01/30/1985 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

e e e V. PESTICIDE SPRAYING RIGHT-TO-KNOW ORDINANCE (ordinance attached) Ms. Wooten introduced Dave Gordon of the City Attorney's office who had prepared the ordinance concerning the right-to-know about pesticide spraying at her request. She planned to discuss the ordinance and suggest some changes. However, at Mr. Hansen's suggestion, she first discussed the reasons for the ordinance. She had received many calls from people who are concerned about the use and effect of pesticides within the city. Some people want to be able to avoid parks and lawns which have been sprayed and some people are concerned about pesticides that drift. She had been told of one case in which pesticides sprayed on bushes drifted into an open window. Sprays also drift from trees among small urban lots. People want to know when and what is sprayed. She did not intend to regulate or ban the sale of pesticides or argue about toxicity. She wanted people to know about pesticides so they can choose where to go and what to do with their gardens. She understood the City has a good integrated pest management program. Mr. Miller thought some people who apply pesticides may not have understood the proposed ordinance. It could impact businesses. He suggested a task force be appointed to study the issue. He agreed that people have a right to know. Mr. Hansen wondered about City policy concerning toxic sprays. Tim Rhay of the Parks Department said the City uses sprays only when a problem has been documented. Then sprays which will have the least impact on the environment are used. There is no notification program and there does not seem to be a problem. Mr. Hansen did not want to debate the proposed ordinance until he was convinced there is a need to address the issue. He suggested people who apply pesticides be included in a study group. Mr. Holmer said the regulation of pesticides is important, but there are extensive State and Federal laws regulating them. It is important to rely on the judgement of individuals. Ms. Wooten pointed out that other jurisdictions do not have regulations concerning the public's right to know about pesticide applications. Mr. Sercombe said Federal regulations do not concern notification and Federal regulations do not preempt the proposed ordinance. Ms. Erhman had been contacted by people on both sides. She said much spraying is done early in the morning and people do not know it is done. Some people who apply pesticides have not understood the proposed ordinance. The council work session is the first step in a process of considering the issue and had been scheduled for some time. Ms. Wooten said about 15,000 commercial pesticides are made in Eugene each year and probably home owners do as many or more applications. Pesticides do drift. People have a right to know what is happening. Commenting on the proposals, Mr. Rutan wanted additional information about the issues from several sources. Ms. Schue had questions about the proposed ordinance, but she thought there is a "right to know." She suggested the council decide whether the issue warranted time. Mr. Holmer wanted to hear MINUTES--Eugene City Council January 30, 1985 Page 6