Pesticide Bill on Hold Until Summer
Community gears up for last big push to support the legislation
By Jeff Barber
CM Environmental Writer
ROCKVILLE, MD -- The Montgomery County Council may not vote until sometime this summer on legislation that would ban the use of cosmetic lawn pesticides believed to pose a health threat to people and animals.
After two well-attended public hearings on the Bill 52-14 in January and February, the legislation now moves to the council's Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee.Councilman Roger Berliner, who chairs that panel, has scheduled two work sessions on the bill for Monday, March 16, and Monday, March 30, to educate council members on the scientific issues associated with the use of pesticides and herbicides.
Berliner is assembling panels of scientists and other experts to testify before the committee and last week asked the Bethesda-based National Cancer Institute to appear, saying the council would "greatly benefit" from understanding NCI's years of research into the impact of pesticides on human health.
"Specifically, we seek your guidance as to whether the NCI believes that the exposures created by the use of pesticides for lawn care and on playing fields warrant further limitations beyond existing federal and state rules," Berliner said in his letter.
Council President George Leventhal, who introduced Bill 52-14 along with four of the nine council members, this week confirmed that a vote on the measure is unlikely before June, given that the council will be shifting its attention to approving a county budget.
Leventhal said he believes the committee will not begin amending, or "marking up" the bill before April or May and that he expects the panel will deal with a number of proposed amendments, mostly notably an attempt to exempt county playing fields from the proposed ban.
The county parks department has lobbied for an exemption from the pesticides ban, saying it would significantly increase the cost of maintaining athletic fields and County Executive Ike Leggett has supported such an exemption.
Leventhal, however, said he has obtained a recent study that projects the parks department could actually realize a 25% cost savings by adopting an organic approach in treating athletic fields.
He also said he is likely to offer several amendments to clarify what the bill would not do, including bar the use of fungicides on trees or prevent homeowners from controlling lawn, tree and plant pests such as Japanese beetles.
Barbara Hoover, a member of Conservation Montgomery's board and the organization's lead on the bill, said she remains "very concerned" that the legislation may not pass, largely because of a well-organized and well-funded opposition. "We're talking about companies as big as those involved in the tobacco fight and they are introducing doubt about the accuracy of studies linking pesticides to disease," she said. "Opponents have also raised concerns that the legislation would infringe on property rights and diminish property values in the county in a bid to provide "something for everyone opposed to the bill." Hoover added that supporters have to continue to turn the debate over the bill into an "educational opportunity" to attract more support from the community.
And while Leventhal acknowledged that opposition to the bill is strong, he said the measure has to date received "overwhelmingly positive feedback" across the county and urged supporters to "keep it up," by continuing to contact their council members to stress how strongly they want to see a ban on cosmetic pesticides.
Writer Jeff Barber has been a business reporter and editor for more than 30 years, most recently with McGraw-Hill Financial.
Play it safe! Contact the Council today about this issue.
Find more information from our partners, Safe Grow Montgomery.
|
|
|
Has this lawn been treated with harmful pesticides? Why make it guesswork when laws can protect us?
|
