Santa Cruz Good Times

Thursday
Apr 17th
Text size
  • Increase font size
  • Default font size
  • Decrease font size

A proposed ordinance to stop pesticides

A proposedordinancetostoppesticidesA local committee’s plan to fight bulk application in 2009

Randa Solick spent the fall of 2007 cringing at the visible effects that the State of California’s aerial pesticide spray over the Monterey Bay area was having on the life around her. The most painful to watch, she says, was how used to it her grandchildren got. “Everyday at preschool, the children stepped out of their ‘outside shoes’ and into their ‘inside shoes,’” she says. “Can you imagine if they had had to do that once a month, for three years?”

Solick, a member of People Against Chemical Trespass (P.A.C.T.), is referring to the original monthly timeline the state had for the spray, which has been on hiatus while the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) completes its Environmental Impact Report. Many Santa Cruzans, such as Solick, vividly remember when the region was aerially doused with pesticides in an effort to control the Light Brown Apple Moth (LBAM). Seabirds died, bees went missing, household pets fell sick and 643 people reported illness, according to P.A.C.T. Thousands of people signed petitions against the LBAM pesticides, and many more flaunted angry signs with messages like “No Spray! No Way!” But with these signs no longer in the front window of every home and none but the scarce petitioner on Pacific Avenue, it would seem to most that the fervor over the perilous spray has died down.

Hardly. On Dec. 15, P.A.C.T. unveiled the “City of Santa Cruz Local Control, Pesticide and Chemical Trespass Ordinance,” a hopeful local law that will ban the bulk application of pesticides within city limits.

Mary Graydon-Fontana, a member of P.A.C.T., which serves as the Corporation and Ordinance Committee for the Women’s International League of Peace and Freedom (WILPF), was deeply involved in last year’s Stop the Spray movement that was successful in stopping aerial sprays over urban areas.  She says that although that was an important victory, the fight against “chemical trespass” is far from won. The problem is that few people still seem to care.

“When we had our town hall meetings for the spray we got a huge amount of people, but that was because people were personally threatened,” she says. “That is what is different about this – we are getting them to realize they are, and will continue to be, threatened.”

She points to the CDFA’s continued LBAM eradication plans, which include the Sterile Moth Technique (a sterile insect release program planned for Spring ’09) and Male Moth Attractant Sites (MMAS). Graydon-Fontana refers to the latter as “splat,” a method that will apply sticky substances, pumped with moth pheromones, to telephone poles and street trees. But the most overlooked threat Graydon-Fontanta wishes to share with the public is the continuation of “pesticide drift.” Although the CDFA eliminated aerial spray over urban areas, they will continue such methods over “remote areas inaccessible by ground vehicles,” according to their website. However, a Sept. 16 Department of Pesticide Regulation Deposition Study reported that aerially applied pesticides drift an average of 3.3 miles outside of the spray zone. These issues will be addressed at P.A.C.T.’s Jan. 12 town hall meeting about their recently penned ordinance. The event will be held at the Veterans Hall in downtown Santa Cruz.

“They can’t keep these ‘pests’ from coming from other places,” says Graydon-Fontana. “If their answer is to keep dumping pesticides on us, it is going to make us all sick and destroy beneficial species and destroy the environment. There are ways that can be used to control pests that are much more natural, such as what Australia and New Zealand are doing with the LBAM.”

P.A.C.T. plans to present the ordinance to the Santa Cruz City Council in February. Written with help from Global Exchange and the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), it was designed to fit in with Santa Cruz County’s existing Integrated Pest Management policy, adopted in 2000 by the Board of Supervisors, obligating the county to use the least toxic method in any case. If adopted by the city council, the pending ordinance would ban the bulk application of pesticides anywhere within Santa Cruz city limits. It would not affect the use of pesticides on personal property.

“If you want to spray Raid all over your property, nobody’s going to stop you,” says Solick. “It’s about bulk application by corporations.”

The genesis of the ordinance was at CELDF’s annual Democracy School, which Solick, Graydon-Fontana and a handful of other WILPF members attended earlier this year.

“After going to Democracy School, I realized what we were doing was just the regulatory approach,” says Graydon-Fontana. “We were doing the best we could, and not getting anywhere. With the court case we won, they did stop the aerial spray over homes. But it wasn’t finished and there was much more they needed to do.”

CELDF inspired the women to write what is known as a “rights-based ordinance,” one that calls upon people’s inalienable constitutional rights. More specifically for P.A.C.T., the right to safety as stipulated in Article One, Section One of the California Constitution. According to these rights, proponents of the ordinance believe that individuals should have the ability to make decisions regarding their own health – thus, in the case of dangerous pesticides, letting those who are affected make the decisions.

“The point of all these rights-based ordinances is that, under the Constitution of California and the Declaration of Independence, we have the right to govern ourselves, as long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone else,” says Solick. Graydon-Fontana agrees, adding that the point of the ordinance is to make people realize “that they have the right to decide about their safety in the places they live.”

The group is knowingly pushing the ban in spite of current state level laws that prevent towns, cities and counties from making local pesticide laws. They look to the successful rights-based ordinances passed in 123 other cities and counties across the country as justified inspiration for “challenging an unjust law.” Even the handful of these cities and counties that were sued by their governing state succeeded in ending the wrongdoing or harmful practice that their ordinance had set out to abolish. “No corporations have continued doing those things while these rights-based ordinances have been in place, which is what we want to do here,” says Solick. P.A.C.T. is prepared for the state to fight the Control, Pesticide and Chemical Trespass Ordinance but does not think it is likely. “Although there is a definite possibility that the state might sue, the better possibility is that the state is broke, and so is the city – it is very unlikely that anybody will sue anybody,” says Solick.

With the “hibernating” LBAM eradication plans soon to be awoken, P.A.C.T. is treating the passage of their ordinance with urgency. The CDFA’s Expanded LBAM Program Area as of July 2008 showed plans to spread LBAM control efforts to almost every county in California, and the women behind P.A.C.T. believe that Santa Cruz is the right place to start a rights-based protection movement across the Golden State. “Wouldn’t it be great if a number of the cities and counties started doing this at once?” says Graydon-Fontana. “We happen to be the first. Hopefully, this is just the beginning.”

Comments (0)Add Comment

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

Share this on your social networks

Bookmark and Share

Share this

Bookmark and Share

 

Growing Hope

Campos Seguros combats sexual assault in the Watsonville farmworker community Farm work was a way of life for Rocio Camargo, who grew up in Watsonville as the daughter of Mexican immigrants. Her parents met while working the fields 30 years ago, and her father went on to run Fuentes Berry Farms.

 

Cardinal Grand Cross in the Sky

Following Holy Week (passion, death and burial of the Pisces World Teacher) and Easter Sunday (Resurrection Festival), from April 19 to the 23, the long-awaited and discussed Cardinal Cross of Change appears in the sky, composed of Cardinal signs Aries, Libra, Cancer, and Capricorn, with planets (13-14 degrees) Uranus (in Aries), Jupiter (in Cancer), Mars (in Libra) and Pluto (in Capricorn), an actual geometrical square or cross configuration. Cardinal signs mark the seasons of change, initiating new realities.

 

Sugar: The New Tobacco?

Proposed bill would require warning labels on sugary drinks Will soda and other saccharine libations soon come with a health warning? They will if it’s up to our state senator, Bill Monning (D-Carmel). On Feb. 27, Monning proposed first-of-its-kind legislation that would require a consumer warning label be placed on sugar-sweetened beverages sold in California. SB 1000, also known as the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act, was proposed to provide vital information to consumers about the harmful effects of consuming sugary drinks, such as sodas, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened teas.

 

Film, Times & Events: Week of April 17

Santa Cruz area movie theaters >
Sign up for Tomorrow's Good Times Today
Upcoming arts & events

RSS Feed Burner

 Subscribe in a reader

Latest Comments

 

Foodie File: Red Apple Cafe

Breakfast takes center stage at Gracia Krakauer's Red Apple Cafe Before they moved to Aptos, Gracia and her husband Dan Krakauer would visit friends in Santa Cruz County and eat at the Red Apple Café all the time. Then they moved up here from Santa Monica five years ago, and bought the Aptos location (there’s a separate one in Watsonville) from the family who owned it for two decades.

 

How would you feel about a tech industry boom in Santa Cruz?

I feel like it would ruin the small old-town feeling of Santa Cruz. It wouldn’t be the same Surf City kind of vacation town that it is. Antoinette BennettSanta Cruz | Construction Management

 

Best of Santa Cruz County

The 2013 Santa Cruz County Readers' Poll and Critics’ Picks It’s our biggest issue of the year, and in it, your votes—more than 6,500 of them—determined the winners of The Best of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll. New to the long list of local restaurants, shops and other notables that captured your interest: Best Beer Selection, Best Locally Owned Business, Best Customer Service and Best Marijuana Dispensary. In the meantime, many readers were ever so chatty online about potential new categories. Some of the suggestions that stood out: Best Teen Program and Best Web Design/Designer. But what about: Dog Park, Church, Hotel, Local Farm, Therapist (I second that!) or Sports Bar—not to be confused with Bra. Our favorite suggestion: Best Act of Kindness—one reader noted Café Gratitude and the free meals it offered to the Santa Cruz Police Department in the aftermath of recent crimes. Perhaps some of these can be woven into next year’s ballot, so stay tuned. In the meantime, enjoy the following pages and take note of our Critics’ Picks, too, beginning on page 91. A big thanks for voting—and for reading—and an even bigger congratulations to all of the winners. Enjoy.  -Greg Archer, EditorBest of Santa Cruz County Readers’ Poll INDEX

 

Trout Gulch Vineyards

Cinsault 2012—la grande plage diurne The most popular wines on store shelves are those most generally known and available—Chardonnay, Sauvignon Blanc, Cabernet Sauvignon and Merlot, which are all superb for sure. But when you come across a more unusual varietal, like Trout Gulch Vineyards’ Cinsault ($18), it opens up a whole new world.