We live in a health-conscious valley, to say the least. We celebrate clean air, pure water, and trails that run through the sagebrush steppe and forests on protected public lands. We have organic farm-to-table markets. We read food labels. We live, work, and enjoy ourselves in smoke-free environments.

Why then do we allow public and private landscaping practices that use neurotoxic chemicals up and down our valley? Why do we accept the springtime release of a fog of carcinogens around us and proceed to inhale them on the bike path, in subdivisions and adjacent trails, on playing fields and golf courses, and in our cities?

Brian Ross, local activist for a pesticide-free environment, asked me this question recently and I was stumped! I think about global warming, toxic waste, and coal ash pollution, but not about the grass and trees in my yard, other than to seek reassurance that applications are "safe" from the landscapers I've hired over the years.

Ross, a founder of the Pesticide Action Network (now run by the Environmental Resource Center), knows a good deal about pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and rodenticides, all of which he refers to simply as pesticides. My first thought was to ask him about Roundup which, at a water conference last year, The Wood River Land Trust had said was safe for killing "broadleaf weeds" in grass - a comment that still troubles me. Ross shook his head and confirmed that the active ingredient in Roundup is glyphosate, a disruptor to the endocrine system linked to neurological diseases and forms of cancer such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Another widely used herbicide is 2,4-D which, along with one other chemical, comprised the defoliant Agent Orange. This chemical is linked to multiple forms of cancers (prostate and respiratory cancer), leukemia, and neurological diseases such as Parkinson's. 

My subsequent Google research built on Ross' comments. If human health is to be protected, neither glyphosate nor any other carcinogenic synthetic chemicals should be used in landscape care. If a landscaper shows up to spray without protective gear and says, "Let it dry before you go out," my response should be to read the spray's label and find out exactly what I'm getting. If the ingredients are synthetic carcinogens, I should be aware that for weeks and months after the spray, biodegrading chemicals will be in the air and carried into my house on feet and shoes and dog paws. I should know that those synthetics, whose longevity is measured by their half-life, will only gradually break down from the soil's microbial action (fungi, worms, bugs, bacteria) until the microbiome is exhausted and the soil sterile.

The good news is that several local landscape companies offer organic services. Still others offer an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) protocol. Some promise nothing. In the case of IPM, pest control methods match the life cycle of pests in their locale. Biopesticides, derived from animals, plants, bacteria, and certain minerals, are a growing feature of IPMs; canola oil and baking soda are two examples. IPM plans may also judiciously use synthetic chemicals but only those that are skin irritants as opposed to cancer agents. 

Happily for the North Valley, Ketchum was the first City in Idaho to agree to Integrated Pest Management. Unhappily, despite lobbying by the Pesticide Action Network, Sun Valley, the County, Bellevue, and Hailey (with the largest population of children) have yet to take action. Nor has Sun Valley Company which, with its huge land holdings, could be a game-changer in landscape management practices.

I suspect many of us think of "landscape" in generic terms: bushes + grass + trees + flowers = landscape, something that makes sense to treat prophylactically and widely at the right seasonal times. Certainly, I did. Ross reminded me though that landscapes are collections of individual trees, bushes, grasses, and flowers, each with their unique health status and needs for watering, soil nutrition, and location. Landscapes require long-term planning; the major investment should be in their health maintenance, rather than prevention (which may not be necessary) and repair. Start with a healthy landscape, or rebuild an unhealthy one over a three-four year period, and you will learn that it can be strong enough to resist weeds and diseases in most conditions.

Research shows that older landscaping practices have often involved the overuse, for disease prevention, of water, fertilizers, and pesticides, resulting in unnecessarily high landscaping costs as well as an unhealthy environment. Here's an analogy: Suppose all Wood River Valley residents ignored their daily health but took antibiotics when someone got the flu. If a new person showed flu symptoms, even stronger antibiotics were consumed: with unnecessary cost and harm to the community. Instead, the newer, healthier landscaping practices provide greater efficiency, reduced costs, and the least possible hazard to people, property, and the environment. 

Whatever landscaper you choose, take time to learn about the science guiding their methods, the ingredients in their materials, and their philosophy of landscape care.

I'll be traveling for the next two weeks - so back to you on April 23...Jima Rice