By PAULA TRACY, InDepthNH.org

CONCORD – Just what “neonics” are and whether the state should restrict their use to allow for bird and bee populations to rebound was the subject of a hearing before a House Environment and Agriculture Committee with overwhelming support Tuesday.

Like neighboring states, House Bill 1431-FN would restrict the use of neonicotinoid pesticides in the Granite State.

It was supported by an overwhelming number of those who testified and those online with 305 in support and six in opposition, with two neutral.

State Rep. John MacDonald, R-Wolfeboro Falls is the prime sponsor. The bill restricts the use of neonicotinoid pesticides and requires the department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food to create an educational program about the use of such pesticides and alternatives.

“Neonicotinoid pesticide” means any pesticide containing one or more of the following active ingredients: acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, nitenpyram, nithiazine, thiacloprid, or thiamethoxam,” the bill reads.

The category acts as neurotoxins which can get into the soil and water and kill many different types of non targeted insects.

If made law, it would require the state to re-classify neonicotinoid pesticides as “restricted use” and  limit their application to state certified applicators only and sold by licensed dealers only. Right now you can buy it online and legislators wondered about how it would be enforced.

The bill also says “no neonicotinoid pesticides shall be used on any property owned, leased, or managed by the state of New Hampshire, including but not limited to state parks, forests, recreational areas, highway rights-of-way, leased lands, and grounds surrounding state buildings, except for control of invasive species; for structural pest control within state buildings when applied by licensed pest control operators; or exemptions approved by the pesticide division of the department of agriculture on an “as needed” basis.

The “neonics” as they were called during the hearing could not be used for aesthetic purposes such as for lawns and shrubbery, the bill states.

The bill would have the department develop an educational program focused on impacts of neonicotinoid pesticides on birds, bees, beneficial insects and pollinators and provide guidance on pollinator-friendly alternatives to neonicotinoid pesticides.

The state would work to promote integrated pest management practices that protect pollinators under the bill and support the establishment of pollinator habitat on private and public lands.

Penalties in the bill call for liability for a civil forfeiture not to exceed “$5,000 for each such violation, or each day of a continuing violation, which may be collected in a civil action or in connection with an action for injunctive relief brought by the attorney general. The proceeds of any such forfeiture shall be utilized in the enforcement of this subdivision, for pesticide control research, or to remedy damage to the resources of the state caused by unlawful pesticide use and application.”

Any person who violates any provision of this subdivision may be subject to the imposition of an administrative fine levied by the division, not to exceed $1,000 for each violation.

Many who spoke noted the summer night sky is no longer as filled with lightning bugs and there are fewer dead bugs on vehicle windows as there has been a decline in bumble bees and other pollinators who are critical to the food chain not only for humans but for all creatures.

Judy Lindsey of Candia said she came as “a regular citizen who cares about our world,” and said she was saddened when a neighbor’s beekeeping experience ended after a neighbor’s application of pesticide on their lawn.

She said she can count the number of monarch butterflies she sees in one season on her hands and as a teacher used to show students the whole metamorphosis process.

David Trumble of Weare, a certified organic farmer, said the solution is in more research rather than applications which destroy beneficial insects and impact zooplankton in water.

While Kyle Lombard, forest health specialist within the state Division of Forest and Lands said he 95 percent agreed with the bill he had to oppose it because of an aspect of it that only licensed applicators can apply neonics. He fears that some will go around having to pay for a licensed application and that they could apply more toxic products.

He worried that people will “simply use other options that we have been trying to get away from.”
Lombard noted that the annual state forest health report is now out and can be found here https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/bc436532d0b64d879186ede7d5a96988

Carol Foss, senior advisor for science and policy at the NH Audubon said the organization supports the bill and said it would be bad “to throw the baby out with the bathwater” for Lombard’s concerns, noting there could be more involvement perhaps with cooperative extension service to help property owners with their decisions.

Foss was joined by others who said that the bill would provide where the state pesticide board has failed to act, though farmer Chuck Souther of Concord’s Apple Hill Farm predicted that one way or the other it will end up before that board.

A copy of the bill as introduced is here https://gc.nh.gov/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=1779&inflect=2. The same committee also heard House Bill 1086-FN that would prohibit the use of seeds treated with a neonic coating in the state.

A copy of that bill as introduced and also sponsored by Rep. MacDonald is here https://gc.nh.gov/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=1776&inflect=2