All News Releases By Date

 

EPA Criticizes Washington State Dept. of Agriculture

Release Date: 2/9/1998
Contact Information: Bob Jacobson
jacobson.robert@epamail.epa.gov
(206) 553-1203 or 1-800-424-4372

February 9, 1998 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 98-3


For Immediate Release

People in the state of Washington who report they have been illegally sprayed with pesticides may not always be getting the attention they deserve from the Washington State Department of Agriculture.

That is the conclusion reached by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in its assessment of how well the Washington State Department of Agriculture (WSDA) enforces state and federal pesticide laws within Washington borders. The EPA assessment was made public today after four months of investigation and interviews.

Chuck Clarke, EPA’s Northwest regional administrator in Seattle, said the final version is critical of WSDA’s enforcement of state and federal pesticide laws within Washington’s borders.

“Based on these findings, EPA will be taking a more active role in pesticide enforcement within Washington until WSDA corrects shortcomings identified in our report, “ declared Clarke. “We’re especially concerned about instances of alleged human exposure not being thoroughly investigated.

EPA is also alarmed by the drop in the total number of WSDA pesticide enforcement actions.

“Reports of human exposure to pesticides should be of paramount concern, and demand the highest priority attention from enforcement authorities,” Clarke said. “When investigations appear to be prematurely terminated because the person complaining wished to remain anonymous or because the person withdrew their complaint, we find that troubling.”

The EPA report identifies several areas of concern, including:

• Since the enactment of the 1995 Washington Regulatory Reform Act (HB 1010), a statute passed by the State Legislature that restricted the enforcement authority of WSDA and other state agencies, penalty enforcement actions have declined.

• WSDA inspectors and their supervisors are often too quick to terminate an investigation that might have led to an enforcement action, and

• WSDA appears to favor technical assistance over traditional enforcement activities.

Clarke also said that WSDA appears to have not re-designed its pesticide enforcement program to fit the new circumstances created three years ago by the Washington Regulatory Reform Act.

“The new law changed the way WSDA could pursue civil penalties in pesticide misuse cases, and there is still no clear policy within the agency on how enforcement activities are to proceed,” Clarke declared. “The resulting uncertainty appears to make WSDA personnel hesitant when it comes to taking enforcement actions.”

In the report, EPA also criticized itself for not stepping in often enough to help ensure enforcement of pesticide misuse regulations in Washington.

“There are couple of factors at play here,” Clarke said. “One, EPA needs to do a better ongoing job of tracking WSDA investigations and enforcement activities and, two, EPA and WSDA must make efforts to help the public understand how pesticide enforcement works.”

EPA plans to help WSDA enhance the training of its investigators and other personnel to ensure consistent high-quality enforcement activity.

“Although EPA is critical of WSDA’s pesticide enforcement activities, the total pesticide program has far more strengths than weaknesses,” Clarke said. “WSDA has a solid infrastructure to carry out its overall mission, the department is staffed with highly trained personnel, it carries out a good public education program and it works well with the cooperative extension service.”

WSDA has approximately 33 staff members involved with pesticide activities, with 17 devoted to enforcement. By contrast, only three EPA Northwest regional personnel are assigned to pesticides enforcement work, and they must deal with pesticides not only in Washington, but also in Alaska, Oregon, and Idaho.