County Roads Department Investigated for Use of Prohibited Pesticides Near Wellheads: Part V

Pesticide Episode Incident Report Reveals Numerous Incriminating Details Discovered During Investigation of County Roads Department Roadside Right-of-Way Vegetation Control Program.

Investigation Conducted by County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office Exposes Multiple Violations by County Roads Department of the California Code of Regulations for Wellhead Protection, Groundwater Protection, General Standards of Care, and Protection of Persons, Animals, and Property.

The visible strip of dead vegetation is the result of prohibited use, in March 2016, of preemergent pesticides for control of vegetation in the roadside draining facilities by the County Roads Department. Note the proximity of the wellhead’s storage tank to the roadway’s edge, and the wide strip of dead vegetation. (Photo April 26, 2016)

Published: 7 February 2018–2240 PST (Rev. 12 April 2018–0115 PST)

(Table of Contents)

Chapter 5: Chronology: May 2004 — March 2015

May 2004

• May 27, 2004: California Code of Regulations (Title 3. Food and Agriculture) § 6609 Wellhead Protection is enacted. Use of preemergent pesticides is prohibited within 100 feet of wellheads. “…the following activities shall be prohibited within 100 feet of a well… application of preemergent herbicides… application of preemergent herbicides shall be prohibited between the berm and the wellhead.”

August 2005

• August 22, 2005: Department of Pesticide Regulations Enforcement Branch Letter Number ENF 05–24 to County Agricultural Commissioner’s providing clarification on the meaning of “preemergent herbicides” in CCR § 6609 Wellhead Protection. The August 22, 2005 correspondence from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to all of California’s County Agricultural Commissioners reinforced the strict prohibition of the use of preemergent pesticides within 100 feet of unprotected wells, and provided examples and ample guidance.

February 2008

• February 28, 2008: The County Roads Department Pesticide Usage Records indicate its first recorded usage of the preemergent pesticide Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (Milestone). This pesticide is later added to CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List as a preemergent pesticide prohibited for use within 100 feet of wellheads on October 1, 2014.

March 2014

• March 31, 2014: County Roads Department Pesticide Usage Records indicate its first recorded usage of the preemergent pesticide Dithiopyr (Dimension 2EW). It is significant to note that the County Roads Department began using this pesticide in March 2014 despite Dithiopyr having been included on the CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List as strictly prohibited for use within 100 feet of wellheads.

October 2014

• October 1, 2014: Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (Milestone) is added to the CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List as a preemergent pesticide prohibited for use within 100 feet of wellheads. The County Roads Department Pesticide Usage Records indicate that Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (Milestone) had been routinely used by the County Roads Department to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities for eight of nine consecutive years, from 2008 to 2016, with the exception of 2012.

January 2015

• January 12, 2015: A Pest Control Advisor, licensed by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and employed by a national wholesaler of specialty chemicals, writes a Pest Control Recommendation to the County Roads Department for the control of weeds along the county’s roadside right-of-way. Two of the pesticides recommended by the Pest Control Advisor, Milestone and Dimension 2EW, contained the chemical active ingredients Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt and dithiopyr, respectively. These two chemicals are prohibited, by CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List, from being applied within 100 feet of an unprotected wellhead subject to rainfall or irrigation water runoff. The Pest Control Advisor failed to specifically note the possibility of damage by these preemergent pesticides when used within 100 feet of an unprotected wellhead in his aforementioned Pest Control Recommendation as required by California Food and Agriculture Code § 12003(f). One of the preemergent pesticides that the Pest Control Advisor had written a Pest Control Recommendation for had its primary active chemical ingredient added to CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List three months previously on October 1, 2014. The Pest Control Advisor did not specifically note on the written Pest Control Recommendation (nor convey verbally) that the usage conditions of that particular pesticide had been reclassified per CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List. This is of particular significance because Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (Milestone) had been known to be in annual use to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities by the County Roads Department since at least 2008 (with the exception of 2012) through 2014 (as of this date) based upon the County Roads Department Pesticide Usage Records.
• January 31, 2015: County Roads Department Pesticide Usage Records indicate usage of preemergent pesticide Dithiopyr (Dimension 2EW) during January.

February 2015

• February 28, 2015: County Roads Department Pesticide Usage Records indicate usage of preemergent pesticide Dithiopyr (Dimension 2EW) during February.

March 2015

• March 31, 2015: County Roads Department Pesticide Usage Records indicate usage of preemergent pesticide Dithiopyr (Dimension 2EW) during March.

Chapter 6: Chronology: January 2016 — December 2017

January 2016

• January 1, 2016: Two neighboring rural communities remain caught in the grip of a localized groundwater crisis. Several dry local wells from California’s persistent drought, plus numerous additional local wells contaminated with arsenic, nitrates, heavy metals, and other substances exceeding EPA thresholds have been detected in a cluster in two neighboring rural communities. This troubling discovery prompts escalating concerns, constituting a local emergency for citizens of the two communities and for county and state government officials.
• January 5, 2016: District 5 Supervisor assumes the title and role of County Board of Supervisors Chair for CY 2016.
• January 31, 2016: The County Roads Department anticipates receiving, in coming weeks, a written Pest Control Recommendation from the same California-licensed Pest Control Advisor that had been contracted to provide the prior year’s Pest Control Recommendation (dated January 12, 2015).

February 2016

• February 22, 2016: A Pest Control Advisor (an employee of a national chemical wholesaler) licensed by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation wrote a Pest Control Recommendation to the County Roads Department for the control of weeds along the county’s roadside right-of-way. Two of the pesticides that were recommended, Milestone and Pindar GT, contained the chemical active ingredient Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt and Penoxsulam, respectively. These two chemicals are prohibited, by CCR § 6609 Wellhead Protection, from being applied within 100 feet of an unprotected wellhead subject to rainfall or irrigation water runoff. The Pest Control Advisor failed to specifically note the possibility of damage by these pesticides when used within 100 feet of an unprotected wellhead in his aforementioned Pest Control Recommendation as required by the California Food and Agriculture Code § 12003(f). Upon receiving a written Pest Control Recommendation, the County Roads Department began the process of procuring pesticides for its 2016 program to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities.
• February 22, 2016: Written Pest Control Recommendation from California-licensed Pest Control Advisor to County Roads Department for 2016 vegetation control program signed on this date. The Pest Control Recommendation included two preemergent pesticides that are restricted for use near “surrounding hazards.” The Pest Control Recommendation does not mention what those “surrounding hazards” are, however it will be soon learned that “surrounding hazards” references such things as the strict restriction from using certain pesticides with preemergent characteristics within 100 feet of wellheads, riparian environments, and under conditions where groundwater contamination may occur. It is expected that county officials, and especially county staff procuring and using all manner of pesticides on behalf of the county and while conducting official county business, understand every one of those pesticide’s particular classifications, characteristics, and current regulatory status — then take all necessary precautions as required in their use.
• February 28, 2016: County Roads Department Pesticide Usage Records indicate first recorded usage of preemergent pesticide Penoxsulam (Pindar GT). It is significant to note that the County Roads Department began using Penoxsulam (the active ingredient in Pindar GT) in February 2016 despite Penoxsulam having already been on the CCR § 6800 Groundwater Protection List for several years as strictly prohibited for use within 100 feet of wellheads.

March 2016

• March 2, 2016: The County Roads Department sprays a mixture containing Penoxsulam (the active ingredient in Pindar GT) and Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (the active ingredient in Milestone) to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities along approximately 18 miles of two county roads per log entry; 5 gallons of Pindar GT and 93 ounces of Milestone are recorded as having been used (mixed) on that date. This represents the first of six occasions during March 2016, upon which the County Roads Department sprayed a pesticide mixture containing these ingredients.
• March 3, 2016: The state laboratory analysis of several residential well water samples from two rural communities in the county is publicly released by county officials, adding scope and definition to the footprint where high levels of arsenic and nitrates exceeding US Environmental Protection Agency thresholds had been detected in other local wells months earlier.
• March 10, 2016: The County Roads Department sprays a mixture containing Penoxsulam (the active ingredient in Pindar GT) and Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (the active ingredient in Milestone) to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities along approximately 30 miles of four county roads per log entry; 2.5 gallons of Pindar GT and 46.5 ounces of Milestone are recorded as having been used (mixed) on that date. This represents the second of six occasions during March 2016, upon which the County Roads Department sprayed a pesticide mixture containing these ingredients.
• March 17, 2016: The County Roads Department, working at cross-purposes with county health and emergency officials assisting the two rural communities experiencing dry wells and well contamination, sprays a mixture containing Penoxsulam (the active ingredient in Pindar GT) and Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (the active ingredient in Milestone) to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities along approximately 18 miles of two county roads per log entry; 7.5 gallons of Pindar GT and 139.5 ounces of Milestone are recorded as having been used (mixed) on that date. Multiple private wellheads in the two rural communities are being assisted by county health and emergency officials (noted above on March 3, 2016), and are already of current or pending official and citizen concern for high arsenic and nitrate levels found in several local water samples, with the likelihood of more local well contamination to be discovered in coming weeks. This represents the third of six occasions during March 2016, upon which the County Roads Department sprayed a pesticide mixture containing these ingredients.
• March 18, 2016: The County Roads Department sprays a mixture containing Penoxsulam (the active ingredient in Pindar GT) and Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (the active ingredient in Milestone) to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities along approximately 30 miles of four county roads per log entry; 2.5 gallons of Pindar GT and 46.5 ounces of Milestone are recorded as having been used (mixed) on that date. This represents the fourth of six occasions during March 2016, upon which the County Roads Department sprayed a pesticide mixture containing these ingredients.
• March 30, 2016: The County Roads Department sprays a mixture containing Penoxsulam (the active ingredient in Pindar GT) and Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (the active ingredient in Milestone) to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities along approximately 12 miles of five county roads per log entry; 5 gallons of Pindar GT and 93 ounces of Milestone are recorded as having been used (mixed) on that date. This represents the fifth of six occasions during March 2016, upon which the County Roads Department sprayed a pesticide mixture containing these ingredients.
• March 31, 2016: For the second time in 14 days, again working at cross-purposes with county health and emergency officials assisting the two rural communities experiencing dry wells and well contamination, the County Roads Department returns and sprays the same mixture containing multiple prohibited preemergent pesticides to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities near the same private wellheads in the same two rural communities whose wellheads it had just violated only two weeks earlier on March 17. The County Roads Department sprays a mixture containing Penoxsulam (the active ingredient in Pindar GT) and Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (the active ingredient in Milestone) to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities along approximately 35 miles of five county roads per log entry; 7.5 gallons of Pindar GT and 140 ounces of Milestone are recorded as having been used (mixed) on that date. This represents the sixth of six occasions during March 2016, upon which the County Roads Department sprayed a pesticide mixture containing these ingredients. It is later calculated by Citizen A, from a review of the County Roads Department’s pesticide use data, that over the course of the six occasions of spraying in March 2016, the County Roads Department had sprayed approximately 120 miles of county roadway rights of way with preemergent pesticides to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities, and a significant percentage of that total mileage was in District 5. A still unknown number of wellheads in the county had preemergent pesticides sprayed within 100 feet of them. This large-scale incident occurred over a distance of approximately 120 miles spanning four of the five Supervisory Districts in the county, far beyond the scope of just five wellheads found within one mile of each other that were the subject of the investigation in the two rural communities in a single district (District 5) by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office.
• March 31, 2016: County Roads Department Pesticide Usage Records indicate usage of preemergent pesticide Penoxsulam (Pindar GT) during March.
• March 31, 2016: A previously scheduled public health forum (unrelated to the still unknown and soon-to-be-discovered County Roads Department pesticide spraying incident of March 17 and again hours earlier on March 31) was ironically held that same evening at a local elementary school by county health and emergency officials, and state and local water officials, to discuss dry and locally contaminated wells following the state’s laboratory analysis affirming elevated levels of arsenic and nitrates. The County Director of Environmental Health provided the meeting attendees, Citizen A included, with a document containing instructions on wellhead maintenance. This document subsequently triggered Citizen A’s awareness of a potential problem concerning the prohibited use of preemergent pesticides near private wellheads.

April 2016

• April 2, 2016: Citizen A observed what appeared to be the prohibited use of a preemergent pesticide by the County Roads Department. This observation was supported by the wellhead maintenance documentation provided by the County Director of Environmental Health two days earlier on March 31 at the public forum called to discuss dry and locally contaminated wells.
• April 2, 2016: Citizen A began researching to familiarize with California pesticide regulations, so that a constructive conversation may be had at an opportune time with appropriate county officials regarding this newly discovered community concern. (Citizen A’s observation subsequently led to a months-long investigation of the County Roads Department conducted by the Senior Agricultural Biologist at the County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, with assistance from the State of California Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR)).
• April 3, 2016: Citizen A searched the California Environmental Protection Agency’s website and located the Department of Pesticide Regulations codes regarding the use of pesticides in proximity to wellheads. California Code of Regulations (Title 3. Food and Agriculture) § 6609 Wellhead Protection describes the conditions under which the application of preemergent pesticides are prohibited within 100 feet of wellheads. (Wellheads lacking protective berms preventing movement of surface runoff water from the perimeter of the wellhead to the wellhead are specifically addressed, as are wellheads with protective berms where the application of preemergent pesticides is prohibited between the berm and the wellhead.)
• [April 19, 2016 TuCo Innovation Challenge]
• April 26, 2016: Citizen A contacted the Senior Agricultural Biologist at the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. It was affirmed that Citizen A’s observation of strips of dead vegetation near wellheads represented a matter of great concern. The Biologist sourced the relevant data from the Monthly Summary Pesticide Use Reports (MSPUR) and determined that two preemergent pesticides had been used. After a brief telephone consultation, the Biologist concluded that a site visit to conduct a preliminary investigation of the reported observations was justified.
• April 26, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office arranged for an immediate site visit that same day. Upon arrival, the visual conditions at the wellhead and other nearby wellheads were photographically documented. The Biologist then affirmed and noted that the reported observations had considerable merit, and that a formal investigation would be conducted as there was ample visual evidence in support of the Monthly Summary Pesticide Use Reports data to conclude that CCR § 6609 Wellhead Protection violations may have been committed by the County Roads Department.
• April 26, 2016: Citizen A submits a request to the County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office for the County Roads Department’s Pesticide Usage Records, and receives the requested documents (Monthly Summary Pesticide Use Reports for “County Public Works” dating back to 2008) from the County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. Citizen A reviews the documents and immediately discovers that multiple prohibited preemergent pesticides on CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List — Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (Milestone) and Penoxsulam (Pindar GT) — may have been sprayed near multiple private wellheads.
• April 29, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office met with the Road Operations Support Services Supervisor at his office to inform him that an investigation was being conducted regarding a possible violation of wellhead protection regulation. Preliminary questions were asked of the individual, and he was informed that it appeared that County Roads Department employees had applied preemergent herbicides in proximity to several wells. He was asked what herbicides had been applied in that area as part of the roadside vegetation control program. He said that they were using a mixture that included Milestone and Pindar GT. A copy of the Pest Control Recommendation dated February 22, 2016 was provided. During the course of the discussion between the Biologist and the Road Operations Support Services Supervisor, one of the two employees — the Senior Road Worker — that had been operating the negligent spray rig had overheard the conversation, and interjected that he had been driving the spray rig that was used to apply roadside herbicides, and that his co-worker — the Road Crew Lead Worker — was operating the application controls. He remembered applying herbicides along that segment of roadway, but did not know if his co-worker had altered the spray solution when they approached the wellheads. The Roads Operations Support Services Supervisor then stated that in 2015, he had told the same two members of the spraying crew not to spray beyond the 35MPH sign, but had not given them the same instruction in 2016. As it later becomes clear in the investigative details and analyis of the responses for contradictions, there is a lack of apparent reason as to why instructions to not spray beyond the 35MPH sign in 2015 were issued. That implies knowledge of CCR § 6609, yet knowledge of CCR § 6609 is later denied in a subsequent interview.

May 2016

• May 3, 2016 — May 6, 2016: The County Roads Department Road Operations Support Services Supervisor, based upon date-stamp evident in the footer of the Daily Roadside Spraying Application Log, appears to have reconstructed and/or transferred the February/March 2016, March/April 2016, and April 2016 Daily Roadside Spraying Application Logs on May 3, in the days immediately prior to a subsequent visit from the Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. The significance of this is that Daily Roadside Spraying Application Logs shall be kept in accordance with CCR § 6624. Roadside Spraying Application Logs are due the 10th day of the month after the applications are applied. While it is unspecified to whom the logs are required to go to, it is clear that they are required to go someplace official in a timely manner. This appears to not be the case by a substantial date range, and remains unexplained.
• May 6, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office met with the County Roads Department Road Operations Support Services Supervisor to conduct a Pest Control Headquarters Inspection in order to review the County Roads Departments pesticide records. A review of the Monthly Summary Pesticide Use Reports and the Daily Roadside Spraying Application Log confirmed that the County Roads Department had applied two preemergent herbicides listed on CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List to the areas in question near the wellheads on March 17, 2016. Milestone (EPA Reg. №62719–519) and Pindar GT (EPA Reg. №62719–611) are both preemergent pesticides prohibited from use within 100 feet of wellheads.
• May 16, 2016: Citizen A encountered the County Director of Environmental Health at a nearby property in the community where a water sample was being obtained for analysis. Citizen A requested that the county health official, while in the community, also obtain a water sample from the site of the suspected wellhead violation and have the sample analyzed for the presence of preemergent pesticides. Citizen A was informed by the County Director of Environmental Health that there was no money available to test for suspected pesticide contamination despite evidence of a pesticide contamination incident by the county, and the wellhead owner would have to do any testing at private expense.
• May 16, 2017: Citizen A informed the Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office that he’d just been told by the County Director of Environmental Health that there were no funds available for testing. The Biologist responded that he’d put in a request for soil and well testing with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to handle “pesticide sampling and testing.”
• May 17, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office conducted a site visit to wellhead #1 to check on access prior to returning on May 18 to collect water and soil samples.
• May 18, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, accompanied by the Regional Enforcement Branch Liaison of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation, obtained water and soil samples from wellhead #1 for two substances, and prepared samples for analysis at the Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento Residue Laboratory. Additional photographic evidence was recorded by the Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation Regional Enforcement Branch Liaison.
• May 19, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office delivers the wellhead #1 water and soil samples, under strict chain of custody protocols, to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento Residue Laboratory.
• May 24, 2016: Director of County Roads Division, when verbally questioned by Citizen A regarding the fire hazard risk to the community resulting from inadequate management of rights-of-way along County-maintained roadways, responded to Citizen A that he did not have enough funding for his Roads Division to adequately control the entire width of the rights-of-way vegetation and therefore if Citizen A’s community burned down due to a tossed cigarette from a vehicle, or a spark from a vehicle igniting dry grass, that would be an “Act of God.” Citizen A believes that statement constitutes a breach of duty, and is not an Act of God but one of Constructive Notice from an aware citizen to a local government official..

June 2016

• June 2, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office contacts the Road Operations Support Services Supervisor for clarifications of discrepancies on the County Roads Department Pesticide Use Reports, particularly pertaining to the pesticide applicator’s name on the dates in question.
• June 16, 2016: Citizen A meets with the Director of Community Resources Agency (CRA) overseeing the County Roads Department, the District 5 Supervisor ( 2016 Board of Supervisors Chair), and the Director of the County Roads Department (Deputy CRA Director) to discuss a roadway matter of critical community concern that was unrelated to the pesticide violations under investigation. The meeting was regarding reestablishment of a lapsed 35MPH posted speed limit’s enforceability in a Residence District per California Vehicle Code (CVC § 627) and related (CVC § 515) and (CVC § 240). The meeting on this date, June 16, is notable for several reasons and its inclusion in this chronology is meant to convey three key points. 1) It supports the argument of a lax operational environment existing at the County Roads Department, and its lack of accountability for legally enforceable speed limits on heavily traveled local roadways by maintaining a valid Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) per (CVC § 627) on file with the California Highway Patrol and the County Court System. 2) Citizen A experienced a business-as-usual, “wear-you-down” approach from a county government that uses tacit statements of discouragement in communications with citizens to dissuade those citizens from pressing government officials for action, e.g., “Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it.” 3) At the conclusion of the meeting, the citizen mentioned to the three parties in attendance, the Director of Community Resources Agency (CRA) overseeing the County Roads Department, the District 5 Supervisor ( 2016 Board of Supervisors Chair), and the Director of the County Roads Department (Deputy CRA Director), of having direct and documented knowledge of the pesticide investigation that was now underway since late April by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. This date then, June 16, is noteworthy in that it specifically establishes the last date upon which the District 5 Supervisor/Board of Supervisors Chair CY 2016 may claim to have been unaware of the wellhead pesticide violations in his supervisory district, and the investigation being conducted of the County Roads Department at that time by the County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office.
• June 17, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, accompanied by the County Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, interviewed the County’s Road Operations Support Services Supervisor at his office. The County’s Road Operations Support Services Supervisor claims to have never discussed issues regarding unprotected wellheads or the Department of Pesticide Regulation’s (DPR) wellhead protection regulation with the Pest Control Advisor. The County’s Road Operations Support Services Supervisor stated that before this incident, he was unaware of CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List. He stated that if he had been aware of the prohibition of using preemergent pesticides near wellheads, that he would not have used those types of chemicals for the roadside weed control program.
• June 17, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, accompanied by County Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, interviewed the Senior Road Worker (a Department of Pesticide Regulation certified applicator for approximately 15 years). He confirmed the accuracy of the March 17, 2016 County Roads Department Pesticide Usage Records specifying that a combination of Roundup Pro, Pindar GT, and Milestone had been applied along the roadside in the community in question. He stated that he was unaware of the prohibition of applying certain preemergent herbicides within 100 feet of any unprotected wellhead. He stated that he had never specifically monitored the county road system for the presence of wellheads within 100 feet of the road. He said that he had read the Pest Control Recommendation provided to the roads supervisor by the Pest Control Advisor and that there was a copy of the Pest Control Recommendation in the spray rig when they were applying herbicides. The Biologist stated to the Senior Road Worker, “The Pest Control Recommendation listed wellheads as “surrounding hazards,” the treatment area next to the roadway was less than 25 feet from the wellhead. Were you aware that you were prohibited from applying certain preemergent herbicides within 100 feet of any unprotected wellhead?” The Senior Road Worker stated that he knew that they were supposed to avoid wells when making the herbicide applications, but he did not know that there was a specific prohibition in the regulations regarding the herbicides they were applying.
• June 17, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist, accompanied by County Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, interviewed the Road Crew Lead Worker, the county employee that actually sprayed the mixture of prohibited preemergent pesticides on the wellheads. He is a Department of Pesticide Regulation certified applicator for approximately 3 years. He confirmed the accuracy of the March 17, 2016 pesticide spraying records specifying that a combination of Roundup Pro, Pindar GT, and Milestone had been applied along the roadside in the community and there had been no manual alteration of the combination of herbicides to accommodate for spraying near wellheads. He stated that he was aware that wellheads were listed as a surrounding hazard in the Pest Control Recommendation. He stated that he had never specifically monitored the county road system for the presence of wellheads within 100 feet of the road, but knew where the wells were. He said that he did not and could not manually alter the combination of herbicides. He said that during the herbicide application when they were passing the first wellhead in question, he saw the well on the side of the road. He said that he had read the Pest Control Recommendation provide to the Roads Supervisor by the Pest Control Advisor and that there was a copy of the Pest Control Recommendation in the spray rig when they were applying herbicides. The Biologist stated to the Road Crew Lead Worker, “The Pest Control Recommendation listed wellheads as “surrounding hazards,” the treatment area next to the roadway was less than 25 feet from the wellhead. Were you aware that you were prohibited from applying certain preemergent herbicides within 100 feet of any unprotected wellhead?” The Road Crew Lead Worker did not answer this question directly but stated that he was aware that wellheads were listed as surrounding hazards in the Pest Control Recommendation. He also stated that he had never specifically monitored the county road system for the presence of wellheads within 100 feet of the road, that that he knew where the wells were. He stated that this is the first year that the current combination of herbicides including Milestone and Pindar GT was used for the roadside weed program.
• June 23, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, accompanied by County Deputy Agricultural Commissioner, interviewed the Pest Control Advisor. The Pest Control Advisor stated that his primary and sole contact at the County Roads Department was the Road Operations Support Services Supervisor. The Pest Control Advisor stated that he visited with the County Roads Department every two to three months and the last time he had visited was in February 2016 (4 months previously). He said that his primary and sole contact with the County Roads Department was the Roads Supervisor. He stated that he was aware of CCR § 6609 Wellhead Protection List and that it prohibited the application of any chemicals found on the CCR § 6800(b) list within 100 feet of an unprotected wellhead. The Pest Control Advisor was then asked, “On the Pest Control Recommendation, “surrounding hazards” includes wellheads. What is the “specific hazard?” Why did you not specify that on the written Pest Control Recommendation? Why did you not point out the products that had restriction for use around wellheads? The Pest Control Advisor replied that he was aware of the restrictions around wellheads, but that he was unaware of any wellheads in the application area. The Pest Control Advisor was then asked, “Two of the products you recommended, Milestone and Pindar GT, contain active ingredients found on the CCR § 6800(b) list of chemicals. These chemicals are prohibited from being applied within 100 feet of unprotected wellheads. In your Pest Control Recommendation, you failed to mention this. Why?” The Pest Control Advisor replied that he did his field observations for the Pest Control Recommendation dated February 22, 2016 during the month of October in 2015. He stated that he drove on various roads in the county and also spoke with the Road Operations Support Services Supervisor by phone. He stated that he was primarily interested in the effectiveness of the herbicide treatments. He also stated that he did not see any wells in close proximity to the road during his observations. He was asked if anyone in his office reviewed his Pest Control Recommendations. He stated that the head of the regulatory division in the home office reviewed the Pest Control Recommendations.
• June 25, 2016: The County Roads Department, at Citizen A’s insistence, conducts an Engineering & Traffic Survey (E&TS) on a segment of roadway that directly passes three of the wellheads that had been illegally sprayed on March 17 and 31. The results of the “Speed Zone Survey” are sent by the County Roads Department to California Highway Patrol and to the County Court for filing, legally reestablishing the long-lapsed 35MPH posted speed limit’s enforceability, enabling the California Highway Patrol to once again ticket vehicles that were legally — prima facie — permitted to drive up to 55MPH without penalty in a 35MPH posted Residence Zone, so long as no other moving or equipment violations were evident. Citizen A points to this as a vivid example of the lax operational climate existing within the County Roads Department, such that the posted speed limit in a Residence Zone would be permitted to lapse and remain lapsed indefinitely, putting community residents at risk.
• June 29, 2016: As part of the Senior Agricultural Biologist’s continuing investigation, additional photographic evidence was recorded of additional wellheads within one-mile of the first wellhead that had also displayed visual evidence of having been similarly sprayed by the County Roads Department.
• June 30, 2016: Results of Penoxsulam lab tests are received from the Center for Analytic Chemistry by the Senior Agricultural Biologist. The tests indicate no detectable residue of Pindar GT in water and soil samples. The absence of detectable residue does not negate that the substance had been illegally sprayed, only that there was no remaining detectable residue of the illegally sprayed pesticide due to the half-life degradation rate of the pesticide, by the time samples had been obtained in mid-May. Further investigation by Citizen A determined that the half-life of Penoxsulam is such, that evidence of the violations had dissipated by the time soil samples had been obtained at three increments between the roadway edge and the wellhead concrete pad edge. Terrestrial Fate: In soil, Penoxsulam …reported aerobic half-lives of 22 to 58 days at 20 deg C and an anaerobic half-life of 6.6 days also at 20 deg C [MacBean C, ed; e-Pesticide Manual. 15th ed., ver. 5.1, Alton, UK; British Crop Protection Council. Penoxsulam (219714–96–2) (2008–2010)]; Penoxsulam …photodegraded from soil with half-lives of 5.2 to 12.8 days [Franke C et al; Chemosphere 29: 1501–14 (1994)] — Aquatic Fate: Penoxsulam …photodegraded from water with half-lives of 2.9 to 26.5 days [Jabusch TW, Tjeerdema RS; Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 193: 31–52 (2008)] Terrestrial and Aquatic Fate Source Data: U.S. National Library of Medicine

July 2016

• July 15, 2016: Laboratory test results received by the Senior Agricultural Biologist, from the Center for Analytic Chemistry, indicated , , , Results of soil sample taken at a depth of three inches, x feet from wellhead, confirm detectable presence of Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (Milestone) residue. The results of the Milestone tests came back from the lab while I was away. The soil sample taken from the area immediately adjacent to the application site (3 feet 8 inches from the edge of the roadway) had a positive detection of 0.017 parts per million.
• July 15, 2016: While reviewing the Monthly Summary Pesticide Use Reports data, the Biologist found that since 2008 there were other preemergent herbicides used by the Roads Department that were also prohibited from being applied within 100 feet of an unprotected wellhead subject to surface water runoff.

August 2016

• August 17, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office again meets with the previously interviewed Road Operations Support Services Supervisor, who states at this time that the location where the 2016 violation occurred did not have any herbicides applied to it in 2015.
• August 23, 2016: Road Operations Support Services Supervisor delivers pesticide application records for 2016 to the Senior Agricultural Biologist from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, as well as delivering the requested January 12, 2015 Pest Control Advisor Pest Control Recommendations.
• August 24, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist meets with the previously interviewed Senior Road Worker, a DPR certified applicator for approximately 15 years. He was asked if he and the other member of the road crew, the Road Crew Lead Worker, a DPR certified applicator for approximately 3 years, had applied herbicides in the community while spraying roadside weeds in 2015. He replied that he could not remember.
• August 26, 2016: Senior Agricultural Biologist meets with previously interviewed Road Crew Lead Worker, a DPR certified applicator for approximately 3 years. He was asked if he and the other member of the road crew, the Senior Road Worker, a DPR certified applicator for approximately 15 years, had applied herbicides in the community while spraying roadside weeds in 2015. He replied that he stopped spraying at the speed limit sign (a distance greater than 100 feet from the wellhead).
• August 29, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist returns to community to capture additional photographic documentation of target area of investigation along roadside.

September 2016

• September 6, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist submits final report to County Agricultural Commissioner for review.
• September 29, 2016: Notice of Violation issued to CRA & 6600, 6609, 6614, 6800
• September 29, 2016: Notice of Violation issued to Pest Control Advisor: Food and Agriculture Code FAC 12003(f)

October 2016

• October 5, 2016: Pest Control Advisor receives NOV via registered letter
• October 10, 2016: CRA Director signs notification of receiving NOV
• October 10, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist submits edited final report to County Agricultural Commissioner for signature
• October 17, 2016: The County Agricultural Commissioner signs off on the “Pesticide Episode Investigation Report”
• October 12, 2016: Citizen A is notified by the Senior Agricultural Biologist that Notices of Violation (NOV) have been issued.

November 2016

• November 3, 2016: The Senior Agricultural Biologist sends Pesticide Episode Investigation Report and related attachments to Citizen A upon approval by County Counsel to release the report.
• November 3, 2016: Edited excerpt #1 of narrative from Agricultural Commissioner’s Office Pesticide Episode Investigation Report: On March 17, 2016 (exact time unknown), employees of the County Community Resource Agency (CRA), Roads Division applied a preemergent herbicide solution containing active ingredients Milestone (EPA Reg. №62719–519) and Pindar GT (EPA Reg. №62719–611) listed in CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List. Both Milestone and Pindar GT indicate preemergent activity on the product labeling. Milestone contains the chemical Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt and Pindar GT contains the chemical Penoxsulam. Both of these chemicals are listed in the CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List. The application was within 100 feet of the concrete pad surrounding a wellhead. There was no protective berm around the concrete pad. The concrete pad was situated in an area that would allow rainfall runoff to move from the application site to the perimeter of the concrete pad and to collet or come in contact with it. They applied these herbicides along the roadway in a rural community. An unprotected wellhead that was subject to rainfall surface runoff was found to be within 25 feet of the application site. The County Roads Department maintains several hundred miles of the county’s roads. As part of that maintenance, herbicides are applied to the road shoulders in late winter and early spring. The herbicides used in 2016 were recommended in writing by a licensed Pest Control Adviser for a national chemical wholesaler. The recommended products included Milestone and Pindar GT, products that are preemergent herbicides that contained active ingredients found on the CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List: Pindar GT contained Penoxsulam and Milestone contained Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt. CCR § 6609(a)(4) Wellhead Protection prohibits the application of preemergent herbicides within 100 feet of an unprotected wellhead that is subject to surface water runoff from the application site. In the Pest Control Recommendation, the Pest Control Advisor failed to warn of the possibility of damages to vulnerable wellheads from the recommended pesticides.
• November 3, 2016: Edited excerpt #2 of narrative from Agricultural Commissioner’s Office Pesticide Episode Investigation Report: On March 17, 2016

December 2016

• Sloppy repeal and replace ordinance incorrect mile post for speed limit along detour and alternate route, and also raised speed limit on another segment of roadway… a narrow, winding road with blind curves and areas with no shoulders and drop-offs… concurrent with detour and alternate route about to begin for next 16–18 months until approximately November 2017 (actual completion date December 2017).
• The findings of the the Pesticide Episode Investigative Report (PEIR) in December 2016 affirmed that multiple California Code of Regulations violations had been committed by the County Roads Department, culminating in a fine being assessed a few weeks later. The County’s Roads Department had been found to have negligently used prohibited preemergent pesticides in the course of conducting roadside vegetation control, within specifically restricted proximity to wellheads. Multiple violations by their county Roads Department of the state’s code of regulations pertaining to the use of pesticides. At the conclusion of the investigation, the county was assessed a nominal fine that was paid without any admission of committing the alleged violations. The documented facts of the investigation revealed that these pesticide violations appear to be far greater in quantity and scale than the small sampling of wellheads included. In addition to the County Roads Department’s alleged 2016 spraying of prohibited preemergent pesticides in restricted proximity to wellheads “to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities,” Citizen A subsequently learned that wellheads historically relied upon for household and livestock use may have also been compromised during several prior years with a variety of prohibited preemergent pesticides by the County Roads Department. Multiple wellheads, the primary sources of the water being relied upon for household use and livestock, had been repeatedly violated by the County Roads Department’s failure to comply with California’s explicit code of regulations regarding the use of preemergent pesticides. It was later discovered that a second wave of pesticide violations, of comparable magnitude, occurred two weeks after the violations that became the sole focus of the 2016 investigation.
• Approx. 128 miles of county roads sprayed in both directions — break down by approx. miles per supervisory district
• Rodefer was Chair of Board in 2016, so this happened on his watch with a disproportionately high mileage in his home district. Predominantly impacted his district. Perhaps 50% or greater of the mileage is in his district.

January 2017

• January 2, 2017: Citizen A sends an email to District 5 Supervisor stating, “I’ve been asked to facilitate arranging a meeting with you by a Property Owner in District 5 whose wellheads were impacted on March 17, 2016 by the Roads Department.” [NOTE: This is not the first instance of the District 5 Supervisor hearing about wellheads impacted on March 17, 2016 by the Roads Department (see June 16, 2016)]
• January 5, 2017: Notices of Proposed Action (NOPA) issued to County Community Resource Agency and Pest Control Advisor.
• January 10, 2017: The County stipulates to the Notice of Proposed Action and pays the fine, without any admission of wrongdoing, and considers the matter closed.
• January 20, 2017: Eighteen days have passed since Citizen A sent an email to District 5 Supervisor stating, “I’ve been asked to facilitate arranging a meeting with you by a property owner in in my community in your district whose wellheads were impacted on March 17, 2016 by the County Roads Department.”
• January 20, 2017: Citizen A sends a second email request to District 5 Supervisor stating, “I’m following up on the email below sent to you on January 2 regarding a meeting request.”
• January 25, 2017: Citizen A requests copies of the Notice of Proposed Action from the Senior Agricultural Biologist.
• When impacted landowners and citizens requested a discussion with their elected District Supervisor regarding the multiple pesticide violations near wellheads, they were repeatedly denied.
• January 31, 2017: The Senior Agricultural Biologist informs Citizen A that the Pest Control Advisor has contested the findings of the investigation and has requested a hearing rather than paying the fine.

February 2017

• February 3, 2017: An entire month has passed since Citizen A sent the first email to District 5 Supervisor stating, “I’ve been asked to facilitate arranging a meeting with you by a property owner in in my community in your district whose wellheads were impacted on March 17, 2016 by the County Roads Department.” It has now been two weeks since Citizen A sent a second email to District 5 Supervisor requesting a response to the first email on January 2.
• February 3, 2017: Citizen A sends a third email request to District 5 Supervisor requesting a meeting, stating “I politely request that you acknowledge receipt of my January 2 and January 20 emails. As noted in my January 2 email to you, I’ve been requested to facilitate arranging a meeting with you by a Property Owner in my community in your district, whose wellheads were impacted on March 17, 2016 by the County Roads Department.”
• February 3, 2017: District 5 Supervisor, unapologetic to Citizen A for a month of unresponsiveness… or the three attempts required by this constituent to get his engagement, replied “I understand you want to set up a meeting. I also understand your [sic] setting this meeting for someone else. If I am to be prepared properly I need to know who it is I am meeting with and specifically what the issue is.”
• February 4, 2017: Citizen A responded to the District 5 Supervisor, stating “As you’ve requested… an investigation conducted by the County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office determined sufficient cause for imposing a fine on the Community Resource Agency for an environmental violation committed by the Roads Department in my community in your district in March 2016, for spraying vegetation adjacent to the roadway using prohibited pre-emergent pesticides that are clearly listed as restricted on CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List. You may have received a message yesterday from [REDACTED] referencing the violation and his request to meet with you. The investigation concluded that the County Roads Department negligently applied prohibited pre-emergent pesticides within 100 feet of several wellheads in my community in your district. On January 10, 2017 the Community Resource Agency stipulated to the County Agricultural Commissioner’s order to pay the fine, and did so without admission of the alleged violation detailed in the Notice of Proposed Action (NOPA). The specific issue requested to be discussed is the county’s responsibility to impacted property owners for an environmental violation committed by the Roads Department…”
• February 6, 2017: District 5 Supervisor informs Citizen A, “I have a meeting scheduled with the staff on Wednesday to discuss this situation. I will know more about setting up a meeting with [REDACTED] at that time. Just for my info, is the meeting intended to be between myself and [REDACTED]; myself, [REDACTED] and you; myself with staff and [REDACTED]; or myself with staff and [REDACTED] and you?”
• February 6, 2017: Citizen A responded to the District 5 Supervisor, stating “Thank you for replying and noting that you’ll meet with staff on Wednesday to discuss this situation. I will let [REDACTED] know that you have responded… the meeting ideally would be conducted as a casual in-person discussion between you and and [REDACTED] — with me available to provide supporting and constructive context where needed. While the Roads Department spraying incident last March was unfortunate, it is heartening that their operational practices are being addressed to mitigate longer-term risk and everyone wins. That was the desired outcome and it has now been achieved…”
• February 6, 2017: The previous statement by Citizen A to the District 5 Supervisor pertaining to it being “heartening” that the Roads Department’s “operational practices” were now being addressed to “mitigate longer-term risk” was made with Citizen A’s reasonable expectation that a regulatory-compliant roadside right-of-way vegetation management program for 2017 was in the planning stages by the Roads Department, and that the District 5 Supervisor was engaged in the process to assure the safety of his constituents. It was reasonable to believe, on February 6, that the County Roads Departments Winter/Spring 2017 roadside vegetation management program would soon be occurring — with lessons learned about prohibited preemergent pesticides and the protection of ground water and wellheads from the investigation of 2016’s failed program being incorporated into the current year’s program for public safety. Later, Citizen A learned that the County Roads Department had quietly suspended its roadside vegetation management program for Winter/Spring 2017 on a specious claim — nearly nine months into the county’s FY2016/2017 — of a funding shortfall due to ‘severe winter weather requiring the use of available funds for road repairs.’ It remains unclear what formal process, and chain of command or approvals are required, for the Community Resource Agency overseeing the County Roads Department to decide to suspend its annual roadside vegetation management program.
• February 6, 2017: District 5 Supervisor emails Citizen A, asking “What is your relationship to the property owner and/or the incident?”
• February 6, 2017: Citizen A responded to the District 5 Supervisor, stating “My relationship to the incident is as follows: Several months ago, I attended a community meeting at the community elementary school regarding growing concerns about multiple dry and/or contaminated wells in in my community in your district. At the meeting, my recollection is that it was the County Environmental Health Director distributing a document to community residents regarding proper well maintenance. The document also contained specific mention regarding wellhead protection. Shortly thereafter, a citizen attending that meeting observed a wide band of dead vegetation alongside the roadway in in my community in your district that came within a few feet of a wellhead belonging to the Property Owner who now wishes to speak with you, whom I have known for several years. The citizen observing the dead vegetation had just completed reading the wellhead maintenance document provided by County Environmental Health, and commented about the incongruity of seeing so much dead vegetation so close to a wellhead — in what appeared to be a clear contradiction of the county-supplied document… It unfortunately appeared to those discussing various concerns about the situation, as if two departments within the county government were working at cross-purposes… the county Environmental Health Department working diligently to protect and secure the health and well-being of community residents impacted by water safety and/or water insecurity issues, and then conversely the county Roads Department compromising that effort by placing persons, animals, and property at risk by not adhering to best and safest practices in the application of roadside pesticides in proximity to wellheads in the very same community that another county department had been straining to assist. That realization is what led to the County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office being contacted for guidance and risk mitigation, and they’ve done a superb and commendable job of serving the county’s long-term interests. In the ensuing months, I’ve stayed abreast of the investigation that culminated in the issuance of a Notice of Violation to the Community Resource Agency, followed by a Notice of Proposed Action (NOPA) filed against them last month. Given my knowledge of the broad strokes and the nuances of this situation, I was asked to facilitate setting up a casual meeting between you and the property owner, and to attend the meeting for context — as noted in my prior email to you day. That is the nature of my relationship to the incident, as you’ve requested…”
• February 13, 2017: Six weeks after Citizen A initiated contact via email on January 2 seeking a meeting, District 5 Supervisor emailed Citizen A stating, “…After meeting with County staff, I understand you received information from the Agricultural Commissioner pertinent to the matter which resulted in a stipulation and fine. I was relieved to learn there was no evidence of migration or impact on the wellhead. Since you wish to discuss County responsibility, it would be most productive for the property owner to reach out to the County Counsel’s Office. The County Counsel’s Office may be reached at [phone number provided] and I have alerted them to anticipate the Property Owner’s call. Please let me know if you have any trouble reaching them or have any additional issues after you have discussed your concerns with them.”
• February 14, 2017: Citizen A responded to the District 5 Supervisor, stating “…I have let the Property Owner know of your most recent correspondence yesterday and of your suggested path for most productive action… so that a friendly and constructive dialogue may be initiated between the Property Owner and County Counsel. Thank you for facilitating that next step. As noted previously, the intent for reaching out to the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office last April was based upon a recognized need…for risk mitigation and immediate suspension of a flawed annual process conducted by the Roads Department. This outreach was done with an expectation of long-term benefit to the county and its residents. The Agricultural Commissioner’s Office wisely and expediently chose the narrowest path to the objective by documenting the Roads Departments flawed processes, and intentionally isolated examination to the specific 2016 incident impacting five wellheads in one locale rather than pursuing a much broader and complex time- and resource-consuming examination of the Roads Departments multi-year practices across a wider geography. That prudent decision enabled a relatively speedy determination of the particulars, and of the corrective actions needing to be taken to eliminate the inherent risks evident from the Roads Department continuing to spray prohibited preemergent herbicides along county roads…”
• February 28, 2017: The NOPA hearing for the Pest Control Advisor still has not been scheduled.

March 2017

• March 10, 2017: The Senior Agricultural Biologist informs Citizen A that no hearing date has been set yet for the Pest Control Advisor, and that it is their understanding that the Roads Department will no longer be applying preemergent herbicides.
• March 16, 2017: Citizen A emailed the District 5 Supervisor to inform him “that the landowner’s concerns have apparently been rebuffed by County Counsel’s representative… with County Counsel essentially conveying to the property owner that the investigation concluded no evident damage occurred to the property and therefore it appears to be a closed matter unless there are more tangible and pressing concerns to present to County Counsel.” Citizen A reminded District 5 Supervisor, that in his most recent correspondence, he’d encouraged further contact “if there were any additional issues after the property owner discussed his concerns with County Counsel’s Office.” Citizen A continued, “…It was the Property Owner’s stated desire several weeks ago to meet casually with you, as his District Supervisor and elected link to county government, to discuss county responsibility to property owners for providing notification when an alleged pesticide violation performed by county employees occurs during their discharge of county business, and the alleged violation has documented potential to negatively impact persons, animals, and/or property. County Counsel has not granted the Property Owner a meeting to discuss the county’s notification responsibility to potentially impacted property owners, following the County Roads Department allegedly discharging prohibited preemergent pesticides within 100 feet of multiple wellheads. The property owner has indicated that further delay in a county representative meeting with him is not agreeable, and has now asked to have a few additional thoughts conveyed to you. When the County Roads Departments alleged March 2016 pesticide violation was first becoming evident in April 2016, the purpose of the County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office investigation was in seeking the cessation — for the upcoming Winter/Spring 2017 annual spraying season — of what appeared to be an unsustainable and prohibited pesticide practice by the Roads Department. For expediency, only five wellheads alongside the roadway in my community in your district were selected by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office as the subject of the investigation. Five wellheads were selected for expediency, rather than the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office attempting to initiate a deeper and more costly and potentially damaging investigation spanning all, not just one, of the County Roads Departments districts, and of multiple years of suspected usage of a class of pesticides prohibited for application within specific proximity to wellheads. Deeper investigation by the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office would have likely revealed a significantly more dispersed geographic footprint throughout the county of instances where suspect prohibited preemergent pesticides had been routinely sprayed by the County Roads Department during the subject period(s) alongside county maintained roads, with wellheads in specifically restricted proximity to the spray zone. As noted previously and again summarized, the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office wisely selected this small number (5) of localized wells for expediency of investigation, seeking the cessation of what appeared to be an unsustainable and prohibited pesticide practice by the County Roads Department, and to attempt to mitigate the County’s long term risk of legal exposure from its Roads Department allegedly having engaged in prohibited and negligent pesticide practices for multiple years in violation of state and federal pesticide labeling laws, and placing person, animals, and/or property at risk. What is intended and desired here by the Property Owner is to receive a straightforward answer promptly from authority as a legitimate question of personal and community concern is posed. That has not yet been achieved. A respectful, friendly, and constructive dialogue between Citizen A, the Property Owner, and his government representative (District 5 Supervisor) is what was sought in Citizen A’s initial outreach to you, and what is still being sought today with this note on the Property Owner’s behalf. This situation demonstrates the efforts of aware citizens recognizing risks before local government recognizes them, those citizens conscientiously escalating this risk awareness to local government’s attention for action and community protection, and those citizens then rightfully expecting their local government representative(s) to respectfully and transparently engage with them regarding the resolution in a timely manner…”
• March 23, 2017: Citizen A sends a second email request to District 5 Supervisor after seven days have passed without response, stating “A follow up to my email of one week ago, dated March 16 (attached). May I expect a reply from you soon regarding the meeting request?”
• March 27, 2017: Citizen A sends a third email request to District 5 Supervisor after four additional days have passed without response — for a total of 11 days — stating “A follow up to my two unanswered emails of March 16 and March 23, respectively. May I expect a reply from you today regarding the above referenced emails?”
• ???March 27, 2017: The Property Owner receives a return phone call from a representative of County Counsel. It was explained to the Property Owner that although a meeting is possible, it will only be productive if the Property Owner had some further support for the demand. County Counsel placed the burden of effort and proof on a private citizen (Property Owner) whose property was the focus of legal action against the Community Resource Agency Roads Department by the County Agricultural Commissioner due to county negligence, and County Counsel informs the Property Owner that there must be some further support for the demand for engagement and accountability.
• March 27, 2017: District 5 Supervisor responds to Citizen A’s third email after 11 days of unresponsiveness. The email stated, “…I understand your concern about herbicide spraying and compliance with safety regulations. The county shares that concern and responded appropriately to the outcome of the investigation mentioned below. However, I disagree with your suggestion the county must initiate a broader investigation. You have the records of the last investigation including testing results indicating the herbicides did not migrate outside the spray area. That does not support expanding an investigation. I also understand that County Counsel’s Office contacted the property owner and explained a meeting is possible, but such a meeting is only going to be productive if you have some further support for your demand. Even if you provided further support, members of the Board of Supervisors would be limited to referring it to the responsible department(s). For these reasons I do not see any possible change in the county’s position nor any direction to county staff from me on any additional action to be taken resulting from a meeting on this subject and your request is respectfully declined.”
• March 27, 2017: Citizen A sends email response to District 5 Supervisor, stating “Thank you for your cordial reply this morning. Although it was not the desired outcome, I appreciate your clarification.”
• March 31, 2017: The NOPA hearing for the Pest Control Advisor still has not been scheduled.

April 2017

• April 1, 2017: Citizen A makes note that no County Roads Department spray vehicles had been observed yet to treat to the community’s roadway right-of-way. Citizen A wonders when the County Roads Department’s roadside vegetation management program will begin, as the rainy season had yielded an abundance of roadside vegetation requiring attention.
• April 30, 2017: The NOPA hearing for the Pest Control Advisor still has not been scheduled.

May 2017

• May 1, 2017: Citizen A makes note that no County Roads Department spray vehicles had been observed yet to treat to the community’s roadway right-of-way. It had become apparent to Citizen A and other citizens of District 5, that not only did the County Roads Department suspend its use of preemergent pesticides, it had suspended its program to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities at the worst possible time, when vegetation is proliferating in roadside draining facilities due to the exceptionally wet winter. District 5 Supervisor’s final email on March 27 had stated, “…I understand your concern about herbicide spraying and compliance with safety regulations. The County shares that concern and responded appropriately to the outcome of the investigation mentioned below.” Citizen A had anticipated that District 5 Supervisor’s comment, “The County… responded appropriately to the outcome of the investigation,” meant that the County Roads Department had, in the intervening months since becoming ensnared in the County Agricultural Office investigation of negligence, mapped all of the impacted wellheads on the violated 128 miles of roadways so that a regulatory-compliant Roadside Vegetation Management program would be conducted in 2017 supported by decades of available records.
• May 31, 2017: The NOPA hearing for the Pest Control Advisor still has not been scheduled.

June 2017

• June 30, 2017: The NOPA hearing for the Pest Control Advisor still has not been scheduled.

July 2017

• July 29, 2017: A wildfire of unknown origin ignites in the rights of way of the roadway, growing to several hundred acres and taking several days to fully contain and threatening the community.
• July 31, 2017: The NOPA hearing for the Pest Control Advisor still has not been scheduled.

August 2017

• August 5(?), 2017: Wildfire 100 percent contained
• August 31, 2017: The NOPA hearing for the Pest Control Advisor still has not been scheduled.

September 2017

• September 12, 2017: The Senior Agricultural Biologist informs Citizen A that the NOPA hearing for the Pest Control Advisor still has not been scheduled. The NOPA was dated January 5.
• September 30, 2017: The NOPA hearing for the Pest Control Advisor still has not been scheduled.

October 2017

• October 27, 2017: Citizen A sent the County Administrator an email re budget for 2015–2018 question re funding allocations ($) and funding sources for FY 2015–16, 2016–17, and 2017–18 for the Roads Departments right-of-way
• October 31, 2017: Citizen A verbally asks County Administrator at BOS meeting question re funding allocations ($) and funding sources for FY 2015–16, 2016–17, and 2017–18 for the Roads Department’s right-of-way roadside vegetation management program.
• October 31, 2017: The NOPA hearing for the Pest Control Advisor still has not been scheduled.

November 2017

• November 3, 2017: The Senior Agricultural Biologist informed Citizen A that after nearly 10 months, the Pest Control Advisor stipulated to the order and payed the fine in lieu of a hearing. California Food and Agriculture Code § 12003(f): Requires a warning of the possibility of damages by the pesticide application that reasonably should have been known by the agricultural pest advisor to exist.
• November 3, 2017: County Counsel sends Citizen A and email informing that District 3 Supervisor (a member of Trans Committee) asked that I gather the information you have requested regarding FY 2015–16, 2016–17, and 2017–18 for the Roads Department’s right-of-way roadside vegetation management program funding and respond. I am in the process of gathering the information and I will respond as soon as I have it.
• November 7, 2017: County Administrator informs Citizen A that requests of October 27 and October 31 regarding FY 2015–16, 2016–17, and 2017–18 for the County Roads Department’s right-of-way roadside vegetation management program have been forwarded to County Counsel for response.
• November 8, 2017: County Counsel responds to Citizen A via email, providing a Public Records Act response on behalf of questions asked of the County Administrator, a Board of Supervisors member, and of County Counsel. It was at this time that Citizen A learned conclusively, that the purpose of the county’s roadside vegetation management program is specifically to control vegetation in the roadside draining facilities, and is not intended to be a fire hazard reduction effort. The program is considered to be a discretionary function of the County Roads Department, not mandatory, and is conducted annually depending upon availability of funding rather than escalating wildfire risk factors being the driving consideration. It was also revealed in the Public Records Act response that the annual cost of the County Roads Department conducting a roadside vegetation management program is only $40-$50 thousand, yet the county failed to secure adequate funds to conduct a program despite having had one of the wettest winters on record causing a proliferation of roadside vegetation.
• County Counsel states that the matter is out of their hands with County Agricultural Commissioner, and they will not disturb a final decision.
• November 21, 2017: Citizen A addresses the Board of Supervisors.

December 2017

• December 19, 2017: Citizen A addresses the Board of Supervisors.

Appendix A. Violations of California Code of Regulations (Title 3. Food and Agriculture) Division 6. Pesticides and Pest Control Operations

• California Code of Regulations § 6600(e) General Standards of Care: “Exercise reasonable precautions to avoid contamination of the environment.”
• California Code of Regulations § 6609 Wellhead Protection: “…the following activities shall be prohibited within 100 feet of a well… application of preemergent herbicides… application of preemergent herbicides shall be prohibited between the berm and the wellhead.” § 6609 Wellhead Protection was adopted in May 2004.
• California Code of Regulations § 6614(b)(2)(3) Protection of Persons, Animals, and Property: “Notwithstanding that substantial drift would be prevented, no pesticide application shall be made or continued when… there is a reasonable possibility of damage to non-target crops, animals, or other public or private property, or… there is a reasonable possibility of contamination of non-target public or private property, including the creation of a health hazard, preventing normal use of such property. In determining a health hazard, the amount of toxicity of the pesticide, the type and uses of the property and related factors shall be considered.”
• California Code of Regulations § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List: “Pesticides labeled for agricultural, outdoor institutional or outdoor industrial use that contain any of the following chemicals: Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (Milestone); Dithiopyr (Dimension 2EW); Penoxsulam (Pindar GT) are designated as having the potential to pollute ground water.” CCR § 6800(b) Groundwater Protection List was amended on October 1, 2014 to include Aminopyralid, triisopropanolamine salt (Milestone).

Appendix B. Violations of California Food and Agriculture Code § 12003(f)

• California Food and Agriculture Code § 12003: Agricultural Pest Control Advisors shall put all recommendation concerning any agricultural use in writing. One copy of each such written recommendation shall be signed and dated and shall be furnished to the operator of the property prior to the application. Each written recommendation shall include, when applicable, the following: (f) A warning of the possibility of damage by the pesticide application that reasonably should have been known by the agricultural Pest Control Advisor to exist.

TO BE CONTINUED

Next: January 2018 to Present