After 14 hours of discussion and public testimony, the Kauai County Council approved a measure early Wednesday requiring large agribusinesses to disclose the types of restricted-use pesticides they spray on fields and implement buffer zones around schools, dwellings, medical facilities, public roadways and waterways.

The Council voted 6-1 to approve Bill 2491 after compromising on the disclosure and buffer-zone provisions.

Councilman Mel Rapozo cast the dissenting vote.

The bill will take effect nine months after it becomes law.

Mayor Bernard Carvalho Jr. has 10 days upon receipt of the bill to return it to the Council, signed or unsigned, for it to become law. The mayor also has the option to veto it.

Carvalho said Wednesday that he will make a decision once he reviews the final draft.

Although The bill’s original language was diluted, Councilman Gary Hooser, who introduced it with Councilman Tim Bynum, said the bill’s core — the public’s right to know — is intact.

"I was disappointed that the buffer zones were not stronger, but no other community in our state has a buffer zone," Hooser said Wednesday afternoon.

The vote came after months of protests and emotionally charged meetings.

Bill 2491 affects large agribusinesses that purchase or use more than 5 pounds or 15 gallons of any single restricted-use pesticides annually. Companies affected are Syngenta Hawaii, DuPont Pioneer, Dow Agrosciences and BASF, as well as Kauai Coffee, the largest coffee grower in the state.

Officials of the Hawaii Crop Improvement Association, which represents biotech companies, released an email statement that expressed disappointment in the vote.

"If 2491 becomes law, the County of Kauai will find itself mired in duplicative rules and regulations it does not have the resources to enforce," the association said. "What’s more, an entire industry — one that employs 600 residents and is a major driver of the island’s economy — will be put at risk."

In a written statement, DuPont Pioneer spokeswoman Laurie Yoshida maintained that the bill is not legally defensible.

"The bill focuses on a few seed companies, while overlooking the vast number of other businesses on the island that use the same products for pest management. We believe it to be a bad policy — and the kind of regulation that should remain at the state and federal level, where policy makers and agencies are already empowered with oversight of our industry."

People who attended the packed Council meeting, carried by webcast, became emotional as members neared a vote.

At 3 a.m. Wednesday, some supporters inside the Council chambers shouted "Pass the bill!" as the Council discussed whether to defer it.

Supporters outside the Historic County Building chanted the same sentiment within earshot of those inside.

Andrea Brower was among 50 people who spent Monday night in their vehicles or in tents during heavy rainfall on the County Building grounds to testify on what supporters dubbed "the people’s bill." The meeting was dominated by supporters who urged passage, saying ample time had been given to vet the issue.

After executive session Tuesday, the Council focused on the proposed bill and voted to pass it shortly after 3:30 a.m. Wednesday.

"With this bill, we’ll be able to investigate the impacts and move forward from here," said Brower, 28.

The buffer zone provision was contentious.

Hooser and Bynum sought to widen the buffer zones for parks, public roadways, shorelines and waterways after they were cut to as narrow as 75 feet. In the end, the Council set a 250-foot buffer zone around parks. Buffer zones of 500 feet were retained for schools, houses and medical facilities.

The Council appeared split until Council Chairman Jay Furfaro stated his strong intent to pass the measure.

Furfaro has said little during discussions in past meetings. But on Tuesday night he said he would not support a deferral after meeting with state Agriculture Department Director Russell Kokubun and after conference calls with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

He praised the Council’s work on the bill since its introduction in June.

"For me, there’s no logical reason to defer this bill anymore," he said.

Supporters in the Council chambers cheered and applauded.

He said he told Carvalho he’s confident the mayor would do his best to work with the state to implement the bill’s provisions but cast doubt on the state.

Carvalho had sought a one-month deferral after recent discussions with the Agriculture Department concerning possible voluntary compliance by biotech companies. He said time is needed to hold discussions on the enforcement of the bill’s disclosure and buffer zone provisions.

At last week’s meeting, his administration expressed concerns about the county’s lack of resources to implement such an ordinance.

The impending departure of Councilwoman Nadine Nakamura was a factor in the Council’s determination to vote on the issue. Nakamura and Councilwoman JoAnn Yukimura co-introduced significant amendments to the bill.

Nakamura will leave her post at the end of the month to serve as county managing director.

Early Wednesday, tensions rose when Nakamura suggested a deferral, mentioning that as managing director she would be involved in the enforcement of the law if it takes effect.

Carvalho’s request for a one-month deferral was not a political ploy, she said.

"This is really taking a closer look and developing relationships with the state entity who we have to work with to implement this law," she said. "That’s something that I need to consider."

Clearly flabbergasted, Hooser said, "A motion to defer, in my opinion, is a motion to kill the bill."