HB 6916 would significantly restrict the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in Connecticut beginning in 2028 and 2029. The bill prohibits the use or application of neonicotinoids on golf courses, turf grass, lawns, playing fields, outdoor ornamental plants, state- or municipally owned or leased property, and on corn, wheat, and soybean crops, while preserving a narrow exception for applications within one foot of a building foundation to control structural pests. It also creates an emergency suspension process that would allow the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection to temporarily lift the ban for up to one year if an environmental emergency exists and the pesticide is necessary, effective, and not likely to cause unreasonable environmental harm.
For agriculture, the bill bars the sale, distribution, offer for sale, or use of agricultural seed treated with neonicotinoids for corn, wheat, or soybeans unless the Commissioner of Agriculture grants a waiver. That waiver process requires integrated pest management training, a pest risk assessment, and a showing that the pest poses imminent harm and that no less harmful alternative will work. The bill also authorizes the Agriculture Commissioner, in consultation with environmental and agricultural agencies, to adopt regulations and potentially charge waiver fees to cover administrative costs.
The bill would amend existing state law on neonicotinoids by replacing section 22-61k and expanding Connecticut’s regulatory framework for these insecticides. It preserves and updates the state’s existing best-practices requirement aimed at reducing airborne neonicotinoid dust from treated seeds and protecting pollinators, while adding new restrictions and waiver procedures for both commercial landscape uses and agricultural seed treatments. In practical terms, it would affect pesticide users, farmers, seed sellers, municipalities, state agencies, golf course operators, and property managers.
Because no committee transcript or vote record was provided, there is no documented debate or recorded vote sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears environmentally protective and pollinator-focused, with a strong precautionary approach to pesticide use. The main likely point of contention is the balance between environmental and public-health concerns on one hand, and agricultural pest management needs and operational flexibility on the other, especially given the bill’s broad restrictions and the need for waivers in crop production.
The bill would create new statutory prohibitions on neonicotinoid use in non-agricultural settings and on treated agricultural seed for corn, wheat, and soybeans, while establishing two separate exemption systems: emergency suspension orders by DEEP and crop-specific waivers by the Department of Agriculture. It would amend section 22-61k of the general statutes and add new sections governing pesticide restrictions, waiver criteria, public-record requirements, and possible administrative regulations and fees. The affected parties include farmers, pesticide applicators, seed distributors, golf courses, municipalities, state agencies, and property owners using ornamental or turf treatments.
No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no direct record of legislative sentiment in the materials. The bill’s structure suggests a generally pro-environment, pro-pollinator policy approach, with safeguards intended to allow limited exceptions when pest threats are severe. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied context means any assessment of sentiment is inferential rather than documented.
The likely points of contention are the breadth of the neonicotinoid restrictions and the burden of the waiver process for agricultural users. Environmental advocates would likely support the bill’s limits on pesticide use to protect pollinators, surface water, and groundwater, while agricultural stakeholders may object that the restrictions could reduce access to an important pest-control tool and increase compliance costs. Another possible area of dispute is the commissioner discretion built into both the emergency suspension and waiver provisions, which could be viewed either as necessary flexibility or as uncertainty for users and sellers.