Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and environmental group urge Plumas County to demand details, limit glyphosate spraying
Summary
Public commenters at the Plumas County Board of Supervisors meeting pressed the board to demand information and federal action after reports of widespread glyphosate spraying affecting local watersheds; Feather River Action and residents asked for public notice, buffer zones and nonchemical alternatives.
Public commenters told the Plumas County Board of Supervisors on June 2 that recent and planned herbicide spraying, particularly with glyphosate, threatens local watersheds, recreation and public health and that the county should demand more transparency and federal action.
Taylor Durgin, a Plumas County resident, urged the board to "review herbicides, especially glyphosate on roads and on land" and to provide public notice before spraying, including simple maps showing where and what is being sprayed. Durgin asked the board to consider nonchemical alternatives such as grazing, thinning and prescribed burning, and requested larger buffer zones around waters, parks and schools.
Josh Hart, director and spokesperson for Feather River Action, said recent national reporting revealed "unprecedented spraying of toxic glyphosate in local forests" and warned that the scale of planned spraying — including funding lines and tens of thousands of acres cited in public materials — poses a serious threat to county watersheds and recreation. Hart cited health concerns associated with glyphosate and said the WHO has called it a probable carcinogen; he told the board that Feather River Action and others are pursuing legal efforts to stop aspects of the U.S. Forest Service plan and urged the county to seek more information on timing, quantities and locations and to press federal officials to halt spraying where it endangers drinking-water sources.
Other callers and in-room commenters supported increased transparency and data-driven reviews, arguing that vegetation management is necessary but that public notice and alternatives should be considered. One Zoom caller and a local resident (Leila Levy) also raised allegations involving planning complaints and asked county staff to stop what she described as harassment tied to nuisance complaints.
Board members acknowledged the concerns and noted prior objections filed with federal agencies. Supervisors asked staff to gather more information and explore options for notifying residents about planned spraying; no formal county regulatory change or prohibition was adopted at the meeting.
The board did not take formal action to change federal grazing or Forest Service pesticide programs at the meeting; members suggested next steps could include requesting details from the U.S. Forest Service, coordinating with county counsel on legal options, and returning recommendations to the board after staff gathers additional information.
