Judge Suspends Santa Cruz Spray: What Happened to the "Emergency?"

The aerial spray controversy as played out in the media and among citizen groups has so far been framed as a health and environmental debate, and a California Supreme Court judge has brought a sliver of common sense to this framework today:

"A judge today ordered aerial spraying in Santa Cruz County against the light brown apple moth be halted until the state conducts a comprehensive environmental review of the impacts. The ruling came as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger separately announced in Sacramento that the state would postpone planned spraying to eradicate the moth in the 12 counties where it has been found until a series of safety tests could be completed...'It brings into question their whole campaign that this is an emergency situation,' [said county spokeswoman Dinah Phillips.]" [Full Story]

But while identifying the potential health and environmental impacts of the spray is extremely important, I can't help but feel that we're still arguing over a red herring. Because no one has conclusively demonstrated:

• That LBAM is an immediate threat to anything;
• That LBAM can even be eradicated by aerial spraying;
• What kind of damage is likely to actually occur if alternative treatments are pursued.

Strategic planning 101 (along with good old common sense) tells us that before we jump ahead to implementing questionable methodology, we need to first identify the exact problem we're trying to solve, and then identify the most logical approach to solving this problem. Only then can we begin to suggest specific tactics. The chronology looks like this:

1. Identify the problem.
   The problem is not necessarily the existence of LBAM. The problem - according to CDFA and Suterra - is preserving California's agricultural economy. But the State, with prompting from the feds, has jumped to the simplistic conclusion that eradicating LBAM is the only way to save California's agricultural economy.
   
2. Identify the most effective approach.
   But does complete eradication even make sense? Or is controlling the LBAM population a more effective approach to solving the problem?
   
3. Identify all tactical options.
   This is where policy makers tend to screw up royally, whether they're at the government, business or community level. They go for the familiar first, not the most logical or the most effective. Because of that, it becomes essential when making important decisions (ones that impact the health of people and planet) to look at all options before picking one.
4. Weigh the options according to multiple factors.
   Once you open the process up to possibilities, you can weigh those possibilities according to various factors (cost, logistical implementation, effectiveness at solving the identified problem, public opinion, environmental and health impacts, etc). The CDFA, unfortunately, has allowed their own agenda to weigh more heavily than, say, the public health agenda. Ultimately, though, any quality decision-making process must measure all of these factors, giving fair weight to each.

So there you have it: a logical process that leads to good solutions. Of course, this isn't the process the State is using. They declared an "emergency," enabling them to bypass the few regulations that actually protect the public, and immediately picked a solution that would benefit them and their Big Ag business partners.

CDFA has already said they'll appeal the judges stay, of course. But now they've got more at stake, because if the delay does not result in LBAM causing significant and immediate damage, there goes their case. Maybe that's why they were in such a hurry to spray us down in the first place.