Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt interrupted the testimony to say it was straying too far from the issue at hand and, noting the limited time, gave the speaker 20 seconds to wrap up.
Barbara Ehardt — Representative Beiswinger responded to questions about the evidence standard for a citizen complaint, explaining that the intent was to require good evidence that a prosecutor or attorney general could review, possibly including video evidence such as recordings of ATV activity on private property. He noted that the committee could tighten the language if desired.
Barbara Ehardt — During a continuous committee exchange, Barbara Ehardt was repeatedly addressed as Madam Chair/Chairman while members asked follow-up questions and the chair managed the discussion, including closing questioning.
Barbara Ehardt — As Chair, she asked Mr. Schroeder to clarify his title for the record.
Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt, as chair, managed the end of a witness’s testimony by welcoming the virtual witness, giving him time to testify and then a brief wrap-up, thanking him for his testimony, and directing the committee’s next steps. She asked the sponsor whether he had anything to add, clarified that the sponsor should have the last word, and reminded members to ask questions now rather than make statements, noting that the committee would figure out how to proceed if the bill could not simply be returned.
Ms. Avelin — The speaker says Ms. Avelin should return to walk through the proposal.
Marco Erickson — Representative Marco Erickson introduces RS 33199 with a technical correction, then explains and repeats the correction language after requests for clarification. He first references the correction location, initially citing page 1, line 42, then clarifies that the correction is actually on page 2 in the underlying section, and finally repeats the motion describing the strike-and-insert style correction to the bill.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Wheeler asks for clarification on the correction location.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Wheeler was recognized to ask questions about the bill and then raised a connected series of concerns about how the exemption language would work in practice. He asked what happens when property ownership changes, whether the bill would create an unfunded mandate for counties to track exemptions and property sales, and whether the measure would increase county costs and ultimately property taxes. He later followed up with another question about what evidence a citizen would need to submit to show a violation under the bill, prompting a response from Representative Beiswinger.
Josh Wheeler — Asked to follow up with a question, noting that Director Jim may be better able to answer it.
Josh Wheeler — Josh Wheeler followed up on his earlier question by asking for a breakdown of the percentages of different application methods, confirming that about 52% are made from the air. He then asked what effect the bill’s restriction on aerial abatement methods—allowing them only in emergencies—would have on the ability to apply by plane or drone. He continued with additional follow-up questions, including what would happen if properties were not treated or if a request not to be treated were not honored.
Josh Wheeler — Supported the motion and warned against a rewrite that would effectively repeal the mosquito abatement district.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Wheeler was called on following Francisco's testimony and then moved that House Bill 555 be sent to the floor with a do-pass recommendation, briefly supporting the motion.
Elaine Price — Representative Elaine Price moves to introduce RS 3179 with a change and then states her support for the motion, adding that if the bill returns for a hearing she would want to address concerns at that time.
Elaine Price — Name appears in the transcript, likely a transcription error or misrecognition; context suggests the witness is being addressed.
Elaine Price — Representative Price asked whether districts handle opt-outs differently and referenced Canyon County and Gem County.
Elaine Price — Representative Price followed up by asking whether districts use the same applications or chemicals.
Elaine Price — Representative Price asked whether different districts handle opt-outs, species, and chemicals differently.
Elaine Price — Representative Elaine Price was called on to speak and then stated that she wanted the bill to come back with clearer language, emphasizing private property rights, the ability to opt out, and consistent implementation across districts.
Richard Cheatum — Questions whether the bill would bypass environmental or DEQ-related controls over septic/sewer replacement.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Richard Cheatum was called on and asked Mr. Robinson for clarification on the term "larvicides," specifically whether they affect adult insects. He then requested to follow up and asked about the broader impact on other insects, including concerns about beehives.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatum notes that a county commissioner has been waiting since 1:15, and the chair later thanks him for reminding her that the commissioner was still on the line.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Richard Cheatum first seeks permission to make a statement rather than ask a question, and the chair indicates he may proceed. Cheatum then delivers his statement, warning about the effects of West Nile virus in eastern Idaho, citing recurring cases and deaths, and arguing that mosquito abatement efforts should not be constrained.
Wendy Rojas — Wendy Rojas is introduced, identified as being from Gem County, and then invited to share her story. She testifies on her own behalf about living in a mosquito abatement district, explaining that she initially tried to understand what worked on her property but later became concerned about the district’s spraying practices and chemicals. She says spraying has harmed non-target species and the environment, cites studies and examples of contamination and health risks, and argues that the opt-out process is burdensome and improperly limited. She describes her own modified opt-out being ignored, her property being sprayed anyway, and her attempts to contact multiple officials and agencies without getting relief. She also says her family uses non-toxic mosquito control methods and that she has documented abuses by various districts over the past three years.
Ms. Rojas — The chair indicated members could ask questions of Ms. Rojas before testimony continued.
Ms. Rojas — The chair briefly addresses Ms. Rojas as someone who may help answer the question, then thanks her before moving to the next question.
Lucas Cayler — Representative Beiswinger participates in a continuous discussion of the bill’s exemption and implementation language. He explains that the exemption should remain available while the homeowner is there and that the goal is to avoid situations where a missed annual notice prevents desired spraying. In response to fiscal-note concerns, he says the budget impact is difficult to estimate but that more opt-outs would likely reduce spraying and materials costs. He also argues that homeowners should be able to protect their property and use alternative treatments. When asked about the statewide notice requirement and whether the bill distinguishes based on housing density, he initially says he does not have a good answer, notes the language likely came from LSO, and then confirms there is no distinction based on housing density.
Lucas Cayler — Said he is a Canyon County resident and asked what percentage of mosquito abatement is done via aerial control.
Lucas Cayler — Representative Lucas Cayler supported the motion and argued the bill should be improved to better protect private property rights and informed consent. He then referenced Canyon County website information about mosquito abatement chemicals, expressing concern about the aerial insecticide used and concluding that it appears hazardous to human health and the environment, reinforcing his support for the motion.
Wendy — Wendy was cited as someone who uses garlic sprays and other methods.
Jon Weber — Representative Weber is recognized and then asks for clarification on the bill language requiring the Board of County Commissioners to notify every mosquito abatement district in Idaho when a property is exempted from abatement-related activities.
Jon Weber — Representative John Weber introduces himself and presents House Bill 555, notes his connection and professional interest in the East Idaho District, explains the bill in that context, and then asks the chair for permission to have Nate Francisco, the association president who helped with the bill, speak for two minutes.
Clint Hostetler — A member identified as Representative Birch asked whether anyone in the audience is a mosquito abatement district member or certified expert.
Clint Hostetler — Clint Hostetler questioned the witness about whether they had reviewed studies cited by Mrs. Rojas regarding the chemicals being used, whether other or more natural alternatives had been explored, and whether the public in the affected districts receives full disclosure and informed consent about what is being sprayed.
Clint Hostetler — Clint Hostetler questioned the witness about whether all ingredients are fully disclosed to the public, then followed up on claims of an overwhelming public request for the service by asking about a poll and whether any recent surveys had been conducted. The witness responded that there had been no formal surveys.
Clint Hostetler — The transcript appears to misrecognize the sponsor's name as 'Bice Winger' / 'Bik Swinger'; likely the representative being addressed is a member, but the exact ID is uncertain from this text alone.
Clint Hostetler — Likely the sponsor or presenter being referred to, though the transcription is unclear and the name is garbled.
Clint Hostetler — The sponsor says the discussion has been useful and notes that counties handle opt-outs differently; Gem County complaints were mentioned, while Canyon County was said to facilitate opt-outs.
Clint Hostetler — Says some testimony may have been inaccurate and reiterates support for the right not to be sprayed.
Clint Hostetler — Requests a motion to return the bill so he can work with stakeholders and bring it back with changes.
Clint Hostetler — Comments in support of the motion while criticizing rhetoric used in the debate.
Clint Hostetler — Argued that property rights and informed consent should be respected, and raised concerns about forced spraying and environmental impacts.
Clint Hostetler — Said he supports rewriting the bill if needed, but wants strong opt-out rights, informed consent, and property rights protections.
Clint Hostetler — Reiterated support for easy opt-out access and emphasized the balance between government authority and individual rights.
Scott Robinson — Scott Robinson, associated with the Canyon County Mosquito Abatement District, was introduced and given extra time to testify. He identified himself as a secretary and board member and praised the district’s work, arguing that mosquitoes are a public health issue and that mosquito abatement should be viewed as responsible integrated pest management rather than government overreach. He urged legislators to preserve local districts’ ability to act transparently and prevent disease before it becomes a crisis. In follow-up questioning, he described the district’s large, dense service area and explained that widespread opt-outs would make effective abatement difficult. He said modern drone technology allows precise larviciding that can reduce the need for expensive airplane spraying, and emphasized that the goal is to avoid emergency adulticide applications. He noted that district leadership has data on West Nile cases, said declining numbers suggest the program has been effective, and described larvicide crews using ATVs or backpacks to treat breeding areas. He repeatedly argued that larvicides are the safest control option, that adulticide fogging carries more risk, and that spraying is timed to reduce bee exposure. When asked about studies and disclosure, he said he had not reviewed specific studies himself, believed products have become safer over time, and was not aware of any full public disclosure list for residents.
Mr. Shin — Also identified as a witness who would receive three minutes.
Mr. Shin — The chair thanks Mr. Shin and indicates there are no questions.
Sarah Westbrook — Sarah Westbrook testified on behalf of the Idaho Association of Counties in strong opposition to the legislation. She explained that current law allows property owners to submit and follow an approved abatement plan while abatement districts monitor compliance, but said those monitoring provisions would be lost under the bill. She raised concerns about increased costs for abatement districts and counties, the administrative burden of tracking individual property-owner exemptions over time, and the difficulty of managing exemptions if an owner dies. She also opposed the bill’s private cause of action, questioned the evidentiary standard, and objected to the proposed $5,000 per-instance awards payable by county commissioners. She concluded by saying she could not comment on a specific property or district without the full facts.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Skaug was recognized by the chair and then asked whether reports that people were trying to opt out but were not being honored were accurate, suggesting that witnesses from the mosquito district or others speaking later might address the issue.