SB351 would change Hawaii’s restricted-use pesticide reporting system from annual to quarterly reporting. Every user of restricted-use pesticides would have to submit a report within 30 days after each calendar quarter, rather than once a year. The bill also expands the required contents of those reports to include more detailed and uniform information about the pesticides used, including product names, registration or permit numbers, active ingredients, quantities expressed in pounds of active ingredient and percentage of active ingredient, the date of application, and more precise location information.
The bill specifically requires more detailed geospatial reporting, including geospatial data covering up to one square mile and the tax map key number for the application site. It also directs the Department of Agriculture to create an online reporting tool for restricted-use pesticide reporting. Public disclosure reports prepared by the department would likewise include county-level summaries with the added geospatial and quantity detail. The measure is intended to improve public health and environmental oversight by giving policymakers, researchers, and communities better information about where and how pesticides are used.
Impact
SB351 would amend sections 149A-26 and 149A-27 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes governing post-application pesticide reporting and public reports. It would impose a more frequent reporting schedule, expand the data elements that pesticide users must submit, and require the Department of Agriculture to adopt rules and build an online reporting tool. The bill would affect all users of restricted-use pesticides, the Department of Agriculture, and the public disclosure framework for county-level pesticide use data.
Sentiment
The available record suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill’s goals. The Senate Agriculture and Environment Committee passed the bill unanimously and without amendment, indicating support for stronger pesticide reporting and transparency. The bill’s findings frame the measure as a public health and environmental protection effort, and there is no recorded committee opposition or negative vote in the provided history.
Contention
The main policy tension is between transparency/public health oversight and the reporting burden on pesticide users, especially agricultural operations that would need to report more often and with more detailed geospatial information. The bill’s supporters emphasize that current annual reporting is insufficient for meaningful analysis and community protection, while the added detail is intended to help identify where pesticide impacts occur. No specific opposition is recorded in the provided materials, but the more granular location reporting could raise privacy, compliance, or administrative burden concerns among growers and agribusinesses.