Committee narrows proposed paraquat ban to allow limited orchard and berry uses, asks counsel for strike‑all

The chair opened a committee session April 17 to work with legislative counsel on Act 8739, an act "relating to prohibiting the use and sale of the herbicide, Paraquat," and said senators hoped to take a vote early next week.

The chair said the committee had agreed in principle to a statewide ban but wanted clear, narrow exceptions for certain fruit producers. "We would concur with a ban on paraquat after 12/31/2030," the chair said, adding that the committee intended to include exceptions for "apple growers, fruit berries" such as blueberries and strawberries.

Bradley Sheldon of the Office of Legislative Council briefed members on how the House draft might be condensed and where language should be tightened. Sheldon said federal law could preempt state statute if federal action occurs and explained the rationale for a permit in the draft: "Paraquat is banned from the state except for getting a permit," he said, describing a simplified permit intended to identify the limited set of legal users.

Committee members pressed for plain‑language limits on permitted application methods so the statute would not allow large boom or field applicators. Members described two applicator types they want to preserve: handheld applicators and small orchard applicators, including small tractor attachments used in orchards that operate close to the ground. One member suggested specifying a maximum application width — proposing "no larger than 32 inches" — and noted growers described a small tractor attachment that sprays about 14 inches above the ground.

Members debated whether to keep a House provision requiring annual reporting on paraquat use, including by noncommercial applicators. A committee member said testimony suggested paraquat use in the state is limited — "about 20 gallons, 30 gallons," he said — and questioned whether expanded reporting or a study was necessary. "We may find out the first year that no one's using it," the member added.

The committee also discussed timing and permit rollover issues: the draft included dates and a three‑year permit option that could allow a permit obtained before the ban to extend past the ban date. Members asked counsel to resolve whether permits should be staggered or limited so new permits would not effectively extend use beyond the intended ban date.

No formal motion or vote occurred. The chair and members asked counsel to prepare a strike‑all (a full replacement draft) that incorporates the committee's intent — narrow exceptions for apple orchards and berry producers, a short list of permitted applicator types, clear plain‑language size limits where feasible, and a clarified approach to permitting and effective dates — for consideration early next week.

Next steps: counsel will draft revised language and return to the committee; members signaled they expect to vote after reviewing counsel's strike‑all.