State Preemption

GCSAA supports the development and use of science based best management practices (BMPs) collaboratively developed through superintendent-regulator-university partnerships at local and state levels of government. Integrated pest management (IPM) practices and plans are an integral part of the golf course BMPs developed by GCSAA for superintendents. GCSAA also supports the enactment of state laws based on sound science preempting regulation of the use of pesticides and prohibiting local governments from adopting such laws.

Local regulation of the use of these products is costly, unnecessary and interferes with professional pest management on the golf course. Local pesticide bans/restrictions hinder the ability of golf course superintendents to control pests that have a detrimental effect on healthy turf, trees and ornamentals. Restricting the use of effective pesticides can curb the ability to control disease carrying pests and can jeopardize public health and sanitation. Local pesticide bans/restrictions also require the use of resources for investigation of violations and enforcement, creating an unnecessary drain on community funds. Pesticides are professionally used in accordance with the label and subsequent to IPM practices. They are integral to successful golf landscapes. Localities lack the resources and expertise to effectively regulate pesticides. EPA and state lead agencies are the only entities with the statutorily mandated expertise and resources to make scientifically informed decisions about pesticide use.

When used properly, pesticides promote healthy turfgrass which provides many environmental benefits including wildlife habitat and a natural water filter.

Many cities and counties across the country are debating ordinances to ban/restrict the use of chemical pesticides on city/public property. This includes parks, city office buildings and government-owned recreation facilities such as golf courses. Local bans/restrictions on pesticide use is a trend that has gained momentum ever since the city of San Francisco, Calif., adopted such an ordinance in 1996. This ordinance has been used as a model by anti-pesticide activists to try to enact similar laws in other locations. Bans on pesticide use by local governments has also been a precursor to efforts to totally ban the use of all pesticides in a community—including applications by private citizens to their homes and lawns, applications to commercial property, privately owned golf courses, sports fields and other recreational facilities.

Many states have preemption (or “state primacy”) laws to prohibit municipalities from adopting local laws and regulations on the use of pesticides and fertilizers. Without such laws, the more than 80,000 municipalities in the U.S. could adopt and enforce their own unique ordinances, including use and applicator certification, making compliance virtually impossible. Local pesticide restrictions hinder the ability of golf course superintendents to control pests that have a detrimental effect on healthy turf.

  • Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE)
  • Pesticide Policy Coalition (PPC)