Toxic Tradeoff

Diazinon ban sends homeowners looking for other insecticides

by Philip Dickey, WA Toxics Coalition

A new analysis of urban pesticide sales and stream contamination in the Northwest has revealed a substantial increase in sales of the toxic insecticide carbaryl. During the phaseout out of the lawn insecticides diazinon and DursbanTM in 2002, carbaryl sales increased by more than tenfold in Seattle and King County. Levels of carbaryl in salmon streams also showed a significant increase. These results were presented in a report, Toxic Tradeoff, released on May 11 by the Clean Water for Salmon Campaign. (see www.watoxics.org/content/pdf/ToxicTradeoff.pdf )

Like diazinon and DursbanTM, carbaryl is toxic to the nervous system. It is also considered a likely carcinogen. When it pollutes streams, it can harm salmon directly and, since it is highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates, can severely impact salmon food supply.

Banning urban uses of DursbanTM and diazinon was a good thing for people and fish, but we're chasing our tails when people just move to another toxic pesticide. Diazinon levels in local streams fell as sales decreased, but a large jump in carbaryl sales in 2002 was mirrored in the stream waters. Our analysis shows that when more chemicals are used, more wash off into our salmon streams.

Carbaryl is currently under scrutiny by federal regulators and wildlife agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency is considering whether to keep carbaryl on the market or restrict its uses. The agency is responding to a petition by farm workers, beekeepers, and environmental organizations to ban all uses of carbaryl. The US Fish and Wildlife Service commented earlier this year that the limited restrictions EPA has already proposed will not be enough to protect fish and wildlife.

Our report analyzed sales and water quality data only through 2002. More recent data just made available show continuing but somewhat lower carbaryl levels in Seattle's Thornton Creek. While carbaryl products remain on the shelves in many retail locations, some producers are shifting to pyrethroids such as bifenthrin, permethrin, or esfenvalerate. These synthetic insecticides are extremely toxic to fish but harder to detect at toxic levels and less frequently monitored. Increasing use of pyrethroids, especially several different ones, might go undetected in streams even at concentrations that could cause harm.

Yards, gardens, playgrounds, and parks can be major sources of toxic pesticide/herbicide exposure for children. Check to make sure play areas are free of toxic chemicals. Photo courtesy WA Toxics Coalition.

Washington Lakes Get a Break from Pesticides

State agency was illegally circumventing requirements for public comment

by Erika Schreder, WA Toxics Coalition

In the summer of 2001, Diana Forman walked out of her Portage Bay houseboat one morning to find a notice that an herbicide would be sprayed in the water directly adjacent to her home. It turned out that the neighboring yacht clubs were planning to spray the herbicide 2,4-D into the water to fight watermilfoil.

Diana and her neighbors wasted no time in trying to stop the spray. She remembers, "We went into orbit and started talking to people. As far as we knew, there had been no public input. And they were our neighbors!"

The Portage Bay residents were successful that year in stopping the spray. But in 2002, the yacht clubs again proposed to use herbicides in the bay. When Diana and others asked Washington Toxics Coalition for help, we were hopeful that we would be able to use a new court ruling that aquatic pesticide applications could not be made without a Clean Water Act permit.

Once we took a look at the permit language, we knew something was fishy. According to the permit, only public agencies could legally apply pesticides to water. And the Department of Ecology was supposed to seek public comment before every application was approved. But here, a private organization was applying pesticides, and the neighbors had been given no opportunity to have input. Unfortunately, that year the Portage Bay residents were unable to stop the yacht clubs from applying 2,4-D.

Why was there no public involvement? And why was an herbicide being used instead of safer alternatives?

It turned out that the Department of Ecology (DOE) had made a special arrangement with the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) for this yacht club permit. WSDA would apply for and receive a permit, then allow others to be considered covered under that permit. That way individuals and other entities would not need to bother with the more extensive application to DOE and the review process that would allow the public to comment.

We turned to the experienced Clean Water Act attorneys at Smith & Lowney LLC, who agreed with us that this arrangement didn't look right. In fact, attorneys Richard Smith and Paul Kampmeier were certain that the arrangement was illegal and that WSDA was violating its permit.

And the residents of Portage Bay were not the only neighbors concerned about this setup. At Lake Sammamish, we heard reports that applicators were going door to door encouraging residents to apply herbicides. Members of the group Save Lake Sammamish were extremely concerned that the new permit would allow a significant increase in herbicide use in the lake.

"Herbicides are a big concern for us in Lake Sammamish, for their effects on people and pets, the potential harm to fish and other organisms, and the increase in algae as a result of the rotting vegetation," said Frank Lill, vice-president of Save Lake Sammamish. "We didn't like the idea of applying poisons into the lake that all of us use."

Save Lake Sammamish did extensive outreach to lake residents to discourage herbicide applications. In all, three applications were made in Lake Sammamish in 2004. To date, no permits have been requested for Lake Sammamish in 2005.

In Lake Washington, however, 75 herbicide applications were made, including one application of 432 gallons of a pesticide containing 2,4-D. With so many applications occurring, we had serious concerns about the effects of the pesticides on swimmers as well as the fish that use Lake Washington.

Together with our partners People for Puget Sound, Washington Toxics Coalition brought suit in September 2004 against WSDA for illegally extending its permit coverage to other entities.

We have now come to a settlement agreement with WSDA that will dramatically increase protections for lakes from pesticide applications. Under the settlement agreement, WSDA will stop allowing applications of herbicides directly to lakes without permit approval from the state DOE. Private individuals will not be able to apply herbicides to lakes until DOE establishes a new permit for this purpose.

In a signed consent decree, WSDA agreed to stop extending its permit coverage to individuals and other entities. Herbicide applications under WSDA's permit will occur only for noxious weeds of statewide significance such as Spartina and purple loosestrife. WSDA will take a number of steps to ensure that all of those applications meet the requirements of the permit.

"Salmon need clean water to thrive, and we won't have clean water as long as individuals can apply herbicides to our lakes with little or no justification," said Naki Stevens of People for Puget Sound. "We are looking forward to a new permit for aquatic herbicide use that makes sure the public is informed and can participate in decision-making."