Relating To The Pesticide Use Revolving Fund.
SB1305 would amend Hawaii law governing the pesticide use revolving fund by increasing the amount of money that may remain in the fund at the end of a fiscal year before excess balances lapse to the state general fund. Under current law, amounts above $1,000,000 must be transferred; the bill raises that ceiling to $3,000,000, effective July 1, 2025.
The stated purpose is to give the Department of Agriculture greater flexibility to support pesticide program activities, including registration and licensing, certification and education, compliance monitoring, training workshops, pest eradication and control programs, integrated pest management, technical projects, environmental studies, and biosecurity-related work. In practical terms, the bill would allow the fund to retain more resources year to year for pesticide regulation and related services.
The bill would amend section 149A-13.5(e), Hawaii Revised Statutes, by changing the annual lapse threshold for the pesticide use revolving fund from $1,000,000 to $3,000,000. This would increase the amount of unobligated, unencumbered, or unexpended money that can remain in the fund instead of reverting to the state general fund, thereby expanding the Department of Agriculture’s available reserve for pesticide program operations and enforcement.
The bill appears generally supportive and administrative in nature, with the legislative findings framing the change as a way to strengthen pesticide compliance, enforcement, education, and biosecurity. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented opposition or debate in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure seems to have been introduced as a resource-management proposal rather than a controversial policy change.
The main policy issue is fiscal: whether the pesticide use revolving fund should retain up to $3,000,000 annually instead of returning excess balances above $1,000,000 to the general fund. Supporters, as reflected in the bill findings, would likely argue that a higher cap improves the Department of Agriculture’s ability to fund technical projects, environmental studies, and enforcement needs. Potential critics could focus on the opportunity cost of keeping more money in a special fund rather than directing it to the general fund, but no explicit objections are included in the provided record.