'Eradication' only leads to chemical exposure

Following the milfoil/lake herbicide issue is a little confusing. I get the impression no one knows whether eradication is possible. "Eradication" means complete elimination of the weed from the lake, such that it does not recur (unless re-introduced from outside sources).

The pitch is "grit your teeth for this big costly one-shot eradication; then it's all over, no more milfoil and no more herbicides." Well, maybe that's a tradeoff. But last year's herbicide clearly did not eradicate. So here we go — year two.

If it turns out to work, in how many years may we confidently expect herbicide will completely remove (eradicate) milfoil and thereafter be guaranteed no further poison applied to the lake?

But if it becomes clear (after how many more attempts?) that herbicides in fact will not eradicate milfoil, will that be recognized, and consequently no more herbicide be applied?

Or will this morph into a new annual festivity to temporarily reduce milfoil (like the roadside weed spray program)? Then we just get used to one more regular exposure to hazardous chemicals?

STEVE WILLEY

Sandpoint