TO: Mayor Fitzgerald and Members of Halifax Regional Council

SUBMITTED BY:

K. R. Meech, Chief Administrative Officer

Dan English, Deputy Chief Administrative Officer

DATE: March 6, 2000

SUBJECT: Pesticide by-law

ORIGIN

. At the regular meeting of Council, January 26, 1999, Council decided to appoint a Committee to "make recommendations to Council with respect to a strategy for the regulation of pesticides including the drafting of a Pesticide By-law."

. The Pesticide by-law Advisory Committee presented it's Final Report to Council on December 7, 1999. At Council's direction, the present staff report provides an analysis of the fundamental issues, the recommendations and their implications.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that a Pesticide by-law be drafted, which provides protection for people diagnosed as having potentially life-threatening reactions to pesticide exposure by providing a ban on pesticide use within 100 metres of residences of such registered people.

Staff will prepare a draft by-law and identify implementation issues, based upon Council's policy decisions.

BACKGROUND

"Pesticide" is a general term which includes herbicides and insecticides as well as other products. Fertilisers are not included. Pesticides are subject to the following types of government regulations.

Federal Role

The federal government approves pesticides for use based on studies primarily related to chronic effects. It also regulates the labelling and directions for such use. The labels must list the active ingredients, each of which is assigned a Pest Control Product (PCP) number. Inactive ingredients (as defined by the manufacturer) need not be listed.

Provincial Role

Provincial governments regulate the licensing and training requirements for pesticide vendors and commercial applicators. No licensing or training restrictions apply to private individuals who purchase and use pesticides on their own.

Municipal Role

Municipalities regulating pesticides fall into two categories:
. the majority regulate or limit pesticide use only on municipal properties;
. while fewer have regulated or limited pesticide use on private lands.

The Municipal Government Act (1999) (MGA) allows HRM to adopt by-laws regulating the application and use of "pesticides, herbicides and insecticides". HRM may regulate pesticides used on:
. residential property, and
. HRM property (see Attachment).

DISCUSSION

Consideration of pesticides involves complex and confusing issues. There are two parts to the debate: policy, and implementation. It is recommended that Council focus now on the desired policy direction (presentation to be made March 21) for a pesticide by-law, involving two fundamental questions:

. Who do we want to protect; and
. How much protection do we want to give them?

These fundamental questions must be decided prior to debating the implementation issues (by-law details, costs, administration, enforcement and liability) of a by-law, and the following discussion provides a policy model for Council debate. This discussion does not address specific option details, pending resolution of the fundamental questions regarding Council's policy direction on the by-law. Refer to the Appendix for discussion of the Pesticide by-law Advisory Committee's specific recommendations.

Health Effects

The rationale for a municipal by-law is to provide specific protection for those individuals who suffer the most severe effects of exposure. There is a broad range of symptoms resulting from pesticide exposure, falling into two categories: chronic and acute.

Chronic effects are illnesses such as cancer, impaired fertility, and birth defects, which may result from long-term exposure to certain substances. Some studies show there is a small statistical risk of such diseases as a result of pesticide exposure, but it cannot be predicted which individuals will experience such effects. However, there is evidence indicating that children and pregnant women are more susceptible to the effects of both acute and chronic exposure.

The only option under a municipal by-law likely to provide effective protection against chronic effects of general, wide-spread exposure, or to address general concerns about pesticides, would be a comprehensive ban on pesticide use. Such concerns are better addressed at the federal level of regulation.

Acute effects are illnesses which result in the short term from one or more exposures to pesticides, and are likely to re-occur. A certain proportion of the population will be subject to specific diseases and symptoms ranging from minor to very severe, as indicated below:

Acute Health Effects of Pesticide Exposure

Least Severe to Most Severe --->

Advisory Committee Recommendation: the Committee recommended two levels of registration - one which would provide a higher level of protection for those with severe or potentially life-threatening effects (supported by medical document), and a second in which the entire population would be eligible for a lesser level of protection.

Staff Recommendation: staff recommends that the by-law focus only on those with potentially life-threatening effects (supported by medical document), but provide the most effective level of protection (prohibition surrounding their residences).

It is estimated that approximately 5% of the population (or about 15,000 in HRM, based on an approximate population of 300,000) will experience some degree of mild symptoms from exposure, while approximately 1% (about 3,000 in HRM) may suffer more severe symptoms, and only 0.1% (about 300 in HRM) will suffer potentially life-threatening symptoms. It is those individuals who suffer the most severe acute symptoms who can best be afforded some level of protection under a municipal by-law.

Options for a municipal by-law which are likely to provide effective protection against acute symptoms of exposure will involve a system of either advance notice of pesticide use (less effective), or some degree of restrictions on pesticide use (more effective).

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS / MULTI-YEAR FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

No provision has been made in the 2000/2001 budget for costs of a pesticide by-law. The administrative and enforcement costs will depend upon the by-law approach as determined by Council. Estimates and details of resulting costs will be provided when the draft by-law is presented to Council, based upon Council's direction as to the nature of the by-law.

ALTERNATIVES

Council may decide to proceed with a by-law which seeks to provide effective protection to those individuals who suffer the most severe and potentially life-threatening effects. This approach is recommended.

Council may decide to proceed with a by-law which seeks to provide effective protection to those individuals who suffer mild to severe symptoms, or who have a general objection to pesticides. This could involve a total ban, or partial ban with advance notice.

Council may decide not to proceed with a Pesticide by-law at this time and request Federal/Provincial levels to strengthen their legislation.

ATTACHMENTS

Section 533 of the Municipal Government Act, 1999 (enabling legislation for a Pesticide by-law).

Appendix - Discussion of the recommendations of the Pesticide by-law Advisory Committee.

Additional copies of this report, and information on its status, can be obtained by contacting the Office of the Municipal Clerk at 490-4210, or Fax 490-4208.

Report Prepared by: _______________________________________________
Tony Blouin, Manager of Environmental Policy, 490-4610

Report Approved by: _______________________________________________
Paul Dunphy, Director,
Planning & Development Services

ATTACHMENT

The Municipal Government Act recently enacted by the Nova Scotia Legislature (effective April 1, 1999) contains provisions which permit the Council of the Halifax Regional Municipality to adopt a by-law regulating pesticides within the municipality. The Act states that:

533 (1) The council of Halifax Regional Municipality may make by-laws, for municipal purposes, respecting regulation of the application and use of pesticides, herbicides and insecticides for the maintenance of outdoor plants and turf on the part of a property used for residential purposes and on property of the municipality and, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, the by-law may

(a) require the posting of notices when pesticides, herbicides or insecticides are to be so used and regulate the form, manner and time of the notice and the area in which the notice must be posted;

(b) establish a registration scheme, that is open to the public, in which a resident may file with the clerk an objection to pesticides, herbicides and insecticides being so used in the vicinity of the property on which the person resides;

(c) require that notices be served on the residents of properties registered pursuant to the registration scheme within the distance specified in the by-law when pesticides, herbicides or insecticides are to be so used and regulate the form, time and manner of the notice;

(d) provide that pesticides, herbicides and insecticides may not be so used within the distance of a registered property established by the by-law, the requirements respecting notices to residents or owners of properties within the distance of a registered property established by the by-law and the effective date of the prohibition;

(e) specify the circumstances in which posting or serving of notices is not required or the prohibition does not apply;

(f) provide for all other matters necessary or incidental to the establishment of the registration scheme,

but, for great certainty, a by-law made pursuant to this Section does not apply to property used for agricultural or forestry purposes.

APPENDIX

The following discussion focuses on the key recommendations of the Advisory Committee, which are highlighted and followed by a commentary on their implications. The recommendations of the Committee comply with the provisions of the MGA.

Committee Recommendations

In summary, the Committee recommends:
. a two-tiered registration and advance notification system for residential properties, and
. a prohibition of pesticide use on HRM property.

Two-Tier Registration/Notification

The recommended two-tier registration/notification system consists of the following:
. HRM-would establish a registry for property owners who want to be notified prior to pesticides being applied nearby;
. Those who register with a "medical statement" would be notified by all residential property owners within one hundred (100) metres, five (5) days prior to pesticide use , while those without a "medical statement" would only be notified by residential property owners abutting them twenty-four (24) hours prior to use;
. HRM would identify property owners within the "abutting zone" or "100-metre zone" and inform them that they are obligated to provide the appropriate advance notification;
. In the case of "medical statements", these would have to be supplied by two General Practitioners or one Specialist.

Criteria would have to be developed, with the aid of the medical profession, to define what an appropriate medical "statement" means for the purposes of the by-law. There is no "specialty" in environmental medicine. Registrants would have to re-register annually, as this would be the only mechanism by which HRM could be sure that they were still resident at the registered location. HRM's Geographic Information System (GIS) could be used to identify the abutting/100 metre-zone properties, and form letters could be generated by the system to notify the registered owners of such properties of their obligations under the by-law. Such a system could set an unwanted precedent for provision of advance notice of many types of events.

Enforcement would be required in cases when notice is allegedly not given by property owners/residents. It would be up to those property owners giving the notice to provide sufficient evidence that notice was given through direct personal or phone contact, or by written means. Property owners would be responsible to ensure that all residents/tenants of their property comply with these requirements. Property owners and commercial applicators would both be responsible for compliance with all by-law requirements.

There would be an inevitable lag time in updating of the property database and creation of new civic addresses for newly created subdivisions, which would delay HRM's ability to accept registrations in such new areas. Many properties, in rural areas particularly, do not have current civic addresses assigned. Owners of such properties would need to provide sufficient information to locate their properties in the GIS database.

The by-law should apply to federal and provincial lands to the extent possible: Municipal by-laws do not by law apply to federal or provincial lands, but HRM could undertake to inform government landholders of the by-law and ask for voluntary compliance.

HRM should undertake an education program to inform property owners of alternative methods of lawn and garden care: HRM could undertake such a program, subject to resource availability. The recommendation that pesticide disposal be done in a safe manner could be addressed in such an information/education program, and HRM does currently provide a household hazardous waste facility which accepts such materials.

Properties with wells (ie. drinking water wells) can be registered and provided with a 100 metre buffer within which no pesticide use is permitted: this would go beyond the scope of the staff recommendation, to provide protection for those most severely affected. If incorporated, it would be the responsibility of well owners to identify their properties, as HRM does not have the locations of drinking water wells.

HRM observe a policy of no pesticide use on municipal properties except under emergency or unusual conditions with Council approval. Parks and Natural Services have been an advocate of integrated pest management practises, and support the move to biological and other natural products and methods such as use of compost which can retard pests. The requirement to obtain Council approval for emergency applications of pesticides would necessarily delay such application to some extent, which might make it less effective.

A Registration Fee should apply to all registrants: A suitable registration fee would need to be defined, which could be used to offset at least part of the costs of the by-law. It would have to be determined if this was to be a one-time fee, or if an annual renewal fee would also apply.

Pesticide use be prohibited within the 100 metre zone surrounding registrants with a medical statement: this is in accordance with the staff recommendation, and would provide the most effective protection to those most severely affected.

A phased-in total ban be included over 4 years: the by-law could incorporate this; there would be a significant short-term impact on the lawn care industry in converting to deliver alternate services which do not use pesticides; the long-term impacts are more difficult to determine but would be more significant for those who do not develop such alternative services, and also for wholesale or retail suppliers of pesticides.

There are certain property types which the by-law, under the MGA, cannot affect, such as power corridors, commercial or institutional properties, private recreational properties, agricultural and forestry lands, whether or not they are adjacent to residential properties.

Other Considerations

The Committee asked staff to investigate the implications of a 100 metre diameter zone in terms of the number of surrounding properties which would be included in such a zone. The implications vary depending on the density of properties, ie. the average size of lots. In a dense area such as the Halifax Peninsula, tests with the GIS indicate that typically, up to 100 properties would be included in such a zone. In less dense suburban areas, 40 properties would be more typical on average, with relatively few properties involved in more rural areas.

For individuals who suffer particularly strong symptoms from pesticide exposure, receipt of advance notice of nearby pesticide use means that they must vacate their residences and seek an alternate safe location at the time of the pesticide application and for some days following. According to evidence provided, this involves an expenditure of, typically, one thousand dollars per instance for alternate accommodation and expenses, lost business/income, etc. Multiple instances (typically 5 - 8) will occur throughout the spring-fall seasons due to the need for multiple applications per property, and multiple surrounding properties using pesticides. There is also the problem of finding "safe" accommodation, since signage would not have to be posted prior to pesticide use and there is thus no way to determine in advance if another location is safe from pending nearby pesticide use. These arguments support some degree of ban on pesticide use, so that advance notification would not be necessary if at least those with the most severe reactions have a permanent safe zone around their residences. The issue of compensation to such residents for their expenses when forced to move was raised, but not resolved.

Back to the Pesticides Home Page
Back to the HRM Home Page