Quick Take
A Monterey County judge sided with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation in a case that challenged the agency's approval of the use of highly restricted pesticides on six berry farms in the Pajaro Valley.
A judge in Monterey County last week sided with California’s pesticides regulator in a lawsuit brought by a local group of activists challenging the approved use of harmful chemicals near schools in South County.
The lawsuit, brought by the Pajaro Valley Federation of Teachers and nonprofit Safe Ag Safe Schools, claimed the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) erred in upholding the Monterey County agriculture commissioner’s decision to allow six berry growers to use chloropicrin and 1,3-dichloropropene, two highly toxic pesticides that require annual permits and buffer zones before use. The plaintiffs argued that the commissioner failed to consider the cumulative effects of allowing the growers to use the chemicals near schools in southern Santa Cruz County and northern Monterey County, and did not properly vet the environmental impacts or possible alternatives.
PESTICIDES IN THE PAJARO VALLEY: Read more Lookout news and Community Voices opinion coverage here
However, Judge Thomas Wills upheld the state regulator’s decision. Wills noted that, even though he found Monterey County’s agricultural commission to have examined possible alternatives to the two pesticides and their impact on the environment, state law carves out exemptions that allow county agricultural commissioners to avoid lengthy environmental analysis in approving pesticides.
“The judge’s ruling verifies California’s stringent regulatory system is protecting our communities and there was no evidence of harm,” Jodi Reinman, spokesperson for the California Strawberry Commission, said in an emailed statement.
Elizabeth Fisher, the plaintiffs’ attorney from environmental firm Earthjustice, said the decisions represented a “disconnect between measures theoretically designed to protect the public and what we actually see on the ground.” The state regulations meant to protect people against the harms of pesticide exposure were failing, Fisher said.
“The safeguards are not working,” Fisher said. “Financial motives are definitely at play here.”
The plaintiffs have a two-month window to appeal the decision. Fisher said earlier this summer that she expected the losing side to appeal the case. On Wednesday, she said her side was still deciding whether to challenge Wills’ ruling.
Have news that should be in Lookout Briefs? Send your news releases, including contact information, to news@lookoutlocal.com.
