Last summer, the California Department of Food and Agriculture announced that the light brown apple moth (LBAM) had been found in Northern California, with the largest finds in Santa Cruz and Monterey counties. By the fall, planes were aerially spraying urban areas along the Central Coast.
While CDFA has insisted that the spray used isn't a pesticide and isn't harmful, public concern about the safety of the spray has dogged CDFA's efforts from the start.
Earlier this year, CDFA announced plans to spray most of the Bay Area, just as the Central Coast was. There has been strong reaction in the Bay Area in anticipation of the spraying. The past few weeks have been rough for CDFA's LBAM eradication program on a number of fronts.
The program has suffered several significant setbacks, most important among them a Santa Cruz Superior Court judge's ruling to stop spraying in Santa Cruz County until environmental review is completed. Additionally, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has delayed spraying until new health tests are conducted.
And five LBAM-related bills have passed their first hurdles in Sacramento, two of which I've authored, with the others authored by Assemblymembers Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) and Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco).
It's a daily challenge to make sense of the many questions that continue to circle the LBAM issue. Two good examples are the court ruling and the governor's decision to delay the spraying, both of which came on the same day.
The court ruling from my home county of Santa Cruz came first, stating spraying cannot happen in Santa Cruz County until the environmental review process has been completed – which typically takes more than a year. For the various Bay Area cities and counties that have indicated opposition to aerial spraying, the ruling may well spur new legal action.
Just hours after the Santa Cruz ruling, the governor delayed spraying statewide until at least August 17, in order to conduct toxicology tests targeting humans and animals. Since last August I've called for independent third-party analysis of the state's program – we need that same approach with these new tests.
As the clock ticks on the court cases, the environmental review, the governor's delay, and the bills in Sacramento, it's not just human health we should be concerned about. The health of our farming industry is also threatened – but not because of the crop damage issues often cited by CDFA.
I'm referring to the increasing possibility that aerial spraying may be blocked through court action, and what kind of financial impact that will mean for farmers suffering the cost of quarantine for a pest with zero documented crop or environmental damage in California – a fact CDFA confirmed in court.
With or without spraying, farmers will continue to bear the cost of operating under quarantine. How will CDFA fulfill its obligation to protect farmers if the eradication program fails?
The financial strain on nursery growers and organic farmers is already significant – in Santa Cruz County alone, LBAM-related financial losses at nurseries totaled nearly $3 million in 2007, and have caused one nursery to go out of business. Major expenses include hiring staff for required LBAM inspections and spraying of pesticides. Again, all of this is caused by a pest for which there is zero recorded damage in the state.
At its core, LBAM is an international trade issue – the federal government classifies LBAM as a "Class A" pest. The Technical Working Group, appointed by CDFA and upon whose work CDFA based its eradication plan, recommended a biological assessment, a process that helps determine if a pest should be on the "Class A" list. I have joined with Congressman Sam Farr (D-Monterey Bay) in asking the U.S. Department of Agriculture to answer questions about the classification of LBAM.
Other unanswered issues raised by the TWG include concerns that the Bay Area's weather conditions may reduce the spray plan's effectiveness, and whether eradication is even possible.
Questions about effectiveness are exacerbated by the fact that nearly six months after the last round of spraying, CDFA has not revealed if the spraying had any impact on the LBAM population.
Questions also swirl around a recent state health report stating there isn't enough evidence to determine whether there are health links between the spraying and the hundreds of reported health complaints after the Monterey Bay area was sprayed.
One thing is clear – the LBAM issue isn't going away. It's an incredibly complex issue, with new information revealed continuously. LBAM is giving us a refresher course on high school civics, with all three branches of state government engaged in substantive ways: judicial (court cases), legislative (bills in Sacramento) and executive (CDFA and the governor).
Hopefully the work of the three branches will lead to a science-based, independent review of the LBAM issue – a healthy outcome for the public, the environment, and farming hangs in the balance.
Assemblyman John Laird represents the Monterey Bay Area, serves as the chair of the Assembly Budget Committee and chair of the Legislative LGBT Caucus. For more information on LBAM visit his Web site at http://www.assembly.ca.gov/laird.