Tauranga loses its spray-free reputation

Tauranga's "95 per cent spray free" status has been axed by the city council under pressure from environmental organisations.
Green Party co-convenor and retired GP Ron Lopert said the number of exemptions granted since the council passed its anti-toxic sprays policy in 1992 had made a nonsense of the policy.
He said it was ridiculous to try to claim the city was 95 per cent spray free: "It is very empty spin and rhetoric."
The arguments of the Greens, Spraywatchers and other environmental watchdogs have finally persuaded the council to scrap its slogan that Tauranga was 95 per cent spray free.
Council communications adviser Michelle Elborn said the decision was made by Mayor Stuart Crosby at a meeting with environmental groups because it was extremely difficult to define the exact percentage of chemical spraying.
The council agreed in September that its policies governing weed control were out of date and needed to be reviewed.
The relevance of the slogan against the now routine chemical spraying of some areas of the city was sparked by controversy around the council's use of a spray linked to testicular cancer and breast cancer to control earthworms in Blake Park sports fields.
Dr Lopert said a meeting on October 8 chaired by an independent mediator between council and environmental organisations resulted in agreement that a draft of a new policy would be brought next April or May, with input from community groups. The earthworm spray Thiodan would be thrown into this mix.
"The council would not give an undertaking that they would not use Thiodan again."
Spraywatchers' Jacqui Martin responded that they would continue to gather signatures for the petition opposing Thiodan until the council banned its use in Tauranga.
The council's September meeting also agreed to work with environmental groups to review turf management practices to control earthworms. It backed an investigation into non-toxic alternatives.
Questions asked by Spraywatchers at the October 8 meeting were answered by council city services manager Ian McDonald and city transportation manager Hennie Roux.
Their letter said that as long as noxious weeds needed controlling, spraying would be required.
During the three years 1992-95 that the city was chemical free, it was shown that not all vegetation could be "practically or successfully managed" using chemical-free alternatives. This had ushered in the exemptions regime.
Becoming chemical free would be a challenge requiring increased use of mechanical control, with significant cost implications, they wrote.
Organic sprays burned weeds but did not kill them, and the the cost was ``prohibitive' _ $32 a litre compared with glyphosate's 15c a litre.
The letter questioned other chemical-free alternatives, describing hot water as very labour intensive and therefore costly.
It said salt sterilised the soil and corroded metal poles; oils did not kill plants; and there were fire safety and cost issues associated with using a naked flame against weeds.
However, they said the council was already minimising or avoiding the use of chemical sprays.
It mechanically trimmed nearly 1100km of concrete road kerbs in the city. Weeds that appear in concrete cracks or joints were controlled by directly applying glyphosate with a soft broom rather than spraying, and weed eaters controlled growth around street and park furniture.
Noxious plants were sprayed on direction from Environment Bay of Plenty and the council targeted problems like onehunga weed in footpath berms around schools. Where the terrain allowed, areas of noxious and invasive plants like wattle and gorse were converted into mowable areas suitable for revegetation.
"In conclusion, council considers its use of chemical spray to be low andin line with current policy. We are however regularly looking for effective alternatives."