Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Health Mosquito Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commerce resident urges shift from routine ULV spraying to integrated mosquito-control plan
Summary
A resident presentation on mosquito control prompted the City of Commerce to ask staff to study alternative strategies, including larviciding, public education and targeted habitat work, while keeping ultra-low-volume (ULV) adulticiding as a reserve option.
Lacey Ishman, a wildlife rehabilitator and student, told the Commerce City Council on an item about public health and mosquito control that the city should define risk levels and shift emphasis from routine ULV (ultra-low‑volume) adulticiding toward larval control, habitat reduction and public education.
Ishman said the city’s current adulticiding program is limited because “we can only kill what the fog can reach” and that fogging is less effective in obstructed urban backyards, where much mosquito breeding occurs. She also raised concerns about long‑term ecological effects and the development of pesticide resistance, citing studies she shared with staff and requesting that the city adopt a risk‑level framework before deploying adulticide as a routine measure.
City Manager Mike Lisenby opened the item by explaining the city’s longstanding use of ULV adulticiding and by inviting Ishman to present her research. Lisenby told the council that ULV spraying is intended to reduce adult mosquitoes active at the time of spraying and that foggers “have to fly through the fog for it to do any good,” a limitation he said is well documented.
Ishman described alternatives used by nearby cities, citing Denton’s mosquito‑control plan as an example that treats chemical spraying as a last resort and emphasizes larviciding and biological controls. She proposed a locally tailored program that would: establish risk levels tied to actions; prioritize larval control and biological agents; expand community education and property‑level assistance (for example, distributing mosquito dunks and repellents, mowing assistance for seniors and code enforcement for overgrown lots); and reserve adulticiding for imminent public‑health threats.
Councilmembers and staff discussed tradeoffs between protecting higher‑risk residents (the speaker noted more than 19% of the city population are senior citizens) and limiting environmental impacts. Councilmembers asked whether the city had recorded human West Nile cases; staff said the city tests mosquito pools and has found West Nile‑positive mosquitoes but is not aware of any publicly reported human cases.
The council directed staff to study the feasibility and budget implications of Ishman’s recommendations and to report back to the council (staff indicated this would be discussed in an upcoming budget workshop). No change to the city’s current spraying program was enacted at the meeting.
The presentation included source material Ishman provided to the city manager and an offer from Ishman to help design pilot projects if the council pursues them.
