State Accused of Not Acting on Pesticides in Ground Water

A key legislator and health and environmental groups have accused state agriculture officials of failing to adequately enforce a law to halt pesticide seepage into ground water, the source of 40% of California’s drinking water supply.

Contrary to the law’s intent, the Department of Food and Agriculture is not trying to prevent contamination but merely “to deal with contamination after it occurs,” said the Natural Resources Defense Council. The department’s policy is “let’s do the least we can,” contended Ralph Lightstone, staff attorney for California Rural Legal Assistance, a farm workers’ advocacy group.

And Assemblyman Lloyd Connelly (D-Sacramento), sponsor of the ground water protection law, said he may take the agency to court over its “totally irrational” enforcement policy.

Balancing Act

A department official defended the agency, saying it is balancing environmental needs with its “mandate to promote (agriculture) as an industry in the state.”

At issue is the department’s decision to restrict pesticides only near polluted wells--rather than around other wells that could be tainted in the future. Critics contend that the law--known as the Pesticide Contamination Prevention Act of 1985--requires that pesticides found to be “leakers” either be banned or regulated everywhere that ground water supplies may be threatened. For example, use of these pesticides might be restricted to certain types of soil or to lower rates of application.

But Food and Agriculture officials have decided to impose controls only around specific wells in which pesticides have been detected. Restrictions will be limited to these “pesticide management zones”--typically mile-square areas around the tainted wells.

The first expression of this policy came last month when the department established 63 pesticide management zones for atrazine--a weed-killer used to clear roadsides, for landscaping and on corn crops. About half the atrazine management zones are in the Los Angeles area.

Management zones for four other pesticides will be proposed this month, with zones for more pesticides to follow.

But critics contend the law was meant to protect clean wells, not merely to keep tainted wells from getting dirtier.

Interpretation of the Law

“It said that if a pesticide is polluting the ground water . . . they had to either suspend the pesticide or identify a way that its use could be altered so it wouldn’t cause future pollution,” Connelly said.

“They’ve interpreted it to say that we only have to suspend or modify its use within one mile of the well that’s already polluted, which says nothing about” the rest of the state, he said.

“The whole concept here is prevention. . . . Once you pollute the ground water in this fashion, it literally takes thousands of years--because the water is cold, dark and not moving--for the pesticide to break down.”

About half the state’s residents rely at least partly on ground water for their domestic supply, with the percentage higher in some rural areas where pesticide use is heavy.

Department officials defended their approach, saying management zones will be added where needed or expanded beyond their mile-square limits. And they said education will be “a key element,” through training of state-certified pest control advisers who work with growers.

“We try to keep chemicals in use where we can,” said Veda Federighi, an information officer with the Department of Food and Agriculture. She said statewide controls are not justified for pesticides known only to have caused isolated problems.

“To assume there’s a huge problem out there is just not backed up by the evidence we have,” Federighi said. “That’s why we’re moving slow on this.”

Connelly said he is talking with health and environmental groups about a possible lawsuit against the department or legislative action. “I’ll tell you this, we are not going to sit on our hands,” he said.

The controversy may renew calls for stripping the department of pesticide regulation, although legislation to do this has been defeated in the past.

California accounts for at least 25% of U.S. pesticide use. Unlike other toxic substances that reach water through leaks or spills, pesticides are deliberately applied to soil or mixed with irrigation water to kill insects, weeds and fungus. And some persist so long that they cause major problems years after being pulled off the market.

An example is DBCP, short for dibromochloropropane, which has fouled more ground water in California and the nation than any other pesticide contaminant. DBCP was used to kill root-eating worms called nematodes. Its use was suspended about a decade ago after it was linked to sterility among male pesticide plant workers. But DBCP residues have been found in about 2,500 wells in California, many of them in the San Joaquin Valley. As a result, health officials and rural water districts face the choice of high treatment costs or a somewhat greater cancer risk from DBCP exposure. Nor does the problem end with DBCP--some pesticides used in its place have been turning up in wells.