Document text
Pesticide tracking supported But opponents believe bill would go too far By PAUL FATTIG When JoAnne Eggers peers into the bubbling waters of Ashland Creek, she has no idea whether it's carrying fish-killing pesticides. Neither does anyone else, she concludes. "Pesticides are kind of a mystery," said Eggers, a member of Ashland Parks Commission. "You can't see them in the water. But when the turbidity is up, I can see it. I can walk up the creek and I can see if it's coming off a driveway or a construction project." Unless there are obvious signs, such as a major fish kill, the impact of low-level pesticide pollution in local streams remains largely unknown because no agency in the state tracks pesticide use, she said. That problem would be solved by the passage of Senate Bill 617, which directs the state Department of Agriculture to establish a tracking system for pesticide sales and use. The bill was introduced last week by state Sen. Susan Castillo, D-Eugene, and state Rep. Ken Strobeck, R-Beaverton. State Rep. Judy Uherbelau, D-Ashland, is a co-sponsor. Eggers, a board member of the Ashland-based Headwaters environmental group, was among those speaking in support of the bill at a press conference Wednesday morning in Medford. But the bill has drawn the ire of Oregonians for Food and Shelter, a group that lobbies for the agriculture community. "We think it's overreaching, duplicative -- an onerous piece of legislation that targets good farmers and foresters," said director Paulette Pyle. "It's unnecessary. The things they want to accomplish, in large part although not in every instance, is already accomplished." Pesticide users already have to document much of their use, she said. "What you have are some young individuals hired by environmental groups to push legislation that doesn't connect with reality," Pyle said. "These young people have not lived in the world they are trying to regulate. They don't have clue what they are asking.'' But Eggers, who moved to Ashland as an adult more than a quarter of a century ago, disagrees. The bill would answer troubling questions about the impact of pesticides on the watershed, she said. "This legislation will help us get some of the information we Oregonians need to know about what pesticides are being applied, where they are being applied and how much is being applied," she said. A dramatic example of how pesticides can kill fish was demonstrated in May 1996, when pesticide-treated water from Talent Irrigation District ditches went into Bear Creek, killing thousands of fish for several miles, Eggers noted. Throughout the Pacific Northwest, the huge salmon runs that were part of the region's legacy have been reduced to a trickle, said Ashley Henry, southwest Oregon field representative for Oregon Trout. "Efforts to recover the salmon have mostly focused on losses due to dams, logging, agriculture and overfishing," she said. "Restoration efforts have failed to address one of the major factors: how water pollution is caused by pesticides and how that contributes to a diminishing return of fish." The federal Environmental Protection Agency has set water quality standards for only 17 percent of the pesticides typically looked for in water quality studies, she said. "We have a lot of efforts going on across the state to improve salmon habitat and improve salmon reproduction capabilities, but we're not addressing the pesticide issue," she stressed. "We need to have field data on pesticide use and the impact of these chemicals on salmon throughout their life cycle." Cost of the bill is estimated to be about $1 million a year for the state, a cost that is small compared to the loss of valuable salmon, sponsors say. "To bring back our wild fish, we need to protect our waterways," said Tiernan Sittenfeld, field director of the Oregon State Public Interest Research Group. "In order to do that, we must understand the source of this pollution." Records rules mix jurisdictions Under state law, records are kept of some pesticide use, according to Dale Mitchell, assistant administrator of pesticides with the state Department of Agriculture. The regulations straddle state and federal Department of Agriculture rules. For instance, commercial pesticide operators are required to maintain a record of every product applied, Mitchell said, but private applicators are not. However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture requires private users to maintain records of their use of restricted pesticides. And those agencies that apply pesticides on public lands are required by state law to maintain a record of any restricted pesticides that are applied as well as the power equipment used, he said. "That information must be made available upon request, but there is no language in the law which says they must submit it or report to any central location," he explained. Although the state Department of Agriculture hasn't taken a position on Senate Bill 617, its advisory board opposes it, according to department spokesman Bruce Pokarney. The board doesn't oppose the concept, just the bill as it is written, he said; the board is concerned the bill doesn't address pesticide use by urban dwellers. Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 1999, Medford, Oregon USA