Latest news with #ConnecticutAudubonSociety
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
CT lawmakers advance partial pesticide ban, allow exemption for ‘new DDT' blamed for killing birds
A partial ban on rat poisons and other pesticides used in lawn care was advanced by the Connecticut Senate on Thursday, but only after the bill's sponsors agreed to several changes sought by the pest control industry. The legislation, Senate Bill 9, is the upper chamber's preeminent environmental measure for the 2025 legislative session. In addition to curbing pesticides, the bill would order an update to the state's water plan, require towns to consider sea level rise when making zoning changes and mandate flood risk disclosures for home buyers and renters, among other provisions. Most of the attention, however, has focused on two provisions dealing with pest controls — specifically the use of certain long-acting rodenticides and a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids — which critics have spent years lobbying to ban in Connecticut. While the bill would impose significantly greater restrictions on both of those chemicals, lawmakers passed an amendment on the Senate floor Thursday that offered some exemptions for the use of neonicotinoids — commonly referred to as 'neonics' — and delayed other restrictions on their use until 2027. 'The industry's biggest concern is they said they were willing to help… if you give us a little time to acclimate and change our systems, we will be on board with this,' said Sen. Rick Lopes, D-New Britain, co-chair of the Environment Committee. 'That's the deal we cut with them.' Still, the deal rankled environmental advocates, who have labeled neonicotinoids 'the new DDT' due to their potential to harm birds, pollinators and other wildlife. The Connecticut Audubon Society sent an email to its members prior to Thursday's vote opposing the changes and urging lawmakers to restore the stricter language. Debate on the bill was briefly delayed as Democrats huddled to discuss some members' concern with the new language. One of those in the huddle, state Sen. Christine Cohen, D-Guilford, was Lopes' predecessor as chair of the Environment Committee and had worked on several previous and unsuccessful efforts to ban neonicotinoids and rodenticides. Pesticide called 'new DDT' has been found in CT waterways. Here's what it kills. 'I've been on that side of the negotiations, and I know how difficult it can be,' Cohen said afterwards. 'So despite my disappointment at not getting a full ban in both instances, I can appreciate their work, and I'm glad we're at least moving in the right direction.' Representatives of the Connecticut Pest Control Association and other industry groups did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the revised legislation Thursday. The legislation passed the Senate by vote of 28 to 8 after less than an hour of debate. It now heads to the House for further consideration. Formal opposition to the bill came from a handful of Republicans, whose concerns focused on the bill's partial ban on certain rat poisons that would limit their use to professionals certified by the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. Those restrictions are due to take effect on Jan. 1, 2026. Senate Minority Leader Stephen Harding, R-Brookfield, said he was worried some residents 'would be forced to live with infestations of pests,' if they are unable to afford to hire a licensed specialist. During Thursday's debate, Lopes also objected to the characterization of the bill made by some of the supporters of stricter regulations. Lopes said he was asked by the pest control industry to include another carveout in the bill that would have allowed the application of pesticides on elementary school grounds. When he broached the idea with environmental groups, their objections prompted him to abandon the plan. But rumors continued to swirl about its inclusion in the final draft of the bill, he said. 'It was discussed briefly and then discarded,' Lopes said. 'It has never been a part of the bill, it was just an idea at one point.' Lopes said he did agree to include an exemption allowing for the application of neonicotinoids on shrubbery and other ornamental plants at the request of the industry. The bill would still ban the use of the pesticides on lawns and golf courses, which he said accounted for the majority of current applications in Connecticut. 'We targeted, like we target for emissions sometimes, the largest and worst-damaging aspect of the chemical,' Lopes said. 'That should significantly decrease the amount of neonics exposed into our environment.' Critics of the pesticides, however, said it made little sense to ban their use on grass while allowing it on other plants nearby that serve as natural habitats to birds, butterflies, bees and other species. 'It's problematic because that's where most of the blooms are, and the berries for the birds and the pollinators,' said Louise Washer, a Connecticut-based advocate with Pollinator Pathways. 'On turf grass, there's usually not as many flowering plants, so it's not as attractive.' Washer and other advocates said that while they were upset about the new exemptions, they still supported the overall bill and urged its passage in the House. Lopes said that the bill, including its climate provisions, is intended to run in tandem with House Bill 5004 as part of broader and long-awaited effort to bolster the state's preparedness for climate change. The House bill, which was approved by members of that chamber earlier this month, is intended to set Connecticut on a path toward achieving net-zero emissions by 2050. John Moritz is a reporter for the Connecticut Mirror. Copyright 2025 @ CT Mirror (
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
As Trump administration looks to change Endangered Species Act, vulnerable animals in CT are at risk
Each spring on Falkner Island, which sits about three miles off the coast of Guilford, hundreds of roseate terns flock to the uninhabited five-acre island to breed and nest during the warm summer months before heading south again to migrate. The roseate tern, one of a handful of federally endangered and protected bird species in Connecticut, has about 95% of its population in the state on the island each summer. Conservationists estimate the island is home to around 2,500 pairs of common terns and about 35 pairs of roseate terns. Falkner provides the only regular nesting location for federally endangered roseate terns in Connecticut. As the home of the state's roseate tern colony, Falkner is designated by the National Audubon Society as an Important Bird Area and is protected as part of the Stewart B. McKinney National Wildlife Refuge. There is no public access to the island to protect its endangered bird habitat. A recent proposal by President Donald Trump's administration to the Endangered Species Act of 1973 has some conservationists in the state alarmed that rollbacks could endanger vulnerable species including the roseate tern. Connecticut, like most other states, has an abundance of wildlife, with a handful of federally protected animals calling the state home including the bog turtle, the Indiana bat, the northern long-eared bat, the piping plover and the dwarf wedgemussel. Altogether, just over a dozen endangered species live in Connecticut. Dozens more are considered threatened or of 'special concern' but are not federally recognized and granted protections under the ESA. Federal agencies have proposed the removal of habitat changes from the definition of 'harm' to endangered and threatened species. This move, conservation groups warn, could accelerate extinctions by allowing logging, mining, construction and other development to proceed in areas where endangered species reside. 'If they're not protected everywhere, they're not protected anywhere,' said Tom Anderson, a spokesperson with the Connecticut Audubon Society. 'Just because the terns are protected on Falkner's Island, a threat to the terns in another part of their range, that would threaten their population on the island because they migrate to other areas. This is true for many other types of animals.' Under the Trump administration, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have issued a proposal that habitat loss should not count as 'harm' because it differs from the direct targeting of wildlife — referred to in the statute as 'take.' If that interpretation is finalized, private landowners and industry operators could no longer be held liable under the ESA for clearing forests, draining wetlands or reshaping shorelines so long as they claim no intention to injure protected animals. 'Right now we're not seeing any impacts to the roseate tern or piping plover, but there is concern about future impacts,' said Milan Bull, senior director of science and conservation for the Connecticut Audubon Society. 'Everything is so in flux right now, it's hard to see what is going to have an impact.' Chris Elphik, a professor of conservation biology at the University of Connecticut, said that since the ESA was passed over 50 years ago, it is thought to be responsible for saving hundreds of animals from the brink of extinction. 'It has been tremendously successful,' Elphik said. 'There's a couple different ways of looking at it. There have been a number of different studies looking at how these species would have gone extinct if we didn't have the ESA. They clearly show that we would have had many, many extinctions if not for the legislation. In Connecticut, you can go see bald eagles now because there are close to 100 nesting areas in the state. That's a bird that didn't occur in Connecticut as early as the 1980s. That recovery is entirely from protections. Peregrine falcons and ospreys have also made recoveries in the state.' While national wildlife refuge areas will most likely remain protected, lands that are not offered protection may become vulnerable, even if there are known endangered species to inhabit there, according to Elphik. The ESA doesn't protect all parts of a species' range equally. Rather, the Endangered Species Act provides more effective protection for habitats that happen to be on federal land as opposed to private land. But endangered species often depend on private lands for habitat, and the ESA has long sought to protect these species and their habitats, even on private property, Elphik said. The ESA prohibits 'take' of listed species, which includes harming or disturbing them, but also allows for permits for incidental take if a landowner's actions could impact a species. The proposed change would make it easier to develop private lands where endangered species are found because 'take' would be more narrowly defined to directly killing or harming them, not taking away their habitat. 'Many endangered species live on private lands in Connecticut,' Elphik said. 'What the ESA does is it provides protections even on privately held lands, which really distinguishes it from other state protections that preclude private lands. The federal ESA is seen as one of the strongest pieces of animal legislation anywhere in the world. It's unusually strong compared to other environmental protections.' In Connecticut, approximately 93.8% of land is privately owned, according to data. This means that a significant portion of the state's land is not owned by the government or other public entities, possibly making it easier to develop under the ESA. The amount of developed land in Connecticut has increased by approximately 20% over the last 30 years while the state's population has only grown by approximately 11%, data shows. 'The risk is large but not certain with this revision,' Elphik said. 'The majority of Connecticut is private land, which can open us up for more potential risks than other states. The main constraint in Connecticut is that the state's ESA only really applies to state land. So the federal ESA has been the gold standard for ensuring private land is protected for endangered species.' In 2019, during Trump's first term, the ESA underwent significant revisions, primarily focusing on how protections for threatened species are applied. A key change was the removal of a 'blanket' rule that automatically extended the same protections to threatened species as endangered species. In response to the rollbacks, Connecticut joined 16 other states, the District of Columbia and New York City in a federal lawsuit. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong told the Courant his office is 'reviewing legal options' to stop the proposed change to the ESA. 'This proposal will likely result in the permanent extinction of endangered species, all so that big businesses, including the fossil fuel industry, can have unfettered access to exploit their habitats,' Tong said. 'We sued and stopped this kind of action before, and we are reviewing all legal options with our multistate partners to protect our nation's most iconic and threatened species.' Stephen Underwood can be reached at sunderwood@
