Illegal Mosquito Treatments

by Cindy Goldstein and Kathy Savolt -

The controversy surrounding the mosquito problem has only worsened in the past few weeks.  People report that swarms of mosquitoes have forced families to stay indoors or to endure multiple bites that can cause severe itching and allergic reactions.  Residents have signed petitions, sent emails and letters to Village officials, and some are even calling for a “regime change” and want everyone – elected and appointed – to resign. 

Meanwhile, the Mamaroneck Observer continues to follow the facts.  It is now clear that the Village ignored New York State and Federal laws, sprayed toxic chemicals, misled the public and sprayed private yards using taxpayer funds.

In our previous article (see HERE), we summarized what was known at that time but there were many open questions some of which can now be answered.

Larvicide Treatments Approved for Decades

The Mamaroneck Observer obtained and reviewed the Village’s permit applications to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) to apply larvicide around Otter Creek for several years prior to 2024.  That was the first year the DEC denied the application because the Village did not own the land adjacent to the areas to be treated.  A careful review of the years prior showed that the Village consistently completed the forms indicating that they were the “riparian owners” of the land, which is not accurate.  The land is currently owned by the Westchester Land Trust (WLT) and prior to them, The Nature Conservancy.

A riparian owner is the landowner of property adjacent to a water body.  That was not the case for Otter Creek.

Former Village staff have asserted that the Village was acting as an “agent” of the owner and submitted correspondence from the previous owners to support that in the applications to DEC.  They also told the Observer that they regularly communicated with DEC staff to ensure the applications were proper.  DEC issued the permits for many years so there was no reason to think there was anything wrong – until 2024 when DEC denied the permit application because the Village did not own the property.   (See HERE for DEC email strand.)  The Mamaroneck Observer reached out to the DEC to clarify this issue but multiple phone calls and messages went unanswered. Editor's Update: Approximately 1 hour after the publication of this article, a DEC Public Information Officer informed us that they would respond to our questions as soon as they could.

Village Began Spraying in 2019

Based on records available to the Observer, the Village began to spray the neighborhoods around Otter Creek in 2019 to augment the larvicide treatments.  This practice continued until 2024.  There is also evidence that the Village sprayed in Harbor Island Park at least one year for the Firemen’s Carnival.

Spraying vs. Fogging

Spraying and fogging are two different methods of applying liquid pesticides.  Spraying distributes larger droplets that fall to the ground quickly and fogging is small droplets that stay in the air longer.  In this article, we are using the term spraying to incorporate both methods.

Spraying from 2019 - 2024

Despite requirements for such, there are no records detailing what the Village actually sprayed but by piecing together other documents we know that in 2019, the Village hired an outside firm to place the larvicide and to spray if the mosquitos had hatched and were airborne.  

From 2020 to 2024, the Village apparently took over the program as evidenced by records of notices in the newspaper and copies of flyers the Village said were distributed to the residents of the areas to be sprayed.

No Permits on File

In response to an inquiry by the Observer, Village staff reported that no evidence was found that the Village applied for or received the required DEC permits for any of the spraying.

Village Manager Had An Applicator License but It Was the Wrong One

Then Village Manager, Jerry Barberio, held a commercial pesticide applicator license (see HERE) and there are anecdotal reports that he drove the truck and sprayed the area himself.  This activity is unusual for a Village Manager.

Although Barberio held a commercial pesticide applicator license, he did not have the required classification (or training) to legally spray on property.  According to DEC guidelines, the proper classification would be number 8, and Barberio was only authorized for 3a (trees, shrubs, flowers, and turf) and 5B aquatic insects.  (See HERE).

Toxic Chemicals Sprayed Without Permits

Documents were found that indicate the Village placed notices (see sample HERE) in the official newspaper (The Journal News) and sent notices to the community (see sample HERE). These notices list the materials the Village may be spraying – Anvil 2+2 and Merus 3.0 both of which require DEC permits.  No reports exist of what was sprayed, which is also a requirement of the law.  These notices indicated that “The products used are registered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and are applied in accordance with state and federal permits”. 

This language acknowledges that various permits were required; however, there is no evidence that any permits for spraying were ever applied for or received.

Other Permits Required?

There is a likelihood that both a SPDES (State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) and NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit may have been required.  Application of pesticides is considered “point source pollution,” and if discharge reaches waterways, permits are generally required.  See HERE for factors to consider.  Failure to obtain an NPDES permit constitutes a violation of the Federal Clean Water Act.

What Pesticides Were Applied?

Anvil 2+2 is described by its manufacturer as “toxic to aquatic organisms, including fish and aquatic invertebrates.”   They also state that Anvil is highly toxic to bees.  See HERE.

Merus 3.0, a botanical pesticide, is a much less toxic substance but more toxic than larvicide which is a bacterial substance.  By 2024, the Village’s notices only mention Merus.

Merus 3.0 uses botanical insecticides called pyrethrins, an organic compound extracted from chrysanthemum flowers.  When applied properly, Merus 3.0 presents a low risk to human health, but guidelines still suggest that people and pets move indoors during spraying.  The VOM included in their notices that spraying would occur between 4 am and 6 am to avoid direct contact with people and pets.  See HERE.

But Merus 3.0 is not without risk.  The SDS for Merus 3.0 states that “this pesticide is toxic to aquatic organisms including fish and aquatic invertebrates.”  It goes on to say, “This product is highly toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment on blooming crops or weeds.  Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to blooming crops or weeds, while bees are foraging the treatment area…”  See HERE.

Private Residential Yards Sprayed

As the Village sprayed local streets, apparently they also sprayed some residents’ yards, but no written records were found to identify which properties received treatments.  These applications on private residential properties were done with taxpayer dollars.

Public Was Misled About Spraying

Shore Acres area residents were sent emails, notice was posted on the VOM website and newspaper ads were placed.  The notifications, however, were misleading.  They show Merus 3.0 and Anvil 2+2 as “biological pesticides,” which they clearly are not.  Each comes with a manufacturer’s warning and can be toxic to wildlife.

In July 2022, a concerned Shore Acres resident asked for reassurance that the products were not going into the wetlands.   Barberio sent information that the water levels were low and that they were using a bacterium without directly answering the resident’s question.  See HERE.

Summary

Except for the DEC larvicide permits, there are no clear and complete records on what the Village did regarding mosquito control.  However, conclusions can be drawn from incomplete records, notices, emails, attachments to other records, anecdotal information from former employees and residents, and other available material.  It is clear that the Village did not always follow the law – sometimes intentionally - and misled the public about exactly what was happening.  More questions remain, as does a solution to the exasperating mosquito problem.

Editor’s Note: Co-author Kathy Savolt is a resident of the Shore Acres neighborhood.