Senate adopts bill restricting some second‑generation anticoagulant rodenticides

The Colorado Senate on March 17 adopted Senate Bill 62, a measure that narrows regulation to second‑generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) and designates them as restricted‑use pesticides, meaning they may only be used by trained applicators under rules to be adopted by the Colorado Department of Agriculture.

Sponsor Senator Cutter, describing the products as "some of the most toxic products available to consumers," said the bill responds to harms to children, pets and wildlife, citing reported exposures and ecological risks. "Anticoagulants cause internal bleeding and bioaccumulate in wildlife," Cutter said, urging the chamber to protect "our children, our pets, our wildlife, and our environment." Senator Kipp, a co‑prime sponsor, called the measure a "targeted, science based step" and said designating SGARs as restricted use would require education and trained applicators.

Debate centered on costs and practical impacts for farmers and rural residents. Senator Pelton and others warned the change could impose burdens on producers who rely on the products to protect feed and equipment and pushed a series of amendments to delay implementation, cap permit fees, or exempt small farms.

Amendments: A motion to postpone implementation until July 1, 2031 (Amendment L16) to give farmers more time was offered by Senator Pelton and lost on a voice vote. Amendment L18, which would have capped any required permit fee at $1, was defeated after opponents said existing licensing systems include education and licensing fees. Amendments to exempt farms under specified revenue or employee thresholds (L13, L15) and to extend license duration (L17) were also offered and lost.

Outcome and next steps: Senate Bill 62 passed the Senate and was adopted by the body. The transcript records the bill as "adopted" after the final voice vote; the proceeding did not record a roll‑call tally in the excerpt provided. The bill requires the Department of Agriculture to adopt rules governing restricted use and creates a trade practice violation exposure under the Colorado Consumer Protection Act for distribution or use in violation of the statute, as described on the floor.

Supporters cited public‑health and wildlife protection concerns; opponents, primarily rural and agriculture‑focused senators, urged caution and change management for producers who rely on the products.

The Senate proceeded to consider other calendar items after the adoption; any formal engrossment, enrollment or transmittal to the House or Governor will appear in subsequent legislative records.