Committee delays action on SB 1318 amid legal concerns over "notwithstanding" language and chemical labeling

The Agriculture and Veterans Affairs Committee paused further action on Senate Bill 1318 after members raised legal and practical concerns about the bill’s language and its potential effect on labeling and liability for agricultural chemicals.

Chairman Lewick told the committee the law’s phrasing could reach beyond a narrow set of products. “My concern with 13 18 is the legal language in that bill,” he said, noting that the bill as drafted could affect “16,000 different chemicals and labelings on those jugs of different things that we use in agriculture.” He said he wanted to better understand the legal implications before moving the measure.

Members discussed the bill’s use of the word “notwithstanding,” which several senators said can create conflicts with existing code. Senator Bridal summarized the concern: when a provision begins with “notwithstanding,” it can create uncertainty about whether other code sections remain applicable. Bridal cited a code reference in the discussion: “Centricode 28, -1.3-four,” and said attorneys he had consulted were split on the interpretation and whether sellers and retailers could be exposed to liability.

Senator Winston echoed that uncertainty, asking whether a court could later treat an existing label as a “sufficient warning” even if the label were incorrect. Winston said opinions differed among attorneys and that outcomes could depend on judicial interpretation.

Senator Weber said he had received many emails urging opposition and questioned the legitimacy of some submissions, adding context about federal review: “EPA, I think is, you know, they they have their researchers and scientists and PhD, and they are very conservative in their rulings.”

Members discussed options to limit risk while allowing the policy to move forward, including a temporary sunset. Lewick reported advice he had received that suggested a longer review period; committee members discussed a two- or four-year sunset as a possible compromise to allow time for attorneys and agencies to study effects before the bill would fully take effect.

Committee members also said they would consult additional legal counsel and stakeholders, including Representative Porter and the Department of Water Resources where related issues were raised, before taking further action. The chair said he would seek additional input and reconvene the committee once members had more information.

No formal motion or vote on SB 1318 was taken during the meeting; members agreed to stand at ease while the chair pursued further information.