Connecticut Legislative Alert CCM Pesticide Ban Resources
Uploaded by
uncleadolphConnecticut Legislative Alert CCM Pesticide Ban Resources
Uploaded by
uncleadolphApril 13, 2012 , Number 12-27
PLEASE DELIVER IMMEDIATELY TO PARKS & RECREATION DIRECTORS
Your Action Needed
PEST MANAGEMENT FOR SCHOOL GROUNDS
-
Bills that would have a direct impact on school grounds and building management are poised for action by the Legislature.
YOUR HELP IS CRITICAL Bills that would have a direct impact on school grounds and building management are poised in the Legislature for action.
GOOD BILL - House Bill 5155 An Act Modifying the Ban on Pesticide Applications on School Grounds a common sense approach to balancing the management of school grounds in Connecticut. This bill would reinstate the requirement that Integrated Pest Management plans (IPM) be used on public and private school grounds to manage pest control on fields and facilities -- and expand the requirement to include high schools. BAD BILL - House Bill 5121 An Act Concerning the Use of Organic Pesticides on School Property and Authorizing Municipal Regulation of the Use of Pesticides on Residential Property which would remove a decades old preemption for regulating pesticides and take a fight, that has to date been unsuccessful on the state level -- to ban pesticides statewide. It would create an emotional political tool for IPM opponents to use against municipal officials.
YOUR ACTION NEEDED As practitioners in your field, we urge you to: Contact your State Legislative Delegation and let them know what is happening within your borders and what the current ban is costing your communities. Tell them to Support HB 5155 and Oppose HB 5121. Share this information with your local Chief Executive Officer (Mayor, First Selectman, Town/City Manager) and Finance Board Chairman. It is equally important that they understand how current law is impacting their bottom line. ## ## ## If you should have any questions, or have additional information to share, please do not hesitate to contact Kachina Walsh-Weaver of CCM at [email protected] or (203) 710-9525.
For the most up-to-date news on legislative issues affecting municipalities see CCMs Legislative Action Center at www.ccmlac.org
PEST MANAGEMENT FOR SCHOOL GROUNDS
BACKGROUND Public Act 99-165 set in place a requirement, that in order to use pesticides on elementary school grounds or preschools, it could be done only within an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program approved by the then Department of Environmental Protection, now the Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP). In 2007, the law was expanded to apply to school properties through eighth grade. WHAT IS IPM? IPM is a written plan submitted to and approved by DEEP as to exactly how a property owner plans to maintain fields and facilities with regard to pest populations. This best management approach has been in use for decades and has proven to be a solidly effective mechanism. IPMs are structured as a comprehensive management plan for grounds maintenance and upkeep. They focus on (1) a thorough understanding of pests and pest biology by pest managers; (2) careful inspection and monitoring for pest presence and pest-conducive conditions; (3) pest prevention through effective education, sanitation and facility maintenance; and (4) a restrictive treatment plan as a last resort. Such treatment plans call for the use of pesticides only when non-chemical measures have been unable to eradicate the problem and, even then, products are selected that minimize toxicity and potential for exposure. Please keep in mind that all chemical products that might be used under an IPM are regulated by the EPA and DEEP. The philosophy behind this approach is to do the minimal needed to maintain the status of the grounds and not necessitate methods to rehabilitate the grounds after deterioration. Rather than relying on treatment on a case-bycase basis, IPM ensures that a plan is put in place and adhered to in order to maximally manage with minimum treatment avoiding emergency situations. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM? A sunset provision was included in the original bill, and extended one year in 2009, to ensure that the State evaluated the effectiveness of the use of IPM in maintaining fields and grounds, while simultaneously not negatively impacting the environment or the health of the children using such fields. Beginning in 2009, the year the sunset was originally to take place, and each year thereafter, there have been calls for elimination of the sunset to ensure that IPM continues to be the standard for school grounds going forward. Each time, concrete scientific testimony in support of the use of IPM as the preferred method for schools was given by experts across the issue the Department of Environmental Protection, Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, Connecticut Parks & Recreation Association, and the UConn College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, to name a few. In addition, several years ago the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommended that schools use IPM to reduce pesticide risks and exposure to children and that it is a safer and less costly option for pest management in a school community. The EPA plan called for all schools to utilize IPM by 2015. These calls fell on deaf ears and the sunset date passed effectively banning the use of pesticides across Connecticut, unless in an emergency situation. Since the passing of the sunset of this program, towns and cities across the state have been faced with rapidly deteriorating fields and large expenses in attempts to rehabilitate them. The increased presence of grubs in fields has attracted rodents, who borrow through the soil leaving dangerous tunnels that cave in as players run across them, increasing the risk of player injury. As species such as crabgrass have begin to take over the soil, it hardens and not respond to aeration also causing an increased risk of player injury.
Tens of thousands of dollars are being spent to repair fields that have deteriorated to the point of being unsafe; many requiring complete re-sodding as they are past repair and this is the last resort. All of this over just the last 20 months - imagine the conditions of these fields and the increase in pest population as more time passes. It is critical that this situation be rectified -- and quickly. OPPONENTS OF IPM Opponents of IPM are using emotional scare tactics and loose information to urge rejection of any change in the current status of the law. They are citing that pest populations can be addressed by other means -means proven to be effective and less costly. If this were truly the case, then municipalities across the state would not face the dire straits they are in and be forced to seek ways to protect against infestation. The Town of Madison testified that it had actually worked with Dr. Jerry Silbert, who opposes any change to the current law, to learn and utilize his "non-toxic" program to pest management. 18 months later, the town is experiencing significant pest problems and has no adequate means to address it. WHAT CAN YOU DO? CONTACT your State Legislative Delegation and let them know what is happening within your borders and what the current ban is costing your communities. Tell them to Support HB 5155 and Oppose HB 5121. SHARE this information with your local Chief Executive Officer and Finance Board Chairman - so they can also understand exactly what is happening within your borders and what it is costing your communities. SUPPORT House Bill 5155 An Act Modifying the Ban on Pesticide Applications on School Grounds, a common sense approach to balancing the management of school grounds - which would reinstate the requirement that Integrated Pest Management plans (IPM) be used on public and private school grounds, to manage pest control on fields and facilities -- and expand the requirement to include high schools. OPPOSE House Bill 5121 An Act Concerning the Use of Organic Pesticides on School Property and Authorizing Municipal Regulation of the Use of Pesticides on Residential Property, which would remove a decades old preemption for regulating pesticides and take a fight, that has to date been unsuccessful on the state level -- to ban pesticides statewide. It would create an emotional political tool for IPM opponents to use against municipal officials. Pesticides are already stringently regulated by DEEP, in conjunction with the US Environmental Protection Agency. Both agencies have the resources and scientific expertise to make the needed decisions regarding toxicity and public health. Local governments do not have those same resources. Towns and cities are already dealing with huge budget crises, and trying to continue to meet current local service needs, without now being asked to make scientific decisions on already-regulated products.
Follow CCM Advocacy on:
Facebook: CCMConnecticut Conference of Municipalities Twitter: CCMAdvocacy Legislative Action Center: www.ccmlac.org