Home » Friends of Casco Bay testimony opposing LD 1518 to the extent it seeks to enact 22 MRSA § 1471-CC

Friends of Casco Bay testimony opposing LD 1518 to the extent it seeks to enact 22 MRSA § 1471-CC

April 22, 2019

Senator Jim Dill
Representative Craig Hickman
Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry
c/o Legislative Information Office
100 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333

Re: Friends of Casco Bay testimony opposing LD 1518 to the extent it seeks to enact 22 MRSA § 1471-CC

Dear Senator Dill, Representative Hickman and Distinguished Members of the Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry,

Please accept the following as the testimony of Friends of Casco Bay opposing LD 1518 to the extent it seeks to enact 22 MRSA § 1471-CC. Friends of Casco Bay is a nonprofit organization dedicated to improving and protecting marine water quality.

We regret being unable to appear in person and respectfully request that you consider our written testimony in your deliberations regarding LD 1518: An Act to Establish a Fund for Portions of the Operations and Outreach Activities of the University of Maine Cooperative Extension Diagnostic and Research Laboratory and To Increase Statewide Enforcement of Pesticide Use.

Embedded in this bill about the UME Cooperative Extension Lab is an unrelated rider intended to restrict or eliminate municipal home rule. That rider is Section 3, which would enact 22 MRSA § 1471-CC:

A political subdivision of the State that wants to eliminate use in the political subdivision of a pesticide registered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency shall submit a request to eliminate use of the pesticide to the board. The board shall determine whether the pesticide should be further regulated based upon the board’s expertise in toxicology and available scientific information relating to the adverse environmental, health and other effects of the pesticide under Title 7, section 610, subsection 1. The board’s review must include participation of the officers of the political subdivision and board staff
and may include experts and other interested parties as the board determines appropriate.

We strongly oppose this unrelated rider and request that LD 1518 be amended to strike Section 3.

In support of our testimony opposing Section 3 of LD 1518, we have attached testimony that we submitted to the State and Local Government Committee in 2017 and 2018 opposing similar attempts to limit or eliminate municipal home rule to regulate pesticide use. Our prior testimony highlights research we conducted between 2001 and 2009. We collected rainwater flowing into Casco Bay and analyzed it for a suite of pesticides to determine “presence” or “absence” of pesticides. Lab results identified 10 different pesticides in 14 locations around Casco Bay. We detected the following six toxic pesticides:

  • 2, 4-D: banned in five countries, this herbicide is toxic to aquatic invertebrates and may be linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma in humans
  • Clopyralid: this herbicide has been linked to birth defects in animals
  • Diazinon: banned from being sold to U.S. consumers but still legal for use, this insecticide has a high aquatic toxicity and is linked to reproductive problems
  • Dicamba: found in groundwater throughout the U.S., this herbicide is toxic to fish and zooplankton
  • MCPP: along with 2, 4-D, this herbicide is in the same family of chemicals as Agent Orange and is highly toxic to bay shrimp
  • Propiconazole: this fungicide is a possible carcinogen

Current state law does little to restrict the use of pesticides, and as a result, pesticide use has surged.

Fortunately, Maine’s Constitution grants Home Rule to municipalities.1 Home Rule allows municipalities to exercise any power or function that the Legislature confers upon them, and that is not denied expressly or by clear implication.2 With respect to pesticide ordinances, the Legislature requires a municipality to notify the Maine Board of Pesticides Control (BPC) when it intends to adopt an ordinance. The law also requires municipalities to conduct considerable public process before adopting ordinances.3 Of Maine’s nearly 500 municipalities, only 29 have enacted pesticide ordinances, and all are carefully crafted to improve localized public health and safety.4 None of the ordinances out-right ban the use of pesticides.

For example:

  • Brunswick prohibits use or storage of most pesticides other than for households and agriculture within the aquifer protection zone. The town also prohibits aerial applications other than public health applications performed under the auspices of the Town or State. Exceptions may be approved by Codes Enforcement Officer.
  • Harpswell prohibits the use of the insect growth regulators (IGRs) diflubenzuron and tebufenozide and the aerial application of all IGRs and any insecticide whose product label indicates that it is harmful to aquatic invertebrates [for example, lobsters]. The town also restricts the use of neonicotinoid insecticides.
  • South Portland curtails the use of pesticides for turf, landscape and outdoor pest management.

These examples highlight that existing law works well to ensure municipalities engage in a thoughtful process and tailor pesticide ordinances to meet local needs. Section 3 of LD 1518 usurps municipal home rule and should not be enacted.

Friends of Casco Bay respectfully requests that this Committee recommend that LD 1581 ought not to pass as written. If the Committee does decide to consider the remainder of this bill, we respectfully request that LD 1518 be amended to strike Section 3.

Thank you for considering our testimony.

Ivy Frignoca, Casco Baykeeper
Friends of Casco Bay

1 Maine Constitution, Art. VIII, pt. 2, § 1.
2 CMP v. Town of Lebanon, 571 A.2d 1189, 1192 (ME 1990); 30-A MRSA § 3001.
3 See e.g. 30-A MRSA §§ 3001 et seq.
4 https://www.maine.gov/dacf/php/pesticides/public/municipal_ordinances.shtml.