.
Feedback

Restrictions on Pest Control Operators Help Prevent Pollution

Consumers looking to hire a professional pest control operator should be aware of new regulations.

When ants invade, many homeowners take a big step and hire a professional pest control operator to get rid of the pests fast. However, new regulations from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) mean pest control companies will be following an updated set of guidelines governing their work.

The new regulations restrict the use of 17 pesticides by businesses that apply these pesticides to homes, other structures and landscaped areas. The regulations decrease the amount of pesticides used around structures in perimeter spraying and specifically prohibit pest control applicators and maintenance gardeners from applying pesticides when it rains, when puddles are present and over drains or natural drainage areas, according to DPR. 

Why the new rules? Because runoff from homes and yards to storm drains is a documented source of water pollution. Spraying pesticides around the foundations of homes is a major cause of this runoff pollution. In fact, monitoring data from the California Water Boards indicates widespread pyrethroid pollution in suburban and urban waterways throughout the state; pyrethroids are a commonly used type of pesticide.

“Perimeter spraying of potentially harmful pesticides is a cause of water pollution,” explains Geoff Brosseau, executive director of the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), a regional consortium of stormwater agencies committed to reducing water pollution. “These new regulations will be instrumental is helping to decrease stormwater pollution in the region.”

DPR Director Brian R. Leahy called the new regulations a “milestone” because they will protect surface water from structural pesticide use. “The pest control businesses already following these practices voluntarily have found they can effectively treat for ants and other structural and landscape pests. We are confident the regulations will significantly improve the water quality of urban area runoff.”

“BASMAA applauds the Department of Pesticide Regulation for enacting these new rules, and we encourage people to go a step further and choose one of the several pest control operators in the Bay Area who are certified in less toxic, integrated pest management (IPM) methods,” says Brosseau. 

While traditional methods of pest control usually only involve periodic application of pesticides, IPM certified contractors are taught to look for the sources of pests.

IPM includes is a decision-making process that guides pest managers toward efficient, effective, and sustainable pest management that emphasizes pest prevention, use of non-chemical methods and has minimal impact on stormwater runoff, people, and the surrounding environment.

To find lists of pest control operators in the Bay Area who are certified in less-toxic integrated pest management or for more information on less toxic pest control, visit BayWise.org.

Hal Schuette July 22, 2012 at 11:31 am
Regarding Pest Control,
Most homeowners will not call a pest Control Co and will control pests on their own. Unless Homeowners are provided with safe instructions, they will continue their dangerous practices. New Information regarding acceptable products need to be reported.
Rick Eymer July 22, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Hal,
Thanks for the response and suggestion. A couple of links have been added to the story to help people seeking such information.
Bob Cancilla July 22, 2012 at 01:16 pm
This is a very important article. Please consider publishing it in all San Mateo County Patch newsletters.
Daniel Rogers August 10, 2012 at 12:26 pm
This is very important. We must be aware of how certain pesticides can affect the environment and find new ways to prevent pests and keep the environment healthy. I came across some home remedies on http://www.pestexterminator.com/do-it-yourself-pest-control/ , that are environmentally safe and effective. However if the problem gets to big and i have to call a professional i would definitely make sure the methods that they use are environmentally safe and harmless.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from San Carlos Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Bob Winters June 18, 2013 at 08:51 am
Best of luck finding good homes, we already have two cats. You may want to consider this advertisingRead More technique: http://i41.tinypic.com/2s17tk0.jpg
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:07 pm
Marl Olbert said this right after refusing to second Matt Grocott's motion for 2 week delay of vote.Read More I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary. both in terms of compensation and provision I think part because he has never been a city manager before. and he had to prove himself. you can make a argument that that wasn't fair. if you think the person is capable for doing the job not necessarily the fact that they don't have the experience. it happens all over the place it happened to me personally it's just a part of the accepted process but another part of the accepted process is that if the person proves themselves you have to keep faith with them and if you don't you're actually sending a message You're saying that you can't trust us and i totally think that Mr. Maltbie is worth the pay, but besides that i think it is a issue of integrity and maintaining the integrity of the negotiation process and the hiring process that's why I'm going to vote yes for it.
Michael G. Stogner June 15, 2013 at 05:08 pm
I would like to know who those various people were who gave Mark Olbert that understanding.
Michael G. Stogner June 17, 2013 at 04:54 pm
Council member Mark Olbert one who refused to second Mr. Grocott's motion made an interestingRead More statement. "I wasn't here at the time but i talked to various people who were. It's my understanding that when Mr. Maltbie was hired into this position he was offered a significantly below market salary." I know for a fact that he didn't talk to Matt Grocott who was there. That leaves 3 potentials, 2 of them are deceased and the 3rd was Andy Klein who did not attend that meeting so he didn't vote. I would like to know who the "various people who were" are.
Marc Parent June 11, 2013 at 07:50 am
San Carlos just spent 10 Million after lawsuit from the "Bay Keepers", more activistsRead More wanting more money?
Holly Bell June 8, 2013 at 01:23 pm
Unbelievable!! Many voters are watching this issue closely and will remember this vote. Evidently,Read More these commissioners believe that resident's have no voice in city decision-making. Someone please name those commissioners who disregarded the loud-and-clear preference of the people. Time to clean house.
Bob Farkas June 8, 2013 at 02:01 pm
The two commissioners who voted for turf were John Seiling and Ray Merala. It was Ray's lastRead More meeting as a commissioner since he has termed out after 9+ years of service. I think they felt that the needs of the elite CYSO program should take precedence over neighbors and others who use the park. Youth sports seems a principal influencer at Parks and Rec. as they are the largest organized user of the facilities. I agree with many other opponents of this project that we all need to support adequate fields for youth sports. I just think these needs have to be in balance with those of the rest of the community. It was very disappointing that, although it is field availability which is purportedly driving this initiative, there was no available recent data to demonstrate the problem or an analysis of how much of the problem would be addressed by this measure. To a businessman like me, this seems a very unprofessional approach.
Concerned Taxpayer June 8, 2013 at 07:08 pm
This is purely a NIMBY issue. Lets just all be honest about that. The folks who live across fromRead More Highlands Park were the loudest opponents there and were citing all kinds of crazy issues when they should have just been honest and said,"I really don't want to look at more people and cars at the public park that is across the street from me and was there when I moved in." That is essentially the true gripe. NIMBY!!! A very weak argument and unelectable dishonest. Unless you can create more land we have to extend the use at existing parks and fields. This is very logical. We live in California and having to use astro turf stinks but we also live where there is no more available land to utilize. The commissions punted this to the council pure and simple. Well we already know who will vote against it. I am curious who will vote for it?????
Bill June 5, 2013 at 02:53 pm
This post makes zero sense. Bike lanes are a visual reminder to drivers that they must share theRead More road with riders. For every cyclist who is not observing the rules of traffic, I will show you 100 texting drivers. Removing bike lanes is not the answer.