Current federal law gives the Wyoming Department of Agriculture regulatory authority over the registration, disposal, transportation, training, certification, and methods of application for pesticides. The federal government retains the authority to review and approve the state regulations.

However, the federal law is silent on regulating use of pesticides. Therefore, city and county governments may exercise local control over the use of specific chemicals.

HB 65 proposed to preempt this local control by vesting the Wyoming Department of Agriculture with exclusive authority over all pesticide use.

Proponents of the bill argued that uniform regulations would make it easier on pesticide users, and would ensure that decisions made regarding chemical use would be based on good science.

Supporters insisted that the state would not use its newfound authority to deprive local government of all control, but only the ability to ban specific chemicals.

Opponents of the bill argued that HB 65 was a stealth bill to deprive local governments of the ability to respond to legitimate concerns (such as protecting local water supplies from specific chemicals) and to tailor regulations to local needs.

Opponents also testified that HB 65 was part of a national effort by the agribusiness and petrochemical industries to prevent local control over the use of pesticides, and to put all regulatory authority with state agencies, which would be easier for industry to influence.

The House amended HB 65 on second reading to allow local governments to make their ordinances more restrictive than the state’s regulations. This amendment was subsequently removed by a third reading amendment offered by Rep. Rodney (Pete) Anderson (R-H10, Pine Bluffs), who had previously sponsored legislation similar to HB 65 (and who was a pesticide and fertilizer dealer at the time).

The House then passed HB 65, 37-22 (1 excused).

The Senate amended HB 65 to allow counties and municipalities to prohibit the use of pesticides in their respective jurisdictions. A third reading amendment which would have required local communities to consult with the state before enacting pesticide regulations failed.

The Senate then approved HB 65, 18-11 (1 excused).

The House refused to concur with the Senate’s amendment restoring local government control over pesticide regulation. The Senate, in turn, refused to approve two conference committee reports which deleted the local control amendment. Ultimately, HB 65 was indefinitely postponed by the House.

A NO vote means: in the House, the representative opposed local government control over pesticide use; in the Senate, the senator opposed local government control over pesticide use or opposed the bill entirely, leaving the situation as is (where local governments can assert control).