This commentary is by Lynn Kelley Gee, a resident of Bomoseen.
How is it that a dozen of our Vermont lakes have become “addicted” to the use of toxic chemicals to manage unwanted aquatic vegetation? And how is it that this situation has gone unnoticed by Vermont residents for whom the lakes are held in trust?
The treatment of Vermont lakes with herbicides began quietly in 2000 on Burr Pond and Lake Hortonia, where all 479 acres of the lake were dosed with Sonar, manufactured and promoted by Sepro Corp. By 2004, Sunrise, Beebe and Lake St. Catherine had bought into the prevailing “eradication myth.”
It was falsely believed that a one-time application of this herbicide would effectively rid lakes of Eurasian water milfoil. Lake St. Catherine treated 904 acres that year. When Sonar did not live up to promises, Sepro launched a new product called Renovate 3, followed by Renovate OTF. Other lakes jumped on board, including Fairlee, Morey and Dunmore.
Despite nearly annual herbicide applications in Hortonia and St. Catherine through 2018, Eurasian water milfoil persisted. It was no surprise that in 2019 Sepro Corp. launched another herbicide formulation called ProcellaCOR. The “eradication myth” was replaced by the “selectivity myth” — a claim that its product affects only Eurasian water milfoil (and admittedly maybe a couple of other nontarget, native plants).
Who has been funding the use of herbicides in Vermont lakes? And why are toxic chemicals being put into our lakes at a time when there is so much concern with keeping farm runoff and overflow from municipal septic and stormwater systems out of our lakes?
Has the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources abdicated its responsibility for the stewardship of our lakes? It appears that, given the lack of available funding, the Department of Environmental Conservation has been more than happy to turn over the management of Vermont lakes to the various lake associations that, if registered as 501(c)3 charitable organizations, can solicit tax-exempt contributions from large donors. (There is nothing we Vermonters like better than money generated outside of and brought into our state.)
Lake association membership in many instances includes numerous nonresident lakeshore property owners whose income far exceeds that of average Vermonters. It is hard to say “no” to their “benevolence,” even when they choose to ignore input from local residents and nonproperty-owning lake users.
When lake associations have sought aquatic herbicide permits, the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation has also chosen to ignore concerns and opposition from other stakeholders. The department has cited “past practice” and a legislative mandate to “do something about invasive species” as reasons it cannot deny aquatic herbicide applications.
A year ago, the Lake Bomoseen Association board of trustees filed a ProcellaCOR permit application, without seeking input from its own membership or local community stakeholders. This has generated widespread opposition from the three communities that surround the lake and a multitude of other lake users.
It has also shone a spotlight on the inherent flaws in the Department of Environmental Conservation permitting process. The department has recently acknowledged the need to clarify the ambiguous rules and subjective language that have guided permit application decisions for the past two decades. This includes such terms as “reasonable alternatives,” “negligible concern” and “public good.”
Not all lake associations support the use of aquatic herbicides. Shadow Lake was able to eradicate Eurasian water milfoil with early detection and use of nonchemical methods. The Lake George (N.Y.) Association has continuously opposed the use of ProcellaCOR and other herbicides. Its wisdom is reflected in the statement, “If you wouldn’t put it in your well, don’t dump it in our lake.”
Herbicides, pesticides and other “cides” are toxic chemicals that are formulated to “kill.” They are not substances that belong in our waterways or our bodies. Their use should be limited to situations where human health is at stake or there are no alternatives for preventing urgent, irreversible ecological harm.
There needs to be a moratorium on permitting aquatic herbicide use in Vermont lakes until the permitting process and the long-term ecological effects of these toxic chemicals can be reexamined. The state of Vermont, through our legislative process, needs to renew the commitment to manage our lakes in a manner that benefits all Vermonters.
