HB985 appropriates money to the Hawaii Department of Agriculture to continue a statewide study and monitoring program on pesticide drift near schools. The bill states that pesticide applications near schools should be further studied to ensure children are not being affected by off-target drift, while also recognizing the role of pesticides in supporting agricultural food security.
The measure provides $323,484 for fiscal year 2025-2026 and $311,903 for fiscal year 2026-2027 from the pesticide use revolving fund. Those funds are to be expended by the Department of Agriculture for continued pesticide drift monitoring in schools statewide. If enacted, the bill would take effect on July 1, 2025.
Impact
HB985 would not create a new regulatory program or change pesticide standards directly, but it would continue and fund an existing monitoring effort administered by the Department of Agriculture. It affects the pesticide use revolving fund by authorizing expenditures for this purpose and supports ongoing data collection and oversight related to pesticide drift near schools. The bill primarily impacts the Department of Agriculture, school communities, and agricultural pesticide users who may be subject to continued monitoring and scrutiny.
Sentiment
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of continued monitoring, with the legislature framing the measure as a child-safety and public-health precaution. At the same time, the bill also signals concern for balancing that safety objective with agricultural needs and food security. No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no additional evidence of opposition or support beyond the bill’s stated purpose.
Contention
The main point of tension is the balance between protecting students from possible pesticide exposure and preserving the use of pesticides for agricultural production. Supporters of the bill’s stated purpose would likely emphasize children’s health and the need for more study, while potential critics could question the cost, the need for continued funding, or whether the monitoring effort could lead to greater restrictions on farming practices. Because no committee transcripts or votes were included, no specific lawmakers, agencies, or stakeholder groups are identified as taking opposing positions.