Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pesticide Application Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Committee reviews bill to extend pesticide application safety committee through 2035

2212788 · January 31, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House Bill 1294 would extend the Pesticide Application Safety Committee (PASCO) for 10 years and remove a restriction that limited the advisory committee to one in‑person meeting per year; staff and the prime sponsor briefed the committee and no in‑person testimony was offered.

Committee staff briefed members on House Bill 1294 during the Jan. 31 Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee hearing. The measure would extend the Pesticide Application Safety Committee (PASCO) until July 1, 2035, and remove a statutory restriction limiting the advisory group to a single in‑person meeting each year.

Lily Smith, staff to the committee, said PASCO was created in 2019 to evaluate pesticide application safety and to produce an annual report to the Legislature. The advisory group includes farm workers, growers, applicators and a toxicologist, she said, and the member advisory group had been limited to one in‑person meeting.

Sponsor Rep. Tom Denn, introduced the bill as a continuation of work begun after a 2018 pesticide report and interim study that led to the committee’s creation in 2019. Denn told members the committee has provided a forum for applicators, growers and workers to collaborate on safety practices and said PASCO has been a “great tool for communication and collaboration.”

Committee members asked staff about a change in the fiscal note. Lily Smith said fiscal analysts were reviewing differences between the current fiscal estimate and last year’s, noting the current estimate came from the general fund rather than the previously proposed Motor Vehicle Account (MOTCO) source.

Public testimony was not offered in person; committee records show 29 pro and 4 con sign‑ins for the public record but no oral testimony at the Jan. 31 session. The bill was discussed in a public hearing only; no committee vote or final action was taken at this meeting.