Irvine quit using synthetic pesticides in 2016, now a farm bill could block such local restrictions

In the past three years, Irvine went from treating its parks and nature areas with more than 50 pounds and about 60 gallons of synthetic weed and pest killers annually, all the way down to zero.

The city now uses organic products with ingredients such as corn gluten meal and oil from soybeans, lemongrass or rosemary. And Irvine is not alone – it’s one of more than 150 U.S. cities and counties that have created “organic-first” policies and in some cases banned the use of specific chemicals that may harm people or the environment.

But a provision tucked into the 2018 federal farm bill could block local governments from making their own rules about pesticides, effectively neutering local control over what gets sprayed into the air, poured into the water or sprinkled on the ground.

Irvine Councilwoman Christina Shea said that as a cancer survivor, she wanted to lessen the city’s use of potentially harmful chemicals whenever possible. With fully one-third of the city’s 66 square miles dedicated to recreation or open space, she said, “I understand how important this was for our community overall.”

Now Irvine, Burbank, Corona, Laguna Beach and dozens of other cities in California and nationwide are asking their legislators to take the pesticide rule out of the bill, H.R. 2, as the House and Senate work to reconcile two versions of it.

While the rule couldn’t force anyone to use any particular type of pesticide, it would allow only federal and state authorities to place restrictions on them.

“We fear that in the worst case, it could wipe away all of these city and county ordinances across the country,” said Environmental Working Group legislative director Colin O’Neil, who has been tracking the bill and working with concerned local officials.

Growing movement

As increasing amounts of research have connected some pesticides to human and environmental health issues, including Parkinson’s disease and honey bee die-offs, some local officials have opted to go further than federal or state laws and restrict pesticide use on public land such as parks, sports fields and landscaped road medians.

Backed by Shea, Irvine in 2016 adopted an “organics first” policy that limits the use of synthetic pesticides – such as the weed killer Roundup – on city land. It’s not an outright ban and it doesn’t apply to private property owners, but it makes synthetics a last resort if organic products don’t work and the pest in question is a public health concern.

Since then, kicking the synthetic pesticide habit has become something of a movement.

Minneapolis and more than a dozen surrounding communities adopted “pollinator protection” rules that prevent use of chemicals that harm bees. Palo Alto, Oakland and several other Bay Area cities have banned the use of glyphosate – the active ingredient in Roundup – on public property. And numerous communities have joined Irvine in following “organics first” rules.

Costa Mesa quit using glyphosate in parks about a year ago and is now running a pilot project to make Davis Park’s sports fields 100 percent organic, Public Services Director Raja Sethuraman said.

Pesticide manufacturers and trade groups say federally approved synthetics are safe if used as recommended, but Sethuraman said phasing them out was right for Costa Mesa.

“It’s basically based on what we heard from the public and City Council,” he said. “We feel that we have other options available to us that doesn’t require use of that particular pesticide (glyphosate).”

For the average citizen, the research on synthetic pesticides may seem confusing.

Until recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, World Health Organization and other such groups said glyphosate likely didn’t cause cancer, said Charlotte Fadipe, spokeswoman for the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. But in 2015, the International Agency for Cancer Research – an arm of WHO – declared the chemical a probable carcinogen.

Fadipe said her department encourages “the least toxic approach” to pest control but does not take positions on legislation.

A spokeswoman for Roundup manufacturer Monsanto referred questions about the farm bill provision to CropLife America, a pesticide industry association. As of Friday, Oct. 5, the group had not responded to multiple requests for comment, but it has maintained that federal and state regulations are sufficient and that industry products are safe.

Who should regulate?

In most states, local authorities can’t restrict pesticide use on private property, and many existing local policies – including Irvine’s – still allow synthetics on public land if organic products don’t work.

So why do some legislators want to preempt local control?

Rep. Rodney Davis, R-Illinois, who added local preemption to the House bill, said in a statement that local rules have “created a burdensome patchwork of regulations often created by localities which lack scientific and financial resources necessary to properly regulate. Our language continues the tradition of co-regulation while clarifying that it should occur solely between state lead agencies and the federal government.”

In 1991, a U.S. Supreme Court decision in a Wisconsin case held that federal pesticide laws did not bar local authorities from crafting their own restrictions. The proposed farm bill provision would simply change the law.

Rachel Millard, a spokeswoman for the House Agriculture Committee, wrote in an email that the committee chairman, Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas, included local preemption in the bill to ensure farmers, ranchers and others can use whatever pest management tools they need.

But neither Millard nor Davis’ staff answered a question about whether pesticide industry officials had input on the bill.

Millard said under the bill, local officials could still decide what pesticides to use on city and school property; they just wouldn’t be allowed to make regulations tougher than those of their state or federal rules.

But the Environmental Working Group’s O’Neil said the change would create uncertainty for city officials, who might fear being sued for violating federal law.

Irvine’s Shea had another worry: “If this goes into place, we could kind of see it snowball into a lot of other local control issues.”

Legislators could vote on a compromise version of the bill by the end of the year, according to news reports.