Editor’s Note: This questionnaire is part of an ongoing series publishing candidates’ opinions on how they would run the government if they were elected county supervisor. All questionnaires are archived on the Voice of OC Elections Page.
Orange County’s creeks have come under the microscope over the last couple of years amid concerns about what herbicides are getting washed away through local communities and out to sea.
A group of activists dubbed Creek Team highlighted the county’s regular use of herbicides containing a chemical called glyphosate, sparking questions of what it’s doing to the water and also why the creek beds need to be scrubbed of any wildlife.
We asked candidates for county supervisor what they think of the county’s existing policies and what should be done with the creeks moving forward.
Do you think county staff or contractors should use glyphosate based herbicides within the county’s creek beds?
Dixon, Fifth District: No. I do not support using glyphosate-based herbicides in our creek beds. Supervisor Foley voted to continue funding the county’s herbicide application contracts and Orange County residents deserved much stronger oversight of what was being sprayed in their communities and waterways. We still need to maintain our flood control system, but manual and mechanical methods should be used wherever practical. We can keep our flood channels clear while reducing unnecessary chemical use in our waterways.
Foley, Fifth District: No.
Editor’s Note: Voice of OC offered Supervisor Foley a chance to respond to Assemblywoman Dixon’s comments since they specifically targeted her past votes. Dixon was also offered the chance to respond to Foley’s retort, but did not respond.
Foley: “Time to set the record straight. I fought to stop creek spraying and cancel contracts. My complaint led to contractor penalties. I began this fight as Costa Mesa mayor in 2017. Newport Beach banned synthetic herbicides on athletic fields years after Dixon left council. Dixon tried to weaken pesticide oversight by proposing to suspend enforcement of copper boat paint regulations. California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation classifies that paint as a pesticide. She also voted against stronger pesticide notification near schools and declined the Creek Team OC debate I accepted. Residents deserve answers.”
Shaw, Fourth District: It is important to start with the premise that keeping creeks and waterways free of weeds is vital to preventing flooding during storms, so this is not a luxury but a necessity. I would want decisions involving herbicides to be based on the best available science, applicable environmental and public-health standards, and the specific conditions of the site. Protecting flood-control infrastructure is important, but so is protecting residents, workers, wildlife and water quality. Where effective and economically reasonable alternatives are available that reduce environmental or health concerns, the county should evaluate and use them.
Traut, Fourth District: I oppose routine use of glyphosate in County creek beds while legitimate health and environmental concerns remain unresolved. The County was right to test manual and mechanical alternatives in San Juan and Trabuco Creeks while investigations and expert reviews continue. We have to maintain flood control capacity, but we should not unnecessarily risk public health or our waterways. Where safer methods are feasible, we should use them, study the results, and let the evidence guide long-term policy.
If you don’t support the use of glyphosate, what alternative methods of handling the creeks do you think should be implemented?
Dixon, Fifth District: I would prioritize manual and mechanical vegetation removal rather than relying on chemical herbicides. I also think the county should work with groups like Creek Team OC, whose members have spent considerable time researching this issue and advocating for safer alternatives. We should also look seriously at long-term revegetation and habitat restoration where appropriate, rather than repeatedly clearing the same areas. The goal should be to keep our flood channels functioning while reducing chemical use and doing a better job protecting the surrounding habitat.
Foley, Fifth District: I prefer manual and mechanical removal methods, followed by organic compounds. We must end routine spraying of toxic chemicals in our waterways; public health must remain paramount. My non toxic advisory committee continues to work to bring alternatives forward for board consideration.
Shaw, Fourth District: The county should evaluate an integrated vegetation-management approach that can include mechanical removal, targeted vegetation management and other proven methods. Different creek environments may require different solutions. Whatever method is selected has to keep flood-control channels functional while considering cost, effectiveness, worker safety and environmental impacts.
Traut, Fourth District: I would prioritize the alternatives the County is now testing, including manual and mechanical vegetation management, while making sure flood-control needs are still met. The purpose of the pilot should be to determine which methods are effective, environmentally responsible, and financially sustainable. I also support bringing in independent experts and state regulators so long-term policy is based on evidence, not assumptions.
Noah Biesiada is a Voice of OC reporter. Contact him at nbiesiada@voiceofoc.org.
