Rodenticide Use Restrictions
SB062 would classify certain second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) as restricted-use pesticides in Colorado beginning July 1, 2027. The bill defines SGARs to include brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone, and directs the commissioner to restrict their distribution and use under existing pesticide-law authority. It also adds a new prohibited act for distributing or using these rodenticides in violation of the new restriction.
The bill’s legislative findings emphasize public health and environmental concerns, including risks to children, pets, birds of prey, mammalian carnivores, and other wildlife. It also encourages integrated pest management (IPM) approaches—such as sanitation, exclusion, monitoring, and targeted removal—as the preferred rodent-control strategy, with SGARs reserved for documented, persistent infestations and only as a last resort. The act would take effect after the referendum period unless referred to voters.
SB062 would amend Colorado’s pesticide statutes in Title 35, Article 9 by adding a definition of SGARs, creating a new restricted-use pesticide category for those products, and making violations of the new restriction unlawful. In practical terms, it would limit retail availability and general use of these rodenticides, shift their use toward licensed or otherwise authorized applicators, and give the Department of Agriculture broader enforcement and rulemaking responsibility over their distribution and use. The bill would affect pesticide retailers, pest-control professionals, property owners, and consumers who currently purchase or use these products.
The bill appears to have support among lawmakers concerned about wildlife, child safety, and environmental contamination, as reflected in its passage through the Senate and the adoption of several amendments. At the same time, the committee votes show meaningful opposition at earlier stages, suggesting some concern about the scope or practicality of the restrictions. The House Agriculture, Water & Natural Resources Committee later postponed the bill indefinitely, indicating that support was not uniform across chambers or committees.
The main point of contention is the balance between public-health and wildlife protections versus access to effective rodent-control tools. Supporters frame SGAR restrictions as a necessary response to poisoning risks and environmental harm, and they favor integrated pest management and limited, targeted use. Opponents or skeptics appear to have questioned whether the restrictions are too broad, whether they would burden pest-control practices or retail sales, and whether the state should regulate products that are already subject to federal oversight. The committee vote patterns, especially the split votes in Senate committee and the later House postponement, indicate that these policy and implementation concerns were significant.