessed October
20, 2014)
,0
Uizifed Slales GrNefnl1U!nI
AccQunt(lbilily
Office,
Pesticides - EPA ShouJdTake Steps
to
Improve its Ovcrsightof
ConditioIlal Registrations.
http://www.gjlQ,gQv/~~h~{65§.ftf2c,QgHaccessed
October
20, 2014)
3
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
legislation, residents
will
still
be
free to hire any lawn care professional to treat their lav..-n or
to
manage their own lawn care.
Much
like
the public debate that occurred in the
1950'sbefore
cigarettes were found to be cancer­
causing, I believe we are approaching Bsimilar turning point in the discourse on pesticides
as
the
public is made more aware of the
knO\\l1
health effects. In a poll taken earlier this year
r
more than
three~uarters
of Marylanders expressed CQncern about the risk thatpesticides pose to them or
their families, and when respondents learned of the adverse helllth effects that pesticides are
linked to,
900/0
of Marylanders expressed concern.!
I
America lags
behind
by
the rest
ofthe developed world in recognizing the
serious
risks that
certain pesticides pose to health and life. The GAO's report confinns that the regulatory approach
taken
by
thc.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 to protect the
health of our children. In Montgomery County, we regularly take a precaptionary approach to
public health and
environmental
issues, such as with the forthcoming legislation on
e~cigarettes
and the Council's action on Ten Mile Creek. Out' appr()ach to pesticides should be no different.
I have attached aU ofthe studies that I have cited in this memo for your reference, but
J
hope you
will take time to reviewresearch beyond what I have provided. If, after reviewing theresearch,
you feel compelled to act as I do. 1 would we1comeyottr
co~sponsorship
on this bilL
This
issue is among the
mosttechnically
complex which the Council
has
ever faced.
Therefore.
it
iscriticaJ
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-informed
decision
regard.ing
this important public health
issue.
OpinionWorks,
Maryland Voter Survey on Pesticides bnp:l!www.tl.1lipestn
ct
.otWWJl­
conte.ntluploadsl20)!!d1UP.£Uil::14i....PQIl.M£Ul2::2-1
Q-J4.pdf
(Accessed on OctQber 20.
20~
4)
.
11
@
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
ROCKVHJ..E: MARYLAND
MEMORANDUM
January 26. 2015
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Georg<!
Leventhal,
President, County Council
Jennifer A. Hugh
Joseph F. Beacb,
agement and Budget
FEIS
for
Bill
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,
Otlices
of
the
County
Executive
Joy Nunni,
Special Assista.nt to the
County Executive
Patrick Utcefield, Director, Public
Information Ofilce
Fariba
Kassiri. Acting
Director, Department
of Environmental
Protection
Joseph F.
Beach,
Director,
Department of Finance
David Platt, Department ofFinance
Matt Schaeffer, Office ofManagement and Budget
Alex Espinosa, Office
of
Management and Budget
Felicia Zhang, Office of Management and Budget
Naeem Mia, Office of Management and Budget
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
·
Fiscal Impact Statement
.
Bill 52-14: Pesticides - Nptice Requirements - Non-Essential Pesticides - Prohibitions
1. Legislative
Summa.,.
The bill would
updat~
county
law with regard
to
pesticides application
in
the
fol1o-wing
manner:
(I)
require posting
ofnotice for certain lawn applications ofpesticide;
(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;
!
(5) generdlly
amend
C<)unty
law regarding
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
Chan~.
es
,m
Co.unty
revenue~
and expenditures.
re.gardless
ofwhether
,.4:
tbe
revenues
or
e~dltures
are assumed m the rectllitmended or approved budget.
Includes source of information, assumptions,
and
methodologies used.
O.)unty
revenues are riot expected to be impacted
by
Bill 52-14.
The
Maryland-National
Capital Park and Planfllng Commission (M
~NCPPC)
did
report
that there is a potential
for lost revenues ifp14ying fields are not able to be adequately maintained - this revenue
has traditionally
cotn~
in in
the form of field rental
fro~
athletic leagues.
County departments and agencies performed a fiscal impact analysis
of
the
major
provisions and
conclup~
the
fol1owing;
o Section 33B-4 requires the
county
to develop a list ofnon-essential pesticides and
invasive species which would be detrimental
to
the environment. The Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) does not
envision
Ii
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
n~
to
be
brought
in
to
assist
with
this
task.
o Sectiol1 33B-13
requires
the County Executive to create an Integrated Pest
Management
(IPM)
program. The Department of General Services (DOS) reported
no fiscal impact ru,td
is
currently operating under an
IPM
and the Executive branch
would utilize
this
plan across county departments underBill 52-14.
o
Enforcement of
Bm
52-14 is not clarified in
great
detail within
the
legislation.
Similar to other prohibition legislation, executive
staff
recommends a complaint­
driven enforcemerit model
to
control costs of
implementation.
It
is
likely that
complaint-driven enforcement would have a minimal fiscal impact on county
departments
whil~
estimates for a proactive enforccPlcnt effort include a dedicated
inspector
-with
estiJtnated personnel costs of
$75.000
and vehicle costs of
approximately $4\),000 for a
total
of$115,000 per inspector.
o Bill 52-14 would also require county departments and agencies to convert
to
approved landscaping practices outside of the list of banned non-essential pesticides
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
in the cases wherein prohibited
pesticides
are being used.
Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPSJreported
~hat
it is likely
that
pesticides
prohibited under Bill 52-14 are being used currently
and
that a conversion cost
estimate would
be
available after an agreed list of
probib~ted
pesticides is estab1i$hed.
Based on estimates ofconversion costs for 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
follov.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 dressing;
$100,000 for the purchase oftwo aerators;
for
a
total
first
year cost of$I,075,l1O.
Additional
costs
in
subsequent
years also
include:; .
Sod replacement
~very
two years at a cost of
S20,:W:Oper
field or $817,600 and
additional grading every four
years
at a total·of
$lq,OOO
per field or $400,000.
• Five Bermuda playing fields cannot be organically treated and would need to be
replaced
with
treatable sod for $102,200 per field
ol
a total cost of $511,000.
• Optional
replacement costs for a synthetic
turf
opti~>n
are $1,400,000
per
field
~ith
$3,700
in
annual maintenance or a total capital cost of$56,ooO;000 and a
$148,000 annual maintenance cost for
all
forty fields.
Regional Fields:
• 35 regional fields will need irrigation installed
to
maintain organic maintenance
standards at the following cost:
$3~500,OOO
in capital costs for system
installations;.
$231,000 in annual water CO$ts;
.
$350,000 in annual maintenance costs;
for a first year cost of $4,081,000.
Local Fields:
• 300 local fields v..'ould require manual or mechanical weed elimination at a total
annual
cost of $229,860.
In total, implementation costs to bring M·NCPPC fielp.s into cOlllpliance (absent a
total conversion to synthetic
turf)
would
be:
;
Total first year costs to M·NCPPC would be $5,8%,970.
Recurring annual cC)sts for M-NCPPCwould
be
$810~860.
Sod
Replarernent
costseveIY two years would be $8J7,600.
Additional grading costs every four years for M..NCPpC would be $400,000.
3. Revenue and expenditure estimates covering at least
the
next 6 fiscal years.
Tota! conversion
costs to allowable
landscaping
practices
~()r
the county would include
an
undetermined amount for MCPS
to
replace current pestici4es in inventory and a six. year
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
total of
$12~804,070
f9f
M~NCPPC
as a
part
of converting maintenal}Ce practices on
current fields to allQwJ!b1e practices under BiIl52-14.
M-NCPPC's six-year
estimate
of $12,804,070
in
conversion costs consists of:
$5,896,970
in
first
ye~
costs
$4,054,300
in
subsequent annual expenses [$810,8.60
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
that a
prt'lactive enforeement effort
is
needed to enforce
the
bill~
a
dedicated inspector would
be
required at a personnel cost of $75,000 and a vehicle
cost
would
of
$40,000,
fora 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
req'
the
County Executive
to
establish an awareness campaign related
to the prohibitions
in the bill. Costs related to
the
media campaign will depend on
the scope and size
0
e media campaign. The County Executive recommends an
education and outrene program of
miniplal
cost to the county.
1
4.
An
actuarial analysis through the entire
amortizatioll
period
for
ea:ch
bill that would
affeef
retiree
pension
or
group
insura.Jl~e
costs.
Not Applicable.
5.
An
estimate
of expetiditures
related
to
County's
information
t~hnology
(IT)
systems,
ipcluding Ertterprise
ResourGe Planning (ERP) systems.
Not Applicable.
6. Later
adions tbatm.y
affect future
future
spending.
.
r~venue
aIldexpenditQtes
if
the bill authorizes
Not Applicable.
7. An estimate of the st.rt time
needed
to
implement
the
bill.
The impact ofimplementation oiBill 52-14 on staff time will depend on the extent of the
enforcement
required for the
proyisions
in
the
bill. Inspections on lawns,
commercial
sales establishments fur signage. and other general enforcement actions will have an
impact on various coup.ty departments sinrilar to other countywide ban legislation.
IfBil1 52-14
requires·an
enforcement
inspector~
approximate personnel costs ofan.
inspector would be
$~5,OOO
and a vehicle would be $40,000 for a total ofS115,OOO
per
inspector.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
If enforcement ofBil152-14 is complaint-driven, there would be an impact to current
inspection operations by increasing the extent ofsome exikting inspection protocols but
would result in minimal fiscal impact to the county.
.
8. An explanation of how the addition of new staff respoIisibilities would affect other
dnties.
Depending on the enforcement model of Bill 52-14. the bill would impact the total
number of inspection houtS required. An inspector carrying out an inspection in a retailer
for health code and other violations, for example, could be required to add on additional
inspections for checks of signage and other sales
require~ents
ofpesticides to their
normal inspection process.
.
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 oonverting contracts to include
compliant pysticide application- CountY departments reported no fiscal impacts
considering DOS
already
operates
an
IPM.
MCPSreport~d
that there would
be
costs
associated
\\-ith
converting to approved pesticides from peSticides currently
in
use and
that the extent ofthese conversion costs will not be knowQ until a fmallist ofbanned
pesticides has been established by DEP.,
M-NCPPC
estimates. their conversion costs to allowable landscaping practices (excluding
a conversion to artificial
turf)
to be $12,804,070 Over the nex1: six
years.
See item 3 for
additional infonnation on M-NCPPC's estimated converSion costs.
2) CostsasSQciated Vi-ith·(\. media
catppaign~Bi1l
52-14 requires that the County Executive
establish a media campaign to publici7-C the ban on certain' non-essential pesticides.
Costs
related
to
this
media camprugn
'Will vary
depending
bn
the
scope
and size of
the
campaign; and
3) Costs
associated
withenforcemenl
of
BiU 52-14-If dedicated enforcement personnel
are needed to enforce
the
provisions of
Bill
52-14, approximate personnel costs
ofan
inspector would be $75,000 and a vehicle would be $40,000 for a total of$115,OOO per
inspector.
10. A description of
any
variable. tbat could affect revenue and cost estimates.
See Item
9
above.
11. Ranges of revenue or
~penditures
that are uncertain Jr dij'ficult
ttl
project.
M-NCPPC reports
that
loss ofrevenue is likely to occur
if
the spraying of certain non­
essential pesticides prohibited
in
Bill
52~
14 is eliminated
~
a
part
ofthe
current
playing
field maintenance program. M-NCPPC.reports
~
other jurisdictions have seen a loss of
revenue from athletic tournaments leagues choose to take outside oftbe county.
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
12.
If
a bill
is
likely
to
h~e
no fiscal impact, why that
is
the case.
Not Applicable.
13. Other fiscal impacts or comments.
Both M':'NCPPC and the Department of Recreation (REC) are also
concerned about how this prohibition will impact recreational and
sport
fields
throughout the county! There are mUltiple jurisdictional studies suggesting a
prohibition ofthis type on
sport
fields leads
to
degradation oftbeplaying field and
may lead
to
injury.
14. The following contri'uted to and concurred with this analysis:
Stan Edwards, Department of Environmental Protection
.Tames Song,
Montgomery County Public Schools
David ViSlllar3, Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission
Beryl Feinberg, Departm.ent ofC'reneral Services
Matt Schaeffer, Office of Management
and
Budget
Date
1/26/[5
2.3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Bill 52-14, Pe$ticid¢s - Notice Requirements - Non-Essential Prohibitions
According to Diffen.otg, organic pesticides are much more expensive than synthetic
or chemical pesticides because synthetic or chemical pesticides have more
concentrated levels ofnutrients per weight of product than organic pesticides. Ine
user of organic
pestici~es
needs several pounds oforganic pesticide that would
prQvide the same nutrient levels as synthetic or chemical pesticide. That differential
in the
amounts
would result in a higher
co~1·of
organic pesticide.
Therefore, there
is
a conflict between the information provided by SafeLavms.org and
Difien.org regarding the cost differential between organic
and
synthetic/chemical
pt.'Sticidcs. SafeLawns.org suggests there
is
less application of organic to
synthetiC/chemical
pe~cide
while according to Diffen.org, one needs a higher
quantity oforganic pe$ticide 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 ofopinions 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 would
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
COWIty,
more consultation with the
expert"
and
research are needed. to determine the economic effect on the
County.
4.
If
a Bill is likely
to
have no economic impact, why is that the case?
It
is uncertain if
Bill
5~-14
has
an economic impact.
5. The following contributed to or concurred with this analysis:
David
Platt
and Rob
Hagedoo~
Finance, and Stan Edwards, Department of Environmental Protection.
Page 20f2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
Economic Impact Statement
Bill 52-14, Pesticides
~
Notice
Requirement.~
- Non-EsSentmlProhibitioDs
Background!
This legislation would require the posting of a notice when a property owner applies a
pesticide to an area of
lawn
IV-ore 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 Environmental Protection
Agency
(USEPA);
• All pesticides classified
by USEPA
as "Restricted UseProoucts'1;
~
• 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 pestiddes which the County Executive determines are not critical
to
pest
management in the County.
'
The Bill would prohibit
the
application ofnon..essential pestiddes to lawns, with
exceptions for noxious weed and invasive species control, agriculture and gardens, and
golf courses.
The
Bm
would
also require the County 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.
1.
The sources of information, assumptions, and methodologies used.
Department of
Environmental
Protection (DEP)
SafeLawns.org
Diffen.org
The Fertilizer Institute (TFI)
Gt'dSsroots
Environmental Education
2. A description of
any variabletbat
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
SafeLa\\'1ls.org, the
cost
differential is comparing apples to oranges since
one
product
provides a short-tenn solution while the other product aims:
to
provide a long-tenn
solution. Organic products 'function
by
building up life in the soil (soil biology) and
their payoff is long-tenn and lasting" V\-llile synthetic
products"
which are
instantaneous~
are applied frequently and
in
greater amounts. Therefore,
SafeLa\\'1ls.org indicates that the users oforganic products will spend less money on
la\\'11 care over a two-year
period
than users
of
chemical or synthetic pesticides.
Page
1
of2
2.5