Federal pesticide use on public lands: now open to public view and lawsuit
H.R. 10630 — Pesticide Transparency on Federal Land Act · Filed by Nancy Mace (R-SC) · Introduced Sep 28, 2026 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill requires federal agencies to report all pesticide applications on federal land to the EPA within 5 days, and mandates the EPA establish a public database disclosing when, where, and what pesticides are used. Citizens can sue agencies that fail to report, with damages up to $5,000 per missed report or $25,000 per quarter of non-compliance. National security exceptions allow temporary (up to 1 year, renewable) withholding of specific information, with notification to Congress.
Why we flagged it
The bill's core mechanism is a mandatory disclosure requirement backed by a private right of action. It creates no subsidy, carve-out, or exemption; it imposes a duty on government to disclose information to the public. This is a straightforward transparency and accountability measure.
What the text implies
- The $5,000-per-instance and $25,000-per-quarter damages caps may be low enough that agencies face minimal financial incentive to comply if pesticide use is frequent; a large agency applying pesticides daily could incur only $150,000 in maximum quarterly liability.
- National security exception is renewable indefinitely (each application can claim a new 1-year window), potentially allowing systematic withholding of pesticide use on sensitive federal lands (military bases, research facilities) if agencies invoke the exception repeatedly.
- Database will reveal pesticide use patterns on federal lands, which may expose gaps in EPA oversight or inconsistent application practices across agencies, potentially triggering political pressure for regulatory changes.
- Private right of action creates litigation risk for agencies, which may lead to defensive over-reporting or legal costs that divert resources from actual pesticide management.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
Citizens gain transparency into pesticide use on federal lands they own and may be exposed to, plus a private right of action to enforce compliance. The national security carve-out is time-limited and requires Congressional notice, preserving accountability. No offsetting cost to the public is apparent.
Named in the bill
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), Federal agencies (all departments and branches), Federal land (owned or managed by U.S. government)
Where it stands
- Sep 28, 2026 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
- Sep 28, 2026 — Referred to House Committee on Agriculture · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture”
Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (4,189 characters) on Oct 3, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 16,222 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
As of — page rendered 2026-10-20.
“Federal pesticide use on public lands: now open to public view and lawsuit” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/hr10630 Report an error
The week in bills
One email, Sunday: what Congress passed, what it changed, and who paid.
One link arrives to confirm the address. It is used for this email and nothing else, and every issue carries an unsubscribe link.