Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0721.039 2018-2020 i COUNTY CLERK Wed 1/29/2020 3:02 PM COUNTY OF I'I sharon willeford/Live Peace Hawaii <slwsurfin niail.com> RECEIVED Oppose Resolution 475-20 Time IV=MA BY-ff 020 To: counciltestimonvP[iawaiicounty.gov Date E 3 2 I I Oppose Resolution 475-20 "Herbicide Reduction"Feb 4 Hilo Council Chambers Can't say it better than Blake! And please remember I'm dying here— from Organophosphate/herbicide Poisoning!!! Please don't call Me a liar and slap me in the face AGAIN Sharon Willeford This resolution has been introduced by the same legislators that just this month voted to { kill Bill 101, a ban on herbicide usage on County owned lands. To be clear: a resolution is nothing more than a suggestion to the administration to create policy, and in fact, we have been going in circles for decades trying to get whoever the current administration is to stop spraying dangerous herbicides in our public spaces, and here we are again right at square one: At the very moment we nearly passed our most comprehensive herbicide bill to date that included a 4 year transition- a bill that was the culmination of many years of work by many people trying to get this right- we had the votes, got it passed and our mayor decides to veto it. And now it is replaced with a resolution. Resolution 475-20 isn't just lacking legal teeth, even its language is vague on how it asks the j County of Hawaii to proceed. Do we really need a resolution to ask that the county follow the State of Hawaii Pesticide Law 149A that we already do have?Maybe we do. But without specifics, such as were laid out in Bill 101 that require those spraying herbicides to give notification prior to, and put up a safety barrier for 4 hours on the day of, the county's use of herbicides, then what is the point?These are the most basic specifics that we could ask for to make our county safer, on the road to eventually eliminating the county's usage of herbicides altogether. Resolution 475-20 asks the County to set an advisory commission for vegetation management drawing upon"the expertise of the USDA, EPA, WHO,-" and other more local and likely more pertinent organizations and experts than these three. I have to really question the intent of bringing in these National and International orgs into our local committee to reduce herbicides, especially given the fact that the EPA recently defended Monsanto/Bayer in court in regards to glyphosate, and on pesticides, the USDA defers to the EPA. Is the point of the advisory con unittee to have academic debate about glyphosate between the thinking of the EPA and the thinking of WHO (that determined glyphosate causes cancer)?I thought the point of a committee was to reduce usage of herbicides. Again, this points to this resolution being another example of going in circles and not making any meaningful change. It is worth noting that the original Bill 101 did in fact draw upon local expertise for the sole purpose of transitioning out of herbicide usage over the next four years. Leave the debate for the county council, not a transition committee, otherwise such a committee could be very unproductive. Comm. No. 111' Ref. To: P U Ref. Date FEB - 4 2020 The legislators introducing this resolution did vote yes for the original Bill 101, at different junctures of the bill process, and,as they went along they had various criticisms with the bill but never once did they offer any of their own amendments to the bill to address those concerns. I have to wonder, in the final analysis, if the intent was to play both sides of the fence and try to on the one hand kill Bill 101 on behalf of industry concerns about a"slippery slope"to further regulations of pesticides and on the other to come out looking environmentally concerned by offering instead a resolution that essentially doesn't really do what the public has been asking the county to do for many years, and in fact decades: to make ordinance based policy to reduce and finally eliminate the usage of toxic chemicals, and not just make another policy that can easily be reversed by future administrations. When environmental policy is used as a temporary political move and not used to solidify long term changes that protect our future generations, we are witnessing something called greenwashing, and this resolution is certainly an example of that. I would like to reinforce why we need a law and not a resolution. During the Bill 101 process, you received testimony from the Hawaii Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the State of Hawaii Sierra Club, and many individual pediatricians as to why that bill needed to pass. We are talking about the health and safety of our county workers, our kieki and kupuna, the general public, and the environment of Hawaii that we all share. We are talking about a way of doing business—namely using toxic herbicides—that is a declining culture in the face of more and more lawsuits and proven health ill-effects. We are talking about creating an unwavering path to a better way of doing things, and not wasting the public's time, or the county's time, on reversable half measures after many lengthily and expensive discussions at the county council. We are talking about being in harmony with the State of Hawaii's Board of Education that made the policy last year that broadly bans all herbicides from being used on public school grounds, in order to protect the keiki of Hawaii. We are talking about leading the way for the many others that will have to face the eventuality that we have to get off the dangerous chemical treadmill and start working with nature, and in earnest commit to utilizing non- toxic and earth-friendly methods in land management. I oppose Resolution 475-20. Blake Watson