April 26, 2000

Honorable Gary Locke
Governor
PO Box 40002
Olympia, WA 98504-0002

Re: Planned Aerial Spraying for AGM Eradication

Dear Governor Locke:

Thank you for meeting with me twice in recent weeks to discuss the planned aerial spraying of parts of Ballard and Magnolia to eradicate the threat of a possible Asian Gypsy Moth infestation in the area. After having spent a considerable amount of time and effort in attempting to learn about the situation so that I could make an informed and well-reasoned assessment, I have now made the decision to oppose the spraying. Thus, I respectfully urge you to deny the Washington Agriculture Director's request for a gubernatorial emergency declaration, per RCW 17.24.171, that would authorize the aerial pesticide spraying of portions of Ballard and Magnolia to prevent the potential infestation of the Asian Gypsy Moth.

Since the agency's announcement of its plans in late February (about which I read in the paper rather than having been notified in advance), I have spent many hours meeting with department staff, local health officials, and residents in the treatment zone to learn as much as possible about the risks of a moth infestation, the damage that could occur, and the public health risks associated with aerial spraying. I also, along with Representatives Mary Lou Dickerson and Helen Sommers, held a community meeting on Tuesday, April 18 in order to provide information to the public. More than 400 individuals attended the meeting, and it was clear that most were dissatisfied with how WSDA has handled this sensitive situation, both prior to the meeting and at the meeting itself. Furthermore, I have received an enormous number of e-mails and hotlines from people who have been appalled at what they perceive to be the government's insensitivity toward their concerns and lack of interest in their input.

After long and grueling reflection, I have concluded that the risks of moth infestation (real as they may be) do not justify the very intrusive, extensive, and expensive treatment operation planned by the department. Nor do I believe the department has handled this situation properly, especially with regard to its contacts with the community and its perceived lack of regard for public input. In fact, I had to convince department officials to provide advance notice of the specific dates of spraying (if it were to occur) to vulnerable groups, e.g., schools, day care and child care centers, nursing homes, retirement homes, senior centers, and community centers among others, as well as to physicians.

In summary, I have come to my position after considerable deliberation that aerial spraying is ill-advised. Serious questions have been raised about the effects the active ingredients in this pesticide may have upon vulnerable populations. In addition, I am not convinced that adequate notice will be provided to people within the treatment area so that they can avoid exposure to this pesticide. Furthermore, questions have been raised about the inert ingredients, whose identity and quantity are apparently protected from public disclosure by state and federal law. Many residents justifiably will assume that these ingredients must pose a risk if they are not allowed to know what the ingredients are. Additionally, I am very concerned that the proposed treatment operation may be far more extensive than is necessary. With the discovery of one adult moth and one egg mass last year, I do not believe the department has convincingly made the case that the only effective remedy is aerial spraying. Site-specific ground spraying of the areas near these two discoveries may be adequate, especially if combined with an increased use of trapping, including pheromone trapping.

Because an aerial treatment operation necessarily invades private property and will contact people, their pets, and their gardens without permission being granted, a declaration by the governor is required under state law. However, it is within the governor's discretion to determine that the proposed emergency measures are not justified in view of the potential adverse public health effects. I ask you to exercise this discretion to deny the declaration and direct the director of the Department of Agriculture to expeditiously develop less intrusive and less risky approaches to prevent a moth infestation.

Thank you for considering this request on this very important matter.

Sincerely,

Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles
KOHL_JE@leg.wa.gov
36th Legislative District