Op-ed in the Bakersfield Californian regarding public pesticide notification
This article is still available on the newspaper’s website but has been paywalled since publication. The whole text is below.
Community Voices: We need a local notification system on pesticides
By DAVID CONNELL May 15, 2021
I spent this semester learning all I could about the pesticide notification debate in Shafter. After analyzing all relevant documents from the Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner, environmental groups, and reading the opinions expressed in this newspaper, I am writing today to recommend ways to move forward.
DPR director Val Dolcini and Kern County Agricultural Commissioner Glenn Fankhauser seem to have two common goals: protect public health and safety, and notify those potentially affected by fumigant applications.
Glenn Fankhauser proposed a system to post warnings on the doors of residents who live within 200 feet of upcoming applications of the fumigant 1,3-Dichloropropene, but this would not notify everyone potentially affected. Studies have shown that airborne fumigants can travel much farther than 200 feet—often over ¼ mile and sometimes past a mile. Fankhauser’s system excludes residents who live further than 200 feet away but who are still in the drift zone; a door hanger notification system should go beyond residences within 200 feet. But even posting notices on doors a mile away leaves non-residents in the dark. Kern’s existing grower notification system informs neighboring farmworkers, but what about other people who work in or pass through the drift zone? Door hanger notices do nothing for them. Plus, expanding the area covered by door hangers to a safer distance creates more work for growers, who would be responsible for posting notices under Fankhauser’s system.
If our goal is truly to protect the health of anyone who could be exposed to hazardous pesticides, there needs to be a more robust public notification system. The system proposed by DPR director Val Dolcini, where notices of intent (NOIs) to apply fumigants are posted publicly online, is imperfect but it’s a way to start.
It would be only that—a start—because NOIs are technical documents and not particularly user-friendly. The activist group Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) agrees with Fankhauser on this, but they expect partners in academia or government to help build truly accessible systems once the basic information is public.
Fankhauser has some legitimate concerns regarding a system which would broadcast notice to anyone who cares to know. He worries that the information will be used in three unintended ways: (1) activists will organize protests at planned fumigation sites, (2) activists will appeal approved pesticide applications and slow down necessary treatments, and (3) growers will over-submit NOIs, allowing them to apply pesticides any time and rendering notifications useless. These what-ifs actually make the case that a small-scale pilot would be beneficial before launching a statewide notification system. A pilot does exist in Monterey county, but only for schools. Through a Shafter pilot, DPR could refine information pathways and the software stack for notification, while also monitoring how the public information is used.
Maybe CPR can reach an agreement with the county agricultural commissioners wherein activists promise to avoid physically protesting at fumigation sites and instead focus on reaching the people who set and enforce limits on pesticide use (DPR and the agricultural commissioners). If activists appeal NOIs that are reaffirmed at both the county and state levels, the state could limit the number of appeals a person can file or change the rules about who can appeal. To address the problem of growers over-submitting notices of intent, maybe the grower could be charged a fee for each NOI—just enough to disincentivize abuse.
To cover all bases, what if both systems are implemented? Post door hanger notices for residents closest to fumigant applications and make NOIs public for others who may be exposed. It’s better to over-warn than to not warn at all.
Set aside the Shafter conflict for a minute and consider one characteristic of a functional democracy: a well-informed electorate. I believe that transparency in government has inherent value, and therefore data used to make policy decisions should be public by default. The potential harm from disclosing fumigant application information does not clearly outweigh the benefits.
It appears that California will eventually get a statewide pesticide notification system from DPR regardless of what happens in Shafter. However, the Shafter steering committee requested a local notification system, and they should get it sooner than eventually.