📋
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.
Mendocino County Grand Jury
• 1999-2000
Redwood Valley County Water District
⚠️ 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 9 findings
F1
Page 197
Clearigate, a chemical herbicide, was applied to the water reservoir twice without notification to district water users. Response (RVCWD): The Board agrees that Clearigate, an herbicide manufactured by Applied Biochemists, was applied to its water 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 197 reservoir. The Board agrees that it did not notify district water users before the Clearigate was applied. The Board notes that notification of district water users was not required at that time by District policy or state or federal law, and hat the district had no information at that time to suggest that the application of Clearigate would have any adverse affect on the quality of District water.
F2
Page 198
There were two infractions of the State of California Pesticide Regulations (SCPR). The Environmental Protection Agency of which SCPR is a part, levied a fine of $900.00, i.e., $700.00 against RVCWD and $200.00 against Applied Biochemist. Response (RVCWD): The Board disagrees that the Environmental Protections Agency(“EPA”) levied a fine of $900 based on two infractions of State of California Pesticide Regulation. The county Agricultural Commissioner, not EPA, imposed a fine of $700, not $900. The fine was based on a violation of Food and Agriculture Code Section 12973 which states: “The use of any pesticide shall not conflict with labeling registered pursuant to this chapter which is delivered with the pesticide.” The violation did not involve the failure of the District to give prior notice to District customers of its intent to use Clearigate.
F3
Page 199
Clearigate was applied to water in the reservoir in excess of Clearigate label instructions. Response (RVCWD): The Board agrees that the Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner found that there may have been an over- application of Clearigate based on label instructions. The Board notes that the first time Clearigate was used in the District’s raw water reservoir, it was applied by Bill Thomas who is employed by Applied Biochemists, the manufacturer of Clearigate. The Department of Agriculture determined that Mr. Thomas calculated the amount of Clearigate to apply, and that he actually performed the first application on May 13, 1999. That application was also observed by a representative of the Agricultural Commissioner who did not note any violations at the time of the application. District employees, including the General Manager, relied upon the manufacturer to properly apply Clearigate in compliance with label instructions developed by the manufacturer.
F4
Page 199
The Allied Biochemist, Inc. representative acted as a Pest Control Adviser without first registering with the Mendocino County Agriculture Commissioner. Response (RVCWD): The Board agrees that the Agricultural Commissioner found that Applied Biochemists’ employee should have registered with the Agricultural Commissioner as a Pest Control Adviser (“PCA”) before writing a recommendation for the use of Clearigate. 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report 199
F5
Page 200
Mendocino County Health and Agricultural Departments' oficials indicated use of Clearigate did not present an extreme danger to the health of RVCWD customers. Response (RVCWD): The Board disagrees with the Grand Jury’s characterization that Mendocino County Heath and Agriculture Department officials indicated that use of Clearigate did not present “an extreme danger” to the health of District water users. Rather, the county Agriculture Department stated that Clearigate is registered with the U.S. and California EPAs for use in potable water resevoirs. It has no use restrictions during or following applications. Although the material data sheet describes health hazard data, it is based on human exposure to 100% concentrations which are never achieved in the field. The hazards described on the label are based on people handling the concentrated product. When products are registered with the EPA, there are built in safety factors of at least 100 times below the level where injuries could occur. The California Department of Health Services –Drinking Water Field Operations Branch wrote: Upon investigation by DWP in conjunction with the Office of OEHHA, Clearigate was confirmed to be non-health hazardous to humans and is commonly used for aquatic weed control in potable water reservoirs.
F6
Page 200
Mendocino County Agriculture Department requested the State of California Department of Pesticide Regulation reevaluate the use of Clearigate in domestic water supplies. Response (RVCWD): The Board has no knowledge on which to agree or disagree with this finding.
F7
Page 200
The RVCWD Manager has the responsibility to add chemicals to the water for the district. Response (RVCWD): The District’s General Manager is the administrative head of the District and is responsible for the day-to-day management of the District and its employees, subject tot he policies adopted by and the ultimate control of the Board.
F8
Page 200
The RVCWD Manager has been employed by the District for over 20 years. According to testimony he apparently believes he can act independently of the Water District Board of Directors. Response (RVCWD): The Board does not believe the statement in finding no. 8 constitutes a “finding.” It draws a conclusion about what 200 1999-2000 Mendocino County Grand Jury Final Report the district’s General Manager believes from unspecified “testimony.” It is the Board’s opinion that such statements undermine the credibility of a Grand Jury report. The Board does not understand what the report means by “acts independently of the Board.” The Board has not been presented with evidence that the General Manager has exceeded his authority or failed to follow policies established by the Board.
F9
Page 201
According to testimony, the RVCWD Manager has, on previous occasions, misinformed the members of the Board of Directors regarding happenings or events within the RVCWD of which they should be cognizant. Response (RVCWD): The Board cannot agree or disagree with this finding, because it is vague and unspecific. The Board does not understand how these vague statements relate to the Clearigate incident, which appears to be the subject of the Grand Jury investigation. Again, it is the Board’s opinion that such vague and apparently unrelated statements undermine the credibility of a Grand Jury report.
Recommendations 1
-
R3Page 197Clearigate was applied to water in the reservoir in excess of Clearigate label instructions. Response (RVCWD): The Board agrees that the Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner found that there may have been an over- application of Clearigate based on label instructions. The Board notes that the first time Clearigate was used in the District’s raw water reservoir, it was applied by Bill Thomas who is employed by Applied Biochemists, the manufacturer of Clearigate. The Department of Agriculture determined that Mr. Thomas calculated the amount of Clearigate to apply, and that he actually performed the first application on May 13, 1999. That application was also observed by a representative of the Agricultural Commissioner who did not note any violations at the time of the application. District employees, including the General Manager, relied upon the manufacturer to properly apply Clearigate in compliance with label instructions developed by the manufacturer. Recommendation The RVCWD Board of Directors should follow the law and insist that the Water District Manager adhere to all chemical label instructions. Response (RVCWD): The Board agrees that it should follow the law and that its employees should follow the law and chemical label instructions. The Board notes that its employees made a good faith effort to do that in applying Clearigate and justifiably relied on the manufacturer’s employee to correctly apply the material.