12
Nov
Community Votes Down Ballot Initiative To Repeal Local Pesticide Restrictions in Maine
(Beyond Pesticides, November 12, 2025) A ballot initiative to repeal a local ordinance in Maine that bans most uses of lawn chemicals was rejected by the voters last week by a 10-point margin. The voters of Falmouth, Maine, 55% to 45%, upheld an updated ordinance that was passed by the town council in February 2025 to protect the community’s health and the coastal environment from petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers, sending a strong message that ecological land management in conformance with organic standards is the responsible path, given pesticide-related health threats, biodiversity decline, and the climate crisis. The ordinance being challenged by the ballot initiative updated a 2020 rule with more stringent criteria and restrictions and the goal of ensuring a holistic approach to land management.
Maine has become the bellwether nationwide for communities seeking to eliminate the use of petrochemical pesticides and fertilizers on public and private property, including parks, playing fields, open spaces, and yards. When applied, pesticides move off the target site through drift, volatilization, runoff, and leaching, creating community-wide poisoning and contamination. However, unlike Maine and five other states, most state laws preempt local jurisdictions from restricting pesticides. These states have adopted preemption language at the behest of the chemical industry after the Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Mortier (1991) (see court decision) upheld the right of local jurisdictions to restrict pesticides under federal pesticide law. Public and environmental health advocates are calling for the reversal of state preemption laws so that communities can decide whether to regulate pesticides and fertilizers more stringently than their state in order to protect their residents, consistent with planetary and human health.
Falmouth Ordinance
Several years after the adoption of the original lawn care ordinance in Falmouth, Maine (2020), the town’s Conservation Commission studied the issues, the Town Council held hearings, and public input was collected, leading to the town’s adoption of a stronger ordinance in effective date that was later extended to 2026. See here for the testimony of Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, delivered to the town council of Falmouth at an April 2024, hearing.Â
The 2025 ordinance maintains the same core purpose of the original ordinance, however, it extends the ordinance’s restrictions to all potential pesticide and fertilizer users, including residents, commercial groups, and licensed applicators—the original ordinance just covered commercial applicators. The definitions section expanded to include over 20 new or significantly revised definitions, including commercial agriculture, commercial horticulture, EPA, golf course, golf course playing surfaces, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), invasive species, lawn, natural, organic, or “non-synthetic†matter, natural turf, neonicotinoid pesticide, Organic Landscape Management, person, pests of significant public health importance, public utility, retailer, storm drain, substance, synthetic matter, and water body.
The original ordinance only required commercial pesticide and fertilizer applicators to register annually between February and January of the next calendar year, whereas the new version broadens this registration requirement to any compensated service for pesticides and fertilizers. There is also an additional requirement to include a copy of a State of Maine Commercial Master Pesticide applicator license; the effect of this is a broader reach to include use areas by public utilities. In the new ordinance, retail pesticide users must label permitted products and display signage.
The original ordinance referenced organic federal law for the definitions of natural, organic, or “non-synthetic†substances without any explicit details; the new ordinance is explicit in restricting substances allowed for use to those identified on the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances as created under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and updated by the National Organic Standards Board. Synthetic substances are banned under OFPA unless they are listed on the National List. Neonicotinoid insecticides are specifically prohibited for outdoor use under the new ordinance, which is also the case under OFPA’s allowed and prohibited list.
Regarding fertilizer use and restrictions, the original ordinance had a ban on outdoor applications between December 1 and March 31; the fertilizer restrictions in the amended ordinance have additional detail, including the following provisions:
- “Application of fertilizer is prohibited within 75 feet of any water body and within 20 feet of any storm drain. Only non-water-soluble fertilizer, compost, or composted manure may be applied between 75 feet and 250 feet of any water body.
- Fertilizer containing nitrogen and phosphorus shall be applied on lawns and natural turf in Falmouth as follows:
- A maximum of 2 pounds of nitrogen per 1000 square feet per year on established turf and new development. A maximum of 1 pound of phosphorus per 1000 square feet per year for new lawns or with a soil test that states phosphorus is needed.
- Application is limited to two times per year.â€
The new ordinance expands the list of exemptions for pesticide use from the original ordinance to fifteen additional categories, including:
- commercial agriculture and commercial horticulture;
- pet supplies;
- disinfectants, germicides, bactericides, miticides, and virucides (indoor household and sanitation);
- insect repellents;
- rat and rodent control supplies;
- swimming pool supplies;
- general use paints, stains, wood preservatives, and sealants;
- pesticides determined as “minimum risk pesticides†as defined by Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and 40 C.F.R. § 152.25(f)(1) or (2) (OFPA);
- pesticide use for “pests of significant public health importance such as ticks and mosquitoes†and “animals or insects that may cause damage to a structure, such as carpenter ants or termitesâ€;
- golf course playing surface applications (as defined by the Golf Course Superintendents Association of America, Maine Chapter, Best Management Practices for Maine Golf Courses);
- grub control application (restricted use of chlorantraniliprole by a licensed applicator);
- invasive species application (Emerald Ash Borer, Asian Longhorned Beetle, Hemlock Woolly Adelgid, Browntail Moth, nematodes, and other insects identified as invasive by the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation, and Forestry);
- invasive terrestrial plant application (plants listed ” under the Maine Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry’s Natural Areas Program as currently invasive, potentially or probably invasive, and highly likely but not currently invasive in addition to those listed in the Div. 11-19-1-2 Definitions in the Code of Ordinances for the Town of Falmouthâ€);
- specific rights of way; and
- athletic fields managed by the town of Falmouth and the Falmouth School Department.
This successful defense of local restrictions on landscape pesticides and fertilizers follows another failed attempt to undermine the pesticide and fertilizer ordinance in Portland, Maine, earlier this year.
A proposed change to a model pesticide ordinance was soundly defeated in March 2025 after a near-unanimous vote of the Portland City Council. In a 6-1 vote, the council rejected the school district’s request for a waiver under the city’s pesticide use ordinance to use the insecticide chlorantraniliprole/Acelepryn (diamide insecticide). A campaign to reject the waiver was led by Avery Yale Kamila, cofounder of Portland Protectors, and supported by Beyond Pesticides. (See Daily News here.)
Local Authority and Preemption
State preemption of its local political subdivisions is governed by different approaches. Beyond Pesticides describes preemption as either explicit or limited. See State Preemption Law: The battle for local control of democracy for more information.
If a municipality votes to pass a pesticide ordinance, many states (including Massachusetts) restrict local government authority under a Home Rule structure that does not include the power to restrict pesticides. While some have pointed to legal doctrine, known as the Dillon Rule, which says that all local powers are derived from the state, virtually all states give their local political subdivision local “police powers†that enable elected bodies of the localities to protect the health and general welfare of their residents.
It is because of this that state legislatures seeking to rein in state authority have adopted legislation preempting local authority to restrict pesticides. A local ordinance in Montgomery County, Maryland, which is not explicitly preempted under state law from restricting pesticides, was upheld in state court after the chemical and allied industry challenged the ordinance under an “implied preemption†theory. See Court Upholds Right of Local Maryland County to Restrict Pesticides, Rejects Pesticide and Lawn Care Industry Stomping on Local Rights. (See court decision.) On Home Rule, see the report by the Massachusetts Division of Local Services in the Department of Revenue for more information and history. (See Daily News here.)
Failure-to-Warn and Corporate Accountability
On a related issue, Bayer/Monsanto and its allies have continued their efforts at the state and federal levels to take away the right of victims of cancer and other diseases to hold corporations liable for their harmful products in the courts. This is not surprising given recent reporting by Bloomberg suggesting that Bayer is considering dropping their glyphosate-based products, as potential legal settlements mount to upwards of $18 billion.
In this context, the chemical industry has successfully lobbied for what environmentalists and legal experts have called a weak federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and then argues in court that they comply with the law when sued for damages or for their “failure to warn†about their products’ hazards. Juries have ruled that chemical manufacturers fail to provide adequate warning through their product labeling, given the independent peer-reviewed science, including what the company knew or should have known, and a clinical assessment of the harm caused to plaintiffs. (See Daily News here for recent court updates.)
In a climate of deregulation and with the dismantling of many U.S. Environmental Protection Agency programs, the threat of litigation is an important check on manufacturers and an incentive to develop safer products. In Dow v. Bates (2005) (see court decision), the Supreme Court ruled that, “. . .Congress surely would have expressed its intention more clearly if it had meant to deprive injured parties of a long available form of compensation.†The court went on to say that the lawsuits for damages are important in “providing an incentive to manufacturers to use the utmost care in distributing inherently dangerous items.â€
Under the Appropriations bill moving through Congress, the only permitted EPA-approved label language must be consistent with a human health assessment or carcinogenicity classification previously approved by EPA—freezing in place EPA’s position on a pesticide for possibly decades, and eliminating the ability to hold chemical manufacturers accountable for damages associated with their failure to warn on their product label. The bill language states: “None of the funds made available by this or any other Act may be used to issue or adopt any guidance or any policy, take any regulatory action…†without conducting an entirely new assessment—which takes “no less than four years, and sometimes over 12,†according to EPA. [The bill language is found here. Search on Section 453.] Under this provision, industry will argue that they, as registrants of pesticide ingredients, are unable to disclose potential harms that are different from the EPA-approved label. The industry is also pushing to amend the Farm Bill with similar language that shields chemical manufacturers from lawsuits on the harm caused by their products.
An industry-led campaign to quash lawsuits against chemical manufacturers because of their “failure to warn†about the hazards of their pesticide products has so far failed to move forward in nine state legislatures, including those with significant Republican majorities (Iowa, Missouri, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Wyoming, Montana, and Oklahoma). (See Daily News here.)
Call to Action
You can take action today by learning more about how to organize your local community against unnecessary toxic pesticide use through the Tools for Change resource hub.
If you are interested in learning more but are not sure where to start, contact Beyond Pesticides at [email protected] to discuss moving forward with local pesticide policy to restrict pesticides and a program to adopt organic land management.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.
Source: Falmouth 2020 Ordinance ; Falmouth 2025 Ordinance ; Portland Press Herald ; Bloomberg
