Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticide Licensing Battery Sprayers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears mixed views on exempting battery‑powered backpack sprayers from machine‑powered applicator licensing
Summary
Testimony on Senate Bill 360 divided between proponents who say battery-powered sprayers reduce ergonomic strain for public employees and opponents who warn automation could increase pesticide use and risk; Department of Agriculture officials clarified scope and limits in a May 5 public hearing.
The Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water Committee on May 5 heard testimony for and against Senate Bill 360, a bill that would exempt certain employees using battery‑powered devices to apply pesticides from some current machine‑powered applicator licensing requirements and direct the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) to develop standards and training for safe use.
Senator David Brock Smith and Representative Eric Boyce described the bill as a constituent-driven effort to update licensing rules for newer, battery‑powered backpack sprayers, and said it would make application easier for public employees and small employers using nonrestricted pesticides. Tim Gross, a public‑sector maintenance worker, testified he uses backpack sprayers to maintain parks and public cemeteries and said a battery‑powered 5‑gallon sprayer relieves physical strain compared with a hand‑pump sprayer.
Opponents, including the Oregon Environmental Council, urged caution. Jay Ward of OEC said machine‑powered devices can increase the scale and consistency of application and therefore the potential for harm; he recommended retaining existing licensing while ODA studies risks and benefits. ODA staff (Deputy Director Jonathan Sandow in the transcript) explained the bill’s scope to the committee: the exemption is aimed at public applicator contexts, would not change rules for private or commercial applicators, and (as discussed in testimony) would provide an exemption for certain machine‑powered licensing up to a five‑gallon threshold in public‑applicator settings. ODA staff also clarified that aerial or drone application would still require appropriate aerial applicator licensing and that the bill does not change the rule excluding school campuses from the public‑applicator exemption.
Committee members asked questions about safety, whether the change would apply to school grounds, drone use, and who would be covered under the public‑applicator umbrella. Witnesses and staff answered that hand‑pump, small private applicator activity remains separate from public‑applicator licensing; the bill as described would not alter aerial/drone licensing and retains exclusions for school campuses. The hearing closed with no recorded committee vote in the transcript excerpt.
Direct quotes in testimony highlighted ergonomic benefits cited by a public employee and public‑health concerns raised by an environmental organization; ODA staff provided technical clarifications on license types and equipment categories.
