Connecticut 2025 Regular Session

Connecticut House Bill HB06915

Introduced
2/10/25  
Refer
2/10/25  
Report Pass
2/28/25  
Refer
3/11/25  

Caption

An Act Concerning The Use Of Second-generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides.

Summary

HB 6915 would prohibit the use in Connecticut of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides, a class of highly toxic rat poisons that includes brodifacoum, bromadiolone, difenacoum, and difethialone, beginning October 1, 2025. The bill is aimed at reducing harm to nontarget wildlife, especially raptors and other animals that can be poisoned through the food chain after consuming contaminated rodents. The bill creates several exceptions to the general ban. It allows use by certain state employees for public health activities and water supply protection, by local health officials to address mosquito or vector breeding areas, for invasive species eradication on offshore islands, for urgent public-health rodent infestations when other alternatives are inadequate, in certain medical waste and FDA-registered facilities, and for agricultural activities at specified sites such as warehouses, slaughterhouses, canneries, breweries, wineries, and related infrastructure. It also authorizes the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) to adopt regulations to ensure any continued use does not reasonably threaten nontarget wildlife, including provisions related to protecting threatened or endangered species. The bill would add a new enforcement framework to state law by making violations subject to civil penalties of up to $5,000 per violation, assessed by the DEEP commissioner. It also requires DEEP to submit a report by January 1, 2027, evaluating the implications of existing statutory and regulatory restrictions and licensing requirements for these rodenticides, including consistency with federal law, effects on raptor health, impacts on public health and agriculture, and administrative costs. The committee vote suggests the bill had meaningful support but also notable opposition. The Joint Favorable Substitute passed the Environment Committee 25-10, while a related motion failed 11-24, indicating that the proposal was advanced despite substantial disagreement. Overall, the bill appears to have been framed as an environmental and wildlife-protection measure, but with carve-outs intended to address public health, agriculture, and other operational needs. The main points of contention are likely the breadth of the ban versus the need for exceptions. Supporters would emphasize protecting birds of prey and other wildlife from secondary poisoning, while opponents or skeptics may be concerned about pest-control flexibility, agricultural operations, public-health emergencies, regulatory burdens, and whether the state restrictions align with federal pesticide law.

Impact

The bill would create a new state prohibition on the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides and authorize DEEP to enforce that prohibition through civil penalties. It would also require DEEP rulemaking and a formal report to the legislature, potentially affecting pesticide regulation, wildlife protection policy, public-health pest control, and agricultural pest-management practices in Connecticut.

Sentiment

The committee vote history indicates the bill had a favorable overall reception in the Environment Committee, but not unanimous support. The 25-10 vote on the Joint Favorable Substitute shows a clear majority in favor, while the failed 11-24 motion suggests some members sought a different approach or objected to the substitute language. The bill’s structure reflects an effort to balance environmental concerns with practical exceptions for public health and agriculture.

Contention

The central contention is between environmental/wildlife advocates seeking a broad restriction on highly toxic rodenticides and stakeholders concerned about pest control needs in agriculture, food-handling facilities, public health emergencies, and infrastructure protection. Another likely point of dispute is whether state restrictions and licensing requirements are consistent with federal pesticide law and whether the bill would impose unnecessary administrative burdens or delays. The inclusion of multiple exemptions suggests lawmakers were trying to address these concerns while still limiting routine use.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

MA H5217

Restricting the use of rodenticides in the environment

WA HB2516

Placing a moratorium on the use of certain rodenticides.

NH HB1018

prohibiting the use of certain second generation anticoagulant rodenticides.

MA S2721

Restricting the use of rodenticides in the environment

MA S644

Restricting the use of rodenticides in the environment

MA H965

Restricting the use of rodenticides in the environment

CO SB062

Rodenticide Use Restrictions

MA H4133

To authorize the town of Lexington to prohibit or restrict the application of second generation anticoagulant rodenticides