City balks at pesticide ban

Bruce Walkinshaw - Penticton Western News February 17, 2010 1:00 PM

As the B.C. government reportedly investigates the possibility of regulating the use of cosmetic pesticides, Penticton city council has decided not to institute a ban on non-essential pesticides in the city. Instead, council voted Monday evening to maintain the status quo on the issue until the results of the provincial investigation is known. "I think the real control comes from banning it at the provincial level," said Coun. Mike Pearce before the unanimous vote. "I can't even imagine having enough bylaw officers running around out there to see if the (trouble-makers-of-the-world) are out there at 3 oclock in the morning using their 2,4-D to kill off dandelions." Last November council directed staff to investigate the possibility of implementing a ban on the non-essential use of pesticides after the issue was first raised at an agriculture advisory committee meeting when it was noted that the pesticide 2,4-D has been linked to causing severe damage to grape vines.

According to parks and facilities manager Ian Haras, the committee proposed a ban on the use of non-essential pesticides — pesticides used for strictly esthetic reasons in the maintenance of turf, flowers, ornamental plants, trees and shrubs — within Penticton, as it was noted that a ban on just 2,4-D would be unrealistic to implement. Under the proposal, essential use of pesticides, said Haras, would be defined as pesticide used to prevent economic damage or health impacts such as reducing crop damage or reducing the spread of disease. Looking at the 154 Canadian municipalities, 24 in B.C., that have prohibited or restricted the use and sale of pesticides, Haras said that staff concluded that instituting such rules would be "no small undertaking." "Using data from municipalities that have a ban in place, it can be estimated that the cost to implement a pesticide bylaw combined with an educational component appears to be in the order of $0.50 to $1 per resident per year," reported Haras.

In addition, Haras pointed out, last year's B.C. government throne speech stated that: "British Columbians will be consulted on new statutory protections to further safeguard the environment from cosmetic chemical pesticides" and in December, the Ministry of Environment started a public consultation process to address the use of cosmetic pesticides. Haras asserted that waiting to see what the province did could save staff time and budget dollars considering provincial legislation would supersede any pesticide bylaws the city would have in place. Council agreed.