Preemption Discussions to Take Center Stage at Legislative Day

As pest management professionals get ready to head to Washington for NPMA Legislative Day, one issue continues to dominate the conversation: Congressional codification of state level pesticide preemption.

Once again, the main purpose of Capitol Hill visits in March will be to push Congress to codify the role of state lead agencies as co-regulators of pesticides alongside the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Why has this issue been the focal point of so many recent NPMA Legislative Days?

Currently, 45 states have preemption, meaning these states’ lead agencies — which often are housed in state agriculture departments — have been the primary leads since the 1970s in working with EPA to administer Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) laws and support the development of scientifically based pesticide labels. Without preemption, PMPs are challenged with having to comply with different laws and regulations in each of the communities they service.

“When localities are the stewards of authority to regulate pesticides, they do so with maybe one part-time, pesticide-focused employee and a handful of other general city employees or county employees,” said J.D. Darr, senior director, public policy, National Pest Management Association (NPMA). “The expertise needed just doesn’t really exist at the local level. So, when we see regulation coming out of localities, it often lacks the scientific basis; therefore, we generally oppose it.”

Another not-so-obvious reason preemption is important is fair competition. Darr said NPMA works to facilitate a business environment that allows all pest control operators to succeed as long as they’re following the rules. “Something that we see play out at the local level is when there are local restrictions installed in a city or county, rarely are those restrictions actually enforced,” he said.

Currently, Maine, Maryland, Alaska, Nevada and Minnesota do not have preemption. Darr said PMPs in Maine have been particularly challenged by not having preemption; local ordinances restricting pesticide use often are outdated, unclear and difficult for applicators to navigate. “Many of these regulations are poorly known and inconsistently applied, leaving business owners uncertain about the laws they need to follow,” Darr said.

“This unpredictable legal environment makes it harder for businesses to operate and plan for the future, leading to increased risk and inefficiency.”

In 2024, NPMA and others were successful in efforts to have preemption language inserted in the version of the Farm Bill that passed out of the House Agriculture Committee. However, Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) decided not to include state-level pesticide preemption in the bill she introduced. As Congress approached the end of the year, Farm Bill discussions stalled, pushing any decisions into 2025.

With the new Congress in place, the process of drafting the Farm Bill will need to start over, and it is still unclear when it will be introduced. Darr said much of the delay will depend on other priorities, such as confirming cabinet secretaries and addressing a range of other issues. While the timing remains uncertain, there is an expectation the bill will be introduced in 2025.

Recent activities in Colorado, where the state’s legislature tried (unsuccessfully) to undo preemption last year, highlight the urgency of this issue. If Colorado succeeds in implementing stricter local control over pesticide regulations, Darr said, it could set a precedent for other states to follow, potentially leading to a patchwork of local regulations that would further complicate the ability for businesses to navigate pesticide laws. “There is no change in the urgency,” he said. “Our message at Legislative Day will continue to be that we need a Farm Bill, and we need it soon. And we need that Farm Bill to includes a pesticide preemption amendment.”