Committee hears competing testimony on restricting higher‑risk rodenticides; sponsors seek layover

Lawmakers in the House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee heard extensive, often heated testimony on Senate Bill 62, a proposal to reclassify certain second‑generation anticoagulant rodenticides (SGARs) as restricted‑use pesticides and limit sales and use to licensed, trained applicators.

Sponsor Representative Velasco said the bill is not a ban but would align Colorado with a regulatory approach that ties higher‑toxicity rodenticides to licensing, testing and training. “This bill is consistent with [EPA’s] direction and uses Colorado's existing authority to align these products with other pesticides that already require training, licensing and oversight,” she said. Co‑sponsor Representative Brown described the bill as a compromise shaped by stakeholder input.

Supporters — wildlife and animal‑welfare groups, and the Department of Agriculture — argued the measure would reduce accidental poisonings of wildlife, pets and children. Mark Searls of Project Coyote pointed to documented exposure pathways and said restricting access would “reduce these types of unintended exposures…with minimal hurdles for those seeking to use them responsibly.” Jordan Beasley, deputy commissioner at the Colorado Department of Agriculture, backed the restricted‑use approach while acknowledging amendments intended to reduce regulatory burden.

Opponents from multiple sectors warned the bill would raise costs, limit rapid response to infestations, and produce inequitable outcomes for rural communities and cash‑strapped schools and housing providers. Andrew Hamrick, general counsel for the Colorado Apartment Association, argued that landlords and housing providers have legal obligations to maintain habitable, rodent‑free units and that limiting tools could conflict with those duties. School, retailer, pest‑control and agricultural witnesses described licensing costs, testing and training burdens and the potential need to hire outside applicators for time‑sensitive problems.

The hearing also centered on competing data about exposures. Representative Johnson noted a memo from the Rocky Mountain Poison Control Center claiming that of nearly 3,000 exposures in 2024, only a small number resulted in major clinical outcomes and there were no deaths; sponsors countered with broader exposure statistics cited from America’s Poison Centers indicating approximately 3,100 annual human exposures from 2019–2023 and a high incidence among children under five. Proponent Katie Swift (rodenticide task‑force chair) urged caution about relying solely on anecdote and emphasized EPA’s rigorous evaluation process.

Committee members probed practical questions: how restricted‑use sales would be enforced, whether internet and out‑of‑state purchases could circumvent Colorado rules, and whether existing private applicator or qualified supervisor licences would cover current users. Witnesses answered that private applicator licences are common in agriculture (the Department of Agriculture cited roughly 3,964 active private applicator licenses in the state) while commercial licensing is costlier and more onerous for many users.

After testimony from dozens of witnesses on both sides — including producers, pest‑control firms, wildlife advocates and health professionals — Representative Velasco asked the committee to lay SB 62 over for action only to continue stakeholder conversations and potential technical changes. The committee agreed to lay the bill over pending further negotiation and amendments.