Pesticide Transparency on Federal Land Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1]
- Committees
- Agriculture Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Sep 28, 2026
Bottom line
This bill mandates federal agencies to publicly disclose their pesticide use on federal lands through an EPA-managed database, aiming to increase transparency and accountability, with specific exemptions for national security.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to mandate that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish a publicly available database documenting pesticide applications on federal land. It requires all federal agencies to report specific details of their pesticide use to the EPA within five days of application, including location and active ingredients. The bill also includes a national security exemption for certain disclosures and allows for civil actions against agencies that fail to report.
Proponents argue
Proponents would argue that this bill significantly enhances transparency regarding pesticide use on federal lands, allowing the public to be informed about potential environmental and health impacts. They contend it promotes accountability for federal agencies, provides valuable data for researchers and policymakers, and empowers citizens to monitor government land management practices.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill creates an unnecessary administrative burden and cost for federal agencies, particularly the EPA and other covered agencies, to establish and maintain the database and reporting mechanisms. Concerns could also be raised about the potential for misuse of location-specific data, even with national security exemptions, and the potential for frivolous lawsuits under the civil action provision.
The bill is concise and clearly written, making it accessible for a quick and comprehensive understanding within the typical timeframe for legislative review.
Section 2, adding new Section 36(a) to FIFRA
Establishment of Public Pesticide Use Database
This provision mandates the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create a publicly accessible database within one year of the bill's enactment. This database will document all instances where federal agencies apply pesticides on federal land, serving as a central repository for this information.
Supporters argue
Supporters contend that a centralized, public database is crucial for transparency, enabling citizens, scientists, and policymakers to monitor and assess pesticide applications by federal entities, fostering greater accountability.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that creating and maintaining such a comprehensive database could incur significant costs and require substantial technical infrastructure, potentially diverting resources from other environmental protection efforts.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to know about federal pesticide use with the administrative burden and potential costs associated with developing and maintaining a robust data management system.
Section 2, adding new Section 36(b) and (c) to FIFRA
Mandatory Reporting of Pesticide Applications
Starting one year after enactment, federal agencies are required to report specific details about each pesticide application on federal land to the EPA Administrator within five days of the application. The required details include the name of the entity applying, the precise location (address and geographic coordinates), the specific pesticide classification (including active ingredient), the date of application, and its purpose.
Section 2, adding new Section 36(d)(3) to FIFRA
Protection from Disclosure for National Security
This provision allows the head of a covered agency to withhold specific pesticide application information from public disclosure if they determine that such disclosure would harm the national security of the United States. This protection is limited to one year but can be renewed, and Congress must be notified within 30 days of such a determination, potentially in classified form.
Section 2, adding new Section 36(e) to FIFRA
Enforcement through Civil Actions
This provision allows any person to commence a civil action against a covered federal agency for failure to report pesticide use as required by the Act. Damages that may be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff are capped at $5,000 for each instance of failure to report and $25,000 for any three-month period during which the agency continuously fails to report.
Requires the EPA Administrator, within one year of enactment, to make publicly available on the new database any relevant pesticide use data compiled by covered agencies prior to the bill's enactment, including pesticide use proposals.
Section 2, adding new Section 36(d)(2) to FIFRA
Why it matters:It's standard legislative practice to include provisions for historical data to provide context, but its placement might make it less immediately obvious than the ongoing reporting mandate, potentially leading a casual reader to miss the retrospective data requirement.
Case for: Supporters would argue that including historical data provides a more complete picture of federal pesticide use trends and allows for baseline comparisons, significantly enhancing the overall value and analytical utility of the transparency initiative.
Case against: Agencies might face substantial challenges in compiling, digitizing, and standardizing older, potentially disparate data sets, leading to significant one-time administrative costs and effort that could strain resources.
Estimated impact: Significant one-time administrative effort for federal agencies to gather and submit historical data, and for the EPA to integrate this diverse data into the new database. This will provide a valuable historical context for public analysis.