Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Pesticide Notifications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House rejects bill requiring schools to notify parents about planned pesticide applications
Summary
A proposal to require annual and 72‑hour notifications by school districts about pesticide products—including EPA registration numbers—failed after extended debate about scope, necessity and cost. Sponsor Rep. Brian King framed the measure as a public‑health notice aimed at protecting sensitive children.
The Utah House on the afternoon of Feb. 25 debated and then rejected first substitute House Bill 301, which would have required school districts to provide annual notice to students, parents and staff about pesticide products planned for use at school buildings or grounds and to post shorter notices before off‑cycle applications.
"What this bill accomplishes is it requires schools to provide notification to students, parents, and teachers about any pesticides that are being used at the school," Representative Brian King, the bill sponsor, told the House during his presentation. The bill also would have required listing the product name, active ingredients, and the product's Environmental Protection Agency registration number, and describing the intended frequency of application.
King said the bill was intended as a modest, non‑burdensome public‑health measure. "We're trying to strike the right balance between making sure that individuals, families, and children have a knowledge about what pesticides are being applied without being too burdensome," he said, and noted that his office had talked with school districts and incorporated some of their suggestions.
Much of the floor exchange focused on two practical questions: what qualifies as an "urgent" application that would be exempt from advance notice, and whether existing rules for applicators or voluntary district practices already provide adequate notice. King described the urgent‑use exception as applications that must occur in less than 72 hours (for example, a sudden infestation of fire ants) and said he expected rulemaking to clarify routine versus exceptional uses.
Representative Chu asked whether the sponsor would define the "urgent" window. King replied: "If it's short of 72 hours, I think is the ... if you've got an infestation of fire ants ... that would fall within that urgent application time frame." Representative Anderegg asked how many cases statewide of illness or death from school pesticide application have been documented; King said he did not have statewide quantification and relied on constituent reports and the public‑safety argument.
Other members questioned whether the bill was necessary where districts already post notices or where licensed applicators may be subject to other rules. Representative Sagers suggested posting material safety data sheets online for access 24/7; King said the bill's targeted notice of planned application dates and products would be a more useful, time‑specific alert for parents of chemically sensitive children.
After debate, the House recorded the final tally on first substitute HB 301 at 29 yes and 43 no; the bill failed and will not advance.
Next steps: the transcript shows the bill failed on the floor vote and no further House action on HB 301 was recorded in this session.
Vote details: First substitute HB 301, vote 29‑43 (failed).
