Draft bill would ban most rodenticides statewide, allow time‑limited exemptions for emergencies
Loading...
Summary
Legislative counsel walked a House committee through a draft bill that would classify first‑ and second‑generation anticoagulant and non‑anticoagulant rodenticides as restricted or prohibited, bar sales (including online) and permit limited exemptions for agricultural, environmental or significant public‑health emergencies; the effective date is Jan. 1, 2027.
Bridal Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel, told members that the draft of House bill 758 would prohibit the use and sale — including internet sales — of first‑ and second‑generation anticoagulant rodenticides and all non‑anticoagulant rodenticides in the state while allowing narrow, time‑limited exemptions in specific emergencies.
Schulman framed the change as both a reclassification and a prohibition. She said the bill would require the Secretary to register first‑generation anticoagulants as restricted‑use pesticides (Class A) and noted that second‑generation anticoagulants are already restricted at the state level. "This bill here proposes to prohibit the use of any first generation first and second generation anticoagulant rodenticides and all non anticoagulant rodenticides in the state, including use by commercial applicators," Schulman said, emphasizing that exemptions would be available only when there is an agricultural emergency, environmental emergency, or a "significant public health risk" and when no less‑harmful method would work.
Schulman cited data the draft uses to justify the change. "Between 2017 and 2021, the Center for Disease Control Prevention reported 40,808 poisonings of the humans," she said, adding that a 2024 ASPCA report showed 31,570 domestic animals in the U.S. with rodenticide poisoning. She also noted agency testing that found anticoagulant residues in fisher and bobcat carcasses in recent years, which the bill's findings identify as evidence of non‑target impacts. Schulman warned committee members that the word "exposure" in carcass testing does not, by itself, prove causation of death and recommended inviting scientists and Fish & Wildlife experts for detailed testimony.
The draft creates an exemption path that Schulman described as "as‑applied." Facilities or property owners would need to apply for a written exemption from the Secretary; such orders would be limited to six months, must specify the rodenticide and property, set mitigation measures for non‑target effects, and must be submitted to this House committee and the Senate Agriculture Committee. Schulman said the Secretary, in consultation with the natural resources secretary, may rescind an exemption order with a 15‑day effective period and must adopt rules to administer the statute and constrain certified applicators’ use to avoid significant harm to non‑target wildlife or environmentally sensitive areas.
Members raised implementation questions. Representative O'Brien asked whether federal law would preempt state action; Schulman replied that federal preemption is narrow and generally limited to label language on the pesticide itself, and that states have authority to impose stricter limits or bans. Other lawmakers asked whether food‑production facilities would receive automatic exemptions; Schulman said the draft requires an application for an as‑applied exemption but could be amended to create categorical exemptions by rule or statute. A member also flagged statutory language that defines 'rodenticide' to include "any other vertebrate animal that the secretary shall declare pest," warning that such language could unintentionally cover non‑rodent species and should be reviewed.
Schulman compared the draft to other states' approaches: several states (including New York and Connecticut) restrict second‑generation rodenticides as Class A; California has statutory exemptions for certain facilities, and this draft is framed as broader in prohibitory scope. The bill's effective date in the draft is Jan. 1, 2027.
No formal action or vote occurred during the briefing. Schulman and members agreed that technical witnesses (scientists, Agency of Agriculture staff, Fish & Wildlife experts) could help the committee assess causation, classification of specific chemicals, and how the proposed rules would operate in practice. The committee paused to take additional testimony later in the agenda.
