Sonoma County resists No Spray activists' efforts

Today\'s lead article in the Press Demo. across the top reads \"Drive
>to Oppose Spraying Hits SR Council.\" Dr. Gail Dubinksky is looking
>out from her organic artichoke plants, which look great. The first
>part of the article, quoting Gail, is great. The second part, which
>focuses on forced spraying and how it has been done in the past, in
>scarey. For the first time in the months since our activism began, I
>had the sinking feeling that they will indeed spray. I had naively
>believed that we might win this before they unholster their weapon
>and fire. Those who intend to spray do indeed have a lot of power.
>The article reminded me of how important it will be to come and
>testify today at the SR City Council, sometime after 4 p.m. The
>Petaluma City Council discussion will probably not be March 5, but
>sometime later. The PD article can be read at http://www.pressdemocrat.com.
>Please join us today!


http://www.pressdemocrat.com/local/news/27sharp_a1.html

Drive to oppose spraying hits SR council

Activists today to ask city to join
critics of plan to fight sharpshooter
February 27, 2001

By TIM TESCONI
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Dr. Gail Dubinsky of Santa Rosa wasn\'t a political activist until she learned the government may use its power to forcibly spray her garden to suppress the glassy-winged sharpshooter if it arrives in Sonoma County.

\"This is all new to me because I\'m not your typical west county activist,\" said Dubinksy, who specializes in orthopedic medicine in Sebastopol and grows much of her food in an organic garden at her west Santa Rosa home.

\"I\'ve been concerned for a long time about all the pesticides being used around me, but it crosses the line when men in white suits can come into our yards to spray toxic chemicals,\" she said.

She\'s one of many residents aligning with the No Spray Action Network, organized in the fall to oppose forced spraying on private property. So far the group has persuaded the Sonoma, Windsor and Sebastopol city councils to oppose forced spraying.

They go before the Santa Rosa City Council today in search of similar support, and to the Healdsburg and Petaluma councils Monday.

But although newcomers have been attracted to the battle and local government support against forced spraying has been won, it remains to be seen if the grass-roots group can gain any real political weight to effectively challenge laws that favor protecting Sonoma County\'s $2 billion wine industry and which have backed California agriculture for decades.

So far, the political maneuvering has not convinced county supervisors or county Agricultural Commissioner John Westoby to back away from forced spraying, should the sharpshooter arrive.

\"I don\'t have a sense there is a majority on the Board of Supervisors to make modifications in the current plan,\" Supervisor Mike Reilly said Monday.

Westoby said he has no intention of relinquishing the authority given him by state law to eradicate an exotic pest that could destroy the county\'s vineyards.

He said if spraying is required to knock out a sharpshooter infestation, he would order the use only of chemicals approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Chemical ground spraying, he said, would be monitored by environmental experts.

Westoby said the approach has been used in other counties. Rapid response with chemical treatments is believed to have eradicated sharpshooter infestations in Sacramento, Butte and Contra Costa counties.

Reilly\'s west county district includes many of the people who have joined the No Spray Action Network, which claims about 2,000 members. He said he understands the objections he\'s hearing about forced spraying and hopes it never has to be used.

\"It\'s certainly been an emotional rallying point for a lot of people, specifically those concerned about health, organic farming, beekeeping and the larger issue -- which is the use or misuse of pesticides in our culture,\" Reilly said.

The goal of the No Spray Action Network is to get all nine cities in Sonoma County to oppose the forced spraying approved in December by county supervisors.

In Santa Rosa, Councilwoman Marsha Vas Dupre is bringing the motion today to oppose pesticide use on private property.

Although the councils\' resolutions have no weight in law, they are part of the political campaign under way to overturn the supervisors\' unanimous decision.

Santa Rosa Mayor Mike Martini said the issue is an early agenda item for the meeting, which begins at 4 p.m. He could not predict how the council would vote.

\"My personal position is that all of these kinds of things are tools in a toolbox,\" said Martini, who is a winery owner. \"You use the tool that is appropriate.\"

He said limited spraying to deal with the spread of the sharpshooter \"could keep us from having to spray on a larger basis.\"

In addition to the resolutions, the No Spray Action Network is holding educational programs and conducting civil disobedience training in the event of forced spraying.

Reilly said the forced spraying is part of a work plan the county had to approve and send to the state Agriculture Department to receive federal and state funds for monitoring programs aimed at keeping the sharpshooter out of Sonoma County.

Westoby said he\'s frustrated that city councils are bowing to emotion rather than to science and to laws designed to protect the common good.

\"By signing these resolutions the cities are saying it\'s OK for this pest to exist and threaten agriculture in Sonoma County,\" said Westoby, who will take his case to the Santa Rosa council.

\"If you give any pest a safe harbor, it will exist,\" he said.

The sharpshooter spreads Pierce\'s disease, a fatal and incurable vineyard disease. The state and federal governments have allocated more than $40 million in the battle against the sharpshooter, considered the biggest threat in the history of California viticulture.

The sharpshooter has infested 13 counties in California but has not established breeding colonies in any North Coast county.

Rallying cries are not new in California. For decades, Californians have raised their voices against the use of pesticides on private property. And for decades, agricultural concerns have won out.

In July 1981, then-Gov. Jerry Brown sided with Santa Clara County residents opposed to aerial spraying to battle the Mediterranean fruit fly. Days later, under threat of a national quarantine of California farm products, he relented and spraying began.

In Sonoma County, a battle over spraying to fight the apple maggot intensified, with some orchard owners refusing to allow spraying in 1986 and 1987.

But spraying occurred, with orchard owners given the option of welcoming the spraying or disposing of apples and removing their trees.

In March 1990, the battle against the fruit fly rose again in Southern California, and yet again in 1993. Public opposition to aerial spraying mounted, including at the city government level. But the state sprayed.

Sonoma County is not considering aerial spraying. But Westoby said the Agriculture Department will not be able to control the sharpshooter unless properties can be inspected and treated. He said the law provides for abatement of exotic pests because it\'s in the public interest.

You can reach Staff Writer Tim Tesconi at 521-5289 or e-mail ttesconi @pressdemocrat.com.