Navigating Change on the State Level

Remaining on top of pressing issues will be key for the professional pest management industry’s 2025 state legislative landscape

Megan Striegel, Director, Legislative & Regulatory Affairs, NPMA

The professional pest management industry’s 2024 achievements were made possible by the dedication of our state policy affairs representatives, state association leaders, Public Policy Committee members, and NPMA member advocates. Their efforts extended beyond statehouse sessions, shifting toward proactive engagement with their local candidates for office. 

We have hit the ground running this year to engage early and often with the new and returning state legislators. As these officials settled in for the 2025 legislative sessions, NPMA members are providing crucial proactive education about the professional pest management industry. 

Our primary concern remains the potential rollback of state pesticide preemption, which would grant local control over pesticide regulation. Other pressing issues include restrictions on pesticide usage patterns, prohibitions on specific pesticides, reclassifying general-use pesticides to restricted-use products, banning control methods such as glue traps, and expanding notification requirements.

Rolling back state pesticide preemption, which would have allowed the local control and regulation of pesticides, received a defining defeat in Colorado. This marks the fourth time in five years that the Colorado Pest Control Association has celebrated such a victory. The association excelled in testifying at committee hearings and organizing a letter-writing and phone call campaign directed at key legislators. 
Following the targeted erosion of state pesticide preemption in 2023, Minnesota’s cities of the first class—including St. Paul, Minneapolis, Rochester, and Duluth—did not pursue their ability to regulate pesticides with a pollinator advisory on the label. Local issues continued to persist into 2024 for Massachusetts, where the cities of Arlington and Newton continued to advocate for local control of pesticides, which would allow them to prohibit the use of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides within city limits. The state Legislature has continued to uphold the state regulatory process, killing legislative rollback attempts. 

State legislatures continue to propose restrictions on rodent control treatments, both chemical (rodenticides) and mechanical. California enacted a first-in-the-nation ban on all first- and second-generation anticoagulant rodenticides. Indicating that opposition to rodent control measures used by pest management professionals will persist beyond chemical bans, New Hampshire and New York both attempted to restrict the use of glue and adhesive traps, but these efforts ultimately failed. Similarly, Connecticut’s attempt to reclassify rodenticides as restricted-use products fell short, as the Legislature chose to hold off on these discussions pending the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s upcoming interim decision on rodenticides (for more, see “Drawing the Line on Restrictive Rodenticide Regulations,” page 10).

Additionally, there has been growing interest in expanding notification requirements for pesticide applications—either by time or distance. This change could significantly affect the daily operations of pest management professionals, who typically conduct eight to 10 services per day across multiple jurisdictions. Increasing the advanced notification time requirement could lead to multiple notifications for a single application, causing confusion and adding time constraints for applicators. Expanding the notification distance would have a considerable impact, especially since our industry often works in residential and urban areas.

Ongoing legislative and regulatory developments regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) can significantly affect the active ingredients and pesticide products available to the professional pest management industry in each state. Minnesota and Maine have adopted a “1-carbon fully fluorinated” definition of PFAS, which will lead to a complete ban on these substances in those states by 2032. This ban includes several active and inert ingredients commonly used in pest management tools. Although professional pesticide applicators are not the primary targets of this legislation, it is crucial to highlight the unintended consequences that such state regulations can have on pest control operations.