The San Lorenzo Valley Water District Board of Directors on May 8 debated and voted 3-2 to approve a plan addressing the rampant French broom growth in its Olympia Wellfield in Felton.
The plan, as proposed by director Margaret Bruce and narrowly approved by the board, had five distinct provisions.
When District Manager Brian Lee officially announced the board action the next day, in a press release that was emailed to media, posted on the district’s website and emailed on May 10 to the district’s email list, it mentioned only three of the provisions.
Missing from Lee’s press release about the board action – which was distributed by the district’s Santa Cruz public relations firm, Miller Maxfield – was a provision that directed “an immediate hand eradication program” in the Olympia Wellfield. This provision, as described by Bruce and clarified at the meeting for dissenting directors Bill Smallman and Eric Hammer, was for “cutting only,” and would involve no herbicides.
The provision also said this no-herbicide cutting of the French broom would be implemented using the $25,000 budgeted for invasive plant removal in the current district budget.
Also missing from Lee’s press release sent out by Miller Maxfield was a provision that directed staff to calculate the cost of manual removal of the invasive plants from the watershed – without using herbicides – and add it to the district’s five-year budget documents for the upcoming public debate over water rates.
Lee’s announcement did give prominent mention to the fifth provision in the board’s May 8 vote – to begin cutting French broom and carefully applying the herbicide glyphosate to the stumps, identifying large “mother plants” (in Bruce’s words) as the targets of this chemical eradication effort.
Lee’s announcement gave that action top billing, going so far as to say that a “super bloom” of the yellow-flower shrub had “inspired” the board to “take a stand to protect the Olympia watershed.”
That provision – to apply the controversial herbicide using the “cut-and-stump” method before a “blue-ribbon task force” to be created by the board could weigh in on the method’s safety or effectiveness – inspired Hammer and Smallman to vote against Bruce’s five-part plan.
When asked why two of the five provisions of the high-profile decision were omitted from the release and who made that decision, public relations consultant Bill Maxfield wrote:
“District staff are confident the press release adequately covers the major points included in the motion that are of greatest interest to the public (selective use of glyphosate; immediate cutting in target locations; applying for a “take permit”; establishment of a task force), understanding that all information/details related to the motion is public and available. The formatting and purpose of the press release is intended to present the gist of the news resulting from the motion, as well as overall context.”
The May 8 meeting was not videotaped because it was not a regular board meeting. Maxfield could not say when minutes or audio tapes of the meeting might be available. He also could not provide an immediate answer when asked if either board president Gene Ratcliffe or Bruce had read or approved the text of the announcement before it was released.
“The SLV community has really stepped up to actively participate in the district’s discussions about how to address this issue and we’re better for it,” Lee said in the press release. “We have a plan that enables the district to take immediate action, while also making it clear that we’re very much open to a long-term strategy that moves away from use of herbicide.”
“It’s time to redouble our efforts to consider new ideas for our long-term effort to protect the watershed,” Lee said. “This plan provides the path to do that.”
