A performance audit of the Board of Pesticide Control

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE
BOARD OF PESTICIDE CONTROL
SEPTEMBER 1983
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 83- 1 5
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDLTOR GENERAL
September 13, 1983
Members of the Arizona L e g i s l a t u r e
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
Mr. H. Lynn Anderson, Chairman
Board of P e s t i c i d e Control
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control. This report is i n response t o a
January 18, 1982, r e s o l u t i o n of the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight
Committee. The performance a u d i t was conducted as a part of the Sunset
Review set f o r t h i n A. R. S. $ 341- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The blue pages present a summary of the r e p o r t ; a response from the Board
of P e s t i c i d e Control is found on the yellow pages.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased t o discuss or c l a r i f y items i n the report.
~ o u g l a sR . Norton
Auditor General
Enclosure
S t a f f : William Thomson
Steve Thacker
Mary OrConnor
Samuel Harris
W i l l i a m Wright
1 1 1 WEST MONROE SUITE 600 PHOENIX. ARIZONA 85003 ( 602) 255- 4385
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE
BOARD OF PESTICIDE CONTROL
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 83- 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDINGS
FINDING I
The Board's i n s p e c t i o n program has been i n e f f e c t i v e .
COI? CLUSION
RECOPIMENDATIONS
FINDING I1
The Board has taken few d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s .
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING I11
The Board should be c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h the
Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e .
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
FINDING I V
The Board should monitor p e s t i c i d e use by
growers and p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s .
CONCLUSION
WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
- Page
i
1
9
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1 - Summary of Board Licensing A c t i v i t i e s F i s c a l
Years 1979- 80 through 1982- 83
TABLE 2 - Summary of Board Enforcement A c t i v i t i e s Calendar
Years 1979 through 1982
TABLE 3 - Board Expenditures, Sources of Funds and FTE
Positions F i s c a l Years 1979- 80 through 1983- 84
TABLE 4 - P o t e n t i a l V i o l a t i o n s p e r A p p l i c a t o r , a s Reported by
Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e Commission Inspectors
i n F i s c a l Year 1981- 82
TABLE 5 - Custom Applicator Inspections Calendar Year
1982
TABLE 6 - Comparison of the Number of Applications
Versus the Number of Inspections per Applicator
During Calendar Year 1982
TABLE 7 - Results of Board Hearings Between May 1979
and March 1983
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u d i t of the
S t a t e Board of P e s t i c i d e Control i n response t o a January 18, 1982,
r e s o l u t i o n of t h e J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. This performance
a u d i t was conducted a s p a r t of the Sunset Review s e t f o r t h i n Arizona
Revised S t a t u t e s ( A. R. S.) $ 941- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The Board's purpose is t o p r o t e c t the public by regulating the s a l e and
use of a g r i c u l t u r a l p e s t i c i d e s i n Arizona. To accomplish t h i s the Board
l i c e n s e s various c a t e g o r i e s of p e s t i c i d e users and conducts an enforcement
program c o n s i s t i n g of i n s p e c t i o n s and complaint i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Personnel
i n the Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e a s s i s t the Board by
performing many of t h e s e i n s p e c t i o n s and i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . Under a
cooperative agreement with the Federal Environmental Protection Agency
( EPA), the Board is a l s o responsible f o r enforcing Federal p e s t i c i d e laws
i n Arizona.
The Board's Insoection Pro"~ ramD oes
Not Adequately Protect Public Health ( s e e page 17)
The Board's inspection program has not e f f e c t i v e l y monitored the use of
p e s t i c i d e s . We i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e weaknesses i n t h e i n s p e c t i o n program
which s e r i o u s l y impair t h e Board's a b i l i t y t o regulate p e s t i c i d e
a p p l i c a t o r s and thus p r o t e c t p u b l i c h e a l t h .
F i r s t , Board s t a f f has not followed up on p o t e n t i a l l y serious v i o l a t i o n s
reported by f i e l d i n s p e c t o r s . In one four- month period Commission
i n s p e c t o r s reported p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s during 102 inspections. A t l e a s t
50 of t h e s e i n s p e c t i o n s c i t e d d e f i c i e n c i e s serious enough t o warrant
follow- up, such a s improper disposals of p e s t i c i d e s and c o n t a i n e r s ,
spraying too c l o s e t o residences and environmental contamination.
However, no follow- up s t e p s were taken i n any of these cases.
Second, the Board s t a f f has not been tracking repeat v i o l a t o r s .
Consequently, s e v e r a l a p p l i c a t o r s appear t o have each committed numerous
s e r i o u s v i o l a t i o n s without any r e a c t i o n from the Board or its s t a f f . One
of these a p p l i c a t o r s was reported f o r 49 p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s i n a
four- month period.
Third, Board i n s p e c t o r s a r e not providing the most e f f e c t i v e coverage of
p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s . The number of i n s p e c t i o n s p e r a p p l i c a t o r does not
appear t o bear a r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the number of p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s made
by each a p p l i c a t o r o r t o the number of previous v i o l a t i o n s . For example,
one a p p l i c a t o r made no a p p l i c a t i o n s during the year but was s t i l l
inspected t h r e e times, whereas another a p p l i c a t o r made 233 a p p l i c a t i o n s
but was never inspected.
Board s t a f f should improve its follow- up on reported p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s ,
i d e n t i f y repeat v i o l a t o r s and recommend Board d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n when
warranted. I n a d d i t i o n , Board s t a f f should develop a more e f f e c t i v e
system f o r a l l o c a t i n g its i n s p e c t i o n resources i n order t o provide
coverage where it i s most needed. The Board a d m i n i s t r a t o r r e p o r t s t h a t he
now is following up on reported v i o l a t i o n s and i d e n t i f y i n g repeat
v i o l a t o r s .
Board Has Taken Few D i s c i p l i n a r y
Actions ( s e e page 31)
The Board has taken r e l a t i v e l y few d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s and is perceived
a s a weak enforcement body by s e v e r a l knowledgeable sources. Several
f a c t o r s c o n t r i b u t e t o t h i s condition. F i r s t , many p o t e n t i a l enforcemect
cases have not even reached the Board because of an inadequate i n s p e c t i o n
program ( mentioned e a r l i e r ) . Second, the Eoard does not have s u f f i c i e n t
s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y f o r taking a c t i o n against some c a t e g o r i e s of p e s t i c i d e
users. In p a r t i c u l a r , 1 ) t h e grounds f o r taking a c t i o n against growers •
( farmers) a r e too r e s t r i c t i v e ; and 2) the Board does not have s u f f i c i e n t
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e sanctions t o use against growers, p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s and
s e l l e r s . F i n a l l y , according t o the EPA the Board has n o t taken
a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n s i n s e v e r a l d i s c i p l i n a r y cases.
To strengthen the Board ' s enforcement a b i l i t y , t h e L e g i s l a t u r e should
amend the laws t o give t h e Board s u f f i c i e n t grounds and p e n a l t i e s f o r
d i s c i p l i n i n g growers, p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s and s e l l e r s , including the use
of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n e s . According t o the EPA, the Board should a l s o use
its e x i s t i n g a u t h o r i t y more aggressively t o d i s c i p l i n e v i o l a t o r s and
enforce S t a t e and Federal p e s t i c i d e laws and regulations.
Board Should Be Consolidated With
the Commission of Agriculture and
H o r t i c u l t u r e ( s e e page 39)
The c u r r e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e hinders the e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t
management of the p e s t i c i d e regulatory program. Responsibility f o r
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e program is c u r r e n t l y shared between the Commission
of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e and the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control. The
r e l a t i o n s h i p between these agencies is unclear and has inherent weaknesses
a f f e c t i n g program administration. Directors of both agencies believe they
have been given t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the p e s t i c i d e program without
s u f f i c i e n t s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y o r c o n t r o l over program resources. Because
of the seasonal nature of the work load and the need f o r i n s p e c t o r s t o be
located throughout t h e S t a t e , t h e Commission appears t o be the only agency
which can e f f i c i e n t l y supply a l l the manpower needed f o r a n e f f e c t i v e
enforcement program. Therefore, the p e s t i c i d e program should be placed
f u l l y within the Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e . As a part of
t h i s move, the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control should be reduced i n s i z e and
limited t o advising t h e Commission on t h e adoption of r u l e s and
regulations.
iii
Some P e s t i c i d e Users Are
Not Monitored ( see page 49)
The Board does not have enough information t o monitor p e s t i c i d e use by
growers and p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s . Compared t o other regulated users, these
groups o p e r a t e w i t h r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e oversight by the Board. These
groups a r e n o t s u b j e c t t o any s t a t u t o r y reporting requirements, nor a r e
they inspected by the Board's s t a f f . Although t h e extent of p e s t i c i d e
misuse by these groups is unknown, t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r harm appears t o be
s u b s t a n t i a l . Therefore, the Board should monitor p e s t i c i d e use by these
groups t o determine i f more s t r i n g e n t r e g u l a t i o n is needed. To accomplish
t h i s , the Board needs s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o require growers t o maintain
records of p e s t i c i d e use. I n a d d i t i o n , Board s t a f f should inspect a
l i m i t e d number of growers on a random or spot- check basis.
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u d i t of the
S t a t e Board of P e s t i c i d e Control i n response t o a January 18, 1982,
r e s o l u t i o n of the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Commit tee. This performance
a u d i t was conducted a s p a r t of the Sunset Review s e t f o r t h i n Arizona
Revised S t a t u t e s ( A. R. S) § § 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
H i s t o r i c a l Background
A g r i c u l t u r a l p e s t i c i d e s were f i r s t regulated i n Arizona by the Board of
Pest Control Applicators, created i n 1953. This agency's primary purpose
was t o c o n t r o l t h e use of a g r i c u l t u r a l p e s t i c i d e s by l i c e n s i n g custom
a p p l i c a t o r s ( those paid t o apply a g r i c u l t u r a l p e s t i c i d e s ) . In 1964, i n an
e f f o r t t o exercise some c o n t r o l over the s a l e of p e s t i c i d e s , the Board's
s t a t u t o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s were expanded t o include the issuance of
p e s t i c i d e use permits t o growers ( farmers).
L e g i s l a t i o n i n 1968 changed the Board's t i t l e t o the Board of P e s t i c i d e
Control and added t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o regulate the storage and d i s p o s a l
of p e s t i c i d e s and p e s t i c i d e containers. The law a l s o required custom
a p p l i c a t o r s t o f i l e r e p o r t s of p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s with the Board ( s e e
page 50). Later amendments required a g r i c u l t u r a l p e s t c o n t r o l advisors*
and a g r i c u l t u r a l a i r c r a f t p i l o t s t o be licensed by the Board.
Federal Regulation
The Federal I n s e c t i c i d e , Fungicide and Rodenticide Act ( FIFFA), passed i n
1972, has affected p e s t i c i d e r e g u l a t i o n i n s e v e r a l major ways. FIFRA
r e q u i r e s t h a t manufacturers r e g i s t e r a l l p e s t i c i d e s with the EPA and provide
* As defined i n Board s t a t u t e s , an a g r i c u l t u r a l pest c o n t r o l advisor is
" any person who, a s a requirement o f , or i n c i d e n t a l t o , h i s employment
or occupation, o f f e r s a recommendation t o a grower or t o any public o r
p r i v a t e agency concerning t h e c o n t r o l of any s p e c i f i c a g r i c u l t u r a l
pest condition. . . ."
evidence t h a t t h e i r products w i l l not i n j u r e humans, l i v e s t o c k , crops o r
w i l d l i f e when used as d i r e c t e d . EPA then c l a s s i f i e s the p e s t i c i d e s f o r
e i t h e r general or r e s t r i c t e d use. General- use p e s t i c i d e s may be used by
anyone. Restricted- use p e s t i c i d e s are those which may pose an
unreasonable r i s k t o the user o r t h e environment unless a p p l i e d w i t h g r e a t
care.* Restricted- use p e s t i c i d e s can only be used by or under t h e
d i r e c t i o n of c e r t i f i e d a p p l i c a t o r s . FIFRA r e q u i r e s EPA t o s e t standards
f o r c e r t i f i c a t i o n ; however, the i n d i v i d u a l s t a t e s c e r t i f y a p p l i c a t o r s
through t h e i r own programs based on Federal standards.
FIFRA a l s o e s t a b l i s h e s some minimum standards f o r the use of r e g i s t e r e d
p e s t i c i d e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y r e s t r i c t e d - u s e products. Again, the EPA can
delegate its enforcement a u t h o r i t y t o the s t a t e s through a cooperative
agreement. However, i f t h e s t a t e f a i l s t o adequately enforce FIFRA, the
EPA may withdraw t h a t enforcement a u t h o r i t y or may take enforcement a c t i o n
i t s e l f against any p a r t i c u l a r v i o l a t o r .
The EPA awards g r a n t s t o s t a t e s t o help fund these c e r t i f i c a t i o n and
enforcement programs. The Board of P e s t i c i d e Control is c u r r e n t l y the
lead agency i n Arizona responsible f o r enforcing FIFRA w i t h i n t h e S t a t e .
In connection with t h i s , the Board has two agreements with the EPA which
provide Federal funds f o r 1) c e r t i f y i n g a p p l i c a t o r s f o r r e s t r i c t e d - u s e
p e s t i c i d e s ($ 7,000 f o r Federal f i s c a l year 1982- 83) and 2) conducting an
inspection/ enforcement program ($ 112,500 f o r Federal f i s c a l year
1982- 83). The l a t t e r grant enabled the Board t o h i r e t h r e e a d d i t i o n a l
i n s p e c t o r s .
* A r e s t r i c t e d - u s e p e s t i c i d e is defined by A. R. S. $ 3- 391 a s ". . . a
p e s t i c i d e which, when applied i n accordance with i t s d i r e c t i o n s f o r use . . . may generally cause, without a d d i t i o n a l regulatory r e s t r i c t i o n s ,
unreasonable adverse e f f e c t s on the environment, including i n j u r y t o
the applicator."
Current A c t i v i t i e s
The Board's purpose is t o p r o t e c t t h e public by r e g u l a t i n g t h e s a l e and use
of p e s t i c i d e s . The Board's regulatory program c o n s i s t s of 1 ) l i c e n s i n g ,
permit and c e r t i f i c a t i o n programs and 2) enforcement a c t i v i t i e s - - i n c l u d i n g
routine inspections, monitoring of p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s and i n v e s t i g a t i o n
of complaints.
The Board i s s u e s l i c e n s e s i n four c a t e g o r i e s : 1) custom a p p l i c a t o r s ,
2) equipment ( a i r c r a f t and ground r i g s ) , 3) a g r i c u l t u r a l a i r c r a f t p i l o t s ,
and 4) a g r i c u l t u r a l pest c o n t r o l advisors. They i s s u e permits t o s e l l e r s
of r e g i s t e r e d p e s t i c i d e s and t o growers f o r use of such p e s t i c i d e s . Through
an EPA agreement, t h e Board a l s o c e r t i f i e s growers and custom a p p l i c a t o r s t o
buy or apply r e s t r i c t e d - u s e pesticides." Table 1 summarizes the Board's
l i c e n s i n g a c t i v i t i e s f o r a four- year period.
As p a r t of its enforcement r o l e , the Board i n s p e c t s applicator- base
operations, s a t e l l i t e a i r s t r i p s and s e l l e r s ' establishments f o r compliance
w i t h a p p l i c a b l e laws and regulations. The Board a l s o monitors a portion of
t h e estimated 30,000 p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s reported annually by custom
a p p l i c a t o r s throughout the s t a t e . I n a d d i t i o n , Board i n s p e c t o r s must
i n v e s t i g a t e a l l p e s t i c i d e - r e l a t e d i n c i d e n t s reported t o them ( including
public complaints) and gather evidence f o r d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s by t h e
Board, the EPA o r t h e c o u r t s . Table 2 summarizes t h e Board's enforcement
a c t i v i t i e s f o r a four- year period.
* Persons must be c e r t i f i e d a s p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s t o apply
r e s t r i c t e d - u s e p e s t i c i d e s t o t h e i r own property or elsewhere without
compensation. A l l other persons applying r e s t r i c t e d - u s e a g r i c u l t u r a l
p e s t i c i d e s must be c e r t i f i e d a s commercial a p p l i c a t o r s . Thus, a
custom a p p l i c a t o r who a p p l i e s r e s t r i c t e d - u s e p e s t i c i d e s must a l s o be
c e r t i f i e d a s a commercial a p p l i c a t o r .
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF BOARD LICENSING ACTIVITIES
FISCAL YEARS 1979- 80 THROUGH 1982- 83
Permits, Licenses & C e r t i f i c a t i o n
Growers ( u s e ) p e r m i t s issued
S e l l e r s permits issued
Custom a p p l i c a t o r l i c e n s e s issued
Equipment l i c e n s e s issued
A g r i c u l t u r a l a i r c r a f t p i l o t
l i c e n s e s issued
A g r i c u l t u r a l p e s t c o n t r o l
advisor l i c e n s e s issued
P r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s c e r t i f i e d
Commercial a p p l i c a t o r s
c e r t i f i e d
Source: F i s c a l Year 1983- 84 Budget Request f o r the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control and
other documents provided by Board s t a f f
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF BOARD ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
CALENDAR YEARS 1979 THROUGH 1982
Calendar Calendar Calendar Calendar
Year 1979 Year 1980 Year 1981 Year 1982
Monitoring and i n s p e c t i o n
r e p o r t s 1,600 2,050 1,781 986
P e s t i c i d e i n c i d e n t
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s 390 279 269 2 71
D e a l e r I D i s t r i b u t o r i n s p e c t i o n s N/ A N/ A N/ A 5 0
Experimental- use permit
i n s p e c t i o n s N/ A N/ A N/ A 18
Nonagricultural i n s p e c t i o n s N/ A N/ A N/ A 2 5
Sample c o l l e c t i o n and
p r e p a r a t i o n N/ A N/ A N/ A 129
Board hearings - 0- 12 5 7
Source: F i s c a l Year 1983- 84 Budget Request f o r the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control
and other documents provided by Board s t a f f
By s t a t u t e , the agency has a 15- member Board which includes: eight
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s from various i n d u s t r i e s affected by p e s t i c i d e use ( c o t t o n ,
produce, d a i r y , feed g r a i n s , l i v e s t o c k , c i t r u s , a g r i c u l t u r a l chemicals and
custom p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n ) ; an occupational h e a l t h physician; an
entomologist i n public s e r v i c e ; t h r e e public members ; the d i r e c t o r of the
Department of Health Services or h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e ; and the chairman of
the Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e , who by s t a t u t e serves a s
Board chairman. Board s t a f f c o n s i s t s of a n a d m i n i s t r a t o r , an a s s i s t a n t
administrator who a c t s a s chief i n v e s t i g a t o r , a n accounting c l e r k , a
t y p i s t , one State- funded inspector and t h r e e f e d e r a l l y funded inspectors.
In a d d i t i o n , through a c o o p e r a t i v e agreement up t o 35 i n s p e c t o r s a r e
a v a i l a b l e from the Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e t o conduct
inspections, monitor p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s , and i n v e s t i g a t e complaints.
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s $ 3- 372 provides t h a t the Board s h a l l be under the
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e ;
theref ore, the Commission provides budgeting, personnel and accounting
s e r v i c e s t o the Board.
Sources of Funds \
Originally the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control was a 90110 agency funded by
f e e s c o l l e c t e d f o r l i c e n s e s , c e r t i f i c a t e s , permits and p e n a l t i e s . In
f i s c a l year 1980- 81 a t the request of the Board, the agency became a
General Fund agency. ( During the previous year, the Board a l s o received a
supplemental General Fund appropriation.) Table 3 shows Board sources of
funds, expenditures and FTEs f o r the most recent five- year period.
TABLE 3
BOARD EXPENDITURES, SOURCES OF FUNDS AND FTE POSITIONS
FISCAL YEARS 1979- 80 THROUGH 1983- 84
Actual Actual Actual Actual Approved
1979- 80 1980- 81 1981- 82 1982- 83 1983- 84
Sources of funds:
P e s t i c i d e Control Fund 45,800 - 0- - 0- - 0-* - 0-
General Fund 111,800 124,500 124,500 128,800 139,900 a
Total** 157.600 124,500 124,500 128,800 139.900
Expenditures:
Personal s e r v i c e s 106,600 85,400 81,900 91,600
Employee- related expenses 20,500 16,500 17,200 20,700
P r o f e s s i o n a l and outside
s e r v i c e s 2,700 700 - 0- 200
Travel -
In- State 14,400 9,800 9,500 6,600
Out- of- State 7 00 1,300 900 - 0-
Other operating expenses 12,200 9,800 12,300 9,300
Equipment 500 1,000 2,700 400
Total 157,600 124,500 124.500 128.800
FTE p o s i t i o n s
State- f unded
Federally funded
Source: S t a t e of Arizona Appropriations Reports and Board budget documents
* The Board received approximately $ 91,000 i n f e e s during f i s c a l year
1982- 83; however, these funds were contributed t o the General Fund since
the Board is no longer a 90/ 10 agency.
** Does not include Federal grant funds; Federal funds t o t a l e d $ 119,500 i n
Federal f i s c a l year 1982- 83.
S c o ~ eo f Audit
The purpose of our a u d i t of the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control was t o
determine:
1. If the Board's regulatory a u t h o r i t y over l i c e n s e e s and permittees
i s adequate f o r p r o t e c t i n g the public from p e s t i c i d e misuse;
2. I f the Board's inspection program is e f f e c t i v e i n enforcing S t a t e
and Federal r e g u l a t i o n s ;
3. I f t h e c u r r e n t agency s t r u c t u r e hampers Board e f f i c i e n c y and
e f f e c t i v e n e s s ; and
4. I f t h e Board's p e s t i c i d e management program should be consolidated o r
combined with those of other S t a t e agencies.
Due t o time c o n s t r a i n t s , we did not examine the Board's l i c e n s i n g process
t o determine i f 1 ) t h e c u r r e n t l i c e n s u r e requirements a r e appropriate,
2) the l i c e n s e renewal process could be made more e f f i c i e n t using
staggered or multiyear l i c e n s u r e , and 3) f e e s f o r l i c e n s e s and permits
could be increased t o enable the program t o pay f o r i t s e l f .
The Auditor General and s t a f f express a p p r e c i a t i o n t o the Board members
and s t a f f f o r t h e i r cooperation and a s s i s t a n c e during the course of our
a u d i t .
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with A. R. S. $ 41- 2354, the L e g i s l a t u r e should consider the
following 11 f a c t o r s i n determining whether the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control
should be continued or terminated.
Objective and purpose i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the Board
The purpose of the Board is t o p r o t e c t public h e a l t h and property by
r e g u l a t i n g the sale and use of p e s t i c i d e s . The Board does t h i s
through 1 ) l i c e n s i n g , permit, and c e r t i f i c a t i o n programs and
2) enforcement a c t i v i t i e s , including i n s p e c t i o n s , monitoring p e s t i c i d e
a p p l i c a t i o n s and i n v e s t i g a t i n g complaints.
A statement of l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t f o r the Board is contained i n
Session Laws 1968, Ch. 210 $ 1:
" It is the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e i n r e s t r u c t u r i n g
the e x i s t i n g provisions of law concerning the s a l e and
use of p e s t i c i d e s t o provide f o r the more meaningful
r e g u l a t i o n of the s a l e and use of p e s t i c i d e s within
t h i s s t a t e . "
2. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s with which the Board has met i t s objective and
purpose and the e f f i c i e n c y with which the Board has operated
The Board is not e f f e c t i v e l y r e g u l a t i n g the use of p e s t i c i d e s . The
Board ' s inspection program f o r custom/ commercial a p p l i c a t o r s is
d e f i c i e n t i n s e v e r a l ways. In a d d i t i o n , although Board s t a f f a r e
i n v e s t i g a t i n g complaints i n a timely and thorough manner, EPA recently
c r i t i c i z e d the Board f o r not taking appropriate enforcement a c t i o n s
a g a i n s t s e v e r a l v i o l a t o r s . Furthermore, the unusual a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
s t r u c t u r e f o r p e s t i c i d e r e g u l a t i o n appears t o hinder the e f f e c t i v e n e s s
and e f f i c i e n c y of Board operations.
As explained i n Finding I ( page 1 7 ) , the Board's inspection program is
weak because Board s t a f f have not 1 ) followed up on many p o t e n t i a l
v i o l a t i o n s , 2) i d e n t i f i e d repeat v i o l a t o r s , and 3) scheduled
i n s p e c t i o n s i n the most e f f e c t i v e manner.
Board s t a f f receive high marks f o r t h e t i m e l i n e s s and thoroughness of
complaint i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ; however, according t o the EPA, the Board has
not taken s u f f i c i e n t enforcement a c t i o n i n s e v e r a l of these cases. In
its l a t e s t annual evaluation of the Board, dated March 18, 1983, EPA
s a i d : *
". . . The Board did not t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e enforcement
a c t i o n i n cases involving major v i o l a t i o n s of Federal
law. . . . Because e f f e c t i v e enforcement a c t i o n is
necessary t o i n s u r e compliance with p e s t i c i d e
r e g u l a t i o n s , we believe the Board must take more
appropriate enforcement remedies."
In one p a r t i c u l a r case EPA c r i t i c i z e d t h e Board f o r not levying a
p e n a l t y " a p p r o p r i a t e t o the g r a v i t y of the v i o l a t i o n s " ( s e e Finding
11, page 31).
An unusual a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e hinders the Board ' s e f f e c t i v e n e s s
and e f f i c i e n c y . The sharing of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y between
the Board and the Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e Commission has a
negative impact on program management. In a d d i t i o n , t h e l a r g e number
of Board members ( 15) makes decision making unwieldy ( see Finding 111,
page 39).
3. The extent t o which the Board has operated within the public i n t e r e s t
Although s e v e r a l developments i n r e c e n t y e a r s appear t o be i n the
public i n t e r e s t , the Board's a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t t h e public is severely
r e s t r i c t e d by the d e f i c i e n c i e s c i t e d i n Sunset Factor # 2.
* This evaluation covered the Federal f i s c a l year 1981- 82 ( October 1981
through September 1982).
The Board's response t o public complaints has improved s u b s t a n t i a l l y
since 1978. I n t h a t year the Board received much public c r i t i c i s m
regarding its handling of complaints from the S c o t t s d a l e / S a l t River
Indian Reservation area. This c r i t i c i s m led t o public hearings and an
evaluation of the Board's operations by EPA i n 1979. Subsequently the
Board s t a f f began monitoring a l l p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s i n the
S c o t t s d a l e / S a l t River Indian Reservation area. The responsiveness of
Board s t a f f t o public complaints a l s o improved. The l a t e s t annual EPA
evaluation, dated March 18, 1983, commends the Board f o r the
t i m e l i n e s s and thoroughness of complaint i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .
The change i n Board composition i n 1979 appears t o be i n the public
i n t e r e s t . Statutory amendments provided f o r the a d d i t i o n of two
members: 1 ) an occupational h e a l t h physician and 2) a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
of the Director of DHS. These two members, along with the e x i s t i n g
t h r e e public board members, provide b e t t e r balance between public and
industry representation." However, t h i s increased Board s i z e t o 15
members, making the decision- making process even more unwieldy ( see
Finding 111, page 39).
The Board could b e t t e r p r o t e c t the public i n t e r e s t by addressing the
d e f i c i e n c i e s c i t e d i n Sunset Factor // 2. Many p o t e n t i a l enforcement
cases have not been heard by the Board because its s t a f f f a i l e d t o 1 )
follow up on many v i o l a t i o n s reported during routine and monitoring
i n s p e c t i o n s and 2) i d e n t i f y repeat v i o l a t o r s ( s e e Finding I, page
17). In a d d i t i o n , according t o the EPA, the Board has not taken
appropriate enforcement a c t i o n i n s e v e r a l cases heard by the Board
( see Finding 11, page 31). F i n a l l y , the Board's a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t
the public is limited by a lack of in£ ormation regarding p e s t i c i d e use
by noncommercial a p p l i c a t o r s ( s e e Finding I V Y page 49). .
* The Board a l s o includes eight industry- related members, an
entomologist and the chairman of the Commission of Agriculture and
H o r t i c u l t u r e .
4. The extent t o which r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated by the Board a r e
c o n s i s t e n t with the l e g i s l a t i v e mandate
Board r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s have been reviewed and approved by the
Attorney General f o r consistency with the s t a t u t e s . During our audit
we found no apparent i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s between the Board's r e g u l a t i o n s
and its s t a t u t e s or objectives.
A Board committee is c u r r e n t l y considering r e v i s i o n s made necessary by
s t a t u t o r y amendments i n the 1983 l e g i s l a t i v e session.
5. The extent t o which the Board has encouraged input from the public
before promulgating i t s r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s and the extent t o which
it has informed the public a s t o i t s a c t i o n s and t h e i r expected impact
on the public
The Board formed a committee i n 1981 t o review and propose changes to
the s t a t u t e s and regulations. This committee s o l i c i t e d input from
industry a s s o c i a t i o n s as well as the Attorney General's Office. The
committee has proposed s t a t u t o r y revisions, some of which became law
i n 1983, and is now considering changes i n the r u l e s and regulations.
Generally the Board complies with the Open Meeting Law regarding
public n o t i c e of its meetings and the recording of minutes f o r regular
board meetings. However, minutes were not taken f o r 12 of 16
executive sessions held between January 1979 and December 1982.
According t o Board s t a f f , t h i s was due t o a lack of knowledge of Open
Meeting Law requirements.
6. The extent t o which the Board has been able t o i n v e s t i g a t e and resolve
complaints which a r e within its j u r i s d i c i t i o n
In general, Board s t a f f have i n v e s t i g a t e d complaints i n a timely and
thorough manner. According t o Board documents, i n calendar years 1979
through 1982 Board s t a f f i n v e s t i g a t e d between 269 and 390 complaints
annually ( s e e Table 2, page 4). Recent EPA evaluations concluded t h a t
complaints have been i n v e s t i g a t e d i n a timely and thorough manner.
According t o an EPA o f f i c i a l overseeing p e s t i c i d e enforcement i n
Arizona, the Board has taken r e l a t i v e l y few d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s i n
comparison t o the number of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s conducted. Board s t a f f
i n v e s t i g a t e approximately 300 complaints and conduct about 1,000
i n s p e c t i o n s each year. However, the Board held only 33 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
hearings between May 1979 and March 1983, r e s u l t i n g i n only 11
d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s . See Finding I1 ( page 31) f o r a discussion of
the Board ' s enforcement record.
7. The extent t o which the Attorney General or any other applicable
agency of S t a t e Government has the a u t h o r i t y t o prosecute a c t i o n s
under enabling l e g i s l a t i o n
I n a d d i t i o n t o Board a c t i o n against a l i c e n s e , permit or c e r t i f i c a t e ,
the Attorney General or County Attorney can prosecute v i o l a t o r s . A
v i o l a t i o n of Board s t a t u t e s or r e g u l a t i o n s by any of the following
groups is subject t o criminal prosecution a s a Class 3 misdemeanor:
s e l l e r s , a g r i c u l t u r a l pest c o n t r o l a d v i s o r s , growers, p r i v a t e
a p p l i c a t o r s , custom a p p l i c a t o r s and a g r i c u l t u r a l a i r c r a f t p i l o t s . A
v i o l a t i o n by a commercial a p p l i c a t o r i s subject t o prosectuion as a
Class 2 misdemeanor. The Attorney General ( o r County Attorney) may
a l s o seek a Superior Court i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t any person or firm
v i o l a t i n g Board s t a t u t e s or regulations. As a r e s u l t of 1983
l e g i s l a t i o n , the Board can impose a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n e s ( i . e . , without
court involvement) through the hearing process f o r v i o l a t i o n s by
a g r i c u l t u r a l pest c o n t r o l advisors, custom a p p l i c a t o r s and
a g r i c u l t u r a l a i r c r a f t p i l o t s . S t a t e law already authorized the Board
t o impose a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n e s f o r v i o l a t i o n s by commercial
a p p l i c a t o r s ( using r e s t r i c t e d - u s e p e s t i c i d e s ) .
The Board does not have s u f f i c i e n t s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y f o r
d i s c i p l i n i n g growers, p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s and s e l l e r s . See Finding I1
( page 31) f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s problem.
The extent t o which the Board has addressed d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the
enabling s t a t u t e s which prevent it from f u l f i l l i n g i t s s t a t u t o r y
mandate
The Board proposed changes t o its s t a t u t e s during the 1983 l e g i s l a t i v e
session. Although the primary purpose of the proposed l e g i s l a t i o n was
t o provide the Board with intermediate p e n a l t i e s a g a i n s t l i c e n s e e s and
p e r m i t t e e s , some amendments were meant t o " clean up" outdated
provisions. The o r i g i n a l b i l l
a. Added a u t h o r i t y t o the Board t o f i n e l i c e n s e e s and permittees up
t o $ 1,000 per v i o l a t i o n ,
b. Added the requirement t h a t any person ( including growers) applying
p e s t i c i d e s t o a g r i c u l t u r a l land must make a w r i t t e n report of such
a p p l i c a t i o n t o the Board, and
c. Deleted the requirement f o r a 13- member advisory committee t o the
Board.
The f i n a l version of the b i l l t h a t became law fixed the amount of
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n e s t o $ 100 f o r a f i r s t offense and $ 500 f o r a second
offense, excluded growers and s e l l e r s from those s u b j e c t t o f i n e s and
excluded growers from those required t o f i l e r e p o r t s of p e s t i c i d e
a p p l i c a t i o n s with the Eoard. The advisory committee was a l s o
abolished.
9. The extent t o which changes a r e necessary i n the laws of the Board t o
adequately comply with the f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n the Sunset Law
As explained i n t h e findings of t h i s r e p o r t , the following s t a t u t o r y
changes a r e needed t o improve p e s t i c i d e regulation:
a. Board s t a t u t e s should be amended t o broaden the grounds f o r taking
d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n a g a i n s t growers and t o provide f o r
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n e s against growers, p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s and
s e l l e r s ( see Finding 11, page 31).
b. The p e s t i c i d e regulatory program should be t r a n s f e r r e d completely
t o the Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture. I n conjunction
with t h i s consolidation, the s i z e and r o l e of the Board should be
reduced. These changes require numerous amendments t o the Board's
s t a t u t e s as well a s those governing the Commission ( see Finding
111, page 39).
c. Board s t a t u t e s should be amended t o require growers/ private
a p p l i c a t o r s t o keep records of a l l p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s i n a
manner prescribed by the Board ( see Finding I V , page 49).
10. The extent t o which the termination of the Board would s i g n i f i c a n t l y
harm the public h e a l t h , s a f e t y or welfare
Regulation of a g r i c u l t u r a l p e s t i c i d e s is necessary f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n
of public h e a l t h . Federal law a l s o requires Arizona t o have a
p e s t i c i d e regulatory program. However, the Board as presently
e s t a b l i s h e d is not necessary and could be reduced i n s i z e and r o l e i f
the program were t r a n s f e r r e d t o the Commission of Agriculture and
Horticulture.
The need f o r some c o n t r o l over the use and s a l e of p e s t i c i d e s has been
well e s t a b l i s h e d i n r e c e n t y e a r s . P e s t i c i d e p o l l u t i o n is ranked by
many experts a s t h e number one environmental t h r e a t today i n terms of
p e r s i s t e n c e , range and complexity of hazards. I n the a g r i c u l t u r a l
area t h e t h r e a t is e s p e c i a l l y g r e a t due t o t h e l a r g e volume and high
t o x i c i t y of p e s t i c i d e s used. In 1981, f o r example, more than 18
m i l l i o n pounds of p e s t i c i d e s were sold i n Arizona, the majority t o be
used i n a g r i c u l t u r a l production. '
Further, the Federal I n s e c t i c i d e , Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
( FIFRA) requires much of t h e regulatory program c u r r e n t l y administered
by the Board. Thus, a regulatory program is necessary to c o n t r o l the
s a l e and use of p e s t i c i d e s . However, Federal law does not d i c t a t e the
placement or o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of the program. Because the
c u r r e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e is not conducive t o e f f e c t i v e and
e f f i c i e n t operations, the program should be placed f u l l y w i t h i n t h e
Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e Commission. In conjunction with t h i s
consolidation, the Board should be reduced i n s i z e and converted t o an
advisory body under the Commission ( s e e Finding 111, page 39).
11. The extent t o which the l e v e l of r e g u l a t i o n exercised bv the Board is
appropriate and whether l e s s o r more s t r i n g e n t l e v e l s of r e g u l a t i o n
would be appropriate
As explained i n Finding I V ( see page 49), the Board does not have
enough information t o monitor p e s t i c i d e use by growers and p r i v a t e
a p p l i c a t o r s . Currently these groups are not subject to any s t a t u t o r y
reporting requirements, nor are they inspected even though the
p o t e n t i a l harm t h a t they can cause appears t o be s i g n i f i c a n t . Board
s t a f f should conduct some monitoring a c t i v i t i e s f o r these groups so
the Board can determine i f more s t r i n g e n t r e g u l a t i o n i s needed.
FINDING I
THE BOARD'S INSPECTION PROGWI HAS BEEN INEFFECTIVE.
The Board's inspection program has not e f f e c t i v e l y monitored the use of
p e s t i c i d e s . We i d e n t i f i e d t h r e e s e r i o u s weaknesses i n the inspection
program. F i r s t , Board s t a f f has not followed up on many p o t e n t i a l
v i o l a t i o n s which warrant f u r t h e r a c t i o n . Second, the Board s t a f f has not
been t r a c k i n g r e p e a t v i o l a t o r s . Third, Board i n s p e c t o r s a r e not providing
the most e f f e c t i v e coverage of p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s . These d e f i c i e n c i e s
s e r i o u s l y impair t h e Board's a b i l i t y t o r e g u l a t e p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t o r s and
thus p r o t e c t public h e a l t h . Upon our recommendation, Board s t a f f have
already taken s e v e r a l s t e p s t o address these d e f i c i e n c i e s .
Types of Inspections
The Board's s t a f f conducts four major types of i n s p e c t i o n s and
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s :
Complaint I n v e s t i g a t i o n s - A l l complaints r e l a t i n g t o p e s t i c i d e
a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e i n v e s t i g a t e d and receive p r i o r i t y over a l l other
types of inspections. Complaints most o f t e n come from the public i n
a r e a s where a g r i c u l t u r a l and r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s i n t e r f a c e .
Monitoring Inspections - Custom a p p l i c a t o r s p a r t i c i p a t e i n a voluntary
monitoring program. In t h i s program the Board designates geographical
a r e a s which warrant c l o s e r monitoring because these areas contain
a g r i c u l t u r a l / u r b a n i n t e r f a c e s and have a h i s t o r y of complaints. An
a p p l i c a t o r is t o n o t i f y t h e Board of upcoming a p p l i c a t i o n s i n these
a r e a s so t h a t a n inspector can be sent t o observe.
Routine Inspections - The Board's policy is t o r o u t i n e l y i n s p e c t
custom a p p l i c a t o r base operations a t l e a s t once a year t o assure t h a t
s a f e t y procedures comply with Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA)
regulations. Many of t h e s e r o u t i n e i n s p e c t i o n s occur during the
off- season* and include a discussion of past problems.
S e l l e r Inspections - EPA r e g u l a t i o n s r e q u i r e t h a t the Board inspect
the records of p e s t i c i d e s e l l e r s t o assure t h a t r e s t r i c t e d - u s e
m a t e r i a l s a r e completely accounted f o r and were sold only t o c e r t i f i e d
a p p l i c a t o r s .
Through a cooperative agreement with the Board, Commission of Agriculture
and H o r t i c u l t u r e s t a f f a l s o perform t h e s e i n s p e c t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y during
the heavy spraying season. Commission personnel a r e located throughout
the S t a t e and t h e r e f o r e can conduct these i n s p e c t i o n s i n a more timely and
e f f i c i e n t manner i n many instances.
No Follow- up on Many
P o t e n t i a l Violations
The Board s t a f f has not followed up on a l l p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s reported
by f i e l d inspectors.** Inspection reports have been f i l e d i n the Board
o f f i c e without any f u r t h e r review even though many of these r e p o r t s
i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s warranting follow- up a c t i o n by the s t a f f .
Board and Commission s t a f f complete a standard inspection report during
each custom a p p l i c a t o r inspection ( voluntary monitoring i n s p e c t i o n s and
r o u t i n e inspections). The standard report form contains a c h e c k l i s t of 26
v i o l a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s . I n s p e c t o r s look f o r such v i o l a t i o n s a s leaking
equipment, inadequate p r o t e c t i v e clothing worn by p e s t i c i d e handlers,
improper c o n t r o l o r d i s p o s a l of p e s t i c i d e c o n t a i n e r s , noncompliance with
* Off- season is December and January, when r e l a t i v e l y few p e s t i c i d e
a p p l i c a t i o n s occur. ** The term " p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n " is used i n t h i s finding t o r e f e r t o a
deficiency or i r r e g u l a r i t y noted on an i n s p e ~ t i o n / r n o n i t o r i ~ r e p o r t .
Many of t h e s e d e f i c i e n c i e s a r e c l e a r l y v i o l a t i o n s , whereas o t h e r s
would require f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n before concluding they a r e
v i o l a t i o n s of Board s t a t u t e s o r rules.
l a b e l i n s t r u c t i o n s and d r i f t of p e s t i c i d e t o nontarget areas. Inspectors
discuss t h e d e f i c i e n c i e s w i t h the a p p l i c a t o r s , g i v e them a copy of the
i n s p e c t i o n r e p o r t and then forward the report t o t h e Board o f f i c e . These
r e p o r t s a r e t o be reviewed by s t a f f i n the Board o f f i c e t o determine what
follow- up is needed. Approximately 1,000 inspection r e p o r t s were f i l e d i n
t h e Board o f f i c e i n calendar year 1982.
U n t i l recently many r e p o r t s f i l e d with the Board o f f i c e were not reviewed
f o r f u r t h e r p o s s i b l e a c t i o n . We reviewed a sample of 126 of the
approximately 1,000 inspection r e p o r t s f i l e d with t h e o f f i c e during 1982.
A t o t a l of 26 p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s were noted on these 126 r e p o r t s . For
25 of these p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s , there were no notations i n the f i l e
showing t h a t these d e f i c i e n c i e s were corrected or addressed. The
a s s i s t a n t a d m i n i s t r a t o r acknowledged t h a t t h e s e r e p o r t s had been f i l e d i n
the Board o f f i c e without review. Furthermore, upon our request he
reviewed t h e p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s and i d e n t i f i e d s i x a s s e r i o u s enough t o
warrant follow- up and possible Board review f o r d i s c i p l i n a r y action.
During our a u d i t , Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e Comission a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
indicated t h a t t h e Board s t a f f had not taken s u f f i c i e n t follow- up a c t i o n
on p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s reported by Comission inspectors. To v e r i f y
t h i s , we reviewed a l l p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s reported by Commission
i n s p e c t o r s t o the Board o f f i c e i n f i s c a l year 1981- 82. Commission s t a f f
reported p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s during 102 i n s p e c t i o n s t h a t year.* Upon our
request, t h e Board a d m i n i s t r a t o r reviewed the r e p o r t s f o r these
i n s p e c t i o n s and acknowledged t h a t 50 r e p o r t s warranted follow- up a c t i o n of
some kind. However, no follow- up s t e p s were taken i n any of these cases.
Some of t h e more s e r i o u s types of p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s overlooked a r e
described below.
* A t o t a l of 191 v i o l a t i o n s were reported f o r these 102 inspections.
19
Container c o n t r o l and d i s p o s a l - According t o t h e Board
a d m i n i s t r a t o r , s i g n i f i c a n t harm t o persons, animals o r t h e
environment can r e s u l t from improper container c o n t r o l and
d i s p o s a l . One report noted t h a t concentrated chemicals were
emptied d i r e c t l y i n t o an i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h near which children
were playing. Another report noted t h a t empty containers were
stacked by a fence where c h i l d r e n were playing.* Several other
r e p o r t s noted t h a t empty containers were not p r o p e r l y r i n s e d .
r Spraying too c l o s e t o residences - Two r e p o r t s noted t h a t highly
toxic p e s t i c i d e s were applied by a i r c r a f t l e s s than 100 f e e t from
houses. Board r u l e s s t a t e t h i s is a v i o l a t i o n unless the w r i t t e n
permission of the owners or occupants was obtained. The reports
do not i n d i c a t e whether permission was obtained.
Environmental contamination - Water, crops, persons or animals
can be contaminated by a leakage or s p i l l during mixing
operations or during an a p p l i c a t i o n . Several r e p o r t s overlooked
a t the Board o f f i c e noted problems of t h i s type. One report
noted t h a t a hose on the a p p l i c a t i o n equipment was drained on the
access road. Several r e p o r t s noted leaking nozzles on a i r c r a f t .
In one instance the inspector advised the p i l o t about the leaking
nozzles and was told it would be fixed; however, the nozzles were
s t i l l leaking when the a i r c r a f t took off l a t e r . The same problem
was noted the following day.
* These i n c i d e n t s occurred on an Indian r e s e r v a t i o n and thus were not
within t h e Board ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n f o r taking c o r r e c t i v e action.
However, t h i s f a c t was not known by the Board administrator a t the
t i m e t h e r e p o r t s were f i l e d away without follow- up.
Safety equipment/ clothing - Numerous r e p o r t s indicated t h a t
p e s t i c i d e handlers were not wearing proper clothing and equipment
during mixing and loading operations. I f p e s t i c i d e s a r e being
mixed and loaded i n a closed system, t h i s diminishes the
p o t e n t i a l f o r harm.* However, i n s e v e r a l i n s t a n c e s involving
h i g h l y t o x i c p e s t i c i d e s , workers were not wearing proper
equipment ( e. g. goggles, gloves, r e s p i r a t o r s ) when l e a k s o r
breaks occurred i n the closed system. Several r e p o r t s a l s o noted
f l a g g e r s were not properly protected.**
Blood t e s t s f o r workers - A number of r e p o r t s noted t h a t
p e s t i c i d e handlers or f l a g g e r s had n o t t a k e n blood t e s t s t o
e s t a b l i s h t h e i r c h o l i n e s t e r a s e baseline. Cholinesterase is an
enzyme which a f f e c t s a person's equilibrium. Certain types of
p e s t i c i d e s can decrease a person's c h o l i n e s t e r a s e l e v e l . A
baseline t e s t is necessary f o r comparison with l a t e r t e s t s t o
determine the extent of poisoning which has occurred i n a worker
and whether h e c a n s a f e l y have f u r t h e r contact with those
p e s t i c i d e s .
The Board administrator explained t h a t the Board o f f i c e was understaffed
during p a r t of f i s c a l year 1981- 82 and t h a t t h i s may explain why these
inspection r e p o r t s were not reviewed. However, our sample of calendar
year 1982 f i l e s i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s problem continued even a f t e r the
s t a f f i n g l e v e l returned t o normal. Furthermore, i n a report issued i n
March 1983, EPA c r i t i c i z e d t h e Board f o r the same problem. The report
s t a t e s :
* A " closed system" is one i n which the p e s t i c i d e is prepared and loaded
mechanically i n t o the a i r c r a f t or ground a p p l i c a t i o n equipment, thus
reducing t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r human contact with the p e s t i c i d e .
** A " flagger" is a person who a c t s a s a v i s u a l marker i n the f i e l d
during an a e r i a l a p p l i c a t i o n .
" A problem with the r e p o r t s ( P e s t i c i d e UseIInspection
Report and P e s t i c i d e Incident Report Sheet) appears t o
be a lack of follow- up, o r at l e a s t , the lack of
notations i n the f i l e which show t h a t the v i o l a t i o n s o r
i s s u e s noted were corrected or addressed."
The Board a d m i n i s t r a t o r claims t h a t under the terms of the interagency
agreement with the Commission the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r inadequate follow- up
should be shared with the Commission inspectors. According t o him, i f
v i o l a t i o n s were s e r i o u s enough t o warrant follow- up, the Commission
i n s p e c t o r s should have taken the i n i t i a t i v e t o f u r t h e r document the
v i o l a t i o n s and submit a d d i t i o n a l paperwork ( such a s preliminary
i n v e s t i g a t i o n r e p o r t s ) t o the Board o f f i c e . Commission administrators,
however, s t a t e t h a t t h i s was not the understanding of t h e i r s t a f f during
the period under question ( f i s c a l year 1981- 82). According t o them,
during t h a t period t h e i r i n s p e c t o r s were t o l d by t h e Board administrator
t o simply report these p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s on t h e inspection/ monitoring
report form and wait f o r f u r t h e r d i r e c t i o n from the Board o f f i c e .
Regardless of whether Commission i n s p e c t o r s were f u l f i l l i n g t h e i r
r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , t h e Board a d m i n i s t r a t o r or h i s designee should have been
reviewing these r e p o r t s and t a k i n g a p p r o p r i a t e follow- up. I f he found
Commission i n s p e c t o r s were not meeting the terms of the interagency
agreement and standard operating procedures, appropriate a c t i o n should
have been taken. We should note f u r t h e r t h a t f o u r of the s i x reports
warranting follow- up i n the c a l e n d a r y e a r 1982 sample ( second paragraph,
page 19) were submitted by Board inspectors. Thus, i f i n s p e c t o r s were
supposed t o be taking the i n i t i a t i v e t o f u r t h e r document serious
v i o l a t i o n s during inspection/ monitoring v i s i t s , then it appears t h a t Board
a s well a s Commission i n s p e c t o r s did not meet t h a t standard.
No Tracking of Repeat Violators
U n t i l recently the Board s t a f f h a s n o t been tracking the inspection
h i s t o r y f o r custom a p p l i c a t o r s . Consequently, s e v e r a l a p p l i c a t o r s appear
t o have each committed numerous serious v i o l a t i o n s without any r e a c t i o n
from the Board or i t s s t a f f . *
The extent of t h i s problem i s i l l u s t r a t e d by our a n a l y s i s of the 191
p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s reported by Commission i n s p e c t o r s during f i s c a l year
1981- 82 ( same v i o l a t i o n s mentioned i n footnote on page 19). Table 4 shows
the breakdown of these p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s by a p p l i c a t o r and notes how
many inspection r e p o r t s warranted follow- up.**
* The a n a l y s i s i n t h i s s e c t i o n covers p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s detected
during r o u t i n e and monitoring i n s p e c t i o n s . However, we a l s o
determined t h a t Board s t a f f were not tracking repeat v i o l a t o r s as
detected through complaint i n v e s t i g a t i o n s . ** Upon our request, Board s t a f f reviewed these r e p o r t s and noted which
ones warranted follow- up.
TABLE 4
Applicator
POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS PER APPLICATOR, AS REPORTED BY
AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE COMMISSION INSPECTORS
I N FISCAL YEAR 1981- 82
Number of Reports
Noting P o t e n t i a l
Violations
Total Number
of P o t e n t i a l
Violat ions
Number of
Reports Warranting
Follow- up
As shown i n Table 4, i n s p e c t o r s reported a t o t a l of 49 p o t e n t i a l
v i o l a t i o n s during 20 i n s p e c t i o n s of a p p l i c a t o r " A." These p o t e n t i a l
v i o l a t i o n s occurred i n j u s t a four- month period. According t o t h e Board
a d m i n i s t r a t o r , 11 of these 20 i n s p e c t i o n s warranted follow- up, considering
t h e s e r i o u s nature of the d e f i c i e n c i e s reported. However, a s mentioned
e a r l i e r , no follow- up was performed. A l l 49 p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s a r e
summarized below according t o the c a t e g o r i e s used on t h e standard
i n s p e c t i o n r e p o r t :
General, Preoperation
No c h o l i n e s t e r a s e b a s e l i n e e s t a b l i s h e d
No copy of pest c o n t r o l advisor
recommendation on hand
Containers not labeled or marked
Equipment
A i r c r a f t navigation l i g h t s not working
( FAA j u r i s d i c t i o n )
Mixing and Loading Operations
Inadequate s a f e t y equipmentlprotective
clothing
Closed system not working properly when
using chlordimeform ( e. g., system
leaking )
Exposure t o chlordimeform
Improper container c o n t r o l / d i s p o s a l
Not complying with l a b e l i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s
Monitoring of Application Operations
S i g n i f i c a n t d r i f t occurred
Environmental contamination
Overflight ( FAA j u r i sdic t ion)
As shown above, t h i s a p p l i c a t o r appears t o have repeatedly violated s a f e t y
requirements which are intended t o p r o t e c t workers during mixing and
loading operations. In at l e a s t one of t h e s e i n s t a n c e s a worker was
exposed t o chlordimeform ( a moderately t o x i c , r e s t r i c t e d - u s e p e s t i c i d e )
when the closed system leaked. During another inspection a t o t a l of s i x
p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s were reported and t h e inspector added these comments:
loader had received no t r a i n i n g ;
loader had not taken a blood t e s t t o e s t a b l i s h the c h o l i n e s t e r a s e
baseline ;
closed system was not working properly;
containers were not rinsed; and
mixing tank ran over, s p i l l i n g p e s t i c i d e on the ground.
Since completion of our a u d i t fieldwork, s t a f f have developed a manual
system f o r tracking each a p p l i c a t o r ' s i n s p e c t i o n h i s t o r y . This system
should enable Board s t a f f t o determine what c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n was taken and
whether an a p p l i c a t o r is repeatedly committing the same v i o l a t i o n s . The
EPA, i n its March 1983 report recommended a " data- tracking/ retrieval and
management system" t o help with follow- up and tracking of v i o l a t i o n s . EPA
has since granted funds f o r the Board t o purchase a computer system.
Inspection Resources Can Be
Used More E f f e c t i v e l y
The Board has an inadequate system f o r a l l o c a t i n g inspection resources.
As a r e s u l t , Board s t a f f a r e not providing the most e f f e c t i v e coverage of
p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s .
The Board l i c e n s e s approximately 100 custom a p p l i c a t o r s each calendar
year. The Board's policy is t o r o u t i n e l y i n s p e c t each of these l i c e n s e e s
at l e a s t once a y e a r . In a d d i t i o n , Board i n s p e c t o r s observe a p p l i c a t i o n s
i n known problem areas-- that is, areas of a g r i c u l t u r a l / u r b a n i n t e r f a c e
with a h i s t o r y of complaints. Applicators a r e supposed t o n o t i f y the
Board of upcoming a p p l i c a t i o n s i n these areas. The Board has been most
concerned about monitoring a e r i a l a p p l i c a t i o n s because of t h e g r e a t e r
p o t e n t i a l f o r harm. Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e inspectors
conduct many of t h e s e r o u t i n e and monitoring i n s p e c t i o n s upon request of
the Board s t a f f .
Inadequate Scheduling System - The Board's system f o r a l l o c a t i n g
inspection resources is inadequate. The number of i n s p e c t i o n s an
a p p l i c a t o r receives depends l a r g e l y on the number of requests the
a p p l i c a t o r makes f o r monitoring inspections. Inspectors do not consider
the number of i n s p e c t i o n s an a p p l i c a t o r has already received nor the
number and natures of v i o l a t i o n s committed i n the past. I n a d d i t i o n ,
u n t i l recently Board s t a f f were not reviewing inspection records t o ensure
t h a t a l l a p p l i c a t o r s had been inspected a t l e a s t once during the year, a s
required by Board policy. *
* Since completion of a u d i t fieldwork, Board s t a f f have begun reviewing
records t o ensure t h a t a l l a p p l i c a t o r s a r e inspected a t l e a s t once
annually.
I n e f f e c t i v e Coverage of P e s t i c i d e Applications - Without a b e t t e r system
f o r a l l o c a t i n g i n s p e c t i o n resources, the Board is n o t providing t h e most
e f f e c t i v e coverage of p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s . The number of i n s p e c t i o n s
per a p p l i c a t o r does not appear t o bear a r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h the number of
p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s made by each a p p l i c a t o r o r t h e number of previous
v i o l a t i o n s .
Table 5 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of Board i n s p e c t i o n s p e r a p p l i c a t o r during
c a l e n d a r y e a r 1982.
TABLE 5
CUSTOM APPLICATOR INSPECTIONS
CALENDAR YEAR 1982
Number of Applicators
Ground A e r i a l
9 9
3 12
5 15
1 12
1 10
- 0- 7
- 0- 1
- 0- 1
Total number of a p p l i c a t o r s : 86"
Number of I n s p e c t i o n s
- 0-
1
2- 5
6- 10
11- 25
26- 73
178
203
Total number of inspections: 986
* Nine a p p l i c a t o r s - - s i x ground and t h r e e aerial-- apparently did not
apply any p e s t i c i d e s i n c a l e n d a r y e a r 1982, as i n d i c a t e d by the f a c t
t h a t t h e s e a p p l i c a t o r s d i d not submit any usage r e p o r t s t o the Board.
These a p p l i c a t o r s a r e excluded from t h i s t a b l e .
There is no apparent r e l a t i o n s h i p between the number of a p p l i c a t i o n s and
the number of i n s p e c t i o n s p e r a p p l i c a t o r . Table 6 d i s p l a y s the top f i v e
a p p l i c a t o r s with the highest number of a p p l i c a t i o n s ( A- E) and the top s i x
a p p l i c a t o r s with t h e highest number of i n s p e c t i o n s ( F- K). A l l 11 a r e
a e r i a l a p p l i c a t o r s .
As shown i n Table 6, A p p l i c a t o r A made 1 2 p e r c e n t of a l l reported
a p p l i c a t i o n s but was inspected only 7 t i m e s , or l e s s than 1 percent of a l l
i n s p e c t i o n s . I n c o n t r a s t , Applicator F made only 4 percent of a l l
a p p l i c a t i o n s but received 21 percent of the inspections. An a e r i a l
a p p l i c a t o r not shown i n Table 6 made no a p p l i c a t i o n s but was still
inspected 3 times, whereas another a e r i a l a p p l i c a t o r made 233 a p p l i c a t i o n s
but was never inspected.
The number of i n s p e c t i o n s a l s o does not appear r e l a t e d t o the number of
previous v i o l a t i o n s p e r a p p l i c a t o r . For example, Applicator B i n Table 6
made 8 percent of a l l reported a p p l i c a t i o n s but received only 1.5 percent
of a l l i n s p e c t i o n s , d e s p i t e the f a c t t h a t i n s p e c t o r s reported 49 p o t e n t i a l
v i o l a t i o n s by t h i s a p p l i c a t o r i n j u s t a four- month period i n 1981."
TABLE 6
COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS VERSUS
THE NUMBER OF INSPECTIONS PER APPLICATOR
DURING CALENDAR YEAR 1982
Applications Inspect ions
i n 1982 i n 1982
Percentage Percentage
Applicator Number of ~ o t a i * Number of ~ o t a i * *
* Percentages a r e based on a t o t a l of 29,042 a p p l i c a t i o n r e p o r t s s e n t t o
the Board o f f i c e .
** Percentages a r e based on a t o t a l of 986 i n s p e c t i o n s by Board and
Commission s t a f f .
* See page 24 f o r an a n a l y s i s of p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s by t h i s a p p l i c a t o r .
28
W e agree with the Board t h a t known problem areas ( a g r i c u l t u r a l / u r b a n
i n t e r f a c e s ) should be monitored more c l o s e l y t h a n o u t l y i n g areas.
However, t o most e f f e c t i v e l y a l l o c a t e inspection resources, other f a c t o r s
should be considered. Board s t a f f should e s t a b l i s h a record- keeping
system which tracks by a p p l i c a t o r : 1) the number of a p p l i c a t i o n s made,*
2) the number and types of past v i o l a t i o n s ( discovered through i n s p e c t i o n s
as well a s complaint i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ) , and 3) the number of i n s p e c t i o n s
made ( r o u t i n e and voluntary monitoring). Inspection frequency should then
be based on an a n a l y s i s of the f i r s t two f a c t o r s above, with emphasis on
a e r i a l a p p l i c a t o r s , and a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e p a r t i c u l a r area being
sprayed. In a d d i t i o n , Board s t a f f should a l s o review inspection records
annually t o v e r i f y t h a t a l l a p p l i c a t o r s have been inspected a t l e a s t once.
Board's Regulatory A b i l i t y
Seriouslv I m ~ a i r e d
These d e f i c i e n c i e s s e r i o u s l y impair the Board's a b i l i t y t o regulate
p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t o r s and thus p r o t e c t public health. None of the
enforcement cases considered by the Board over the l a s t f o u r y e a r s
r e s u l t e d from routine or voluntary monitoring inspections.** In l i g h t of
the number and seriousness of p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s reported from these
sources, it is reasonable t o conclude t h a t a number of a p p l i c a t o r s should
have been subjected t o Board review. Although i n s p e c t o r s have been
discussing v i o l a t i o n s with the a p p l i c a t o r , t h i s provides l i t t l e incentive
compared t o t h e t h r e a t of d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n by the Board or the c o u r t s .
In its October 1981 report e n t i t l e d Stronger Enforcement Needed Against
Misuse of P e s t i c i d e s , the U. S. General Accounting Office s t a t e d :
". . . p e s t i c i d e enforcement is a key f a c t o r i n
assuring t h a t t h e public and the environment a r e not
unnecessarily exposed t o hazardous p e s t i c i d e s . While
* S t a t e law requires each custom a p p l i c a t o r t o send the Board a w r i t t e n
report of each p e s t i c i d e application. ** The Board has held an average of only nine hearings annually f o r the
past four years. A l l of these cases were i n i t i a t e d by complaints or
other r e f e r r a l s .
laws governing p e s t i c i d e s a r e important, the public and
the environment w i l l be protected from p e s t i c i d e s only
i f these l a w s a r e enforced. The assumption is t h a t an
-- --
energetic and strong enforcement program, f a i r l y but
firmly administered, is the best guarantee. An
e f f e c t i v e enforcement program w i l l a l s o generate a
d e t e r r e n t impact and c o n t r i b u t e t o l e s s p e s t i c i d e
misuse." ( emphasis added)
The extent t o which i n s p e c t i o n s have been poorly scheduled and not
followed up a l s o r e p r e s e n t s an i n e f f i c i e n t use of program resources.
CONCLUSION
The Board's inspection program is not e f f e c t i v e l y monitoring p e s t i c i d e
use. Board s t a f f have not followed up on most reported v i o l a t i o n s or
tracked repeat v i o l a t o r s . In a d d i t i o n , i n s p e c t i o n s a r e not being
scheduled most e f f e c t i v e l y .
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Board s t a f f should review inspection r e p o r t s submitted by Board and
Commission i n s p e c t o r s . P o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s noted on reports should
be compared t o e s t a b l i s h e d c r i t e r i a and disposed of by a ) f u r t h e r
i n v e s t i g a t i o n , b) r e f e r r a l t o Board f o r d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n , or
c ) n o t a t i o n of inspector comments/ advice t o a p p l i c a t o r .
2. Board s t a f f should t r a c k repeat v i o l a t o r s and t a k e a p p r o p r i a t e a c t i o n ,
including recommending Board d i s c i p l i n e .
3. To most e f f e c t i v e l y a l l o c a t e inspection resources, Board s t a f f should
e s t a b l i s h a record- keeping system which t r a c k s by a p p l i c a t o r : 1 ) the
number of a p p l i c a t i o n s made, 2) the number and types of past
v i o l a t i o n s , and 3) the number of i n s p e c t i o n s made ( r o u t i n e and
voluntary monitoring). Inspection frequency should then be based on
an a n a l y s i s of t h e f i r s t two f a c t o r s above, with emphasis on a e r i a l
a p p l i c a t o r s , and a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the p a r t i c u l a r area being
sprayed. I n a d d i t i o n , Board s t a f f should a l s o annually review
inspection records t o v e r i f y t h a t a l l a p p l i c a t o r s have been inspected
at l e a s t once.
FINDING I1
THE BOARD HAS TAKEN FEW DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.
The Board has taken r e l a t i v e l y few d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s and is perceived
a s a weak enforcement body by outside sources. The major reasons f o r the
Board's apparently weak d i s c i p l i n a r y record appear t o be 1) an inadequate
inspec t i o n / s u r v e i l l a n c e program by Board s t a f f and 2) i n s u f f i c i e n t
s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y f o r taking a c t i o n against v i o l a t o r s . In a d d i t i o n ,
according t o the EPA, the Board has not taken appropriate a c t i o n s i n
s e v e r a l cases.
Weak Enf orc ement Image
The Board has been perceived a s a weak enforcement body, according t o our
contacts during t h e a u d i t . This c r i t i c i s m comes from many sources,
including the Federal government, the industry and t o some extent Board
members themselves.
According t o an EPA o f f i c i a l responsible f o r overseeing the enforcement of
Federal p e s t i c i d e laws i n Arizona, the Board has taken r e l a t i v e l y few
d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s i n comparison with the number of i n v e s t i g a t i o n s
conducted by s t a f f . Board s t a f f i n v e s t i g a t e approximately 300 complaints
and conduct about 1,000 i n s p e c t i o n s each year.* However, the Board has
held only 33 a d m i n i s t r a t i v e hearings between May 1979 and March 1983.
Disciplinary a c t i o n was taken i n only 11 of these cases, as shown i n
Table 7.
* Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e inspec t o r s perf o m many of
these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and inspections.
Industry sources and s e v e r a l Board members a l s o expressed disappointment
with t h e Board's enforcement a c t i o n s . Numerous reasons were c i t e d f o r the
Board ' s apparently weak d i s c i p l i n a r y record, including i n s u f f i c i e n t
support from t h e Attorney General's Office." However, the major reasons
appear t o be 1 ) an inadequate i n s p e c t i o n / s u r v e i l l a n c e program by Board
s t a f f a s d i s c u s s e d p r e v i o u s l y i n Finding I and 2) i n s u f f i c i e n t s t a t u t o r y
a u t h o r i t y f o r taking a c t i o n against v i o l a t o r s .
TABLE 7
RESULTS OF BOARD HEARINGS BETWEEN
MAY 1979 AND MARCH 1983
D i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n taken:
License revoked
License suspended
Placed on probation
Warning l e t t e r issued
Referred t o another agency
Cases dismissed due t o :
I n s u f f i c i e n t evidence
F i r s t offense
Rule unclear
Violator not licensed by Board
Miscellaneous reasons
Total hearings
* Two Board members interviewed expressed d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the
support from the Attorney General' s Off i c e , p a r t i c u l a r l y regarding
enforcement matters. The Board's Attorney General r e p r e s e n t a t i v e i s
a l s o assigned t o s e v e r a l other agencies and t h e r e f o r e cannot give
full- time a s s i s t a n c e t o the Board.
I n s u f f i c i e n t Authority
t o Take Action
The Board ' s enforcement e f f o r t s have been hampered by i n s u f f i c i e n t
s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y f o r d i s c i p l i n i n g v i o l a t o r s . U n t i l r e c e n t l y , the Board
had r e l a t i v e l y few options f o r d i s c i p l i n i n g v i o l a t o r s without using the
c o u r t s . This deficiency has been corrected f o r some groups the Board
regulates. However, the s t a t u t e s governing growers, p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s
and s e l l e r s a r e s t i l l weak and l i m i t the Board's a b i l i t y t o d i s c i p l i n e
v i o l a t o r s i n these groups.
Recent L e g i s l a t i o n Corrected Some Deficiencies - L e g i s l a t i o n i n 1983 gave
the Board a d d i t i o n a l options f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e l y d i s c i p l i n i n g p e s t
c o n t r o l advisors, custom a p p l i c a t o r s and a g r i c u l t u r a l a i r c r a f t p i l o t s .
P r i o r t o these changes, t h e Board was limited t o t h e t r a d i t i o n a l
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e sanctions of 1 ) warnings o r 2) a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e l i c e n s e
( revocation, suspension or probation). Board members complained t h a t
these options did not include an i n t e r n e d i a t e penalty, thus forcing them
t o choose between a weak sanction ( warning) which may be i n e f f e c t i v e or a
harsh penalty ( r e s t r i c t i o n of l i c e n s e ) which could destroy a person's
livelihood.
The t r a d i t i o n a l d i s c i p l i n a r y avenue of prosecution through the c o u r t s has
a l s o been a v a i l a b l e t o the Board; however, the Board has been disappointed
when it attempted t o use t h i s avenue. According t o the Board
a d m i n i s t r a t o r , a t l e a s t f i v e cases have been r e f e r r e d t o county attorneys
i n r e c e n t y e a r s . Apparently the a t t o r n e y s did n o t c o n s i d e r these t o be
p r i o r i t y cases because no a c t i o n was taken.
As a r e s u l t of 1983 l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e Board can now f i n e pest c o n t r o l
advisors, custom a p p l i c a t o r s and a g r i c u l t u r a l a i r c r a f t p i l o t s up t o $ 100
f o r a f i r s t offense and up t o $ 500 f o r a subsequent similar v i o l a t i o n .
Board members b e l i e v e t h e s e p e n a l t y o p t i o n s w i l l enable them t o take more
meaningf u l a c t i o n .
Other Statutory Changes Are S t i l l Needed - The Board's s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y
f o r taking a c t i o n a g a i n s t growers, p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s and s e l l e r s is
s t i l l weak. In p a r t i c u l a r , 1 ) t h e grounds f o r taking a c t i o n against
growers a r e too r e s t r i c t i v e ; and 2) the Board does not have a viable
range of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s a n c t i o n s t o use a g a i n s t growers, p r i v a t e
a p p l i c a t o r s and s e l l e r s .
The Board does not have s u f f i c i e n t s t a t u t o r y grounds f o r taking a c t i o n
a g a i n s t growers. A. R. S. $ 3- 386 is the only provision which g i v e s t h e
Board a u t h o r i t y t o t a k e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n a g a i n s t a grower. A. R. S.
$ 3- 386 s t a t e s , i n p a r t :
" A. Any person aggrieved by an a p p l i c a t i o n of
p e s t i c i d e s by e i t h e r ground equipment o r a i r c r a f t - may --
p e t i t i o n the board i n writing s e t t i n g f o r t h the
grievance, and i f the board f i n d s a f t e r a hearing t h a t
p e s t i c i d e s have been used i n a negligent or w i l f u l l y
negligent manner, the board may suspend f o r not t o
exceed s i x months the l i c e n s e of t h e operator or the
permit of the person against whom complaint has been
made.
" B. The hearing s h a l l be conducted by the board
c o n s i s t i n g of not l e s s than e i g h t of i t s members, and
s h a l l include the chairman o r vice- chairman, or may
include both. The complainant s h a l l s i g n t h e p e t i t i o n ,
under oath, and f i l e it with the board which s h a l l
cause a t r u e copy of the p e t i t i o n and a summons t o be
served upon the person mentioned t h e r e i n . . . ."
( emphasis added)
According t o the Eoard's a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e , t h i s s t a t u t e
allows the Board t o suspend the grower's permit only i f t h e v i o l a t i o n was
reported t o the Board via a w r i t t e n , notarized complaint from an aggrieved
person. Thus, grower v i o l a t i o n s detected through s t a f f inspections or
other sources could not be acted upon by t h e Board. Two cases heard by
the Board i n June 1983 i l l u s t r a t e t h i s problem. I n each case the Board's
i n v e s t i g a t i o n e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e grower was g u i l t y of misusing
p e s t i c i d e s on vegetable crops. One case came t o the Board's a t t e n t i o n
from a complaint over the telephone. The other case was r e f e r r e d t o the
Board by the FDA. Since n e i t h e r case involved a w r i t t e n , notarized
complaint, the Board could not take a c t i o n a g a i n s t e i t h e r grower's
permit. Instead, both cases were r e f e r r e d t o the 1) county attorney f o r
possible prosecution a s misdemeanors and 2) EPA f o r possible a c t i o n under
Federal law.
The s t a t u t e s do not give the Board a v i a b l e range of sanctions t o impose
on growers, p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s and s e l l e r s . The Board can seek
prosecution i n the c o u r t s f o r v i o l a t i o n s by persons i n these categories."
However, h e r e a g a i n the Board must r e l y on the county a t t o r n e y , which has
not been a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e i n the past. Beyond t h i s , the Board can
take the following a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a c t i o n s on its own:
Category
Grower
P r i v a t e Applicator
Authorized
Administrative Action
Suspend permit f o r up t o
s i x months
Refuse, revoke or suspend
c e r t i f i c a t i o n
S e l l e r None
Thus, the Board has no a u t h o r i t y t o f i n e v i o l a t o r s i n these c a t e g o r i e s and
has no a u t h o r i t y t o r e s t r i c t a s e l l e r ' s permit. A case heard by the Board
i n June 1983 i l l u s t r a t e s how t h i s hinders the Board's e f f e c t i v e n e s s . In
t h i s case a s e l l e r violated both S t a t e and Federal laws by s e l l i n g a
r e s t r i c t e d - u s e p e s t i c i d e t o a n o n c e r t i f i e d person. Although t h e v i o l a t i o n
was c l e a r l y proven, the Board could not impose a p e n a l t y . I n s t e a d it had
t o r e f e r t h e case t o the EPA and the county a t t o r n e y .
* On the b a s i s of A. R. S. $ 93- 389 and 3- 397.
35
During t h e 1983 l e g i s l a t i v e s e s s i o n the Board sought s t a t u t o r y changes
which would have given them s u f f i c i e n t p e n a l t i e s f o r d i s c i p l i n i n g growers,
s e l l e r s and a l l l i c e n s e e s . However, the amendments r e l a t i n g t o growers
and s e l l e r s were not adopted. To improve the Board's enforcement powers,
s i m i l a r amendments should be sought again i n the next l e g i s l a t i v e session.
EPA C r i t i c a l of Board Decisions
The EPA r e c e n t l y c r i t i c i z e d the Board f o r not taking appropriate a c t i o n s
i n s e v e r a l cases. I n one case the Board appears t o have imposed a
r e l a t i v e l y weak penalty. In two other cases the Board required a higher
standard of evidence than required by the EPA.
Under the terms of the c u r r e n t cooperative agreement with EPA, the Board
is responsible f o r e n f o r c i n g F e d e r a l p e s t i c i d e laws ( FIFRA) within
Arizona. The Board receives an annual grant from EPA t o help support the
enforcement program. As a grant condition, the EPA evaluates the Board's
performance twice a year. This includes a review of a l l i n v e s t i g a t i v e
f i l e s and a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e hearings during the year under review.
In its evaluation r e p o r t s f o r Federal f i s c a l year 1981- 82, EPA c r i t i c i z e d
the Board's decisions i n two of the s i x cases heard by the Board during
t h a t year. One case involved numerous a p p l i c a t i o n s of r e s t r i c t e d - u s e
p e s t i c i d e s without the supervision of a c e r t i f i e d a p p l i c a t o r . The Board
had a u t h o r i t y t o f i n e t h e a p p l i c a t o r up t o $ 1,000 per v i o l a t i o n but
instead placed him on probation. For t h i s case the EPA concluded t h a t
" the Board did not levy a p e n a l t y a p p r o p r i a t e t o the g r a v i t y of the
v i o l a t i o n s . "
In reviewing another case ( involving d r i f t onto nontarget a r e a s ) , EPA
noted t h a t the Board's standard of evidence appeared t o be more s t r i n g e n t
than necessary f o r prosecution of FIFRA v i o l a t i o n s . The EPA o f f i c e r
reviewing t h i s case reported:
" Apparently the Board f e l t t h a t t h e S t a t e did not have
s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o document a v i o l a t i o n . It is my
opinion t h a t the Board may be using the standard t h a t
the evidence e s t a b l i s h t h a t beyond a reasonable doubt
t h a t a v i o l a t i o n occurred, r a t h e r than using the
standard t h a t a preponderance of evidence document t h a t
a v i o l a t i o n occurred. By applying the more s t r i n g e n t
evidence burden, the Board s t a f f must gather
s u b s t a n t i a l l y more evidence than would be required f o r
a c i v i l case under the Federal I n s e c t i c i d e , Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act, a s amended."
EPA a l s o mentioned a s i m i l a r d r i f t case from the previous year i n which
the Board required a h i g h e r s t a n d a r d of evidence than necessary. EPA
concluded t h a t the Board may never be able t o take a c t i o n i n d r i f t cases
i f they continue t o require t h i s unusual standard of evidence.
CONCLUSION
The Board has taken few d i s c i p l i n a r y a c t i o n s . S e v e r a l f a c t o r s account f o r
t h i s record. F i r s t , many p o t e n t i a l enforcement cases have not even
reached the Board because of an inadequate inspection program. In
a d d i t i o n , the Board does not have s u f f i c i e n t s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y f o r
taking a c t i o n a g a i n s t growers, p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s and s e l l e r s . F i n a l l y ,
according t o the EPA the Board has not taken appropriate a c t i o n s i n
s e v e r a l d i s c i p l i n a r y cases.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Board s t a f f should improve the inspection program a s recommended i n
Finding I.
2. The L e g i s l a t u r e should amend Board s t a t u t e s t o g i v e t h e Board
s u f f i c i e n t grounds and p e n a l t i e s f o r d i s c i p l i n i n g growers, p r i v a t e
a p p l i c a t o r s and s e l l e r s , including the use of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n e s .
THE BOARD SHOULD BE CONSOLIDATED WITH THE COMMISSION OF AGRICULTURE AND
HORTICULTURE.
The c u r r e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s t r u c t u r e hinders t h e e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t
management of the p e s t i c i d e regulatory program. Responsibility f o r
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f u n c t i o n s is c u r r e n t l y shared between the Commission of
Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e and the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control. The
r e l a t i o n s h i p between these agencies is unclear and has inherent weaknesses
a f f e c t i n g program administration. To e l i m i n a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e confusion
and improve program management, the p e s t i c i d e program should be placed
f u l l y within the Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e . As a p a r t of
t h i s move, the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control should be reduced i n s i z e and
l i m i t e d t o advising the Commission on the adoption of r u l e s and
regulations.
Background
The Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e f i r s t became involved i n
p e s t i c i d e r e g u l a t i o n i n the l a t e 1960s when it agreed t o use its own f i e l d
i n s p e c t o r s t o i n v e s t i g a t e p e s t i c i d e - r e l a t e d complaints. A t t h i s time t h e
Board had only one inspector of its own. By 1972 t h i s cooperation ended
and the Board began conducting a l l f i e l d a c t i v i t i e s with its own s t a f f .
In 1978 the L e g i s l a t u r e amended the Commission and Board s t a t u t e s t o
require cooperation between these two agencies ( amendments described i n
next s e c t i o n ) . As a r e s u l t , each year since then s t a f f from both agencies
have been involved i n the f i e l d - i n s p e c t i o n function. Since 1980 t h i s
cooperation has been formalized through an interagency agreement.
In its budget request f o r f i s c a l year 1980- 81, t h e Board requested s i x
a d d i t i o n a l FTEs f o r enforcement a c t i v i t i e s . However, t h e Board could not
support an expanded program with i t s own revenues and t h e r e f o r e requested
the L e g i s l a t u r e support the Board through general funds. The L e g i s l a t u r e
agreed t o convert the Board from a 90110 agency t o a General Fund agency.
However, instead of giving s i x a d d i t i o n a l FTEs t o the Board, the
L e g i s l a t u r e gave these p o s i t i o n s t o the Commission - and t r a n s f e r r e d two
e x i s t i n g p o s i t i o n s from the Board t o the Commission with the understanding
t h a t t h e Commission would use these a d d i t i o n a l resources f o r p e s t i c i d e
enforcement a c t i v i t i e s . Although eight FTEs were given t o the Commission,
no Commission employees are used full- time f o r the p e s t i c i d e program.
I n s t e a d , the Commission provides up t o 35 i n s p e c t o r s during the heavy
spraying season t o monitor p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s and i n v e s t i g a t e
complaints. *
Intended Relationship Between
Agencies Is Not Clear
L e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t regarding a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the
p e s t i c i d e program is not c l e a r i n the s t a t u t e s . Three s t a t u t o r y changes
i n 1978 defined t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two agencies. A. R. S. $ 3- 103
was amended t o s t a t e :
" The Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e
may: . . . Promulgate such r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s as
a r e necessary t o administer the board of p e s t i c i d e
control."
A. R. S. § 3- 372 was a l s o amended t o s t a t e :
" A. There s h a l l be a board of p e s t i c i d e c o n t r o l under
the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Commission of Agriculture and
Horticulture."
F i n a l l y , a new provision was added t o Board s t a t u t e s a s follows:
" The commission of a g r i c u l t u r e and h o r t i c u l t u r e and the
board of p e s t i c i d e c o n t r o l s h a l l , by mutual agreement,
provide f o r the sharing of p r o f e s s i o n a l and c l e r i c a l
support personnel and equipment f o r the purpose of
e f f e c t i v e and e f f i c i e n t management of the operations of
t h i s a r t i c l e . " ( A. R. S. $ 3- 372.02)
* During calendar year 1982 the Board o f f i c e received inspection r e p o r t s
from 27 Commission inspectors.
The Board subsequently requested an Attorney General opinion regarding the
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these provisions. In an opinion dated
December 17, 1980, the Attorney General s t a t e s :
" The i n t e n t of the L e g i s l a t u r e i n giving the Commission
s p e c i f i c a u t h o r i t y only t o promulgate r u l e s and
r e g u l a t i o n s t o administer the Board i n A. R. S. $ 3- 103,
paragraph 9, but a t the same t i m e making a general
reference t o the Board ' s being under the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
of the Commission i n A. R. S. s3.372. A. is not c l e a r .
The reference t o a d m i n i s t r a t i o n i n A. R. S. $ 3- 372. A.
could be i n t e r p r e t e d t o give the Commission a u t h o r i t y
over the Board g r e a t e r than merely t h a t of the
promulgation of r u l e s and regulations." ( emphasis
added)
The Attorney General attempted t o d e f i n e t h e boundaries of each agency's
a u t h o r i t y and f i n a l l y concluded a s follows:
" In summary, it is our opinion t h a t A. R. S. 93- 103
authorizes the Commission of Agriculture and
H o r t i c u l t u r e t o promulgate r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s
necessary f o r the management or conduct of t h e Board of
P e s t i c i d e Control. The Commission does not have
a u t h o r i t y , however, t o make a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n s
f o r the Board o r t o veto or override Board actions."
While providing some guidance regarding the f i n a l i t y of Board a c t i o n s ,
t h i s opinion does not s p e c i f i c a l l y define the r o l e s of each agency i n
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e matters, including budgeting, accounting and personnel
administration.
Sharing of Administrative Responsibility
Has Inherent Weaknesses
The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two a g e n c i e s , a p p e a r s t o be
unique i n Arizona S t a t e Government and has inherent weaknesses a f f e c t i n g
program management. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , d i r e c t o r s of both agencies believe
they have been given t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the p e s t i c i d e program without
s u f f i c i e n t s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y or c o n t r o l over program resources. This
condition appears t o hinder both the e f f e c t i v e n e s s and e f f i c i e n c y of the
program.
According t o the Board a d m i n i s t r a t o r , the Commission's involvement i n
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e a r e a s r e s t r i c t s h i s a b i l i t y t o manage the p e s t i c i d e program
most e f f e c t i v e l y . He c i t e s two examples from the budgeting and personnel
areas as evidence of t h i s . F i r s t , although he prepares the Board's annual
budget request, once he submits it t o Commission s t a f f he is involved very
l i t t l e i n decisions a f f e c t i n g the Board's budget. A t t h a t p o i n t t h e
Board's budget becomes p a r t of the Commission's budget, and Commission
staff-- not t h e Board administrator-- represent the Board's budget i n
discussions with the executive and l e g i s l a t i v e budget s t a f f s and before
l e g i s l a t i v e committees. Second, i n the personnel area the Commission
included Board employees i n the o v e r a l l framework of the Commission t o
determine which employees would be discharged during a reduction i n force
i n 1981. Consequently, a Board inspector was replaced by a Commission
inspec t o r with more tenure. However, according t o the Board
a d m i n i s t r a t o r , t h e tenured Commission i n s p e c t o r d i d not have the required
knowledge of p e s t i c i d e s and thus had t o be t r a i n e d i n t h i s area.
On t h e o t h e r hand, the Commission d i r e c t o r mentioned the d i f f i c u l t y of
planning t r a d i t i o n a l Commission a c t i v i t i e s and managing resources when
there is an uncontrolled use of Commission personnel f o r p e s t i c i d e - r e l a t e d
a c t i v i t i e s . He believes t h a t t h e current arrangement puts unnecessary
pressures on h i s personnel because they have, i n e f f e c t , two bosses during
the heavy spraying season. Furthermore, Commission personnel f e e l much of
t h e i r time spent i n p e s t i c i d e - r e l a t e d a c t i v i t i e s is wasted because Board
s t a f f have not followed up on v i o l a t i o n s reported t o the Board office.*
Again from the perspective of the Board administrator, he believes t h a t he
has inadequate c o n t r o l over t h e q u a l i t y of work done by Commission
i n s p e c t o r s f o r the Board. For example, when he wants t o c o r r e c t t h e
performance of a Commission i n s p e c t o r , he must go through management
personnel within the Commission.
* See Finding I f o r a discussion of t h i s problem.
42
From our viewpoint, the conditions s t a t e d above c o l l e c t i v e l y have a
s e r i o u s negative impact on program e f f e c t i v e n s s .
Consolidate Board
with the Commission
Placing the p e s t i c i d e program f u l l y within the Commission of Agriculture
and H o r t i c u l t u r e would e l i m i n a t e a d m i n i s t r a t i v e confusion and improve
program management. Although t r a d i t i o n a l g o a l s of s t a t e a g r i c u l t u r e
departments may not appear compatible with p e s t i c i d e r e g u l a t i o n , we found
overriding reasons supporting consolidation. As part of t h i s move, t h e
s i z e and r o l e of the Board should a l s o be reduced.
Compatibility of Program Goals - According t o some sources, t h e
t r a d i t i o n a l goals of s t a t e a g r i c u l t u r e departments may not be compatible
with the goal of p e s t i c i d e regulation. All Board members interviewed by
a u d i t s t a f f * objected t o a c o n s o l i d a t i o n f o r t h i s reason. However,
s e v e r a l members acknowledged the problems associated with t h e c u r r e n t
r e l a t i o n s h i p and s a i d a c o n s o l i d a t i o n might improve o v e r a l l
administration. The U. S. General Accounting Off i c e , i n a report e n t i t l e d
Stronger Enforcement Needed Against Misuses of P e s t i c i d e ( October 1981),
describes t h i s p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t of i n t e r e s t :
" As S t a t e lead agencies f o r a g r i c u l t u r e , departments of
a g r i c u l t u r e a r e concerned with the a b i l i t y of farmers
and growers t o produce adequate supplies of food and
f i b e r i n the most e f f i c i e n t and economical manner.
While S t a t e departments of a g r i c u l t u r e a r e a l s o
concerned with the environment, t h e i r top p r i o r i t y i n
pest management is t o ensure t h a t t h e i r programs o f f e r
farmers and growers adequate p r o t e c t i o n against pest
damage a t a reasonable c o s t . "
The report a l s o notes t h a t Congress has not expressed a preference a s t o
which s t a t e agencies should e n f o r c e F e d e r a l p e s t i c i d e law:
* We interviewed seven Board members, including two public members and
the DHS r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .
" FIFRA and its l e g i s l a t i v e history do not i n d i c a t e
which S t a t e agencies t h e Congress intended would
enforce Federal p e s t i c i d e law. However, since the
Congress was aware t h a t most S t a t e p e s t i c i d e r e g u l a t i o n
was exercised by S t a t e departments of a g r i c u l t u r e , the
Congress' s i l e n c e on the i s s u e suggests it did not
o b j e c t t o Federal environmental law being enforced by
S t a t e a g r i c u l t u r a l agencies."
Thirty- nine of the f i f t y s t a t e s have placed the p e s t i c i d e program i n the
a g r i c u l t u r e department. Several s t a t e s have o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y separated
the a g r i c u l t u r e promotion and p e s t i c i d e enforcement programs within the
agency ( i . e . , separate d i v i s i o n s ) or have used a hearing o f f i c e r a s a way
t o i n s u l a t e enforcement decisions from biased a g r i c u l t u r a l i n t e r e s t s .
According t o an EPA o f f i c i a l , * placement of the program is not important
a s long a s t h e agency has t h e a u t h o r i t y and power necessary f o r an
e f f e c t i v e regulatory program. This o f f i c i a l c i t e d Hawaii, f o r example, as
having a strong p e s t i c i d e program ( including enforcement c a p a b i l i t i e s )
even though t h e program is within the a g r i c u l t u r e department.
F i n a l l y , i n the case of Arizona, t r a n s f e r r i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r p e s t i c i d e
r e g u l a t i o n t o the Commission would not s i g n i f i c a n t l y increase industry
influence i n t h i s area. The a g r i c u l t u r a l industry is already heavily
represented i n the c u r r e n t regulatory s t r u c t u r e i n t h a t 1 ) the Board
chairman is a l s o chairman of t h e Commission of Agriculture and
H o r t i c u l t u r e , and 2) e i g h t of the Board members represent i n d u s t r i e s
affected by p e s t i c i d e use ( cotton, produce, dairy, feed g r a i n s , l i v e s t o c k ,
c i t r u s , a g r i c u l t u r a l chemicals and custom p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n ) .
* Chief of P e s t i c i d e s and Toxics Section, Toxics and Waste Management
Division, EPA Region I X .
Reasons f o r Consolidating with the Commission - Despite the concern over
g o a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y , we found overriding reasons f o r placing t h e p e s t i c i d e
program under the Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e . These
reasons i n c l u d e e l i m i n a t i n g the problems associated with the c u r r e n t
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p . More importantly, though, the Commission
appears t o be the only agency which can e f f i c i e n t l y supply a l l the
manpower needed f o r a n e f f e c t i v e enforcement program. In a d d i t ion, we
have no reason t o believe t h a t Commission s t a f f would not aggressively
enforce p e s t i c i d e laws and regulations.
Because of the seasonal nature of the work load and the need f o r
i n s p e c t o r s throughout t h e S t a t e , t h e Board could not conduct a n e f f e c t i v e
or e f f i c i e n t enforcement program a s a completely independent agency. Most
p e s t i c i d e spraying occurs during the months of July through October.
Therefore, most monitoring and complaint i n v e s t i g a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s occur
during t h i s same period. The Commission has f i e l d personnel i n a l l major
a g r i c u l t u r a l a r e a s of the S t a t e . During the spraying season, these
employees perform p e s t i c i d e - r e l a t ed work i n conjunction with t h e i r normal
assignments. As many a s 35 Commission i n s p e c t o r s a r e a v a i l a b l e during
t h i s period. During f i s c a l year 1981- 82, Commission personnel logged
approximately 9,600 hours i n p e s t i c i d e enforcement a c t i v i t i e s . *
According t o our a n a l y s i s , the Board would need a t l e a s t another 10 FTEs
t o provide the same coverage now occurring i f it were made a completely
independent agency responsible f o r a l l monitoring and i n v e s t i g a t i o n
a c t i v i t i e s . This estimate is based on an a n a l y s i s of employee time
records f o r the 12- week period July 1, 1981, through September 19, 1981,
* This r e p r e s e n t s 56 percent of a l l p e s t i c i d e - r e l a t e d work performed by
e i t h e r t h e Board o r the Commission. Of these 9,600 hours,
approximately 2,900 were logged by Commission personnel located
outside the Phoenix area ( Tucson, Yuma, Mohave Valley, e t c . ) . This
accounts f o r 98 percent of a l l p e s t i c i d e enforcement work done by
e i t h e r the Board o r the Commission outside the Phoenix area.
which f a l l s within the peak season mentioned e a r l i e r ( July- October).*
Commission employees logged 4,300 hours i n p e s t i c i d e enforcement
a c t i v i t i e s during these 12 weeks. The estimate of 10 a d d i t i o n a l FTEs
assumes t h a t the 4,300 hours were spread evenly over t h i s period.
However, since work load is not evenly d i s t r i b u t e d during the peak period,
10 a d d i t i o n a l i n s p e c t o r s still may not enable the Board t o provide
coverage as e f f e c t i v e l y as is now provided by the 35 Commission
i n s p e c t o r s . Furthermore, these a d d i t i o n a l 10 i n s p e c t o r s would not be
needed during the r e s t of t h e y e a r because of the d r a s t i c drop i n work
load. Seasonal employees a r e not a f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n ; it is unlikely the
Board could h i r e seasonal employees with t h e e x p e r t i s e needed f o r such
s p e c i a l i z e d work. Thus, the Board could not operate e f f i c i e n t l y or
e f f e c t i v e l y as an independent agency without a s s i s t a n c e from the
Commission.
As an a l t e r n a t i v e t o c o n s o l i d a t i o n with the Commission of Agriculture and
H o r t i c u l t u r e , we considered the p o s s i b i l i t y of placing the p e s t i c i d e
program within the Department of Health Services ( DHS). The goal of the
p e s t i c i d e program is compatible with the goals of o t h e r r e g u l a t o r y
programs within DHS . A review of t h e S t a t e ' s environmental plan-- required
by EPA-- shows t h a t f i v e of the s i x program areas already f a l l under
DHS.** The only environmental program outside of DHS is p e s t i c i d e
management. DHS has two regional offices-- in F l a g s t a f f and Tucson-- staffed
* 10 FTEs were determined a s follows:
1) Total number of paid hours per employee per year = 2,080
2) Total number of hours per employee per year a v a i l a b l e
f o r work ( i . e . , adjusted f o r v a c a t i o n s , h o l i d a y s
and s i c k leave) = 1,800
3 ) T o t a l number of a v a i l a b l e hours per employee i n a
12- week period 12 x 1,800 = 415
5 2
4) Total work load by Commission employees during
period July 1 through September 19, 1981 = 4,300
5) Number of employees needed t o perform work load
during period July 1 through September 19, 1981 4,300 = 10.4
415
** These f i v e program areas a r e : water p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l , drinking
water, hazardous waste, air p o l l u t i o n and toxic substances.
with f i e l d i n s p e c t o r s who take air, water and ground samples. These
i n s p e c t o r s could possibly be cross- trained t o perform p e s t i c i d e enforcement
a c t i v i t i e s . Thus, it may seem reasonable t o place the p e s t i c i d e program
under DHS. However, t o provide adequate coverage during the heavy spraying
season, DHS would e i t h e r have t o r e l y on the Commission a s is now done or
h i r e many a d d i t i o n a l inspectors. The latter option is n o t p r a c t i c a l , f o r
the same reasons explained e a r l i e r .
Despite the philosophical arguments about g o a l c o m p a t i b i l i t y , evidence
i n d i c a t e s t h a t enforcement would not s u f f e r i f the p e s t i c i d e program were
placed f u l l y within the Commission. As explained i n Finding I, Commission
a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have c r i t i c i z e d the lack of follow- up by the Board s t a f f on
p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s reported by Commission personnel. Commission
i n s p e c t o r s have received the same p e s t i c i d e - r e l a t e d t r a i n i n g which Board
i n s p e c t o r s have received. A l l Commission inspec t o r s performing
p e s t i c i d e - r e l a t e d work a l s o must pass the l i c e n s i n g exams given by the
Board. In a d d i t i o n , Commission a d m i n i s t r a t o r s have i n s i s t e d t h a t t h e i r
i n s p e c t o r s c a r e f u l l y f o l l o w the standard operating procedures f o r
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and i n s p e c t i o n s so t h a t enforcement cases a r e properly
developed.
Board Size and Role - As part of the c o n s o l i d a t i o n under the Commission,
the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control should be reduced i n s i z e and limited t o an
advisory r o l e . The Board a s presently c o n s t i t u t e d is too l a r g e even f o r
its c u r r e n t r o l e . With its 15 members the Board is t h e l a r g e s t of 27
Arizona occupational boards t h a t we surveyed. * According t o t h e Board's
former and c u r r e n t Attorney General r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , the s i z e of the Board
renders it unwieldy f o r decision making, p a r t i c u l a r l y during a d m i n i s t r a t i v e
hearings. As a p r a c t i c a l matter, the Board sometimes h a s t r o u b l e g e t t i n g a
* 22 of these 27 boards have 7 members o r fewer.
quorum of eight members present i n order t o conduct business." The most
e f f e c t i v e r o l e f o r the Board under the proposed c o n s o l i d a t i o n i s t o advise
the Commission on the adoption of r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s . T h i s requires
t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e which the Commission may not possess-- at l e a s t as
presently c o n s t i t u t e d . Thus, the advisory board should have several
industry- related members, a public h e a l t h expert ( such a s t h e d i r e c t o r of
DHS o r h i s designee) and a public member. A hearing o f f i c e r could be used
t o minimize the number of p e s t i c i d e c a s e s which cone before the Commission.
CONCLUSION
The Board and the Commission both share r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n
of the p e s t i c i d e regulatory program. The a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p
between these two agencies, however, is n o t w e l l defined and has inherent
weaknesses a f f e c t i n g program management. In a d d i t i o n , the Board is too
l a r g e f o r its decision- making role.
1. The L e g i s l a t u r e should consider placing the p e s t i c i d e program f u l l y
within the Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture. As a part of
t h i s move, the Board of P e s t i c i d e Control should be reduced i n s i z e
and limited t o advising the Commission on the adoption of r u l e s and
r e g u l a t i o n s .
2. To address Board concerns t h a t the goal of p r o t e c t i n g public h e a l t h
may be subordinated by the Commission's t r a d i t i o n a l goal of protecting
a g r i c u l t u r e , the L e g i s l a t u r e should consider a ) amending the
Commission's s t a t u t e s t o c l e a r l y r e f l e c t t h i s two- fold r e s p o n s i b i l i t y
and b) requesting an evaluation of the Commission's enforcement
record i n approximately t h r e e t o four years.
* This is p a r t i a l l y a t t r i b u t e d t o the f a c t t h a t one or more p o s i t i o n s
have been vacant over the past two years. For example, during a
four- month period i n 1983, t h r e e p o s i t i o n s were vacant and two other
Board members were serving expired terms.
FINDING I V
THE BOARD SHOULD MONITOR PESTICIDE USE BY GROWERS AND PRIVATE APPLICATORS.
The Board does not have enough information t o monitor p e s t i c i d e use by
growers and p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s . Compared t o other regulated u s e r s , these
groups o p e r a t e w i t h r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e oversight by t h e Board. These
groups a r e not s u b j e c t t o any s t a t u t o r y r e p o r t i n g requirements, nor are
they inspected by t h e Board's s t a f f . Although the extent of p e s t i c i d e
misuse by these groups is unknown, the p o t e n t i a l f o r harm appears t o be
s u b s t a n t i a l . Therefore, the Board should be given a u t h o r i t y t o r e q u i r e
l i m i t e d r e p o r t i n g of p e s t i c i d e use by these groups t o determine i f more
s t r i n g e n t r e g u l a t i o n is needed.
The Board annually l i c e n s e s , permits o r c e r t i f i e s four groups of
a g r i c u l t u r a l p e s t i c i d e users: custom a p p l i c a t o r s , commercial a p p l i c a t o r s ,
growers and p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s . * " Custom a p p l i c a t o r s " a r e persons o r
firms which apply p e s t i c i d e s f o r h i r e or apply p e s t i c i d e s by a i r c r a f t
( whether o r not f o r h i r e ) . Custom a p p l i c a t o r s must a l s o be c e r t i f i e d as
" commercial a p p l i c a t o r s " t o apply o r supervise t h e use of r e s t r i c t e d - u s e
p e s t i c i d e s . A " grower" is any person who commercially grows o r produces
any a g r i c u l t u r a l commodity. Growers must o b t a i n a permit " to purchase,
dispense o r use p e s t i c i d e s , o r make o r have a p p l i c a t i o n of p e s t i c i d e s
made. . . ." A " p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r " is a person who uses o r supervises
the use of r e s t r i c t e d - u s e p e s t i c i d e s on property owned o r rented by him o r
h i s employer.
* The Board a l s o l i c e n s e s o r p e m i t s : a i r c r a f t and ground equipment used
i n custom a p p l i c a t i o n s , a g r i c u l t u r a l a i r c r a f t p i l o t s , s e l l e r s of
p e s t i c i d e s and p e s t c o n t r o l advisors.
Controls Over P e s t i c i d e Users
The Board's r e g u l a t o r y program focuses l a r g e l y on t h e commercial users of
a g r i c u l t u r a l p e s t i c i d e s ( i . e. custom and commercial a p p l i c a t o r s ) . In
a d d i t i o n t o passing t h e i n i t i a l l i c e n s i n g exam, these groups a r e s u b j e c t
t o r e p o r t i n g requirements, i n s p e c t i o n s , complaint i n v e s t i g a t i o n s and a
v a r i e t y of enforcement p e n a l t i e s . By c o n t r a s t , t h e Board has r e l a t i v e l y
l i t t l e oversight of p e s t i c i d e u s e by growers and p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s .
Regulation of Custom/ Comercial Applicators - The Board h a s a
comprehensive program t o r e g u l a t e custom and commercial a p p l i c a t o r s .
Before being l i c e n s e d , custom a p p l i c a t o r s must pass an examination
" to demonstrate a f a m i l i a r i t y of i n s e c t s and p e s t i c i d e s
and knowledge concerning the a p p l i c a t i o n of p e s t i c i d e s ,
t h e dangers involved, precautions t o be taken and the
hazards t o adjacent property owners and hazards
inherent i n the a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e h e a l t h and property
of persons i n the neighborhood of the a p p l i c a t i o n . "
( A. R. S $ 3- 379.~.)
All custom a p p l i c a t o r s must a l s o be reexamined a t l e a s t once every t h r e e
years and must r e g i s t e r each piece of equipment t o be used i n p e s t i c i d e
a p p l i c a t i o n s . Custom a p p l i c a t o r s who wish t o be c e r t i f i e d t o use
r e s t r i c t e d - u s e products must take another exam f o r t h a t purpose. Board
s t a t u t e s and r u l e s a l s o r e q u i r e t h a t a l l custom a p p l i c a t i o n s be reported
t o t h e Board i n w r i t i n g . The w r i t t e n report must include any pest c o n t r o l
advisor recommendations or grower i n s t r u c t i o n s t o the a p p l i c a t o r , exact
l o c a t i o n , d a t e and time of a p p l i c a t i o n , wind conditions and type and
q u a n t i t y of p e s t i c i d e used.* Custom a p p l i c a t o r s a r e subject t o r o u t i n e
i n s p e c t i o n s of t h e i r base operations by i n s p e c t o r s from the Board o r the
* These r e p o r t s a r e known a s " 1080s" because they a r e required by Board
Rule 3- 10- 80. The Board received approximately 30,000 of these
r e p o r t s i n c a l e n d a r y e a r 1982.
Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture. Custom applicators a l s o
p a r t i c i p a t e i n a voluntary monitoring program; they are t o n o t i f y t h e
Board before they make a pesticide application i n a " s e n s i t i v e " a r e a
( urban/ agricultural i n t e r f a c e areas such a s ~ c o t t s d a l e / S a l t River Indian
Reservation) so t h a t an inspector may observe the application. Any
violations noted during t h e s e r o u t i n e and monitoring inspections are
reported to the Board o f f i c e f o r appropriate follow- up. Board and
Commission s t a f f a l s o i n v e s t i g a t e a l l pesticide- related complaints
involving custom applicators.
The Board has a wide range of enforcement penalties it can consider to
d i s c i p l i n e a custom applicator. The Board can revoke, suspend or refuse
to renew t h e l i c e n s e or can administratively ( without court involvement)
f i n e t h e a p p l i c a t o r $ 100 f o r a f i r s t offense and $ 500 f o r a second
offense." The Board can a l s o seek court action i n the form of an
injunction or a Class 3 misdemeanor. If the offender is a commercial
applicator who violated the laws or rules governing restricted- use
p e s t i c i d e s , then the Board can impose a f i n e of up to $ 1,000 per violation
or can seek prosecution i n court a s a Class 2 misdemeanor.
L i t t l e Oversight of ~ r o w e r s / ~ r i v a tAep plicators - The Board has r e l a t i v e l y
l i t t l e oversight of pesticide use by growers and p r i v a t e applicators. The
s t a t u t e s allow a grower t o obtain a permit by merely paying a $ 20 annual
fee and completing the prescribed form;** no exam is required t o t e s t the
grower's knowledge of pesticide dangers, precautions, e t c . The grower can
become c e r t i f i e d a s a p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r by paying $ 15 ($ 10 f o r annual
* This authority to f i n e was added by s t a t u t o r y amendment i n 1983.
** This form asks f o r s i z e of farm, l e g a l description of location, etc.
renewal) and e i t h e r 1) attending a half- day t r a i n i n g session o r 2) passing
a w r i t t e n exam ( 75 percent minimum passing grade)." Unlike custom
a p p l i c a t o r s , there a r e no reporting requirements f o r e i t h e r growers or
p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s , nor a r e these groups subject t o routine o r monitoring
inspections. These groups are inspected only i n response t o complaints.
The Board a l s o has fewer options f o r d i s c i p l i n i n g growers and p r i v a t e
a p p l i c a t o r s ; i n p a r t i c u l a r , t h e Board has no a u t h o r i t y t o impose
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e f i n e s .
P o t e n t i a l Harm by
Unregulated Users
The p o t e n t i a l f o r harm from p e s t i c i d e misuse by growers and p r i v a t e
a p p l i c a t o r s appears t o be s u b s t a n t i a l . However, due t o the absence of
information i n t h i s area, we could not determine whether these groups
should be subjected t o increased c o n t r o l s s i m i l a r t o those exercised over
custom and commercial a p p l i c a t o r s .
P e s t i c i d e Use Information Is Not Available - We could not determine the
volume of p e s t i c i d e s used by growers/ private a p p l i c a t o r s nor the extent of
misuse by these groups. Unlike custom a p p l i c a t o r s , these groups do not
report p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s t o the Board off ice. We contacted several
sources t o estimate the volume of p e s t i c i d e s used by growers/ private
a p p l i c a t o r s i n comparison with custom a p p l i c a t o r s ; but no estimates were
a v a i l a b l e . Due t o the manner i n which complaint records a r e f i l e d a t the
Board o f f i c e , we a l s o could not determine the number of complaints made
against growers and p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s a s compared t o custom
a p p l i c a t o r s . Even i f t h i s could be done, the number of i n c i d e n t s reported
probably does not i n d i c a t e the extent of misuse a c t u a l l y occurring.
* Board Rule R3- 10- 55 s t a t e s , i n p a r t : " Private a p p l i c a t o r s unable t o
understand the information offered i n the t r a i n i n g sessions or unable
t o read the w r i t t e n exams, may e l e c t t o take an o r a l examination."
According t o t h e Board a d m i n i s t r a t o r , t h i s option was provided t o
accommodate persons who do not speak English.
According t o a u t h o r i t a t i v e l i t e r a t u r e , most victims of p e s t i c i d e poisoning
a r e farm workers, who a r e the l e a s t l i k e l y t o report t h e i r i l l n e s s e s .
According t o a study conducted i n Tulare County, C a l i f o r n i a , fewer than 1
percent of f i e l d worker poisonings a c t u a l l y showed up i n o f f i c i a l reports
of the number of annual p e s t i c i d e poisonings.
P o t e n t i a l Harm Appears t o Be S u b s t a n t i a l - Some evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t
the p o t e n t i a l f o r harm by these unregulated groups is s u b s t a n t i a l . One
industry source told us t h a t although the volume of p e s t i c i d e s applied by
these groups might be r e l a t i v e l y minimal, these groups could be making
twice as many a p p l i c a t i o n s a s custom a p p l i c a t o r s . Some of these p r i v a t e
a p p l i c a t i o n s occur i n geographically s e n s i t i v e areas ( i . e . ,
u r b a n / a g r i c u l t u r a l i n t e r f a c e ) . According t o Board s t a f f , even though
t h e s e a p p l i c a t i o n s a r e made by ground equipment," s u b s t a n t i a l harm can
s t i l l occur. An overdose could leave a harmful residue i n the s o i l o r
crops and the p o s s i b i l i t y of d r i f t from ground spraying s t i l l e x i s t s . It
seems reasonable t o assume t h a t a grower can do as much damage by
p e s t i c i d e misuse on a l a r g e farm a s can a custom a p p l i c a t o r . In f a c t , the
p o t e n t i a l f o r misuse by a grower may be even g r e a t e r because he does not
have t o pass a Board examination t e s t i n g h i s knowledge of p e s t i c i d e s .
Two cases recently heard by the Board f u r t h e r i l l u s t r a t e the p o t e n t i a l f o r
harm from growers. Both cases involved growers who used p e s t i c i d e s
i n c o n s i s t e n t with the product l a b e l . In one case the USDA discovered
p e s t i c i d e residue i n radishes sampled a t the packing shed. According t o
the product l a b e l , t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p e s t i c i d e was not t o be used on
radishes. The grower v o l u n t a r i l y destroyed the crop, valued a t $ 20,000.
In the second case, a person complained of i l l n e s s and odor from
p e s t i c i d e s applied t o a nearby l e t t u c e crop. The i n v e s t i g a t o r discovered
the product was not labeled f o r use on l e t t u c e i n Arizona. The grower
admitted he had not read the product l a b e l but had seen the product used
by other l e t t u c e growers i n the area.
* Board s t a t u t e s require t h a t an a p p l i c a t o r who a p p l i e s p e s t i c i d e s by
a i r c r a f t must obtain a custom a p p l i c a t o r l i c e n s e , whether he is
applying p e s t i c i d e s on h i s own property o r f o r h i r e .
Board Should Monitor
P e s t i c i d e Use
The Board should t a k e l i m i t e d s t e p s t o monitor p e s t i c i d e use by growers
and p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s . The Board should be given a u t h o r i t y t o require
l i m i t e d reporting of p e s t i c i d e use by these groups. In conjunction with
t h i s requirement, the Board should conduct o c c a s i o n a l i n s p e c t i o n s of these
u s e r s . T h i s would g i v e t h e Board the information it needs t o determine i f
more s t r i n g e n t r e g u l a t i o n is warranted. In a d d i t i o n , t h i s information
would enhance the Board's a b i l i t y t o d i s c i p l i n e v i o l a t o r s .
Monitoring P e s t i c i d e Use - This could include two a c t i v i t i e s : reporting
requirements and inspections. The Director of the Arizona Farm Bureau
Federation, a growers a s s o c i a t i o n , s t a t e d t h e a s s o c i a t i o n has opposed
reporting requirements because t h e volume of paperwork would be a burden
f o r persons operating small farms. Therefore, r a t h e r than requiring
r e p o r t s from growers/ private a p p l i c a t o r s , the Board could require them t o
maintain a log of t h e i r p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s which could be reviewed by
i n s p e c t o r s during a r e g u l a r i n s p e c t i o n or a s p a r t of a complaint
i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The log could be issued t o each grower when permits a r e
issued o r renewed. The Board could determine what basic information is
most necessary f o r enforcement purposes and design a logbook t o include
only t h a t relevant information. This system would be e a s i e r f o r the Eoard
t o administer and the farmers t o comply with than a requirement f o r 1080
r e p o r t s .
Board s t a f f could inspect a limited number of growers on a random or
spot- check b a s i s . This inspection could include a review of t h e p e s t i c i d e
u s e l o g ( mentioned above), a review of s a f e t y p r a c t i c e s , and a general
discussion of p o t e n t i a l problem areas. In order t o use its limited
resources most e f f e c t i v e l y , t h e Board could e s t a b l i s h c r i t e r i a f o r
determining which growers t o i n s p e c t . For example, the Board may wish to
focus on growers with l a r g e operations or who use r e s t r i c t e d - u s e
p e s t i c i d e s . Perhaps p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s using r e s t r i c t e d - u s e p e s t i c i d e s
i n s e n s i t i v e geographical areas should be required t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the
monitoring program a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d .
The impact of grower i n s p e c t i o n s on Board s t a f f i n g would depend on the
number and nature of i n s p e c t i o n s performed. However, i f the Board b e t t e r
a l l o c a t e s i t s inspection resources a s recommended i n Finding I, it may be
able t o perform l i m i t e d ' inspections of grower operations without
increasing its s t a f f . As is now done with custom a p p l i c a t o r inspections,
Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e Commission s t a f f could a l s o h e l p w i t h grower
inspections.
The a c t i v i t i e s above would give the Board a b e t t e r understanding of the
extent of p e s t i c i d e misuse by growers and p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s . The Board
could then determine i f more s t r i n g e n t c o n t r o l s a r e needed over these
groups.
Disciplining Violators - A requirement t h a t growers keep a w r i t t e n record
of p e s t i c i d e applications-- as mentioned above-- would a l s o enhance the
Board's o v e r a l l enforcement c a p a b i l i t y . Grower records could help
i n v e s t i g a t o r s resolve d r i f t cases i n areas where both growers and custom
a p p l i c a t o r s a r e using p e s t i c i d e s . When i n v e s t i g a t i n g such cases, Board
s t a f f rely heavily on the w r i t t e n reports which custom a p p l i c a t o r s and
pest c o n t r o l a d v i s o r s r o u t i n e l y send t o the Board o f f i c e . However, the
i n v e s t i g a t o r a l s o needs information on a p p l i c a t i o n s by growers/ private
a p p l i c a t o r s i n the geographical area under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Since growers
and p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s c u r r e n t l y do not have t o report or keep records of
p e s t i c i d e use, the information needed t o develop a sound case may be
missing.
CONCLUSION
The Board receives very l i t t l e information regarding p e s t i c i d e use by
growers and p r i v a t e a p p l i c a t o r s . As a r e s u l t , it cannot determine the
extent of p e s t i c i d e misuse by these groups nor whether more s t r i n g e n t
regulatory c o n t r o l s a r e needed. Because t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r harm appears t o
be s u b s t a n t i a l , t h e Board should begin monitoring these p e s t i c i d e users.
RECOFIMENDATIONS
1. The L e g i s l a t u r e should consider amending Board s t a t u t e s t o require
growers t o maintain records of p e s t i c i d e use as prescribed by the
Board. The Board should subsequently adopt r u l e s prescribing the type
of information t o be recorded by these groups and the manner i n which
it should be recorded. The Board should c o n s i d e r i s s u i n g standard
forms f o r t h i s purpose when issuing annual permits t o growers.
2. Board s t a f f should inspect a limited number of growers on a random o r
spot- check b a s i s . These i n s p e c t i o n s should include a review of
p e s t i c i d e use records a s well a s o t h e r a r e a s normally reviewed i n
custom a p p l i c a t o r inspections.
3. Based on p e s t i c i d e use information obtained through grower
i n s p e c t i o n s , the Board should determine i f more s t r i n g e n t regulations
a r e needed.
BOARDMEMBERS
LYNN ANDERSON
CHAIRMAN
ARTHUR DE CABOOTER
VICE CHAIRMAN
HERBERT ABRAMS @ EHUD ARIAV
LESLIE DAVIS
CARMEN DO~ NY
EUGENE HALBACH
DONALD MATHIS
WILLIAM McGlBBON
LEON MOORE
JAMES PALMER
JOHN SAKATA
I) BARBARA SHERLOCK
BILL STRICKLAND
STATE OF ARIZONA
B O A R D O F PESTICIDE CONTROL
1624 WEST ADAMS, SUITE 103
PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007
TELEPHONE 255- 3578
R. W.