MINUTES
COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT
Tuesday, February 8, 2000
3:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Chair: M. Kaplowitz. Members: V. Pinto, U. LaMotte,
J. Maisano.
STAFF: Rob Hoch; Charlotte Ryer.
ALSO PRESENT: Larry Schwartz (CE’s Offc.); Jim Diermeier, Larry Wilson, Michael Maffei, Joe Yedowitz, Ben Fratratarcangeli, Jerry Mulcahy, (NYS Turf & Landscape Assoc.); Cortney Rhoads, Kristin Bonds, Laura Haight (NYPIRG); Roberta Wiernik, James Grefig (WC/PMC); Tony Grasso; Hope Corbin; Katherine McLoughlin (NY/LCV); Robert Funicello (WC/DEF); Michele Hertz; Laurie Evans (W/SAFE); Irene Saltzberg (Friends of Marshlands); Gudrun LeLash (FCWC); Andy Zimmerman (Green Party); Bill Randolph, Ingrid Bent (CE’s Offc.).
DISCUSSION:
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 p.m., with a quorum.
The minutes of February 1st were reviewed and approved on the motion of Legislator Pinto, seconded by Chair Kaplowitz, and carried with a vote of 3-0 (Legislator Maisano was out for the vote). The minutes of February 2nd, a joint meeting with the Committee on Budget and Appropriations, were also reviewed and carried with the same motion.
Next, was a review of correspondence and pending issues. Chair Kaplowitz requested that the resolution from the Town of Somers opposing the use of Alum in the Croton water system be placed on the Board agenda for the next scheduled full Board meeting. He also reviewed several items to be considered for upcoming meetings, and asked Rob to handle the scheduling details. Chair asked that Rob circulate the proposed MTBE resolution, and noted for the record, that the members review it for next week’s meeting. Rob suggested, since there were a couple of Bills (pending) in the legislature, that the Governor (NYS) and State Legislature should also be notified.
MINUTES
The Committee also agreed that a meeting should be scheduled to discuss Con Edison’s plans for sale of Indian Point, and asked Rob to take care of the details.
Chair introduced the resolution relating to Pesticide Notification. He noted that during the last session the Committee presented this resolution to the full Board, but that it was returned to the Committee due to the concerns raised that the issue had not been fully discussed. Chair suggested that today’s meeting is to listen to everyone’s comments carefully and digest, to create a version(s) of the resolution for review at the next Committee meeting to present to the full Board for consideration. Rob handed out various Bills and written information regarding the proposed legislation and gave a brief description of each item. Chair then explained that he would give each visitor a few minutes to convey their comments.
Tony Grasso a concerned citizen, commented that he is now retired, and had been in the landscape business for about 40 years; a former member of the Conservation Board in the Town of Yorktown; and a member of the OJ Knor Turf Grass Research Foundation. He feels the legislation is not necessary, due to the research performed in the areas of what happens to fertilizers and pesticides when they enter into the soil. It was found, through various tests, that no chemicals were absorbed into the ground. He noted that some of the worst pesticides ever developed (in the U.S.) were put under the soil and not detected in wells that were dug over the years. Mr. Grasso added that pesticides are short-lived and weather factors contribute to their fast dilution. In developing new grasses, a solution (endofite) was produced which contains a natural barrier against insects, and has been successfully used in grass. Regarding application of tree spraying and the “drift”, 25-30% less active ingredients is currently being used, and when it is diluted – the application is safe. Lastly, he expressed disappointment in the proposed law and feels it is indicative of too much bureaucracy.
MINUTES
Laura Haight – Senior Environmental Associate with NYPIRG (Albany), stated that for several years neighbor notification has been one of their top legislative priorities. She briefly explained the background of the Notification Bills (Assembly & Senate version) and why NYPIRG and other environmental organizations feel notification is needed. She handed out copies of an excerpt from a publication titled, “Plagued by Pesticides” [NYS & West. County] (copy on file – full report can be obtained through her office). She noted that Westchester County is the 4th highest in the State (by gallons) in pesticide exposure. Ms. Haight feels that IPM is not taking place in the County in any major capacity. She mentioned that County Executive Spano has endorsed Assembly Bill 1461, but recognizes the need for compromise to get the Bill passed. She expressed that the Assembly Bill should be used as a model of acceptance because it would require a 48-hour advanced notice (in writing) to abutting property owners, informing them that pesticide application will take place, and allowing them to respond in regard to their home, family, pets, laundry, and the use of other necessary safety precautions.
Chair Kaplowitz interjected and questioned the language in regard to commercial use and businesses. Ms. Haight answered that the Bills have some identical language, which is used for businesses and homeowners, and would require stores that sell pesticides to homeowners to post consumer information signs to include “out of respect to your neighbor to notify them in advance”. She also noted that the Senate version of the Bill supports the “registry system” where the property/home owner puts their name voluntarily on a list. She expressed that her primary concern is to pass a “right-to-know bill”, and fully supports the Assembly [1461] version.
Legislator LaMotte expressed her concern for the neighboring states and questioned if Connecticut, New Jersey, or other states have a notification law. Larry Wilson responded that there are several states (18-20) using a notification system, based on the registry method.
MINUTES
He added, that if a homeowner/property owner wanted to be notified, it is the owner’s responsibility to register their information. He noted that, historically, very few people opt to register.
Ms. Haight continued that people are not educated in regard to pesticides and do not know what is required with its use. She also mentioned that the Assembly version of the Bill includes notification to schools and day care centers of indoor and outdoor application (a key distinction between Senate version); and that neither Bill directly addresses farmers. She stated that the Assembly Bill was passed last week, and is hoping the Senate Bill will pass, although NYPIRG does not support the [Senate] Bill. Lastly, she noted that most of the turf, lawn and grass associations have opposed both notification Bills, but will encourage support of the Senate version.
Larry Wilson – Former President of NYS Turf & Landscape Association expressed his concern in regard to workers who would be impacted by the law, and favors the Senate (registry) version. He expressed his displeasure with version of the law that would require notifying every neighbor within “150-feet” of one’s property before spraying pesticides. Mr. Wilson stated that over 60 Bills were introduced in the legislature last year on pesticides.
Chair Kaplowitz questioned if the Bills were to go into effect, would the use of pesticides be less? Mr. Wilson responded that he feels IPM is the ultimate tool available to reduce the use of pesticides, but also feels the Bills conflict with IPM.
Michele Hurtz, a concerned citizen from Hastings, stated that a caution regarding health should be displayed (on labels) in regard to the dangers of chemical use, just as cigarette warnings are labeled on their package. She also expressed her personal (unpleasant) experience with a neighbor using pesticides and how it has affected her health, and strongly feels that neighbors should be notified in advance of pesticide use.
MINUTES
Larry Schwartz, Chief Advisor to the County Executive noted that Larry Wilson’s Association, the Administration and the County Board have had a good working relationship in trying to resolve other issues in the past, and would like to continue working with the Association in respect to a 48-hour pesticide notification law. Mr. Schwartz stated, for the record, that County Executive Spano supports the passage (this year) of a 48-hour notification law, noting that Mr. Spano feels the Assembly version would be a stronger Bill for Westchester County homeowners and residents. The Administration is taking the position that at least both Houses pass their respective Bills, in order to set up a conference committee to resolve the differences. Mr. Schwartz emphasized that one of Mr. Spano’s top priorities is to reduce the amount of use of pesticides in the County, and that his appointed committee members have been working closely with the Board’s PMC and Cornell Cooperative Extension, to put together a plan of action to expand and increase public education/awareness on pesticide use – with the end results being the reduction of pesticide use.
Legislator LaMotte commented that public education/awareness is greatly needed, and that the 48-hour notice focuses mainly on one segment of pesticide use – health and safety must also be addressed to homeowners purchasing their own pesticides.
Mr. Schwartz added that Mr. Spano believes the success of a public education campaign is to have the County lead by example. Mr. Spano has already mandated to his Parks Commissioner, that an IPM program be implemented for all County Park facilities and golf courses.
Joe Yedowitz, NYS Turf & Landscape Association questioned in regard to County properties, if the neighbors of the golf courses would also be notified prior to pesticide application. A reply was given that golf courses are usually spot-treated and do not require prior notification. Mr. Yedowitz noted that his organization supports the registry version of the Senate Bill.
MINUTES
Hope Corbin, a consumer advocate from Greenburgh, questioned the use of signs in stores where pesticides are purchased over the counter.
Chair Kaplowitz replied that in Westchester County there is a pesticide notification law presently in effect, and stores should have the (small yellow) signs posted at the cash register or point of sale.
Mr. Schwartz mentioned that discussion has taken place in regard to handing out a sign, brochure or other written literature at the point of sale, to educate the consumer.
Robert Funicello, WC/DEF added, as a point of information, that clarification can be obtained from the County Attorney’s office. He also noted that under Section 690.06 of Local Law #16-1995, (which created the Pest Management Committee), there is a 48-hour notification requirement in the use of pesticides on County property.
Roberta Wiernik, Chair of the WC/PMC, explained that the Committee was assigned to reduce pesticide use on all County properties (indoor and outdoor), noting that one of the requirements is a 48-hour pre-notification if any pesticide application is to take place. She then read from last year’s statement of approval, which she feels is a good educational tool, and clarified some of Mr. Wilson’s concerns. Ms. Wiernik also spoke on behalf of the League of Women Voters (State level), noting that the League has made this active legislation one of their priorities for this year because of its importance, and particularly to educate in the schools. She expressed that anything that can be done to help reduce the use of pesticides and to educate citizens/residents and policy makers, is a good thing. The League is in full support of proposed neighbor notification legislation, based on the citizen’s right to know, and for the concern and protection of public health. Ms. Wiernik also relayed her personal (unpleasant) experience with her neighbors’ use of pesticide.
MINUTES
Ben Fratratarcangeli, NYS Turf & Landscape Association noted that he has been spraying (pesticides) for 27-years, and currently has customers who contact him for advance notification of application. He feels his problem is with trying to notify people who do not want to be notified, and the expense that is generated. Mr. Fratratarcangeli favors the registry version of the Senate Bill.
Ms. Wiernik replied that this is why she expressed her remarks to the landscape entity, noting that these are the kinds of details that have to be worked out.
Legislator Pinto interjected that this is a “catch-22” situation, and feels if a state-registry system is used, and everyone in the neighborhood wants to be notified, - you’re in the same position as having to use the notification law.
Chair Kaplowitz noted that a prerequisite of receiving commercial pesticide application could be providing the names and addresses of all immediate neighbors – or else the client service will not be performed. He added that if a compliance law is in effect, more citizens would become aware if a service provider is not in compliance with the law.
Mike Maffei, NYS Turf & Landscape Association stated that pesticide use in the County has not increased. He emphasized that in previous years reporting of pesticide use was entered inaccurately – when (for example) 25-gallons is reported - the actual pesticide amount used is about 1-ounce. He added that because a lawn company may spray a whole lawn, it doesn’t mean that a pesticide is being used – it may only be fertilizer. Mr. Maffei feels that the danger issues are overblown.
Mr. Grasso suggested that there should be a meeting of the minds in order to lay all concerns on the table and come up with a viable solution.
MINUTES
Chair Kaplowitz noted that the County’s IPM Committee can be an asset in providing dialogue regarding this suggestion. The discussion continued as both sides aired their views. The general consensus is that the service providers/applicators favor the Senate (voluntary) registry version, while the homeowner/residents favor the Assembly (mandatory) 48-hour neighbor notification version.
With no further business to discuss, on the motion of Legislator LaMotte, seconded by Legislator Kaplowitz, the meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.