Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pesticide Waste Collection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews $50 pesticide registration fee proposal and orders DEC study on long-term funding
Summary
Sun, a member of the Natural Resources & Energy Committee, opened the May 1 meeting by identifying a provision in a draft amendment to the miscellaneous agricultural bill (H.4) that would affect pesticide waste collection.
Get email alerts on the Pesticide Waste Collection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sun, a member of the Natural Resources & Energy Committee, opened the May 1 meeting by identifying a provision in a draft amendment to the miscellaneous agricultural bill (H.4) that would affect pesticide waste collection.
Mr. Grady, a staff member, told the committee that “all pesticides in the state are required to register annually in order to be sold in the state, and there is a revolving fund in which the registration fees are deposited.” He said one purpose of that fund is to cover the cost of collecting obsolete and unwanted pesticides through municipal hazardous-waste collection events and permanent facilities. “However, the agency hasn't been paying for fully for the cost that municipalities incur in managing these waste pesticides,” Mr. Grady said, and the draft amendment aims to address that shortfall.
The amendment language discussed would add “an additional $50 per product” to the pesticide registration fee and deposit that revenue into the existing revolving fund for use in pesticide collection programs, Mr. Grady said. The draft also requires the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to study sustainable funding options, including consideration of an extended producer responsibility (EPR) program, and to submit findings to the legislature by Dec. 15, 2025. The draft directs DEC to recommend “the funding mechanism that will cover all costs associated with collection of obsolete and unwanted pesticides from municipal collection programs.”
Committee members asked clarifying questions about the drivers of the increased cost. One committee member asked whether the problem stemmed from higher use or more people bringing pesticides to collection events; Mr. Grady answered that it was a mix of factors, including high volumes and expensive disposal, and that current support from the agency is not covering the full cost.
No formal vote on the pesticide language was recorded in the transcript. The discussion on H.4’s pesticide provisions remained at the committee-review stage; the draft language as described would create a short-term revenue source ($50 per product added to registration) while tasking DEC with a yearlong study to recommend a permanent funding approach, potentially including EPR.
The committee record shows the proposal is part of draft “senate act committee amendment to H.4” and that the pesticide language reviewed appears on pages 24–26 of that draft. The draft sets the study deadline as Dec. 15, 2025.
Background: pesticide products sold in the state must be registered annually and registration fees are already deposited into a revolving fund that has been used, in part, to support collection of obsolete pesticides. The amendment discussed would earmark additional registration fee revenue for municipal collection and require a DEC study on long-term funding alternatives.

