As I reported last night, Ike Leggett has returned Bill 52-14 to the Council without his signature, along with a memo explaining his reasons for doing so.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say Leggett’s memo was akin to waving a red cape in front of a bull, an open invitation to bill opponents to take the matter to court. If I wasn’t a lawyer, I might even be offended.
Informed sources indicate to Maryland Scramble that County Executive Ike Leggett will not veto the recently passed pesticide bill tomorrow, but will allow the bill to become law without his signature. Montgomery County will now have one of the country’s strongest pesticide laws.
The landmark pesticide bill passed the Montgomery County Council on Ocrober 6 with a 6-3 vote. Per County law, County Executive Ike Leggett has ten days after the bill is sent to him by the Council to sign it, veto it or let it become law without his signature.
Leggett hasn’t acted yet, and on the assumption that he got the bill no later than October 9 as called for under county law, tomorrow is the last day for him to veto it.
There were rumblings while the bill was pending that Leggett didn’t like some parts of the bill, and he was still grumbling after it was passed. This is a landmark piece of legislation that will save lives and protect children from the risks associated with pesticide exposure, so if you can, I know there’s more than a few activists that worked really hard on this bill that would appreciate you dropping Leggett an email urging him not to veto the bill. It so happens that I’m going to be in a meeting tonight with Mike Riley, head of the county’s Parks department, so if I can I’ll have an update later if I learn anything interesting about what’s going to happen tomorrow.
The Montgomery County Council will be voting today on Bill 52-14, an ambitious proposal by Council President George Leventhal to heavily regulate the use of pesticides in the county on both public and private property. Modeled after a law enacted in Takoma Park (insert Bill Turque joke here), 52-14 has produced strong public reaction both for and against the idea, more broadly and heavily for the bill than against. The coalition for the bill is known as Safe Grow Montgomery.
A series of amendments to weaken the bill have been proposed, primarily by Councilmember Roger Berliner. His reasons for the amendments, in his words, are as follows:
There are a number of reasons why I have come to believe that banning pesticide use on private property, as called for in Bill 52-14, is unwise at this moment in time:
(1) In my view, the most important issue confronting the Council is how we bring about significant changes in behavior on an issue our County has not previously seriously addressed or enforced. Prior to adopting the first ban of any large jurisdiction in the country, I believe it is our responsibility to increase awareness as to the potential health risks. If our public is made aware of the potential dangers, I believe it will significantly increase voluntary behavioral changes that lead to very substantial reductions in pesticide use;
(2) Just as we have done in other environmental initiatives, it is a prudent course of action to first set a baseline level of pesticide use and a reduction goal prior to imposing a ban. However, if we fail to reach our goal, then it would be reasonable to consider additional measures to curb the use of pesticides;
(3) Our public is highly divided on this issue, perhaps more so than on any issue that has come before our Council in my nine years. As elected officials, I believe it is our obligation to responsibly lead our community to healthier outcomes by educating, building broad support to the extent possible, and demonstrating on county property the efficacy of alternative approaches before imposing absolute restrictions on private use;
(4) The conclusion from the Attorney General’s Office that banning pesticide use on private property is likely to be preempted under state law, while certainly not dispositive, casts serious doubt over the legality of a measure that is deeply divisive and far-reaching;
(5) The nation’s leading experts at the National Cancer Institute have told us that the state of the science with respect to the health risks is not “definitive.” While I personally believe that the state of the science is sufficient to warrant a much more proactive approach to pesticides, I believe it falls short of justifying a private property ban at this moment in time;
(6) It has been generally acknowledged that the proposed ban would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. To adopt such a restrictive, divisive approach that is so difficult to enforce seems unwise to me; and
(7) While there are examples of situations where organic approaches to lawn care have been successful, there are still significant questions regarding the cost and effectiveness of organic lawn care for the average Montgomery County homeowner.
For several reasons, I do not believe that these amendments are warranted, and I very much hope the Council passes a strong version of the bill today.
First, there is strong and growing evidence that there are health risks in the most common pesticides used by commercial lawn care companies. That risk is not ameliorated by reductions in use – the harms are present when the chemicals are used.
Second, the model of voluntary behavior to regulate pesticide use and safe handling simply doesn’t work. There are many positive things about Texas – this isn’t one of them.
Third, I went to the hearing back in January. The folks for the bill were a diverse group of residents. Those against were lawn care workers organized by the pesticide manufacturers under the belief that jobs were at risk. They’re not – this proposal simply mandates the use of organic pesticides. As the article cited above from Texas shows, better regulation also protects workers who handle dangerous and toxic pesticides.
Fourth, the “OMG the lawyers!” argument is silly. If legislatures backed down every time someone threatened to sue them, nothing would ever get done. And the Attorney General has declined to adopt the reasoning of one of his lawyers as a formal opinion, suggesting that he does not agree with that reasoning.
There’s more, but you get the idea. These are bad, bill-killing amendments that would water down a cutting edge law into meaningless mush. Other proposed amendments would exempt county parks and playing fields from the pesticide ban, which would be even worse.
There is a tendency on the County Council to work behind the scenes to water down, amend and otherwise weaken good bills, but then to claim credit for the purest goals of the bill afterward (see Wage, Minimum, 2014). Don’t look at the votes on the final bill. That might be unanimous. Look at the votes on the amendments, and read the bragging, posturing emails accordingly. There will be truth tellers on this bill and there will be, um, others. I really don’t know how it’s going to go – certain Councilmembers hold the fate of the bill in their hands, Nancy Floreen and Hans Riemer, primarily. Hopefully, all will go as beneficially as possible. We can sort out who’s who and what’s what after the smoke clears and the dust settles.
Maryland Scramble 