Defending the Central Coast from
BioChemical Aerial Spraying

Intro to LBAM


CASS Website

File Illness Report

A Listing of Laws Violations by USDA and CDFA in actions taken to eradicate LBAM:

Main Menu


Calendar of Events

Intro to LBAM

Sign Petition

Audio & Video




Health Info

Spray Safety

Court Cases




Take Action



Image Archives


Contact Us

Join Email List

California Penal Code Sections 374.3-375


1) United States Constitution "…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Article XIV

2) California State Constitution - The very document that creates the state of California, Guarantees safety for its residents: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." Article 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS - Section 1

3) "The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny." CA Constitution, Article, 1, Section 3(b)(1)

4) California Code requires consent before spray: "No person shall directly discharge onto a property without consent of the owner or operator of the property." California Code, Division 6, Chapter 3, subchapter 2, Section 6616

5) California Code requires protection of persons, animals and property b) Notwithstanding that substantial drift would be prevented, no pesticide application shall be made or continued when: 1. There is a reasonable possibility of contamination of the bodies or clothing of persons not involved in the application process; 2. There is a reasonable possibility of damage to nontarget crops, animals or other public or private property; or 3. There is a reasonable possibility of contamination of nontarget public or private property, including the creation of a health hazard, preventing normal use of that property. California Code, Division 6, Chapter 3, subchapter 2, Section 6614

6) CEQA - California Environmental Quality Act Protection of the environment consistent with the provision of a decent home and suitable living environment for every Californian shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions.

CA. Public Resources Code, Div 13, Environment. This section states that it is necessary to provide a high-quality environment that at all times is healthful and pleasing to the senses and intellect of man. It further states that governmental agencies at all levels are required to consider qualitative factors, as well as economic and technical factors, and long-term benefits and costs, in addition to short-term benefits and costs and to consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment.

7) Further, Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3. Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Article 18.Statutory Exemptions, Section 15269. Emergency Projects. "The following emergency projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA: Specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency. This does not include long-term projects undertaken for the purpose of preventing or mitigating a situation that has a low probability of occurrence in the short-term." An emergency is defined as: "A sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger, demanding immediate action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to life, property, or essential public services. "Emergency" includes such occurrences as fire, flood, earthquake, or other soil or geologic movements, as well as such occurrences as riot, accident, or sabotage" The Legislature had a chance to exempt CDFA from CEQA and purposefully chose not to do so. The legislature desired full CEQA review of projects undertaken to eradicate LBAM.


8) Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Expert Meeting on Aerial Spraying Minutes of the Meeting, March 31, 2004, European Commission*, wherein the Commission states that, due to inherent high risk (in particular from spray drift), aerial spraying should be banned…and would require member states to severely restrict or ban aerial spraying when the conditions for safeguarding bystanders or the environment cannot be fulfilled [and this statement was made in consideration of aerially spraying crops, not human populations] The Precautionary Principle is the guiding hand in the European Union's response to pesticides and genetically modified foods and animals, and is a reason U.S. agricultural products are rejected in these countries. The European Union Commission Communication notes "The Precautionary Principle applies where scientific evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern that the potentially dangerous effects on the environment, human, animal or plant health, may be inconsistent with the high level of protection chosen by the EU."

9) CDFA has not yet obtained clearance to begin spraying from the US Fish and Wildlife Service as it relates to the impact of spraying on endangered species. APHIS has designated CDFA to find out if endangered species would be affected, also to see if minority populations and EXECUTIVE ORDER 13045 , Protection of children from environmental risks is violated. NOT A THIRD PARTY, INDEPENDENT, UNBIASED AGENCY, APHIS and CDFA and EPA and USDA are all committed to this assault on citizens to further limit competition of interstate and foreign commerce, all components defined as violations under the RICO Act.

10) CDFA's actions act as a nuisance and a trespass (County of Santa Cruz vs CDFA Superior Ct. of California. County of Santa Cruz Case No. 158516, Oct. 31, 2007) Officials would uphold laws to forcefully blunt citizen nuisance and trespass on their homes and their properties. There would be no equal application of enforcement.

11) CDFA has yet to provide the public with evidence of a permit from the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary. Undersecretary Gomes states that "The Department will not apply pesticides to water bodies, riparian habitat areas or areas lacking host insects."

12) CDFA refuses to answer questions from citizen interest groups and legislators in compliance with CPRA and FOIA in a timely and complete manner, if at all.

13) Section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide ACT (FIFRA), EPA regulation 40 CFR Part 166 (ref. 10) has not approved pheromone products for chronic or repeated use or for aerial spraying or in any preparation, micronized or aerially delivered, even in times of true emergencies…

14) The Americans with Disabilities Act protects people with chemical sensitivities and other disabilities from discrimination. From: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a civil rights law that gives you the right to ask for changes where policies, practices or conditions exclude or disadvantage you. As of January 26, 1992, public entities and public accommodations must ensure that individuals with disabilities have full access to and equal enjoyment of all facilities, programs, goods and services. The ADA borrows from Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Section 504 Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in employment and education in agencies, programs and services that receive federal money. The ADA extends many of the rights and duties of Section 504 to public accommodations such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, stores, doctors' offices, museums, private schools and child care programs. They must be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. No one can be excluded or denied services just because he/she is disabled or based on ignorance, attitudes or stereotypes.

Does the ADA Apply to People with Asthma and Allergies?

Yes. In both the ADA and Section 504, a person with a disability is described as someone who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or is regarded as having such impairments. Breathing, eating, working and going to school are "major life activities." Asthma and allergies are still considered disabilities under the ADA, even if symptoms are controlled by medication. … Under Section 504, public schools and programs cannot avoid their responsibility by claiming to have limited funds or resources. Nor can they impose a "disparate impact" on people with disabilities. The ADA requires public accommodations to make changes, except in cases where an "undue burden" would result. This program violates the intent of the Light Brown Apple Moth Act (2)(C) (senate bill 556) which states, "Eradication activities undertaken pursuant to this article shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations and shall be conducted in a environmentally responsible manner."

If the CDFA had been operating in an "environmentally responsible manner," they would have allowed the necessary environmental impact reports to supersede their aerial pesticide spraying program. Instead, the State used its powers to push through a totally unproven, unsubstantiated false "emergency" in order to intentionally evade all environmental impact reports and spray residential areas with an untested pesticide that made hundreds of people sick. Damage to the environment, like the deaths of hundreds of birds from a "mystery oil" spill, and the worst "red tide" in the history of California, which made many surfers sick, were also the result of this careless act by the State.

Secretary Kawamura of the CDFA appears to have a different definition of an "emergency" from that of a reasonable person when referring to a tiny light brown apple moth. Kawamura declared, "This emergency (LBAM) clearly posses such an immediate, serious harm that delaying action by providing five working days advance notice to allow public comment would be inconsistent with the public interest. This emergency action is to avoid serious harm to the public peace, health, safety or general welfare."*

There definitely IS an emergency. But it's the one created by the CDFA and Kawamura, supported by the USDA, APHIS and Governor Schwarzenegger, perpetrated against the people without their consent, endangering our health and safety, and without protection of the communities and environment being aerial assaulted with pesticides.








Search this website!
Powered by Google.

Heads Up!

US Constitution

["We the people...."]

California Constitution

California Penal Code

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide ACT (FIFRA)

National Environmental Policy Act - NEPA

Americans with Disabilities Act

ADA Home Page

Aerial Spray Program violates 23 international human rights.

California Laws on Human Experimentation

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District:


2.1 Chronic Violation





© 2007-2008, - All Rights Reserved