| HOME
TABLE OF CONTENTS What’s Your Watershed Contribution? Humboldt County Changes General Plan Creating Solutions in in Era of Conflicts Over Water SCWA’s Role in a Sustainable Regional Future Feinstein Give-Away of One Million Acre-Feet of Water Maintaining Instream Flows — Assembly Bill 2121 Rohnert Park Casino Richardson Grove: Shall a Larger Highway Run Through It? Railroad Proposals Under Scrutiny The Invasion of the Eel River Watershed Redway School 4th-Grade Students Learn About Invasive Plants |
CATs Loves the Eel, Defends It Against Herbicide By Patty Clary A rushed plan to spray herbicides, Californians’ jealously guarded right to open government, and a dreaded invasive species that’s gained a toehold on the banks of the Eel River provided the elements for a drama played out in Humboldt County Superior Court last month. It all began when Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (CATs) filed suit last year against California Department of Parks and Recreation and the Humboldt County Department of Agriculture after both agencies excluded the public from their decision to use the persistent herbicide imazapyr to kill beautiful but invasive purple loosestrife plants. The invasive plants have been spreading along the banks of the Eel for years. Judge J. Michael Brown agreed with CATs that the government plan would have a “significant” effect, and halted the spraying–planned repeatedly for as much as 10 years–until a full environmental impact report is prepared under the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA, as the law is known, forces government agencies to describe all the significant adverse impacts of a project and to mitigate those impacts to the extent possible. It also opens the door for concerned members of the public to be involved when actions that can affect the environment are being developed and approved by the government. The state and county had joined forces to spray imazapyr shortly after issuing a Notice of Exemption from the requirements of CEQA. They claimed no significant impacts would result from the project and had decided what to do before laying out their plan in a hastily called public meeting. Their goal was to eradicate purple loosestrife on at least 200 sites along 25 miles of the Eel using the herbicide, but they offered no plan for integrating other control methods. CATs called upon Bernd Blossey of Cornell University, a national expert on the plant, who told the court the project will fail because the infestation, known to be spreading along the Eel River for more than six years, is now too large to be eradicated. What’s more, Blossey added, the spread of purple loosestrife has been shown to increase when herbicides are used to check the plant’s progress. - |