Prohibits the aerial and ground application of malathion and certain pyrethroid-based insecticides within one hundred feet of any school, day care center, park, or on other property when children are commuting to and from school or are engaged in outdoor activity.
A03151 would amend the Environmental Conservation Law to restrict the aerial and ground application of malathion and two pyrethroid-based insecticides, resmethrin and sumithrin. The bill prohibits these applications within 100 feet of schools, day care centers, and parks, and also bars them on other property when children are commuting to and from school or are engaged in outdoor activity.
The measure defines “school” broadly to include public, private, parochial schools, and BOCES, and defines “day care center” to include child day care centers and Head Start centers. It also preserves any stricter limits already found on pesticide labels or in other regulations, including county or local rules, and authorizes the Office to adopt implementing regulations. The bill would take effect immediately if enacted.
The bill would create a new section of the Environmental Conservation Law establishing a statewide buffer zone and use restriction for specified pesticides near child- and recreation-focused locations. It would affect pesticide applicators, municipalities, schools, day care providers, park-adjacent property owners, and government entities by limiting when and where these insecticides may be applied, while allowing stricter existing federal, state, local, or label-based standards to remain in force.
No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or roll-call sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text and sponsor framing, the measure appears to be motivated by child safety and exposure reduction concerns, with an emphasis on limiting pesticide drift and contact near places where children are present.
The main potential points of contention are likely to be the public-health benefits of restricting pesticide use versus the operational burden on applicators, municipalities, and property owners who rely on these products for mosquito or pest control. Another likely issue is the breadth of the restriction, including the 100-foot buffer and the application ban when children are commuting or outdoors, which may raise questions about enforcement, timing, and practical implementation. No specific opposing or supporting arguments are documented in the provided materials.