Sneaking a major amendment about local control of pesticides into a bill about urinals, lightbulbs and commercial ovens is inappropriate at best. I try not to deal in hyperbole but hear me when I say sneaking a contentious eleventh-hour amendment concerning local control of pesticides into an unrelated bill rather than into the bill that actually deals with that exact issue when it’s heard in the House agriculture committee just hours later is despicable.

The surprise amendment brought forward by co-prime sponsors Sen. Lisa Cutter, D-Littleton, and Sen. Faith Winter, D-Westminster, was passed as the ag lobby was all listening to the ag committee hearing regarding SB23-192, Sunset Pesticide Applicators’ Act, all in anticipation of robust discussion about local control. They were summoned to the Transportation and Energy committee meeting and arrived in time to witness the passage of the urinal bill with pesticide amendments. That’s no way to do business.

During the hearing, Republican Sen. Cleave Simpson, an ag producer from the San Luis Valley, questioned the inclusion of pesticides, saying it did not fit the title.

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

“I’m trying to figure out how adopting regulations limiting the use of pesticides fits under the environmental standards for certain products, what’s the product change?” Simpson asked.

Sen. Winter retorted that “this title is certain products and pesticides are certainly a product.”

Sen. Byron Pelton, R-Sterling, also fought the amendments that passed 5-2. Other aye votes were cast by Sen. Tony Exum, Sen. Sonya Jaquez Lewis, and Sen. Kevin Priola, who not only represents Weld County, one of the largest agriculture producing counties in the U.S. but is also a prime sponsor of SB23-192, Sunset Pesticide Applicators’ Act, the very bill that was being discussed in the House Ag Committee. For shame.

The inclusion of the pesticide local control amendment outside of the House Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee and outside of the pesticide discussion left Rep. Barbara McLachlan, D-Durango, visibly frustrated and saddened as she introduced SB23-192 to the committee just hours after the amendment was passed in the Senate Transportation Committee.

Rep. Matt Soper, R- Delta, said he shared McLachlan’s disappointment. He offered the example of Japanese Beetles in his district that are met with robust control efforts to protect the multi-million-dollar crops that make Palisade famous.

“I listen when you tell me this is not an area for local control when you have pests that are out there that have no clue they’re migrating over local government lines, moving from one city to another county to a special district – they don’t know, they’re just pursuing the next tree to hop onto and suck the lifeblood out of,” he said. “That’s where we also have to follow the science here and it’s not good for local control.”

Perhaps a ballot proposal to fund efforts to teach Japanese Beetles (and maybe wolves, too, while we’re at it) to differentiate between various county, city and special district boundaries is in order.

Minutes later in the House Ag Committee hearing, the Colorado Department of Agriculture, run by Commissioner Kate Greenberg, made a 180-degree policy flip to support local control of pesticides in direct opposition to what they have recognized as best practice for years and without any warning to the state’s second largest industry, which they are tasked with representing. This too, is entirely unacceptable.

Rep. Richard Holtorf, who has never been known to mince words, called CDA’s Deputy Commissioner of External Affairs Jordan Beezley on the carpet. It was the first time Holtorf had heard of CDA’s new position on the issue.

“You work for the Department of Agriculture, you support agriculture,” Holtorf said. “The way I understand it, the Colorado Department of Agriculture is supposed to make sure that agriculture’s needs are met. Now, with regard to that and stating that, agriculture and the applicator community continues to stand strongly for the statewide regulation as a best practice. Uniform statewide regulations as a best practice for agriculture. Knowing the political issues and some of the comments that are made, how do you balance that knowing your role as the Colorado Department of Agriculture and not the Colorado Department of Activism or of Local Control?”

Rep. Marc Catlin, R-Montrose, asked Beezley why he hadn’t previously mentioned CDA’s stance in any of the previous hearings on the bill. Catlin made one of the most reasonable arguments about local control during a marathon day under the Gold Dome. Catlin asked Beezley how many local governments – who certainly can do so – elect not to utilize certain pesticides on their owned properties, like alleys, parks and golf courses. Beezley couldn’t answer.

“That would be an interesting idea because they’re wanting local control but yet the things they can control, you don’t have any evidence they’re doing so,” Catlin said. “…so it seems to me the things they can control, they should control.”

Though it came as no surprise, refreshing given their apparent love of surprises, emails to both Sen. Winter and Sen. Cutter went unanswered. CDA did respond saying the requested information would be forthcoming, but it had not yet been received as of press time.

Rachel Gabel writes about agriculture and rural issues. She is assistant editor of The Fence Post Magazine, the region’s preeminent agriculture publication. Gabel is a daughter of the state’s oil and gas industry and a member of one of the state’s 12,000 cattle-raising families, and she has authored children’s books used in hundreds of classrooms to teach students about agriculture.