SOUTH PORTLAND — As a member of the South Portland Conservation Commission, I find it difficult to take a position contrary to what many believe is a positive step forward in the pursuit of environmental stewardship, sustainability and healthy living.
However, despite my reservations about doing so, the proposed ordinance banning pesticides in South Portland needs to be exposed for the unsubstantiated and flawed policy that it is. What started out as an earnest effort 18 months ago has now devolved into a quagmire of misleading claims and overreach.
Local pesticide ordinances are allowed in Maine because we are one of seven states in the country where the state constitution doesn’t pre-empt that exercise.
Presumably, the other 43 states have precluded that option based on the logical and reasonable assumption that the thousands of scientists who work for the federal Environmental Protection Agency and state environmental agencies and Boards of Pesticides Control have more expertise to regulate these chemicals than do local citizens, as well-intentioned as they may be.
But let’s assume for the moment that the city of South Portland and other Maine communities have a vested interest and, indeed, a responsibility to protect their citizens and the local environment, which, in our case, includes part of Casco Bay.
Unfortunately, the South Portland pesticide ordinance is not based on relevant science, and if it takes effect, very few of our citizens will understand its implications. The fact is that the average homeowner who follows the clearly spelled-out application and safety directions on the pesticide label is not at any more risk than he or she would be when handling household cleaning materials, solvents, paints and any other chemical not classified as pesticides.
The truth is that the EPA undertakes extensive testing of these products, and each one of them is categorized as to the level of toxicity and the risk to humans, animals and the environment. Beyond that, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Maine Board of Pesticides Control have an active role in the regulation and management of pesticides, in addition to their responsibility for testing and licensing professional applicators.
To build their case, the framers of this ordinance and their supporters in local environmental groups have crafted “Whereas” statements that cite the supposed linkage between diseases, harm to the environment and pesticides. The problem is that these statements are less than valid unless one considers studies that have no relevance to our situation here in South Portland.
As the result of a Freedom of Access Act request, I was able to obtain a list of approximately 50 case studies that were used to justify their position. After randomly selecting many of these studies and reading through them, I was not able to find a single case study relevant to the theoretical rationale for this ordinance: i.e., residential use. This is a local ordinance prohibiting homeowners from doing something that is not only legal, but also approved by the EPA and the Maine Board of Pesticides Control.
Regarding the impact of pesticides on the environment: Despite the claims that sampled data from Casco Bay indicate that stormwater runoff is creating significant environmental problems, the truth is that to date, we have seen virtually no data to substantiate that claim.
In fact, the last data we have regarding the outflows in South Portland are from a sampling done in 2001. At that time, there were two pesticides detected from one of the city’s outflows, one of which was de-listed by the EPA in 2004.
So where are the baseline data to measure the success of this ordinance? There aren’t any, and that alone should be a disqualifier for an ordinance that is little more than a feel-good expression of our desire to protect the environment and ensure that our citizens are protected from cancer and other diseases. Noble objectives, to be sure, but at what price?
Without the data, without the baseline, without a massive education program, this ordinance is a draconian regulation of the worst kind. It negatively affects retailers, applicators and citizens for little or no reason – at least none that is discernible.
When compelling evidence is provided to make the case, I will be the first to sign on. Until that time, this ordinance is a bad idea. I urge Mayor Tom Blake and the City Council to step back, think about the lack of material justification for this ordinance and reconsider their support.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
