By Marcy Stamper
Half of the no-spray agreements Okanogan County has with property owners who have agreed to control weeds and vegetation along the roadside are not being renewed because county staff determined people were not in compliance.
The county has sent certified letters to about 60 property owners notifying them that after reviewing previous years’ performance they have determined their agreement is ineligible for renewal. The agreements are county wide, but the majority are in the Methow Valley, according to Kenneth Stanley, roadway manager for Okanogan County Public Works.
Stanley has been deluged with calls from more than a dozen people who received the letter, which was dated Feb. 25. “We went about the evaluation fairly. We had to treat everyone the same,” he said.
The county has been revising the way it manages weeds and vegetation on county rights-of-way to improve control. In the process, the county commissioners asked about the no-spray program and decided to have Public Works staff review all contracts from previous years, said Stanley.
For many people, the notification that they were ineligible for renewal was the first they heard that they were not in compliance. Erin Bosco, who lives outside Carlton, said the non-renewal notice was the first they learned that their efforts to mow and pull weeds had not been adequate.
Bosco talked to Stanley, who explained that it was clear she had been making an effort but that the landowner contracts require a one-foot zone free of vegetation next to the pavement.
Other property owners received their annual renewal notice. Stina Booth, of Booth Canyon Orchards, who grows organic fruit in Carlton, said she mows the area next to the roadside as far as possible three to four times a year, and that the county seems to be satisfied. She got her renewal notice in the mail this week.
Bosco said they signed the no-spray agreement with the county about five years ago, after witnessing an unmarked truck belonging to a contract sprayer that applied herbicide randomly, killing several of their trees. When she complained, Public Works staff recommended they enter into a no-spray agreement, she said.
“I know they think it’s safe, but I don’t want it in the air, around my children or my pets,” said Bosco.
County will contract out spraying
The county plans to use a contractor for most weed control, including application of a fall residual spray, which is intended to prevent the growth of vegetation on the edge of the road. There will likely be some contact spraying — for specific noxious weeds — in the summer, said Stanley.
“If something [a class A or B noxious weed] pops up, by law, we have to address it,” he said.
The residual is used primarily to create the “sterilant” zone free of plants from the edge of the asphalt to the bottom of the ditch, said Stanley. The width of the entire sprayed area varies, depending on the right-of-way, the distance to grass, and the presence of noxious weeds, he said.
“We don’t want a kill zone just to have a kill zone. If grass is maintained, it’s a good thing — it keeps weeds out,” said Stanley.
The county put out a request for proposals from contractors to maintain more than 1,300 miles of county roadway, which were due in December. They are still working out the terms with a potential contractor, said Stanley.
Weed and vegetation control uses different chemicals depending on the location, the type of weeds, and the proximity to other plants such as orchards and pine trees, said Stanley. In addition, the county can’t use the same chemicals year after year without developing resistance in plants. When finalized, the contract will list the chemicals to be used, he said.
While the county does not charge people to be in the no-spray program, there are costs associated with it, including putting up markers that indicate where crews should stop and resume spraying, sending out mailings, and conducting inspections, said Stanley.
Stanley did not have a breakdown of the costs of administering the program. The costs of roadside weed control for the coming year are still being negotiated with the contractor, he said.
No appeals
People whose contracts have been canceled will not have an opportunity to appeal, said Stanley. The terms of the agreements are set out in the original contract, which specify that the property owner must comply or the agreement will be revoked.
In addition to the 12-inch plant-free area, contracts state that vegetation beyond that zone cannot be more than 6 inches tall. There can also be no growth of any plants on the county’s noxious weed list.
Failure to follow the terms of agreement will result in nonrenewal, allowing the county to control weeds by any appropriate method, according to the contract. The contracts also give the county the right to bill the property owner for the costs of weed control following a notice of termination. Stanley said there are currently no plans to bill anyone.
In a discussion at the county commissioners’ meeting on Tuesday (March 3), the commissioners said people whose contracts have been revoked will not be able to rejoin the no-spray program, said Stanley.
Minutes from county commissioners’ meetings over the past year show that the commissioners were growing frustrated with the lack of compliance with the no-spray contracts and were exploring new approaches to improve the county’s vegetation control.
Bosco said Stanley had explained that the Public Works staff were in agreement about the new policy and that she would have to take up the issue with the county commissioners. Bosco said she plans to do so. “I don’t want herbicides and pesticides near my property,” she said.
