Quick Take
Students at Ohlone Elementary, Pajaro Middle and Hall District Elementary schools in the Pajaro Valley continue to face toxic fumigants drifting from nearby fields, despite years of lawsuits and mounting evidence of cancer risks, writes activist Woody Rehanek. California regulators and Monterey County’s agricultural commissioner insist their reviews and safety measures meet the law, but the data, Rehanek insists, tells a different story about safety. Earthjustice lawyers made the wrong argument in July, he says, and failed to address the "big picture" of the cumulative use of pesticides.
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.
California has a $60 billion agriculture industry, and yet there are only six air quality monitors to measure pesticide drift in the entire state.
One of them is on Sunny Mesa at Ohlone Elementary School in Watsonville, where for years, teachers noticed that an unusual number of children had cancer. Years ago, parents at that school filed an environmental injustice lawsuit, alleging that children of color were being disproportionately impacted by pesticides. The main outcome was installing a court-mandated pesticide/air quality monitor at Ohlone.
The onslaught of pesticide – fumigants in particular – continued.
On April 4, 2024, Earthjustice filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) Juan Hidalgo for violations in issuing permits for the restricted-use (high-toxicity) fumigants chloropicrin and 1,3-dichloropropene. Litigants included Pajaro Valley Federation of Teachers, Monterey County Central Labor Council, Center for Farmworker Families, Safe Ag Safe Schools and Californians for Pesticide Reform.
PESTICIDES IN THE PAJARO VALLEY: Read more Lookout news and Community Voices opinion coverage here
Using Ohlone Elementary’s air quality monitoring data, the suit alleged that DPR and CAC have routinely ignored high readings for toxic air contaminant and carcinogenic 1,3-D above the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) lifetime “safe harbor” exposure level of 0.04 parts per billion – an exquisitely low concentration that has not been consistently achieved. I should add that 1,3-D is banned in 40 countries and is a drift-prone gas that can travel for miles.
Still, it is routinely applied near our schools.
The lawsuit alleged that DPR and CAC blithely rubber-stamp each restricted fumigant permit within a mile of each school, exposing students at Pajaro Middle, Hall District Elementary and Ohlone Elementary to potentially dangerous levels of fumigants.
On July 14, 2025, the lawsuit proceeded in the Superior Court of Monterey County. Judge Thomas Wills and lawyers on both sides quoted verse and script in California law and flipped back and forth to discern two basic legal questions.
The first is whether, in issuing permits for restricted fumigants chloropicrin and 1,3-D, the CAC considered “meaningful review of less toxic alternatives.” The second is whether “cumulative impacts” over time of multiple fumigant applications were taken into account.
The defense said that mitigations – for example, quarter-mile buffers during school hours, setbacks from private property and considering temperature and wind speed, etc. – were proof enough of meaningful review. It also said that there was “no magic word requirement” for the CAC to write notations on the actual permit.
Earthjustice implied that, without documentation that alternatives were considered on the permits themselves, rubber-stamping of restricted permits was taking place. In 2022, California issued 22,460 restricted-use permits. Wills wondered aloud how burdensome it would be for everyone to note consideration of alternatives. Earthjustice countered that a short notation would be sufficient – not a novel.
Unfortunately, neither defendants nor litigants asked how many permits were denied. The answer could well be zero. The no-action alternative – denying a permit – is a legal option rarely used in the restricted-use permitting process.
Yet, both defendants and litigants missed an essential point.
A “meaningful review” of alternatives to restricted fumigants by schools does not have to involve another pesticide application. It could include longstanding best farming practices, such as crop rotation, cover cropping, compost application, etc. Many organic berry farmers successfully apply these, planting disease-resistant strains from UC Davis, Driscoll’s and private plant breeders.
On the issue of cumulative impacts, Earthjustice could have expanded its interpretation. One example: “Exposure & interaction: The potential health impacts of using multiple pesticides,” a blue ribbon 2013 panel organized by the UCLA School of Law and the Fielding School of Public Health, which took into account applications of chloropicrin, 1,3-D, and metam sodium – all fumigants – in fields surrounding Rio Mesa High School in Ventura. Their research suggested that applications of multiple pesticides over time can have synergistic interactions that may result in increased toxicity and other unintended consequences.
Rather than focusing on single chemical applications in research and permitting, this study emphasized that research on cumulative impacts and interactions of multiple chemicals over time are required under state law but is not systematically being conducted.
Earthjustice lawyers did not address this “big picture” interpretation of cumulative impacts, instead talking about 1,3-D in isolation. DPR and CACs have routinely ignored a broader interpretation of cumulative impacts, substituting simplistic single-chemical studies that abound in magical thinking.
Using the language of water rights, if fumigants are “over-allocated” according to air quality monitoring data, i.e., above OEHHA’s 0.04 parts per billion lifetime safety standard, DPR and CACs could deny permits or require less toxic alternatives unless and until the safety standard is met.
This is my take on it.
But there’s a catch. Ignoring OEHHA’s science, DPR decided this year to issue two 1,3-D standards: 0.21 parts per billion for farmworkers and 0.56 parts per billion for residents (the latter recommended by the manufacturer – Monsanto).
On Labor Day, Wills ruled in favor of DPR and Monterey County Ag Commissioner Juan Hidalgo, saying that they are in compliance with state law, and that notation that less toxic alternatives were considered would be overly burdensome.
Elizabeth Fisher, Earthjustice lead attorney for the plaintiffs, said that Wills’ decision demonstrated “a disconnect between measures theoretically designed to protect the public and what we see on the ground. … The safeguards are not working. … Financial motives are definitely at play here.”
The plaintiffs have 60 days to appeal.
Welcome to the crazy-quilt, Twilight Zone intersection of Big Ag, corporate chemical lobbyists, politicians, consultants-for-hire and pest control advisors (most of whom get commissions on the chemicals they prescribe).
Once again, goalposts are being moved at the expense of rural communities and the health of farmworkers, children and the elderly – the most vulnerable among us.
Woody Rehanek was a farmworker in Washington state for 18 years and a special education teacher in Pajaro Valley Unified School District for 18 years. He is a member of Safe Ag Safe Schools and a founding member of the Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture. He lives in Watsonville.