State Policies for Protecting Insects from Pesticides

States contain incredibly diverse public lands, including parks and preserves; built spaces like schools, roadways, and government buildings; and leased and state trust lands. States can better protect pollinators and broader biodiversity by establishing or strengthening pest management programs that emphasize ecological methods and reduce pesticide use on state and/or local public lands. States can also choose to explicitly prohibit the use of certain high-risk pesticides on public lands. In doing so, states are setting a positive example for private land management.

Policy Examples

• California (Fish and Game Commission § 540): Prohibits the California Department of Fish and Wildlife from using neonicotinoid insecticides on state lands. 
• Minnesota Appropriations Bill (enacted 2024): Prohibits the use of neonicotinoids or chlorpyrifos on state-managed lands including leased lands. 
• New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (enacted 2009): Implements an Integrated Pest Management program to minimize or eliminate the use of pesticides on all property managed by the Office; includes prioritizing least toxic options when pesticides are used and banning pesticide foggers, organophosphates, and carbamates.
• Connecticut Senate Bill 916 (enacted 2005): Prohibits the use of pesticides at K-8 schools and day care facilities, with exceptions for minimum risk pesticides and emergency applications required to preserve public health and safety.
• Oregon (ORS 634.660): Requires state agencies and public universities to implement integrated pest management practices, including adopting a list of low-impact pesticides for use in the IPM plan.

Seeds for dozens of crops — including squash, lettuce, tomatoes, broccoli, cotton, sunflowers — as well as nearly all commercially grown corn, more than half of soybeans, and about half of wheat, are coated with systemic insecticides before they are sold and planted. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designates treated seed as “treated articles,” essentially exempting them from federal pesticide oversight. Yet, treated seed represents a significant portion of total insecticide use nationwide, and conservative estimates found that treated seeds are planted on approximately 150 million acres in the United States. To put it plainly: based on the most recent available estimates, more than half of the total toxic load for bees in U.S. agriculture comes from neonicotinoids applied on crop seeds.

Treated seeds are used prophylactically and often provide little or no value for managing pests. In fact, the vast majority of the insecticide on the seed isn’t absorbed by the target crop plants, instead ending up in the soil, water, or in adjacent plants. This contamination harms pollinators and other wildlife, water quality and aquatic life, and ecosystems as a whole. Unused treated seeds can also become a toxic waste problem. In one case, a facility created tens of thousands of tons of waste that was devastating to people and wildlife. Federal gaps have left it up to states to track, regulate, and mitigate harm from treated seed use and disposal. Several states have already taken action, and momentum is growing.

Policy Examples

• New York S1856-A (enacted 2023) and Vermont H. 706 (enacted 2024): Prohibits sale, distribution, or use of neonicotinoid treated seeds for corn, soybeans, and other major grain crops, except where growers can show demonstrated risk of seed pests. Both the Vermont and New York bills allow a grace period for the transition.
• California AB-1042 (enacted 2024): Requires treated seeds sold in the state to be labeled with their chemical components and corresponding hazard statements.
• Minnesota HF 2310 (enacted 2024): Prohibits hazardous disposal methods for treated seeds and requires the Pollution Control Agency to adopt rules for the safe and lawful disposal of waste treated seed. 
• Maine LD 1323 (enacted 2025): Directs the Board of Pesticides Control to study the impacts of neonicotinoid-treated seeds on pollinators and alternatives to treated seeds.
• Vermont seed law (6 V.S.A. § 648): Requires manufacturers or processors distributing agricultural seed to report annually the quantity of treated article seed and untreated seed sold in the state. This state-level treated seed reporting helps fill an important transparency gap.
• Additional steps: Establish limitations on seed treatments that utilize newer systemic or other harmful insecticides, such as chlorantraniliprole, cyantraniliprole, and isocycloseram.

Many insecticides readily available to untrained consumers are highly toxic to bees, butterflies, and other beneficial insects. These products are frequently applied in urban and residential areas for cosmetic reasons or preventatively, where pests pose no economic, ecological, or public health threat. These uses are risky for wildlife, especially when applied by unlicensed users who are not trained in following complex label instructions. Many of the older insecticides such as pyrethroids and carbamates are harmful to pollinators. Furthermore, newer systemic insecticides such as neonicotinoids, diamides, and butenolides carry additional risk because they are generally long-lived and can be easily absorbed by nearby plants, increasing exposure risk for beneficial insects. Targeted prohibitions can eliminate particularly harmful uses of insecticides in places where they are not needed or can limit the availability of certain products to trained applicators only. 

Policy Examples

• Connecticut SB 9 (enacted 2025): Prohibits the use of neonicotinoid insecticides on turfgrass in the state. 
• Nevada AB 162 (enacted 2023): Prohibits the purchase or use of neonicotinoid insecticides on plants except for commercial agricultural use.
• Maine LD 155 (enacted 2021): Prohibits the use of certain neonicotinoid insecticides in outdoor residential landscapes.
• Washington SB 5972 (enacted 2024): Halts some neonicotinoid insecticide uses in outdoor ornamental landscapes so that they are only used by licensed applicators or for tree injections. 
• Maryland HB 0211 (enacted 2016): Restricts the sale of neonicotinoid insecticides to licensed retailers; restricts their use to licensed applicators or employees under their supervision. 
• California Code of Regulations (Title 3, Division 6, §6960-6972): Halts some uses of pyrethroid insecticides in outdoor urban spaces such as during precipitation, to standing water or within a certain distance from aquatic habitats; limits use to spot treatment only in certain urban settings.
• Additional steps: Expand prohibitions of cosmetic pesticide uses in urban and residential landscapes; expand oversight to ensure only licensed applicators can use bee-toxic insecticides.

Pesticide applications by private companies in residential and other built spaces can carry significant risks, such as exposure to PFAS (“forever chemicals”) and harm to wildlife, people, and pets. Recent research also suggests that these chemicals drift onto neighboring properties in the vast majority of cases. Private companies promote pesticide uses that may not be driven by an economic or public health threat, and advertising can misrepresent pesticides and their risks. There are many different ways to address this issue through common sense state policy that ensures the customer’s right-to-know and limits unnecessary harm from private pest control services. 

Policy Examples

• Illinois H.B. 3118 (enacted 2022): Requires private applicators to provide a copy of EPA product labels to customers upon request; restricts applicators from conducting mosquito barrier sprays during certain times of year. 
• Connecticut S.B. 104 (enacted 2018): Bans the installation and use of residential automatic pesticide misting systems in the state.
• Oregon H.B. 4139 (enacted 2014): Ensures that training for pesticide applicators includes information on avoiding harm to pollinators and alternatives to pesticide use.
• New York Neighbor Notification Law (enacted 2001): Requires at least 48-hour written notice to neighboring properties for commercial lawn pesticide applications and the posting of visual notification (signage).
• Additional steps: Restrict the use of false claims that synthetic pesticides are “natural”, “non-toxic”, or “derived from natural ingredients”; require mandatory disclosure of the use of PFAS pesticides; prohibit subscription-based outdoor pest control services.

Homeowner associations and condominium communities (collectively HOAs) represent a growing number of residential communities. More than 370,000 HOAs comprise approximately 29 million households, and an estimated 65% of new homes are built in HOA communities. Unfortunately, many HOAs have stringent rules that make it difficult for residents to implement pollinator-friendly practices on their property or community common spaces. This is a barrier to effective conservation, and state policy can help restore residents’ ability to provide a safe home for pollinators in their community.

Policy Examples

• Oregon HB 2409 (enacted 2021): Prohibits an HOA from requiring pesticides on private property and allows homeowners to opt out of community-wide maintenance that includes application of pesticides on their property. HOAs must also give at least 7 days notice if they will be applying pesticides on an owner's private property. 
• Maryland HB 322 (enacted 2021): Prohibits an HOA from imposing an "unreasonable restriction" such as pesticide use on "low impact landscaping". Low impact landscaping includes pollinator gardens, rain gardens, xeriscaping, and other landscapes that prevent pollution and/or provide habitat for wildlife.
• Pennsylvania HB 1878 (introduced 2025): Prohibits an HOA or deed restriction from preventing a homeowner from installing native conservation landscaping on their property or limiting the location and acreage of native plantings, while still allowing the HOA to maintain aesthetic and management guidelines for the landscaping.
• Colorado SB23-178 (enacted 2023): Prohibits an HOA from preventing the owner of a single-family home from using xeriscape, nonvegetative turf grass, or drought-tolerant plants on their property. This policy also allows HOAs to adopt and enforce aesthetic guidelines for those plantings, though the association must allow at least 80% drought-tolerant plantings and provide at least three pre-approved water-wise native garden designs.
• Additional steps: Require HOAs to give advance notice and opportunity for resident input before pesticides are applied to community common spaces.

Growers and ranchers may want to reduce pesticide use but need additional knowledge, technical support, or financial resources to do so. State legislation can help provide the funding and tools growers need to make voluntary changes. These can include incentives for cover cropping, using seeds without insecticide coatings, planting habitat to attract pollinators and other beneficial insects, using protective netting as a mechanical protection against insect pests, and others. Legislation may also fund university research and extension to develop sustainable agroecological pest management practices and provide technical support to growers.

Policy Examples

• Colorado HB24-1249 (enacted 2024): Establishes an agricultural stewardship tax credit program that provides growers and ranchers with incentives for practices that increase soil health, improve water efficiency, or create more diverse and beneficial ecosystems.
• Virginia Agricultural Best Management Practices Credit: Provides a tax credit to growers and ranchers implementing an approved resource management plan with agricultural best management practices, including practicing integrated pest management.
• Several states provide direct, ongoing funding for Extension and integrated pest management programs through their annual budgets. For example, California funds the University of California Cooperative Extension and Integrated Pest Management Program to deliver research and technical assistance to growers, and New York supports Cornell Cooperative Extension, including county-based educators and IPM programs. Oregon also provides funding for programs including OSU Extension Service and agricultural research stations.
• Additional steps: State level grants can support applied research on prevention-based pest management and outreach/education/support for farmers (CDPR funding - Sustainable Pest Management grants, CDFA funding - Biologically Integrated Farming Systems grants). 

Basic information on what pesticides are used, where they are used, and in what quantities are critically valuable for a variety of stakeholders, including agricultural researchers, government regulators, and public health professionals. Yet, this information is not available in states that lack a transparent and detailed pesticide use reporting system (PURS). PURS data can inform our understanding of potential pesticide risks to people and wildlife and propel changes in policy and practices that address identified concerns. Well-designed PURS ensure that reported data are standardized, digitized, and publicly available in a searchable format at a spatial resolution that allows for analysis of pesticide use patterns. Several states provide examples of how a PURS can be implemented.

Policy Examples

• California (3 CCR § 6626): Arguably the strongest example of pesticide use reporting, requires agricultural operators and other licensed pesticide applicators to report their pesticide use by crop, commodity, and site to the county agricultural commissioner. These data are aggregated into a statewide database and made publicly available in a searchable format.
• Massachusetts (333 CMR, § 10.14): Requires all commercial and private certified pesticide applicators and their employees to record pesticide applications and annual submittal of records to the Pesticide Board. Records are summarized by product and made publicly available. 
• Vermont (Rule for Control of Pesticides, Ch 12): Requires pesticide use to be reported annually to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture by certified commercial, non-commercial and government applicators. Annual summaries are made publicly available by county and treatment category (e.g., forestry; corn, field, and forage crops; golf courses).
• Vermont seed law (6 V.S.A. § 648): Requires manufacturers or processors distributing agricultural seed to report annually the quantity of treated article seed and untreated seed sold in the state. 
• Additional steps: Require reporting of treated seed usage by those who plant the seed; track sales of pesticides purchased by unlicensed users, including home gardeners; improve tracking of unlicensed pesticide use in urban and residential landscapes. 

In addition to advocating for policies that help protect pollinators, biodiversity, and communities from the harmful effects of pesticides, states are also taking on important defensive efforts. Over the last several decades, many states have introduced and passed industry-backed bills that restrict or “preempt” their local community’s authority to regulate pesticides. Several states including Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, and Vermont have successfully fended off pesticide preemption and defended their resident’s ability to regulate pesticides at the local level. These defensive efforts, in combination with offensive campaigns, are key to protecting states from the harmful effects of pesticides.