With spring in Connecticut comes the persistent whine and pungent exhaust fumes of gas-powered leaf blowers as they prepare pristine lawns for fresh mulch and flowers.

But a ban on the ubiquitous landscaping machines is back before state lawmakers. HB 6263 was the subject of a recent public hearing before the legislature’s Environment Committee where many spoke both in favor and against the proposed bill, which would prohibit the use or sale of gas-powered leaf blowers in the state after Jan. 1, 2029. It would require the state and towns to make a plan to begin phasing them out Jan. 1, 2027.

A report from the Office of Legislative Research from October 2024 found that five towns, including Greenwich, Norwalk, Stamford, Wallingford, and Westport, have restrictions or bans on the machines, as do Arizona, California, Colorado, Washington D.C., Hawaii and Vermont.

Yale doctors, a neurologist and the advocacy director of the American Lung Association all urge the bill’s passage, while landscapers, golf course owners and some town leaders oppose due to the cost. Testimony on both sides was submitted by numerous “concerned citizens,” as well as one submission, in all caps entitled “NO TO TYRANT GOV CLIMATE SCAM.”

Christina Dustin wrote, “NO NO NO NO TO ALL THE STUPID TYRANNICAL IDEAS CT HAS. NOOOOO. WE WILL NOT COMPLY OR BE FORCED TO BUY EXPLOSIVE USELESS ELECTRIC ANYTHING FOR YOUR FAKE AGENDA…..”

David R. Golembeski, golf course superintendent at Newtown Country Club and government relations chair for the CT Association of Golf Course Superintendents, said that the bill would be “a major unfunded financial burden on many business and homeowners in this state” as well as a risk to public safety due to leaf blowers’ use in firefighting.

“The use of backpack blowers is a very effective tool in creating fire lines or breaks when battling brush fires. With limited manpower (as many volunteer fire departments are dealing with these days) a few individuals can quickly and efficiently clear leaves and other debris to help contain and control a brush fire whether big or small compared to doing this same job manually with rakes and alike,” Golembeski, current president of Water Witch Hose Company #2 of New Milford Volunteer Fire Department, said.

He argued also that police and zoning officials are too busy to enforce the bill, should it pass.

“The bottom line is that this bill is a major overreach into a place that state government has no business being in as there are plenty of other more important issues to solve,” he said.

Town leaders are also concerned about the cost of replacing the equipment and the potential increased labor costs for electric leaf blowers, including Dana Barrow Jr., first selectman of the town of Scotland.

“The Town of Scotland opposes this proposed bill eliminating the purchase of gas powered leaf blowers. Electric power leaf blowers lack sufficient power to blow large quantities of leaves thus requiring more man hours to clean up the Parks, Town Green, Fire Departments and Cemeteries. This bill is an overreach by the State,” Barrow said in submitted testimony.

Brandon Thomas, owner of Thomas-Hill Lawncare, tried to dissuade lawmakers from banning gas-powered leaf blowers by saying that the alternative and its ramifications are worse. Substituting battery-powered machines would “increase rare earth mining, strain on CT’s power grid, as well as increased hazardous” in addition to the cost to owners who have to both replace equipment and increase manpower to compensate for less-effective electric models.

“It will take commercial operators longer to complete tasks, increase worker fatigue and will not lower noise pollution by any real noticeable amount. There is also an increase risk of spontaneous combustion of lithium batteries, also lowering worker safety and increasing property damage risk. I suspect due to the runtime restrictions of the batteries many contractors will need to run generators while on site to charge multiple batteries to get through the day, trading the noise and air pollution from to a much less efficient, costly and polluting form to another,” Thomas said in written testimony.

Jeff Pell, owner of General Landscaping LLC, said the bill would just make Connecticut less business friendly. His company has 40 leaf blowers and stocks thousands of dollars in replacement parts to maintain them for their 10-year lifespan, he wrote to the committee.

“This proposed change would be extremely costly for us to replace blowers and provide multiple charging options. Additionally, there would be the cost for replacement batteries and increased energy bills, along with transitioning our vans and workshop areas. … Who is paying for this?? The state of CT cannot continue to be unfriendly to small business and create more mandates, without considering costs that could easily be thousands of dollars. This will ultimately raise the cost to the consumer,” he wrote.

But testimony in favor of the ban from town environmental advocates, residents tired of the constant noise and medical professionals strongly outnumbered those opposed.

Susan Eastwood, chapter chair of the Sierra Club of Connecticut, urged the c ommittee to follow other states in doing away with the leaf blowers.

“Gas-powered leaf blowers emit fine particulate matter (PM2.5), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and nitrogen oxides (NOx), contributing to air pollution and respiratory illnesses. They are also extremely noisy, causing hearing loss and other health problems, and disrupting the peace of whole neighborhoods. Electric tools are now available and should be encouraged,” she wrote.

Dr. Yaniv Chen, a neurologist and member of Sustainable Fairfield. echoed Eastwood’s concerns about chemicals and their impact on human health.

“We strongly believe based on clinically sound evidence-based medicine that the use of GLBs, which has exploded across our state, has become a top three cause for smog, particulate matter air pollution and other dangerous chemical airborne and disease-causing compounds,” he wrote. “There is strong and compelling epidemiological and medical evidence (of which we have a database if you would like us to share) that such pollution increases cardiovascular disease, heart attacks, strokes, incidence of cancers and worse of all accelerate neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s.

“Further, the high decibel low frequency noise damages hearing and contributes to anxiety and hypertension in those exposed to it. We believe that the health and environmental costs of thousands of hours of GLB in our neighborhoods, carries a long-term health morbidity and harm in billions of dollars that could be prevented,” he wrote.

Additionally, he said that gas-powered leaf blowers destroy wildlife habitats, harm pollinators, accelerate climate change, and aerosolize chemicals, pesticides and allergens.

“Finally, those at the higher risk for harm are children, the elderly and a vulnerable immigrant worker population that is exposed point blank to the fumes day in and day out,” he said.

Ruth Carnovi, director of advocacy for the American Lung Association, cites data from California, where electric leaf blowers are banned, that operating a commercial leaf blower for one hour is equivalent to “driving a new light-duty passenger car about 1100 miles – about the distance from Los Angeles to Denver, over 15 hours of driving.”

Noting that Connecticut is impacted heavily by air pollution and associated respiratory conditions like asthma, “the state should be encouraging the transition to widely-available zero-emission technologies broadly – including the off-road sector.”

The issue is a priority for Connecticut League of Conservation Votes, the state’s most prominent environmental advocacy group. Executive Director Lori Brown shared data from the group’s 2025 Briefing Paper on the issue: “Gas-powered leaf blowers combust only about 70% of their fuel, releasing a mixture of carcinogens, greenhouse gases, nitrogen oxides (NOx), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). They emit hazardous pollutants such as 1,3-butadiene, benzene, and formaldehyde, all of which are well-documented carcinogens. They also release fine particulate matter (PM2.5), which is linked to respiratory diseases, cardiovascular conditions, and premature death.”

Finally, a nascent movement to “rewild” suburban lawns and restore neatly manicured postage stamp yards to wildflower-filled habitat for pollinators or – amid the threat of soaring grocery prices – backyard farming would alleviate the issue, some have said.

Malcolm Frampton of Greenwich, who said his family’s peace is now shattered more often than not, testified as much: “We have to pull back from the notion that the only good lawn is one that has had every last leaf and twig blasted away and return to a sense of peace and normalcy which is the reason many people like ourselves made Connecticut their home in the first place.”

©2025 Hartford Courant. Visit at courant.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.