📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report
This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
• 2005-2006
Pesticide USE at the Agricultural/urban Interface
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
Page 37
California grows more than 85% of the nation’s strawberries and other methyl- bromide dependent crops. San Luis Obispo County growers planted 800 acres of strawberries in 2004. In 2005, 18 restricted materials permits were issued for the use of methyl bromide. Besides its toxicity, methyl bromide is a significant contributor to the ozone depletion in the atmosphere. The use of this pesticide continues despite the fact that the U.S. has signed the Montreal Protocol treaty, which promised to ban the use of methyl bromide by 2005. Efforts are still in progress on both the federal and the state levels.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Page 38
The Grand Jury strongly recommends that less toxic materials be used to replace methyl bromide and that the Board of Supervisors actively support the Montreal Protocol. (Finding 1)
F2
Page 37
Growers are subject to obtaining use permit, being inspected and fined for violations ranging from fifty to many thousands of dollars depending on the nature of the non-compliance. Pg 35 of 252
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Page 38
Fines imposed on growers should be reviewed and made stringent enough to deter infractions of all regulations. (Finding 2)
F3
Page 38
All schools are considered “sensitive sites”. School safety issues that have been addressed include parental information regarding spraying schedules, the creation of buffer zones around schools and childcare centers and mandatory conditions on restricted pesticide application when children are present.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Page 38
Restricted pesticides should be prohibited on school grounds. School officials should adhere to the principles outlined in the Healthy Schools Act of 2000 (AB 2260 and AB 1006) until the long-range effects of pesticides on children’s growth patterns can be documented. Buffer zones around schools should be broadened beyond those specified on the manufacturer’s label. (Finding 3) Pg 36 of 252
F4
Page 38
The CAC and Public Health Department have coordinated efforts to update their database of childcare facilities in order to prevent pesticide exposure to this most vulnerable
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Page 39
The annual updating of childcare locations is an important part of protecting children. Mandatory annual updating should be the responsibility of the office of the CAC. (Finding 4)
F5
Page 38
The Environmental Resource Section (land use) of CAC’s office is periodically requested by the Planning Department to provide input regarding a suitable location for a new school. This information, which takes into consideration the proximity to existing commercial agriculture, is often disregarded. New schools continue to be placed near large agricultural venues.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Page 39
Recommendations from Environmental Resource Section should be an essential part of any new school project’s planning. (Finding 5)
F6
Page 38
The Task Force on Health and Pesticide Use recommended that they meet every three years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Page 39
The Grand Jury recommends that the Task Force on Health and Pesticide Use meet annually for the purpose of review and recommendations. (Finding 6)
F7
Page 38
Legislation at the state level seeks to protect all citizens against pesticide drift, and recently SB 391 was introduced to provide for medical reimbursement for pesticide-related illnesses.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Page 39
The Grand Jury urges all concerned citizens to contact their local representatives and urge them to enact and support legislation that will further protect school sites and the surrounding residents from future exposure and contamination. (Finding 7)
Conclusions 1
-
CL1 Page 39The Grand Jury would like to commend the CAC for its outreach to the public: the creation of a HOTLINE and the distribution of handouts describing how pesticides are regulated, how to report complaints, and measures to reduce pesticide use in the home. This agency performs the important job of bringing neighbors and growers together to cooperate on common problems. In addition, CAC coordinates with Santa Barbara County to maintain consistency in regulating pesticide use throughout the region. The Grand Jury would like to acknowledge the grassroots efforts of Neighbors-At-Risk for taking a proactive stance on this issue as well as ECOSLO for their work in increasing public awareness. We also commend the Public Health Department for creating the task force, for working with CAC, and for providing training to medical professionals in schools and hospitals. As the county’s population increases, the agricultural/urban clash will intensify. Land use decisions, which ensure both the grower’s “right to farm” and the public’s health, need to be protected. California’s goal is to protect commercial agriculture as an essential component of the state’s economy. The Grand Jury hopes this county is committed to maintaining a balance between growing crops and a growing population. Pg 37 of 252