Even though California agriculture represents just 2 percent of the state’s gross domestic product, it quite literally supplies the nation with food, producing 50 percent of the fruits, vegetables, and nuts consumed in the United States. And while the state represents the largest agriculture sector in the U.S., according to Justmeans, an online publisher about corporate responsibility, with exports of $21.24 billion, it is often criticized for using up to 80 percent of the water during the lingering, multiyear drought in order to grow those leafy greens, grapes and pecans.
California citizens might be swayed by the signs that dot farmlands along Interstate 5 that read “Crops grow where water flows.” But would they be as accepting if the signs read, “Where crops grow pesticides must flow,” especially if those pesticides were drifting down on fields surrounding their schools, playgrounds, roads or communities?
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) recently extended the public comment period for a proposed regulations that would mandate additional protections when agricultural pesticides are applied close to schools and child daycare facilities. The new deadline of Dec. 9 gives the public more opportunity to weigh in on the issue. In a press release, the DPR said, “Many K-12 schools and child daycare facilities are located near farming operations, and increasingly teachers, parents, and the public want to know whether the chemicals being applied could adversely affect them. The proposed regulation, issued after extensive public input, would provide an extra measure of protection to these sites from the risk of short-term pesticide exposure. The regulation would also provide advance notification when certain pesticides are applied, so as to increase communication between growers and schools or child daycare facilities, and help them in responding to inquiries and potential incidents.”
In San Benito County, Anzar High School, built on what was farmland 22 years ago, remains surrounded on three sides by agriculturally-productive fields. San Juan School has hundreds of acres of tilled fields just through the trees to its northeast. In Hollister, Ladd Lane Elementary School still has walnut trees growing adjacent to it on two sides and rows of artichokes and pumpkins often grown to the south. San Benito High School has become pretty much isolated from the farms, except for some organic fields still being grown just across the dry riverbed. Then there are the occasional crops that are grown just beyond one row of houses from Cerra Vista Elementary School and others throughout the county, not to mention ag fields near Valley View Park (Whale Park).
Even so, it may be no wonder as many residents commute to San Jose and beyond, that they can’t be blamed if they tend to forget that the primary business conducted in San Benito County is agriculture. Where there is non-organic agriculture, there are pesticides. And where pesticides are used, there are regulations protecting those who live in communities surrounded by row crops, nut and fruit trees, and then raise concerns that these chemicals may be drifting down on them.
This is why the DPR exists in Sacramento, and its director, Brian R. Leahy, recently wrote in an editorial in the Sacramento Bee saying, “Modern farms rely on pesticides, and so it is our department’s responsibility to create strong regulations to keep school children and staff safe. California has the most protective regulations in the nation, building upon the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) pesticide program.”
In California, according to DPR’s website, the regulation of pesticides to protect human health and the environment is the joint responsibility of DPR and the state’s county agricultural commissioners. And since concerns have been expressed about the agricultural use of pesticides near schools, DPR intends to discuss these concerns at several workshops throughout the state with the stated goal being to gather input from stakeholders as it determines what measures are appropriate to enhance protection of California’s schoolchildren. Public hearings regarding the proposed regulations are scheduled for Nov. 15 in Oxnard, Nov. 16 in Tulare and 6 p.m. on Dec. 1 at the Salinas Sports Complex, 1034 N. Main St. in Salinas.
In the editorial, Leahy questioned the logic of building schools in the middle of farming operations. In a county such as San Benito, it could be argued that almost every home, business or school that has been built over the last century was constructed on what had once been someone’s farm or field, and as became evident in the last few weeks with the Cerrato development, where as lands are developed long-lasting pesticides must still be mitigated. In the case of the Cerrato property, it involved burying decades of toxins in 30-foot deep trenches.
Leahy has directed his staff to draft new state regulations to focus on what must occur when a farm near a school wants to apply pesticides. It will clearly define the responsibilities of the farmers, detail the information that must be given to schools and add restrictions on pesticides used when schoolchildren are present.
The new regulations will, “…build on measures in some counties that are enforced by agricultural commissioners, who conduct about 19,000 pesticide inspections a year. Their vigilance has helped to keep thousands of schoolchildren safe, and the new policy will further strengthen their efforts.”
According to the Pesticide Action Network (PAN) pesticide database, between 1991 and 2000, almost two billion pounds of pesticides were used on crops. Reported use of pesticides has stabilized to about 200 million pounds a year. This does not include consumer and institutional use.
DPR further stated that it, “…may work informally over several months with interested parties to flesh out regulatory concepts and draft text well before the start of formal rulemaking. Typically, program staff requests written comment by posting documents on DPR’s Web site and sending out letters and e-mail inviting participation.
“This informal, interactive process allows people to express their ideas and concerns for DPR staff to consider and incorporate as they develop rulemaking documents. DPR does not always respond in writing to comments made in these informal discussions (referred to by the State Office of Administrative Law as pre-notice involvement). As a regulation is developed, there may be several versions, each reflecting changes suggested during the informal reviews. After consideration of comments, DPR may formally propose the regulation. Alternatively, the Department may choose to put the concept on hold and discuss internally different approaches to the subject area.”
Where pesticides are concerned in the county, Karen Overstreet, who has been the San Benito County Agriculture Commissioner for a little over a year and a half, is the liaison between the state regulators and the farmers on the ground. She said her duties are broad, but she primarily enforces California codes as they pertain to agriculture, including the use of pesticides.
Overstreet, along with five inspectors, oversees all agriculture activity in the county. She said when it comes to pesticides, operators (growers) need to obtain permits through the department. All permits expire each year on Dec. 31.
“Every year, they have to come in and we review their maps for all their sites, what they intend to plant on each site and the pesticides they intend to use,” she said. “As we look at those maps we’re looking at sensitive sites.”
Overstreet said sensitive sites take many forms, but mostly they’re any occupied structure, which include schools, hospitals, churches, parks, recreational areas, roads and communities.
She said her department licenses the growers to apply pesticides because they, or their workers, are the ones most often applying them from sprayers behind tractors in the fields. Airborne applications from helicopters or planes are licensed and certified through the DPR, and register through her office in order to work in the county.
Since San Benito County has been an agricultural center for more than a century and pesticides have been in use throughout the growing years of its two main population centers, there may be some concern about what might have changed recently to make Sacramento push for a new look at possibly writing more regulations.
Overstreet said she wasn’t sure of DPR’s motivation to update its rules other than pesticides are always under scrutiny.
“I couldn’t really tell you what’s triggered it,” she said. “I know there were some concerns in Southern California with schools surrounded by strawberry fields where they use a lot of fumigants and people were concerned about the long-term effects.”
She said when new schools are built they require large tracks of ground and DPR is attempting to get school boards and developers to work with growers.
“In San Benito County we have a Right-to-Farm Ordinance, and when a new school is being considered they need to take into consideration school property acting as buffers,” she said. “Because of the ordinance, the mitigation should be put on the school moving into the agriculture ground.”
John Perales, superintendent of San Benito School District, said he is concerned about pesticide use around San Benito High School, as well as schools in the other districts in the county. He said even though there seems to be more consumer interest in organically-grown crops, the reality is there are still a great deal of pesticides used on conventional crops grown in the vicinity of schools in the county. He said there are protocols in place concerning the use of pesticides on campus that require 24-hour notice be posted, but he is not aware of any that would require farmers who are spraying to notify nearby schools in the area.
“It is a concern of mine and we should know what’s being sprayed and maybe there are days that maybe our kids shouldn’t be out running,” he said. “Today, more people are conscious of what they’re eating and how it’s being grown. I’m all for regulations identifying what’s going to be sprayed and when, and cautioning us when they’re going to be spraying some of the walnut orchards and tomato fields. I’ve driven through spay from crop dusters and in the back of my mind wondered what I was driving through. I know we’ve got to feed the world and our community, but we should know what’s being sprayed and how to best protect our children.”
What with all the new construction going on around the county, it would be prudent for any new homeowner, entrepreneur or school district contemplating constructing a new campus or extending an old one onto farmland to heed the adage: “buyer beware,” because farming is a protected and preferred occupation.
Or, so says a county ordinance, which states that property in the unincorporated areas of the county is located in an agriculture community. It further spells out that agriculture use is essential, a high priority and is even a favored use of the land. It goes as far as to state that agriculture use is preferential to urban use and it is the obligation of each property owner to be familiar with “legally-allowable agriculture customs and standards which may affect the use and enjoyment of your property.”
The ordinance goes on to list the types of uses that are automatically allowed in an agriculture zone that run the gambit from grazing to strawberry stands. In the same ordinance, however, the County Planning Commission can approve a wide range of uses, from frog and poultry farms to cattle feedlots, labor camps, hunting clubs, airfields, cemeteries, churches, hospitals and even flea markets.
Overstreet said there hasn’t been any input to DPR from local growers through her office, primarily, she believes, because no one knows what the new regulations will contain.
“What we have right now are over 2,000 far-ranging comments, and that’s why it’s been slow to get these regulations out,” she said. “Originally, they were supposed to be out in February, and now they’re saying this summer. I checked with our liaison and he said it’s uncertain. So they’re still working through them. It’s kind of hard to plan for something that you don’t know what it’s going to be in those regulations.”
Overstreet said, though, that local growers have always been aware of their responsibilities and limitations when they’re applying pesticides around schools.
“They always work with schools or they try to do it at night, or they make different choices of what they’re going to grow near the schools,” she said. “These are things we scrutinize when we’re looking at their permits. We’ll go out and do a site review prior to approving the application. It’s something we’ve always been doing.”
She said there is very little spraying using planes or helicopters because most of the plots are small and the growers go from field to field applying the pesticides from tractor-drawn sprayers.
After the workshops, DPR will develop regulations that do not need legislative approval.
“The department has the authority to create regulations and, over time, it can modify them,” she said. “The regulations go through a 45-day comment period, after which they are passed through DPR’s legal department, and then are enacted.
“Locally, we (county) would only have the same input that the public has,” she said. “The supervisors could pass an ordinance, but it can’t be in conflict with state regulations.”
Overstreet said she wants residents to understand that pesticide applications have numerous layers of scrutiny before being approved, from labeling to permitting.
“We even look at local conditions to determine if we need to restrict something,” she said, “such as aerial applications, or what months they’re being applied, or certain materials that are more volatile. We’re very involved with our growers, we’re very familiar with the sites of the operators, what they’re growing, neighboring crops because we don’t want to do damage to those either. And all of our work is reviewed by DPR. We get annual evaluations on our program and whether we’re effective.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.