Posts
Here’s a question I have about the state’s plan to spray us with a synthetic pheromone to try to kill off the light brown apple moth: If the plan is as green as California Department of Food and Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura claims, then why aren’t major green groups on board?
Sierra Club California director Bill Magavern said his group wants the state to prove that the pheromone spray it plans to coat much of the Bay Area with is safe before it sprays again, and he said an environmental impact report should be generated and alternatives assessed. “We don’t think the case has been made for why they need to spray,” Magavern said in a recent phone interview.
California Certified Organic Farmers recently pulled its support for the spraying, and Executive Director Peggy Miars said her organization needs more time to study the issue. “At this time, we are inundated with conflicting information, data and reports from qualified professionals on both sides of the issue,” Miars said in an e-mailed response to questions on the group’s stance. She said the issue has split her organization’s membership, with some questioning whether eradication is even possible.
Even the Natural Resources Defense Council, which the state has portrayed as a supporter of the spraying in its literature, has reservations about the plan, according to a position statement it offered last fall (the group did not respond to several requests for comment). While the group’s concerns about the health impacts of the spray are limited, it too is calling for a better exploration of alternatives to spraying, better tracking of health complaints, environmental monitoring and more public input in the process.
California Department of Food and Agriculture spokesman Steve Lyle said the department is just heeding the longstanding request of environmentalists, who have been asking the department to use pheromones instead of conventional pesticides for years. Miars said her group had supported the state at first because they had heeded the group's request to use a material approved for organic production.
He claims the sky spray plans are the most environmentally friendly eradication project in his department's history.
The Alameda Unified School District’s finance chief laid out the impacts of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s budget proposal for next year, and they are grim. Under the proposal, the district could lose more than $4 million in state funding for the current year and 2009-2010. And that’s not counting the $650,000 it will lose when the new Nea Community Learning Center charter school opens next year, taking an anticipated 250 students off the district’s rolls.
If the governor’s plan were to be enacted, the district could face layoffs and even the loss of five days of the school year, district chief financial officer Tim Rahill said, though it could allow the district to take money out of “categorical” programs – money that is designated for specific programs that can’t be used for any other purpose.
Declining enrollment and increasing costs – Rahill said worker’s compensation costs, for example, will probably rise – will also impact the district’s budget.
“Alameda is facing a state budget crisis. We are facing the opening of a charter school. Also, we’re experiencing declining enrollment,” Rahill said.
He said parcel tax dollars generated by the passage of Measure H could also be used to help cover the cuts, if the board wishes to use those. This year, the district is slated to get $4 million in Measure H tax funds, and it has only budgeted $1.2 million of that.
Schwarzenegger has proposed a number of additional taxes to bridge $31.3 billion in budget shortfalls between the 2007-08 and 2009-10 fiscal years.
The district wants your input on its budget situation. They’ve scheduled budget workshops for February 11 and April 2. We’ll update you when times and locations are available.
If the governor’s plan were to be enacted, the district could face layoffs and even the loss of five days of the school year, district chief financial officer Tim Rahill said, though it could allow the district to take money out of “categorical” programs – money that is designated for specific programs that can’t be used for any other purpose.
Declining enrollment and increasing costs – Rahill said worker’s compensation costs, for example, will probably rise – will also impact the district’s budget.
“Alameda is facing a state budget crisis. We are facing the opening of a charter school. Also, we’re experiencing declining enrollment,” Rahill said.
He said parcel tax dollars generated by the passage of Measure H could also be used to help cover the cuts, if the board wishes to use those. This year, the district is slated to get $4 million in Measure H tax funds, and it has only budgeted $1.2 million of that.
Schwarzenegger has proposed a number of additional taxes to bridge $31.3 billion in budget shortfalls between the 2007-08 and 2009-10 fiscal years.
The district wants your input on its budget situation. They’ve scheduled budget workshops for February 11 and April 2. We’ll update you when times and locations are available.
posted by Michele Ellson at 9:00 AM on Jan 28, 2009
5 Comments:
People who oppose this program do not generally understand that the aerial program is non-toxic to all living things, that by using a selective pheromone the state hopes to confuse the moths and prevent their reproduction. Most do not know that any substance which is designed to affect a "pest" must be called a "pesticide" even though is is not always toxic. (Insecticidal soap is a "pesticide")
Those who demand more tests may not realize that this method has been tested repeatedly for many years, and, if we wait to do even more tests it will be too late to eradicate this rapidly breeding insect.
Judge halts light brown apple moth spraying in Santa Cruz County
State says they will appeal
By GENEVIEVE BOOKWALTER - Sentinel Staff Writer
Article Launched: 04/24/2008 10:11:50 AM PDT
SANTA CRUZ - The state will not be allowed to spray pesticide over Santa Cruz County in June after a ruling in Santa Cruz County Superior Court today ordered California leaders to finish an environmental review first.
Judge Paul Burdick said the state did not prove that the invasive light brown apple moth poses an immediate threat to life or property. As a result, he said, an emergency exception to finish the review while the spraying continues was not justified.
A cheer went up from the packed courtroom as Burdick announced his decision.
Afterward, ecstatic residents celebrated on the courthouse steps.
"I'm thrilled. I wanted to run up and give the man a kiss," said Santa Cruz resident Jerilyn Bock, who is in her 60s and said she had a hard time breathing and developed the shakes and insomnia after last year's spraying.
"It's a great victory not only of the law but of common sense," said county Supervisor Neal Coonerty.
State officials vowed to appeal the case. However, Burdick denied the state's request for a stay, which would have allow spraying to continue as the Attorney General's Office prepares its appeal.
The momentum palpably turned in the county's direction about halfway through the hearing, when Burdick asked the state's attorney for evidence of damage caused by the 10,000 plus moths found in Santa Cruz County since April 2007. The state was not able to provide any.
Assistant County Counsel Jason Heath,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
who argued against the state for the county and city of Santa Cruz, seized the opportunity. He immediately hammered his point that the moth is not such a serious or immediate threat to warrant emergency spraying - the main issue in the city-county lawsuit.
"Where is the fire ranging out of control here?" Heath argued. "This is not San Diego County burning."
State Agriculture Secretary A.G. Kawamura said afterward he was disappointed with the ruling and his department will ask for an expedited appeal. That could be filed in a couple of weeks and would be heard in the 6th District Court of Appeals in San Jose.
"The light brown apple moth is a serious threat not just to Santa Cruz, but to the entire state," Kawamura said.
The state began spraying a synthetic pheromone, CheckMate, over Santa Cruz and Monterey counties last year to fight the light brown apple moth. Agricultural leaders say the moth could cause millions of dollars of damage to crops if not eradicated as well as disrupt international trade.
Spraying was scheduled to resume in Santa Cruz County in June and expand to counties the greater San Francisco Bay Area. The ruling Thursday only stopped Santa Cruz County spraying, but a similar case is expected to be heard in Monterey County within the next month.
Contact G. Bookwalter at 706-3286 or gbookwalter@santacruzsentinel.com.
Checkmate is the brand name for a product that contains a natural pheromone of the Light Brown apple moth encased in tiny capsules which allow the pheromone to escape slowly over a few weeks to confuse the breeding of the insect. Without the capsules, the pheromone would be immediately lost. Both the pheromone and the capsules are non-toxic and the amount of the diluted spray equals only 1 pint per acre. Insect pheromones are widespread in nature and we all are exposed to them every day. These fears are unjustified.
April 24, 2008 Contact: Bill Magavern, 916-557-1100, x102
SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA SUPPORTS GOVERNOR SCHWARZENEGGER’S POSTPONEMENT OF AERIAL SPRAYING WHILE FURTHER STUDIES ARE CONDUCTED
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has ordered a postponement of aerial spraying intended to eradicate the light brown apple moth in 12 California counties. The spraying will not go forward until the completion of additional testing on the efficacy and toxicity of various substances that could be sprayed.
The governor announced the postponement at a meeting today with Senators Carole Migden and Darrell Steinberg, Marin County Supervisor Judy Arnold, Sierra Club California Director Bill Magavern and Paul Schramski, State Director of Pesticide Watch.
Magavern thanked Governor Schwarzenegger for his action, which is consistent with Sierra Club’s call for a precautionary moratorium on the spraying until health effects and alternatives can be fully studied.
SIERRA CLUB CALIFORNIA’S POSITION ON AERIAL SPRAYING DESIGNED TO ERADICATE THE LIGHT BROWN APPLE MOTH
Sierra Club California supports a precautionary moratorium on the aerial spraying designed to eradicate the Light Brown Apple Moth. The moratorium is necessary to allow for the assessment of control strategies that can effectively manage the pest to acceptable thresholds without compromising human and environmental health.
We call for the use of control strategies that avoid public exposure to pesticides that cause cancer, birth defects, mutations, or reproductive effects, or alter the immune system or behavior of non-target organisms. These strategies may include the use of nontoxic integrated pest management methods, including aerial application of pheromones in highly infested areas of significant size.
We call for the public disclosure of any and all ingredients to be sprayed and the informed consent of the residents affected by the spraying.
Sierra Club California supports the following measures pending in the State Legislature:
SCR 87 (Migden), which calls for a moratorium on the spraying until it can be proven safe and effective.
AB 2760 (Leno), which would require the completion of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before aerial application of pesticides in urban areas for LBAM eradication. The EIR is the state tool for undertaking an alternatives assessment of impacts on human and environmental health.
· AB 2763 (Laird), which would require advance planning for the control of invasive species in a scientifically methodical and publicly transparent manner.
AB 2765 (Huffman), which would require disclosure of pesticide ingredients, examination of alternatives to aerial spraying, and a public hearing to consider all alternatives before eradication projects in urban areas could begin.
ACR 117 (Laird), which would require independent scientific review of the health and scientific questions about the LBAM spraying program.
unfortunately, the nrdc has changed it's position:
http://docs.nrdc.org/health/hea_08042501A.pdf
Post a Comment