May 2, 2022
City of Mansfield Council Members,
We had requested a three-hundred foot buffer to provide isolation from ground spray pesticide with the final outcome being reduced to only buffering in front of our homes. During the time of discussions at City Council Meetings it was never asked or stated why the three-hundred foot buffer was denied and a property line to property line buffer took its place. When the question did come up as to why there could not be a buffer the reply was “we had already submitted to those residents that we would not spray in front of their homes”, “even from the very first event those residents were told that we would not spray in front of their homes” and “this has been going on for a few years.” which seemed to shut-down discussion on the matter. What happened to any discussion concerning the three-hundred foot buffer? The only buffer mentioned was the property line to property line buffer which is basically being full on sprayed and totally unacceptable.
Let’s start with the statement “this has been going on for a few years.” This phrase is used occasionally to convey a timeframe without having to be specific. What timeframe comes to mind in this instance? Two years, three years or maybe five years or more? How about less than one year and eleven months. Following is a quote from an email from the Environmental Manager on 9-26-2018 that shows that after working with the department for many years the department has been totally inflexible and unwilling to make any concessions and as of the date of this email we still did not have the ability of being excluded in any kind of way. “As we have explained, for the past 10 years, the City’s spraying policy has not provided an option for residents to request their properties to be excluded from spraying.“ We feel the wording “this has been going on for a few years” was purposely used to diminish our position.
During the Council’s discussions with the Environmental Services group you heard the phrase “we would not spray in front of their homes” quite a few times. You did not hear any statements expressing the reality that because of the limited buffer those properties were mostly covered with pesticide which we would have vehemently brought up. Do not confuse the wording “not spraying in front of your property” to mean that your property is not being covered with pesticide. It is.
How far does the spray travel? The Director of Public Works seemed to leave the Council hanging on this crucial point. When asked by then Mayor David Cook “how far does this substance travel?” the reply was “depends on how long particles stay suspended” and “I couldn’t answer that specifically.” No minimum to maximum or rule of thumb distances were stated to help the Council with their decision.
Our three-hundred foot buffer request was based on the following. We would ask what is the current property line to property line buffer based on?
Source-West Nile Virus and Mosquito Control-David Pimentel-Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.667.8785&rep=rep1&type=pdf
“Even assuming that the spraying is carried out in the evening when wind is minimal, the spray is carried downwind from 150 to 300 ft and at 3 ft height”
The City of Grand Prairie uses one-hundred and fifty feet as a rule of thumb distance that the spray can travel when determining spray buffers.
In 2020 the City of Mansfield sent out a survey to surrounding cities asking how mosquito control activities were applied of which six fairly large cities replied. Two items regarding spray buffers came to the surface.
Question: “Does your city’s policy allow opting out of spraying procedures?” Answer: Fifty percent replied “Yes” while all replied “Sometimes”. Compare this to the Environmental Services position that as of 9-26-2018 would not entertain an “opt out” clause and most likely would still not today unless we had pushed the issue. This is an extreme position and totally unacceptable.
Question: “If opting out is allowed, which distance buffer is usually used by the sprayer?” Answer: Two of the cities replied “Fifty to two-hundred feet” with one answering “More than two-hundred feet”. Our three-hundred foot buffer request is not extreme or uncommon and is being done in our local area.
Let’s compare two scenarios. One area has a spray buffer in place and the other is without an adequate or no buffer at all. Let’s say there are residents in the area with the buffer that want pesticide spraying. They have the option to contract with a mosquito control company or do whatever else is legal to do with regards to pest control on their property. In the area without an adequate spray buffer the residents that do not want to be sprayed have no recourse except to endure the best they can with encountering pesticides. They both have valid points but in the second scenario those residents have no options or recourse. Up until now this decision has been left up to two city employees that have proven to have a bias toward ground spraying as the primary means of mosquito control and total disregard for citizens with contrary valid concerns.
The Environmental Services Department made the statement that with a three-hundred foot buffer “twenty to thirty homes would not get the benefit of being sprayed.” We would have challenged this statement as it seems to be complete hyperbole. Simply put, picture your home or any neighborhood home in the city and draw a three-hundred foot circle around it. How many properties do you envision? Also know the three-hundred foot area would not be void of pesticide. Some concentration would exist, hopefully not at the intended resident’s property.
The City Council made its decision based on the information that was presented to them. We feel it was biased and without opposition from the opposing group and contend that if we had had the opportunity to respond to statements made by the Environmental Services Department the outcome of these proceedings would have been very much different.
Thank you,
Larry McFarland