The St. Joseph County Road Commission has announced that it will be doing a ‘test spray’ of chemicals this fall to control brush in the road right-of-way along approximately 18 miles of roadway. The program is designed to aid drainage and contain roadside brush that could obstruct motorists’ vision.
Roads affected will be Shimmel from M-86 to US-12, Michigan Ave. from Fulton to Correll, Correll from M-60 to Michigan Ave., Shannon from M-60 to Blossom, Longnecker from Correll to Shorts, and Fulton from Michigan Ave. North to County Line. “No Spray Permits” will be available this week, at the road commission office or on line at http://www.stjoeroads.com/permits/permits.htm for property owners, in the affected areas, to opt out of the spraying program by signing a contract agreeing to take responsibility for controlling brush themselves.
Source: News release from St. Joseph County Road Commission
“…‘test spray’ of chemicals…”
Did they name the chemicals and their concentration?
Ruth,
No specifics were given regarding chemicals and concentration. I’ll check to see if any additional information is available.
Bruce Snook
River Country Journal
OK….so I guess foraging for edible weeds and such is probably outa the question here…..good to know.
This quote I found a bit alarming…..
“….for property owners, in the affected areas, to opt out of the spraying program by signing a contract agreeing to take responsibility for controlling brush themselves……”
Not to seem insensitive to the cost burden placed on our County government from our from our state yet again, ……..BUT……..I dunno —depending on what they are spraying, that potentially seems like a heckuva choice as a property owner…let’s see –let them spray God knows what next to your property and deal with with any potential risks any potential after effects -OR- take on the responsibility to pay to do their job yourself or actually do their job yourself. As a property owner, I don’t think I should have to sign off on taking ownership of brush removal because I don’t want potential impacts of such chemicals that potentially may impact me or my property because its cheaper for them to spray to do their job to clear the right of way. I know they have a right to and a need to keep the right of way clear, but I dunno about that meaning as a property owner I have to let them do it by a means that may impact me or mine on the property that is not in their right of way. What about groundwater infiltration, what about wind drift impacts to inhalation or other plants, animals on the adjacent property that would be minimally impacted by more conventional methods. I mean they are calling it a test spray….that sounds less than definitive if they gotta test it.
As a reference point ….Let’s say my trees and brush and such are encroaching on my neighbors property, and infringing on their quality of life….I’m kinda short on funds because of all the state. local and Federal taxes, increased utility expenses and diminished wages. So can I just spray whatever these government folks are using to address this little problem unless my neighbors object at which point I can then put the burden of trimming that up on my neighbors???? Or lets say I’m getting tired of being fined all the time for my grass being too tall and I just don’t have the time or money to mow….can I just spray all that down without penalty?
And its called a “Test spray”…..I dunno about you but that’d make the old sphincter do a power wink just a smidge if someone were conducting a “test anything” next to my property (I feel like a lab rat enough in my life as it is). Test for what? Test to see how it works , test to see if it really saves money, test to see if the adjacent property owner wakes up with a 3rd testicle, or he or she poops out something that speaks 3 languages fluently? What’s the pass fail criteria of this test (and I hope they aren’t grading on the curve).
I dunno, but I’d want to know what it is they are spraying and make darn sure it was OK. Maybe after that it may seem more OK appropriate to go with option C) which involves none of the above and an attorney…(hello……, yes I’d like to speak to Ms. Brockavich) and then see how much cheaper that is than the standard way.
Here’s an approach the road commission might wanna do that’ll get you a two for one benefit….years ago when I was a kid, (OK, so that was many years ago) in the Summer I’d sometimes go on short runs with my grampa who drove truck for a living. He said on the routes up in Northern Michigan the roads were in some places pretty hilly and treacherous in the winter when iced over, were now alot harder to keep clear because they could no longer use what he called salt brine….he claimed at that time it was cheaper and more effective to keep the roads de-iced than the salt and sand they went to. And the reason wasn’t cost or effectiveness, it was the runoff from the saltbrine that killed alot of the vegetation from runoff–maybe there’s more to it than just that as the reason they switched that was just the way it was explained to me.. But unless there were other drawbacks to that method, seems to me you’d get a cheaper cost for de-icing and kill the adjacent vegetation as a natural by-product.
RCJ Readers,
The St. Joseph County Road Commission reports the following regarding the chemicals and their concentration: “The product and mix is 3 qts. Garlon 4 plus 1 ½ oz Escort per 100 gals. of water. This mix is applied at 1-200 gals. per acre, depending upon the size and density of the brush encountered. This is at the bottom end of that range overall for the roadsides treated.”
Bruce Snook
River Country Journal
What is more expensive, a tractor, operator and mower, or a tractor, operator and Garlon 4? It’s not just the economics, but the ecologics as well. Somebody is stuck in the old days.