Lobbyist protests new pesticide rule Control board: Regulation could be effective at inhibiting invasive plants

AUGUSTA – A chemical lobbyist’s complaint that a new Board of Pesticides Control rule aimed at keeping herbicides out of Maine’s lakes and ponds is unfair garnered little support at a public hearing Friday morning.

Only Jim Skillen of Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment, the group that petitioned the board, spoke in favor of striking down the restriction.

“This proposal penalizes the law-abiding citizens of Maine,” he said. “These rules will make it difficult, if not impossible, for homeowners to treat lakes and ponds on their own property.”

Others, including board staff, testified that the rule could be very effective at controlling well-meant but illegal efforts to kill invasive plants, if a precise list of aquatic herbicides were developed. The original rule, which took effect in May, stated that a long list of herbicides, which can be used in the water to kill submerged plants, only could be sold to licensed pesticide applicators.

But chemical interests, including RISE, complained that the 19-page list of more than 1,000 products, based on information from the Environmental Protection Agency, was bloated and outdated.

Bob Batteese, director for the board, agreed, and Friday proposed a new means of identifying aquatic herbicides by the uses listed on their label. The list is not complete, but Batteese expects it to contain no more than a few hundred products, he said Friday.

The board is currently considering both RISE’s petition to strike down the rule and Batteese’s amendment to improve the list of pesticides that the rule affects.

With fear about invasive plants such as milfoil growing, the rule is essential, said the 10 people who testified in favor of the amendment Friday.

Currently, homeowners can buy weed-killer, read on its label that it will kill water plants, then illegally dump it into any pond – whether the plants in question are actually invasive species or not. Technically, a permit from the Department of Environmental Protection is required to treat a lake with pesticides, but many people aren’t aware of the law, and others are happy to break it, said Paul Gregory, who heads the DEP’s invasive species program.

Without the board’s rule, “the availability of pesticides circumvents the system,” Gregory said. “This is an invitation to break the law.”

Permits rarely are issued, only in cases where the risk from the invasive plant outweighs the harm that pesticides can do to the lake, Gregory said. In fact, the only permit the DEP issued last year was to itself, for an effort to keep invasive hydrilla in a southern Maine pond from spreading throughout the state.

More than farmers or professional exterminators, members of the public risk harming themselves or their environment because they have not been trained to use pesticides properly, he said.

“The public is generally not aware of the general balance and structure [of an aquatic ecosystem],” Gregory said.

Improper pesticide use can result in “dead zones” where plant decomposition uses all the water’s oxygen; it can kill beneficial native plants that fish and other wildlife need for food and shelter, and it can actually make it easier for invasive plants to become established because of the loss of competition from native species.

Scott Bradford of the Maine Bass Federation was particularly concerned about the long-term effect on lake fisheries. Recovery from pesticide abuse would take many years, he said.

“You can’t just turn back the page … after you realize you’ve created a real bad situation,” Bradford said. “In my wildest dreams, I don’t want to picture something like this.”

Moreover, 70 of the state’s public water systems rely on surface water, serving about 30 percent of the state population, said Roger Crouse of the state drinking water program.

If those water sources are contaminated, it could cost water districts millions of dollars to correct, added Jon Van Bourg of the Kennebec Water District. Federal law only allows minuscule amounts of pesticide in drinking water, he said.

“We’re looking at the potential to poison a whole state just because it’s inconvenient to regulate,” he said. “The lakes are the only source of water most of us have got.”

Skillen argued that the board’s rule would have little impact on the problem, because most cases, including those in which the state has issued fines, involved illegal Internet sales of these aquatic pesticides.

Others disagreed. The board’s lawyer said he believed the board had the power to go after out-of-state operations selling pesticides in Maine over the Internet.

And perhaps if a homeowner learns that she can’t buy aquatic herbicides at the local hardware store – where she can hear the explanation why – she might be less likely to go seeking these chemicals illegally through the Internet, added board member Lee Humphreys of Warren.

The board will likely vote on the issue at its Dec. 19 meeting. Written comments will be accepted through 4 p.m. Dec. 5, and can be sent to: Robert Batteese Jr., Board of Pesticides Control, 28 State House Station, Augusta 0433-0028 or robert.batteese@state.me.us.

In other business:

. The board fined Blue Hill business Mainescapes Inc. $240 for selling pesticides without being licensed by the state.

. An Albion man and the co-op where he illegally purchased a restricted pesticide for his blueberry fields were both fined. Lincoln Sennett will pay $100 for applying hexazinone to his blueberries without a license. Foggy Bottom Co-op in Machias will pay $200 for selling the pesticide without a license.