An Act to create 94.701 (3) (b) 9. of the statutes; Relating to: local regulation of pesticides to protect pollinators.
Summary
SB292 would create a new exception to Wisconsin’s general prohibition on local regulation of pesticides. Under current law, cities, villages, towns, and counties are broadly barred from prohibiting or otherwise regulating pesticide use, subject to several existing exceptions. This bill would add another exception allowing a political subdivision to regulate pesticides when the purpose is to protect pollinators or pollinator habitats.
The bill defines “pollinator” as an insect that pollinates flowers. In practical terms, the measure would authorize local governments to adopt ordinances aimed at reducing pesticide harms to bees, butterflies, and other pollinating insects, as well as the habitats they depend on, while leaving the rest of the state pesticide regulatory framework in place.
Impact
SB292 would amend section 94.701 (3) (b) of the Wisconsin statutes by adding a new local-government exemption to the state preemption rule on pesticide regulation. The change would give municipalities and counties limited authority to regulate pesticides for pollinator protection, potentially affecting pesticide applicators, agricultural operations, landscaping practices, and local environmental ordinances. It would not broadly repeal state preemption, but it would carve out a specific area where local action would be permitted.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been introduced with support from a broad coalition of senators and representatives, suggesting favorable interest among its sponsors in pollinator protection and local environmental authority. However, the available record shows no committee transcripts or recorded votes, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Based on the text and sponsorship, the general sentiment seems supportive in principle, but not sufficient to secure enactment.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between local control and statewide uniformity in pesticide regulation. Supporters would favor allowing local governments to respond to pollinator concerns and habitat loss, while opponents may view the bill as an erosion of state preemption that could create a patchwork of local pesticide rules for farmers, applicators, and property owners. Because there are no committee transcripts or votes provided, the specific arguments on each side are not documented in the record here.