As I follow the situation in Seal Rock, where community concerns around a planned herbicide application have led to elected officials applying pressure to a small landowner who is operating well within the legal framework, I am struck by what is missing from the situation. Namely, the large body of data and science that underlies the complex regulatory system governing forest practices, and ensures the safe and effective use of herbicides in that setting.
As community members have raised concerns in public forums, the meetings and reportings have been alarmingly void of factual information, which can provide a solid baseline and answers to community concerns. From the specific herbicides that can be applied, to how much and where they’re applied, to how and when they’re applied and in what weather, every aspect of this situation has a regulatory standard in place that is supported by science, which is the only reasonable starting place for these discussions.
Concerns about clean streams and drinking water, and the health and safety of humans and animals are indeed among the highest priority concerns in the regulatory process. In fact, extensive risk assessments are carried out for each of these concerns, and pesticide use requirements are developed accordingly.
Oregon now has the most technologically advanced forest practice laws in the nation, and as far as I’m aware, is the only state on the West Coast or in the Pacific Northwest that requires large buffers around drinking water intakes specifically to protect drinking water. These protection measures exceed even worst-case scientific scenarios and are designed to be overly precautionary. And, they were developed collaboratively as part of the Private Forest Accord, an agreement between timber companies and many prominent environmental organizations, who supported and championed these new protections yet have been curiously quiet about their value throughout the current controversy. Even before Oregon’s new regulations went into place, data from the Department of Environmental Quality demonstrate that forestlands provide the highest quality drinking water of any land use in the state, including forests with active management activities like harvest and herbicide application.
Based on existing protections, there is no need to shut off water intakes during or after applications. And while special monitoring is always an option, there is little scientific data or evidence to support the assertion that it’s necessary. In fact, over many years of source water monitoring data gathered by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, there are no reported instances where pesticide residues have caused incidents or concerns with drinking water, and no exceedances of health and safety benchmarks. With restrictions and buffers only becoming more stringent over time, this continues to ensure the safety of forest management practices with respect to drinking water.
For those of us working in policy, it is a responsibility and obligation to ensure that science, not fear, stays at the center of these discussions. State agency staff and public officials should be equipped with the resources to convey the regulatory system they are a part of in a neutral yet confident manner. While concerns over the use of herbicides are worthy of dialogue, we have to ground those in a shared understanding of existing protections and regulations, and our public officials should be on the front lines of that effort.
Katie Murray is the executive director for Oregonians for Food & Shelter, based in Salem, whose mission is to provide outreach and expertise on responsible use and access to pesticides, fertilizer, and biotechnology.
Please do not approach this community that has lived with bio solids spread above our drinking water intakes, cities discharging treated sewer waters in our rivers, Georgia Pacific paper mill dumping 11-20 million gallons of toxic effluent into the ocean every day, tons of toxins like lead arsenic mercury and then pulling our mid coast watershed into a state of emergency and think we have not read science.. You need to start from square one and start adding up all discharge permits and fern notifacations to understand what we face on the Oregon Mid Coast. The rivers are dying if we do not stop the removal and contamination of the watersheds.
I find this letter to be both insultingly patronizing and disingenuous.
The author identifies herself as someone involved in policy making. I suppose that's true as her group apparently engages in lobbying and other activities common to political action committees,
but it makes her sound like some kind of public official, which is she is not. The bottom line is she has a bias. Her group is supported by Timber, agriculture, and chemical product makers and applicators.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that but she could be clear about it.
She also speaks about those opposing the application of pesticides in the Beaver Creek area as having little factual information and having succumbed to "fear". In this stance, she is clearly taking down to
those who are rightly expressing concerns.
BTW, why is it that a letter to the editor from a Lobbying group/PAC gets almost 600 words when a normal submission is limited to 250 in the form? (What’s the deal NPNT?)
I find this letter to be both insultingly patronizing and disingenuous.
The author identifies herself as someone involved in policy making. I suppose that's true as her group apparently engages in lobbying and other activities common to political action committees, but it makes her sound like some kind of public official, which is she is not. The bottom line is she has a bias. Her group is supported by Timber, agriculture, and chemical product makers and applicators.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that but she could be clear about it.
She also speaks about those opposing the application of pesticides in the Beaver Creek area as having little factual information and having succumbed to "fear". In expressing this attitude, she is clearly talking down to those who are rightly expressing concerns.
BTW, why is it that a letter to the editor from a Lobbying group/PAC gets almost 600 words when a normal submission is limited to 250 in the form? (Newport News Times, what's the deal? )
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(4) comments
Please do not approach this community that has lived with bio solids spread above our drinking water intakes, cities discharging treated sewer waters in our rivers, Georgia Pacific paper mill dumping 11-20 million gallons of toxic effluent into the ocean every day, tons of toxins like lead arsenic mercury and then pulling our mid coast watershed into a state of emergency and think we have not read science.. You need to start from square one and start adding up all discharge permits and fern notifacations to understand what we face on the Oregon Mid Coast. The rivers are dying if we do not stop the removal and contamination of the watersheds.
WATER IS LIFE
I find this letter to be both insultingly patronizing and disingenuous.
The author identifies herself as someone involved in policy making. I suppose that's true as her group apparently engages in lobbying and other activities common to political action committees,
but it makes her sound like some kind of public official, which is she is not. The bottom line is she has a bias. Her group is supported by Timber, agriculture, and chemical product makers and applicators.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that but she could be clear about it.
She also speaks about those opposing the application of pesticides in the Beaver Creek area as having little factual information and having succumbed to "fear". In this stance, she is clearly taking down to
those who are rightly expressing concerns.
BTW, why is it that a letter to the editor from a Lobbying group/PAC gets almost 600 words when a normal submission is limited to 250 in the form? (What’s the deal NPNT?)
I find this letter to be both insultingly patronizing and disingenuous.
The author identifies herself as someone involved in policy making. I suppose that's true as her group apparently engages in lobbying and other activities common to political action committees, but it makes her sound like some kind of public official, which is she is not. The bottom line is she has a bias. Her group is supported by Timber, agriculture, and chemical product makers and applicators.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that but she could be clear about it.
She also speaks about those opposing the application of pesticides in the Beaver Creek area as having little factual information and having succumbed to "fear". In expressing this attitude, she is clearly talking down to those who are rightly expressing concerns.
BTW, why is it that a letter to the editor from a Lobbying group/PAC gets almost 600 words when a normal submission is limited to 250 in the form? (Newport News Times, what's the deal? )
Thought I'd list Oregonians for Food and Shelter Board of Directors:
https://www.ofsonline.org/who-we-are-2
Seth Barnes Oregon Forest & Industries Council
Luke Bergey Miami Corporation Management, LLC
Jeff DeRoss Manulife Investment Management
John Jayne Cascade Timber Consulting
Jeff Keller Western Wood Preservers Institute
Joe Newton Lone Rock Timber Management Company
Jerry Risk Roseburg Forest Products
Meghan Tuttle Weyerhaeuser Company
Laura Wilkeson Hampton Lumber
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.