Tense Political Climate Could Shift Focus to Environmental Issues

FAIRFAX, Va. — With many incumbent U.S. Senators and Representatives involved in tight election campaigns, environmental issues, including pesticide use, could become hot issues on Capitol Hill, according to Bob Rosenberg, senior vice president, National Pest Management Association. 

Add to the mix the fact that a number of important pesticide issues are pending on state and national levels and the 2006 NPMA Legislative Day, scheduled for Feb. 27-28 in Arlington, Va., has greater significance. “This is an election year and environmental issues play better in election years, especially in election years when people feel there seats might be threatened,” he said. “There’s probably not an incumbent that is not profoundly worried about his or her seat and that sometimes leads them to do things that they would not otherwise do.”

An issue on the radar of pest management professionals is the 2005 re-introduction of the School Environment Protection Act 2005 (SEPA), Rosenberg said. SEPA was first introduced in November 1999 in both the U.S. Senate and House. Throughout the years, the bill underwent several changes. In 2001, NPMA and others, including environmental and public interest groups, agreed upon a SEPA version that was more “industry friendly.” This version of SEPA was ultimately defeated in a congressional committee in 2001.

In 2005, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) contained an article critical of pesticide use in schools, which drew criticism from NPMA and others for the authors’ methodology and conclusions. However, this article re-ignited this issue and a SEPA version was re-introduced in the U.S. Senate by Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) on Sept. 7, 2005 (S.1619). SEPA had already been introduced in the U.S. House by Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) on Jan. 4, 2005 (H.R. 110).

Of particular concern for the pest control industry is that this SEPA version is not the “industry friendly” one negotiated by NPMA and others in 2001, yet anti-pesticide activists are claiming that it has various industry support.

“I think the environmental community has a winner this time because the authors of the JAMA article were employed by CDC and EPA and NHIS,” Rosenberg said. “They think it is credible and is the basis for significant changes in the law about the use of pesticides around children and around schools.”

Thus, a goal of this year’s Legislative Day will be to educate legislators about pesticide use in schools and to make them aware of pending or forthcoming school pesticide legislation.

Another important issue at Legislative Day deals with proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which was passed in 1973. Numerous lawsuits have arisen from this Act, which have resulted in PCOs not being able to use pesticides in wide swaths of areas because the areas are critical habitats of endangered species. In 2004, the House passed HR 3824: The Threatened and Endangered Species Recovery Act (TESRA), which includes a section related to pesticide use - Section 20. Essentially, this ammendment would make it easier for PCOs to apply pesticides and “not be at risk of violating one environmental law (ESA) while complying with another (FIFRA) during implementation of the 2004 rule adopted to remedy the alleged three-decade-long non-compliance by federal agencies.” This legislation passed in the House but has been stalled in the Senate.

An important business-related bill is H.R. 525, the Small Business Health Fairness Act of 2005. H.R. 525, which was introduced as legislation for making health insurance more available to small business, was passed by the Senate.

Legislative Day attendees also will continue to drum up support for the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act. The legislation is aimed at resolving the ongoing conflict between the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — which both were enacted in 1972. NPMA Manager of Government Affairs Gene Harrington told PCT that attendees at last year’s Legislative Day “got the ball rolling” on this issue, noting that at the time there was only one potential sponsor of this legislation. Now, Harrington reports that this legislation has more then 70 sponsors in the House and more than a dozen in the Senate.

Harrington also noted that there are a number of hot issues at the state level, including:

• Colorado is in the process of reviewing its pesticide laws and one of the recommendations is to expand the state’s pesticide sensitivity registry to cover structural applications. This would mean that PCOs would have to notify individuals on the state's pesticide sensitivity registry prior to structural applications to multi-family dwellings. Nearly identical legislation has been introduced in the state of Washington.
• Arizona is preparing to rewrite its structural pest control rules and regulations, so PCOs are paying particular attention to those proceedings. Also, a bill is expected to be introduced that would exempt individuals who treat weeds from being licensed with the structural pest control commission. Many PCOs are understandably upset that they have to be licensed for this type of work and this proposed bill would exempt some non-PCOs from licenses.
• New Jersey Senate bill 545 was introduced by Senator Barbara Buono. This bill would severely restrict the use of pesticides in day care facilities.
• In Alaska, an activist group failed in its efforts to collect signatures for an anti-school pesticide initiative to be placed on the Nov. 26 ballot. The group was unable to collect the required signatures by the Jan. 9 deadline. Harrington said the group has turned its attention to collecting the required signatures to get this issue on the ballot in 2008.
• In West Virginia, House Bill 3186 was introduced. This bill would establish a 6-person board to oversee the application process for pest control certification exams. This board would consist of representatives from the West Virginia Department of Agriculture and the West Virginia Pest Control Operators Association and the consuming public.
• A bill was prefiled in the Florida Senate that would redefine terms in the Florida Structural pest Control Act and essentially require identification card holders to be licensed owners or employees of a licensee - and not independent contractors.
• LD 1791 has been introduced in the Maine Senate. This legislation would designate for a representative of the pest management industry to serve on the Maine Board of Pesticides Control. Maine pest management professionals worked closely with state Senator Nancy Sullivan (D) to develop LD 1791. Harrington said this is a significant development because Maine PCOs currently have no representation on the board.