Glyphosate is one of the most heavily used herbicides in the world. Regulatory decisions surrounding its approval have relied on research evaluating toxicity, exposure limits, and environmental impact. When a study that helped shape public confidence is pulled back, it naturally raises broader questions. Science is meant to evolve. That’s not a flaw — it’s the process. But it does highlight the importance of independent review, long-term data, and open disclosure of funding and methodology.

The same framework applies to aquatic herbicides used in lakes, ponds, and reservoirs. These products are also deemed safe when applied according to label directions, based on studies measuring water concentration levels, species sensitivity, and breakdown rates. Yet water systems are complex. Variables such as temperature, oxygen levels, sediment composition, and nutrient loading all influence outcomes in real-world conditions. Ongoing evaluation matters.

For communities managing aquatic vegetation, the discussion often comes down to balancing effectiveness, cost, and environmental impact. Mechanical harvesting, for example, physically removes vegetation from the water body — along with the nutrients contained in that plant material. Left in place, excessive vegetation eventually dies and decomposes, releasing nutrients that can contribute to algae blooms and reduced oxygen levels. Different management tools bring different trade-offs.

What the glyphosate retraction ultimately reinforces is this: sound environmental decisions depend on sound science. That science must be transparent, repeatable, and open to scrutiny. Whether addressing agricultural weeds or aquatic vegetation, long-term ecosystem health depends on continually testing assumptions and being willing to re-examine conclusions when new information emerges.

Read More

Eurasian water milfoil grows aggressively, uprooting native vegetation, disrupting aquatic habitats, and interfering with recreation. By 2013, the Commission was spending up to $250,000 per year on herbicide treatments to control approximately 300 acres of milfoil. Grants helped fund these efforts, but by the mid-2010s, funding had dwindled to around $50,000 annually.

After a decade of chemical treatment, the Commission made a bold decision to stop using herbicides altogether. The results? Within a few years, the milfoil population began rebounding. According to the aquatic ecologist who has monitored these lakes for 18 years, the plant is “too big, it’s too much” for manual removal alone, which costs roughly $2,500 per day.

The lesson is clear: eradication with herbicides is expensive, temporary, and environmentally damaging. Even if chemicals were used without regard for ecological impacts, controlling the entire population long-term is not practical.

Instead, a management-focused approach should to taken to target plants that interfere with navigation and recreation rather than attempting total eradication. Mechanical harvesting offers a solution; it doesn’t attempt to eliminate every plant but efficiently manages growth, maintains recreational access, and avoids repeated herbicide costs.

After more than a decade of observation, the evidence is in: spending hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing eradication with chemicals is far less effective than strategic, mechanical management. It’s time for a shift in mindset: toleration and control, rather than endless eradication efforts, may be the only sustainable way forward for our lakes.

Read more about the Lower Eagle River Chain of Lakes Commission’s milfoil efforts

The risks of using glyphosate go beyond immediate environmental concerns. Studies suggest that its residues in waterbodies can accumulate over time, affecting not just fish but also amphibians and other organisms. In sensitive habitats, such as those with crocodiles or endemic species, these chemicals may alter reproductive cycles and hinder growth, leading to population declines. Furthermore, introducing glyphosate without addressing pollution sources, such as sewage inflow, only provides a temporary fix. Experts emphasize the need for thorough environmental assessments and long-term monitoring before opting for chemical interventions. Sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives, such as biological control using weevils or mechanical removal, offer safer solutions to protect India’s vulnerable aquatic ecosystems.

Read More

Port officials say a state spraying program failed to control the hyacinth, so they contracted with a Bay Area company to mechanically remove it; removing over 375,000 pounds of the invasive water hyacinth

The infestation has prevented yacht groups from visiting downtown Stockton events and according to Stockton Alliance Director Leandro Vicuna, the problem is hurting local businesses.

Read More

Lake George is among the clearest and cleanest large lakes in the World. Over 90% of the watershed remains as natural forestland with half of that protected as forever-wild Forest Preserve. And, Lake George serves as the primary source of drinking water for surrounding communities and residents. 

Like many lakes, Lake George has been impacted by invasive Eurasian milfoil. First discovered in 1986, it has been managed over the past 30 years at a cost of over $5 million. To date hand-harvesting and matting have been used to control the milfoil, in 2020 186,590 pounds (about 93 tons) of milfoil was removed from Lake George.

The milfoil continues to grow in Lake George and in an effort to eliminate the dense milfoil beds, the Lake George Park Commission, in charge of managing the lake wanted to try aquatic herbicides and received a permit to do so. However, the Lake George Association and a large number of the public raised objections to the use of herbicides in their beloved Lake George.

The Lake George Association felt  there were too many unknowns about its impact on nontarget species, to native plants, animals, and even to human health for those people who still use the lake for their drinking water. The association sued to stop the use of the aquatic herbicide use and a state Supreme Court judge ruled in favor of the herbicide treatment.

Read More

Officials determined that that fish died from a low dissolved oxygen level in the water, basically suffocating the fish.

The low dissolved oxygen level was a result of multiple factors. Days before the fish kill, LDWF treated Bayou Rouge with a herbicide that targets specific plant life in the bayou and is deemed safe for aquatic animals. The decaying plant life at the bottom of the bayou from the herbicide, combined with the hot water temperatures, was stirred by the heavy rainfall. Those factors severely reduced the dissolved oxygen in the water, killing the fish.

“I do not know if there would have been a fish kill if we had not done the herbicide treatment,” said Daniel Hill, LDWF Biologist Manager Inland for Region Six. “It was very unfortunate timing.”

Read More

ProcellaCOR was recommended for use in Cocasset Lake by Joseph Onorato, an aquatic specialist with Water & Wetland LLC of Upton, which has been hired to provide treatment services by the Cocasset Lake Association.

Oronato characterized the chemical as a “miracle milfoil control solution.” This treatment would not eradicate milfoil altogether, he added, but would control the species for three years or more, during which time officials can focus on other offending plants, like fanwort, which has been identified in the privately-owned lake.

Read More

The APA conducted monitoring and said the herbicide eliminated all traces of Eurasian Watermilfoil and found no significant impact on other plants, or degradation in wetlands. However, not every group tasked with caring for Lake George or the Adirondacks is convinced about ProcellaCOR EC yet.  There isn’t enough long-term evidence of the herbicide’s safety. Some factors have to be measured over a lot of time.

In some cases, other states have made their own observations about the effectiveness of ProcellaCOR EC and the drawbacks that could manifest. From a document on the herbicide’s use by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources:

“It is important to note that repeated use of herbicides with the same mode of action can lead to herbicide-resistant plants, even in aquatic plants. Certain hybrid Eurasian watermilfoil genotypes have been documented to have reduced sensitivity to aquatic herbicides. In order to reduce the risk of developing resistant genotypes, avoid using the same type of herbicides year after year, and utilize effective, integrated pest management strategies as part of any long-term control program.”

Read More https://www.news10.com/news/north-country/inside-the-herbicide-that-may-see-use-in-lake-george/

Aquatic herbicides, which are applied directly into the water to kill the invasive species, are approved for use in the United States, many of them pose potential risks to human health and the environment. More significantly, direct application into the water means that these chemicals may drift away from the original treatment site, attacking a much larger area of the lake or pond and possibly affecting swimmers or wildlife in areas which may not have posted pesticide warnings.

2,4-D a relatively fast-acting systemic herbicide is widely used across America is able to travel though soil pathways and into groundwater, contaminating wells located near an aquifer of waterbody treated with the herbicide. It has been shown to reduce the rate of survival in ducks and waterfowl and has is highly lethal to endangered Chinook salmon smolts and fry as well as juvenile pink salmon.

Read More

The invasive weed aggressively outgrows and outcompetes native aquatic plants. It can then clog irrigation systems and ponds, and even push out native species of fish and other aquatic life.

So far, four ponds have been treated with an aquatic herbicide to remove the Eurasian watermilfoil, but the success of the effort won’t truly be known until next growing season to see if the plant greens up.

Read More