Now with Petition! SCWA Sprays Roundup By Our Creeks!

There are alternatives to spraying. This petition asks Supes to look into those. https://www.change.org/petitions/son...our-creekbanks

Just now, I saw two county workers going along the creek banks spraying something.

"What's that?" I asked, and the fellow following with a hose took off his mask and said, "Roundup, for the blackberries, but she can tell you more about it."

The driver walked back and added, "It's because of the invasive species. We don't spray it on the upper side [across the walking and bike trail from the water] but only on the lower side, because we know people pick blackberries along here."

Of course the invasive plants choke up the creeks, so something has to be done to keep them in check. But can't we do this in a way that doesn't require the use of a chemical linked to the death of bees and monarch butterflies, in addition to links to human diseases from allergies to autism to cancer to Parkinson's?

Roundup won't be banned for another ten years, but can't we stop using it now?

Plant pruning and removal with shears and clippers, machetes and shovels, is labor-intensive, and maybe the county can't afford that, but can we afford the cost of human disease and bee die-off? Of course not.

Let's demand that whatever money is being put into buying and applying Roundup be put, instead, into removing the invasive plants with those traditional means, and if there's not enough budget to cover county employees doing it then we could pay some to organize volunteers to do it.

What do you say?

Yours,
Creekfeet

p.s., ETA you can rate SCWA and comment here: https://www.facebook.com/sonomacountywater?sk=reviews&app_data

Update: I created a group on Faceboot to get the word out further: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1448893205375252/

Roundup has been linked to Infertility; birth defects; Alzheimer’s disease; Parkinson’s disease; Multiple sclerosis;ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease); Autism; Gastrointestinal diseases such as inflammatory bowel disease, chronic diarrhea, colitis and Crohn's disease; Obesity; Allergies; Cardiovascular disease; Depression; Cancer; Allergies; and of course the massive die-offs of honey bees.

This doesn't come only from liberal press or anecdotal evidence, either. As long as 5 years ago Scientific American published a strong article on the dangers of Roundup.

Let's not wait til it's banned worldwide to get its use stopped in Sonoma County.

So... any of you folks have experience or info on how to push for nontoxic weed abatement on public land?

And can we lay claim to blackberries as sustenance for all, grown on commons?

We have received a reply on Facebook from the SCWA:

Quote:

---

Sonoma County Water AgencyThanks for your comment and concern regarding herbicide use under the Water Agency’s Stream Maintenance Program. The Water Agency maintains 75 miles of streams and flood control channels to reduce flood risks and to provide habitat for fish and other species.

Managing the vegetation that grows in these streams is a primary component of reducing the risk of flooding. Large aggregations of invasive Himalayan blackberry preclude the establishment of other native species and cause significant management issues due to their growth rates, lack of wildlife habitat, and interactions with high storm flows in trapping debris which can result in flooding. Generally, the Water Agency removes unwanted vegetation by hand and with mechanical equipment, but may also employ selective herbicidal application. In some instances, we apply herbicides to remove invasive plants in the spring and fall. The herbicide we use is approved for use in aquatic areas and is applied only where necessary to promote the growth of native plants and the establishment of a mature riparian canopy.

The Water Agency would like to meet personally with concerned citizens to provide an overview of our Stream Maintenance Program and discuss potential solutions - please contact Ann DuBay at [email protected] or 524-8378 to schedule a meeting. For more information on our innovative Stream Maintenance Program, go tohttps://www.scwa.ca.gov/stream-maintenance-program/ . Please also see our fact sheet on Reducing Flood Risks with Herbicides:https://www.scwa.ca.gov/.../Reducing%20Flood%20Risks... .

---

I replied that we will be in touch soon to schedule a meeting. But before we do that, we need to gather our coalition of activists and organizations. Please get yourself and/or your group involved!

We need some experts with credentials to spearhead this, and present the SCWA not only with documentation of the reasons to stop spraying herbicide along creek banks, but also tried and true alternatives to herbicide.

The SCWA's claim that they spray only in spring and fall is clearly false, unless they call August 12 autumn. And looking at the creek I saw them spray, I'd say they could do a whole lot more for flood prevention by getting in there with chainsaws and garbage bags and hauling out snags and debris.

But if we could get some degreed experts in riparian ecology to come forward with statements, that would really drive the message home, and provide us with a more authoritative approach not only to the SCWA but to the press, Board of Supes, whoever it takes to make this change.

Please help me get the word out!

Thanks,
Creekfeet

Thank you for doing this!

Might want to refer to:

Patricia Dines STEP (Sebastopol Toxics Education Program) newsletter archives for article "What's the Matter with Roundup" (vol. 1, number 3, May/June 2001)

Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides/NCAP, pesticide.org, especially their Herbicide Factsheet on Glyphosate, Journal of Pesticide Reform, winter 2004, vol. 24 no. 4

healthyworld.org/roundup.html
pesticide.org/get-the-facts

Yikes! Seems very irresponsible. Are there toxic warning signs up so people don't eat those blackberries? Thanks for posting.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by creekfeet:

Just now, I saw two county workers going along the creek banks spraying something.

"What's that?" I asked, and the fellow following with a hose took off his mask and said, "Roundup, for the blackberries, but she can tell you more about it."

---

For health and family reasons I can't spearhead this myself. I can only sound the alarm, and try to do this bit of online networking, here and on Facebook.

Is Patricia Dines someone who might meet with the authorities on this? And/or put together a group of experts to do so? Have you or someone you know or anyone here at waccobb got connections to Dines?

No, there are no warning signs.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Karl Frederick:

Yikes! Seems very irresponsible. Are there toxic warning signs up so people don't eat those blackberries? Thanks for posting.

---

Sacramento County points the way, with an environmentally-sound alternative!

https://www.capradio.org/articles/20...ers-for-goats/

Expert Spokespeople NEEDED!

We need reliable, authoritative voices to speak up and meet with SCWA to stop the spraying.

Just now, I accidentally sent a link to some bad science on Roundup, to a prof at UC Davis, in my request that maybe he or someone he knows could help. This kind of screw-up is what you get with someone like me trying to do the activism. I'm just a disabled single mom of a disabled daughter, already completely overwhelmed with what's on my plate, but seeing how the spraying has made us sicker --- yeah, we are having a symptom flare since Tuesday's spraying --- I know I have to do something, if only post and share and beg someone else to step forward and do something.

Please, can everyone help get the info out, that the spraying is happening and that we need to stop it, and particularly try to recruit some experts who would take a few minutes to put their authoritative seals on the anti-Roundup message?

Tiredly but hopefully,
Creekfeet

Wonderful sealwatcher!

Thank you, I'm so glad you can go meet with them.

It sounds to me like what they are offering is not so much a one-sided presentation from them to us, as an actual meeting...

Quote:

---

"The Water Agency would like to meet personally with concerned citizens to provide an overview of our Stream Maintenance Program and discuss potential solutions."

---

So it would be well to gather as many of us as possible and set a time, and include if possible some people with environmental science degrees or other credentials on our side, ready with tested solutions in hand.

To that end I am reaching out to professors involved in the Extoxnet, OSC, and GMO Free So Co, as well as waccobb and Faceboot. So if you sealwatcher, or any other Waccovians, are already wired in with any of those groups, please consider drawing them into this effort, and of course any other groups, organizations or individuals who can be of help.

Let's see if we can meet with them as a coalition of citizens and experts with information in hand: the dirt on Roundup plus alternative methods of clearing the creeks.

Cheers and hopes,
Creekfeet

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by sealwatcher:

I think I'll go to a presentation from the county as invited. As a creek critter, a creek angel, I want to know everything I can. I was truly surprised to read that Round Up was being used. Thank you so much for alerting us to this!

---

Actions You Can Take:

Anyone: can help by putting us in touch with experts willing to write a statement to our county water agency re: dangers of Roundup.

Anyone: can write letters to Sonoma County newspapers, politicians and tourism outlets, for example decrying this damage to an area known for organic, localvore foodie vacationing.

Locals: can do the above plus post warning signs along any creek and especially where blackberries grow.

Locals: can attend a meeting to be set up with the Sonoma County Water Agency.

We can change this. :waccosun:

There are certainly far more harmful biocides in use, but Roundup is far from benign. The City of Sebastopol has not used Roundup or any other chemical herbicide or pesticide on city property since 2000. Public Works Superintendent Rich Emig can give you more information on their practices.

Patricia Dines ([email protected]) has a wealth of information about the dangers of pesticide use as well as alternatives.

This article from New York Times describes some of the impacts that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup) can have on the health of soil: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/20/b...pagewanted=all.

Here is a quote from the article:
"In some studies, scientists have found that a big selling point for the pesticide — that it binds tightly to minerals in the soil, like calcium, boron and manganese, thus preventing runoff — also means it competes with plants for those nutrients. Other research indicates that glyphosate can alter the mix of bacteria and fungi that interact with plant root systems, making them more susceptible to parasites and pathogens."

Thanks, Larry! Great article. I've shared it along on the Faceboot page.

Meanwhile...

I'm seeing if a friend can design some quick citizens' warning signs we can post along my section of the creek -- if so I'll share those for others to print out and use anywhere that creeks flow and blackberries grow.

Warning Signs...

Anybody want to make your own? Help me out with the wording on mine? Check the Spanish translation?

I'm thinking something like this...

Warning: Sonoma County Water Agency sprays creek banks with toxic herbicide. Please beware. Danger: Harvesting and eating berries may be hazardous to your health.

Advertencia: Agencia del Agua del Condado de Sonoma rocía riberas de arroyos con herbicida tóxico. Por favor, tenga cuidado. Peligro: La cosecha y comiendo bayas puede ser peligrosa para su salud.

As someone who works in the world of restoration and botany, I would like to make a couple of suggestions. It is really likely that the people spraying are people like myself: wary of herbicides, but aware that they are often the only way to manage problem species, either because nothing else works (as is the case with Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), for instance), or more commonly, because there simply is not adequate budget to manage them any other way.

Budgets for weed management are often tiny relative to the need, and glyphosate (roundup) is relatively benign in the world of herbicides and pesticides. That is a heavily qualified statement, but no issue is black and white. Living in an agricultural area where pesticides are sprayed is a much larger risk. When I was doing research on the subject to decide if I was willing to apply for a spray crew position myself, I could find very little reliable info saying glyphosate was particularly dangerous, but still decided to pass on the spray crew position. Also, if you are afraid of roundup, you should be aware that it is deliberately sprayed on most non organic cereal grains and legumes immediately before harvest, which to me is rather more frightening.

Going in for an open minded dialogue (which it sounds like they are encouraging), asking for better signage to show areas that have been sprayed, and organizing recurring, committed, volunteer groups or offering financial support to hire a crew, are likely to be the best way to achieve both goals (reducing herbicide use, and controlling invasives in problem areas)

Also, a tip for talking about this with the SCWA: pesticides and herbicides are not the same thing at all, and pesticides are much scarier than herbicides. When discussing this topic with the SCWA, keeping the two straight helps quite a bit with coming across as an informed citizen.

I am not interested in providing a statement on this topic, or being a spokeswoman, but I would be glad to screen sources for the organizers, and let you know if they appear reliable or not (added bonus: I get to learn new things!) Feel free to message me privately with your sources.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by creekfeet:

Expert Spokespeople NEEDED!

We need reliable, authoritative voices to speak up and meet with SCWA to stop the spraying.

Just now, I accidentally sent a link to some bad science on Roundup, to a prof at UC Davis, in my request that maybe he or someone he knows could help. This kind of screw-up is what you get with someone like me trying to do the activism. I'm just a disabled single mom of a disabled daughter, already completely overwhelmed with what's on my plate, but seeing how the spraying has made us sicker --- yeah, we are having a symptom flare since Tuesday's spraying --- I know I have to do something, if only post and share and beg someone else to step forward and do something.

Please, can everyone help get the info out, that the spraying is happening and that we need to stop it, and particularly try to recruit some experts who would take a few minutes to put their authoritative seals on the anti-Roundup message?

Tiredly but hopefully,
Creekfeet

---

On Tuesday August 19, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is meeting. They have a large agenda, but several of the agenda items deal with homelessness, which there is a lot of in Sonoma County. Many of the homeless people live and sleep near the creeks, and could suffer grave harm from Roundup. It is my understanding that, in addition to the active ingredients, the inactive ingredients used in Roundup are toxic - that Japanese have used this ingredient to commit Hari Kari. Years ago, I got very ill from walking briefly on a pathway at the UC Botanical Garden 2 or three days after roundup had been sprayed.
Speaking up at this Board of Supervisors meeting might be very effective.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by creekfeet:

Wonderful sealwatcher!

Thank you, I'm so glad you can go meet with them.

It sounds to me like what they are offering is not so much a one-sided presentation from them to us, as an actual meeting...



So it would be well to gather as many of us as possible and set a time, and include if possible some people with environmental science degrees or other credentials on our side, ready with tested solutions in hand.

To that end I am reaching out to professors involved in the Extoxnet, OSC, and GMO Free So Co, as well as waccobb and Faceboot. So if you sealwatcher, or any other Waccovians, are already wired in with any of those groups, please consider drawing them into this effort, and of course any other groups, organizations or individuals who can be of help.

Let's see if we can meet with them as a coalition of citizens and experts with information in hand: the dirt on Roundup plus alternative methods of clearing the creeks.

Cheers and hopes,
Creekfeet

---

Idiots!! Roundup works on grasses and does not work on cane type plants, such as blackberries. A different type of herbicide is needed for the latter... but no herbicide at all sounds like a better plan.

Some communities in northern Calif have had good luck with using goats to reduce plant undergrowth as a brushfire reduction measure. How about putting down the Roundup and rounding up some goats instead?

Thanks for the offer to screen sources. I think we can probably count on this Scientific American article, but what do you think?

It says in part...

Quote:

---

Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.

---

and

Quote:

---

The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.

---

and

Quote:

---

Last month, an environmental group petitioned Argentina’s Supreme Court, seeking a temporary ban on glyphosate use after an Argentine scientist and local activists reported a high incidence of birth defects and cancers in people living near crop-spraying areas. Scientists there also linked genetic malformations in amphibians to glysophate. In addition, last year in Sweden, a scientific team found that exposure is a risk factor for people developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

---

It was wise of you to do your own personal risk-assessment before applying for a spray crew position, but that didn't make you an expert on these chemicals any more than it does me, and it does not reassure me that the stuff being sprayed along our creeks is safe. To the contrary, my personal experience tells me otherwise. Within hours after masked crew sprayed within three yards of my back door, I was experiencing respiratory distress.

While you see spraying as a reasonable part of weed-control, others have stated that this particular herbicide is useless against Himalayan blackberries. The workers doing the spraying told me specifically that they were spraying RoundUp to eradicate invasive blackberries, so if it doesn't do the job, not only are we being exposed to chemicals whose safety has been called into question, but additionally our tax dollars are being wasted, using stuff that just isn't going to work---at least, not on the blackberries, though I'm sure it's killing other plants.

Here's a tutorial for removing the blackberries using common hand tools. Maybe we could be using our tax dollars to pay workers to use this method, rather than enrich Monsanto by buying a chemical that doesn't work on blackberries and could be causing health risks.

What do you think, Sierrarose2?

Thanks!
Creekfeet

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Sierrarose2:

...
Budgets for weed management are often tiny relative to the need, and glyphosate (roundup) is relatively benign in the world of herbicides and pesticides. That is a heavily qualified statement, but no issue is black and white. Living in an agricultural area where pesticides are sprayed is a much larger risk. When I was doing research on the subject to decide if I was willing to apply for a spray crew position myself, I could find very little reliable info saying glyphosate was particularly dangerous, but still decided to pass on the spray crew position. Also, if you are afraid of roundup, you should be aware that it is deliberately sprayed on most non organic cereal grains and legumes immediately before harvest, which to me is rather more frightening.

Going in for an open minded dialogue (which it sounds like they are encouraging), asking for better signage to show areas that have been sprayed, and organizing recurring, committed, volunteer groups or offering financial support to hire a crew, are likely to be the best way to achieve both goals (reducing herbicide use, and controlling invasives in problem areas)

Also, a tip for talking about this with the SCWA: pesticides and herbicides are not the same thing at all, and pesticides are much scarier than herbicides. When discussing this topic with the SCWA, keeping the two straight helps quite a bit with coming across as an informed citizen.

I am not interested in providing a statement on this topic, or being a spokeswoman, but I would be glad to screen sources for the organizers, and let you know if they appear reliable or not (added bonus: I get to learn new things!) Feel free to message me privately with your sources.

---

I love the idea of using goats. Or, for areas where goats can't be contained, this tutorial shows how to use common hand tools. We could be paying workers to do the job right instead of paying Monsanto to do it wrong.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Glia:

Idiots!! Roundup works on grasses and does not work on cane type plants, such as blackberries. A different type of herbicide is needed for the latter... but no herbicide at all sounds like a better plan.

Some communities in northern Calif have had good luck with using goats to reduce plant undergrowth as a brushfire reduction measure. How about putting down the Roundup and rounding up some goats instead?

---

Please sign and share the petition which will go to the Board of Supervisors.

Thanks, Tinkerbell!

Sure enough, the County Supes also serve as the Directors of the SCWA. I can't make it to a Supervisors' meeting, myself, but it would be great if someone could go and raise this question. Meanwhile, I have started a petition that will go to the Supervisors: https://www.change.org/petitions/son...our-creekbanks

And yeah, this stuff can make you ill. You've experienced it and I've experienced it. It's good to hear that it's not just me...now I hope we can effect change.

Gratefully,
Creekfeet

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Tinkerbell:

On Tuesday August 19, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors is meeting. They have a large agenda, but several of the agenda items deal with homelessness, which there is a lot of in Sonoma County. Many of the homeless people live and sleep near the creeks, and could suffer grave harm from Roundup. It is my understanding that, in addition to the active ingredients, the inactive ingredients used in Roundup are toxic - that Japanese have used this ingredient to commit Hari Kari. Years ago, I got very ill from walking briefly on a pathway at the UC Botanical Garden 2 or three days after roundup had been sprayed.
Speaking up at this Board of Supervisors meeting might be very effective.

---

Hi all -

Thanks to everyone for caring about toxics and protecting our precious ecosystems, including our waterways. Thanks also to the folks who mentioned my work on the toxics issue. And thanks to Dian for letting me know that this conversation was happening, and inviting me to comment.

Just as background, for those who don't know, I've been writing extensively about toxics since 1992. In fact, one of my key goals with my writing and community work has been to provide useful information on toxics and alternatives to help reduce our shared exposure. I do that because I think that toxics are significantly harming both human and ecological health -- and are often not needed, as often healthier and wiser approaches are available.

One of my key projects has been editing and being the lead writer for The Next STEP newsletter, which has been distributed in the City of Sebastopol water bills for the past 14 years. I'm delighted to be part of this innovative City-community collaborative project, which has been supported by many folks over the years. (Larry Robinson was a key initiator and invited me to participate in the small group that gave birth to it.)

By the way, all past issues of the newsletter are online, with a topic index. So this is a place you can look whenever you have a question about toxics and alternatives.
https://www.healthyworld.org/STEPIndex.html

====
OK, first I thought that I'd share links to some articles with useful information relative to this conversation.

(1) For folks who want more facts on Roundup, here are some key articles that we've had in the newsletter, summarizing some key information about it.

* What’s the Matter with Roundup? [Good brief summary]
https://www.healthyworld.org/GRAPHIC...tepvol1no3.pdf

The same content as a text webpage
https://www.healthyworld.org/Roundup.html

* Researcher Finds Roundup Toxic to Frogs, Even at Low Doses
https://www.healthyworld.org/GRAPHIC...tepvol5no6.pdf
(p2)

* It’s Raining Roundup
https://www.healthyworld.org/GRAPHIC...epvol11no6.pdf

(2) If you want more detailed info on glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, this is excellently researched and footnoted information from a reputable organization. (Someone mentioned this above, and I thought it'd be handy for folks to have the direct link.) Note that not all information online about Roundup is true, so it's useful to be able to reference solid facts such as these.
HERBICIDE FACTSHEET: GLYPHOSATE
JOURNAL OF PESTICIDE REFORM/ WINTER 2004 • VOL. 24, NO. 4
https://www.pesticide.org/get-the-fa...ets/glyphosate

(3) There's been conversation here about whether Roundup is seriously toxic. I agree that it's toxic and of concern, though certainly not as toxic as some much more serious materials. Here's some information I wrote about how to assess pesticides, written in an accessible way, so you can understand how these assessments are factually made. It's an easy read, and I think that it can be powerful for us to understand -- both if we think that experts are dismissing our concerns -- and so we can tell when folks are offering nonfactual exaggerated concerns. I think sticking to the facts keeps us in a power position.

Assessing Pesticides
https://www.healthyworld.org/GRAPHIC...tepvol5no4.pdf

(4) Since this was mentioned, I thought I'd give the link to an article on the work of Sebastopol's Public Works in reducing their pesticide use, since the City Council's directive in 2000. They've had only one minor use of pesticides since then, with the Council's permission. (Note: I believe that the City overall has had one or two other significant uses since then; I don't know if anyone's tracking that.)

Sebastopol’s Public Works Is Successfully Skipping Toxic Pesticides
https://www.healthyworld.org/GRAPHIC...epvol14no4.pdf

OK, I hope that that's useful info. In my next post I'll share some comments on this issue.

Patricia

Hi all -

My thoughts on this topic, Part II -

First, I want to say that unfortunately I'm not available to take on this issue right now. But I will offer a couple thoughts for those who are.

I. If you're going to do a campaign, my advice is
1) Understand the material being used. Understand how to assess toxicity, what kind of toxicity this has, etc.
2) Understand your specific concerns. Is it for berry eaters, the environment, etc? Each of these are evaluated in different ways.
3) Seek to understand and care about the SCWA's needs -- why they're using it -- so you can talk collaboratively with them. (The weblink on their page is a good starting point for this.)
4) Understand what alternatives you want to propose.

II. If you don't have the people power for a campaign, you could ask the SC Board of Supes to do something, i.e. prepare information for the public that speaks to your concerns. Just be aware that, while you might get more information, they will likely come from the same mindset as their current use in terms of saying what they think is needed and what they think is safe.

III. A longer-term solution might be to get the County and/or SCWA to adopt a strong IPM program (Integrated Pest Management). Saying "strong" or something like that is important. An authentic IPM program prioritizes non-toxic approaches first, and only uses toxic pesticides in the rare times that they're really needed. However, since there's no legal definition, even pesticide companies have co-opted the term -- with their toxic product first!

But the value of a true IPM program is that you're getting at policy overall, and encouraging the maintenance people to hew to this mindset. Then you're not managing their details (and they resist, saying the materials are needed). Instead they're taking responsibility from their side. This can include using less-toxic means first; signage; etc.

Here's an article I wrote on IPM.
https://www.healthyworld.org/GRAPHIC...tepvol2no6.pdf

Back when I was helping lead the Sierra Club Toxics Committee, we helped the Santa Rosa Parks & Rec Dept to craft a policy that reduces their use of toxics. They were resistant at first, but we were committed to being collaborative, understanding their viewpoint, and offering them useful information. We addressed their concerns and the result was that they adopted a pesticide-reduction program. Later I was delighted to see that they exceeded their targets -- and in fact publicly thanked us for giving them the opportunity to make this change. Very satisfying!

Patricia

OK, one more, then I need to get back to my work deadline.

(1) I think you need to be clear if this product in this situation is really toxic the way it's being used. I don't know that yet. I think you'll need to demonstrate that. I have my starting research notes below. In general, my assessment is that this product has toxicity and isn't as bad as some that are much worse.

(2) I also think they might be addressing the blackberry concerns by saying they don't spray on the road side. Though you might ask for a clear policy statement on that, with some supporting science for the line of usage (how far away, etc.) and evidence that it doesn't travel through water and go up the plants.

(3) One thing that does confuse me is that, when Roundup is used for canes like blackberries on land, the plant is supposed to first cut back to the ground, then Roundup is poured into its roots, to kill the roots and prevent re-growth. So most of the work is still cutting it back. We've experimented with pouring vinegar down instead at that point, which has seemed to be effective, but we don't have any data or evidence for that.

So I would encourage someone to try to find recommended usage information. I didn't quickly find any information on that. But it'd be important to see if cutting back the vines first is advised, and if so, if the SCWA is following that. If they are, the remedy isn't to tell them cut back instead, but to ask if another material could be poured into the roots.

If they're not being cut back first, I'm not clear how the product is impacting the vines. I didn't think Roundup could work that way. So someone could investigate that.

>> This relates to being clear on your objection and proposed remedy. It's always easier to succeed if you can demonstrate harm in this case and offer a better solution for their needs!

==
Here's some supporting info I found, for those who are interested.

(1) Whenever you hear that a pesticide is being used, the first task is to get the exact name and look up it's Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS).

Thanks to sealwatcher who posted the link to the SCWA's stream maintenance program, which says.

The Water Agency applies herbicide (Roundup Custom™) to non-native species using targeted spot treatment techniques along some streams and waterways in an effort to manage vegetation and promote growth of native species. The application process generally takes place in early spring and resumes late in the fall, so as not to contaminate plants during thefruit-bearing summer months. Examples of non-native species include, but are not limited to, ivy, sprouting eucalyptus, and Himalayan blackberries.
https://www.scwa.ca.gov/stream-maintenance-program/

(2) So the product is Roundup Custom. I looked it up and it says

Anywhere weeds and water meet, there’s a strong chance that vegetation management problems will grow. And anyone who manages brush in wetland areas knows that when left unchecked, vegetation can create hard-to-resolve problems. Roundup Custom™ herbicide gives applicators maximum use flexibility for both aquatic and terrestrial jobs.
https://www.monsantoito.com/pages/roundupcustom/

This is important, because regular Roundup is NOT supposed to be used near water. So this is a particular product designed for waterways. That's an important distinction, and it seems they're using the right product here.

So you can read more about the product there.

(3) Here's the MSDS. This just tells about immediate effects, not chronic and secondary ones (for ex., to berry eaters, cancer, etc). So it has impacts on the skin, mostly of the workers I'm sure, and other impacts. Though in many cases it is FIFRA Category IV, which is little or no toxicity. This is what we mean when we say it has some toxicity, but isn't as bad as other materials. Read more there.

https://www.monsantoito.com/docs/RoundupCustomMSDS.pdf

(4) However, one thing I note is that it says that with large quantities of spilled "Minimise spread. Keep out of drains, sewers, ditches and water ways." Also not to dispose of it or wash water in those areas. So there still are concerns about certain amounts in water.

So one might ask what an acceptable amount is in waterways, where the line is, and if SCWA is maintaining it. This might relate to application rates, practices of workers, etc.

(4) Here's the product label, which is based on the MSDS and has the force of law. Every cautionary phrase reflects harm that would happen. Note the warnings for instance of not putting rinse water in the water. That's not casual advice but a legal requirement to use the product, because of known harm.
https://www.monsantoito.com/docs/RoundupCustomLabel.pdf

Page 5 talks about application in aquatic sites. It has warnings that you might make sure are in SCWA's policies, for instance - "Do not apply this product directly to water within 0.5 mile upstream of an active potable water intake in flowing water (i.e., river, stream, etc.) or within 0.5 mile of an active potable water intake in a standing body of water such as lake, pond or reservoir." Are they ensuring that? If it's not in policy, who knows if the workers know to make that assessment??

Page 6 talks about the cut stump treatment, which is what I thought was needed for blackberries, though it doesn't say that specifically.

Page 13 discusses the procedures for woody brush and trees, including blackberries. I note that it says, "Avoid application to drought-stressed plants." I wonder why, but it would seem that all the plants here now would qualify!
===

OK, those are my thoughts, and I hope they're of some use to the cause!

Patricia

Oh yeah -- someone mentioned goats for weed control. I don't know if that works here, but there have been some cool uses of that. Read more here - https://www.pesticide.org/Alternativ...olutions/goats

Thank you so much, Patricia, for your very thoughtful and so very well-organized responses. And thank you too, sealwatcher, for inviting Patricia's input. There's a lot of excellent, useful material there!

Thanks too to all who have viewed and discussed this so far. I really hope you'll carry on the initiative, and I hope too that I'll have strength enough to rejoin the efforts, soon.

And thanks to the whole community that makes these things happen,
Yours for clean creeks,
Creekfeet