State of California gears up to sue Fairfax
Tipped off by the county's agricultural commissioner, state officials have ordered Fairfax to rescind its neighborhood pesticide notification policy within 60 days or face a lawsuit.

[ Read the Facts ]

Click Here to Add Comment

 

              

---

Subject:    Helliker Speaks Again And Demands Fairfax Not Protect Its People
 Date:        Wed, 9 May 2001 13:12:02 -0400
From:        Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization:     Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)

State gears up to sue Fairfax

By Rebecca Rosen Lum

Tipped off by the county's agricultural commissioner, state officials have ordered Fairfax to rescind its neighborhood pesticide notification policy within 60 days or face a lawsuit.

Only the state has the authority to define and regulate pesticide use, Paul Helliker, director of the state Department of Pesticide Regulation, stated in a letter to the Fairfax Town Council. (Mr. Helliker does not believe in notification because he apparently beLIEves his "registered" POISONS are only dangerous to the applicator.)

The Fairfax ordinance, the only sort of its kind in the state, requires anyone planning to apply pesticides to notify neighbors within a 150-foot radius at least 48 hours ahead of time.

It was passed in February and took effect last month.

Helliker said in his April 17 letter that notifying neighbors constitutes "pesticide related activity," because it is part of the "preparation" that precedes spraying, and is therefore forbidden. (Not surprising - considering that Mr. Helliker only "legally" allows the use of his "registered" POISONS to "control" pest problems.)

"If the Council does not repeal the ordinance within the time specified, I will request the Office of the Attorney General to commence the actions for declaratory relief and injunction," he wrote.

Marin County Agricultural Commissioner Stacy Carlsen reported the progression of the ordinance to Helliker's office, according to Veda Federighi, communications director for the state Department of Pesticide Regulations.

"We have some cooperative agreements with the counties," she said. "We work very closely."

In a second letter, dated May 2, Helliker said he hoped for "a positive working relationship" with the town, and suggested grant funds may be available if the town agrees to allow Carlsen to supervise an integrated pest management program.  (Someone ought to ask Mr. Helliker if he will ever allow the use of safe and far more effective (unregistered) alternatives to actually control pest problems or must Fairfax continue to only use his "registered" POISONS?)

Carlsen was not in his office and could not be reached for comment.

The Fairfax law considers a first offense a public nuisance. The second, in the same three-year period, would be an infraction and the third, a misdemeanor.

Councilman Niccolo Caldararo said the ordinance is part of a growing body of laws protecting public health and safety, such as those mandating tough sentences for drunken driving or limiting exposure to second-hand smoke.

But Federighi said state law requires the department to admonish local governments that try to pass ordinances governing pesticide use.

That law that gives the state the last word on the subject was crafted in response to a Mendocino County ordinance curbing pesticide use.

Former town attorney John Sharp reviewed Fairfax's draft ordinance and recommended some fine-tuning to ensure its compliance with state law. He concluded that the town ordinance essentially dealt with notification and did not prohibit use.

Councilman Frank Egger, the local law's author, said he was stunned the state would marshall its resources against the town.

"We are shocked that a state agency whom we expected was there to protect the health, welfare and safety of California is threatening our little town for doing their job for them," Egger said. (So am I!)

This is the second hit Fairfax has taken in regard to its newly minted policy.

The Sacramento law firm of Kahn, Soares & Conway, representing Pest Control Operators of California Inc., a trade association, challenged its legality in March, requesting "immediate attention."

The state's action appeared to surprise pesticide foes, who had greeted Helliker's appointment by Gov. Gray Davis as a sign of changing times.

"They were hopeful," said Linda Jensen-Pascarella, founder of Safe2Use, an educational organization based in Riverside County. They had frequently clashed with Davis' predecessor, Gov. Pete Wilson's appointee Jim Wells, she said.

Helliker had served on the boards of statewide environmental groups and let it be known soon after his appointment that he believed pesticide use should be reduced - sending shock waves through the pesticide industry and growers organizations.  (How on earth will there ever be any "registered" pesticide reduction if Mr. Helliker will not "legally" allow the use of any (unregistered) alternatives?)

"He is in a position to be able to stand up and make a difference, instead of caving into the pesticide industry," said Jensen-Pascarella.

But recently, environmentalists' hopes have dimmed.

"Our goal is to help people access the tools to control pests," Helliker said yesterday. "Our motive wasn't to pick on Fairfax, it was to enforce the law, and we would have gone about it the same way whether it was Los Angeles or Fairfax." (How do you define the "right tools" Mr. Helliker?)

The department's problem with the Fairfax law "is that you have a town requiring people on private property to make notification," he said. (Sort of like being against the "Golden Rule".)

His department has written in a notification requirement in a new law governing the use of methyl bromide, he said.

http://www.marinij.com/news/archive/

Whatever happened to "our" government - of the people, by the people and for the people? Someone ought to tell Mr. Helliker that methyl bromide is not the only POISON that people want to be notified about! I have been asking Mr. Helliker that people be allowed to use safe and far more effective (unregistered) alternatives to actually control pest problems. It seems Mr. Helliker will only allow people to be exposed (unknowingly) to ever increasing use/misuse of his "safe, registered" POISONS as "legal" tools. Fairfax realized that and did not try to stop the use of his "registered" POISONS they only want to be notified. How terrible for bu$INess! So, once again, corporate America rallies to defeat the people! Shame on you Mr. Helliker! Steve

---

(Editor's Note:  When asked about the issue of pesticides by Carol Sterritt, Mr. Helliker made the following comment to her:  He finally stated that she could, "come spray my office with Raid in your moon suit and nothing will happen to me because these chemicals are so well formulated as to be perfectly safe. Only the person spraying needs to be protected. There is no reason to have a notification law because these chemicals are not dangerous.")

If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.

TOP