HomeMy WebLinkAboutREP EDC 002 02/26/1985 1984-1988' 1
} • REPORT OF THE
t i k
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
DATE : February 26 , 1985
PLACE : Councilroom
TIME: 2: 30 p.m . .a
Pe: Camri. j
Chairman and Members
Hawaii County Council •
Hilo, Hawaii 96720
Your Committee on Economic Development to which was referred
Communication No . 11, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) ,
Eradication of the Tri-Fly Complex from the State of Hawaii , Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS ) , United States Department
of Agriculture (U.S.D.A. ) reports as follows:
In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement , the U. S.D.A. proposes
six eradication alternatives for the Try-fly complex, which is the
collective term for the Mediterranean fruit fly (medfly) , oriental
fruit fly, and melon fly. The six proposed alternatives are:
1 . Statewide Eradication of All Tri-Flies , Simultaneously .
2 . Medfly Eradication Alone .
3 . Oriental Fruit Fly Eradication Alone
4 . Medfly and Oriental Fruit Fly Eradication Simultaneously.
5 . Melon Fly Eradication Alone.
6 . No Eradicative Effort .
The USDA is proposing this eradication program because of the real
and potential losses to commercial agriculture in Hawaii , and the
risk of future introductions of tri-flies onto the mainland. The six
alternatives proposed would employ various combinations of control
tactics . These control tactics include release of sterile male
flies , aerial and ground spraying of malathion , chemical ground
treatments , and improved cultural practices . The USDA recognizes
that all potential consequences of eradication-environmental , social ,
and economic-must be carefully evaluated, balancing the risks against
the benefits of the eradication effort .
At its meeting on February 12, 1985 , your Committee heard testimony
from Stanley Fujiyama representing the Papaya Administrative
Committee (PAC) . Papaya is the largest segment of commercial
agriculture impacted by the Triflies in Hawaii County. The
continuaton of a viable papaya industry is threatened by its need to
develop an adequate tri-fly disinfestation method to ensure quality
fruit reaches mainland markets .
EDC REPORT No . 2
ADOPTED: MAR 6 1985._.� .,
1110 110
EDC-2 Page 2 February 26 , 1985
Mr . Fujiyama said that the papapya industry has always favored
eradication as a long range solution for the tri-fly infestation
problem. He stated that they are in favor of a program that creates
the least public health risks , and concern . While conceptually
agreeing with alternative one as the most logical , he questioned the
large quantities of malathion proposed (15 . 4 pounds/person ) for the
Island of Hawaii and the use of aerial spraying of the malathion . He
raised concerns on the negative impacts of such spraying on papaya
mite predators , and on the Hawaiian Hawk , an endangered species ,
which shares the same environment with papaya fields . He proposed
two additional alternatives , ie , reduction of the tri-fly population
to reduce the degree of infestation and the development of tri-fly
free zones , such as a specific agriculture region of an island.
In its discussion, your Committee agreed that the usuage of the
proposed large quantities of malathion through aerial spraying would
provide a potential health threat to both people and animals . In
particular , they are concerned that the USDA has not addressed the
fact that thousands of Hawaii County resident in rural areas , many
adjacent to papaya growing areas , depend upon water catchment systems
for their domestic water supply. The potentil danger to health
through daily usuage of water contaminated by aerially sprayed
malathion must be examined .
There is also considerable concern that aerial spraying of malathion
will also indiscriminately eliminate beneficial insects , such as bees
and predator insects . It should also be noted that the National Park
Service , Pacific Area Director , has opposed the aerial spraying of
malathion over any park service lands .
While your Committee recognizes the plight of the papaya industry and
other local fruit and vegetable industries due to the tri-fly, it
believes the public health concerns and environmental considerations
outweigh the benefits as proposed in the USDA' s eradication
alternatives . However , it is pleased that the papaya industry has
offered additional alternative for the USDA' s consideration . It
believes one of these alternatives offers potential for reducing the
negative economic impact of Trifly without risking public health
through aerial spraying .
•
• I
EDC-2 Page 3 February 26u 1985 .'. .4
i
Therefore, your Committee on Economic Development recommends that the
Full Council submit written response to APHIS, USDA on the DEIS for
Eradication of the Tri-fly Complex from the State of Hawaii,, similar -_
to the position of the State , DOA. This response would oppose aerial
spraying of malathion, and would support a program to reduce tri-fly t
populations primarily through the release of sterile males , selective
ground application of malathion and other appropriate chemicals , and
development of a viable integrated pest' .management ( IPM) program .
r \ Fi
,--2.-i"e-e---4(._ ) - , -ek,.-.i , .:,:
--�DORRAI E R. ITCHIKU, CHAIRWOMAN •
( j / /-, ,
, r // (i
i .,,,-- 47 :/ ,\ ,,),,, . 4
I __ — (Absent and Excused)
RUSSELL KOKUBUN, VICE CHAIRMAN JAMES DAHLBERG, MEMBER
1/4_,..,,,9_,-,r ----
IVIALIA‘ ,, ' ) I ( ., -'.. ,,,,,' ti
FRANK DE LUZ, III, . MEMBER - .MERLO .K. LAI, MEMBER\ .
/ \,,J
I
LA/'. =K