Barbara Ehardt — Barbara Ehardt is repeatedly addressed as chair/representative while the committee discusses her bill and asks questions. She opens remarks, explains the proposed change regarding forced annexation, argues that cities should bear costs if they require property owners to connect to services, and responds as the committee continues asking for clarification on the legislation.
Barbara Ehardt — Presiding chair addressed during the exchange.
Barbara Ehardt — Announced the hearing would open and noted there were many in-person witnesses.
Barbara Ehardt — As chair, Barbara Ehardt managed the hearing procedure by thanking the witness, calling Representative Bice Winger back for questions or comments, and reminding the committee that the presenter should have the last say and that questions needed to be asked before deliberation.
Melissa Davlin — Mentioned as part of the media affected by public records request issues.
Ms. Avelin — Invited back to walk the committee through the proposal and answer technical questions.
Marco Erickson — Marco Erickson moves to introduce RS 33199 with a technical correction, then responds to requests to repeat the correction location and motion. He clarifies that the correction is on page 1, line 42, briefly notes confusion with an old draft/page reference, and reiterates that the bill should be introduced with the minor correction.
Josh Wheeler — Josh Wheeler asks for clarification about the location of a clerical correction, specifically where the change should be made and confirming the relevant line reference.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Wheeler asks a series of related follow-up questions about the bill’s implementation and fiscal consequences. Wheeler first asks how the exemption would work and whether it would create an unfunded mandate for counties to monitor changes in property ownership. Wheeler then raises concerns about the fiscal note and asks what the impact could be on health and welfare budgets, including Medicaid, if mosquito-borne illness increases. After a brief procedural exchange allowing one more question, Wheeler continues by asking for clarification on what evidence a citizen would need to submit to prove a violation.
Josh Wheeler — Josh Wheeler was called on and then asked a series of related questions about mosquito treatment methods, seeking a breakdown of how much treatment is done through larvicide, adulticide, ATV/backpack applications, drones, and airplanes, and how the bill’s restrictions on aerial abatement could affect overall effectiveness.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Josh Wheeler re-asked and then followed up on his question about pesticide/abatement application methods, including the reported 52% aerial figure and how different application methods are broken down. He then pressed further on the bill’s proposal to restrict aerial abatement except in emergencies, and asked what would happen if a request not to be treated were not honored.
Josh Wheeler — Supported the motion and said any rewrite effectively repealing the mosquito abatement district should be viewed with serious concern.
Josh Wheeler — Representative Wheeler was called on and then moved that House Bill 555 be sent to the floor with a do pass recommendation, briefly noting support for the bill’s collaborative nature.
Elaine Price — Representative Elaine Price moved to introduce RS 3179 with a specific amendment clarifying that tax-supported municipal services may maintain or replace existing wastewater and water systems. She explained that the change is intended to reduce costs for homeowners, taxpayers, and cities by allowing septic systems to remain or be replaced, and then invited any technical questions about the motion.
Elaine Price — Elaine Price continued a single line of questioning with the witness about mosquito control district opt-outs. She first noted that one of her questions had been answered, then followed up by asking about the number of people opting out and the number of properties or parcels involved. She then continued by asking whether different districts handle mosquitoes differently, including differences in species and chemical use.
Elaine Price — Representative Elaine Price was recognized and then spoke in support of the motion, echoing prior comments and saying she wanted the bill to return with clearer language addressing private property rights, opt-out provisions, and uniform administration. She reiterated that she wants the bill back this session for those reasons.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Cheatum questioned whether the proposal would bypass local DEQ or other controlling authorities in decisions about septic system replacement, asking if the bill would go around any other groups that might have a say in whether a replacement septic system can proceed.
Richard Cheatum — Richard Cheatum is introduced as the next member to speak, then called on, and he asks for clarification about the term "larvicides," specifically whether they affect larvae or adult insects and other insects more broadly.
Richard Cheatum — Noted that a county commissioner had been waiting since 1:15.
Richard Cheatum — Representative Cheatham indicated he had a statement rather than a question, and then raised concern about the impact of West Nile virus in eastern Idaho, noting it had not been discussed much.
Wendy Rojas — Wendy Rojas is introduced as a presenter from Gem County and then gives a sustained personal account of living in an abatement district in Emmett. She explains that she initially accepted mosquito spraying but later became concerned that it was ineffective and harmful, including to beneficial insects, waterways, children, bees, crops, and her property. She says she attempted to opt out after learning about the exclusion clause, but found the process burdensome and believes the district improperly denied or restricted opt-outs, even after she submitted a modified form. She also describes trying to determine who oversees the special taxing districts and finding little or no meaningful oversight. Rojas concludes by saying she has documented abuses by these districts and wants the committee to understand the broader problems with spraying and district accountability.
Ms. Rojas / Wendy Rojas — The presenter turned the discussion over to Wendy Rojas to tell her story and support the bill.
Ms. Rojas — Ms. Rojas is identified as available to answer questions, brought in to help respond, permitted to speak, and then thanked after assisting with the prior question.
Wendy — Wendy is mentioned as someone who uses non-chemical approaches like garlic sprays, and the speaker adds that Wendy would probably know more about West Nile and related treatment methods.
Jon Weber — Representative Weber questions the requirement to notify every abatement district in the state, continuing the same line of inquiry about the statewide notification requirement.
Jon Weber — Representative John Weber introduced himself as the representative for District 34 in Madison County and presented House Bill 555. He explained that the bill is a rewrite of Idaho’s solid waste facilities code, disclosed his work with the East Idaho District, and outlined its main provisions: removing health districts from the regulatory framework, transferring authority to DEQ, and establishing a self-funded fee structure for districts and waste facilities.
people lined up to testify — The chair says there are people lined up to testify.
Lucas Cayler — Representative By Swinger responded to a question about what evidence would be needed for a citizen complaint, noting that the issue had been difficult to define and suggesting that the language could be tightened. The discussion centered on clarifying the evidentiary standard and how complaints might be evaluated, including the possibility of review by a prosecutor or the attorney general.
Lucas Cayler — Asked Mr. Robinson to repeat the timeline behind the Canyon County mosquito abatement district's formation.
Lucas Cayler — Representative Kaler engaged Mr. Lunders in a brief exchange about mosquito abatement operations, including concerns about short notification timing and a question about what percentage of mosquito abatement is done through aerial control. Mr. Lunders then responded to Representative Kaler’s question.
Lucas Cayler — Lucas Cayler thanked the witnesses, said he supported the motion to hold the bill, and explained that his research into Canyon County’s mosquito-control practices showed the use of multiple chemicals, including an aerial insecticide he viewed as hazardous. He argued the insecticide is harmful to human health and toxic to the environment, fish, and wildlife, reinforcing his support for the motion.
Scott Robinson — Scott Robinson of the Canyon County Mosquito Abatement District was introduced, called to testify, and then gave extended testimony and answers to questions about mosquito control. He identified himself as a secretary and board member, argued that mosquitoes are a public health issue, and defended integrated pest management, larviciding, and drone-assisted precision treatments as safer and more effective than broad aerial spraying. He urged legislators to preserve local mosquito abatement districts’ ability to operate responsibly and transparently, and explained that dense development and scattered opt-outs could complicate service. In response to questions, he said West Nile cases had declined since the district was established, credited staff and ground-based larvicide work, warned that growth could lead to future outbreaks, and deferred some technical questions to the district director. He also said larvicides are safer than adulticides/fogging, discussed bee impacts and his own hive losses, noted he had not reviewed cited chemical studies but believed products have become safer since 1994, and said he was not aware of a full disclosure list being provided to residents.
Mr. Shin — Named as another witness who would receive three minutes.
Sarah Westbrook — Sarah Westbrook testified on behalf of the Idaho Association of Counties in opposition to the legislation. She explained that counties currently have a process for submitting and approving abatement plans, and expressed concern that the bill would remove that framework. She also raised objections to the new property-owner participation provisions, citing administrative burden and workload concerns, opposed the private cause of action and $5,000 per-instance penalty, and concluded by saying she could not comment on a specific property or abatement district because she lacked the facts before the questioning ended.
Bruce Skaug — Asked about claims that opt-out requests were not being honored.
Bruce Skaug — Representative Bruce Skaug was called on and then asked the witness whether anyone has opted out under the current law and set up their own abatement, continuing the same question-and-answer exchange.
Bruce Skaug — Referenced as having asked related questions about the issue.
Bruce Skaug — Bruce Skaug moved to hold the bill in committee, with the transcript also identifying him as the member making that motion.
Ms. Westbrook — Asked to address opt-out concerns or defer to later witnesses.
Steve Berch — Asked Mr. Robinson to repeat his name and began questioning him about the size and character of his district.
Steve Berch — Pressed Mr. Robinson on whether mosquito abatement has reduced West Nile cases.
Steve Berch — Representative Berch raised concerns about mosquito control practices, suggesting the need to explore more eco-friendly alternatives and emphasizing informed consent. He then clarified that the bill is specifically about allowing people to opt out of being treated, urging the discussion to stay focused on the bill’s substance rather than becoming a broader debate over mosquito abatement science. The chair responded by acknowledging his point.
Steve Berch — Representative Steve Berch is addressed multiple times during the discussion and then asks a follow-up question about the budget impact of a proposed $5,000 private cause of action if product drift affects a property that does not want to be abated.
Steve Berch — Supported the motion and cautioned against moving from opt-out to opt-in because it would prevent action on community-wide mosquito control.
Clint Hostetler — Asked whether Mr. Robinson had reviewed studies cited by Mrs. Rojas and whether the chemicals used are fully disclosed.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler asked a series of related follow-up questions about whether the public has full disclosure of ingredients and whether that information is also available on the website, then continued probing public support for the mosquito-control service by asking about polling, survey results, and whether there is evidence of demand in the district area.
Clint Hostetler — Representative Clint Hostetler opposed the motion and criticized the rhetoric in the discussion, then expanded his argument by emphasizing informed consent, property rights, individual choice over what goes on one’s body and property, and the importance of making it easy for people to opt out.
Mr. Robinson — Mr. Robinson discussed mosquito abatement and related product choices, saying natural or organic products are not necessarily safer and can sometimes be more irritating than conventional ones. He explained that his mosquito abatement work has not focused on eco-friendly alternatives, though his own business does, and described larvicide as the gold standard for breaking the mosquito cycle. He also deferred several detailed questions to Jim or Doug, including questions about application specifics, the district’s formation history, and whether the community is consulted during these efforts.
Joe Alfieri — Joe Alfieri asked about the overall mosquito abatement process in urban districts, including how officials determine that there is a mosquito problem and how abatement decisions are made, with attention to community notification and input.
Joe Alfieri — Representative Alfieri asked for a step-by-step explanation of how the mosquito abatement district identifies a mosquito problem, decides when to proceed with abatement, and how the public is notified. Mr. Lunders then responded to that line of questioning.