Curing Boulder County of Its Chemical Dependency is Essential for a
Sustainable Environment

T.R. Seastedt

(This essay appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera, July 26, 1997)

     The public has heard from land managers statements such as
"Pesticide application, when done correctly, is safe." That statement, when
carefully qualified and limited to a subset of chemicals currently in use,
may be true. Unfortunately, I believe that most of us translate this
statement to "Pesticides are safe." Clearly, this is not the case, and the
interpretation is further complicated because some pesticides are much
more lethal and persistent than others. No generalization is correct.

     My father was a contractor who used lots of chemicals to protect his
buildings. Ask the carpenters and contractors who worked in the Midwest in
the 50s and 60s about how they treated foundations to prevent termite
problems. He died of cancer before he had a chance to meet my son. He didn't
read the labels about proper handling of toxic chemicals, or, if he did, he
didn't have time to use protective gear.

     A colleague of mine died of a cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, at the
age of 35. He grew up on a farm where he and his family also didn't pay close
enough attention to the herbicide label warnings, or simply couldn't
adequately protect themselves because of time and financial constraints.

     Neither of the above deaths can be proven to be a result of exposure
to pesticides. However, numerous epidemiological studies have indicated
higher cancer risks to various groups with higher pesticide exposures. 

     Recently I went jogging along one of my favorite Boulder trails, I
passed a herbicide warning sign. "Treated with herbicides for weeds," the
sign said, "stay on the trail". As I trotted for the next hour, I passed at
least a dozen dogs who couldn't read. I also passed some young children
playing in the grass along the trail. Their parents, if present, didn't seem
aware that poisons had been placed somewhere nearby the previous day.
They were not following the label warnings, but, since they had heard the
message about pesticides, why be concerned?

     Pesticides are similar to materials like uranium. In the right hands
and well away from the public, they may be safe. Unfortunately, to error is
human, and humans are living and playing in areas where toxic materials are
being used. Sooner or later accidents will happen that could have been
avoided if safer alternatives to pesticides could be used. As suggested in
a recent editorial in the Daily Camera, Boulder and Boulder County needs to
follow its own guidelines: "Chemicals should only be used as a last resort".
And, while some argue that this is exactly how they are being used, the City
of Boulder used over 500 gallons of herbicide in 1995. That seems like a lot
of last resorts. Moreover, the Colorado Weed Management Association
appears overly-dependent on chemicals. In a recent booklet they state,
"...biocontrol is not and never will be a cure all or total replacement for
judicious herbicide use." This statement needs to be carefully examined and
clarified. I know that the organic farmers disagree, and the statement need
not be true for either my lawn or for native grasslands.

     Weeds are species that take advantage of disturbed sites like plowed
fields, roadsides, and trails. Noxious weeds, by definition, are aggressive
and compete with native species at these sites, but these species also can
invade natural areas that do not exhibit visible signs of disturbance.
Disturbed sites will always be weedy. The question, then, is do we buy into a
chronic chemical treatment program for these sites or do we attempt to
find more ecologically appropriate and cost-effective solutions to these
problems? For weedy sites, why not replace noxious weeds with obnoxious
(but non-invasive) native weeds or non-native species on chronically
disturbed areas? 

     Are there safer, appropriate alternatives to pesticides?  Land
managers will be the first to tell you that pesticides, alone, are no
answer, and that when "spray and pray" procedures are used (which involves
pesticide application without concurrent nonchemical management
activities designed to treat the cause of the weed problem on the sprayed
areas), the weeds will, almost in all cases, return. Thus, one might suggest
an improvement to the Boulder County weed guidelines: "Chemicals should
only be used as a last resort and only in conjunction with other on-site
techniques designed to solve the weed problem." Will this up the cost of
management?  Over the short term, yes, but what about the long-term?

     Herbicides kill weeds, but they do not address the problem that
caused the weeds. Hence, chemical treatment is not a solution; rather the
problem has been put on hold by using a tool that may cause other health or
environmental problems. In many respects using pesticides is like buying
things with a credit card and only paying the minimum payment. The interest
can kill you, but it's the American way. There is great potential in
biological controls and restoration efforts as long-term solutions to weed
problems. However, these take time and effort, and we -- and our political
representatives -- sometimes seem to accept "results now" over "long-
term solutions".

     I'm sympathetic with the individuals charged with the weed management
problem. They will tell you that if there were more cost-effective and
safer ways to kill weeds, they would be using them. While I'm not in
agreement that such methods don't exist, I don't blame the land managers
who have been given the specific assignment to kill weeds and to kill them
right now. I do blame a society and a political system that uses a minimum
payment model, when the interest payments associated with these
activities include both direct ecological risks as well as have potential
hidden costs that minimize the opportunities and options for our children.

We clearly need a new model of public lands management that will put Boulder
and Boulder County in the forefront of the important environmental
sustainability issues. A successful model for public land management will
have several important premises and components. First, the community must
decide what we want on our lands and set the goals for the management
program. We also must decide upon the management tools needed to obtain
and maintain our goals. Equally important, the management tools must pass
through a hoop of "relevancy and sustainability", i.e., the techniques must
address the management goals and not have long-term negative effects on
ecological systems. These management activities also cannot increase the
ecological risk facing future generations. The model is "adaptive" in that it
is flexible to new scientific and sociological developments, and evolves
with the management objectives decided upon by the community. 

To do nothing is a management decision, too. If you like Russian olive trees
and brome grass, the "do nothing" management strategy for Open Space may
be appropriate. But, such (non)management will result in endless litigation
related to the loss of endangered species, and will force the City and
County into numerous individual species management programs. Hence, such
(non)management will result in taxpayers supporting some expensive zoos
and botanical gardens within the sea of brome grass and Russian olives.  

The use of biological controls and other proactive management techniques
to control noxious weeds and restore and maintain the native biota on Open
Space lands is the most appropriate way to protect human health, maximize
environmental benefits, and develop an economical, sustainable management
program. Once public support provides a clear mandate for these
approaches, our very competent land managers can get on with the task of
protection and restoration of these lands.

---------------------------
Seastedt is a Professor of EPO Biology at the University of Colorado, and
past President of the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers. Views
expressed here are those of the author.