Home › News › County News
Fumigant limits cut; 'It's still bad news'
Financial impact to county remains same
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS
More from County News
The total acreage of crops that could be forced to go untreated under a proposed restriction on fumigants is much less than originally estimated by the state Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Although the department now says that only 3,000 to 4,000 acres could go untreated — not the original estimate of 10,000 acres — the potential economic impact on the county of about $80 million is still accurate.
A more detailed analysis of the impact is expected in about a week, but farmers are contending the financial pinch could be as high as $120 million.
Farmers who are fighting the fumigant restrictions because they believe the limits are based on bad science were nonplused by Thursday's announcement.
"It's still bad news," said Cecil Martinez of Oxnard's Martinez Berry Farms. "It's not going to do us any good because they are going to keep coming at us. Any way you cut it, it's a no-win situation for us."
DPR spokesman Glenn Brank said the mistake was made when the proposed limitations were made public in May. The error was only recently caught.
The restrictions on the total amount of emissions from fumigants remain the same.
The limits are a reaction to a 2006 federal court order that mandated the department reduce emissions from pesticides. Emissions from fumigants used to sterilize soil before planting can lead to smog, which is linked to chronic lung diseases. Fumigants are used primarily on strawberries, but also on flowers and peppers.
Farmers at a public comment hearing Tuesday in Ontario criticized the proposal, saying it will force them out of business because there is no viable cost-effective alternative to fumigants.
They also contend the restrictions are based on out-dated data and that farmers have begun using techniques that cause much fewer emissions. Thursday's announcement did little to placate the strawberry industry.
"The issue is not whether it's 10,000 acres or 4,400," said Rex Laird, chief executive officer of the Ventura County Farm Bureau. "The issue, in our opinion, is are you truly reflecting what is happening in our county now or are you basing the decision on old data, which is a bigger impact?"
The new regulations make farmers reduce current emissions to 20 percent of those in 1991, when there were much fewer strawberries being grown in the county. In 2005, 11,300 acres of the fruit were planted, compared to 4,435 in 1991.
When considering all those factors, reducing the amount of acres doesn't mean much, strawberry workers said.
"It changes nothing at all," said Rick Tomlinson, director of public policy with the California Strawberry Commission. "We are still talking about thousands of acres being affected."
Strawberries are the main driver of the county's $1.2 billion agriculture sector.
The public comment period on the proposed restrictions ends at 5 p.m. today. The new standards could take effect in January.
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on July 13, 2007 at 7:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The Governor should be ensuring the state Department of Pesticide Regulation ONLY uses up-to-date data when making its edicts. In fairness to farmers, why aren't builders required to show how much MORE smog new homes and businesses will create? All the additional cars; homes burning gas, increased trash to landfills, much less the amount of gas people produce! Smog? Is there anything else we can think of to blame Ventura County farmers for? Now let me think.....
Posted by Concious on July 13, 2007 at 8:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I feel bad for these strawberry farmers losing money over a ruling but I feel better knowing the air will be a little cleaner around here.
Posted by Ventura22 on July 13, 2007 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Here we go again...lies, greed and excuses. It's coming full circle. For all the crying they do, it seems like switching crops, or going organic would be more economically viable at this point, and pay-off in the long run. I trust the state air quality regulators over a farm bureau(special interest group) any day and obviously, most other folks do as well.
Builders ARE required to have EIR's done when they build new divisions and often have to foot the bill(as they should) for traffic & road improvements, public transportation, recycling programs, runoff control.... They have been following strict rules for a long time. Try your hand in the building trade for a while if you want to see real regulation at work with no special exemptions.
Posted by carexpritch on July 13, 2007 at 9:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought they knew that the right to pollute was in the Constitution and the Magna Carta.
Think of how much better our economy would be if everyone and every agency could spew pollution and thus save money on their operation costs. Our quality of life would be so much better.
No down side to that!!
Posted by caragirl73 on July 13, 2007 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes, the farmers may have a loss but give me a break this is more about the chemicals then money. These chemicals, cause major health issues. Not to mention what its impact has done to our environment and continues to do. Wake up as see the bigger picture.... your resistance to change only makes matters worse for you, our children and our future on this planet.
My advise to all farmers:
QUIT COMPLAINING AND DO WHAT IS RIGHT. Remember people did farm with out the use of these chemicals in the past, and they did just fine!
I am happy to pay a premium for food that had been grown organically, good for my body and good for the environment
Posted by Ventura22 on July 13, 2007 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen to the last post!!!
Posted by NothingButTheTruth on July 13, 2007 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow, listen to the Starbucks latte groupies bash the farmer. One fact is very OBVIOUS. None of you have ever been farmers. If Ventura22 had it his way, we'd pave over the farm land with smog producing cars in tract homes... but that's okay. Funny how he only focuses on farmers and not any other group. And Caragirl173, your obviouly wealthy enough to pay any price for your food, but many people can't; so buy your organic food, that's fine. Perhaps you should ask the Department of Agriculture "why" few farmers are organic growers? Use of chemicals in farming is probably the most regulated of all such groups. Were in not for the responsible use of chemicals in farming, the already high price of food would be even greater and only the wealthy caragirl173 types could afford it. You people should look in the mirror when it comes to whining and stop being so prejudice against farmers. Better yet, ban together, buy out a farmer and start growing and selling your organic crops!
Posted by Ventura22 on July 13, 2007 at 5:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here goes mr no...truth again defending bad practices. If I really had my way the polluters would be in jail and our environment would be cleaner, safer and healthier for us all.
Seems that the regulators have listened to us, are doing their job protecting us and are starting to act on the problem, or at least set limits. Oh well, the tide is turning and people like no...truth can't stop it. Instead of accepting changes for the better and doing the responsible thing, they adhere to their greed and trying to stand by doing way they have always done. No more lies, excuses and greed taking precedence over public health. I am so glad that I will get to see some changes in my lifetime. Amazing what happens when people become educated and aware of things going on in their surroundings. People like no...truth lose credibility and grasp at straws to defend bad practices. Oh, and the same educated folks are the ones buying smaller, cleaner burning vehicles so the argument of smog-producing cars doesn't hold any weight either...sorry. Maybe if they built more homes, the smog/traffic problem would decrease with shorter commutes.
We're not prejudice against farmers. Rocketdyne and Halaco have done far worse in the past. I know not all of them are like no...truth. I recently met some farmers that have switched methods and are taking proactive steps to reduce the amounts of chemicals they use BEFORE they have to be regulated, and doing other clever initiatives to reduce fuel comsumption, material usage and irrigation. These are the responsible leaders that care about the communities around them and leaving a better environment for future generations.
Maybe some of the farms are getting all the negative attention for a reason; unfortunately, it brands all of them negatively. I would like to see more positive press coverage of the responsible people out there.
Posted by caragirl73 on July 13, 2007 at 11:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hello, "Nothing but the truth"... truth be told I am not WEALTHY. I just realize what is important for the health of my family, the environment and what I leave for future generations. I have a simple car, not lattes or useless material goods.
No, I am not a farmer, but I did grow up on a small farm and we didn't use chemicals. My parents grew what we needed with no excess or dreams of making a killing by being LAZY by outsourcing the labor or cutting corners (chemicals) to deal with pest
HAVE YOU EVER READ THE WARNING LABELS ON THE BINS???? They should attach it to chemically grown food so people become aware to what is going into their bodies HINT: SKULL AND CROSS BONES
This is when the FARMER LIVED ON THE FARM. According to my mother "we didn't what to risk the health of our children with having those chemicals around". Maybe this is why it is so easy for the farmers to fight against what is right. It isn't their kids having to deal with the effects of this poison! And they will not be around to see how these dirty deeds effect future generations on OUR planet.
WAKE UP... pull your head out and quit worrying about $$$$$ PROFITS!
We can all live RESPONSIBLY
Posted by Ventura22 on July 14, 2007 at 2:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I would ignore that individual; nothingbutthetruth... That person only resorts to namecalling and stereotyping because he/she has no leg left to stand on anymore and is more or less like a prehistoric animal sinking in a tarpit with nothing to grasp onto. That individual cannot accept change and has fallen into the trap of laziness, greed and excuses for doing what they have always done; whether or not it was right. The namecalling and stereotyping that individual does whenever confronted just reinforces what most of us already surmised about this type of individual, and just makes them look even worse in the eyes of the general public; showing their true motives, intentions and character...dishonest bullying types. Instead of making an effort to change and do what's right, he/she resists and acts out their temper like an incorrigible child and chooses to continue being a part of the problem, instead of the solution. Sad to see such greed at work.
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.