The fog of war: Why the environmental crusade for anadromous fish species in California could disarm the State’s local vector control districts in their war against mosquitoes (original) (raw)

Abstract

In California, local mosquito and vector control districts have successfully controlled mosquito and vector-borne diseases by improving drainage patterns and applying pesticides. The Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, which is a proposed habitat conservation plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta estuary, proposes to add over 70,000 acres of habitat in the Delta to improve conditions for threatened and endangered aquatic and terrestrial species. This habitat could also be a suitable mosquito breeding habitat, which will be located in close proximity to urban and suburban communities. Wetland management practices and continued pesticide applications in the Delta could mitigate the effects of a new mosquito breeding habitat. Recent legal developments, however, require districts to obtain and comply with Clean Water Act permits, which restrict the application of pesticides in or near waters of the United States. Moreover, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has taken the first step in a rulemaking process that could further limit or prohibit the use of certain vector control pesticides in the Delta. In the near term and until less harmful methods for mosquito control are available, local vector control districts’ application of mosquito control pesticides should be exempt from Clean Water Act permit requirements.

Article PDF

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Patterson G. The mosquito crusades: a history of the American anti-mosquito movement from the Reed commission to the first Earth Day, Rutgers University Press, New Jersey, 2009, pp. 104–105.
    Google Scholar
  2. Bay Delta Conservation Plan steering committee, November 4, 2010 draft Bay Delta Conservation Plan [Internet]. p. 6-4–6-6, <http://baydeltaconservationplan.com/BDCPPlanningProcess/DocumentsAndDrafts.aspx/> [accessed 16.03.11].
  3. Kwasny DC, Wilder M, Isola C. Central valley joint venture technical guide to best management practices for mosquito control in managed wetlands [Internet], <http://www.sfbayjv.org/wnv/CVJV%20Mosquito%20BMP.pdf>; June 2004 [accessed 26.03.11].
  4. McKeithan TD. NCMVCA’s response to EPA’s information request to office of management and budget regarding the costs associated with the reporting requirements as set forth in proposed NPDES pesticide general permit, North Carolina Mosquito & Vector Control Assoc. [Internet], <http://www.ncmvca.org/NPDES/NCMVCA_response_to_EPA_ICR_re_associated_costs_NPDES.pdf>; No date [accessed 30.03.11].
  5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Unabridged advance notice of proposed rulemaking: water quality challenges in the San Francisco bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin delta estuary. San Francisco, <http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/watershed/sfbay-delta/anpr.html>; 2011 [accessed 16.03.11].
  6. Turner SL, Ray A. Modification of CO2 avoidance behaviour in Drosophila by inhibitory odorants [Internet], <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7261/full/nature08295.html>; 2009;461(7261):277–281 [accessed 5.05.11].
  7. Peeples L. Waiting for the next-gen anti-mosquito chemicals with baited breath. Scientific American [Internet], <http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=mos-quito-repellent-carbon-dioxide-sensor-inhibitor/>; August 26, 2009 [accessed 16.03.11].
  8. Verma P, Prakash S. Efficacy of Chrysosporium tropicum metabolite against mixed population of adult mosquitoes (Culex quinquefasciatus, Anopheles, and Aedes aegypti) after purification with flash chromatography. Parasitol Res 2010;107 (2010):163–6.
    Google Scholar
  9. Das NG, Goswami D, Rebha B. Preliminary evaluation of mosquito larvicidal efficacy of plant extracts. J Vector Borne Dis 2007;44 (2007):145–8.
    Google Scholar
  10. Rajkumar S, Jebanesan A. Repellent activity of selected plant essential oils against the malarial fever mosquito Anopheles stephensi. Trop Biomed 2007;24 (2007):71–5.
    Google Scholar
  11. Reducing regulatory burdens act of 2011, H.R. 872, 112th. Congress, 1st Sess, <http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.872:/>; 2011 [accessed 16.03.11].

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bartkiewicz, Kronick & Shanahan, P.C., 1011 22nd Street, 94518, Sacramento, CA, USA
    Stephen M. Siptroth & Richard P. Shanahan

Authors

  1. Stephen M. Siptroth
  2. Richard P. Shanahan

Corresponding author

Correspondence toStephen M. Siptroth.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Siptroth, S.M., Shanahan, R.P. The fog of war: Why the environmental crusade for anadromous fish species in California could disarm the State’s local vector control districts in their war against mosquitoes.J Epidemiol Glob Health 1, 15–19 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jegh.2011.06.001

Download citation

Keywords