Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Aquatic Vegetation Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges Thurston County to avoid aquatic herbicides at McAllister Springs, suggests harvesting alternative
Summary
A Patterson Lake resident told the Board of Health the lake-treatment steering committee proposes conditional herbicides for aquatic weed control and urged the county to choose mechanical harvesting and avoid herbicides in a geologically sensitive area that feeds county drinking water.
A Patterson Lake resident and waterfront property owner told the Thurston County Board of Health during public comment on June 10 that he opposes proposed use of conditional aquatic herbicides in the McAllister Springs area and urged mechanical harvesting as an alternative.
Brett Trowbridge said the steering committee behind a proposed lake-treatment plan is recommending two conditional herbicides (transcribed as “endo thaw and maprazier”) despite the county’s own environmental-health ratings that list other aquatic herbicides as acceptable. He said the steering committee’s petition claims lakefront properties were included in treatment but that the draft map left out many properties.
Trowbridge noted McAllister Springs is a geosensitive area established by the Board of Health in 1990 and said the lake feeds the county’s drinking-water supply. He cited a long-running property-rights case and said waterfront owners own the bottom of the lake, according to a 1945 county case he provided to board members. He asked the board to reconsider use of herbicides in the geosensitive area and offered alternatives.
“As solutions, if lily pads can easily be controlled by ground cutting or harvesting, allow no aquatic herbicides,” Trowbridge said. He cited cost comparisons he presented at a previous meeting: harvesting cited at 2,400 (units not specified) per acre per year and herbicides at 1,600 (units not specified) per acre per year, but argued that harvesting can avoid herbicide use in a sensitive watershed.
The board’s public-comment time limit ended Trowbridge’s remarks; staff thanked him for the information and noted the material was shared with board members and the prosecutor’s civil division had been asked for an opinion about jurisdiction over the lakebed. The transcript does not record a formal board action taken in response to this comment during the meeting.
Trowbridge’s remarks were part of a larger public-comment segment that included other community speakers on different topics.
