Legislating isn’t all fun and games and saving the Republic. Sometimes it’s just dreary updating of technical language.
Possibly the most boring committee hearings of the 2020 Session will be the House and Senate Ag hearings on House Bill 1028, a bill from the Department of Agriculture to “revise certain provisions regarding pesticide registration and application.” Its 59 sections appear to consist almost entirely of style-and-form revisions to modernize and simplify statutory language. It does things reducing the phrase “the secretary of agriculture” to “the secretary” throughout Section 38-20A… which, if we were governed by a typical word processing program, would be a single neat “Find and Replace All” command, but since we are governed by laws in books has to be conducted as dozens of separate sections all achieving the same goal.
One arguably substantive change lies in Section 5, which changes what ingredients pesticide makers have to report. Currently, they have to report all ingredients, active and inert. Section 5 changes that to say pesticide makers only have to report inert ingredients if the secretary asks for them. They still have to report everything ert.
But to make sure nothing sneaks by—and because you legislators are all committed to reading every word of every bill you vote on, right?—committee chairs should require the Secretary of Agriculture to itemize and explain the changes made by every section.
On the upside, HB 1028 starts with the funny of the week: Section 1 revises the definition of “active ingredient,” which currently reads, “any ingredient which prevents, destroys, repeals, or mitigates insects, fungi, rodents, weeds, or other pests.” That definition, part of a statute last revised in 1992, meant to say “repels… insects, fungi, rodents, weeds, or other pests.” HB 1028 so revises.
Cory, you and others, wrote well on the lazy legislators attending right-wing “conferences” – then returning with model bills written by the corporation for the corporation. USA Today and the Arizona Republic published a study of their observations.
https://www.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/investigations/2019/04/03/abortion-gun-laws-stand-your-ground-model-bills-conservatives-liberal-corporate-influence-lobbyists/3162173002/
I’d like to repeal insects and fungi like Al Novstrup and Phil Jensen.
I’m wondering about precision agriculture in South Dakota and application of pesticides by drones. I read through HB 1024 and skimmed a couple things on the SDDOA website, but found no clear reference to drone application. My daughter has been talking about this for years, but I’ve never heard how of if this is actually regulated specifically. Precision ag has its good points, but I would think drone application of pesticides would be risky in untrained hands. Anyone know anything about this?
Be aware that bills like this can have ramifications that may be questionable. I always read bills like this with both eyes open. I’m not seeing any nefarious intent here, but taking out some of the statute references may have some legal ramifications that I can’t see, and it makes it harder for citizens to trace back to the proper statutes. If the cross-reference statutes have been repealed, it makes sense to delete those references, but otherwise, I’d rather have that reference in there.
Also, bills like HB 1012 and 1013 bear some study. One thing in HB 1013 that is good is the repeal of this messed up statute dealing with initiated measures and constitutional amendments: 2-9-30.1. Expect some awful bill seeking to replace this repeal later. Did they hide this repeal in this bill so that they didn’t have to draw attention to their messed up work? I don’t know.
Do others think this bill violates the one subject rule? I sure do.
Watch these bills for amendments, too.
How would we know if an ingredient is inert? I would wonder if an ingredient is actually inert why put it in? Is there a legal definition of inert ingredient? I would like all ingredients listed as the company is claiming an ingredient may be inert, when in combination with other ingredients causes adverse unintended consequences.
Donald Pay, I am a full time farmer and while I have heard a lot about precision agriculture and its use, as far as I know it involves using GPS technology to allow ground application machines to more accurately apply fertilizer according to the soil type, previous yield data and soil analysis. I have never heard of drone aplication of pesticides. I am aware of drones being used photograph fields to determine levels of photosynthesis.