Despite the health risks associated with widespread airborne pesticide drift, state
and federal regulations ignore 80 to 95 percent of total movement of drift-prone pes-
ticides by defining drift too narrowly: only spray drift that occurs during and imme-
diately after an application is regulated. For 45 percent of pesticides applied in
California, the concentrations of pesticides in air peak long after the application is
complete—between eight and twenty-four hours after an application.
In addition to excluding most of drift problems, current drift regulations are am-
biguous, and enforcement is difficult, weak, and largely ineffective.^17Legal Action to Enforce Toxic Air Contaminant LawIn June 2005, environmental health and community groups filed suit in Sacramento
Superior Court to require that California’s DPR uphold the Toxic Air Contaminant
(TAC) law. The law, effective in 1984, requires the DPR to assess all pesticides as poten-
tial air contaminants and regulate them in order to protect public health.
Of the more than 900 pesticides registered in California, the DPR has completed
the review process for only four in the past twenty years. The TAC statute is increas-
ingly important because pesticides are a major component of air pollution in Califor-
nia’s Central Valley and are one of the top three contributors to ozone pollution in
the San Joaquin Valley, accounting for about 8 to 10 percent of the ozone-forming
gases produced in the region.
High levels of ozone trigger asthma attacks and exacerbate other respiratory ill-
nesses. In 2002, asthma rates in Fresno County were reported to be the highest in
the state—ahead of even Los Angeles—and the third highest in the nation. Also,
nearly one-third of pesticides used California are associated with serious chronic and
acute health problems, such as cancer or nervous system maladies.
Pesticides are the largest source of toxic substances released into the environment
in California. In 2002, pesticide use accounted for the release of 5.7 times more toxic
materials to the environment than manufacturing, mining, or refining facilities as
reported by the EPA’s Toxic Release Inventory.
The lawsuit seeks to compel the DPR to comply with its duty under the TAC to
assess all toxic pesticide air pollutants on a timely schedule, to take action to reduce
the health impacts of these air pollutants, and to comply with the sections of the law
requiring public transparency and input, including a review by an independent scien-
tific review panel and substantive cooperation with the Air Resources Board and the
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.^18Strict Liability for Spray DriftIn at least four states, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington, courts have
labeled aerial application of pesticides an ‘‘ultra-hazardous’’ or ‘‘abnormally danger-
ous’’ activity, and have imposed strict liability for damage done without requiring
proof of fault.196 | Pesticides