Performance audit, pesticide regulation, Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture

              B
DOUGLAS R NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
LINDA J. BLESSING. CPA
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
November 30, 1990
Members of the Legislature
State of Arizona
The Honorable Rose Mofford
Governor of the State of Arizona
Mr. Kenny Evans, Director
Commission of Agriculture and Horticulture
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of Pesticide Regulation: Commission of Agriculture and
Horticulture. This report is the second in a series of five reports on
Pesticide regulation and is in response to Chapter 162, Section 7, of the
1989 Sess ion Laws.
The report addresses serious problems in the Commission of Agriculture
and Horticulture's enforcement of pesticide laws -- some of the worst
enforcement problems we have audited. In addition, our report also
discusses the need for the State to develop new programs to address
continuing concerns with pesticide d r i f t and the disposal of pesticide
containers.
My staff and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items in the report.
Sincerely,
DRN : l mn
STAFF: William Thomson
Peter N. Francis
Arthur E. Heikki la
Dennis B. Murphy
Cindy A. Trimble
Shan D. Hays
George A. Anderson
Ned E. Parrish
Leonard B . Wo j c i echow i cz
2700 NORTH CENTRAL AVE. 0 SUITE 700 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ( 602) 255- 4385
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit o f
the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e ' s a c t i v i t i e s
related to a g r i c u l t u r a l pesticides. This audit was conducted i n response
to Chapter 162, Section 7, of the 1989 Session Laws which directed us to
review the State's pesticide regulatory program administered by four
State agencies, including the ( ACAH).
The Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e i s comprised of six
members and i s responsible for administering ACAH pesticide laws. The
Commission apoints a d i r e c t o r who has r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for enforcing those
laws. ACAH has broad r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s for p e s t i c i d e r e g u l a t i o n . To
implement i t s statutory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , ACAH created the Agricultural
Chemicals and Environmental Services ( ACES) Division. Aside from ACES,
four other units w i t h i n ACAH are involved i n regulation and monitoring of
a g r i c u l t u r a l pesticide usage, including regulation of the s e l l i n g ,
s t o r i n g , transporting, handling and applying of pesticides, the disposal
of pesticide containers and t r a i n i n g licensees i n the proper and safe use
of pesticides. For pesticide regulation during f i s c a l year 1989- 90, ACAH
had expenditures of $ 676,651 and 18 Ful I- Time Equivalent ( FTE) positions.
ACAH does not routinely investigate incidents involving potential
v i o l a t i o n s o f the pesticide statutes. People f i l ing complaints stated
that ACAH s t a f f either discouraged them from f i l i n g complaints or their
complaints were ignored. In addition, Commission s t a f f often log
c i t i z e n ' s c a l l s about pesticide usage as " concernsfl rather than
complaints; therefore, these c i t i z e n ' s cal I s are not investigated. Even
when ACAH has been aware of p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s , i t has fai led to pursue
investigation of these cases because i t has an " informal" p o l i c y of not
investigating possible v i o l a t i o n s unless a complaint i s received from a
private c i t i z e n .
ACAH o f f i c i a l s often f a i l to f u l l y investigate cases even when evidence
suggests v i o l a t i o n s may have occurred. In some cases, investigators
simply stopped investigations i f they could not f i n d a report by an
applicator that he had made an application i n the area. In many
investigations, ACAH personnel often do not interview witnesses or take
pesticide samples.
Completed investigations are often delayed. On average, ACES required
126 days to investigate a complaint and submit a report to the Attorney
General. Delays are often caused by the State Agricultural Laboratory or
the ACES D i v i s i o n i t s e l f . The lab's delay i n returning pesticide samples
may be due to the low p r i o r i t y i t assigns ACES' samples. Although, i t i s
unclear why delays occur in ACES, the delays have had substantial impact
on case enforcement.
Enforcement Cases ( see pages 17 through 26)
Although ACAH i s empowered to take enforcement action against those who
violate the pesticide statutes, v i o l a t o r s seldom receive strong penalties,
even a f t e r repeated offenses. In some cases, ACAH has ignored complaint
information and f a i l e d to take serious d i s c i p l i n a r y action against
violators, even when c l e a r l y warranted. Of the 414 cases investigated
from August 1986 to December 1989, no c i t a t i o n s for serious v i o l a t i o n s
were issued. ACAH took action in only 151 cases, and nearly two- thirds
of those actions involved De minimis v i o l a t i o n s or Letters of Warning or
Notices of Concern.
Also, there i s an appearance of impropriety i n the resolution of
d i s c i p l i n a r y matters and the enforcement o f applicable rules and
statutes. The Director has used negotiated settlements to u n i l a t e r a l l y
reduce or dismiss v i o l a t i o n s , even though he lacks the statutory
authority t o do so. U n t i l t h i s year, no records of meetings have been
maintained, and there s t i l l i s no public posting of meeting times;
therefore, complainants or other interested p a r t i e s are not being
n o t i f i e d of upcoming meetings.
More Can Be Done To Address The
Problem Of Pesticide Drift
In Residential Areas ( see pages 27 through 32)
An overwhelming number of complaints regarding pesticide d r i f t and
overspray involve a e r i a l applications -- successful targeting of
pesticides i s more d i f f i c u l t with a e r i a l application than with ground
spraying. Because Arizona has implemented most of the available
regulatory options to control d r i f t , ACAH should sponsor studies to
i d e n t i f y more target e f f i c i e n t application methods. In addition, the
University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service should also consider
d i r e c t i n g research e f f o r t s toward d r i f t minimization and target
e f f i c i e n c y .
improper Disposal Of Pesticide Containers Has
Been Widespread ( see pages 33 through 38)
Improper disposal of p e s t i c i d e containers can seriously a f f e c t human
health and the environment. Inconvenience, lack of available f a c i l i t i e s ,
and cost often lead to i l l e g a l pesticide disposal, and the public assumes
the cost of cleaning up these s i t e s . Arizona should consider the methods
u t i l i z e d by several other states to handle t h i s problem.
Can Arizona Do More
To Reduce The Use Of
Agricultural Pesticides? ( see pages 39 through 47)
Arizona could reduce expenditures for pest control while improving the
environment by the increased use of lntegrated Pest Management ( IPM)
techniques. Arizona and several other states have benefited from IPM
programs. Although Arizona now uses IPM programs i n some areas, resource
constraints have hampered i t s implementat ion Statewide. IPM programs
could be greatly expanded by generating revenue from a tax on the sale of
pesticides.
A More Coordinated And Comprehensive
Pesticide Reporting System Could
Benefit The State ( see pages 49 through 52)
Although Arizona's pesticide reporting requirements compare favorably
with those of other states, requirements for s e l l e r s and users of
pesticides vary g r e a t l y . Obtaining current use information and sales
data i s d i f f i c u l t . Proposed DEQ rules may further complicate the
system. A single, shared data base could assist those required to report
while providing valuable information to the State.
ACAH Needs To Revise
- I t- s- R- - u- - l e- s- ~- s - t- - a bli- s hina L
Enforcement Penalties ( see pages 53 through 58)
ACAH's rule establishing enforcement penalties does not provide adequate
punishment for the improper use o f pesticides. For example, the rule
does not provide punishment for conduct that may have the p o t e n t i a l f o r
substantial harm, but has not resulted i n actual harm.
Commission rules also appear to define a serious v i o l a t i o n too narrowly.
Some v i o l a t i o n s may need r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Some v i o l a t i o n s are
c l a s s i f i e d as nonserious that should actually be c l a s s i f i e d as serious;
some acts could be c l a s s i f i e d i n either category.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I: ACAH IS RELUCTANT TO CONDUCT
THOROUGH AND TIMELY INVESTIGATIONS OF
PESTICIDECWLAINTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Possible Violations Are
Not Investigated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Invest igat ions Appear Designed
To Ignore Violations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Substantial Delays In
Investigative Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING II: ACAH HAS NOT TAKEN ADEOUATE
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS IN PESTICIDE
ENFORCEMENT CASES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Disciplinary Actions
Available To ACAH. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ACAH Displays A Consistent Pattern
Of Weak Disciplinary Actions . . . . . . . . . . .
Administrative Act ions And Procedures
Undermine Effective Enforcement. . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F l ND l NG I I I : MORE CAN BE DONE TO ADDRESS
THE PROBLEU OF PEST l C l DE DRl FT
IN RES lD ENT l AL AREAS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D r i f t Can Occur When
Pesticides Are Applied . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D r i f t Continues ToBeAProblem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Buffer Zones Have Been Established And Other Steps Taken. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Additional E f f o r t s Are Needed To
Promote More Target- Efficient
Application Practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Page
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Con ' t )
Page
FINDING IV: IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF PESTICIDE
CONTA l NERS HAS BEEN W l DESPREAD . . . . . . . . . .
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Improper Pesticide Container
Disposal Occurring Statewide . . . . . . . . . . .
Several Reasons Cited
For I l l e g a l Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Other States Have Addressed
Improper Disposal Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING V: CAN ARIZONA DO MIRE
TO REDUCE THE USE OF
AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES? . . . . . . . . . . . . .
What I s lntegrated
Pest Management? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Arizona Could P r o f i t From Expanded
lntegrated Pest Management Programs. . . . . . . .
The State's IPM Programs Have
Had Limited Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
lnnovat ive Funding Alternatives Could
Generate Additional Resources For
Arizona's IPM Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FlnllNG VI: A YORE COORDINATED AND
COYPREHENS l VE PEST l C l DE REPORT l NG
SYSTEM COULD BENEFIT THE STATE . . . . . . . . . .
Current Reporting Requirements
AreNot Comprehensive. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Proposed Rules By DEO May Further
Complicate The Reporting System. . . . . . . . . .
A Coordinated And More Comprehensive
Reporting System Would Be Beneficial . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Con't)
FINDING VII: ACAH NEEDS TO REVISE ITS
RULES ESTABLISHING ENFORCEMENT
PENALTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Point/ Penal ty Rule Establishes
Framework For Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Point/ Penal ty Rule May Hinder
Effective Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Definitions Of Violations In The
Rules Could Be Expanded. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGENCY RESPONSE
APPEND l X R3- 10- 506. Point System For Administering
Penalties And Fines
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Arizona Commission Of Agriculture And Horticulture
Agricultural Chemicals And Environmental Services Division
Licenses, Certifications, And Permits Issued
Fiscal Years 1986- 87 Through 1988- 89. . . . . 3
TABLE 2 Arizona Commission Of Agriculture And Horticulture
Pesticide Regulation Statement Of
Expenditures And Full- Time Equivalents ( FTEs)
F( iUsncaauld i Yt eeda r) s .19.87.- 8.8 . Th. ro. ug. h .19.89.- 9.0 . . . . .
TABLE 3 Timeliness Of Pesticide
Res i due Samp l e Ana l ys i s August 1986 Through December 1989 . . . . . .
TABLE 4 Repeat Violations By Select
Aerial Applicator Pilots
August 1986 Through December 1989 . . . . . .
TABLE 5 Repeat Violations By Select
Commercial Aerial Applicators
August 1986 Through December 1989 . . . . . .
LIST OF TABLES ( Con1 t)
TABLE 6 Arizona Commission Of Agriculture And Horticulture
Enforcement Actions
August 1986 Through December 1989 . . . . . . 23
TABLE 7 Arizona IPM Programs Statement Of
Ful I- Time Equivalents ( FTEs)
And Expend i tu res
F( U i nsacuad l i Yt eeda) r s. 1.98.7-. 88. T. hr. ou. gh. 1.98.9-. 90. . .
TABLE 8 Arizona Commission Of Agriculture And Horticulture
Point System For Administering
Penalties And Fines. . . . . . . . . . . . 54
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e ' s a c t i v i t i e s
r e l a t e d t o a g r i c u l t u r a l pesticides. This audit was conducted i n response
to Chapter 162, Section 7, of the 1989 Session Laws, which directed us to
review the S t a t e ' s p e s t i c i d e regulatory program administered by four
State agencies, including the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and
H o r t i c u l t u r e ( ACAH).
Major Duties
A. R. S. 93- 101 establishes a Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e
consisting o f s i x members who are appointed by the Governor. The
Commission appoints a d i r e c t o r to oversee Commission programs and s t a f f .
A. R. S. 93- 362 gives the Commission r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r administering
pesticide laws. A. R. S. 53- 368 requires t h a t the director enforce those
laws. The Environmental Quality Act ( Chapter 368 of the 1986 Session
Laws) transferred responsibi l i ty for r e g u l a t i n g p e s t i c i d e s from the
Pesticide Control Board to ACAH. Major statutory responsibi l i t ies, which
increased with enactment of the EQA, include the regulation of the
s e l l i n g s t o r i n g , transporting, handling, or applying of pesticides, the
disposing of pesticide containers and t r a i n i n g licensees i n the proper
and safe use of pesticides. Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S) 53- 363
directed the Commission to adopt pesticide regulations. The Commission
was able to adopt most of these regulations w i t h i n one and one- half
years. These regulations contain provisions which:
prescribe measures to c o n t r o l , monitor, inspect, and govern pesticide
use ;
p r o h i b i t or r e s t r i c t the use of c e r t a i n pesticides;
r e s t r i c t areas i n which pesticides may be used;
p r e s c r i b e m i n i m u m q u a l i f i c a t i o n s f o r those engaged i n pesticide use;
prescribe recordkeeping and reporting requirements f o r p e s t i c i d e use;
p r o h i b i t pesticide use inconsistent with the Federal requirements on
the product label;
8 issue licenses, permits, and c e r t i f i c a t e s for pesticide use;
8 establish a nonexclusive l i s t of acts and omissions that constitute
d i f f e r e n t levels of v i o l a t i o n s ; and
establish a system of a d m i n i s t r a t i v e p e n a l t i e s and fines for
v i o l a t i o n s .
A. R. S. 93- 362 further grants ACAH the authority to conduct investigations
of alleged v i o l a t i o n s of the pesticide control statutes and take
enforcement action against v i o l a t o r s .
Organizational Structure
To implement i t s statutory r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , ACAH has created an
Agricultural Chemicals and Environmental Services ( ACES) D i v i s i o n . The
Division i s comprised of 10.5 Full- Time Equivalent ( FTE) s t a f f and spends
over $ 260,000 annually i n General Fund monies. In a d d i t i o n , the Division
receives approximately $ 90,000 annually in grant monies from the
Envi ronmental Protect ion Agency ( EPA) to support the Agency's cooperat ive
c e r t i f i c a t i o n and enforcement agreements.
The ACES D i v i s i o n i s also responsible for the examination and licensure
of 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 , custom applicators, and pest control
advisors, and for the c e r t i f i c a t i o n of p r i v a t e and commercial
applicators. In a d d i t i o n , the D i v i s i o n issues grower and s e l l e r permits
as well as licenses for each piece of equipment used i n the application
of pesticides. As i I l u s t r a t e d i n Table 1 ( see page 31, the Division
issues more than 4,000 licenses, c e r t i f i c a t e s , and permits annually.
TABLE 1
ARIZONA COMMISSION OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION
LICENSES, CERTIFICATIONS, AND PERMITS ISSUED
FISCAL YEARS 1986- 87 THROUGH 1988- 89
Grower Permits
Sel ler Permits
Agricultural P i l o t s
L i censes
Custom Applicators
L i censes
Equipment Licenses
Pest Control Advisor
Licenses
Applicator C e r t i f i c a t e s
Private
Commercial
TOTALS
Source: Arizona Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e Budget
Request, Fiscal Year 1990- 91, Schedule 4, Service Measurements
Other Units
Aside from the ACES D i v i s i o n , several other u n i t s w i t h i n ACAH are
involved i n the regulation and monitoring of a g r i c u l t u r a l pesticide usage.
ACAH District Inspectors often provide assistance to the ACES
Division i n i n v e s t i g a t i n g p e s t i c i d e v i o l a t i o n s .
The Office of the State Chemist registers EPA- approved pesticides for
use i n Arizona, evaluates p e t i t i o n s for special local needs and the
emergency and experimental use of pesticides, and monitors
formulations of the pesticides o f f e r e d f o r sale i n Arizona.
The State Agricultural Laboratory conducts sample analysis for
enforcement purposes and also conducts analyses of pesticide
formulations for the State Chemist.
The Integrated Pest Management Unit promotes the coordination o f crop
management and c u l t u r a l practices, f i e l d scouting, economic
thresholds, and chemical and b i o l o g i c a l controls i n an e f f o r t to
reduce the use of chemical pesticides.
Table 2 ( see page 4) presents the pesticide- related s t a f f i n g and
expenditures under the d i r e c t i o n of the Commission.
TABLE 2
ARIZONA COMMISSION OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE
PESTICIDE REGULATION
STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES AND
FULL- TIME EQUIVALENTS ( FTEs)
FISCAL YEARS 1987- 88 THROUGH 1989- 90
( unaud i t ed)
1987- 88 1988- 89 1989- 90
ACES DIVISION
General Fund Expend i tures $ 261,032 $ 291,203 $ 260,406
EPA Contract Expenditures 90,989 81,548 90,238
OTHER ACAH D l V l S l ONS
General Fund Expenditures 104,422 114,520 104,650
INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT
General Fund Expenditures 185,252 1 47,864 91,684
Federal Funds Expenditures 19,953 87,365 108,400
OTHER PROGRAM EXPENDITURES
Applicator Training
Grasshopper Control
~ arketp- lace Inspect ion
Agency Sub t o t a I
BOLL WEEVIL ERADICATION
PROGRAM( a) 3,211 ,987 4,668,784 4,067,315
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 3.882.135 $ 5.399.284 $ 4.743.966
FTE POSITIONS
ACES Division 10.5 10.5 10.5
Other ACAH Divisions 4.2 4.5 4.0
Integrated Pest Management 3.5 3.5 3.5
TOTAL FTE 1_& 2 1& 5. 18.0
( a) Funded by growers through a per bale surcharge on cotton and monies provided by the
United States Department of Agriculture. The program employs approximate1 y 35
full- time s t a f f and 85 part- time s t a f f working nine to ten months per year to carry
out i t s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s .
Source: Arizona Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e Di r e c t o r ' s
Office
4
Scope Of Audit
Our audit contains Findings i n the following seven areas:
ACAH1s reluctance to conduct thorough and timely investigations of
pesticide complaints;
a ACAH1s f a i l u r e to take adequate d i s c i p l i n a r y actions i n pesticide
enforcement cases;
ACAH1s need to further address the problem of pesticide d r i f t o f f
target during application;
a the need for new programs to ensure the proper disposal of pesticide
containers;
a whether Arizona should place more emphasis on the development of pest
control methods that do not rely as heavily on synthetic pesticides;
a whether a more coordinated and comprehensive p e s t i c i d e r e p o r t i n g
system could benefit the State; and
a the need to revise ACAH's rules to ensure more e f f e c t i v e enforcement
of the pesticide statutes;
This audit was conducted i n accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express appreciation to Commission members
and the Director and s t a f f of the Arizona Commission of Agriculture and
H o r t i c u l t u r e f o r t h e i r cooperation and assistance during the audit.
FINDING I
ACAH IS RELUCTANT TO CONDUCT THOROUGH AND TIMELY
INVESTIGATIONS OF PESTICIDE COMPLAINTS
On August 1 , 1988, a woman te lephoned the ACES D i v i s ion of ACAH to
report an incident i n which approximately 20 people were sprayed
during an a e r i a l pesticide application to a f i e l d adjacent t o t h e i r
place of employment. The suspected applicator has a long history of
s i m i l a r v i o l a t i o n s . However, according to the complainant, the ACES
o f f i c i a l she spoke with t r i e d to soothe her concerns about the
incident and i t s e f f e c t s . The woman said she got the impression from
her conversation with the ACES o f f i c i a l that nothing was going to be
done about her complaint. Therefore, she made several additional
c a l l s to ACAH in the following weeks in the hope of persuading the
D i v i s i o n to conduct an investigation. Nevertheless, ACES o f f i c i a l s
did not pursue the matter.
The manner i n which ACAH handled t h i s case i s not an isolated incident.
We found that the Commission i s reluctant to conduct thorough and timely
investigations of pesticide complaints. For example, many complaints
involving potential v i o l a t i o n s of the pesticide statutes are not
routinely investigated. In many instances, when investigations are
conducted, the manner i n which they are conducted appears to be designed
to overlook v i o l a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , during the investigative process,
substantial delays occur that have considerable impact on the outcome of
the enforcement of these cases.
Possible Violations
Are Not Investigated
Commission s t a f f do not routinely investigate incidents involving
p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s of the pesticide statutes. Citizen reports of the
possible misuse of pesticides are sometimes ignored, and potential
v i o l a t i o n s o f the pesticide statutes have not been investigated.
Citizen reports not investigated - Many complaints are ignored. We
i d e n t i f i e d numerous instances i n which c i t i z e n s contacted ACAH with
information concerning possible v i o l a t i o n s of the pesticide statutes.
However, these reports were not investigated as complaints by ACES. The
following are two examples of such incidents.
a In 1989, f i v e people reportedly experienced respiratory problems from
an a e r i a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f pesticides to a f i e l d across the street from
t h e i r home. The homeowner reported the incident to an ACES
inspector, and ACES' records indicate a complaint number was assigned
to the case. However, ACES' records also indicate that the ACES
Division Director contacted the complainant and, based on his
conversation with her, directed the inspector not t o investigate the
incident. Consequently, the complaint number was deleted and no
investigation was conducted. However, when we spoke with the
complainant, she t o l d us that she merely reiterated her complaint to
the Division Director and f e l t she provided no new information that
would warrant canceling an investigation.
a In 1988, school o f f i c i a l s contacted ACES about an application that
had been made to a f i e l d adjacent to the school during classes.
School o f f i c i a l s informed ACES personnel that they had not received
p r i o r n o t i f i c a t i o n of the application as required by law. Although
the applicator i n t h i s case had a history of v i o l a t i o n s , i t appears
ACES made no attempt to investigate the incident and substantiate a
v i o l a t i o n .
These incidents, documenting the D i v i s i o n ' s f a i l u r e to adequately
investigate c i t i z e n complaints, do not appear to be isolated. We spoke
with seven people who had f i l e d complaints with ACAH and contended that
either ACES personnel attempted to discourage them from f i l i n g
complaints, or t h e i r complaints were simply ignored.
ACES o f f i c i a l s admit that many c a l l s from the public involving pesticide
usage are not pursued as complaints. According to the ACES inspection
supervisor, c i t i z e n s o f t e n contact the Division with questions about
pesticide usage, or to register t h e i r " concerns" about the use of
pesticides i n general. According to the supervisor, distinguishing
between c i t i z e n reports t h a t are complaints and those that are merely
" concerns," i s often a " judgment c a l l f ' on the part of the ACES s t a f f
taking the c a l l s . While there are a number of " concerns" f i l e d , our
review of the ACES' log used to record c i t i z e n " concerns," clearly
indicates that many of these " concerns" are actually very s p e c i f i c , and
are indeed complaints the D i v i s i o n has f a i l e d to investigate. During the
period of our review, the concerns log l i s t s 230 entries -- over 55
percent of the 414 complaints logged by the Division during approximately
the same time period.(')
Known v i o l a t i o n s not pursued - Although ACAH c l e a r l y has the statutory
authority to i n i t i a t e investigations without third- party complaints, we
found that ACES has not pursued instances involving p o t e n t i a l v i o l a t i o n s
of the pesticide statutes of which Division o f f i c i a l s were aware.( 2)
Division pol i c i e s regarding the need for t h i rd- party complaints has
contributed to the f a i l u r e to investigate these cases.
We i d e n t i f i e d the following reports of incidents with potential
v i o l a t i o n s ACES o f f i c i a l s knew about, but did not pursue.
In 1989, an employee who mixed and loaded pesticides f o r an a e r i a l
applicator suffered a s i g n i f i c a n t pesticide poisoning that required
approximately f i v e days h o s p i t a l i z a t i o n . According to the employee,
he spoke d i r e c t l y with the ACES Division Director and reported that
the applicator had not provided adequate safety equipment or the
required p r o t e c t i v e c l o t h i n g . He also reported he had not received
any formal t r a i n i n g on the safe handling of pesticides, and asked
ACES to conduct an investigation of the incident. Although ACES had
the a u t h o r i t y t o investigate the case, no formal action was taken by
the Division. In fact, a comment attached to the one page of
handwritten notes of the incident made by the D i v i s i o n D i r e c t o r ,
indicates that the D i r e c t o r i n s t r u c t e d ACES s t a f f not to pursue an
investigation unless t h i s man called again. Furthermore, ACES
o f f i c i a l s did not refer the case to the I n d u s t r i a l Commission of
Arizona f o r t h e i r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a possible v i o l a t i o n of the
pesticide worker safety rules.
In 1987, while monitoring an a e r i a l application, an ACAH d i s t r i c t
inspector documented s i g n i f icant d r i f t or an overspray of moderately
toxic pesticides. After applying the pesticides to the target crop,
the applicator deposited pesticides o f f the target, across a busy
road and onto an area of occupied housing. In an e f f o r t to pursue an
investigation, an ACES inspector presented the evidence of t h i s
incident to the ACES D i v i s i o n Director. According to a sworn
statement provided to us by the inspector, the Division Director
( 1) We reviewed a l l pesticide complaints received by ACES from August 13. 1986 through
December 31, 1989, although the concerns log covered only the period from
December 9, 1986 through December 31, 1989. Additionally, the ACES inspection
supervisor stated that not a l l concerns received by the Division have been recorded i n
the l o g .
( 2) A. R. S. 53- 362. A. 1, empowers the Comi ssion to ". . . conduct investigations, on complaint
and gn i t s own i n i t i a t i v e , regarding v i o l a t i o n s o f t h i s a r t i c l e and compile
information necessary to administer t h i s a r t i c l e . " ( emphasis added)
refused to authorize an investigation of the incident, and stated:
" I ' m not going to make i t impossible for these guys to f l y . " The
D i v i s i o n D i r e c t o r then requested that the ACES inspector rewrite the
monitoring form to indicate t h a t no s i g n i f i c a n t d r i f t had occurred,
and then instructed the inspector to destroy the evidence that
documented the v i o l a t i o n .
In 1988, an ACES inspector witnessed an unlicensed p i l o t applying
pesticides near Yuma. The inspector had administered the licensing
test to the pi l o t two days e a r l i e r , and the results had not yet been
received. In addition, the $ 50 licensing fee had not been paid. In
lieu of f i l i n g charges, the inspector agreed to allow the p i l o t to
travel to the ACES o f f i c e in Phoenix and pay the $ 50 fee. However,
later the same day the inspector again saw the p i l o t applying
pesticides. The inspector later learned that the owner of the aerial
application business that employed the p i l o t had spoken with the ACES
D i v i s i o n D i r e c t o r who agreed to ' loan1l the $ 50 to the applicator so
that the p i l o t could continue making applications that day.
In 1989, as a r e s u l t o f equipment f a i l u r e , an a e r i a l applicator
released in bulk, an undetermined amount of pesticides. Although the
bulk release of pesticides due to equipment malfunction i s not a
v i o l a t i o n , ACAH pesticide enforcement rules require the reportinn of
such releases w i t h i n three hours of the incident. The ope'rator - of a
business near the incident r e ~ o r t e dt he release to ACES o f f i c i a l s two
days a f t e r the incident, and'added that there were yellow dots a b s
the size of nickels on h i s sidewalk. An ACES inspector contacted the
applicator who admitted to the bulk release. Although the applicator
had not n o t i f i e d ACES of the incident w i t h i n the required three
hours, no charges were f i l e d .
While the reasons for ACESt f a i l u r e to pursue instances of potential
violations i s not completely clear, the D i v i s i o n ' s p o l i c y o f requiring
third- party complaints has adversely impacted the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f these
cases. According to the ACES inspection supervisor, ACES has an
" informal," unwritten policy of not investigating a pesticide misuse
v i o l a t i o n unless a complaint i s received from a private c i t i z e n . This
policy i s adhered to even when an ACES o f f i c i a l i s aware of a possible
v i o l a t i o n , as suggested by the preceeding examples. Such a policy
s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduces the effectiveness of ACAH's pesticide enforcement,
and strongly suggests a reluctance to regulate the industry.
Investigations Appear Designed
To Ignore Violations
Even when ACES does pursue a complaint, the manner i n which
investigations are conducted often appears designed to avoid i d e n t i f y i n g
violations. Cases are closed without the thorough investigations
necessary to document v i o l a t i o n s . In a d d i t i o n , i n v e s t i g a t i o n s are not
pursued unless the applicators f i l e a report that they made an
appl icat ion in that area. Final l y , appropriate investigative techniques
are not always f o l lowed.
Cases closed without thorough investigations - ACES often closes cases
without thoroughly investigating complaints. We i d e n t i f i e d several
instances i n which evidence existed t h a t suggested v i o l a t i o n s . However,
ACES o f f i c i a l s did not pursue these cases as evidenced by the following
examp l es .
In 1988, a ranch foreman reported an a e r i a l application near h i s
employer's property that resulted in pesticide d r i f t as well as
health problems. Laboratory analysis of samples taken from the
property i d e n t i f i e d the presence of the same restricted- use pesticide
that had been applied by an a e r i a l application i n the area at the
time of the incident, as well as two other types o f p e s t i c i d e s . ACES
o f f i c i a l s were unable to i d e n t i f y any other applications i n the area
that would account for the two a d d i t i o n a l p e s t i c i d e s . Based on t h i s
information, ACES o f f i c i a l s questioned the v a l i d i t y of the laboratory
analysis and concluded that no pesticide misuse v i o l a t i o n could be
documented. However, the Assistant Attorney General assigned to
review the case recommended that ACES s t a f f reconsider thei r
decision, based on the evidence presented, and issue a c i t a t i o n to
the applicator f o r allowing these pesticides to d r i f t . A d d i t i o n a l l y ,
the Assistant Attorney General noted that ACES o f f i c i a l s had not
investigated the charges made by a witness that the appl icat ion had
been made w i t h i n the quarter- mile buffer zone surrounding a nearby
school. Although the attorney's comments appeared p e r t i n e n t , no
c i t a t i o n was issued.
In 1987, a woman reported her son was sprayed by an a e r i a l applicator
while walking along a road, and estimated the incident occurred
between 6: 45 a. m. and 7: 00 a. m. ACES o f f i c i a l s i d e n t i f i e d an
applicator who had made an application i n the area on the morning i n
question, but the applicator reported the application took place from
6: 00 a. m. to 6: 45 a. m. However, no statement was taken from the
woman or her son, nor were any lab samples taken. Based on the
applicator's report of the incident, ACES o f f i c i a l s concluded that no
application could be documented for the time reported by the
complainant and closed the case with no f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
Investigations not pursued without documentation of application - ACES
w i I1 not pursue a d r i f t or overspray complaint unless an applicator has
f i l e d a pesticide- use report, commonly referred to as a Form 1080.
AppI icators are required to submit a Form 1080 ( which includes such
information as the pesticide applied, the date and time of the
application, and the wind direction and v e l o c i t y ) by the Monday
following the application. However, as shown i n the following cases, i t
appears that Form 1080s are not always f i l e d , and the refusal t o
investigate complaints i f the Form 1080s are missing, appears to be a
convenient method of s t i f l i n g investigations.
In 1989, a man reported he was sprayed by an a e r i a l applicator i n the
early morning hours while r i d i n g his motorcycle home from work. An
ACES inspector obtained a statement from the man, as well as a sample
for laboratory analysis of the residue found on the man's motorcycle.
However, when a Form 1080 corresponding to the time and location
reported by the complainant could not be found, ACAH closed the
case. In reviewing t h i s case, the Commission's Assistant Attorney
General commented: " This appears to be a classic case that i f no 1080
i s f i l e d , ACES investigators presume there was no application." The
Assistant Attorney General also noted that ACAH had not obtained a
description of the a i r c r a f t from the complainant, or the results of
the laboratory analysis of the sample.
In 1987, a woman reported her home was sprayed w i th pesticides by an
aerial applicator. ACES o f f i c i a l s reviewed the Form 1080s for
applications i n the area, but could not find an application for the
time reported by the complainant. Based on t h i s information, ACES
closed the investigation without obtaining samples from her home for
laboratory analysis to document the presence of pesticides.
Appropriate investigative techniques not fol lowed - Even when a complaint
i s investigated, ACES does not always follow some of the most basic
investigative techniques. Our review of the 414 complaint investigations
conducted by ACES since August 1986 reveals the following information.
In 45 percent of the investigations in which no witness statements
were obtained, witnesses were available and should have been
interviewed.
Rather than taking a statement d i r e c t l y from complainants,
applicators, or witnesses, ACES inspectors routinely leave, or even
mai I, a statement form for them to complete, resulting i n many
investigations without statements from these p a r t i e s .
In 40 percent of the investigations i n which no samples were
obtained, samples to document pesticide misuse should have been taken.
These practices are contrary to the investigative standards establ i shed
by the EPA and adopted by ACES as t h e i r operating procedures. According
to the EPA standards, inspectors should interview, at a minimum, the
complainant and the applicator. In addition, any witnesses that can
a t t e s t to the relevant circumstances of the incident should be
interviewed. Further, statements from these people should be taken
d i r e c t l y by the inspector i n order to establish a l l of the relevant
facts, and to ensure that al I information i s factual and firsthand.
F i n a l l y , the EPA standards indicate that, i n order to document any
v i o l a t i o n s , i t i s essential t o c o l l e c t residue samples i n a l l incidences
of suspected pesticide misuse.
Substantial delays have occurred during ACAH's investigation of pesticide
complaint cases. Due to s t a t u t o r i l y mandated time frames, these delays
have considerable impact on enforcement.
Substantial delays i n ACAH pesticide investigations - ACAH has delayed
i t s investigation o f p e s t i c i d e complaint cases. Our analysis of the 414
cases investigated by ACES between August 1986 and December 1989, found
that ACES required an average of 126 days ( approximately four months) to
investigate a complaint and submit i t to the Attorney General for
review. For cases resulting in the issuance of a c i t a t i o n , the
Commission took an average of 175 days. Furthermore, 26 of the 151 cases
( 17 percent) in which a c i t a t i o n was issued, went beyond the six- month
( 180- day) statutory l i m i t .
Our review indicated two s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n s o f the investigative
process contributed to the Commission's overall delay in conducting
investigations. F i r s t , the State A g r i c u l t u r a l Laboratory took, on
average, approximately 100 days to analyze residue samples and report the
results to ACES. In fact, as i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 3 ( see page 14), i n
one- half of a l l the cases involving residue sample analysis, the
laboratory took more than 90 days ( or three months) to provide the
results. The laboratory manager contends that these delays are due to a
high turnover of s t a f f and d i f f i c u l t y i n r e c r u i t i n g s t a f f due to the low
salaries offered by the laboratory for residue chemists. However,
according to one laboratory o f f i c i a l , these delays may also be a t t r i b u t e d
to the low p r i o r i t y assigned to the analysis of ACES samples, as
compared to the sample analysis performed by the laboratory for other
organizations.(')
TABLE 3
TIMELINESS OF
PESTICIDE RESiDUE SAMPLE ANALYSIS
AUGUST 1986 THROUGH DECEMBER 1989
Number of Days From Number of Cases
Date Sent to Lab Number of Cases With Violations
0- 45
46- 90
91 - 1 35
136- 1 80
181 - 225
226- 270
271 - 365
TOTAL
Source: Office of the Auditor General s t a f f analysis of a l l complaints
received and investigated by ACAH during the period of
August 13, 1986 to December 31 , 1989.
The second portion of the investigative process that contributed to
delays involved the amount of time each case remained w i t h i n the ACES
Division. Our review indicates that investigations were generally
i n i t i a t e d w i t h i n one day of receipt of the complaint. However, from t h i s
point u n t i l a summary of the investigation was completed often required
an excessive amount of time. For example, for a l l cases reviewed, i t
took the Division an average of 118 days from the onset of the
investigation, u n t i l a summary was completed and ready for review. Even
i n those cases i n which no residue samples were sent to the laboratory
for analysis, the Division required an average of 87 days to complete the
investigation and provide a summary. F i n a l l y , i t took the Division an
average of 53 days a f t e r receiving laboratory results, to complete a
summary.
( 1) The State Agricultural Laboratory conducts pesticide residue sample analysis for the
Structural Pest Control Commission, the Office of the Dairy Comni ssioner, and the
Southwest Boll Weevil Eradication Program, as well as f o r the ACES Division.
The reasons for case delays due to ACES' inact ion are unclear. The
Division has a tracking system that provides a weekly update on the
status of a l l open cases, including those awaiting laboratory results.
This system has been operational since the Division assumed the
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 enforcement i n August 1986. However, the
D i v i s i o n ' s tracking system appears to have had l i t t l e e f f e c t on ensuring
the timely r e s o l u t i o n o f complaint investigations.
Delays have impact on enforcement - Due to s t a t u t o r i l y mandated time
frames, delays in the investigative process can have s i g n i f i c a n t impact
on the r e s o l u t i o n o f cases involving pesticide v i o l a t i o n s .
A. R. S. 93- 368. F, s t i p u l a t e s : " No c i t a t i o n may be issued a f t e r the
e x p i r a t i o n o f six months from the date of the inspection o r investigation
which produced evidence of the v i o l a t i o n . " ACAH has interpreted t h i s
statute to mean that a c i t a t i o n must be issued w i t h i n s i x months ( 180
days) of the date the investigation began, rather than concluded. This
interpretation places a l i m i t a t i o n of six months on a l l ACES
investigations, regardless of the severity or complexity o f a case.
However, Auditor General counsel believes that the statute, when read
with other paragraphs i n the section, should be interpreted to mean that
a c i t a t i o n must be issued w i t h i n six months from the date the
investigation ends. Nevertheless, as i l lustrated by the following case,
the delays i n ACES investigations have had s i g n i f i c a n t impact on the
enforcement of these cases.
On October 13, 1989, ACES responded to a complaint about an aerial
applicator depositing pesticides onto a t r a i l e r park. Residue
samples were taken from the t r a i l e r park the same day and sent to the
State A g r i c u l t u r a l Laboratory for analysis. On A p r i l 6, 1990, 175
days a f t e r the s t a r t of the investigation and less than seven days
before the six- month statutory deadline, ACES received the sample
results from the laboratory indicating the presence of the pesticide
applied by the applicator. On A p r i l 13, 1990, a summary of the case
was completed for the ACES D i v i s i o n D i r e c t o r ' s review. Eleven days
l a t e r , on A p r i l 24, 1990, and 193 days from the s t a r t of the
investigation, the Division Director submitted h i s recommendation for
enforcement action to the ACAH Director. However, the Assistant
Attorney General assigned to review the case advised ACES not to
issue a c i t a t i o n , indicating that, in her opinion, delays at the
State A g r i c u l t u r a l Laboratory were not a s u f f i c i e n t reason to exceed
the statutory l i m i t .
On October 16, 1987, a homeowner complained to ACES of damage to
c i t r u s trees and other plants she believed was caused by a recent
a e r i a l application of pesticides. Samples from the trees were taken
on October 19, 1987, and submitted to the State A g r i c u l t u r a l
Laboratory f o r a n a l y s i s . On November 6, 1987, 21 days a f t e r the
s t a r t of the investigation, ACES received the laboratory results
indicating the presence of the p e s t i c i d e s t h a t had been appl ied by an
a e r i a l applicator to a nearby f i e l d . On May 24, 1988, 200 days a f t e r
the s t a r t of the investigation, a summary of the case was completed
for the ACES D i v i s i o n D i r e c t o r ' s review. Three days l a t e r , on May
27, 1988, the D i v i s i o n Director recommended to the ACAH Director that
because the i n v e s t i g a t i o n had exceeded six months, the applicator
should not be issued a c i t a t i o n . The ACAH Director agreed, and no
c i t a t i o n was issued.
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACAH needs to develop and maintain a commitment to e f f e c t i v e enforcement
that includes the following:
recording, i n v e s t i g a t i n g , anddocumentingall complaints;
investigating a l l v i o l a t i o n s of the pesticide statutes,
including those i d e n t i f i e d by Agency o f f i c i a l s , not just those
made by t h i r d p a r t i e s ;
pursuing investigations even when the Form 1080s can not be
found ;
following EPA c r i t e r i a on interviewing complainants and
witnesses, taking statements, and c o l l e c t i n g samples when
conducting investigations;
reducing delays and completing investigations w i t h i n the
six- month statutory l i m i t ; and
addressing problems with the State A g r i c u l t u r a l Laboratory i n
obtaining sample analysis results w i t h i n a reasonable amount of
time.
FINDING II
ACAH HAS NOT TAKEN ADEQUATE DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS
IN PESTICIDE ENFORCEMENT CASES
Even when complaints are f u l l y investigated, ACAH displays a consistent
pattern of weak d i s c i p l i n a r y actions i n i t s regulation o f a g r i c u l t u r a l
pesticide users. In f a c t , many of ACAH's administrative actions and
procedures appear to be used to i n t e n t i o n a l l y undermine e f f e c t i v e
enforcement.
Disciplinary Actions
Available To ACAH
Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) $ 3- 362. A, empowers the Commission with
broad authority to investigate v i o l a t i o n s of the p e s t i c i d e s t a t u t e s and
take enforcement action against v i o l a t o r s . A. R. S. $ 3- 368 also delegates
specific enforcement r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s to the Director of ACAH that
include the authority to determine whether the evidence gathered supports
the allegations of a v i o l a t i o n , as well as the level of the v i o l a t i o n .
The statutes s p e c i f i c a l l y define three levels of v i o l a t i o n :
De minimis - a v i o l a t i o n that has no d i r e c t or immediate r e l a t i o n s h i p
to safety, health. o r property damage. There i s no penalty for a de
minimis v i o l a t i o n .
Nonserious - a v i o l a t i o n that may have had a d i r e c t or immediate
effect on safety, health, or property damage. A nonserious v i o l a t i o n
can carry a penalty of up to $ 500.
Serious - a v i o l a t i o n that produces a substantial p r o b a b i l i t y that
death or serious physical harm could r e s u l t . A serious v i o l a t i o n can
carry a penalty of up to $ 10,000.
F i n a l l y , when the Director of ACAH determines a v i o l a t i o n has occurred,
he i s authorized by statute to establish penal t i e s for the v i o l a t ion and
negotiate a settlement with the v i o l a t o r . Although ACAH and the Director
have broad powers to enforce the pesticide statutes, we found that they
frequently impose the most lenient enforcement action.
In i t s regulation of a g r i c u l t u r a l pesticide users, ACAH consistently
displays a p a t t e r n o f weak d i s c i p l i n a r y actions. Incidences involving
p o t e n t i a l l y serious v i o l a t i o n s have not been appropriately acted upon.
In addition, ACAH has not taken d i s c i p l i n a r y actions against licensees
with m u l t i p l e v i o l a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , our review of complaint cases
suggests a general lack of enforcement.
Serious v i o l a t i o n s have not been acted upon - ACAH has not acted
appropriately i n incidences involving p o t e n t i a l l y serious pesticide
v i o l a t i o n s . The following examples i l l u s t r a t e ACAH's fai lure to act in
cases involving flagrant v i o l a t i o n s o f the pesticide statutes.
Example 1 - On A p r i l 13, 1987, two brothers ( ages 8 and 11), the
children of migrant workers, ventured i n t o a dump containing old
farming equipment and used pesticide containers. The youngest of the
two brothers found an open bag of a highly toxic pesticide and began
to play i n i t . Soon a f t e r , the young boy became i l l and eventually
comatose. He was transported to a local c h i l d r e n ' s hospital and was
l i s t e d i n c r i t i c a l condition for several hours.
A number of weeks l a t e r , the incident was reported to several State
a u t h o r i t i e s , including ACAH. A t the conclusion of t h e i r
investigation, ACAH o f f i c i a l s determined that the permitted grower on
whose land the dump was located and whose i l legal ly disposed of
pesticide containers were found, had committed a nonserious v i o l a t i o n
of the pesticide statutes by f a i l i n g to properly store and dispose of
pesticide containers. ACAH fined the grower $ 150. No other c i v i l or
criminal actions were pursued by ACAH.
Connents - Although the c h i l d c l e a r l y suffered severe physical harm
from exposure to i l l e g a l l y disposed pesticides, an obvious basis f o r
a serious v i o l a t i o n , ACAH o f f i c i a l s ignored t h i s information.
Instead, the ACAH Director issued the grower the lesser v i o l a t i o n of
nonserious and negotiated a minimal penalty. When we asked about
t h i s case, ACAH o f f i c i a l s attempted to j u s t i f y t h e i r inaction by
claiming that the c h i l d was exposed to pesticides that h i s father
stole from the grower. However, t h i s allegation i s completely
undocumented in the ACES investigation f i l e , and was not
substantiated by the Attorney General's investigation.
Example 2 - In July 1987, while a farm employee was f i l l i n g a sprayer
tank with water, the well pump stopped allowing a herbicide i n the
tank to drain back into the we1 l and contaminate i t . The herbicide
was Dinoseb, a product which had been suspended from use by the EPA
i n 1986 a f t e r i t was linked t o b i r t h defects and s t e r i l i t y . The farm
grower had instructed the employee to apply the Dinoseb despite the
f a c t t h a t the grower had signed a statement i n February 1987
acknowledging i t s suspension and indicating he had none on hand.
A family of ten l i v i n g on the farm used the same well f o r d r i n k i n g
water. While washing i n the kitchen sink, a family member was
exposed to the Dinoseb and suffered burning eyes and respiratory
problems. The following day the Attorney General's Office and the
Department of Environmental Quality began an investigation and
n o t i f i e d ACAH of the incident.
ACAH conducted a cursory investigation and issued a Notice of
De minimis Violation. No fines were assessed nor was any action
taken against the grower's permit to purchase and use pesticides.
The Attorney General's Office considered t h i s case so serious that i t
pursued criminal prosecution of both the grower and the farm owners.
In February 1989, the grower, who had given the instructions to use
the Dinoseb, plead gui I ty to reckless disposal of hazardous waste, a
Class I misdemeanor, and was sentenced to three years probation and
21 days in the county j a i I .
In addition to these cases, there appears to have been other instances of
potential ly serious pesticide v i o l a t i o n s that were not properly handled
by ACAH. Without investigatory work by other agencies, we must rely on
information gathered by ACAH i n their i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the case.
Nevertheless, we i d e n t i f i e d several cases in which there appears to have
been the p o t e n t i a l f o r serious v i o l a t i o n s which were not adequately
pursued by ACAH. A few of these cases are described i n d e t a i l as follows.
In 1989, two people reportedly suffered health problems as a result
of an a e r i a l a p p l i c a t i o n over their home. The ACAH Director, c i t i n g
lack of s u f f i c i e n t evidence, dismissed the charges against the
applicator i n a negotiated settlement meeting despite the fact ACAH
enforcement s t a f f documented that several people witnessed the
incident and a physician confirmed pesticide exposure.
In 1988, an aerial applicator sprayed a highly t o x i c p e s t i c i d e on
three people whi le they were working i n t h e i r yard. They stated t h a t
the plane made several passes, applying pesticides d i r e c t Iy over
them. Although these people reported health problems for several
days -- statutory grounds for a serious v i o l a t i o n , ACES inspectors
did not pursue t h i s information. Based on t h e i r investigation, ACES
Division s t a f f recommended charging the applicator with a nonserious
v i o l a t i o n . However, a f t e r an undocumented meeting between the ACAH
Director and the applicator, the Director reduced the charge to a de
minimis v i o l a t i o n . No fine was assessed.
In 1987, an aerial applicator applied two highly toxic pesticides to
a lettuce f i e l d i n which a farmworker was operating a t r a c t o r . The
farmworker reported that the application was made without warning him
and that he had to run from the f i e l d i n an e f f o r t to avoid being
sprayed. Additional ly, the farmworker and a nearby resident reported
that a f t e r the farmworker l e f t the t r a c t o r , the applicator began a
second pass over the f i e l d , c u t t i n g the worker o f f i n h i s attempt to
reach the edge of the f i e l d . Based on t h e i r investigation, ACES
Division s t a f f recommended charging the applicator with a serious
v i o l a t i o n . However, in a meeting between the ACAH Director, the
applicator and his attorney, i t was determined that based on the
analysis of the farmworker's clothing, i n s u f f i c i e n t contamination had
taken place to m e r i t a serious v i o l a t i o n . The ACAH Director reduced
the charge to a nonserious v i o l a t ion and fined the appl icator $ 250.
No action against licensees w i t h m u l t i p l e v i o l a t i o n s - Although ACAH has
s u f f i c i e n t a u t h o r i t y t o do so('), the Commission has not taken
d i s c i p l i n a r y actions against licensees w i t h m u l t i p l e v i o l a t i o n s . This
has occurred even though several individual applicators and applicator
businesses have accumulated several complaints involving v i o l a t ions. As
i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 4 ( see page 211, during a 40- month period, eleven of
the approximately 190 licensed a e r i a l applicator p i l o t s accounted for 62
( or 41 percent) of a l l 151 cases involving a v i o l a t i o n . In addition,
during the same 40- month period, f i v e of the approximate 47 percent
comnercial a e r i a l applicator businesses and the p i l o t s f l y i n g for them
accounted for 61 ( 40 percent) of a l l 151 v i o l a t i v e acts. See Table 5
( page 22 ) .
( 1) A . R . S . $ 3- 370. A and B, empower ACAH to take action against persons who commit
nonserious and serious violations, respective1 y, to include: ". . . probation or
suspension, revocation, nonrenewal or denial of a permit, 1 icense, or c e r t i f i c a t i o n . "
TABLE 4
Pi l o t
A
REPEAT VIOLATIONS BY SELECT
AERIAL APPLICATOR PILOTS
AUGUST 1986 THROUGH DECEMBER 1989
Number of
C o m p l a i n t s ( a )
Numbe r of
V i o l a t i v e
W ( b )
K
TOTALS
( a) This represents the number of incidents i n which a complaint was f i l e d and the
applicator was i d e n t i f i e d as the possible v i o l a t o r .
( b) This represents the number of complaint cases i n which the applicator was found to have
committed a v i o l a t i o n o f the pesticide statutes.
Source: Office of the Auditor General s t a f f analysis of a l l complaints
received and investigated by Arizona Commission of Agriculture
and H o r t i c u l t u r e during the period of August 13, 1986 to
December 31 , 1989.
TABLE 5
REPEAT VIOLATIONS BY SELECT
COMMERCIAL AERIAL APPLICATOR BUSINESSES
AUGUST 1986 THROUGH DECEMBER 1989
Business
A
B
C
D
E
TOTALS
Number of
Complaints( a)
Number of
Violative
- Act ~ ( b )
( a) This represents the number of incidents i n which a complaint was f i l e d and the
applicator business or t h e i r p i l o t s were i d e n t i f i e d as the possible v i o l a t o r .
( b) This represents the number of complaint cases i n which the applicator business or
t h e i r p i l o t s were found to have committed a v i o l a t i o n of the pesticide statutes.
Source: Office of the Auditor General s t a f f analysis of a l l complaints
received and investigated by Arizona Commission of Agriculture
and H o r t i c u l t u r e during the period of August 13, 1986 to
December 31 , 1989.
While the number of v i o l a t i o n s accumulated by these repeat offenders
would appear to merit some action against t h e i r a b i l i t y to use and apply
pesticides in Arizona, during the 40- month period of our review, only one
licensee had an action taken against his license.(') In addition, the
frequency and type of v i o l a t i v e acts committed by these licensees further
indicates the need for licensing action. The following descriptions of
incidents l i s t e d i n Table 4 ( see page 21) i l l u s t r a t e t h i s point.
( 1) The licensee was required to serve probationary periods as a part of the penal t i e s
assessed against him i n two cases. However, i n both instances, the probations were
assessed by a hearing o f f i c e r and represent two of on1 y three cases that ever went to
an administrative hearing.
8 P i l o t A had eleven v i o l a t i o n s during the 40- month period of our
review. However, e i g h t o f the eleven cases involved incidences
w i t h i n a seven- month period between Apri l and October 1989, with the
last two occurring on the same day. The p i l o t received penalties
ranging from a fine of $ 300 and a 90- day probation to a de minimis
v i o l a t i o n .
Pi l o t B had ten v i o l a t i o n s during the 40- month period of our review.
Three of the ten occurred on the same day in September 1988. Four
involved pest i c i de spray deposi ted on people, two involved pest i c i de
app l i cat ions near schoo l s , and two i nvo lved pest i c i de sprayed on
private property. Although the p i l o t averaged one v i o l a t i o n every
four months, the largest penalty he received was a $ 200 f i n e .
P i l o t K committed three v i o l a t i o n s during the 40- month period of our
review. A l l three occurred in a period of less than 30 days. Two
involved three separate bulk releases of pesticides which were not
reported to the Commission as required by administrative rule. The
t h i r d incident involved a d i r e c t overspray of pesticides to a golf
course. The p i l o t received penalties ranging from a $ 250 fine for
the golf course overspray to a de minimis v i o l a t i o n for the t h i r d
unreported bulk release.
General lack of enforcement - Our review of the 414 cases received and
investigated by ACAH between August 1986 and December 1989, suggests a
general lack of enforcement action. As shown i n Table 6, of the 414
cases investigated, ACAH took enforcement action in only 151 cases.
Furthermore, i n these 151 cases, ACAH did not issue a single c i t a t i o n for
a serious v i o l a t i o n .
TABLE 6
ARIZONA COMMISSION OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE
ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
AUGUST 1986 THROUGH DECEMBER 1989
Letter of laming/
Serious Nonserious Deminimis N o t i c e o f c o n c e r n Total
0 52 6 4 35 151
Source: Office of the Auditor General s t a f f analysis of a l l complaints
received and investigated by Arizona Commission of Agriculture
and H o r t i c u l t u r e during the period of August 13, 1986 to
December 31 , 1989.
Administrative Actions And Procedures
Undermine Effective Enforcement
Several administrative actions and procedures u t i l i z e d by ACAH to enforce
the p e s t i c i d e s t a t u t e s appear to undermine e f f e c t i v e enforcement.
Charges have been inappropriately downgraded or dismissed by the
Commission Director f o l lowing closed- door meetings with v i o l a t o r s . ACAH
has also issued numerous Letters of Warning and Notices of Concern rather
than issuing actual c i t a t i o n s for v i o l a t ions.
Violations downgraded following closed- door meetings - The ACAH Director
has used the negotiated settlement process to u n i l a t e r a l l y reduce and, in
some instances, dismiss v i o l a t i o n s , even though he does not have
authority to do so. These a c t i v i t i e s coupled with closed- door meetings
with v i o l a t o r s , create the appearance of impropriety i n the r e s o l u t i o n o f
d i s c i p l i n a r y matters and the enforcement of the applicable statutes and
rules.
In an apparent attempt to expedite the enforcement process, A. R. S. 53- 368
empowers the Director to o f f e r those c i t e d w i t h serious and nonserious
v i o l a t i o n s an opportunity to negotiate a settlement in l i e u of an
administrative hearing. During our review of the 414 enforcement cases
investigated by ACAH between August 1986 and December 1989, one serious
and 42 nonserious c i t a t i o n s were issued. Of these, only three went to
administrative hearings and were not settled through negotiation with the
Director. However, of the 40 cases negotiated by the Director, we
i d e n t i f i e d eleven in which the v i o l a t i o n was reduced, and three in which
the v i o l a t i o n was dismissed completely, a t o t a l o f 14 cases, or one- third
of the cases settled through negotiation with the Director.
Although the Director has u n i l a t e r a l l y reduced and dismissed v i o l a t i o n s
during negotiated settlements, he does not have the authority to do so.
Earlier t h i s year, a f t e r the Director dismissed v i o l a t i o n s i n three
cases, representatives of the Attorney General's Office challenged his
authority to take such action. They argued that the Director was making
decisions based on new evidence presented at the time of the settlement
meeting, or by reevaluating e x i s t i n g evidence and assuming the role of a
hearing o f f i c e r , thus exceeding h i s statutory a u t h o r i t y . Based on the
concerns of the Attorney General, the Director requested a formal
Attorney General opinion on the authority granted to him i n negotiated
settlements. According to the Attorney General opinion, the Director can
not act u n i l a t e r a l l y to dismiss or otherwise change the f i n a l disposition
of a complaint during negotiated settlement. Rather, the Director must
provide the Attorney General an opportunity to analyze any additional
information used by the D i r e c t o r t o change the f i n a l disposition of the
case, before the complaint may be dismissed or otherwise resolved.
An appearance of possible impropriety when conduct i ng negotiated
settlements i s furthered by the manner in which the settlement meetings
have been held.(') According to the Commission Director, attendance at
these meetings i s generally l i m i t e d t o him, the ACES D i v i s i o n D i r e c t o r ,
the ACAH inspections supervisor, and the v i o l a t o r and his legal counsel,
i f any. Notices of these meetings are not p u b l i c l y posted, nor i s the
complainant or any other involved party n o t i f i e d . In addition, before
the f i r s t of t h i s year, no record was kept of the meetings or the
c r i t e r i a used to determine the penalties assessed. Complainants and
other interested parties had no means of reviewing a public record of the
cases or evaluating the reasons actions were or were not taken. These
facts are p a r t i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t when considering the number of
instances i n which the Director u n i l a t e r a l l y reduced or dismissed
v i o l a t i o n s .
( 1 ) I n addition to the a c t i v i t i e s taking place during negotiated settlements, we gathered
evidence that suggests that the ACES Division Director may meet with licensees p r i o r
to the negotiated settlements with the ACAH Director. According to at l e a s t s i x
current and former ACAH employees, the ACES D i v i s i o n D i r e c t o r routine1 y meets with
1 i censees immediate1 y before negotiated settlements. While none of the employees have
been a p a r t o f these conversations, it i s generally f e l t that the Division Director
reviews the case with the licensee, including the evidence gathered to support the
violations. While the D i v i s i o n D i r e c t o r denies meeting with licensees, any such
a c t i v i t y , coupled with the large number of violations reduced and dismissed during
negotiated settlements, c e r t a i n l y creates the appearance of an orchestrated e f f o r t to
reduce or el i m i nate enforcement actions.
Issuance of Letters of Warning and Notices of Concern rather than actual
citations - ACAHts use o f L e t t e r s of Warning and Notices of Concern have
limited the extent of enforcement action against v i o l a t o r s . According to
the ACES D i v i s i o n D i r e c t o r , these l e t t e r s were sent to licensees when
" minor" v i o l a t ions of the p e s t i c i d e s t a t u t e s and rules were committed,
and were used p r i m a r i l y to help ensure future compliance. However, i n
our review of the enforcement cases investigated during a 40- month
period, we found that ACAH had issued 17 L e t t e r s o f Warning and 18
Not ices of Concern. These represented 23 percent ( 35 of 151 cases) of
a l l pesticide enforcement actions taken by the Commission during t h i s
period. Further, even though the Commission's previous Attorney General
representatives appear to have been aware of the use of L e t t e r s o f
Concern, i n late 1989 the Commission's Attorney General representative
informed ACAH o f f i c i a l s that there was no statutory authority for the use
of these l e t t e r s .
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Director should l i m i t use of negotiated settlements to minor or
f i r s t - t i m e pesticide- related v i o l a t i o n s . S i g n i f i c a n t and/ or repeat
or mu1 t i p l e v i o l a t ions should be adjudicated through a formal hearing
process.
2. The Commission should i d e n t i f y and take action against licensees with
m u l t i p l e v i o l a t i o n s .
FINDING Ill
MORE CAN BE DONE TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM
OF PESTICIDE DRIFT IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS
Pesticides d r i f t i n g o f f target onto residential property continues to
plague Ar i zona. The establ i shment of buffer zones and sensi t ive areas
was a positive regulatory step toward minimizing d r i f t problems.
Additional e f f o r t s to research and promote more target- eff i c i e n t methods
and technology may o f f e r the best opportunity to further limit o f f - t a r g e t
d r i f t .
Drift Can Occur When
Pesticides Are Applied
Pesticides can d r i f t o f f a target when they are applied. Agricultural
pesticides are applied either from the a i r using planes or helicopters,
or from the ground using spray r i g s or chemigation ( placing the pesticide
solution i n i r r i g a t i o n water). D r i f t control requirements found on
pesticide container labels i n s t r u c t the applicator not to apply the
pesticide when conditions favor d r i f t . D r i f t can be caused by a number
of factors, but t y p i c a l l y occurs when pesticides are applied by a i r under
windy conditions. In addition, i f an applicator does not turn o f f
sprayers or i f sprayers malfunction i n f l i g h t , overspray onto humans or
residential property can occur.
Drift Continues
To Be A Problem
ACAH continues to receive complaints involving pesticide d r i f t and
overspray. Aerial application, meteorological conditions, and urban
sprawl into a g r i c u l t u r a l areas a l l contribute to the problem.
Citizen complaints - Our analysis o f p e s t i c i d e incidents and accidents
revealed t h a t a s i g n i f i c a n t number of complaints involved pesticide d r i f t
and overspray. Of the 414 complaints received by ACAH from August 13,
1986 through December 31, 1989, 84 involved d r i f t and 84 more involved
overspray ( some involved both). I n 26 of the d r i f t - r e l a t e d complaints
and 24 of the overspray complaints, complainants c i t e d health problems.
Property damage can also occur as a r e s u l t o f d r i f t or overspray. For
example, numerous complainants reported damage to foliage and vehicles.
Most of the d r i f t and overspray complaints followed an a e r i a l
application. This i s not surprising since targeting i s less accurate
when pesticides are applied by a i r . The greater the distance between the
application equipment and the t a r g e t , the more the pesticide i s subject
to the influences of weather -- wind, temperature, humidity, and the
presence of inversions. According to the Texas Center for Policy
Studies, about 50 percent of a l l pesticides applied by airborne equipment
-- under ideal conditions -- actual ly reach t h e i r intended target area,
compared to 90 percent when applied by ground- based equipment.
Urban sprawl - Population growth into former a g r i c u l t u r a l areas,
p a r t i c u l a r l y i n Maricopa County, has increased the p o t e n t i a l f o r
complaints. Housing developments are now located on former a g r i c u l t u r a l
land. In some cases, farming continues adjacent to or around housing.
Applicators are then faced with the problem of applying pesticides to
f i e l d s that may have several borders i n t e r f a c i n g r e s i d e n t i a l property.
Buffer Zones Have Been Established
And Other Steps Taken
Both the Legislature and ACAH have attempted to address the problem of
d r i f t i n t o r e s i d e n t i a l areas. Buffer zones and provisions f o r Pesticide
Management Areas ( PMAs) were established by law, a step few other states
have taken, and the Commission has monitored p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s i n
" sensitive areas." Although p o s i t i v e , these e f f o r t s alone have not
eliminated the problem of d r i f t .
Buffer zones - The Environmental Quality Act of 1986 provided for the
establishment of buffer zones i n residential areas. A. R. S. 53- 365
established b u f f e r zones for schools, day- care centers, healthcare
f a c i l i t i e s , and r e s i d e n t i a l housing. Buffer zone widths range from 50 to
1,320 feet, depending upon the nature of the pesticide, the type of
building adjacent to the f i e l d being sprayed, and the equipment used.
For example, a h i g h l y t o x i c pesticide may not be applied w i t h i n 400 feet
of a healthcare f a c i l i t y , except by s o i l i n j e c t i o n . Highly toxic
pesticides may not be applied closer than 100 feet to a r e s i d e n t i a l area
by a i r c r a f t o r closer than 50 feet i f ground- based equipment i s used. In
addition, ACAH has established two PMAs, both in the Phoenix metropolitan
area. PMA l e g i s l a t i o n allows certain areas to be s p e c i f i c a l l y designated
due to a h i s t o r y or problems with pesticide d r i f t . The law requires that
a pesticide applicator must n o t i f y the ACAH Director, i f possible, at
least 24 hours before making an application i n a PMA.
In addition, ACAH monitors pesticide applications i n 26 areas designated
as sensitive by ACAH because these areas have a h i s t o r y of complaints.
On a voluntary b a s i s , a p p l i c a t o r s may c a l l the Commission and request
that an inspector monitor the a p p l i c a t i o n o f pesticides i n a s e n s i t i v e
area.
Pest control advisors, growers, and other industry representatives we
contacted indicated that buffer zone requirements have had a positive
impact. They stated t h a t applicators are now more sensitive to community
concerns when applying pesticides i n residential areas, and that
appl icators and residents communicate more frequently.
Problems continue - Although the e f f o r t s that have been taken are
generally p o s i t i v e , problems with d r i f t and overspray continue. In fact,
the actual number of complaints ACAH receives involving d r i f t has
increased from 14 d r i f t and nine overspray complaints i n 1986, to 29
d r i f t and 34 overspray complaints i n 1989. While these increases could
be the result o f a number of factors, and do not necessarily indicate a
growing problem, they c l e a r l y suggest that people l i v i n g near
a g r i c u l t u r a l areas continue to be concerned about pesticide d r i f t and
overspray.
Additional Efforts Are Needed To Promote More
Target- Eff icient Application Practices
Research and promotional e f f o r t s designed to develop and implement
widespread use of more t a r g e t - e f f i c i e n t application methods may afford
the best opportunity to further l i m i t the problems of d r i f t . Research
into the use and p o t e n t i a l b e n e f i t s of ground- spraying equipment,
adjuvants ( agents added to change the physical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a
solution or emission), and techno logical i nnovat ions are needed.
Arizona has implemented most of the available regulatory options to
control d r i f t . The Texas Center for Policy Studies has compiled several
recommendations for states seeking methods to control d r i f t . As
recommended by the Center, Arizona, unlike many other states, has
established buffer zones and i d e n t i f i e d areas p a r t i c u l a r l y sensitive to
pesticide d r i f t . Arizona has also made provisions f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g PMAs
that require n o t i f i c a t i o n before a p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n , and has
mandatory c e r t i f i c a t i o n and r e c e r t i f i c a t i o n programs f o r a p p l i c a t o r s . In
addition, Arizona has an active Integrated Pest Management Program,
although additional resources are needed to achieve optimum benefits from
the program ( see Finding V, page 39). While ACAH could improve i t s
implementat ion and enforcement of e x i s t i n g regulatory requi rements ( see
Findings I and I I ) , few new pol icy options are avai l a b l e . ( l )
Research needed - The best opportunity f o r further advances in
c o n t r o l l i n g d r i f t may l i e i n researching and promoting more
t a r g e t - e f f i c i e n t a p p l i c a t i o n methods. For example, ground spraying has
the p o t e n t i a l f o r s i g n i f i c a n t l y reducing d r i f t and overspray problems.
When pesticides are applied by ground r i g s rather than by a i r , targeting
i s more accurate, and wind, humidity, and temperatures have less
influence.
During our audit we v i s i t e d several cotton and vegetable farms and spoke
with operators of others t h a t use ground spraying almost exclusively in
l i e u of a e r i a l application. The farmers we spoke with claimed they
reduced pesticide usage and costs by 30 to 50 percent. Three growers
( 1) According to the Texas Center for Pol icy Studies, remaining regulatory options include
i n s t i t u t i n g land- use controls and banning U l t r a Light Volume ( ULV) spraying.
with f i e l d s i n sensitive areas also indicated that they use ground rigs
to minimize c i t i z e n complaints. However, c e r t a i n growers questioned the
f e a s i b i l i t y of using ground r i g s because f i e l d s are muddy following
i r r i g a t i o n , making mature cotton d i f f i c u l t to penetrate, and ground r i g
applications require more time than a e r i a l applications. More research
i s needed to explore the b e n e f i t s some farmers have claimed, and also to
determine the p r a c t i c a l i t y and f e a s i b i l i t y of using ground application
equipment i n r e s i d e n t i a l areas.
Research i s also needed on the use of adjuvants. Adjuvants are added to
a pesticide solution to increase droplet v i s c o s i t y . Increased v i s c o s i t y
reduces the e f f e c t s of wind, temperature, and humidity, and thus helps
minimize d r i f t . Several applicators reported using adjuvants on a
regular basis near residences, and be1 ieve such use at points of
urban/ agricuIturaI interface could reduce p e s t i c i d e i n c i d e n t s . One
appl icator reported adjuvant costs to be minimal. However, one reported
drawback to use of adjuvants i s that they do not provide coverage that i s
as e f f e c t i v e as a f i n e r mist.
F i n a l l y , research and promotion of more t a r g e t - e f f i c i e n t technologies i s
needed. The chairman of the Commission, who has t e s t i f i e d at the Federal
level on t h i s subject, indicates that technological innovations may be
available t h a t could be implemented on a more widespread basis i n Arizona
as well as other states. He said t h a t few technological improvements
have been made i n spray equipment, nozzle design, and other application
hardware that i s used i n the United States. In contrast, e f f i c i e n t , more
modern techno logy has been developed and i s being used overseas.
Neither ACAH nor the U n i v e r s i t y o f Arizona have any research projects
that focus on application p r a c t i c e s o r technology that could reduce
d r i f t . Both need to do more. The University could develop a research
e f f o r t , and ACAH could promote and encourage the use of d r i f t - m i n i m i z i n g
techniques or technologies that appear p r a c t i c a l and feasible. ACAH
could also work with the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension
Service to develop information and demonstration projects designed to
implement more target- eff i c i e n t application methods.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACAH should sponsor studies of p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n methods for
purposes o f i d e n t i f y i n g methods and technologies that could be used
in residential areas to reduce d r i f t .
2. ACAH should e n l i s t the support of the University of Arizona
Cooperat ive Extension Service i n developing research e f f o r t s focusing
on p e s t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n p r a c t i c e s and technological innovations that
may o f f e r the p o s s i b i l i t y of control l i n g d r i f t and increasing target
e f f i c i e n c y .
FINDING IV
IMPROPER DISPOSAL OF PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
HAS BEEN WIDESPREAD
lmproper disposal of empty pesticide containers can pose a threat to
public health and the environment. We found that improper disposal of
pesticide containers i n Arizona i s a f f e c t i n g people, land, and water. In
addition, cleanup and remediation of i l l e g a l disposal s i t e s are
expensive. Because there are many reasons for improper disposal,
including cost, inconvenience , and a lack of d i sposa l s i tes i n some areas
of the State, Arizona should consider adopting any of several programs
implemented by other states to encourage proper pesticide container
d i sposa I.
Background
Agricultural pesticides, when not delivered i n bulk containers, are
packaged i n containers made of p l a s t i c , metal, or paper, i n various sizes
up to 55 gallons.
Both ACAH and DEQ are responsible for enforcing the various Federal and
State requirements pertaining to disposal of empty pesticide containers.
Typically, under these requirements, a p l a s t i c or metal container must be
t r i p l e - r i n s e d , punctured and crushed p r i o r to disposal, and then
deposited at a l a n d f i l l or buried on the farmer's property. Some
containers can be burned, and others can be recycled or reused, i f
properly handled. However, u n t i l properly rinsed, pesticide containers
are considered hazardous waste and are subject to more stringent disposal
requi rements. In recent years, ACAH rules have requi red grower
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers be placed on pesticide containers to aid
enforcement e f f o r t s .
Improper Pesticide Container
Disposal Occurring Statewide
lmproper pest i c i de con t a i ner d i sposa l has been widespread throughout the
a g r i c u l t u r a l regions of the State. We found several instances i n which
people, p a r t i c u l a r l y chi ldren, became i l l through contact with
improperly discarded pesticides and pesticide containers. We also found
remediation of disposal sites has been costly.
Improper pesticide container disposal widespread - Improper pesticide
container disposal has occurred extensively throughout the a g r i c u l t u r a l
regions of Arizona. Surveys by Federal and State o f f i c i a l s found i l l e g a l
disposal sites along the upper and lower Gila River and the Mohawk
Canal. The Bureau of Land Management's 1988 survey discovered
approximately 100 i l legal dump s i tes. The Bureau, which assumes
responsi bi I i ty for f i re control around the r i v e r , was concerned t h i s land
could not be afforded adequate f i r e protection due to the presence of
hazardous waste disposal s i t e s . In 1988, ACAH s t a f f also surveyed the
upper Gila River and found numerous i l l e g a l disposal s i t e s . In early
1990 when Auditor General s t a f f accompanied State o f f i c i a l s on an
inspection of i l l e g a l dump sites between the lower Gila River and the
Mohawk Canal, over 200 older and recently discarded containers were
found. Some, deemed hazardous by DEQ , requ i red special c l eanup .
Federal, State, and Indian lands also suffer from i l l e g a l pesticide
container disposal. We interviewed o f f i c i a l s representing agencies
dealing with these lands, and they offered the following information.
a The Bureau of Reclamation found three i l l e g a l disposal sites near
Wellton and others along the Colorado River.
a The Bureau of Land Management, i n 1988, discovered approximately 100
sites along the Gila River, including 30 to 40 i l l e g a l dump s i t e s
near the Mohawk Canal.
a The Inter- Tribal Council t o l d us that the G i la River Indian
Reservation suffers from the i l l e g a l dumping o f p e s t i c i d e containers
from small farm operations nearby. In addition, reservations have
also had to deal with old l a n d f i l l s containing banned pesticides and
problems at abandoned aerial applicator s i t e s .
a The Department of Administration l i s t e d the Picacho Peak dump s i t e
and two a i r s t r i p s currently under investigation.
a The State Land Department has ident i f ied a few dump s i tes, which have
pesticide containers.
a The Game and Fish Department has cleaned up several dump s i tes along
the lower Gila River in 1990.
Health and environmental impacts of improper disposal - Improper
disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers can impact human health
either through d i r e c t contact with the chemicals or i n d i r e c t l y through
chemicals i n the water supply.
Our review of DEQ pesticide incident f i l e s discovered six cases i n which
from one to eight people became i l l as a result of exposure to discarded
pesticide containers. In three of these cases children were hospitalized.
Migrant workers are also exposed to improperly discarded pesticide
containers. DES Community Legal Services informed us of several
instances i n which migrant workers used pesticide containers for carrying
water, for cooking, and as f u r n i t u r e . According to DES, migrant workers
are not always aware of the inherent dangers of pesticide exposure.
Human health i s also i n d i r e c t l y threatened by the presence of pesticide
residues in s o i l and water. Our review of pesticide- related incidences
found 13 cases of s o i l contamination as a result of improperly discarded
pesticide containers. Although DEQ has not thoroughly investigated many
of these cases, the Department did confirm ground water contamination in
one case due to improper pesticide disposal.
Remediation of i I legal disposal s i t e s costly - DEQ has been delegated
authority by the EPA to clean up most hazardous waste s i t e s i n Arizona.
However, remediation of i l l e g a l disposal sites has been costly to the
public. DEQ has overseen the cleanup of several i l l e g a l disposal s i t e s ,
and i s in the process of evaluating several others for possible remedial
action. According t o DEQ, 15 s i t e s containing discarded pesticides have
been or are being remediated either by a public agency, or by the
negl igent party i n response to a DEQ enforcement action. The EPA has
conducted one major cleanup that cost approximately $ 125,000 on the
Cocopah Indian Reservation in Yuma County. In 1986, the State Land
Department supervised a $ 300,000 cleanup of a s i t e on State Trust Land
near Picacho Peak. S t r i c t e r EPA remediation requirements w i l l result in
even more expensive cleanups . ( I )
Several Reasons Cited
For Illegal Disposal
The industry and regulatory o f f i c i a l s we interviewed c i t e d several
reasons for the i l l e g a l disposal o f p e s t i c i d e containers, including
inconvenience, lack of available disposal f a c i l i t i e s , and cost.
Inconvenience - Pesticide users far from urban centers or public
l a n d f i l l s may i l l e g a l l y discard containers because of the time
necessary t o transport them to a proper disposal s i t e . As previously
men t i oned , the G i l a l nd i an Reservat i on has been a dump i ng ground for
small farm operations nearby.
a Lack of available f a c i l i t i e s - Growers also c i t e scarcity of proper
disposal f a c i l i t i e s i n some counties. According to the Bureau of
a and Management, improper disposal along the G i la River was
a t t r i b u t a b l e , i n p a r t , to the closure of pesticide container dumping
at a county l a n d f i l l . Because of concerns about future l i a b i l i t y ,
some l a n d f i l l s now p r o h i b i t the dumping of pesticide containers.
Cost - Proper container disposal can also be costly. According to
the Arizona A g r i c u l t u r a l Aviation Association, to properly dispose of
pesticide containers, i t costs more than $ 1 for every g a l l o n o f
pesticide. Costs may be even higher for private applicators that do
not have the advantages of scale as do custom applicators.
During our a u d i t , p e s t i c i d e industry o f f i c i a l s and pesticide users
expressed to us t h e i r concerns about improper container disposal.
According to an Arizona A g r i c u l t u r a l Chemical Association o f f i c i a l , the
industry supports r e c y c l i n g p e s t i c i d e containers, and several
manufacturers are planning to s t a r t recycling programs w i t h i n a year.
Some manufacturers have already begun using a water soluble bag that
dissolves along with the pesticide. Growers indicated that i l l e g a l
( 1) The Cocopah Indian Reservation cleanup involved 103 containers, 101 gallons, and 110
pounds of pesticides and other agricultural chemicals. Several of them, such as 32
gallons of Methyl Parathion, were extreme1 y toxic. The Picacho Peak cleanup involved
over 700 containers most of which were empty; however, the s o i l was contaminated with
DDT to an eight- foot depth and Toxaphene to a six- foot depth. The s o i l was
immobilized and placed i n i s o l a t i o n on the s i t e f o r 30 years. According to a DEQ
o f f i c i a l , t o comply with the current, more stringent EPA clean up requirements, the
s o i l would now have to be treated o f f - s i t e , and the cost of t h i s cleanup would have
escalated to over $ 10 m i l l ion.
disposal s i t e s can appreciably a f f e c t property values and are expensive
to remediate. Several growers suggested that the best solution would be
to reuse or recycle containers, and place a deposit on them to help
ensure t h e i r return.
Other States Have Addressed
Improper Disposal Problem
Arizona should consider adopting any of several programs developed i n
other states to address improper pesticide container disposal. Because
the State cannot provide on- site enforcement a t a l l possible i l l e g a l dump
s i t e s , i t i s important to develop a strong program with adequate
incentives to encourage proper disposal. A t the present time, Arizona
does not have a comprehensive program that addresses pesticide container
disposal. The programs implemented i n other s t a t e s t h a t are described
below provide examples of strong approaches and incentives for the proper
disposal, recycling, and reuse of pesticide containers.
Maine - In 1983, the state of Maine adopted the Maine Act to Provide
for the Return and Proper Disposal of Pesticide Containers. This
program requires dealers t o c o l l e c t a cash deposit or post c r e d i t s
for each container of limited- and restricted- use pesticides.
Deposits range from $ 5 ( f o r containers less than 30 gallons) to $ 10
or more ( f o r containers of 30 gal Ions or more). The dealer a f f i x e s
an alphanumeric tag to each container that i d e n t i f i e s both the dealer
and the buyer. The dealer also provides buyers of restricted- use
pesticides with an a f f i d a v i t l i s t i n g a l l restricted- use containers
( with sticker numbers) that are to be returned, and on which the
applicators c e r t i f y that the containers were t r i p l e rinsed. The
Board of Pesticide Control inspectors v e r i f y the presence and proper
condition of the containers l i s t e d and v a l i d a t e the a f f i d a v i t , and
the dealer e i t h e r returns the cash deposit or c r e d i t s the
a p p l i c a t o r ' s account. The containers are returned e i t h e r t o the
dealer's place of business or to an authorized c o l l e c t i o n , disposal,
or recycling f a c i l i t y as arranged by the dealer.
Oregon - The Oregon Pesticide Container Management i n i t i a t i v e i s a
voluntary pesticide container col l e c t i o n , recycl ing, and disposal
program i n i t i a t e d i n 1984 by the Oregon A g r i c u l t u r a l Chemical
Association and the Oregon Farm Bureau i n response to threats of a
mandated program. The program establ i shed 16 col lect ion s i tes
throughout Oregon f o r two days, usually i n the spring, but sometimes
i n the f a l l . The program maintains s t r i c t standards for r i n s i n g ,
crushing, and storage, and allows metal containers to be recycled
into fence posts and re- bar, p l a s t i c containers to be taken to
l a n d f i l l s , and glass to be e i t h e r recycled or used as l a n d f i l l .
I n i t i a l l y , rejections ran 3 to 4 percent, but maintenance of s t r i c t
standards has reduced t h i s rate to less than 1 percent. The program,
which c o l l e c t s approximately 20,000 containers annually, i s highly
regarded by Oregon pesticide regulators.
37
Mississippi - Fol lowing a successful pi l o t project i n one county,
which was funded by a major chemi cal company and the EPA, the
Mississippi container disposal project i s now being expanded
throughout the state. The program, managed by the s t a t e ' s plant
industry d i v i s i o n , involves only p l a s t i c pesticide containers. The
containers, pressure rinsed using inexpensive devices provided by the
chemical companies for the farmer's use, are collected at a
designated p o i n t , baled at a cotton gin, and shipped out- of- state for
recycling. Residue tests are also being conducted to evaluate the
f e a s i b i l i t y o f r e c y c l i n g into other types of p l a s t i c containers.
lowa - Funded as an EPA enforcement project with an i n i t i a l grant of
$ 70,000, the lowa Pesticide Container Recycling Program, l i k e the
Mississippi program, focuses on p l a s t i c containers. ( An lowa survey
found that more than 90 percent of the estimated 2.5 m i l l i o n
containers delivered annually i n the state were p l a s t i c . ) I n the
lowa p i l o t program, inexpensive pressure r i n s i n g devices w i l l be used
to the greatest extent possible. The rinsed p l a s t i c containers w i l l
be accepted and stored at p a r t i c i p a t i n g county l a n d f i l l s . Once a
year the containers w i l l be granulated on the l a n d f i l l by a portable
grinder and the granules w i l l then be recycled into speed bumps and
other products. According to lowa regulators, i f revenues from the
sale of the p l a s t i c granules f a i l to support the recycling program,
as i s expected, a fee on the sale o f pesticides w i l l be considered.
Minnesota - 1989 Minnesota l e g i s l a t i o n d i r e c t s the department of
agriculture to design and implement a p i l o t c o l l e c t i o n project to be
completed by June 30, 1991. This l e g i s l a t i o n also mandates that
e f f e c t i v e July 1, 1994, anyone s e l l i n g pesticides i n Minnesota must
accept from pesticide end users, empty pesticide containers and
unused portions of pesticides that remain i n the o r i g i n a l container.
Use of r e f i l l a b l e and reusable pesticide containers i s not
precluded. According to the project manager, the Minnesota p i l o t
project w i l l also be l i m i t e d t o p l a s t i c containers.
RECOMMENDATION
Both ACAH and DEQ should review programs established i n other states and
work with the Legislature and the pesticide industry t o develop a
container disposal program for Arizona that would include consideration
of the following program features:
a deposit on a l l returnable containers;
a requirement that pesticide manufacturers and s e l l e r s must
accept used containers;
the establishment of recycling programs; and
a requirement to use returnable containers, when possible.
FINDING V
CAN ARIZONA DO MORE TO REDUCE THE USE OF
AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES?
Should Arizona place more emphasis on development of pest control methods
that do not rely as heavily on synthetic pesticides? Experience in
Arizona and other states shows an e f f e c t i v e program of integrated pest
control benefits both the a g r i c u l t u r a l industry and the environment.
However, due to resource constraints, the impact of Arizona's programs to
encourage use of pest control a l t e r n a t i v e s has been limited. By
implementing innovative funding a l t e r n a t i v e s used i n other states to
provide additional resources for Arizona's lntegrated Pest Management
programs, more could be done to encourage the adoption of a l t e r n a t i v e
pest management strategies . ( I )
?.
What Is lntegrated
Pest Management?
lntegrated Pest Management ( IPM) i s defined as " the selection,
integration, and implementation of pest control actions on the basis of
pred i c ted economi c , eco I og i ca I , and soc i o I og i ca I consequences. "( 2)
lntegrated Pest Management systems ut i l i ze both chemical and nonchemi cal
methods such as c u l t u r a l and b i o l o g i c a l control and f i e l d scouting, to
suppress pest p r o l i f e r a t i o n . These techniques may be used to control
insects, weeds, nematodes, and plant pathogens.
Arizona has a long h i s t o r y of involvement with techniques and practices
which today could be included w i t h i n the d e f i n i t i o n of IPM. Dating back
to i t s t e r r i t o r i a l days Arizona employed quarantine inspectors to inspect
( 1) The O f f i c e o f the Auditor General acknowledges the National Conference of State
Legislatures ( NCSL) f o r t h e i r assistance i n t h i s area. Gordon Meeks, a policy
special i s t with NCSL, provided valuable i nfonnation about Integrated Pest Management
and sustainable agriculture programs i n other states.
( 2) Rabb. R. L. " Principles and Concepts of Pest Management ." Jm~ lementni a Practical Pest
w o e m e n t Strateaies: Proceedinos of National Ext~ nsion Insect- Pest Manaaemenf
Workshog. 1972.
for and prevent the importation of pests in nursery stock. These
inspections eventually led to the Plant Quarantine Inspection Stations
operated today at the borders of the State. Arizona also uses i n t e r i o r
quarantines and other programs to control pests with the minimum amount
of pesticide needed. A major program i s the Boll Weevil program which i s
currently i n operation. This program, which i s heavily funded by the
cotton industry through a surcharge on each bale, involves extensive
monitoring and selective treatment of f i e l d s f o r i n f e s t a t i o n s . By more
e f f e c t i v e l y targeting appl icat ions, Arizona has been able to reduce both
the levels o f i n f e s t a t i o n s and the number of acres treated with
pesticides.
Although Arizona has long been involved with methods now considered to be
a part of IPM, the 1986 Arizona Environmental Qualify Act ( EQA) mandated
that ACAH expand i t s IPM e f f o r t s . The EQA required ACAH to establish a
specific IPM program be established w i t h i n ACAH containing research,
instruction and development components. The goal of the program i s to
develop additional economically viable pest control a l t e r n a t i v e s that
w i l l allow a g r i c u l t u r a l producers to reduce t h e i r use of chemical
pesticides.
In addition to ACAH's program, the U n i v e r s i t y o f Arizona also has an IPM
program within i t s cooperative extension service. This program i s
required under the Federal Smith- Lever Act in order for the states to ( I
receive Federal IPM grants. This program's objectives are grower
education and the implementation of IPM programs.
Arizona Could Profit From Expanded
Integrated Pest Management Programs
Greater use of lntegrated Pest Management techniques to control
agricultural pests could benefit both Arizona's a g r i c u l t u r a l industry and
the environment. Pest control expenditures are a major cost in
agricultural production. IPM programs in Arizona and other states have
reduced industry costs and increased prof i ts. These programs have also
provided envi ronmental benefits. Arizona could yet reap greater benefits
by expanding i t s IPM e f f o r t s .
Pest control i s one of the major costs of the a g r i c u l t u r e industry. In
the production of cotton, Arizona's largest a g r i c u l t u r a l commodity, only
40
the costs of land and water exceed those of pest management. Each year,
Arizona cotton growers spend an average of $ 100 or more per acre for
insect control. Greater use of IPM methods could reduce growerst
expenditures f o r p e s t i c i d e s and, thereby, increase p r o f i t s . U t i l i z a t i o n
of IPM techniques, such as f i e l d scouting, can also increase the efficacy
of pesticide applications, assuring t h a t pesticides are necessary and
appl icat ions are made at the appropriate time.
Results in other states - Agricultural producers i n a number of other
states have benefited from IPM programs. A 1987 evaluation o f
cooperative extension service IPM programs for nine a g r i c u l t u r a l
commodities i n 15 states found that " IPM users experienced an increase i n
net returns over nonusers of over $ 578 m i l l i o n per year . " ( I ) The
coordinator for the Texas Agricultural Extension Service's IPM program
reports that i t s IPM projects have a net p o s i t i v e impact of $ 1.5 bi l l ion
annually on the s t a t e ' s economy. F i n a l l y , a 1989 USDA survey of
extension IPM coordinators, i d e n t i f i e d several economic benefits from
extension IPM programs i n a number of states. For example, Alabama
reported a $ 4.5 m i l l i o n benefit from a cotton IPM program and a $ 3.85
m i l l i o n p r o f i t from the u t i l i z a t i o n o f IPM methods i n pecan production.
I l l i n o i s reported saving $ 66 mi l l i o n i n insecticide expenditures by
u t i l i z i n g crop r o t a t i o n i n the production of corn, and a $ 60.5 mi l l i o n
saving i n insecticide costs from a black cutworm program. By lowering
the application of insecticides on 200,000 acres, Louisiana's soybean IPM
program generated an estimated saving of $ 6 mi l l ion.
Uti l izat ion of IPM methods also can provide environmental b e n e f i t s . The
use o f pesticides has been linked to a number of environmental and health
problems. For example, pesticide contamination has been found i n
Arizona's ground water as a result of applications of a g r i c u l t u r a l
chemicals. Pesticide residues are commonly found i n food, generating
concern over the p o t e n t i a l long- term e f f e c t s of pesticides on human
health. Adoption of IPM techniques can s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce the use of
( 1 ) The National Evaluation of Extension's Intearated Pest Manaaement ( IPM) Proarams,
V i r g i n i a Cooperative Extension Service, February 1987.
pesticides. For example, implementation of a b o l l weevi l c u l t u r a l
control program i n the Rio Grande Val ley of Texas resulted i n an annual
reduction i n the use of 650,000 pounds o f insecticides.
The establishment of an IPM program for vegetable production i n the Rio
Grande Valley reduced the use of pesticides on carrots produced for baby
food, soups, and frozen foods by 66 percent. Insecticide use on cabbage
i n t h i s area has also been reduced by 44 percent. In New York State,
potato growers u t i l i z i n g IPM methods used 21 percent less fungicides and
7 percent less insecticides, than growers that did not use IPM methods.
F i n a l l y , C a l i f o r n i a reported a 10 percent reduction i n the use of
herbicides i n r i c e production as a r e s u l t o f an extension service IPM
program.
Arizona's experience - Integrated Pest Management programs i n Arizona
have also yielded a number of benefits for growers and the environment.
The former coordinator of the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension
Service ( CES) IPM program reports that, as a result of IPM programs aimed
at b o l l weevil c o n t r o l , the number of i n s e c t i c i d e a p p l i c a t i o n s on cotton
i n central Arizona was reduced from an average of 17 i n the mid- 1980s to
approximately seven i n 1989. IPM programs f o r cotton i n western and
eastern Arizona are estimated to have eliminated the need for two
applications o f insecticides on 65,000 acres, saving an estimated $ 1.3
m i l l i o n . In addition, an IPM program designed to control the Russian
wheat aphid i n southeastern Arizona i s estimated to have saved wheat and
bar ley growers approximately $ 500,000.
Although Arizona has obtained s i g n i f i c a n t results from some of i t s IPM
e f f o r t s -- most notably the b o l l weevi l program -- more can be done.
Arizona could reap a d d i t i o n a l b e n e f i t s from increased IPM program
implementation. For example, i f improved c u l t u r a l control was practiced,
extension IPM program s t a f f estimate that the use of a g r i c u l t u r a l
pesticides i n the State could be reduced 50 percent. As previously
mentioned, cotton i s Arizona's largest a g r i c u l t u r a l commodity.
S i g n i f i c a n t amounts of insecticides are used to control cotton pest
problems. Cultural control methods have proven to be an e f f e c t i v e means
of suppressing two primary cotton pests, the pink bollworm and the b o l l
weevi I .
The State's IPM Programs Have
Had Limited Resources
To date the impact of Arizona's lntegrated Pest Management programs has
been limited. Resource constraints have hampered the effectiveness of
IPM programs established w i t h i n ACAH and the U n i v e r s i t y o f Arizona
Cooperative Extension Service ( CES).
Arizona's IPM programs - Due to resource constraints, the effectiveness
of the lntegrated Pest Management programs established by ACAH and CES
has been l i m i t e d . An overview of the s t a f f i n g and funding levels for the
IPM programs operated by ACAH and CES during f i s c a l years 1988 through
1990 i s shown i n Table 7 ( see page 44). During t h i s period, 7.5
Full- Time Equivalent ( FTE) positions were assigned to Arizona's IPM
programs.
State funding for Arizona's IPM programs has declined s i g n i f i c a n t l y
during t h i s period. In f a c t , State funding for the Commission's IPM
program declined approximately 50 percent between f i s c a l years 1988 and
1990. In addition, the Federal funding authorized by the Smith- Lever Act
for CES IPM programs, has not been increased i n the past ten years.
TABLE 7
ARIZONA IPM PROGRAMS
STATEMENT OF FULL- TIME EQUIVALENTS ( FTEs)
AND EXPENDITURES( a)
FISCAL YEARS 1987- 88 THROUGH 1989- 90
( unaudited)
ACAH IPY Prog- ram
FTEs 3.5 3.5 3.5
State
Federal ( b)
Total $ 205.205 $ 235.229 $ 21) 9.084
CES IPN Program
FTEscc)
State
Federal
Total
( a) Dollar figures provided by the University of Arizona r e f l e c t the amount budgeted at
the beginning of each year, and may not represent actual expenditures.
( b) The Federal government provides funding for ACAH's trapping programs f o r the
Mediterranean f r u i t f l y , the f i r e ant, and the gypsy moth.
( c) I n addition t o the four FTEs allocated s p e c i f i c a l l y to the Extension Service's IPM
program, a number of CES staff are involved i n IPM research a c t i v i t i e s .
Sources: Office of the Auditor General s t a f f analysis of budget and
s t a f f i n g information provided by Arizona Commission of
Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e and the University of Arizona.
Given limited funding, the Commission's IPM program has focused largely
onmonitoring for exotic pests i n Arizona. However, much of t h i s e f f o r t
was already underway before the IPM program was implemented. The
Comission's other IPM e f f o r t s i n other areas have been moderate.
For example, although ACAH has allocated $ 252,830 for IPM research, only
eight research grants have been awarded since the program was established
in 1987, and - no research grants have been awarded since October 1989.
Although one of the f i r s t agencies i n the country to establish an IPM
program, the University of Arizona Cooperative Extension Service IPM
program i s also l i m i t e d . The Extension Service conducts research to
devise a l t e r n a t i v e methods of pest c o n t r o l . However, e f f o r t s to develop
IPM educational programs and f i e l d demonstrations of IPM methods have
been limited. For instance, CES research indicates that the use of
pesticides on cotton could be s u b s t a n t i a l l y reduced i f growers adopted
s t r i c t c u l t u r a l control methods. However, some growers have yet to be
convinced of the b e n e f i t s o f more stringent c u l t u r a l control practices.
The growers we spoke with c r i t i c i z e d CES for i t s lack of f i e l d
demonstration projects for new IPM technology and methods.
Adoption of a l t e r n a t i v e funding mechanisms could provide additional
revenues for the State's IPM programs. The IPM programs operated by ACAH
and CES have requested addi t ional resources to support and expand thei r
e f f o r t s . Other states have implemented innovative funding approaches to
support IPM and sustainable a g r i c u l t u r e .
The IPM program supervisors at both ACAH and CES have requested
additional funding for t h e i r programs. The Commission's IPM supervisor
requested additional funding i n both 1989 and 1990. In 1990, the program
supervisor requested $ 200,000 to support research grants and $ 200,000 for
deve Iopment of I PM programs. The I PM supervi sor a I so requested
additional s t a f f for the program. The Extension Service's IPM program
also requested additional funding as well as 12.5 additional FTEs f o r
f i s c a l year 1989. None of these ACAH or CES requests were funded.
Other states have developed a l t e r n a t i v e sources of funding for IPM and
sustainable a g r i c u l t u r e programs. Some funding for both Iowa's and
Mi nnesota's programs was obtained from oi l overcharge revenues ( money o i l
companies were required to refund to the states). However, Iowa,
Minnesota, and CaI i f o r n i a provide ongoing funding for thei r IPM and
sustainable a g r i c u l t u r e programs through fees on pesticides. Iowa's
pesticide r e g i s t r a t i o n fee i s based on the annual gross sales of the
pesticide. Registration fees range from a minimum of $ 250 to a maximum
of $ 3,000 per year i n Iowa. lowa has also established a tax on
f e r t i l i z e r sales of 75 cents per ton. Together, the pesticide and
f e r t i l i z e r fees generate approximately $ 2 m i l l i o n per year.
Approximately $ 800,000 of t h i s revenue i s allocated to the Leopold Center
for Sustainable Agriculture. Minnesota also has established fees for
pesticide and f e r t i l i z e r sales, and bases i t s pesticide fee on gross
sales. Registrants are to be charged 0.10 percent of t h e i r annual gross
sales to r e g i s t e r p e s t i c i d e products for 1990. However, the minimum
annual fee f o r p e s t i c i d e products i s $ 150. CaI i f o r n i a registers
approximately 12,000 products annual l y , and charges r e g i s t r a n t s $ 200 per
product. C a l i f o r n i a has also established a tax on pesticide sales. The
fee i s currently 0.90 percent of gross annual sales and generates over $ 8
m i l l i o n annually. In addition, C a l i f o r n i a places a surcharge on licenses
for produce dealers and processors.
Arizona could generate a substantial amount o f additional revenue i f the
State charged a higher pesticide r e g i s t r a t i o n fee or adopted a tax on the
sale of pesticides. As of July 31, 1990, there were 7,708 pesticides
registered i n Arizona. Arizona recently increased i t s pesticide
r e g i s t r a t i o n fee to $ 100 per product per year to generate additional
resources for the Water Qual i ty Assurance Revolving Fund. I f Arizona
further increased i t s r e g i s t r a t ion fee to $ 150 per product ( the minimum
amount charged i n Minnesota), the State could generate an additional
$ 385,400 for IPM and other pesticide- related programs. Adoption of a
$ 200 r e g i s t r a t i o n fee, as i n C a l i f o r n i a , or a $ 250 fee, the minimum
charged i n lowa, would generate an additional $ 770,800 or $ 1,156,200,
respectively. I f the r e g i s t r a t i o n fee was based on t o t a l pesticide
sales, a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of additional revenue could be generated.
Another possible source of funding for Arizona's IPM programs might be
the USDA's Low- Impact Sustainable Agriculture ( LISA) program. This
program began issuing grants for IPM and sustainable a g r i c u l t u r e projects
i n 1988. Currently, the LlSA program i s budgeted approximately $ 4.45
m i l l i o n , most of which i s awarded as grants. A consultant with the LISA
program said that few grant proposals have been received from Arizona.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Commission of Agriculture and H o r t i c u l t u r e should request
additional funding for the IPM research and educational programs
required by A. R. S. $ 3- 381 et seq.
2. ACAH should encourage the University of Arizona to request additional
funding that emphasizes IPM education and f i e l d demonstration
a c t i v i t i e s for i t s Cooperative Extension Service IPM program.
Additional s t a f f i n g necessary to support dissemination of IPM
technology to Arizona's a g r i c u l t u r a l producers should also be
cons i de red.
3. The Legislature should consider increasing pesticide r e g i s t r a t i o n
fees, and implementing a tax on the sale of pesticides to support
programs aimed at developing economically viable a l t e r n a t i v e s to
a g r i c u l t u r a l pesticides.
FINDING VI
A MORE COORDINATED AND COMPREHENSIVE PESTICIDE
REPORTING SYSTEM COULD BENEFIT THE STATE
Arizona's pesticide reporting system provides some important sales and
use informat ion; however, certain changes could greatly improve our
knowledge of pesticide usage in the State. Although Arizona's current
requirements for reporting sales and use information are as stringent as
those of other states, certain information i s missing, and the
information that i s available i s d i f f i c u l t to access. The proposed
Department of Environmental Quality ( DEQ) requirements would overlap
existing ACAH requirements and could duplicate e f f o r t .
Current Reporting Requirements
Are Not Comprehensive
Although Arizona's reporting requirements compare favorably with those of
other states, much pesticide use does not have to be reported.
Present requirements - Present reporting requirements vary and are
d i f f e r e n t for each of the four categories of pesticide users and s e l l e r s .
Custom applicators ( those who apply pesticides f o r h i r e or by a i r )
are the only group required to report all pesticide use to the State.
Sellers must maintain records of a l l pesticide sales for two years.
Although they do not report to A C ~ , t h e i r records are subject to
review.
Private applicators and regulated growers must maintain records of
Restricted- Use Pesticides ( RUPs) for two years. Like s e l l e r s , they
are not required to report such use to the State; but ACAH may
inspect their records. Private applicators and regulated growers are
- not required to maintain records for non- RUPs.
Arizona compares favorably with other states - Of the six states
recommended by our consultants for compar i son, only Cal i f o r n i a appears to
require more comprehensive use reporting. Unlike Arizona, three of the
states surveyed require s e l l e r s t o report sales p e r i o d i c a l l y to the State.
Arizona and California only require s e l l e r s to maintain sales records
for two years. However, of the six states, only California requires more
o f p e s t i c i d e users. Pest Control Operators ( PCOs) must report a l l
pesticide use w i t h i n one week o f a p p l i c a t i o n , while growers who do not
h i r e PCOs must report pesticide use by the tenth day of the month
following application. Unlike Arizona, those who apply pesticides t o
g o l f courses, cemeteries, ditchbanks, etc. i n C a l i f o r n i a must also report
thei r usage. In addition, users of RUPs ( except structural appl icators)
must not i fy the county a g r i c u l t u r a l commissioner p r i o r to appl icat ion.
Aside from C a l i f o r n i a , only Arizona requires custom applicators to report
pesticide use to the State soon a f t e r application. The other states
contacted only require users to maintain records or to report annually.
Information gaps e x i s t , and obtaining current information i s d i f f i c u l t -
Even though Arizona's use reporting requirements are more stringent than
those of most states we contacted, much pesticide usage goes unreported.
For example, private applicators and regulated growers who use non- RUPs
are not required to maintain records of use, even though non- RUPs
outnumber RUPs. P o t e n t i a l l y heavy pesticide users such as State and
local governments, i r r i g a t i o n d i s t r i c t s , Indian t r i b e s , structural
applicators, and those applying pesticides to golf courses and cemeteries
are not required to report.
The information currently maintained by s e l l e r s and users or even that
reported to ACAH i s d i f f i c u l t to access. Although sellers and some users
maintain q u a n t i t a t i v e p e s t i c i d e information, ACAH does not compile this
data. The information ACAH gathers ( i . e . , custom applications) i s not
readily available. To obtain q u a n t i t a t i v e p e s t i c i d e sales information
for our survey, we had to personally contact a l l 104 permitted sellers of
pesticides i n the State and request sales information ( see Report # 90- 6,
pages 21 through 26). We did not attempt to secure the records of
private applicators or those of regulated growers because these records
are maintained by hundreds of applicators and growers throughout the
State, and contacting them would have been impractical due to time
constraints. F i n a l l y , even though ACAH receives and enters custom
application records, t h e i r data base i s not readily accessible for
analysis. The data i s maintained by the Department of Administration,
and i t took our s t a f f several weeks to obtain the tapes containing a l l
of the 1989 custom application records.
Proposed Rules By DEQ May Further
Complicate The Reporting System
Proposed DEQ requirements may cause f u r t h e r r e p o r t i n g fragmentation.
DEQ, i n a preliminary d r a f t of rules f o r p e s t i c i d e contamination
prevention, proposes that s e l l e r s and users of pesticides on the Ground
Water Protection L i s t ( ' ) report such sale or use to DEQ. S e l l e r s o f
pesticides on the l i s t would have to f i l e quarterly sales reports, while
applicators would have to report t h e i r use of pesticides on the l i s t no
later than the Monday following the date of application. Pesticides on
the l i s t may or may not be Restricted- Use Pesticides, and RUPs may or may
not be on the l i s t . Many pesticides are not on e i t h e r l i s t .
Although the new rules for r e p o r t i n g p e s t i c i d e use information are
designed to correspond with ACAH's current reporting requirements and
prevent d u p l i c a t i v e e f f o r t , i t w i l l be important for the agencies to
coordinate t h e i r e f f o r t to avoid duplication.
A Coordinated And More Comprehensive
Reporting System Would Be Beneficial
A reporting system that i s coordinated among State agencies and i s more
inclusive, may assist both the State and those required to report
pesticide sales and use. A single, shared data base maintained by one
agency cou Id central i ze records whi le a l lowing other agencies access to
the information necessary to perform t h e i r work. ACAH and DEQ o f f i c i a l s
agree that only one agency should maintain the data base. Such a system
could eliminate confusion, a s s i s t those required to report, and be more
cost- effective. ACAH has already proposed a system that could be
maintained solely by ACAH, but would be capable of generating reports for
other agencies. An ACAH o f f i c i a l stated t h a t requirements of other
agencies could be programmed into the system, allowing them to access
only the information necessary to t h e i r agency. For example, ACAH could
maintain the data base, but DEQ would be allowed to access
( 1 ) Pesticides on the Ground Water Protection List are those that may have a tendency to
leach through soil into ground water.
sales and use information of the pesticides on the Ground Water
Protection L i s t . Other agencies such as the Department of Health
Services, and the Game and Fish Department could also access the data
base for pesticide use information. F i n a l l y , the public could be better
served i f information entered by ACAH was r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e .
A coordinated system, i f properly implemented, could a1 low Arizona to
achieve the best of two worlds -- more comprehensive reporting and easier
reporting requirements. For example, without a coordinated system,
sellers w i l l have to maintain records of a l l sales for ACAH, and then
have t o s e l e c t i v e l y report c e r t a i n sales information to DEQ. Under a
coordinated system, s e l l e r s could simply report sales information to
one agency. This wou Id increase the comprehensiveness of report i ng and
eliminate the need for s e l l e r s to f i l e two sets of information with two
separate agencies. Growers, applicators, and dealers would then need to
send pesticide reports to only one location when such reporting i s
required. The prospect of sending the same or s i m i l a r reports to more
than one agency could be eliminated.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ACAH i n conjunction with other agencies that could benefit from
pesticide use and sales information, should evaluate the need for a
more comprehensive and coordinated reporting system. Comments from
users and s e l l e r s should also be s o l i c i t e d . The system should
include the following components:
a single data base maintained by one agency that would allow
other agencies to access pertinent information;
one form each for users and s e l l e r s that should be sent t o o n l y
one agency; and
the capacity to generate reports on the use and sales of
pesticides.
2. The Legislature should consider mandating a comprehensive, u n i f i e d
pesticide reporting system.
FINDING Vil
ACAH NEEDS TO REVISE ITS RULES
ESTABLISHING ENFORCEMENT PENALTIES
ACAH needs to strengthen the administrative rules t h a t establish the
basis for taking s p e c i f i c enforcement actions and assessing penalties for
violations. Current rules are too weak and d i l u t e the Commission's
a b i l i t y to adequately penalize v i o l a t o r s . In addition, d e f i n i t i o n s of
the various types o f v i o l a t i o n s are too l i m i ted i n scope and need to be
expanded.
Point/ Penalty Rule Establishes
Framework For Enforcement
A. R. S. 53- 363( 13) requires ACAH t o e s t a b l i s h a system of administrative
penalties and fines for v i o l a t i o n of the p e s t i c i d e s t a t u t e s and rules.
The system i s intended to provide for more severe penalties when a
v i o l a t i o n results i n i n j u r y , poisoning, or a c i t a t i o n . The statute
requires that points be assessed for each v i o l a t i o n . The number of
points assessed would depend on the consequences of the v i o l a t i o n , the
c u l p a b i l i t y of the v i o l a t o r , the wrongfulness of the conduct, p r i o r
v i o l a t i o n s , and other factors.
In September 1989,, ACAH promulgated Administrative Rule R3- 10- 506, i t s
point system for administering penalties and fines ( see Appendix). The
rule s p e c i f i e s , f o r the factors set f o r t h i n s t a t u t e , a range o f p o i n t s
that may be assessed based on the circumstances for each v i o l a t i o n . As
shown i n Table 8 ( see page 54) for example, a v i o l a t i o n that results i n
the poisoning of workers or the public can be assessed up to 100 points.
I f environmental damage occurs ( such as water or s o i l contamination) up
to ten points may be assessed. Based on the t o t a l number of points
assessed, appropriate enforcement action can be determined. The rule
provides a schedule e s t a b l i s h i n g a range of d i s c i p l i n a r y actions
depending on the type of v i o l a t ion and the points assessed. For example,
a nonserious v i o l a t i o n with 53 points or less could result i n a fine of
$ 1 to $ 150 and a one- to three- month probat ion. A nonserious v i o l a t i o n
with 108 points or more could result i n a f i n e o f $ 301 to $ 500 and a
seven- to twelve- month probation.
Points are assessed by the hearing o f f i c e r when the case goes to an
administrative hearing. I f the case i s resolved through a negotiated
settlement, points are supposed to be computed by the ACAH Director for
each v i o l a t i o n .
TABLE 8
ARIZONA COMMISSION OF AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE
POINT