SB352 would strengthen Hawaii’s pesticide disclosure and setback rules for restricted use pesticides. It requires the Department of Agriculture to publish county-level public summaries using consistent units of measurement when reporting the quantities of restricted use pesticides applied, along with the area where applications occurred. The bill is aimed at making public reporting clearer and more comparable across pesticide products, registrations, and active ingredients.
The bill also expands existing buffer-zone protections by prohibiting restricted use pesticides from being applied within one-half mile of school property during normal school hours and within one-half mile of state or county public parks. The measure keeps an exception for whole-structure fumigation and provides that, if there is a conflict with pesticide label instructions, the more restrictive rule controls. The effective date is set for July 1, 2050, which is unusually delayed relative to the policy changes described in the bill.
Impact
If enacted, SB352 would amend sections 149A-27 and 149A-28 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. It would change the Department of Agriculture’s public reporting obligations by requiring consistent units of measurement in county pesticide summaries, and it would substantially expand the existing school buffer zone from 100 feet to one-half mile while adding public parks as protected areas. The bill would directly affect pesticide applicators, agricultural operations, schools, park users, and the Department of Agriculture’s reporting and enforcement responsibilities.
Sentiment
The available committee votes show strong support for the bill at each stage, with unanimous or near-unanimous passage in the Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee, Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senate Ways and Means Committee. The bill’s findings frame the measure as a child health and public safety protection, and the committee history suggests broad agreement with that policy goal. No opposing testimony or dissenting discussion is provided in the record supplied here.
Contention
The main policy issue in the bill is the size of the pesticide buffer zone. Supporters, as reflected in the findings, argue that the existing 100-foot setback is insufficient because pesticide drift can travel much farther and can harm children’s neurological and acute health outcomes. The bill also implicitly raises concerns for farmers and other pesticide users who may face tighter application limits near schools and parks, though no specific opposition is documented in the provided materials. Another point of potential contention is the interaction between the state buffer rule and pesticide label instructions, which the bill resolves by applying the more restrictive requirement.