News & Observer | newsobserver.com | Pesticides in N.C. streams start with us

Columns

Published: Apr 10, 2006 12:00 AM
Modified: Apr 10, 2006 07:39 AM

Pesticides in N.C. streams start with us

 

Story Tools

Advertisements
Drink from a neighborhood stream lately? Most folks know that water's not clean enough to drink - but now the creatures that live there year-round have the same complaint.

The U.S. Geological Survey's most recent National Water Quality Assessment shows insecticides and pesticides are present all year in most urban and agricultural streams across the United States. North Carolina is no exception. Concentrations were rarely high enough to affect humans, but 83 percent of urban streams carry enough pesticide to harm aquatic life.

What is this stuff doing in the water we eventually drink, and how do we stop it?

Runoff, the water generated by rain or melting snow, picks up sediments, oils, pet waste, litter, pesticides and herbicides before entering storm drains and ditches. Once there, polluted runoff travels directly to the nearest stream, creek, river or lake without receiving treatment of any kind.

That's how the pesticides and herbicides got to the stream, but who put them out in the first place?

Sampling data collected between 1992 and 2001 reveal agriculture and lawn care are the chief culprits. Pesticide use happens all over, but herbicides and pesticides commonly used on lawns cropped up in most urban streams, while, not surprisingly, herbicides used in agriculture appeared more often and at higher levels in farm areas.

A recent survey of North Carolina residents showed only one-third know that stormwater runoff is not treated before it enters waterways. And the stuff running off their "little slice of heaven" mingles with blends from other slices. The result is a cocktail of original and degraded compounds never before tested or studied.

But who needs lab results when aquatic life is declining or has already disappeared?

Agricultural interests have worked hard and successfully to limit fertilizer and sediment runoff; they have the skills to address this problem. Unlike farmers, homeowners spend little on pest and weed control. The Geological Survey see no economic constraints limiting urban use, so how about some common sense?

• • •

Bugs and weeds can make life unpleasant, true, but integrated pest management offers a third choice to killing or living with the nasties. Often called IPM, it uses many methods -- including some chemicals -- to control pests and weeds while doing the least harm to people and the environment. It differs from organic in its acceptance of some synthetic chemicals.

Schools were the first to adopt the practice in large numbers, but IPM can be used by farmers, residents, groundskeepers -- even pest control professionals.

Common IPM practices that use no chemicals include placing or moving foundation plants at least a foot away from buildings, filling crevices and cracks where insects enter, and cleaning rodent and roach-attracting trash. Growers can reduce the need for pesticides and herbicides by choosing native plants or those with higher pest tolerance. Many hybrids are disease resistant, for example. Rotating crops and altering spacing to discourage pests and disease is also effective. Biological controls, such as adding ladybugs and wasps to control aphids, and deploying traps (much like those used for boll weevils), can reduce the need for broadcast spraying.

Sometimes pesticides may be needed. Keeping a close eye out for early infestations allows for early spot treatments. Many low-risk pesticides exist and more are being produced as we realize the risks these powerful chemicals pose to ourselves and our environment.

Insecticidal soap, which works best on insects such as mites, whiteflies, aphids, thrips, small scales, leafhoppers and aphids can be made at home quite affordably. Just mix one to two tablespoons of liquid dish soap with one quart of water. Transfer it to a spray bottle and you're in business. Other recipes call for adding a few drops of isopropyl alcohol to the mix, which seems to work better on hard-bodied insects.

• • •

DDT -- banned for most uses in the 1970s and 1980s -- still persists at unhealthy levels in many urban and agricultural streams. Our grandparents and parents did not know any better. When they learned, they stopped using DDT. This generation just received similar information, and is just as responsible for the knowledge.

What will our streams look like 30 years from now? Without changes at a personal level, the trends are not good. Fortunately, many herbicide and pesticide alternatives exist. The data show tomorrow's streams owe much to today's actions. Let's make them good ones.

(Chrystal Bartlett is stormwater awareness and outreach coordinator at the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.)

All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be published, broadcast or redistributed in any manner.

Get $150+ in coupons in every Sunday N&O. Click here for convenient home delivery.

No comments have been posted for this story. Log in to be the first to comment.
 

 

The News & Observer is pleased to be able to offer its users the opportunity to make comments and hold conversations online. However, the interactive nature of the internet makes it impracticable for our staff to monitor each and every posting.

Since The News & Observer does not control user submitted statements, we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted on our website. In addition, we remind anyone interested in making an online comment that responsibility for statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The News and Observer.

If you find a comment offensive, clicking on the exclamation icon will flag the comment for review by the administrators, we are counting on the good judgment of all our readers to help us.

Hosting Partners of
newsobserver.com

A subsidiary of The McClatchy Company