The following summarizes the responses of a survey of member agencies in January 2016 regarding the annual expense of managing invasive Aedes and their degree of response and/or preparation.

Total responses to survey 15Percent of Association 15/65=23.1 percent

District/agency name

11 of 15 agencies gave their names5 of 15 agencies have infestations

Labor$0-4$1,200-1$1,350-1$2,500-1$4,500-1$5,000-2$15,000-1$50,000-1$136,177-1$150,000-1$278,000-1

Equipment

$0-8$300-1$500-1$1,200-1$5,600-1$8,400-1$10,000-2

Chemicals

$0-9$400-1$700-1$2,500-1$5,000-1$34,177-1$75,000-1

Outreach campaigns

1

$0-8$100-1$500-1$1,500-1$3,500-1$5,000-1$19,000-1$28,340-1

What percentage of your annual budget does this total cost to control Invasive Aedes constitute?

Range = 0-11 percent

Do you envision raising your current assessment/funding levels to plan for or manage invasive Aedes in the coming year?

One district raised their assessment in fy 2016 so the cost of invasive Aedes went from 2.7 to 4 percent of their budget ($10.293 million for fy 2015)

One district raised their assessment by 4 percent (from $11.34 to $11.80, cap is $20) in fy 2016 to address the cost of invasive Aedes

One needs to but cannot because they reached their assessment cap, and a 218 ballot failed

Did you have to use operational or emergency reserves for Aedes control activities?

One agency used 100 percent of its reserves

How much money do you currently have or could allocate from your emergency reserve to manage invasive Aedes?

$0-7$66,545-1$135,300-1$500,000-2$700,000-1960,000-1$1.14 million-1$1.55 million-1

2

How does your agency determine its reserve policy and what rationale is used to set goals and limits?

We have a Contingent Liability Reserve set at 10% of the operating budget for emergencies of various kinds. 60% of the budget is required in reserve for Operations, the rest are split among a number of specific purpose categories (Plane, Infrastructure, etc.)

Board vote. The majority of our reserves are designated for public health emergencies because preventing them is our district's major function

We estimate projected costs for labor, equipment, chemicals, and outreach for a disease outbreak over a given area based on analysis of past disease activity and control strategies employed for similar emergencies in other parts of the country (e.g. Florida). We are aware that given our District's size, we are unable to set enough reserves for a long term control strategy over all 1,340 square miles of our densely urban jurisdiction.

We have begun to set aside reserve funding for the detection of invasive Aedes, with a maximum set at 16% (2-months) of our Operating budget. This money is set aside with the expectation that invasive Aedes would be detected during the season and monies would need to be available to confront this issue with minimal impact on our typical control activities.

Assume a planning horizon of ten years and estimate a target level for reserves of 150%-200% of annual expenses. Use of funds: Operating Expenses, Capital Improvement Projects, Unanticipated emergency funds, Fixed asset replacement, Administrative costs (assessment measure), etc.

Financial reserve policy allows $500,000 for public health emergencies

Try to maintain 50% of our annual budget in reserves

General Reserve = 80% of reserves Contingency Reserve = 20% of reserves

We have a capital assets reserve. We do not have an emergency reserve. We do not have a written policy. Deposits are guided by future capital improvement needs and depreciation.

How does your agency raise additional revenue?

3

Increase benefit assessment-4

Currently have the ability to increase up to $20 per standard parcel without a Prop 218 vote. Raising assessments is a politically unpopular move that impacts the many publicly elected officials on our Boards.

All of our revenue comes through ad valorem property taxes and a Prop 218 benefit assessment. Increases in revenue come from new parcels, increased property values, or changes in parcel use (i.e., vacant land developed for housing). Our Board can increase the benefit assessment up to the annual inflation index, capped at 3% per year.

Our revenue is property tax only.

Tried a PROP 218 Assessment of $15.00 and failed

We have a Special Tax that the Board can use that was approved by a majority of voters in 1981.

We have three benefit assessments, no sunset. Two can be increased by CPI up to 3% annually.

We have borrowed against anticipated revenue.

The district does not raise additional revenue.

Our district is funded by ad valorem, benefit assessments, and fees for services. Ad valorem and benefit assessments are subject to economic conditions. Fees for services are directly dependent on agreements with clients and services directly provided to the clients.

If state funding were secured, how much funding assistance would your agency need and what would it be used for?

Our current needs are minimal. If aegypti establishes in the District we would seek funds to cover increased treatments and inspections (additional seasonal employees and product as well as outreach materials, $100,000+).

$250,000 - Developing a surveillance and treatment program to address invasive species

4

We would request it during an outbreak of human disease. The amount depends on the magnitude of the problem

Assuming there would be a few years of emergency funding, it would still be difficult to build a better program with long term validity unless major outreach campaigns and innovative control techniques are funded. At this time, eradication in Los Angeles County is virtually impossible and with the presence of these invasive mosquitoes, it would be difficult to prevent an outbreak of dengue, chikungunya or Zika virus. We know from Key West, FL (8 sq.mi.) that even one technician per square mile along with aerial larviciding every 10 days does not prevent the occasional local transmission. Therefore, in order to achieve the same result, assuming 10% of our area is undeveloped and would not have to be treated, we would need 1200 technicians (VCS I Level One salary of $57,432 plus benefits), aerial larviciding would have to occur over 1,200 miles within our jurisdiction (768,000 acres) at a rate of 0.71lb. VectoBac WDG/acre which amounts to 545,280 lbs. of material at $36/lb. for a total cost per treatment of $19,630,080 every ten days. If there is a major outbreak, outreach would be critical. The joint WNV outreach efforts in LA County in 2004, 2005, and 2006 cost $200,000, $98,300, and $25,000 respectively, and that was only for the LA/OC Market and funded mostly media buys. In an outbreak, paid media would be the primary focus for outreach and we wouldn’t have time to increase staffing.

Increased surveillance and control-as much as needed

Minimal...maybe for surveillance/detection

None until invasive Aedes detected, then perhaps additional staffing, educational and material costs.

$10,000

We would need/want $30,000 first year and $80,000 per year, ongoing. The money would be used for a vehicle, etc. and staff increase.

Would you use the funding towards eradicating Invasive Aedes or managing them? Explain the difference in your strategies.

It is too late to eradicate invasive Aedes. Managing an outbreak or preventing one from occurring take a more focal effort.

We are unable to eradicate over such a large infestation area. Managing the infestation will require dedicated Aedes control staff

5

responding to service requests and public education for disease prevention.

Lake County is arguably the most geographically isolated county in the state, and is not likely to see "natural" migration of invasive Aedes mosquitoes. If we are able to detect a new population within a small early enough, then we will attempt eradication. I expect that managing will be mainly increased education and outreach, and response/prevention of disease transmission. Managing invasive Aedes mosquitoes will be the long-term strategy, because it is likely that invasive Aedes will eventually spread throughout most of CA. We need to educate residents and adjust their expectations (eradication is not possible, they need to prevent mosquitoes on their property by removing standing water, they need to use repellents, learn that invasive Aedes transmit serious diseases like dengue, chikungunya, and Zika viruses). We need to test invasive Aedes species for disease. We need our health departments/health officers to notify mosquito control agencies of any suspected dengue, chikungunya, and Zika virus-infected patients immediately so we have the chance to prevent local transmission. Invasive Aedes differ markedly from the native mosquitoes in CA: 1. They are day-biting mosquitoes. 2. They are aggressive biters that target people. 3. They develop in man-made containers commonly found in backyards. 4. Their eggs can remain dry and dormant for years before hatching, so even if they appear to be eradicated, there may be eggs that remain ready to hatch months or years later.

We would try eradication first-exploring the use of Wolbachia or GM along with intensive surveillance and control methods. If eradication wasn't possible, then an increase in public education and continued monitoring/control to help reduce the numbers.

Initially, we would try eradication using aerial missions with Bti. An aerial approach may work better than the ground approaches used to this point. If this were unsuccessful. we would likely use individual service requests from residents, like we do now, with an emphasis on detecting cryptic sources along with homeowner education. This would be integrated with a robust public information program on invasive Aedes. Fortunately, we may have more time to study this problem as our district in in northern California. We are hopeful that by the time we face this challenge other MVCDs have refined available strategies.

Managing - most efforts towards pest eradication have failed historically. These mosquitoes currently are not vectors of disease within California, so if they were detected, we would do our best to

6

manage with the majority of our resources still focused on West Nile virus prevention.

Managing through public education and door to door sanitation.

Depending on the surveillance data--if it is widespread, than management. If a localized introduction, eradication.Expand our Aedes aegypti surveillance program

Funding would be used to manage Aedes. We do not think it is possible to eradicate Aedes.

Hypothetically, we would utilize current staff for an eradication attempt. Funds would go towards increasing surveillance, detection, delineation, pesticide, outreach. If invasive Aedes were to become established, we anticipate that we would have to serve a different client base, treat a different habitat target, which we anticipate will require an additional staff person to become a regular part of managing Aedes aegypti/albopictus. This is dependent on where the infestation is most serious as our funding mechanism and service provided is separated into two zones.

Would this be a one-time funding commitment?

Hopefully. In depth control strategies (Wolbachia, etc.) may include repeated costs.

While a one time funding would be very helpful, continued support would allow for us to add personnel which is critical for continued surveillance and control efforts.

No. Since invasive Aedes are endemic or soon will be, we envision periodic outbreaks, depending on environmental factors.

No, adequate control would require funding over several mosquito seasons

Could be if the eradication methods were successful, or if management was the approach-then a consistent funding source would be needed.

If funding were needed, perhaps ongoing as needed.

I presume when reserves were depleted and funding assistance ends we would attempt an assessment ballot measure.

one-time if we did not find any Aedes

7

Not my preference. We see an infestation by Aedes aegypti/albopictus becoming an ongoing concern requiring a new program for management of an urban pest.

Which of your resources are not sufficient for controlling invasive Aedes?

Funds=7Personnel-9Equipment=6Strategy=4

Explain in the comment box below.

Right now we have only had a single detection of Aedes aegypti in our District. This was at the end of the season and thought to be an isolated "hitchhiker". The actual cost of control if it is established is hard to predict. Additional funds to increase surveillance would be very helpful as most of our limited resources go to detection and control of the WNV vectors.

Our current funding is completely maximized to allow for the most basic control of vectors. With the recent discovery of Aedes mosquitoes within our jurisdiction it has caused us to consider shifting our efforts away from some WNV surveillance programs and towards addressing Aedes mosquitoes. Funding will help us come up with a way to at least address Aedes mosquitoes without neglecting our very active WNV efforts. Since the best way to address Aedes mosquitoes in urban residential areas has been to identify and treat each backyard, which is very labor intensive, additional staff would need to be added to begin to attempt addressing Aedes mosquitoes if we discover multiple pockets of Aedes mosquitoes. We are currently cutting programs due to lack of funding, so any additional equipment costs for trapping and adulticiding backyards or additional testing of Aedes mosquito samples would be unsustainable for our current budget. Currently we do not have adequate funding, personnel, nor equipment to properly address Aedes mosquitoes. Unfortunately this simplifies our strategy. We will not be able to perform any additional surveillance efforts, nor will we be able to perform additional in-depth investigations for breeding sources for Aedes mosquitoes. We will address all mosquitoes in the same fashion regardless of the species.

Vector control agencies must make their best effort with the resources they have. No one can ask for more. We will always lack

8

the items listed above, unless the public buys in to the strategy of managing invasive Aedes on their personal property.

a. Funds: Need more personnel, broader and more comprehensive outreach campaigns b. Personnel: Not enough personnel for labor-intensive ground game c. Equipment: Need additional traps for surveillance, development

of more effective chemicals on Aedes populations d. Strategy: Need develop effective control strategy

I cannot provide a straightforward answer to 14 & 15. Unlike agricultural pests, we have no federal support for control or containment programs for invasive Aedes. Emergency funds for disease control would be appropriate, but ultimately, invasive Aedes are one more challenge--like WNV in the 2000s--that we need to adapt our programs to meet. Outreach will be the most critical part of invasive Aedes. A cohesive message that can be used by all MVCDs--especially smaller ones that cannot support a full-time outreach/education professional--will be the most important part of an effective management program.

We need additional funds to hire additional technicians for house calls and Surveillance. The additional funds would also be used to purchase additional chemicals and Public Awareness.

We currently do not have invasive species in Stanislaus County. If they became established, I'm sure their presence would have a significant impact on all (4) categories above. At that point, the Board and management would need to allocate resources and do the best job at managing this new problem with available resources. Depending on public need, the Board may consider increasing our Special Tax to generate necessary revenue; or, it may decide for us to do the best we can with what we got without increasing taxes. Money from the State would be nice, but this issue is potentially long-term for districts, so making these hard decisions are necessary.

Aedes not yet detected in Santa Cruz County. Would need to complete laboratory remodel, obtain additional spray equipment, hire seasonal staff and a Field Supervisor, perhaps a PIO. Existing staff need further training.

In terms of strategy, we feel the hope for controlling Aedes aegypti and albopictus lies in using methods such as the release of Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes or the release of sterilized male mosquitoes. Of course, that is expensive.

9

An established Aedes aegypti or Aedes albopictus population would require an additional emphasis on mosquito control in urban areas. We have two separate funding mechanisms which, depending on where the mosquitoes are causing problems, could seriously, significantly, and did I say significantly, affect our ability to manage an established population. We anticipate that we would have to add at minimum one seasonal vector control tech.

Can your agency currently address your constituents' needs as it relates to service requests, disease risks, etc.?

Yes. We have limited participation by the public in our District. Most of the control is driven by technician inspection and District surveillance.

Yes. We find away and re-prioritize things as needed. Since Aedes mosquitoes were discovered at the end of the season, we don't know if there will be any increase in day-biting mosquito calls.

No. Our constituents do not yet understand that controlling invasive Aedes is a community effort. Human behavior must change. It is impossible for any vector control agency to perform repeated visits to a given property to control Aedes. A successful community program will reduce the risk of disease transmission.

a. Requests for Service: Averaging 30 service requests/ day and unable to maintain 48 hour turnaround response time public has come to expect.

b. Expectation: Bite pressure on public is high, yet we are unable to adequately provide long-term control and relief.

c. Disease Risk: Currently no local transmission of diseases of concern d. Strategy: All strategies involve door-to-door inspection, hygiene and

education and is labor intensive.

Yes, however our building infrastructure is 1970s. A laboratory is needed for any testing, shower-locker room, shop upgrades is badly needed and we have budgeted $900,000.

With no Aedes the answer is yes

Currently, Aedes aegypti in Kern County have only been collected in one small town. Historically, the folks in these small towns do not complain about mosquitoes until the situation is very bad. These people are used to having critters around.

Yes, we've been rolling along for about 57 years.

10

Two agencies responded “yes”What prevented your agency from planning with the necessary resources in advance of this infestation?

The initial detection of Aedes aegypti in the region was completely unexpected. The sheer irritation to residents caused by the mosquito appears to be taxing for the more urban/suburban districts that are used to dealing with the arguably less aggressive Culex species. Further, WNV continues to be a consistent problem in the district, region, and state. For a small district a majority of resources must go to detection and control of WNV for a large part of the season.

We pursued a benefit assessment for the last year and a half, which was unfortunately unsuccessful. This was our last, best chance of increasing our funding to address any invasive vector issues.

In 2001 we thought we successfully eradicated Aedes albopictus from Los Angeles County. We felt that environmental conditions were too inhospitable for them to sustain a population here. Aedes albopictus was re-discovered here in 2011. Our initial response was based on the perception of our former success, but the population of Ae. albopictus was too well-established, and we are resigned to managing them.

We were one of the first in the state to discover Aedes populations within our jurisdiction. We have been working to acquire necessary resources ever since 2011. Recent weather patterns have not helped our case.

Not enough funding to hire an outreach professional.

We haven't detected the invasives as of yet, so no real roadblocks to date.

nature of the infestation

We are currently setting aside money each year to plan for the possible arrival of invasive species.

Economic downturn and mandatory County hiring freeze and furloughs from 2009 through 2014 postponed remodel and hiring of Vector Ecologist but built up reserves.

Nothing prevented us as this was a localized infestation that was eradicated.

Hard to plan for the unknown

11

Low interest and belief by public and governance that vector-borne disease can be an epidemic problem. Perhaps, we have been doing "too good" of a job at preventing problems.

Do you believe the discovery of invasive Aedes in California constitutes a public health emergency? Why?

Yes. Aside from the risk of transmission of various "tropical" diseases that otherwise were incapable of being vectored in the region prior to aegypti, the presence of invasive species diverts resources from control of WNV, which appears likely to recur every season at moderate to high levels. Further, changes in aegypti behavior and dispersion due to the arid climate in parts of California could have potential impact on the rate of transmission of imported diseases such as Dengue.

I believe it is of great public health concern since it is foreseeable that locally acquired human cases of new mosquito-borne diseases will occur. If that disease transmission was currently occurring, given the lack of successful Aedes mosquito trapping and eradication methods available I would consider this a public health emergency.

California legislators must be made aware at a minimum that invasive Aedes will create emergencies in the form of locally transmitted chikungunya, dengue, and Zika viruses. Perhaps they can take the proactive step of designating funds to address future outbreaks. This may be unprecedented, but so is the mobility of vectors and pathogens.

We strongly believe that CA will soon see local transmission of CHIK, DENV, and/or ZIKA. We are attempting to be proactive rather than reactive to this impending public health threat.

No. It's difficult to detect invasive Aedes in time to eradicate them. They are now established in CA, and will spread through most of the state. We are aware of their presence, and need to plan accordingly.

Yes, the detection of potential new vectors complicates our ever changing industry. We need to respond as quickly as we can to limit the impact on public health.

Yes, because of how quickly Dengue, Chikungunya and Zika are moving toward us.

12

No. These species have been found in other areas of the United States without causing major public health issues.

Yes, biting increase on its own will reduce quality of life and productivity even without transmission of disease. Invasive + emerging disease + climate change = exceeds existing capacities.

Not a public health emergency until we actually have indigenous disease transmission from Aedes

Yes. Imported and locally contracted cases of Dengue, Zika and Chikungunya could constitute a public health emergency.

Yes... The introduction of competent vectors of serious disease/epidemics where they didn't previously exist is the concern. Global warming is likely could expand the range of the vectors and disease.

Do you believe invasive mosquitoes are a statewide or localized problem?

Statewide. Clearly they are spreading at a rapid rate. It is a matter of time until they are statewide (or most of the state at least).

This is a statewide problem because Aedes mosquitoes are being identified throughout the state.

It is a statewide problem. Mosquitoes and the diseases they transmit do not acknowledge borders; they are also likely to use established infrastructure to move easily.

Statewide problem since these Aedes populations are spreading throughout the state through commerce, transportation, etc.

Statewide. It is only a matter of time until they become established in most of CA.

I believe that this is a statewide problem and will only get worse over time. WNV wasn't here before 2003 and we now spend a majority of our resources on dealing with multiple cases every year. New vectors and diseases only put more strain on already limited resources.

Statewide, but each district will have to decide what it can do at a local level. We are not going to get long-term funding from the State.

13

Too early to determine potential extent of infestation. Perhaps following normal winter cold season will be recurring local threat but not widespread.

Statewide problem...I believe they are more widespread than our surveillance show and will spread even more over the next few years

Statewide. Mosquitoes and people travel

Statewide. Your problem is my problem.

Two other agencies said “Statewide.”

What do you believe is the risk level for a disease outbreak in California from these Invasive Aedes?

Very low=1Medium=9High=2

The distribution of invasive Aedes is still relatively limited. Districts that are aware of imported cases of Aedes vectored diseases have been proactive in treatment in potential transmission areas.

My guess is that the population of Aedes mosquitoes is currently too low to successfully transmit virus. The concerning thing is that despite some vector control district's best efforts over the past couple of years not only has eradication of the mosquitoes been unsuccessful, the mosquitoes that usually fly only a couple of hundred yards have been able to increase in number and geographic scope. It isn't an overreach to think that within the next couple of years there will be locally transmitted Aedes-borne virus transmission within California.

The population of invasive Aedes is not sufficiently large, nor are they distributed broadly enough for a large outbreak of disease. Screens on windows and doors, and the propensity to remain indoors when it is hot helps reduce exposure. As the climate gets successively warmer, energy costs increase, and water supplies get lower, there will be an increased interface between populations of invasive Aedes and humans, thus the risk for acquiring infections with chikungunya, dengue, and Zika viruses will likely increase, not decrease.

An outbreak is definitely a possibility, more so in the less affluent areas with a higher recent immigrant population, due to higher likelihood of travel to areas with active outbreaks along with less concern for mosquito bites, fewer homes with air conditioning and lot of window

14

screens in disrepair. We cannot be entirely sure that local transmission has not already occurred since the mosquitoes are hard to catch and test and possible unreported cases, particularly with the low rate of symptomatic infections in patients with dengue.

We have the right pieces in place--three invasive Aedes species that are capable of transmitting DEN, CHIK, ZIKA and other viruses + travelers returning from abroad will these diseases. There are relatively low numbers of people returning with these viruses, and many Californians spend their time indoors, reducing their exposure to mosquito bites. Presently the overlap between human carriers of the viruses and the distribution of the invasive Aedes is relatively small, but as the invasive Aedes become more pervasive the opportunities for local infection will increase. Similarly, the opportunities for returning travelers to import cases is increasing as new diseases become more virulent and spread to the western hemisphere (chikungunya, Zika) or reemerge (dengue).

I believe that the risk is medium now as these species are still gaining traction in the detected locales. However, Chik and Zika are new viruses that eventually will make their way here. If the current weather patterns hold, California with its significant immigration will see locally acquired cases. Also, a lack of testing from the medical community has hindered appropriate reporting of WNV, I wouldn't expect it to improve with Chik, Zika, or Dengue.

We have not had enough infected individuals return to the State from areas with endemic disease and into an area of the State with elevated invasive Aedes populations. The Olympics in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil may change this.

Conveniences of a post-modern society in the United States...air conditioning, screens on windows, efficient mosquito control programs, improved sanitation, improved healthcare, etc.

High risk for Southern California. Low for cooler parts of the State. Symptomatic cases may have occurred but not recognized. When density of infected travelers increases somewhat, more chances of local infection, therefore longer exposure of mosquitoes to viruses.

very similar to playing "Russian Roulette" the bullet is in the chamber (Aedes mosquitoes)...not aligned yet (mosquito and virulent host).

Aedes populations are not at a high enough level

15

All the factors for disease transmission are not currently present. Just look at the Zika virus and microcephaly in Brazil for an example of the seriousness of mosquito-borne epidemics. I rate the risk level at medium, because of the presence of the public health and vector control system in California and the U.S. If not for that system, I would change my rating to very high.

The state previously allocated emergency funds to address the epidemic of WNV, but the problem remains. Did the funds make any impact on WNV in your district?

I was not present at the time but some of the equipment purchased at that time is still an essential part of our WNV control program.

Yes. Without the state funding we would not be able to conduct surveillance and effectively treat mosquitoes that transmit WNV. Without that funding WNV would be uncontrolled with our jurisdiction.

Yes. Without those funds we would have depleted our reserves and recovering them would have been difficult. No one can predict how an introduced species will behave. The goal was never to eradicate WNv, but to reduce the risk of human disease. As bad as WNv behaves in California, without those funds at the start of epidemic things would have been much worse. It took widespread human disease to identify the problem and secure funding; we have an opportunity to educate and proactively decide how to manage and/or prevent outbreaks of disease.

WNV was already endemic, and all we could was enhance education and outreach. It is difficult to measure whether our message reached the 6 million residents in our jurisdiction and whether they changed their behavior due to our ads.

Yes. We improved our disease surveillance program (testing more mosquitoes) and our ability to respond to WNV (added equipment and mosquito control materials).

No- our district didn't receive the funds.

We did not accept emergency funds.

The funds helped us get into a better position to deal with WNV (i.e. head start). I would imagine state funds could do the same with invasive Aedes. Each district will have to adjust for the long-term, however...

16

The funds helped equip and staff all our vector programs. We went from mainly operational (three men and a mule) to a ten person pro-active and effective unit that was disease surveillance-driven.

Yes. They allowed us to develop public education campaigns and hire seasonal workers among other investments.

yes...able to mount a significant response during the inception of WNV...except for one year we have had low levels of human transmission

Funds were used to purchase spray equipment, insecticides and to conduct aerial applications. We're not convinced backyard-breeders like these Aedes can be controlled by insecticide applications.

We used the funds to pay for labor/materials, and to purchase equipment that is still in use. The benefit was both short-term and ongoing.

What results do you believe will be produced by the allocation of funds to manage invasive Aedes?

At the very least funds should help in a reduction of spread of invasive Aedes. If funds are used to institute novel control strategies, hopefully extirpation is possible.

It will give poorly funded districts the ability to at least attempt to manage invasive Aedes. Well-funded districts can also benefit from additional funding and would not have to reduce their efforts in controlling WNV to manage invasive Aedes.

The process of trying to secure funding should educate legislators about an impending problem and illustrate the preventive nature of public health. Funding will allow agencies with limited capabilities to conserve their reserves and fulfill their function

Because there is no known local transmission from Aedes populations, we can attempt to stop an outbreak before it starts.

I would like to see a state-level outreach program to educate residents about invasive Aedes, the disease risks, and why they need to help manage the problem in their own yards.

Much better control.

17

They will be a short term stopgap for MVCDs while they secure permanent funding.

Help in acquiring crucial equipment, establishing protocols/control strategies, etc. to get districts up and running without severely impacting their WNV work.

Greater technological and educational outreach tools, spatial mapping and operations analyses, stronger compliance tools and regulatory support.

Depends on if those funds will be utilized effectively--public education and labor.

extent of the infestation...control starts with surveillance

That depends on what the funds are allocated to

Have any local government entities offered support for Aedes control?

No=7

We have collaborated with the County of Los Angeles's Acute Communicable Disease Control and Environmental Health programs, as well as neighboring vector control agenciesWe have been offered support, not financial, from our local county health and OES departments.

Assemblyman Mark Stone (Natural Resources Committee) for CEQA support. Assemblyman Luis Alejo (Chair -Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials, Local Government) for waste tire issues.

The Kern County Department of Public Health

Funds - no. Cooperation and synergies - yes.

Is there any other type of support/assistance you would like to see made available? (e.g. regulatory, legislative, etc.)

It would be helpful if it were easier to obtain area wide abatement warrants so we can access backyards in areas of concern. The ability to cite property owners that continue to maintain their property in such a way that allows for the proliferation of vectors would also be helpful.

18

Reassurance legislators are aware of the risks associated with invasive Aedes, that it is a statewide problem, and should they refuse to allocate funds now they will do so when it is necessary

Funding for Aedes related research, provide a bigger stick to VCDs to compel cooperation with other public agencies that deal with stormwater, water recapture devices, etc. Need ordinances or changes to abatement procedures that allow VCD staff to streamline fining residents for non-compliance.

Possibly tire removal. Perhaps grant funds to remove trash/debris from properties with Aedes infestations.

Regulatory: discarded tires. Legislative: State blanket warrants to inspect back yard sources in the event of a public health emergency. Some county judges will not sign blanket warrants at this time.

Research on improving control strategies for these mosquitoes in United States. Many control strategies for these mosquitoes are based on third world countries, many of which would not be deemed acceptable/appropriate in some regions of California.

Blanket warrant in H&S Code, CEQA checklist public health questions

re-start the UC mosquito research program and have them concentrate on control of invasive Aedes

More research into control strategies such as Wolbachia

We'll take whatever you can get. I believe you are right in pursuing additional money.

19