Asm. Matthew Simpson

Contended the bill removes consumer choice and questioned why one product is targeted when PAHs are found in many everyday sources including grilling, barbecuing, and cooking, and suggested reducing exposure without bans rather than prohibiting specific items.

Simpson contended the bill exemplifies contradictory state energy policy, arguing New York should embrace an all-of-the-above approach. He noted Pennsylvania's 40 percent lower energy costs due to natural gas production and criticized the bill as another roadblock restricting opportunities while pushing renewable energy on unwilling communities.

Questioned whether the 25% reduction will actually improve populations given that the current cap of 150,000 may not be fully utilized, and raised concerns about enforcement and whether declining populations reflect migration rather than depletion.

Questioned why the bill does not also prohibit solar, wind, and battery storage facilities on state lands, arguing such exclusions would conflict with climate sequestration goals and other environmental objectives.

Questioned the necessity of legislation when Executive Order 22 already exists and noted some agencies have achieved higher waste diversion rates than the bill's 75 percent goal. Raised concerns that the bill's narrow scope may effectively extend compliance timelines.

Expressed concerns that the bill creates a patchwork of local regulations conflicting with DEC's statewide authority, that small municipalities lack scientific expertise and resources to make informed decisions, and that it adds regulatory burden to golf courses, forestry, and agribusiness. Cited opposition letters from the New York State Agribusiness Association and Empire State Forest Products Association.

The bill will create a patchwork of regulations across municipalities, diluting DEC's regulatory oversight. Small upstate communities lack resources to hire scientists or consultants to make informed decisions, and the bill will create burdens on forestry, agribusiness, and golf courses. Opposition letters from agricultural and forestry associations cite confusion from inconsistent municipal regulations.

Questioned whether contamination is actually occurring under current DEC regulation and permitting, arguing the bill lacks concrete examples of harm. Suggested the better approach is encouraging DEC to test fluids rather than banning substances that are cost-effective for communities.

Questioned whether the chapter amendment addresses constitutional concerns raised by 22 states in recent lawsuits, whether it provides credits for companies that supplied materials to State projects, and whether the bill effectively functions as a tariff on out-of-state companies. Raised concerns about DEC's capacity to assess culpability and whether the covered period could be extended administratively in the future.

Opposed the bill, arguing the state lacks adequate planning and infrastructure to support compliance. He warned that without sustainable programs, the law will fail like past e-waste initiatives and will burden rural businesses lacking access to composting facilities within required distances.

Questioned whether there is evidence the named companies knew about climate damage and concealed it, and whether they should bear liability for products that were legally permitted and regulated by federal and state governments in response to consumer demand.

Questioned whether there is evidence these companies knew about climate impacts and hid that knowledge, and noted the companies were federally and state-regulated to produce fuel and products that consumers demanded.

Argued the bill undermines DEC's robust pesticide and wetlands protection programs and would lead to confusion and inconsistent application of state law. Cited the Governor's veto message and expressed concern that local governments lack resources and expertise of the state agency. Questioned whether current agencies are meeting drinking water standards.

Argued the bill undermines DEC's robust pesticide and wetlands protection programs and would lead to confusion and inconsistent application of state law. Cited Governor's veto message and expressed concern that local governments lack resources and expertise of state agencies. Questioned whether current agencies are meeting drinking water standards.

Expressed concern that the original 2010 report's 14 specific recommendations have not been adequately tracked or implemented, and that a one-year timeline is insufficient to properly assess and update recommendations for complex coastal threats.

Raised concerns about the adequacy of a one-year timeline to assess and update recommendations from a prior study that took two years, questioned implementation of the 2010 report's 14 specific recommendations, and noted the Minority Leader was not included as a report recipient.

Questioned the scientific basis for the ban, citing research by Cornell entomologist Dr. Elson J. Shields on corn maggot control and seed treatment necessity. Pressed sponsor on what new information will emerge from future studies that isn't available now.

Questioned why CO2 should be banned when it is naturally occurring and can capture and store carbon; noted that CO2 fracking is unproven technology that should go through regulatory review rather than legislative prohibition, and that other tests are being conducted globally on this emerging technology.

Contests follow all DEC regulations and bag limits just like regular hunting; the only difference is the prize. Questioned why contests are treated differently from other legal hunting activities and noted the bill may discourage youth participation in hunting, which is needed for wildlife management.

Opposed the bill citing Governor Hochul's veto last year, arguing it undermines the DEC's statewide pesticide program and creates inconsistent local regulations. He questioned whether local governments have adequate technical expertise compared to the DEC and EPA, and whether the bill could trigger EPA rescission of New York's primary enforcement authority.

Argued the bill would create another regulatory layer making it difficult for property owners and the logging industry, particularly in the Adirondack Park where multiple overlapping regulations already exist. Questioned whether the 240 FTEs added to DEC were intended for this expansion or other programs.

Bill covers only 15 percent of state land; unclear exactly which areas are encompassed without detailed maps; questioned whether lead poisoning in eagles is a statewide problem or limited to the watershed area covered by the bill.

Bill covers only 15 percent of state lands; unclear whether lead poisoning in eagles is a statewide problem or limited to the watershed area; without detailed maps, hunters are left uncertain about which areas are affected.