Activists, grand jury want Santa Cruz County to get more involved in how pesticides are used 

By Tania Ortiz

Agriculture activists and Santa County’s civil grand jury are pressuring county officials to exercise more control over regulating pesticide applications and practice better communication with other local agencies and residents in South County. But county agricultural officials now say they have no plans of doing so because they say that regulation and improved communication are responsibilities of the state. 

Last month, the civil grand jury reviewed the county government’s response to recommendations the jury published in 2021, finding that communication between the county agricultural commissioner’s office and South County city and school board officials regarding pesticide management and application is inadequate and could lead to more health risks. 

Now, local pesticide activists are calling on the county to heed some of those recommendations and also warning that a new rule issued by the state Thursday related to a single pesticide, 1,3-dichlorophene, doesn’t go far enough to protect the public. 

Two pesticide watchdog groups, Safe Ag Safe Schools and Future Leaders of Change on the Department of Pesticide Regulation, have scheduled a news conference Friday afternoon in Watsonville involving farmworkers, teachers and health professionals. 

Santa Cruz County applied more than 1 million pounds of pesticides to crops in 2022, according to a report by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 

Local growers used 1,3-dichlorophene — a carcinogenic pesticide that’s banned in 34 countries — more than any other pesticide, applying approximately 240,000 pounds of it to fields in the county. The chemical is the third-most-used in the state of California, said Mark Weller, campaign director for Californians for Pesticide Reform. 

Activists like Weller and Adam Scow, co-founder of the Campaign for Organic and Regenerative Agriculture, want county officials to put more effort into informing residents about pesticide applications and the risks of being exposed to these chemicals. 

PESTICIDES IN THE PAJARO VALLEY: Read more Lookout news and opinion coverage here

“They could issue notices to the community. I mean, that’s the lightest thing they can do,” said Weller. While notices do not help minimize the harm of pesticides, he said, if residents are aware of applications happening, they could better prepare themselves by closing windows or leaving the area. 

The civil grand jury made four recommendations to county officials to better communicate with residents and local governments about which pesticides are being used locally, where and how often they’re being applied, as well as safer alternatives that are being explored by the state and local growers. 

In its response to the grand jury last month, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors said it disagreed with the jury’s findings. 

The county said it has already implemented two of the jury’s recommendations related to communicating with local residents and public officials about a statewide pesticide-notification system under development by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Santa Cruz County was one of four counties in the state to participate in a pilot program for the system, known as Spray Days Now, in 2022. During that time, the county agricultural commissioner’s office did outreach to spread information on the program to the public, according to the county’s response to the grand jury.

The grand jury report states that officials at the city and county level had not communicated information concerning pesticide management with South County officials. 

However, the county also said it has no plans to implement two of the grand jury’s recommendations that the agricultural commissioner’s office needs to better inform South County officials and residents about advances in agricultural pest control and the application of pesticides that are less harmful to the public. 

The responsibility for informing local governments and the general public about new information on agricultural pest control lies with institutes such as the University of California and its vast network of researchers and farm advisors who conduct research on best practices, not with local agricultural commissioners, the county said.

“It is not in the Agricultural Commissioners Office’s purview to make recommendations, advocate for any specific pest control material, method or technology, or typically conduct outreach on information that focuses specifically on ‘advances in agricultural pest control, including less toxic pesticides and alternative methods of pest eradication,’” the county wrote in its response. 

County officials said “more information would be needed to effectively assess” whether the agricultural commissioner’s office had the authority and resources to inform local governments and school boards about less-toxic pesticides and other alternatives.

County officials added that they would also need more information on how to determine which neighborhoods are considered to be commonly exposed to pesticides before they could start communicating with them. Further, while the agricultural commissioner’s office responds to and investigates incidents of agricultural pesticide exposure, such incidents “involving residential bystanders are not commonplace occurrences.”

The county agricultural commissioner, David Sanford, has no power over which pesticides growers can use; that’s a job for the state, said activist Scow.

But the commissioner’s office does have some discretion when it comes to regulating pesticide applications. 

While it’s not explicitly written in the job description, the county agricultural commissioner’s office does have the power to inform the public, it’s just choosing not to, said Weller. Should local conditions put residents in undue or disproportionate harm, agricultural commissioners are also able to take action to restrict pesticide application beyond the limitations imposed by the state, said Weller. 

Santa Cruz County already provides formal communication to Pajaro Valley Unified School District whenever there’s a notice of intent to apply a fumigant, said Weller, and often will notify the schools directly. 

In Imperial County, for example, aerial application of pesticides within a mile of a school are not allowed, and ground applications within a half-mile of a school are also prohibited, said Weller. By contrast, state regulation prohibits aerial and ground applications only within a quarter-mile of a school. The state also prohibits applications during school hours. 

Other counties, like Monterey County, have an alert system residents can sign up for to receive notifications on fumigations happening near schools, said Weller. 

The statewide Spray Days Now notification program that counted Santa Cruz County among its earliest participants is the first of its kind, Weller said. But, he added, it still has its flaws. The notification system allows users to explore an interactive map and zero in on their neighborhood and see if pesticides will be applied, according to the civil grand jury report. 

Its main flaw is that it allows residents to see only which pesticides are applied within a square mile of their homes or schools, Weller said. The system was supposed to roll out earlier this year, but is now scheduled for spring 2025 to fix some of those flaws. 

If the county could at least communicate that the agricultural commissioner has discretion, residents can push for some sort of regulation, said Scow. But the agricultural commissioner can’t do much if they do not have the support of the county board of supervisors, he said. 

“A number of agricultural commissioners limit or don’t allow aerial applications of certain pesticides, while others allow anybody to fly a plane and drop stuff,” said Weller. “They can do all those things. It’s not like they must sit on their hands.”

Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers. Guidelines here.