Mixed reaction to Lahontan OKing chemicals in Tahoe
By Kathryn Reed
Public health is one of two reasons the Lahontan Regional Water Quality board on Wednesday voted to allow chemicals to be used to rid Lake Tahoe of invasive species – plant or animal. Public safety is the reason people who supply drinking water to thousands of people in the basin spoke against the decision.
Allowing pesticide use at Tahoe is practically revolutionary for the water board. The decision is a 180-degree turnaround from years of not allowing anything potentially harmful from being added to the pristine water.
Staff told the board that the long-term benefits of applying chemicals would outweigh any short-term degradation to the lake.
Tahoe Keys homeowners association is excited to be able to use herbicides to get rid of milfoil. Photo/TRPA
County vector control units have been using chemicals for years with Lahontan’s knowledge, but also in violation of its rules.
Vector control is also a health and safety issue.
Karen Bender with the El Dorado County Environmental Management Agency told Lake Tahoe News vector control rarely sprays in the Lake Tahoe Basin; it’s mostly larvae sites that are treated. She has volumes of records Lahontan could have checked at anytime. The board’s decision likely means Lahontan staff will be getting reports of all future chemical applications assuming pesticide use passes state and federal boards.
While water purveyors lost the battle to keep dangerous chemicals from the drinking supply of thousands, they did get the board to agree to notify all of them when an application will take place so all could comment on the proposed project.
There are 18 water purveyors around the lake, with 21 intakes between them. There are other water purveyors in the Lake Tahoe Basin, like South Tahoe Public Utility District, that use groundwater.
An issue for water purveyors is if the chemical is detected in the drinking water supply it must be mitigated. That can create problems downstream, so to speak. None of those concerns, though, were brought up at Wednesday’s meeting.
Nor was it discussed how one chemical might react with another.
In passing it was acknowledged the chemical to treat the problem could create problems for other aspects of the ecosystem. For instance if milfoil is eliminated, it could impact any species that uses it for habitat.
Besides public health, the other reason chemicals could be put into Lake Tahoe is for ecological preservation.
Three Tahoe Keys representatives spoke at the three-hour meeting at Embassy Suites on Dec. 7 – citing the need for chemicals to eradicate milfoil that is clogging the canals. The South Shore homeowners’ group years ago asked Lahontan for exemptions and was denied each time.
It may still be years before any herbicides are applied. This is because more boards need to approve the Pesticide Basin Plan Amendment. The final overseer to vote will be the federal EPA – maybe in July 2012.
An environmental impact report will need to be done by the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association before Lahontan votes on that specific project.
All potential projects will undergo a rigorous vetting process, according to Lahontan staff.
“If the project qualifies, then the applicant takes their case to the board,” Mary Fiore-Wagner, Lahontan environmental scientist, told the board. “There will be robust monitoring, and tracking and recovery of species.”
All projects must also meet California Environmental Quality Act requirements.
One issue the board had some problems with was that chemicals under rare circumstances might be used without board approval. They understood emergency criteria – as in if the governor of California issues a mandate to do something. But what took some understanding was the “time sensitive” project that the executive director could approve on behalf of the board.
Staff explained “time-sensitive” could be the introduction of an invasive species to Lake Tahoe that would not reach the level of a state emergency. There are 36 species that have been identified as being a threat to Lake Tahoe, with 20 of them already in the water.
Another issue that changed from earlier versions of the amendment is chemical detection will be allowed to last for more than a week. This is based on how some chemicals are released.
Dan Sussman, Lahontan environmental scientist, said monitoring still must begin one week after the initial application of the chemical.
Any treatment could mean temporary prohibition of swimming, boating and fishing or other recreational activities.
Lauri Kemper, second in charge at Lahontan, after the meeting told Lake Tahoe News, that via CEQA, project applicants are supposed to document past, current and future projects that could impact theirs. Kemper said even if that does not take place, her agency would be aware of what is going on in Tahoe to know if application of one chemical could interfere/conflict with another.
While the decision by Lahontan affects the whole lake – because water moves – the agency only has oversight of California’s portion of the lake.
It is the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection that oversees what goes into Lake Tahoe in the Silver State. They follow requirements outlined by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.
Bob Loding, water-wastewater specialist with Tri-state Water Operations in Zephyr Cove, told Lake Tahoe News that water purveyors are told by NDEP of anything going on with water – including being consulted before the rubber mats were put down to study the Asian clams.
He does not know of any time when chemicals have been allowed to be used in Lake Tahoe originating in Nevada.
Al Tinney, chief of water pollution control for NDEP, was not available for comment.
We will never be able to eradicate millfoil, but to stop/slow its growth will help keep our lake and rivers cleaner-no brainer. Good decision Lahontan.
Doesn’t it seem obviously odd that yesterday the board adopted stringent regulations to prevent little bits of things into the lake and the next day they voted to allow little pesticides in? Odd.
Shame on the Water Control Board for allowing one small group of homeowners to dictate a policy that will affect the drinking water of so many. The Tahoe Keys is an environmental disaster for this lake and a big reason the TPRA was created. The canals took the place of meadowland that filtered water from the Upper Truckee. Look at the history and environmental impacts before making such a major decision! Chemicals are not the solution.
Leela, water is a chemical. If you have a strong opinion you should also accept the responsibility for learning a little about what you are talking about. Modern EPA approved herbicides for water use break down into non-toxic compounds in aa matter of hours to days depending on pH and water temp. And as far as I know, no water company takes water out of the Keys.
John, Leela obviously knows a little about the subject, let’s act like responsible adults here. EPA approved rotenone use for years, and USFS studies show some aquatic invertebrates still don’t return after two years, is that broken-down or “non-toxic?” Treating the lake with chemicals is certainly not a clear cut win-win situation to say the least.
I wish someone would do more to educate the public about the herbicides and the numerous studies that have been done. Links to studies, etc. These plants have been successfully controlled in other places, even rivers where the water flow decreases the contact time.
They aren’t just going to dump chemicals into the water. The timing is carefully timed, they will probably use pellets that will deliver the herbicide to the root zone. And then the herbicide degrades rather quickly from bacteria. Vague description I know, but I don’t have the time today to go off and go dig up the old research papers and pilot studies I know are the basis for this decision. If you want to start looking yourself, look at what has been done in Idaho. The lack of regulation allowed scientists to take on some bold projects. Go figure….
http://epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/factsheets/24d_fs.htm
The above link is the EPA analysis of 2-4-D. Its a tough read, but the bottom line is just don’t drink it straight from the bottle and its okay.
If just one of these pesticide proponents will simply drink a glass of it, and assuming it breaks down or degrades or disappears within hours or a short time becoming totally harmless, as they claim, I shall be happy to erase my concerns about the safety of the water. Seeing is believing.
To many, 100% safe drinking water is more important than killing weeds.
Like many, I made the mistake of believing the scientific studies when the oil companies came out with MTBE that proclaimed it safe.
Fooled once, shame on them. Fooled twice, shame on me.
“Herbicides to the root zone . .” With different temperatures at different depths, there’s a lot of circulation from the lake floor to the surface going on.
Everyone knows that the water in the tahoe keys probably already has traces of herbicides in it from the lawns.
David: The herbicide is going into the tahoe keys, which does not flow much into the lake. It is shallow. The pellets sink and will reside there. I imagine an extremely windy day or a lot of boat traffic could be a problem. And that is accounted for.
I don’t know their exact plan but other projects I know of apply the herbicide when the plants are just starting to sprout. Roots are active, lots of growth, and the herbicide is most effective. Depending on the year, this time is in the late spring.
‘I made the mistake of believing the scientific studies when the oil companies came out with MTBE that proclaimed it safe. ‘
Good point. Who do you think funded those studies? I doubt they were unbiased.
I urge you to educate yourselves. A quick google search and I found these:
http://www.agri.idaho.gov/Categories/PlantsInsects/NoxiousWeeds/Documents/Milfoil/EWM%20Strategy%20Final.pdf
http://www.wapms.org/abstracts/2009_WAPMS_program.pdf
an herbicide formulation for milfoil, more links on there for you to follow
http://priestmilfoil08.wordpress.com/renovate-herbicide/
The questions ‘is it effective?’ and ‘is it safe?’ have been answered, yes and yes. Don’t take my word for it, read about it yourself.
“Is it safe” has not been adequately answered, that’s the point. The Idaho report you cite is seventy-plus pages of eradication techniques and funding allocations and then on pg. 78:
“Cons: Imposed water use restrictions on drinking, irrigation, livestock watering and recreation” and “fish consumption.”
Mmmm. Lake trout anyone?
“ineffective in muddy or cold water..”
“does not affect underground portion, essentially ‘mows’ the plant . .”
“demonstrated resistance . .”
And I don’t think it’s a stretch to think that MTBE is not a swell addition to drinking water.
I pulled those up in a matter of 2 minutes. They did many studies, the ones that didn’t work were used to develop other studies that were very successful. Idaho has been the testing ground for milfoil removal in many systems, and it has worked. And it has done so without impacting drinking water. Of course there are precautions. Drinking water is not impacted in the long term. The herbicides degrade in a matter of weeks.
The quote ‘mows the plant’ is from 1 of the 6 herbicides. It is not systemic. None of the other 5 herbicides have the problem. (Page 80 on first link).
2,4 D Pros (same page)
“Systemic, can kill entire plant, longer control”
Cons: “Public perception”
The quote about water restrictions does not mention the time period, which is 24 hours to 1 week. Long term, there is no evidence of bioaccumulation. Everything I have read says that it can only be detected in trace amounts in certain types of soil 1 year later, and they had to look really hard.
It is safe. Look up aquatic herbicide degradation. I am sure the people doing the work have the numbers for the type of water. They should be mentioning them every time they release something public about the project. *hint hint*. If the primary means is photodegradation, it should degrade very quickly here, lots of UV, shallow water, relatively clear.
MTBE is radically different than herbicide, chemically. It is highly mobile in soils and does not degrade like herbicide.
The concerns are valid. People care. That is excellent. All of these concerns have been taken into consideration in past projects and in this project. The people running the Tahoe project should be communicating this more effectively.
It’s in the article: “Public safety is the reason people who supply drinking water to thousands of people in the basin spoke against the decision.” “There are 18 water purveyors around the lake, with 21 intakes between them.” “Any treatment could mean temporary prohibition of swimming, boating and fishing or other recreational activities.” Obviously, water and herbicides from the Keys drain to the lake, it doesn’t take a scientist to figure that out. Thanks David.
I usually come to this site for local coverage, but the trib has a (dare I say) much better article here: http://www.tahoedailytribune.com/article/20111208/NEWS/111209866/1068&ParentProfile=1056
Is WQ for water quality? Might you work for Lahontan and prefer non-news and instead of real news? My guess is people who want the whole story will keep reading LTN.
Leela, the rate of decomposition of these chemicals make them essentially a zero threat to water supplies. The key word is *temporary*, as in a week, maybe 2 to be extra safe. Even without the decomposition, most drinking water is taken from aquifers.
Herbicide in the keys does not threaten any drinking water. It will be completely broken down before it can affect any fish.
Look at the studies, Florida uses a lot of herbicide in water that is then used for cattle, fishing, etc. It has been going on for decades and there are numerous studies on it.
The Keys supplies only well water to its customers and that water doesn’t have to meet surface water supplies requirements.
Get to the “real problem”,when the Keys was built the water channels were suppose to circulate water,so oxygen wouldn’t let certain plants grow ,thrive there,the channels with pumps never were researched well enough but they got by the EPA because someone scratching someone else’s back and the Keys property owners were to pay this through home ownership contracts for upkeep.
WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO THAT CLAUS IN THE HOMEOWNERS CONTRACT?
A lot the men in this town were lucky to be able to have jobs out there,only the EPA weirdo’s were laying goose eggs out there and they even ended up shipping the geese off,because of GOOSE-turds in the YARDS,water, That’s a fact, if you been here, watched all these kinky ideas PAN OUT,it’s BEEN quite a knowledge of wealth failed ideas that mature over the years.
This is where a lot these foreign plants,fish,got started.People dumping fish tanks,others flat butt slipping fish from out the area in.
If any you ever have the time and scuba diving gear, you would be amazed at all the crap in the bottom of the channels,I lost my porsche keys out there off a dock where we were building a home right next to Killerbrews Joint,It was cheaper go rent scuba gear than to have a porsche rep to have keys made bring up from Carson city.Too my amazement, when I went to fetch my car keys, I noticed so much(s–i) on the bottom of those channels I was amazed.
Skill saws,Drills,old bait traps,lots panties,women’s hose,Yard hoses,props off boats,and the mud on the bottom of these channels was decaying crap that smelled so bad.People would NOT belief it unless you take a look for yourselves.
Has anyone with a curiosity mind ever did any research on this subject? I really think the Keys home owners,Marine, should paid to have the keys cleaned up,made to work like when they said the water would be circulated ,paid for by the Keys ownership,dues?
This where the problem began and it’s where it should end.
Been some big money moved through this part town by city tax payers,while at the same time it’s under a home ownership Group.
There was no EPA when the Keys and canals were built.
Im a prisoner-
When did you swim for your Porsche keys? The water behind my house is great. I rake the bottom and have added brown sand, its pristine. There is junk, which the TKPOA cleans, however, have you looked at the bottom of Lake Tahoe? There is way more pollution in LT than in the keys. Quit attacking the Tahoe Keys, you just wish you lived there. Remember, there are limited properties on LT, a lake you can still drink the water you are sailing on. Enjoying it. JA.
It’s NO jive!
Not sure Lahontan is to be completely trusted on this, and for certain if Tahoe Keys is involved, something WILL go very wrong. Its been proven.