An Act to create 29.601 (4m) of the statutes; Relating to: ban on the use of certain insecticides by the Department of Natural Resources.
Summary
SB298 would create a new statutory restriction on the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) by prohibiting the department from using insecticides in the neonicotinoid class on land it acquires and maintains. The bill is narrowly targeted at DNR-managed lands and does not broadly regulate private pesticide use or all state agencies. It would add a new subsection to the statutes governing DNR land management and insecticide use.
The bill includes two explicit exceptions. First, it would allow neonicotinoid use when it is carried out under cooperative farming agreements or contracts that were entered into before the bill’s effective date. Second, it would preserve use of these insecticides for forest insect control on forested lands, state forest nurseries, seed orchards, and in designated infestation zones. In practical terms, the bill would limit DNR’s pest-management options on state lands while preserving certain existing operational and forestry-related uses.
Impact
SB298 would amend Wisconsin statutes by creating s. 29.601 (4m), which would bar DNR from using neonicotinoid insecticides on land acquired and maintained by the department under s. 23.09 (2) (d), subject to the bill’s exceptions. The affected party is primarily the Department of Natural Resources, along with any contractors or partners working under DNR land-management arrangements. The bill would not appear to change pesticide rules for private landowners generally, but it would constrain how the state manages certain lands and could affect agricultural, habitat, and forestry practices on those properties.
Sentiment
The available record shows the bill was introduced with substantial sponsorship from both Senate and Assembly members, suggesting notable legislative interest in restricting neonicotinoid use on state-managed lands. However, there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, and the bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to reflect environmental or pollinator-protection concerns, but the final outcome indicates it did not advance to enactment.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the balance between environmental protection and land-management flexibility. Supporters would be expected to favor limiting neonicotinoids because of concerns about impacts on pollinators and ecosystems, while opponents or affected agencies may argue that DNR needs those tools for effective pest control, invasive species management, and forestry operations. The bill’s exceptions for preexisting cooperative farming agreements and forest insect control suggest an attempt to address operational concerns, but they also indicate that the scope of the ban was a key issue in shaping the proposal.