The Newsom administration is developing a system to alert residents ahead of pesticide applications throughout the state. After conducting pilot projects, the Department of Pesticide Regulation is ironing out the final web design and revising its regulations before launching the program potentially later this year.
Yet farm groups continue to raise alarms over privacy and the potential for misinforming the public.
The administration has invested $10 million to get the program off the ground, with around $4 million in ongoing annual costs.
Under the name Spray Days, the alert system will provide transparent and equitable access to information about applications of restricted materials and comes in response to a rise in community interest, according to DPR Director Julie Henderson. Presenting a beta version of the web-based platform to the State Board of Food and Agriculture last week, Henderson reasoned that “accidents happen from time to time” and “there are risks associated with certain pesticides.”
DPR is separately proposing regulations for statewide notifications and is taking public comment on the proposal through Friday. Henderson anticipates the rulemaking will run through the end of the year and the department plans to launch the Spray Days platform statewide once the regulatory process is complete.
The regulation requires growers to electronically submit their standard notice of intent (NOI) for an application. If that presents an “undue hardship,” the county agriculture commissioner could allow a farmer to submit a paper form. NOIs for fumigants would be submitted at least 48 hours in advance, while other restricted materials would have a 24-hour notice—requirements already in place under the current permitting system. DPR would post the information publicly through the Spray Days portal.
To view the information, anyone can enter an unlimited number of California addresses to find applications within a square-mile radius of those locations. Or they could navigate through a map of California, click on a county and see a grid displaying applications down to the township level.
Renee Pinel, Western Plant HealthThe applications could take place up to two miles away from the address. For each one, the website would display the product name, active ingredients, application method and the EPA registration number, with links providing explainers on those details. It does not provide exact addresses for applications. The information would be available for four days after the proposed start date.
Spray Days would also post the amount of acreage to be treated to “give people an idea of just how big that application might be and how long it might take,” according to Ken Everett, a DPR assistant director.
Users could also sign up for email or phone notifications for up to 10 addresses. That would allow one person to track applications near their home, church, school or other places they routinely visit, explained Sam Silva, chief information officer at DPR. The website includes a community health page with more information on pesticide exposure and resources for bystanders, such as phone numbers for nonemergency incidents.
Henderson explained that the platform would warn users that the applications are not guaranteed to take place. If a farmer must cancel a spray due to weather, however, the website would not indicate that the application was canceled.
She also assured the agriculture community that “the system itself does not change in any way the authority or the ability for anyone to use a pesticide.”
Henderson has been promoting the notification system throughout the state and DPR has been hosting focus groups and pilot projects to gather feedback. But farm groups remain apprehensive.
It’s easy to be “in the know” about agriculture news from coast to coast! Sign up for a FREE month of Agri-Pulse news. Simply click here.
Many were comfortable with a system that would notify only immediate neighbors of applications. Yet they coalesced around concerns with misinforming the public of the risks and that bad actors could abuse the system. Several groups have called for DPR to ensure the website’s users live within a one-mile radius of the applications they are targeting and that the information is not shared with the general public. Many commenters pointed out that much of the information is already available at the local agriculture commissioner’s office.
“We want to be transparent and compliant, and we think we're using very safe products,” said Michael Miiller, government relations director at the California Association of Winegrape Growers. “The concern we have is big picture.”
Echoing anxieties over an agency misinforming the public, Miiller warned the system could inaccurately portray a grower as spraying for several days in a row, when the applications were actually delayed for weather.
“There's an old saying that bad facts make bad law,” he said. “This potential system has the ability to create a lot of bad facts.”
Renee Pinel, president and CEO of Western Plant Health, added that sending notifications to people without an understanding of how the regulatory system works is “simply going to cause alarm.”
“The method that DPR is using to roll this out is leading to hysteria,” said Roger Isom, president and CEO of the Western Agricultural Processors Association. “I wish they would do a much better job explaining the process and whether there really is a need for the system.”
DPR held three workshops last month to present the proposal to stakeholders. Isom argued those meetings provided a venue for activists and community advocates to blame pesticides for a range of issues—from asthma to valley fever, faded clothes and fallow land.
“DPR did not once say today that the application of pesticides is safe and it doesn't cause concern,” he said at the board hearing, adding: “This open-ended system [for notifications] is not acceptable if DPR believes in their own registration process.”
Pinel also stressed that California already has the world’s strongest evaluation system and explained that while the current reporting system looks to the past to track applications, DPR is also taking a forward-looking approach with its Sustainable Pest Management Roadmap. The strategic plan has propelled DPR to consider impacts on communities as part of its evaluation process for registering pesticide products.
Others worried about unintended consequences. Several criticized DPR’s demonstration of the project as allowing much more granular location information than anticipated.
“Acreage is a location,” said Monterey County Farm Bureau Executive Director Norm Groot. “We have ranch maps here that can identify those acreages pretty quickly.”
Farmers described the proposed system as a roadmap for activists to find farms and force applicators to halt sprays. Isom noted that a pilot program for notifications in Monterey County had led to many attempts to appeal applications, severely impacting operations.
Groot also worried about putting more pressure on agriculture commissioners, since the added work for performing more investigations into applications would impact their budgets—at a time when the state is grappling with a massive deficit. He also pointed out that Monterey County has a strong right to farm ordinance and delayed applications would create conflicts with that law.
When asked about the potential impacts to farmers, Henderson emphasized that DPR is seeking to educate the public about the existing regulatory system through the Spray Days website, balancing application details with more context on the registration process and enforcement practices.
For more news, go to Agri-Pulse.com.
