Update 11:08 p.m. – The Montgomery County Council committee that’s reviewing a controversial bill concerning pesticide use isn’t expected to vote on the measure until at least September.
Roger Berliner, the chairman of the council’s environment committee that is reviewing the bill, said Monday the committee is planning to take mark up the legislation at a Sept. 21 work session and may also take action on it then.
By that time the bill could change significantly before it moves it to the full council. Berliner is already considering a number of changes to replace a controversial proposed ban on the use of non-essential pesticides on land ranging from private lawns to county property. On Tuesday morning, Berliner sent out a memo putting forth a number of amendments that focus on education about pesticides to replace the general ban on private property proposed in the current legislation.
The general ban may be preempted by state law, according to a May opinion by Maryland assistant attorney general Kathryn Rowe.
Berliner’s proposals—such as requiring homeowners to sign notices when applying pesticides and requiring condo and homeowners associations to poll their membership before using pesticides—have not been supported by the bill’s primary sponsor, council President George Leventhal.
Leventhal has acknowledged that any bill passed by the council has the potential to be preempted by the state and contested in court. He also noted that not everyone agrees with the attorney general’s opinion.
On Monday, Josh Hamlin, a legislative attorney for the county, said it was his opinion that the law, as proposed by Leventhal, would not be preempted. Hamlin said the bill goes beyond the scope of previous cases involving state laws governing pesticides.
Leventhal and Berliner traded remarks Monday about the legislation, with Leventhal pressing for its passage as is and Berliner striking a conciliatory tone about the need to slow down the process to allow the general public to be more educated on the bill.
Leventhal said the legislation has been the target of an email campaign by chemical companies determined to defeat the bill. He said the Environmental Protection Agency, which tests the safety of pesticides, frequently relies on studies from the chemical companies that create them and typically only tests the active ingredients in pesticides and not products as a whole. He also noted that opponents of the bill won’t stop pushing back against it, even if the general ban is removed.
“I’m not optimistic that any half measure or delayed measure will be better received by interests groups who are circulating opposition,” Leventhal said.
Berliner said it’s important for the council to look at alternative measures in the face of a possible court challenge.
“Our experts say the science is inconclusive,” Berliner said. “Our attorney general says it’s likely to be preempted. Our existing regulations have never been enforced adequately. Our public does not have an understanding of this issue and we have not given them an opportunity to catch up. And when a law on its face is going to be terribly difficult to enforce, all of those lead me to believe there are alternative ways to think about this to create substantial reductions in pesticide use.”
The environment committee received an update Monday from Jody Fetzer, the green management coordinator for Montgomery Parks. The parks department, which is also the largest land steward/owner in the county, has asked for an exemption from the legislation. The bill already includes language to exempt golf courses and major agricultural uses and also permits applicators to use chemicals to fight invasive species.
Fetzer, a plant pathologist, said parks staff often uses pesticides and herbicides to fight invasive species as well as to keep frequently used playing fields in good shape. Council member Tom Hucker asked if the department had tested organic ways of dealing with the problems. Fetzer said it has conducted such tests in controlled environments like Brookside Gardens at Wheaton Regional Park.
Council member Marc Elrich said he was disappointed the parks department hasn’t expanded tests of organic methods.
Earlier this month, the parks department launched a study at North Bethesda’s Timberlawn Local Park, where they plan to test two soccer fields at the park with pesticides and organic lawn treatment methods.
“It’s a long time out for the department to say ‘We’ll start testing things,’ ” Erlich said.
The council may also attempt to put together a list of the non-essential pesticides that would be banned under the bill. Paul Chrostowski, an environmental chemist who testified Monday on behalf of the county, said no similar list currently exists in the United States.
“One would have to construct that list from the ground up,” Chrostowski said. “Some pesticides have not been evaluated under any system.”
Leventhal—who originally proposed using lists of banned pesticides such as those created by Ontario, Canada and a European commission—said he would be comfortable with removing the lists from other governments from the bill and having the county develop its own list.
It wasn’t immediately clear what standards would be developed to create that list or who in the county would be capable of putting it together.
Only two other jurisdictions in the U.S. have banned pesticide use on public and private property—Takoma Park and Ogunquit, Maine.
