In a stunning fourth quarter save, the Neighborhood Notification bill was wrestled from what appeared to be the edge of a legislative abyss in the waning hours of the 2000 session. For seven years, environmentalists joined by breast cancer activists, have lobbied the state legislature to pass a law requiring professional pesticide applicators to notify their clients' adjoining neighbors prior to using high-pressure sprayers to apply pest treatments. In addition, schools and daycare centers would have a responsibility to notify parents about pesticide usage. Assemblyman Thomas DiNapoli along with Steve Englebright of Setauket co-sponsored the Neighborhood Notification legislation on the assembly side and shepherded it successfully through the assembly year after year. But each year the Senate swatted the legislation, bowing to the objections of the pesticide industry.

This year for the first time, a version of the bill was given the nod by the state Senate. Ironing out a compromise between the assembly and Senate versions was touch and go with negotiations breaking down over the June 9 weekend and reviving over the June 17 weekend. The newly forged legislation was passed in both the Senate and Assembly in late evening votes on Thursday, June 22.

According to Audrey Thaer, pesticide project director at Environmental Advocates, the compromise that pulled the bill out of the recycling bin was a provision that would allow counties to "opt in or opt out" of requiring notification for spraying. But the requirement for notification of pesticide usage to parents with children in daycare centers and schools would apply to the entire state with no exceptions.

Daycare centers will be required to post a notice in a prominent spot in the facility informing parents at least two days in advance when pesticide treatments will take place. Schools will be required to send three notices home each year summarizing the pesticide management plan. Parents who wish to be informed prior to an application may sign-up on a registry.

Neal Lewis, executive director of the Long Island Neighborhood Network, an environmental lobbying group, kept Anton Newspapers posted as the ups and downs of the legislation lurched along. When it appeared that the legislation was being derailed, he commented on the power struggles that seesaw between down-state and up-state politicians. He said, "It raises the question, 'Do our Long Island senators have no clout or are they playing games with us?' While many Long Island senators signed on to the bill, only Senators Marcellino and LaVelle, have actually worked on getting it passed and through the negotiations. It's just not enough to put your name on a bill and then drop the ball." With news of the agreement between the Assembly and Senate version, he commented that the Network would begin working to urge that all counties opt-in to the plan.

Mr. Lewis and Ms. Thaer agreed in their analysis of the bill's success this year. The general public has become much more aware of the complexities and risks of pesticide spraying after the bout last summer with aerial and neighborhood spraying for mosquitoes after the West Nile outbreak. In addition, recently the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a risk assessment in which chlorpyrifos, commonly sold as Dursban spells out the health risks for nerve damage and gives more credence to urgings from environmentalists to limit exposure to pesticides since relatively little is known about the long-range health effects.

With every year, the legislation introduced became more refined. Some of the legitimate industry concerns about the legislation were addressed in the current Assembly version. Two major and related concerns have to do with the vagaries of the weather and the fears of a sea of paperwork. For example, if a company sends notification to neighbors regarding a date for spraying and there is a turn in the weather that would make the application worthless, the newly revised legislation would allow the company to spray up to two days later without having to re-issue notices.

The buzz phrase in entomological circles is Integrated Pest Management (IPM) which basically states "Don't just spray for the sake of spraying. Only apply pesticides when the application is going to be at its highest efficacy." Timing and conditions are critical. Last summer spraying for mosquitoes was dependent on the temperature. If too chilly, the mosquitoes "lay low" in sheltered areas protected from coming into direct contact with the poison. With the 48 hour "grace period" in the revised law, it is felt that the law will be more flexible and manageable for the applicators to administer.

Further, the revised legislation gives incentives to applicators to use EPA "exempt material" that are presumed to be non-toxic substances mostly derived from plant oils since those applications are exempt from requiring pre-notification. Mr. Lewis believes that this will be a major boost to the efforts of many organizations that are pushing for safer alternatives for pest management.

But Walter Schroeder, executive director of the New York State Professional Applicators Coalition said in an interview last week when passage of the legislation looked doubtful, "This law, if passed, will result in chaos and ultimately it is the consumer who will pay for it." It is his belief that a better approach would have been a registry system, similar to the one established in Pennsylvania, in which individuals must sign-up for notification when a neighbor's property is being sprayed.

Assemblyman DiNapoli was jubilant at the turnaround. "It is our goal to protect public health," he said. "Now individuals may take more meaningful steps to avoid or reduce their exposure to pesticides."

The law will take effect in January 2001.