Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-05-174 - Possible Regional Pesticide Reduction By-law J Development & Technical Services Report To: Environmental Committee Date of Meeting: Submitted By: October 20, 2005 Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning Prepared By: Ward(s) Involved: Date of Report: Report No.: Subject: Barbara Steiner, Environmental Planner (741-2293) All October 17, 2005 DTS-05-174 POSSIBLE REGIONAL PESTICIDE REDUCTION BY-LAW RECOMMENDATION: That the City of Kitchener recognizes the public's growing concern regarding the use of pesticides, involuntary exposure and the potential effect on the health of humans and other non-target species; and That all effective measures to reduce the non-essential use of pesticides continue to be strongly pursued. (This particularly includes lobbying federal and provincial governments to use, or modify, their powers under the Pest Control Products Act and the Ontario Pesticides Act respectively); and That continuing public education must remain a key initiative in efforts to encourage the reduction of the non-essential use of pesticides in our community, with (Regional Options A, C or D) or without (Option B) a by-law; and That, in light of the facts that the effectiveness of a bylaw to achieve reduction in the non-essential use of pesticides is not known, and that implementation and enforcement will be difficult, if a by-law is pursued by the Region that the least costly and most administratively simple option(s) form the model for any future by-law; and That, if a by-law is pursued by the Region, it includes a requirement for advance notification to neighbours 24 hours prior to application of pesticides; and further That, the Region should revisit the issue of regulating the non-essential use of pesticides at an appropriate point in the future-i.e. evaluate any by-law adopted for effectiveness in reducing the non-essential use of pesticides or, if no by-law is pursued at this time, reconsider adopting such a by-law if other jurisdictions demonstrate that a by-law is effective in reducing the non-essential use of pesticides. BACKGROUND: Public opinion indicates that the residents of Waterloo Region would support a by-law to reduce the non-essential use of pesticides. This has been confirmed through a telephone survey by the Region in Spring 2005 wherein 81 % of residents either strongly (45%) or somewhat (36%) supported a bylaw to reduce the non-essential use of pesticides. Several years ago, the Region of Waterloo and area municipalities partnered to begin a two- pronged approach to pesticide reduction. The first initiative is an education (community based social marketing) campaign that encourages everyone to reduce the amount of pesticides they use. This education initiative (Let's Curb Pesticides - I'm Teaming up with Turf!) was launched in April 2005, and is intended to continue. The second initiative is a draft proposed bylaw that would control where and when pesticides can be used. Kitchener was asked to comment on a draft proposed by-law as part of the Region's consultation in June 2005. Kitchener's Environmental Committee considered this matter on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 (minutes attached) focussing on: . operational concerns of the City's enterprises where functional turf (golf courses, premier sportsfields and cemeteries) is important; . the clear challenge and foreseeable difficulties that will be presented in the implementation and enforcement of any such bylaw adopted; . their concern regarding the ability of a bylaw to truly effect the reduced use of legally available pesticides; and . the critical role that an ongoing public education program must play in achieving the reduced use of pesticide across the Region. Kitchener Council's resolution of June 27, 2005 (attached) reflects these same concerns. Regional Council received a report (PH-05-047) on the results of the Spring 2005 public consultation results, and a modified Option C for a by-law, at their meeting of September 14, 2005. It is this report, as amended regarding Option 0 (September 28, 2005), upon which Kitchener Environmental Committee and Kitchener Council will comment. The City of Kitchener has been asked for final comments prior to November 2, 2005. Regional Council will hold two (2) public meetings on a possible by-law on October 27 and November 2, 2005. A Regional Council-only debate is scheduled for November 23, 2005. REPORT: The Region has requested final comments from the City of Kitchener on a possible bylaw that they will implement to reduce the non-essential use of pesticides. They wish to receive our comments by November 2, 2005 (amended from October 12, 2005). Kitchener's comments will be addressed in a Regional staff report to be considered by Regional Council on November 23, 2005. 2 For clarity, Kitchener can consider the matter of a possible pesticide by-law in two parts: 1. Should there be a bylaw to regulate the non-essential use of pesticides in the Regional Municipality of Waterloo? 2. What features should be included in any such by-law? Which activities should be regulated in such a by-law? Do the Options (A, C or D) put forward by the Region address these features and activities? Should there be a by-law? Any by-law would likely have the effect of deterring some non-essential use of pesticide. This would be accomplished both through the desire of residents to comply with a duly passed by- law as well as the likely higher level of awareness of the issue that would accompany, and follow, implementation of a by-law. However, this effect is presumed and unproven at this time. Along with this uncertainty of effectiveness, by-law implementation will clearly have (possibly substantial) costs associated with it, and there is agreement that enforcement will be difficult (e.g. proving that substances being applied are restricted pesticides). Kitchener's Environmental Committee and Kitchener Council and, ultimately, Regional Council must weigh these factors against one another to determine if they support a Regional by-law to reduce the non-essential use of pesticides. If the Region elects not to have a by-law at this time, the effectiveness of these types of by-laws in other jurisdictions where they are just starting to be implemented may become better understood and, in several years, the Region could revisit the issue of regulating the non- essential use of pesticides. In the alternative, if the Region goes ahead with a by-law, some assessment of its effectiveness in reducing the non-essential use of pesticides must be made and, in several years, the Region could, similarly, evaluate the effectiveness and merit of the by-law. What should a by-law address? The Region has three by-law options to consider. Regional staff report PH-05-047 (attached) describes and compares Options A (original draft proposed by-law), C (draft proposed by-law developed in response to public consultation in Spring 2005) and Option 0 (as originally described in a memorandum from Regional Councillor Jim Wideman dated September 16, 2005, attached, and amended by Regional Council on September 28, 2005). A summary table comparing the main features of the by-law options has been provided by Regional staff (attached). Option A was originally developed by the multi-stakeholder, inter-municipal Pesticide Working Group who considered the features of similar by-laws throughout Canada and their applicability, utility and potential acceptability in the Region of Waterloo, and was put forward by the Region in June 2005 to elicit reaction to a by-law. This option would regulate and control the application of pesticides on all properties (excluding agricultural) within the Regional Municipality of Waterloo. Exemptions would apply in circumstances generally where the use of a pesticide is considered to be necessary or non-cosmetic (e.g. structural exterminations, pool disinfection, rodenticides inside buildings); golf courses were also treated separately. A permit system with mandatory public notification (posting the permit) and fines as penalty are proposed. The permit 3 system has subsequently been identified as a substantial additional cost ($200,000 per year) by Regional staff (PH-05-047) with unproven effectiveness. Option C has been developed by Regional Public Health staff after consideration of the public input (surveys, focus groups, public information centres) in Spring 2005, and additional research into the Halifax permit-based by-law in terms of its costs and effectiveness. In this option, the by-law would only apply to "lawns, shrubs, grass, trees and ornamental plants" as different from Option A which would apply to all property with exemptions based on use (e.g. swimming pool disinfection, rodenticides inside buildings etc.). No permits would be required. Pesticide use would be prohibited on lawns, shrubs, grass, trees and ornamental plants with exemptions for spot treatment only of insect infestations (e.g. white grub, chinch bug) or to eliminate a health hazard (e.g. ragweed, poison ivy). The property owner who wishes to use pesticides for insects or health hazards would be required to report in advance to the Region that use will occur, and will be required to post standard signs issued by the Region 24 hours in advance of the application. Option D was put forward by Regional Councillor Jim Wideman, and subsequently amended by Regional Council. Originally, this option would have required the licensing of all "lawn care companies" who wish to operate within the Region of Waterloo with a minimum requirement of IPM (Integrated Pest Management) accreditation. This additional Regional licensing has been dropped from this option in favour of the existing licensing under the Ontario Pesticides Act. This option is silent on such accreditation for public lands managers like the City of Kitchener (e.g. golf courses, premier sportsfields and cemeteries). It also does not address the use of pesticides that may be required for other than lawn and landscape purposes; current wording would prevent, for example, structural exterminations and uses inside buildings to eliminate rodents / insects as public health hazards. This option proposes to ban the use of all pesticides in the Region, with the exception of those for agricultural use, in the months of July and August each year; there would be no restrictions at other times of the year. During this two-month time period, only licensed lawn care companies could spot-treat, and only for insects (the original Wideman option included crab grass as well). The licensed lawn care company would be responsible for verifying the need for treatment, for notifying neighbours and other postings and, although this is not clear, for undertaking the treatment itself. No one other than lawn care companies licensed by the Province would be permitted to use pesticides during this time period. It is notable that no advance notification will be required as the Ontario Pesticides Act does not require it. Advance notification was identified as important to the Region's residents in the Spring 2005 public consultation. Kitchener's Comments on By-law Content: On June 27, 2005, Kitchener Council passed a resolution (attached) on a possible by-law and, among other matters, identified operational concerns for functional turf in City enterprises (golf courses, premier sportsfields and cemeteries). This has been formally forwarded to the Region for their consideration. These concerns have yet to be addressed by the Region, either in correspondence or in a modified draft by-law. Kitchener staff (DTS-05-121) identified advance notification as being an important feature of any by-law due to the public's concern with involuntary exposure. Notification should be proactive, posted in advance of the application of pesticide and on-site. This is a necessary "good neighbour" provision of any by-law. Advance notification of adjacent / nearby residents allows them to take measures to protect themselves from exposure (e.g. closing windows, keeping 4 people and pets indoors, not hanging laundry etc.). This feature was strongly supported by citizens consulted by the Region in Spring 2005. It has been included in Option Conly. It is acknowledged by all groups (technical, residents, operational stakeholders) consulted by the Region, by Kitchener's Environmental Committee, by Regional and Kitchener staff that implementation could be costly, and that enforcement will be difficult. For example, investigating complaints of improper use by officers will be challenging. Officers, if not present for the reported offence, and with no visible evidence, will not be able to stand as witnesses; the observer / complainant must stand as the witness. The Region's survey and focus group results indicate a reluctance of citizens to testify in court (both by-law supporters and opposers). It is possible that samples of soil, plants and/or water will need to be taken to prove improper use. Laboratory costs for such verification could be substantial depending on the number of complaints pursued each year; these expenditures are not included in the Region's estimated costs for the three by-law options. In addition, the effectiveness of a by-law to achieve reduction in the non-essential use of pesticides is currently unproven. Due to this uncertainty, it would seem prudent to minimize investment in "by-law infrastructure" (e.g. permit system, permanent enforcement staff). Therefore, if a by-law is pursued by the Region, the least costly and most administratively simple option (C or D) should be chosen as a model. Option 0 proposes to "ban" all but agricultural pesticide use, and the spot-treatment of insect infestations by provincially licensed lawn care companies, during the months of July and August. Therefore, pesticide use for such occurrences as structural exterminations (e.g. termites, carpenter ants) and public health hazards inside buildings (e.g. rodents, insects) would also be apparently prohibited during July and August. As with Option A, notification requirements would be as set out in the Ontario Pesticides Act which does not require advance notification. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No capital financial implications for the City of Kitchener. (N.B. Year 2 of the cost-shared community-based social marketing (CBSM) campaign is projected to cost Kitchener $28,801.) COMMUNICATIONS: None required. Press release issued notifying public that this matter would be considered at the Environmental Committee meeting of October 20, 2005 and Kitchener Council on October 24, 2005. CONCLUSION: The Region of Waterloo has begun a two-pronged approach to pesticide reduction-a public education campaign launched on Earth Day 2005 and the consideration of regulation through a possible Regional by-law to reduce the non-essential use of pesticides. On June 27, 2005, Kitchener Council passed a resolution commenting on a possible by-law and forwarded it to the Region for their consideration. These concerns have yet to be addressed by 5 the Region, and Kitchener now has an opportunity to provide final comments prior to the Region's requested deadline of November 2, 2005. Continuing public education is important in addressing public concern regarding the use of pesticides and involuntary exposure. This should be strongly pursued by both the City of Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo. Also, what pesticides are available and who is allowed to use them are matters governed by federal (Pest Control Products Act) and provincial (Pesticides Act) legislation respectively. It stands to reason that current and future powers under these pieces of legislation should be used optimally to reduce the improper use of pesticides. For example, this might include: increasing provincial enforcement efforts with respect to the violation of terms and conditions of licences issued to applicators under the Ontario Pesticides Act; exploring opportunities under existing, or amended, Ontario Pesticides Act to require licensed vendors to educate purchasers of pesticides on proper use and/or alternatives to their use; and/or having the federal government implement some form of pesticide sales database (under discussion by a Working Group at Health Canada) so the effectiveness of various pesticide reduction efforts can be monitored. The City of Kitchener and the Region of Waterloo should encourage higher levels of government to pursue such measures. The effectiveness of a bylaw to achieve reduction in the non-essential use of pesticides is not known, and implementation and enforcement will be difficult. Therefore, if a by-law is pursued by the Region, the least costly and most administratively simple option(s) with advance notification provisions is preferred. Monitoring of by-law effectiveness is recommended for any future Regional by-law or others adopted in other jurisdictions (if no Regional by-law is pursued at this time). Barbara Steiner, B.Sc. Environmental Planner Jeff Willmer, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning List of Attachments Minutes of the June 14 and September 22, 2005 Kitchener Environmental Committee meetings Kitchener Council resolution, June 27, 2005 Regional staff report PH-05-047 Regional Council's Option 0 (dated September 29, 2005) Memorandum from Regional Councillor Jim Wideman dated September 16, 2005 Table comparing By-law Options A, C and 0 (Draft by Regional Public Health) 6