Virginia Regulatory Town Hall
Agency
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
 
Board
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services
 
chapter
Regulations Governing Pesticide Product Registration, Handling, Storage, and Disposal under Authority of the Virginia Pesticide Control Act [2 VAC 5 ‑ 670]
Previous Comment     Next Comment     Back to List of Comments
11/11/12  7:09 pm
Commenter: John A. Pirko, Esq. LeClairRyan, for Community Electric Cooperative

Comments in Opposition to Coake Petitions for Proposed Herbicide Rulemaking
 

November 11, 2012

Via E-Mail

Erin Williams
Policy and Planning Coordinator
Virginia Board of Agriculture and
    Consumer Services

Oliver Hill Building

102 Governor Street

Richmond, VA 23219

                Re           Comments in Opposition to Coake Petitions for Proposed Herbicide Rulemaking –

From: Community Electric Cooperative (Community)

Any competently run Electric Utility spends significant time and expense to maintain a reliable system. One of the keys to a reliable overhead system is keeping adequate clearance from trees in all directions. In it’s publications, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) recommends a minimum of ten feet of clearance in all directions from the phase wire. As a practical matter, overhanging limbs should be avoided for a variety of reasons, including safety of the public and the danger of broken limbs falling onto energized wires. Therefore, most utilities maintain the edges of their right-of-ways with a ground to sky cutting plan. For areas other than mowed yards utilities also clear trees from under the line. Some use mechanical means such as a bush-hog, others use spot application of herbicides to small trees, and many use a combination of both. In the South, with the long growing season, mechanical clearing only produces multiple re-sprouts from the root stock so that over time the ground cover becomes increasingly dense and harder to cut. This is where herbicide application comes in because it kills the root of the sprayed trees.

Since it is the duty of the utility to maintain a reliable system, so long as the utility is using the herbicides in an approved manner and application rate, Community fails to see why we should create a patchwork of permissions from people who have no training in the use of herbicides. For landowners who do not want herbicides applied to their property we tell them as long as they maintain a mowed right-of-way under our lines, cut at least every two months in the growing season, we have no need or reason to use herbicides.

Points against proposal:

1.            Difficulty of reaching the landowner, particularly in forested lands. As an example, Community lines goes thru a stretch of woods that formerly belonged to International Paper. They sold the land six years ago to the Missouri State Employees’ Retirement Fund. When we contacted the State Employees’ Fund they said they had sold the land to the Missouri Municipal Employees’ Retirement Fund. When the Municipal Employees Fund was contacted they denied owning the land, even though the county shows them paying taxes on the land. This is just one example of a common pattern of absentee landowners.

2.            Even when we know the landowner and they acknowledge owning the land if the matter does not impact their rents they rarely respond in any manner, so how could we obtain permission.

3.            So long as we are using them in the legally described manner applied by licensed technicians, why should there be a requirement to obtain permission from a landowner who has no training in or knowledge of the proper use of herbicides?

4.            If an organic farmer, or other landowner, does not want herbicide used, they can regularly mow the right-of-way, which negates the need for herbicides.

5.            There is already in place a system of penalties and oversight by the State if there are complaints. In the 23 years Community has been involved in herbicide application we have only had 5 valid complaints, all of which involved windblown overspray. In each case either Community or its contractor, Custom Weed Control, has replaced the damaged bushes or tree to the satisfaction of the landowner. There were also two cases where Community was accused but chemical testing showed it was the State Highway Department’s mix of chemicals, not those used by Community or Custom Weed Control.

6.            Community’s easements say that the Cooperative has the right to maintain the easement. It does not endorse or ban any method of maintaining the right-of-way, recognizing that as technology changes our method(s) of maintaining a right-of-way may change.

Community is grateful for this opportunity to submit these comments in opposition to the Coake petitions.  Thank you.

Jean Thrasher

Vice President of Operations and Engineering

Community Electric Cooperative

52 W. Windsor Blvd.

Windsor, VA  23487-0267

CommentID: 24482