Santa Cruz County agriculture commissioner defends against criticisms over pesticide regulation

Santa Cruz County Agriculture Commissioner David Sanford is defending how his office exercises control over regulating pesticide applications and communicates with agencies and residents in South County after a critical report by the county’s civil grand jury and pressure from pesticide activists groups. 

In an interview, Sanford said he disagrees with criticisms made by activists and the civil grand jury about communication between South County local agencies and residents, in addition to how it regulates the application of pesticides. 

The grand jury recommended that the agriculture commissioner’s office share information with local agencies and residents in South County about advances in agricultural pest control, including less-toxic pesticides and an upcoming statewide pesticide notification system. Local activists are also calling for the office to exercise more control when it comes to regulating the use of certain pesticides in the county. 

County officials rejected two of the jury’s recommendations on how to better notify residents, city councils and school boards about how pesticides are used by local growers. Instead, the county argued, such notifications are the responsibility of the state.  

“Pesticide use enforcement is an absolute top-tier priority,” Sanford said. “We communicate about it regularly to all the stakeholders in the county.” Stakeholders include local grower — who apply for permits to use pesticides — community organizations, Pajaro Valley Unified School District and the Research Conservation District, which helps protect, conserve and restore natural resources in the county. 

Before making the decision to limit use of restricted pesticides, there needs to be a good reason to do so, said Sanford. 

“You can’t be arbitrary, you really have to have [a] good reason,” Sanford said. “Most of that points to evidence of potential issues, or historic issues, or precedent, or conditions in certain parts of the county.”  

The office typically follows the rules and regulations set by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, but can set stricter regulations. Some counties, such as Imperial County, have added additional restrictions on the use of pesticides near schools. But Sanford said the office can reach that point only if there’s an acute exposure incident — a short-term exposure to hazardous substances. 

He added that his agency is all about communication and that he disagrees with the grand jury and local activists that his office could be more proactive about communicating with residents and local officials on pesticide use. 

Sanford said his office is as responsive as it can be in its communication with city officials and that it’s an ongoing process. He said understands that local activists and the civil grand jury want to see more from the agriculture agency and will take those comments under consideration.

“I feel like we’re a very proactive, thoughtful department that’s considering public and environmental health first,” Sanford said. “That’s really our job. That’s what we’re here to do.”

The county agriculture commissioner’s office frequently receives calls from residents asking about pesticide use and safety near someone’s property, Sanford said. The office also gets requests to do educational presentations for school groups and local government agencies. 

The calls from South County residents can lead to larger discussions. The agency sometimes plays the role of mediator between residents and local growers, Sanford said. 

A few years ago, residents on Bridge Street in Watsonville who border a raspberry field, for example, called the agriculture commissioner’s office over concerns about pesticide exposure. The agency brought in members of the neighborhood’s homeowners association and the growers for several discussions that led to an agreement between the two entities, said Sanford. 

“The grower agreed to notify HOA leadership before he made any application” of pesticides, which is not required by regulation, Sanford said. It was an understanding between a grower and some concerned residents who want to know more, he said. 

If someone is calling his office with concerns about the use of pesticides nearby, Sanford said he and his staff are ready to ask who’s involved and figure out ways to solve the issue.

Sanford said the agency shares information with growers in South County about advances in agriculture technology and less-toxic pesticides every year when growers reapply or renew pesticide use applications. 

Part of the permitting process for a restricted material permit — which regulates the use of restricted pesticides under supervision of a certified applicator — is to let growers know about alternatives to those restricted materials that can be used, Sanford said. But his office doesn’t require growers to use those alternatives instead. 

However, Sanford said, announcing new information about advances in agriculture technology or new methods of pest control is not one of the direct responsibilities of the county agricultural commissioner’s office; it is the purpose of the University of California extension and farm advisor networks, and the information can also be found online. He added that his office is a local regulatory agency.

But when the agriculture agency does receive updates on a pesticide application method or a regulatory change, that information is shared immediately with growers. When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency prohibited the use of Dacthal — a pre-plant herbicide used for broccoli and cauliflower — in August, Sanford made sure to share the information with local growers, he said.  

While Dacthal isn’t heavily used in Santa Cruz County, Sanford wanted to make sure that the agency had the best information available to share with growers, he said. 

Last Friday, activists rallied against the proposed changes to the state’s regulation of 1, 3-dichloropropene — a carcinogen that’s banned in 34 countries. The draft legislation doesn’t rely on existing pesticide research, according to activists. But Sanford says the state department is moving in the right direction with the changes. 

“I think that the state taking additional measures like they’re doing now with occupational 1,3-D restrictions is also a good measure and the right direction to go. It’s about protection of people, and that’s what this is all about,” Sanford said. 

He also added that the statewide Spray Days Now notification program is another great thing the state has put in place. The program notifies only about application of restricted materials, said Sanford. Whenever a grower files a notice of intent to apply a restricted pesticide with Sanford’s office, that information will be available to residents in the notification system. 

Spray Days Now will be available to everyone in the county, not just South County residents, Sanford said, likening it to the Zillow of restricted pesticide use.

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