I ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAMS
THE EFFECTS OF AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES IN THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
IRRIGATED CROPLANDS, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
-------
PESTICIDE STUDY SERIES - 6
THE EFFECTS OF AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES IN
THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT, IRRIGATED CROPLANDS,
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
This study is the result of
Contract No. 60-01-0134 awarded by the OWP,
as part of the Pesticides Study (Section 5(2) (2) P.L. 91-224)
to the Food Protection and Toxicology Center, University
of California at Davis.
The Project Coordinators for the Food Protection and
Toxicology Center were:
Ming-yu Li, Documentation Specialist
Raymond A. Fleck, Associate Research Chemist
The EPA Project Officer was Charles D. Reese, Agronomist
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water Programs
Applied Technology Division
Rural Wastes Branch
TS-00-72-05
June 1972
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C., 20402 - Price $2
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Water
Programs of the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, or
does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Although it is not possible to recognize every contribution, tue project
directors thank the following for their valuable assistance:
Professor Harrison C. Dunning, who prepared Chapter 8, Laws and Regulations
Governing Agricultural Pesticide Use in the San Joaquin Valley.
Dr. Paripurnananda Loganathan, who did the literature search and prepared
the drafts for Chapter 4, Routes of Pesticide Entry into the Aquatic
Environment, and Chapter 5, Degradation, Metabolism, and Persistence
of Pesticides in the Aquatic Environment.
Mr. Thomas H. Sibley, who did the literature search and prepared the
drafts for Chapter 6, Impact of Pesticide Pollution on the Aquatic
Environment, and Chapter 7, Alternatives to Pesticides for Pest
Control.
Mr. Stephen Heitmann, who did the computer programming and data processing
for the project.
Mr. Kelvin Deming, who provided editorial service.
Special thanks are given to Miss Carol Norberg, Mrs. Patricia Baker, and
the office staff of the Department of Environmental Toxicology for their assis-
tance in the project.
Appreciation is also extended to the agricultural commissioners of the
San Joaquin Valley, officials and their staff of county, state, and federal
agencies, and staff and faculty of the University of California who provided
their expert opinions about the various subject areas of this study.
11
-------
Table of Contents
Page
Summary
Foreword
Chapter 1.
Chapter 2.
Chapter 3.
Chapter 4.
Chapter 5.
Chapter 6.
Chapter 7.
Chapter 8.
The San Joaquin Valley
Inventory of Use
Application Techniques and
Types of Pesticide Materials
Being Used
Routes of Pesticide Entry Into
the Aquatic Environment
Degradation, Metabolisn, and
Persistence of Pesticides in
the Aquatic Environment
Impacts of Pesticide Pollution
on the Aquatic Environment
Alternatives to Pesticides
for Pest Control
Laws and Regulations
Governing Agricultural Pesti-
cide Use in the San Joaquin
Valley
S-l
1
4
17
35
48
79
115
181
210
ill
-------
Summary
Estimates of the environmental impact of pesticides in the San Joaquin
Valley of California are limited by the amount of reliable information
available on pesticide use in the area, the extent of scientific knowledge
on the effects of pesticides released into the environment, and the
applicability of this knowledge to field conditions in the valley. Achieving
an optimum balance between the competing needs for food and fiber production,
on the one hand, and environmental quality, on the other, will further
require an understanding of the conflicting interests and responsibilii-ies
bearing on pesticide use in the region, and the probable impacts of alterna-
tive practices and policies.
Thle present case study attempts to assess the impact of agricultural
pesticides on the aquatic environment of the San Joaquin Valley, and to
point out some possible courses of action. The following approaches were
used: 1) University scientists and officials of federal, state, and county
agencies were interviewed for information and expert opinions. 2) The
literature of pesticides was surveyed and reviewed, relying primarily on
the unique collection, files, and services of the Environmental Toxicology
Library of the Food Protection and Toxicology Center at the University of
California at Davis. 3) Information of pesticide use was retrieved from a
data bank containing files of detailed records in machine-readable form.
The study embraces the following topics; 1) description of the study
area; 2) invent;ry of uses; 3) application techniques and types of pesti-
cide material being used; 4) routes of pesticide entry into the aquatic
environment; 5) the degradation, metabolism, and persistence of pesticides
in the aquatic environment; 6) impacts of pesticide pollution on the
aquatic environment; 7) alternatives to pesticides for pest control; 8)
laws and regulations governing agricultural pesticide use in the San
Joaquin Valley.
Description of the Study Area
A large parr, of California's land mass is in the shape of an oblong
bowl with a single huge central valley formed by the Sacramento Valley,
in the north, and the San Jcaquin Valley in the middle and south. The
Sacramento Rivar and its tributaries flow generally southward until they
meet the San Joaquin River and its tributaries, flowing generally northward.
S- 1
-------
From their confluence, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, these waters
flow westward and reach the Pacific Ocean through the Golden Gate. The
southern part of the San Joaquin Valley has no natural drainage outlet.
In spite of a heavy demand for irrigation water for agriculture in
the central valley, the problem is not one of water insufficiency but of
maldistribution: most of the rainfall in the valley is in the north nnd
east but most of the agriculture is in the south and west. To supplement
the natural sources of water available in the San Joaquin Valley, the
California Water Project transports hugh quantities of surplus water from
the delta to the San Joaquin Valley.
Over the years, an elaborate system of canals and aqueducts lias been
constructed in the San Joaquin Valley, and this region is now the largest
contiguous area of irrigated cropland in the world. The valley's productiv-
ity is phenomenal, and three of the valley's eight count-lee are the top
three counties in the nation in the value of their farm production.
Inventory o_f_ Uses
To maintain the high quality of their agricultural products, and a
high level of productivity, the farmers of the valley depend heavily on
pesticides to combat insects, weeds, and diseases. Through collaborative
efforts of the University of California and the California Department of
Agriculture, detailed records of pesticide use are now available. These
records, in machine-readable form, tell the pesticide used, commodity of
crop, target pests, location (county, township, range, and section), date
of application, acreage, mode of application (areal, ground, or other),
concentration of active ingredient, and rate of application per acre. They
show that over 1.7 million pounds of toxaphene and 0,8 million pounds of
DDT were used in agriculture in the valley in 1970. Parathion was the top
organophosphorus pesticide used, with 590,000 pounds applied to 460,000
acres. This highly toxic substance was applied more frequently than any
other pesticide, with 10,835 recorded instances of agricultural use in the
study area in 1970. Carbaryl was the top carbamate insecticide used, and
2,4-D was the top herbicide.
Analysis of 48 of the principal pesticides used in agriculture in
the San Joaquin Valley revealed that the pounds of pesticides used tends
to be concentrated on relatively few crops. Less that half the crops
S-2
-------
accounted for more than 98% of the pesticide use, and cotton alone accounted
for 30% of the total. This latter statistic might prompt one to wonder
about the influence of government price-support policies on pesticide use.
Soil fumigants (including Telone, D-D Mixture, methyl bromide, and
chloropicrin) are used in very large quantities for nematode control. The
application rates are high (on the order of oae hundred pounds or more per
acre), compared with topical application rates for other pesticides of
one to three pounds of active ingredient per acre. Thodi, these compounds
rank high in lints of pounds of pesticides used but do not rank high in
liets of acreages treated. Also, in the analysis of pests or. which the
48 major pesticides vrere used, reaatodes ranked first out of 169 target
pests on the basis of pounds of pesticide? applied, followed by lygus,
mites, worms, weeds, aphids, bollwomt, scales, and thr.ips, in that order,
A study of pesticide use in 1948 through 1968 in Kern County (in the
valley) showed a long-term trend of decreasing use of organochJorine insecti-
cides and increasing use of organophosphorus and carbamate compounds. Use
in Fresno County in 1968 and in 1970 showed a continuation of these trends.
Application Techniques _and_ Types £f_ Pesticide Material being Used
Of the major pesticides applied in the valley, approximately 50% by
weight is applied from aircraft. In terms of acreage, approximately two-
thirds is applied aerially. The danger of contamination of nontarget area
by drift, however, relates more to droplet or particle size and to micro-
meteorological conditions than to the choice between aerial and ground
application.
Next to droplet size, the most important factor influencing drift is
the climate in the immediate locality of application. In practice, spraying
by ground or aerial application is not recommended in winds of 10 miles
per hour or more, in periods of temperature Inversion, or in generally
turbulent weather.
Only after these factors are taken into consideration is it meaningful
to generalize that the likelihood of drift of applied pesticides increases
in the following order: soil iiilection; hydraulic ground spray; air-carrier
ground spray; aircraft.
As elsewhere, pesticides in the vallo.y are used in a large number of
formulations: emulsifiable concentrates, wettable powders, dusts, sprays,
S-3
-------
pellets, etc. The most common formulation types used in the valley are
emulaifiable concentrates and wettable powders, both diluted with water
before use.
Figure I shows the quantities of three organochlorine compounds--
toxaphene, DDT, and kelthane (dicofol)—used in agriculture in each month
of 1970, for all eighc counties of the San Joaquir. Valley. The use of all
three pesticides ±3 most concentrated during May-September. A combination
of the first two is commonly applied as an insecticide o-.i cotton. Kelthane,
a miticide, is chemically related to DDT but is much less persistent. The
fact that the time of most concentrated use of these and nany other pesti-
cides coincides with the months of intense sunlight, in the San Joaquir
Valley reduced their ability to persist in the environment.
Figure II shows the monthly agricultural use of the two top organo-
phosphorus insecticides, ethyl parathion and malathion, in the eight;
counties of the valley. Use of malathion peaks in the summer, months, but
it has a longer period of heavy use than do the organochlorine compounds.
The use pattern of parathion has several peaks, reflecting the wide variety
of crops and insect pests for which it is used.
Figure III shows the pattern of use of two herbicides in agriculture
in the San Joaquir Valley in 1970. The use of herbicides is concentrated
in the early months to eliminate undersirable plants before they can
establish themselves as competitors for space, water, and nutrients. Their
use beyond early spring J.s also limited by the hazards to desirable plants
(crops) vasultinQ frum application in summer,
Routes of Pesticide Entrv_ into _th_e Aquatic Environment
As shown in Figure IV, pesticides reach the aquatic, environment via
various routes of transport.: 1) Runoff is ordinarily considered to be the
major route of pesticides into the aquatic environment. The amount of
pesticide carried by runoff is influenced by: a) the nature of the pesti-
cide; b) the extent of its use; c) edaphic considerations; d) climate;
e) topography; and f) practices of land management= Thus, heavy rainfall
immediately after application of a pesticide can transport a great deal to
surface waters, although soils that are high in humus will yield less than
sandy soils, and pesticides with short persistence will pose less of a threat
than the more persistent pesticides.
S- 4
-------
700
630
560
0 490
8 420
i 350
* 280
o
i 210
o
°- 140
70
0
FIGURE I
—•-TOXAPHENE
—o-DDT
—x-KELTHANE
FMAMJ JASOND
co
o
z
<
CO
o
CO
o
z
r>
o
o.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FIGURE IE
•-PARATHION
o-MALATHION
MAMJ JASOND
MONTHS, 1970
S-5
-------
FIGURE
CO
o
2
O
X
o
•z.
o
o
a.
2,4-D
TRIFLURALIN
F M A
J J A S 0 N D
S-6
-------
PESTICIDE APPLIED
Drift
SPRAYS. GRANULES
PELLETS. FUMIGANTS
Volatility
Injection,
AQUATIC
ORGANISMS
soil
Degrodotion lots
Volatility
codistillation Interception
Volatility,
Codistiu3iioit|
Spillage.
Accidents,
Industry,
~ Absorption, Irri
Leaching;,''.;;;--j
Degradation
Injection,
incorporation
.Runoff
\
\
I J
Wind,
Ero1
r
.ion
Rfl
in.
i
Vaporous
Diffusion
A
RiA,
1
Spillage,
Acciocnts,
Industry,
Sewage
PLANTS %
':•!'<'' .:»-r./; ^vr^^''^"^-'-^: I SOIL "fe- " ^-^•^^•''•'•'v=^.'v—"'"'''•'
rof^Stwfeb^rfiSffii^iS
'r- --V--"''"/: •^«'on=:>1—" i--- '
;3r— I , .L ^ \—-—/'
—Desorp 11 on—y— — - -y—-/•;. _
-XVT^T-. •. _ i~ —< ~^£rVA'' •'•-
SEDIMENT
.Movement?- >\::
SOIL ORGANISMS
Pumping
Xcliport /
__S__E_
V Degradation loss ! HARVESTED CROP
Figure 1ST Pesticide Cycling in the Environmeirt
Degradation ica&
-------
Studies of runoff in areas of high rainilali and varied topography do
not apply to the level San Joaquin Valley, with its annual rainfall of only
about 10 inches. Even so, the irrigation of crops can give rise to pesticide
runoff in some caaes. A report that agricultural runoff is the greatest
source of pesticides reaching California waters has not been confirmed in
the valley. Derailed studies of erosion in the area have recently been
initiated by the River Basin Planning Group in the USDA.
2) _Sub surface drainage appears to be a much less likely route of pesti-
cide transport than surface runoff, and only a small proportion of pesticides
applied to a field were found in tile drainage. The downward movement of
pesticides in soil appears to be slight, though it will vary with several
factors, including solubility and soil characteristics. The more soluble a
pesticide, the faster it moves downward. Finer-textured soils have a
greater adsorption capacity for pesticides, thus retaining them nore than
coarser-textured soils. A persistent pesticide, of course, might eventually
reach ground water, whereas a less persistent pesticide would first dissipate
by degradation or ether processes. Thus, the highly soluble and persistent
lindane in a sandy soil managed to reach underground water whereas DDT,
parathion, and aldrin did not.
The soils of the San Joaquin Valley are valley soils, formed on alluvium
from upland terraces. They include recent alluvial soils, shallow soils ever
hardpan, and basin soils. The eastern side of the valley has coarser--
textured soils than the western side and hardpans are sometimes present.
Saline and ajkali soils are present In various parts of the valley. The
general texture of the soils is loan, although the central part of the
valley has mostly clay soils and two localized areas on the eastern side
have wind-modified sandy soils.
These features of the soils of the valley generally discourage the
downward movement of pesticides, although such movement is more likely
in the localized and isolated wind-modified sandy soils. Generally speaking
contamination of ground water in the valley by pesticides is improbable.
Considerably more pesticides remain in the soils of a field or decompose there
than are removed by tile drainage or percolation tc ground water.
3) Direct Application of pesticides to water in-olves their use to control
aquatic weeds, rough fish, and aquatic insert ^ats. To minimize undesirable
consequences, these activities are generally managed by professionals.
5-8
-------
Nevertheless, direct application is considered to be one of the major path-
ways of pesticides into the aquatic environment, even though most herbicides
registered for use in aquatic situations have restrictions requiring that
the herbicide must dissipate at least partially before the water is again
subject to normal use. Significant quantities of pesticides are used in
the San Joaquin Valley by the Department of Water Resources and by the
irrigation districts.
^ Atmospheric transport LO the aquatic environment can result from
drift at the time of application, from volatilization and codistillation
from the terrestrial environment, and from wind erosion. Drift may be an
important route of pesticide loss in the San Joaquin Valley but is probably
more of a problem for adjacent land than for the water environment. High
summer temperatures probably cause significant loss to the atmosphere ol
applied pesticides, through voiat-ilization and codistillation, and such
losses can travel great distances, adding to the difficulties of estimating
how much returns to the water environment of the valley.
-*) .QjyiSZ. s°urces of pesticides in the water environment are industrial
wastes, municipal wastes such as sewage effluents, agricultural wastes such
as crop residiies, food-industry wastes, and accidents and spills. A serious
concern is the possibility of contaminating ground water with pesticides
from used containers. Present regulations require that used pesticide con-
tainers be discarded at Class I dump sites (capable of handling hazardous
material by being so situated that no drainage can later reach ground waters).
There are presently only eleven Class I dump sites in the state of California,
and none of them are in the San Jcaquin Valley. As a result, large numbers
of used pesticide containers (with significant amounts of concentrated
pesticides) are piling up throughout the valley, periling the water supply
and human health.
Degradation, Metabolism, and Persistence of
Pesticides in the Aquatic Environment
When a pesticide is applied to soil or water, it is frequently transformed
into other chemicals—biologically by soil and water organisms, nonbiologically
by photolysis, or by chemical means. These transformations may increase or
decrease the persistence, tcxicity, and other properties of the material.
Information on the degradation of pesticides in water is scant compared with
that in soil, although many of the products found in soil might also be
S-9
-------
expected in water. The principal differences between the water and the
environments that affect pesticide breakdown are the concentrations of the
pesticide, adsorbate, or microorganisms.
Biological degradation of pesticides is by a number of pathways, princi-
pally hydrolysis, hydroxylation, dehalogenation, dehydrohalogenation, desul-
furation (- oxidation), 0-dealkylation, N-dealkylation, reduction, conju-
gation, and ring cleavage. Nonbiological degradation may be by the surfaces of
mineral matter and organic matter in the soil, by hydrolysis, and by photolysis.
The relative importance of these processes in a particular situation depends
on many factors: microbial activity, physicochemical condition of the soil
or water, etc. In addition, assumptions about importance in the field that
are based upon laboratory experiments under controlled conditions should be
made with circumspection.
The persistence of a pesticide in soil depends on many factors: the
chemical structure of the pesticide, soil type, temperature, moisture, air
movement, relative humidity, cover crops, microorganisms, application rate,
mode of application, etc. The main processes by which these factors affect
persistence are: decompositon by soil microorganisms, adsorption by soil
colloids, leaching, chemical decomposition, volatilization and codistilla-
tion, adsorption by plants and other organisms, and soil cultivation.
Analysis of the literature on the persistence of pesticides in soils
shows that, on average, chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides have the longest
persistence (several years), followed by some of the triazine herbicides
(or.3 or two years). Organophosphates and carbamates have low persistence.
The soils of the San Joaquin Valley are .loam soils, on average, with about
0.5% to 3% organic matter. These could be considered normal soils, and
persistence data from the literature are probably applicable.
The limited information available on the persistence of pesticides in
water indicates that some pesticides have a longer persistence in water than
in soils, and some have a shorter. Pesticides in water have a high freedom
of mixing and movement. When a pesticide is added or transported to water
most of it becomes adsorbed to sediments. Typically, the concentration in
the water phase decreases rapidly and the concentration in the sediment or
bottom mud increases for a period and then decreases slowly. After adsorption
a small fraction of the pesticide is gradually desorbed and released into the
overlying water, where the pesticide concentrat.i^r is maintained in dynamic
equilibrium. Studies on major agricultural river basins of Califonria
S-iO
-------
have indicated that an average pesticide concentration of O.i to 0.2 ppb
in water may mean that bottom sediments contain 20 to 500 ppb. Generally,
the persistence time is lower in water than in the sediments, and in some
cases the sorbed pesticides are, for all practical purposes, removed
permanently from the aquatic environment.
Impacts^ of Pesticide Pollution gn the Aquatic Environmerit
The natural and man-made aquatic ecosystems of the San Joaquin Valley
range in size from vernal ponds to impoundments such as the San Luis Reser-
voir, and from intermittent creeks to the Sar. Joaquin River. The fish habitat
exceeds 6,000 miles of streams and canals and 59,000 acres of lakes and
reservoirs supporting both cold-water and warm-water species. The varied
habitata are occupied by different species assemblages although the biological
components of these environments have seldom been investigated.
Accurate prediction of the impact of pollutants on an aquatic system
requires knowledge of: 1) the residual level of the pollutants; 2) the
nagnitude and duration of periodic high concentrations of pollutants; 3) the
species found in a community; 4) the effect of the residual and periodic
high levels of pollutants on individual species; 5) the magnitude of any
eynergistic effects that might occur when more than one pollutant is found
in an environment; and 6) the effect on the community of altering the
biology of an individual species.
An analysis of the literature on pesticides in the aquatic environment
revelas that the bulk of availalbe information concerns the effects of
insecticides or herbicides on a few invertebrate and fish species. Knowledge
is limited on the effects of pesticides on primary producers and decomposers.
There is very little work on protozoans or rotifers important groups) of
zooplankton and surprisingly little on annelids and molluscs even though
these groups constitute the bulk of the benthic biomass in many environments.
Some groups of pesticides have also bben poorly investigated. Knowledge
on pesticide effects decreases in the following order: insecticides and
acaricides > herbicides > fungicides > nemnticides and funigants. Increasing
applications of these latter pesticides increases the need for studies of
their effect on various aquatic biota.
Fish-kill data for the San Joaquin Valley for 1965-1969 indicate that fish
kills attributed to pesticides have been relatively few compared with other
S- 11
-------
en
I
Table I Available Information on Effect of
Organophosphoius Insecticldes and Acaricides^on Aquatic Species
Species
Primary producers
Phytoplankton
Attached algae
Moss
Vascular plants
-submerged
-emergent
-floating
Consumers
Zooplankton
-protosca
-rotifers
-crustacea
Benthic invertebrates
-annelids
-insects
-crustacea
-raollusca
Fish
Decomposers
Fungi
Bacteria
G
•H
4J
«!
V
rt
C-*
o i
010.
&
c
0!
00
o
a.
oo
43
Pu
CV,
J±l
X w
Co
XX-XXKXX-XXX--XX-----
xx-xxx- -X-K----X-X-X
xx-x-xxx~xxx-x-x--xx-
xxxxxxxxxxxx-xxxx-xx-
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx-
(x) Some information (laboratory or field) was obtained by our search procedure.
(-) No information was obtained.
-------
causes. Also, loss of game fish has been less than the loss of non-game
fish. Organochlorine pesticides have been the known or probable causes
of fish kills in the valley, although the magnitude of this problem is
decreasing with the declining use of these pesticides.
The concentrations cf organochlorine compounds have been decreasing in
the San Joaquin River, ancl residues found in various parts of tut aquatic
environment of the valley are significantly below the LC... values to zoo-
plankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish.
Much less information is available on the impact of organophosphorus
insecticides on the aquatic environment of the valley. Although it is
generally believed that these compounds are less persistent than the
organochlorine pesticides and that they do not undergo biomagaification, the
rapid increase in their use underscores the need for monitoring for these
substances and research into their environmental impact. Table T shows
available information on the effects of organophusphorus insecticides and
acaricides on aquatic species.
More than four million pounds of herbicides were applied in the San
Joaquin Valley in 197C. Such large applications could pose an environmental
hazard, though little harm to the aquatic environment from the misuse of
herbicides has been reported, One reason is that a permit must be obtained
from the California Department of Fish and Game before pesticides are applied
directly to water, and such a permit, can be refused if there is danger of
wildlife loss.
Herbicides are generally les.3 ;;oxic to squacic fauna than are insecti-
cides, and the values usually encountered in the aquatic environment are well
below the toxic levels. Field observations indicate that herbicides applied
to running water do not seem to be a hazard. In standing water, the concen-
trations necessary to control aquatic plants -are not toxic to the fauna.
Only with sodium arsenite is there severe toxicity from applications of
the manufacturer's recommended dose.
Damage to the environment from herbicides is usually indirect. Thus,
submerged vegetation frequently provides protection for fish species, so its
elimination would make them more susceptible to predation. Also, eliminating
this vegetation might alter the feeding habits of some species. A more
general effect is that the concentration of dissolved oxygen is depressed by
the decomposition of vegetation matter killed ey herbicides.
S- 13
-------
In addition to insecticides and herbicides, millions or pounds of fungi-
cides, nematicides, and rodenticides are applied annually in the San Joaquin
Valley. The information available for assessing impact is even less for these
types of pesticides than for inseticides and herbicides.
your major conclusions can be reached from this review of available
information on t\ie impact of pesticides in the aquatic environment of the San
Joaquin: 1) only limited information is- available regarding the effects of
pesticide use in the aquatic ei.vironrnent of ch^ San Joaquin Valley; 2) both
laboratory and field data regarding effects of pesticides on primary producers
and decomposers in the aquatic environment are practically nonexistent, and
Information is only scant about effects on higher trophic levels; 3) presently
available data are insufficient to provide assessment in greater depth of the
impact of pesticides on the aquatic environment or to determine the extent
to which damage might have been done to the environment; and 4) the Limited
evidence indicates that the agricultural use of pesticides in the San Joaquin
Valley would seem to have had no pignifi-.ant adverse effects upon the aquatic
environment.
Alternatives to Pesticides for Fes_t_ Control
While pesticides will continue to be used in tfie forsseable future, to
protect crops and livestock from harmsul pests and to provide an adequate sup-
ply of high-quality food, feed, and fiber, these chemicals have had undesirable
effects on the environment on some occasions. The need for change in pest
management is obvious when one considers that: there are more insect pest
species today than ever before; over 100 pest species of agricultural importance
are resistant to pesticides; pest-control costs are increasing; and environmen-
tal pollution is of worldwide concern.
In some instances, alternative insecticides car. be used in place of DDT
and other persistent chlorinated hydrocarbons, though they often do not provide
the same desired degree of control. Additionally, the use of these substitutes
on major crops will often be much more costly. A variety of organophosphorus
and carbamate insecticides ;•, ana we lack extensive informa-
tion about their possible aide effects.
S-14
-------
Physical techniques have been proposed for controlling insect pests and
weeds. They include the use of sound, infrared radiation, visible light, ultra-
violet light, ionizing radiation, cuticle abrasion, and flame cultivation.
Except for ionizing radiation, these techniques have not been very successful
in large-scale applications. They are either too costly or still in the
experimental stage,
Chemical techniques presently employed for pest control include the use
of hormones, chemosterilants, attractants and repellents, and antibiotics.
Although 200 insect pheromones have been discovered, only the use of sex phero-
mones in combination with blacklight lamps have been encouraging (for control
of tobacco hornwaru and the cabbage looper). Chemcsterilants may be particu-
larly useful to prevent the establishment of insect pests in new areas, as
now employed against the pink bollworm in the San Joaquin Valley. These com-
pounds must be thoroughly investigated, however, before they are released to
the natural environment, since some chemosterilants are alkylating agents capa-
ble of producing mutagenic effects on some nontarget species. Many attractants
have already been used to gocd advantage in detecting initial infestations of
damaging pasts and also in determining their spread into new areas. These
chemical techniques, however, are applicable only to very small segments of the
insect population.
Biological control, with numerous successes, has a potential probably that
has not been fully exploited. It involves the use of parasites, predators, or
pathogens on a host or prey population. It is an attractive alternative because
natural enemies are very specific, do not contaminate the environment, and do
net need to be reapplied annually. Once a biological control agent becomes
established against a major pest, it provides permanent control of the pest.
In the United States only 20 of 520 introduced species have provided significant
control against a major pest. A single success, however, can provide substantial
savings. It has been estimated that five major biological control programs pro-
duced savings in excess of $110 million in California during 1923-1959.
The use of pathogens as control agents is much more recent than the use of
predators or parasites. There are over 300 known insect viruses which could be ap-
plied against specific insect species. Effective use of pathogens is currently
limited to a few species, but further research may increase this number. These
pathogens have very specific host requirements, and because of such specificity shoulc
S-15
-------
provide less hazard than chemical insecticides. However, data will be required
to establish the safety and effectiveness of an insect virus before it will be
acceptable to regulatory agencies.
Maes release of laboratory-reared sterilized male insects has been respon-
sible for extermination of the screwworm throughout the United States, but the
technique is limited to pests which can be easily reared in the laboratory and
occur in nature in relatively low population densities. Sophisticated breeding
programs have been developed to produce pest-resistant plants, but it usually
takes at least 10 years to develop acceptable resistant varieties.
Cultural methods have long been important in insect control. These methods
include the destruction of plant parts left in the field after harvest, and
early or delayed planting to avoid high populations of emerging insects. It has
been suggested that only cultural control compares with biological control as a
successful long-term means of pest management. Perhaps the outstanding example
of cultural control involves Lygus bugs in cotton in California. Alfalfa is a
preferred host of Lygus bugs, and interplanting alfalfa strips in cotton fields
has proved a very effective control tactic in both experimental and commercial
fields. A strip of alfalfa 16 to 32 feet wide is sufficient to keep Lygus bugs
out of 300 to 400 feet of cotton. This technique if, rather easy to employ arid
may receive wide application in the next few years.
Integrated control programs have received considerable attention in recent
years. The technique involves not only a combination of chemical and biological
control but also the use of all available practical and effective methods of
insect control to bring maximum pressure on a destructive pest. There are some
outstanding examples of successful integrated control programs, but such programs
require extensive preliminary research and extended observation periods.
In the San Joaquin Valley, the most successful alternative to pesticides
until recently has been various forms of biological control. Integrated control
programs have recently been established for alfalfa, cotton, and grapes, and
substantial progress has. been made on programs in citrus, apples, walnuts
peaches, and woody ornamentals. Evaluating the success of alternative techniques
is very difficult. -Clearly, the use of these techniques has lowered the quantity
of pesticides being released into the environment and has provided a more econo-
mical means of pest, management.
Alternative techniques will be used more i.n the future, although a substan-
tial increase will probably not occur soon. Contributing to increased interest
S-16
-------
in alternative techniques are economics and the deleterious environmental effects
from pesticides. Many of these alternatives have only limited applicability and
are yet to be refined. They will not be practical for field application for
several years. Even techniques that can provide satisfactory pest control may
not be employed by farmers until they become an economic necessity. In addition,
alternative methods may achieve substantial acceptance only when they are as easy
to employ as pesticides. It will also be necessary to provide, information to
the farmers as efficiently as is now done by pesticide manufacturers.
The nature of alternative techniques dictates that pest management will
change significantly only if supported by governmental agencies. Substantial
profits can be made from pesticide sales, but not from the sale of alternative
techniques. Consequently, there is no incentive for private enterprise tc
develop alternatives. Developments of alternative methods of pest management
will require financial support, time for research, and field testing Utiliza-
tion of available techniques is not primarily a scientific concern; rather, it
requires economic, social, and political changes that may be difficult to bring
about.
Laws and Regulations Governing Agricultural Pesticide
Use In the Sa.n Joaquin Valley
Within the past seventy years, California has developed a regulatory
system for pesticides control that Is far more detailed than systems of most
other states, Although the system is a product of state law and is administered
in part directly by the State Department or Agriculture, major responsibilities
for administration and enforcement are delegated i_o county agricultural commis-
sioners. Chapter 8 of the report considers four matters pertaining to this
regulatory system, particularly as it operates with regard to the sale and agri-
cultural use of pesticides in the San Joaquit) Valley: 1) the basic features,
especially pesticides registration, permit control of the use of certain pesti-
cides, and regulation of pest-control business; 2) some effects of this system
in preventing environmental damage; 3) suggested changes that might increase
environmental protection; and A) important litigation related to the use of
agricultural pesticides.
California law requires that pesticides be registered prior to sale, and
that residue tolerances be established. The system is very similar to that
S-17
-------
federally required for products in interstate commerce. The number of California
pesticide registrations has been declining recently, apparently as the result or
a substantial increase in 1970 of the fee charged for each product registration.
Use of a pesticide is unlawful if such use is in conflict with the registered
label or with supplementary printed directions delivered with the pesticide,
unless the use is expressly authorized by the Director of Agriculture or a county
agricultural commissioner. Further use control of a]1 pesticides is provided by
specific limitations on drift, and by the need in some cases for a signed recom-
mendation regarding the particular application. General rules keyed to the
registration process thus provide some control over pesticide sales and use
within the state. Use of the registration for purposes of environmental protec-
tion was emphasized by the legislature in 1-969, when it provided that: the Director
of Agriculture is to "develop an orderly program for the continuous evaluation of
all economic poisons actually registared" In order to "endeavor to eliminate from
use in the state any economic poison which'endangers the agricultural or non-agri-
cultural environment, is not beneficial for the purposes for which it is sold,
or is misrepresented."
Beyond these general restrictions,.-many pesticides in California are subject
to a special set of use restrictions. Some forty-two chemical compounds are
classified as "injurious materials" or "injurious herbicides," thus being subject
to a special set of use restrictions and in most instances under permit control.
The county agricultural commissioners administer the permit system. Variations
are found among the eight San Joaquin Valley counties—for example, as to whether
to use a "job" permit (each application requiring a permit) or a "seasonal" per-
mit (blanket approval for one, many, or all of the listed materials for a season),
or something inbetween; as to the nature of permit conditions to be imposed; and
as to the role of the grower, as contrasted with that of the professional applica-
tor.
Independently of general or special use restrictions on pesticides, there
is in California considerable occupational'regulation of those in one phase or
another of the pest-control business. .This regulation bears on professional
applicators. The need for a state.license and/or a county registration provides
a means for administrative sanctioning of violations of use restrictions.
Historically, it is the applicators or "pest control operators" who have been
subject to regulation, and control has been ti.shrcst for air applicators. Regula-
tion.-of those in other phases of the pest-control business, broadly defined, is
S-18
-------
very recent: only at the beginning ot 19.70 wete requirements imposed for the
state licensing of pesticide dealers and the county registration of "pest control
agents" (generally, pesticide salesmen). Legislation approved late in 1971 re-
quires that these agents, now to be called "pest control advisers," be licensed
by the state, but this legislation contemplates full implementation of an
examination and licensing system only by the beginning of 1974.
In addition to the Department of Agriculture, several other state agencies
have authority that does or could significantly govern the sale and use of
agricultural pesticides. Of primary significance for environmental protection
is the authority of the State Water Resources Control Board and its regional -
affiliates, the State Department of Fish and Game, and the State Air Resources
Board. Most of the eight San Joaquin Valley counties lie within the jurisdiction
of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, which in June 1971
promulgated an Interim Water Quality Management Plan. This includes some general
and some specific references to pesticide leveJs as part of the plan's "water
quality objectives," but within the region nothing has been done to establish
specific waste discharge requirements for most agricultural waste waters—
either for pesticide content or for other parameters. Action by the regional
board has been taken, however, to deal with potential hazards to ground-water
quality from the ground disposal of emptied pesticide containers. This major
current problem is dealt with in some detail in Chapter 8. In addition to these
efforts to protect water quality, the Depattment of Fish and Game has been active
where degradation of water quality has been deleterious to fish, plant, or bird
life. The State Air Resources Board, however, has given little attention to
pesticide problems, which from a practical point of view are not now officially
regarded as a' hazardous air pollutant in California.
It is impossible at present to pro1 vide, a complete assessment of the effects
in preventing environmental damage resulting from California's present regulatory
system for agricultural pesticides. The California Department of Agriculture has
emphasized its use of the registration syStfam to eliminate environmentally harm-
ful materials—in particular DDT, ODD, and mercury. There is little evidence,
however, that the Director of Agriculture has yet developed the "orderly program
for the continuous evaluation of all economic poisons actually registered" that
the legislature mandated in 1969. Attention seems to have been given to pesti-
cides "in the limelight," and intensive','"review ba= thus been on a "problem" basis
S-19'
-------
rather than the systematic and possibly problem-preventive basis anticipated
by the legislature.. As with registration, a review of successes claimed for
the permit control system used for "injurious" materials and herbicides indi-
cates that although this special system of controls has reduced or eliminated
problems in several instances, it has been used too often only after a pro-
blem has become critical. Both "injurious" lists seem in fact to have
"grown like Topsy," with no general criteria established that would allow
systematic advance determination as to which pesticides should be subject
to permit control and what kind of permit restrictions would be appropriate.
Two other general conclusions about California's permit control system
seem justified. One is that major initiatives in the agriculturally impor-
tant San Joaquin Valley have come from the state rather than from the various
counties, despite the possibilities which do exist for county regulatory
action. The other is that environmental considerations have been almost
entirely lacking in using the permit system to bring more precise control of
pesticide use. Typically, regulation has been undertaken because of pressure
from a segment of the agricultural world aroused over damage to crops from
pesticide applications. The only attempt in the San Joaquin Valley to use the
permit control system for environmental purposes occurred in the late 1960's,
when the insecticide Azodrin, widely used for the control of cotton pests,
inflicted considerable damage on wildlife. Chapter 8 includes a detailed
analysis of governmental reaction to this problem and of the failure of a
system worked out on the assumption that a solution could be found through
permit control tied to local consultation between the production-oriented
officials of county departments of agriculture and the resource-oriented
officials of the Department of Fish and Game. Evaluating the efficacy of
permit control of pesticide use, whether for environmental or for other
objectives, requires careful consideration of the administrative difficulties
inherent in operation of such a system—particularly in a large county with
intensive pesticide use. These difficulties are considered in Chapter 8
particularly noting recent changes in administration of the permit system
in Fresno County.
In addition to considering tho import^nc-.e for environmental protection
in the San Joaquin Valley of the pesticides registration system and the permit
control system for "injurious" pesticides, Cbapttr 8 attempts to assess the
S- 20
-------
significance of regulation of the pest-control business. Some entomologists
in recent years have advocated a "prescription only" approach to agricultural
pesticide use, and up to a point California is now moving in that direction.
Paradoxically, until very recently regulation has been aimed at the person
in a ppsition like that of a "pharmacist"—the professional applicator—
rather than at the person in the position of a "physician"—the recommender
of the pesticide or, mote broadly, the one who advises on what to do about a
present or threatened pest problem in a given field. Even with the applica-
tors, it is pointed out, the emphasis has been on air application, and the
system used to sanction violations of the law has been inadequate.
Four changes are suggested regarding regulation of the sale and use of
agricultural pesticides in California. These suggestions are based on twin
assumptions: 1) that, no matter how much advance research is done, some types
of environmental pollution cannot be precisely or perhaps even generally
foreseen, so that from an environmental point of view the less pesticide
used in agriculture the better; arid 2) that, particularly given the existing
apparatus for control of the pesticide inputs that may create pollution,
progress in rationalizing and improving the system for controlling inputs is
even more important than progress in direct regulation of agricultural
wastes with some pesticide content. The four changes suggested in Chapter 8
are : 1) closer control over grower (nonprofessional) use of the "noninjurious"
materials; 2) better enforcement where the law is violated by licensed and/or
registered professionals in different phases of the pest-control business—
with one possibility for improved enforcement being the development for
"minor" violations of an intermediate sanction which would have more meaning
than the present "slap on the wrist" notice of warning but would fall short
of the rather drastic sanction of license or registration suspension or
revocation; 3) consideration of reorganization of local responsibilities for
environmental protection, on a rationale similar to that which led to forma-
tion of the Environmental Protection Agency within the federal government
(the far greater difficulties of such action at the local level and the para-
mount need to preserve the present local field presence are, however, stressed);
and 4) reform of the provision of pest-control advice to growers to ensure
that pest-control advisers not only are technically competent (this would be
hoped for from the state examination and licensing procedures to be imple-
S-21
-------
mented within the next two years) but are also entirely independent in
making the judgment (which is as important as technical competence). True
independence requires that, in judging how best to deal with a particular
pest situation, all costs and benefits—social and environmental as well as
individual, long-term as well as short-term—be adequately weighed. It is
doubtful whether such independence in judgment can ever be achieved while
most professional recommenders remain employees of chemical companies, yet
this aspect of the problem is ignored in the current reforms providing
closer regulation of those who provide pest-control advice to growers.
The final section of Chapter 8 briefly considers litigation related
to the use of agricultural pesticides in the San Joaquin Valley. Little
such litigation has taken place aside from crop-damage litigation, and the
typical crop-damage suit does not raise important questions as to environ-
mental protection. Mention is made of recent litigation in three areas:
1) the availabilty to the public of work reports filed with agricultural
commissioners by professional applicators; 2) protection of the health and
safety of farm workers; and 3) the use of compound 1080 in rodent control
in Fresno County, which has given rise to what is apparently the first true
"environmental" lawsuit over pesticide use in San Joaquin Valley legal
history.
S-22
-------
FOREWORD
As a part of the pesticide study authorized ancl required by Section 5(1)
(2) of P.L. 91-224, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated
a series of case studies of different uses of pesticides in the natural environ-
ment. Each study illustrates and documents the movement and impact of pesti-
cides from the initial point of use, into the aquatic environment, and to the
point of ultimate effect on the ecosystem.
The present study, WA 71-567, is confined to the effects of agricultural
pesticides in the aquatic environment of the San Joaquin Valley of California.
Using all available information, this report evaluates pesticide use on irriga-
ted cropland and its impact on the valley's aquatic environment, in terms of
the following subject areas, specified in the contract by the EPA:
A. Inventory of uses
Bt Application techniques and types of pesticide materials being used
C. Route of pesticides into the water environment
D. Impact of pesticide pollution on the water environment
E. Degradation of pesticides and metabolites in the water environment
F. Alternatives used in area, and their degree of control
G. Regulations and laws governing the pesticides used
The study involved the following approaches:
1. Direct interviews.
University scientists, officials of federal and state agencies, and
county officials were interviewed to obtain their views on the subject
areas of their expertise.
2. Literature survey and review.
-------
The collection on pesticides In the Environmental Toxicology Library
of the Food Protection and Toxicology Center is the finest in the Western
States. Of particular importance to this study are specialized files
developed since 1966:
a. Pesticide chemical information file. This file contains technical
data from manufacturers and abstracts of articles selected on the
basis of their relevance to residue analysis, metabolism toxicology,
and pharmacology of pesticides, as well as the effects of these pol-
lutants in the environment.
b. Pesticide and environmental pollution subject file. This file contains
carefully selected reports, newspaper clippings, correspondence, and
articles on the effects of pollutants on man's environment (air, water,
soil, and food chains).
These two files formed the basis of our literature survey and review.
To ensure that all information available from 1950 to 1971 was adequately
covered, an examination was made of the following abstracting services:
Aquatic Biology Abstracts
Biological Abstracts
Chemical Abstracts
Pollution Abstracts
Selected Water Resources Abstracts
Soils and Fertilizers
Water Pollution Abstracts
Weed Abstracts
In addition, documents issued by federal, state, and local agencies,
dissertations, and reports from industrial laboratories and universities
were examined.
Awareness of pertinent current literature was maintained by scanning
important primary journals as they arrived at libraries on the U.C.
Davis campus. Also, computerized search services available from the
Institute of Scientific Information were subscribed to for obtaining
current titles on pesticides in the aquatic environment. Weekly print-
outs of pertinent literature were provided throughout the contracting
period (July through November 1971).
The references cited at the end of each chapter represent only those
-------
publications that provide information pertinent to the subject coverage
of the present case study. It should perhaps be emphasized that it is
not the purpose of this report to list all available references on a given
subject, since they are usually included in the review articles cited in
each chapter. Our intent was to assess the current status of the pesti-
cide problem in irrigated croplands with due respect to the past findings.
3. Selective retrieval of pesticide use information from data bank.
A data bank on .pesticide use was established by the Department of Environ-
mental Toxicology and the Agricultural Experiment Station of the Uni-
versity of California, in cooperation with the California Department of
Agriculture. The information available, for use in both machine-readable
form and hard copies, is of two kinds:
a. Fresno County—The raw data of this file, emanating from pesticide
use reports in the County Agricultural Offices, cover the years
1968 and 1969. Each entry includes the following items: pesticide,
crop, pest, data, location, amount of pesticide, mode of application,
formulation, and area treated.
b. State of California—Becoming operational in January 1970, an elaborate
data-collection system has been gathering information on pesticide use
throughout the state. It makes current data available in machine-readable
form on a continuing basis. Quarterly and annual cumulations are
generated by computer and issued in printed form. Never before has
such an up-to-date compilation been possible anywhere in the nation.
It has proved to be an invaluable tool for research, teaching, and
decision-making purposes.
The development of this unique data bank was supported, in part, by a
National Science Foundation grand, GB-27398.
Chapter 8 of this report, Laws and Regulations Governing Agricultural
Pesticide Use in the San Joaquin Valley, was prepared by Harrison C. Dunning,
Acting Professor of Law at U.C. Davis. Professor Dunning specializes in
environmental law and personally interviewed each of the eight county agri-
cultural commissioners in the valley and selected members of their staff.
Officials in several other state and county agencies were also interviewed in
the course of preparation of this chapter.
3
-------
CHAPTER 1
THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
The San Joaquin Valley of California, the area selected for this case
study, comprises the major portion of eight counties in the central and
southern part of the state: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madtia, Fresno,
Kings, Tulare, and Kern. This 13,000-square-mile valley is surrounded by
mountains on three sides: The Sierra Nevada on the east, the Tehachapis on
the south, and the Coastal Ranges on the west. The north end of the valley,
in San Joaquin County, meets the southern end of the Sacramento Valley, which
is similarly surrounded by mountains on the east, north, and west. Thus, a
large part of California's land mass is in the shape of an oblong bowl with
a single huge central valley formed by the Sacramento Valley, in the north,
and the San Joaquin Valley, in the middle and south.
The northern part of the cencral valley is drained by the Sacramento
River and its tributaries, flowing generally southward. The natural drainage
of the middle of the valley includes the San Joaquin River, flowing from east
to west out of the Sierra and then north until it meets the Sacramento in a
large delta west of Stockton. From the delta, the waters of the Saorauento
and the San Joaquin flow in a westerly direction to the sea, through Suisun
Bay and the Golden Gate. This break in the coastal mountains between San
Francisco and Marin Counties provides the only sea-level route into and out
of the central valley. A low east-west ridge divides the San Joaquin Valley
in half, and the southern portion (referred to as the Tulare Basin) has no
natural drainage outlet. Figure 1.1 shows the land forms of California.
The primary natural source of water in the central valley is precipitation
from moisture-laden air from the Pacific Ocean. The western slopes of the
coastal ranges remove most of the water from the lov;er air masses, resulting
-------
1 'U-v-^uf^
&^fM!m
W vr /f
f\ 4'.*Vt J «^ c S '
v\v*l|l'- " fl N «
l»l5A\'
\?^<-''Vl* V!' "'v -\'<
i^*"-i£^\v\»i^ ^
••4T
Fioure I.I
IWDFORMS OF CALIFORNIA^ (
-------
in very low rainfalls on the western side of the San Joaquin Valley, as shown
in Figure 1.2 (Durrenberger, 1970). The higher mountains in the northern and
eastern rims of the central valley, however, extract huge quantities of wa>:er
from the upper levels of the atmosphere.
It is estimated that each Californian requires almost 200 gallons of water
daily for domestic and industrial purposes, and 1,300 gallons for agricultural
purposes. The water-supply problem in the central valley and in the state
is not one of insufficiency but of maldistribution: most of the rainfall
and runoff are in the north and east, while most of the population, industry,
and agriculture are in the south ard west.
Early attempts to irrigate the San Joaquin Valley depended on the diversion
of water from the San Joaquin River and its tributaries} arising in the Sierra
Nevada on the east side. The quality of this water was excellent, but the
quantity proved insufficient to meet the demands of a burgeoning population
and the agricultural potential of the region. Fanners then turned to pumping
ground water to supplement the shortage of water from surface sources. By
1930, more than two million acres were under irrigation, and the valley had
reached the irrigation capacity of this system of streams and wells. In
addition, the growing practice of pumping groundwater for irrigation purposes
gave rise to drainage and salination problems, as discussed by Pafford and
Price (1969).
By contrast, the Sacramento River and its tributaries were carrying far
more water than could ever be used in the northern part of the state. In the
1930's the State of California and the U.S. Government joined to develop a
system to carry the surplus water from the north to the south. The principal
features of the initial plan provided for Shasta Dam, on the Sacramento, to
regulate flows and generate electricity, and Friant Dam to catch and store
the natural flows of the San Joaquin and divert most of it north and south
-------
WEST-EAST CROSS SECTION
•77? SIERRA NEVADA
WHITE MOUNTAINS
CQAST RA
Figure 1.2 Rainfall along East-West Profile of California
(Durrenberger, 1965)
-------
along the east side of the valley. Irrigation water for the wast side of the
valley was to be obtained by pumping water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin
Delta into the north end of a canal which would run for 117 miles, emptying
into a pool at Mendota. From the Mendota pool, this water would flow back to
the delta in the San Joaquin stream bed. The initial project has been supple-
mented over the years by the construction of many other dams, canals4 power
plants, etc., as shown in Figure 1.3.
The most ambitious supplement to the initial plan is the combinaticn of
the California Aqueduct and the San Luis Canal. The latter is a federal project,
The northern portion of the California Aqueduct is west of and roughly parallel
to the Delta-Mendota Canal, carrying water from the delta to O'Neill Forebay.
From the forebay, water is pumped into the San Luis Reservoir for storage, and
irrigation water is provided in the San Luis service area of the west side cf
Fresno and Kings Counties. At Kettleman City, water from the south end of the
San Luis Canal flows into the southern portion of the California Aqueduct, pro-
viding water for the west side of Kern County, at the south end of the San
Joaquin Valley, and for pumping over the Tehachapis into the Los Angeles Basin.
As this segment of the California Water Project nears completion, it is
evoking strong reactions from a number of sources: from those who think that
large agricultural landholders on the south and west side of the valley are
getting disproportionate benefits; from those who think that the availability
of additional water in Los Angeles will compound population growth and conges-
tion in that area; from those who think that the diversion of additional lar»e
quantities of water from the delta will upset the ecology of that unique area
and degrade the quality of water flowing from the delta into Suisun, San Pablo,
and San Francisco bays.
For many years there has been concern about the effect of large-scale
irrigation on the water table in the San Joaquin Valley and on the quality of
8
-------
proceed with the section of drain that would connect Kesterson Reservoir with
the Delta.
With all of these developments, California has approximately one-quarter
of all the irrigated land in the United States, and irrigation of these 8
million acres accounts for more than 85 percent of the water use.d in California.
Irrigation districts hold an important place in the history of water develop-
ment in California. Many develop and distribute water for agricultural con-
sumption, while others provide solely domestic and industrial service. The
250 members of the Irrigation Districts Association handle about two-thirds
of all the water developed in the State and distributed for any purpose.
Land use projections for 1975 anticipate that the San Joaquin Valley will
contain over half of the state's irrigated cropland and about half of the
state's total cropland.
The principal reason for this irrigation system is the intense agri-
cultural production of the state and the valley. California, with a gross of
$4,640,000,000 from agriculture, has for 22 consecutive years been rated
the number one farming state in the nation. The state commercially produces
about 250 crop and livestock commodities, aside from nursery crops. With
less than 3% of the nation's farms, California produces 25% of the nation's
table foods, 43% of the nation's vegetables, and 42% of the nation's fruits
and nuts. It also accounts for 20% of the nation's fiber production. Of the
eight counties in the valley, six were in the top ten counties of the United
States in value of farm production according to the 1964 U.S. Census of Agri-
culture. Three of these counties—Fresno, Tulare and Kern—led all U.S.
counties.
Irrigation has, indeed, increased the acreage of cultivated land and has
contributed to increased yields on previously cultivated land. The San Joaquin
-------
receiving waters. These problems were reviewed at the Seventh Congress of the
International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (Pafford and Price, 1969);
As long as irrigation development in the San Joaquin Valley was
limited to east side areas using the good quality water from the east
side tributaries, there were relatively few areas of either high water
tables or poor water quality. There were very low concentrations of
salts in the water and such salts as were present moved easily down
through the permeable soils and into the deep ground-water aquifers
and thence to the valley center. A small problem did develop on the
west side near Los Banos where water of the San Joaquin River was
diverted on to the older, tighter basin soils. The problem was chiefly
one of high water tables near the valley trough, however, and was solved
by providing drainage outlets to the San Joaquin River.
When deep-well pumping reached major proportions, west side drain-
age problems became more severe because of a combination of factors
unique to the west side. The west side soils are tighter than those of
the east side; the west side soils contain nearly impervious strata; and
the ground water is appreciably more salt laden than the waters of the
east side surface streams. The importation of up to 1,541 million m3
(1,250,000 acre-feet) per year from the. Sacramento Valley again increased
the total water application, the amount of land under irrigation, and
the total salt application. The increase in salts resulted from the
fact that in transiting the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, the supply
from the Sacramento River picked up local Delta agricultural return
flows and return flows carried into the Delta by the San Joaquin River.
In 1967, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration published a
study (U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1967) regarding
the probable effects of the state's proposed San Joaquin Master Drain on the
quality of waters in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and San Francisco Bay.
The report assessed the effects of drainage waters on the total dissolved
solids, total nitrogen, biological oxygen demand, dissolved oxygen, and tempera-
ture of the receiving waters. The report also concluded that the concentration
of pesticides in the effluent from a master drain would be approximately the
same as in the receiving waters of the Delta and the Bay.
In spite of the. desirability of a San Joaquin Master Drain, the state
portion of the project has been postponed indefinitely. However, a drain for
the San Luis service area is nearing completion, and the drain discharges will
be impounded in a reservoir at Kesterson. There is no present schedule to
10
-------
Figure 1.3 Water Distribution System, Central California
(Source: California Department of Water Resources
Bulletin No. 160-70, 1970)
11
-------
Table 1.1 Harvested Acres of Field Crops (1970)
Crop
Barley
Beans
Corn
Cotton
Hay
Alfalfa
Grain
Pasture
Fresno I Kern
195,000 100,000
11,858
21,500 3,000
167,000 171,000
150,000 124,000
2,000 9,860
Irrigated 85,000 20,000
Range
Other
Peanuts
Peas
Oats
Rice
Saf flower
Silage
Corn
Other
Sorghum
Straw
Sugar Beets
Sunflower
Wheat
Misc.
Total
1,300,000 2,612,000
129,000 116,000
2,500
19,000 1,900
80,000 8,940
10,000
3,500
19,000 43,000
37,040 36,600
45,000 43,000
1970 2,143,398 3.312,368
1969 2,185,197 3,322,733
Kings
110,000
22,000
93,000
66,000
2,500
18,000
300,000
70,000
1,100
25,000
8,000
3,000
20,000
11,450
37,000
145
787,215
785,402
Madera
31,600
3,900
11,600
36,800
48,500
2,200
45,600
502,000
1,700
1,250
280
3,800
5,000
1,520
6,000
701,750 ]
1
Merced
49,700
2,950
20,700
23,500
73,530
22,375
125,500
789,000
3,525
540
1,530
6,200
2,100
19,200
16,350
10,378
11,844
,174,'J93
,090,232
San Joaquin
58,000
16,120
33,000
61,800
13,800
85,850
141,400
112,900
3,220
7,050
4,420
36,000
2,100
25,400
3,821
8,580
630,401
627,260
Stanislaus 1 Tulare
26,000 75,400
32,420 7,000
3,000 11,500
118,400
41,300 100,000
19,750 4,100
82,000 22,400
400,000 900,000
2,060 5,000
690 3,500
1,960 545
1,190
30,000
8,000 30,000
4,180 12,310
700 11,000
1,200
653,260 1,329,245
655,270
Total
924,700
74,248
126,300
609,700
665,130
76,585
484,350
6,442,400
940,485
540
13,140
39,005
121,930
71,000
6.500
177,350
2,100
139,873
3,821
168,124
1,345
-------
Table 1.2 Harvested Acres of Fruit and Hut Crops (1970)
Crop
Almonds
Apples
Apricots
Avocados
Buahberries
Cherries
Citrus
Grapefruit
Lemons
Lines
Oranges
Navels
Fresno
6,416
472
130
273
128
9,660
Valenciaa 2,379
Tangerines
Figs
Grapes
Raisin
Table
Wine
Nectarines
Olives
Peaches
Clingstone
Freestone
Pears
Pecans
Persimmons
10.849
148,737
9,524
12,856
4,321
885
1,973
7,669
59
Kern
1,749
177
4,839
2,035
318
21,143
10,611
6,495
186
210
2,123
301
Kings
394
362
2,807
654
104
1,303
624
Pistachio Nuts
Plums
Pomegranites
Prunes
Quince
Strawberries
Walnuts
Misc.
Non-bearing
Acreage
Total 1970
1969
6,922
372
230
3,001
634
?
227,540
223,299
1,626
94
72
44,826
51,976
51,099
251
2,570
501
7
9,570
9,064
Madera1
10,345
52
62
4
18
52
3,310
2,865
28,240
511
8,577
185
785
1,401
1,257
1
17
18
2,314
430
2
1,133
61,779
Merced
21,864
1,289
33
58
29
2,525
5,497
201
7,534
229
134
7,716
2,899
104
957
3
7,206
40
15,643
58,407
5i,796
San Joaquin
20,012
3,223
8.085
21,708
22,111
42
197
6,659
1,165
1,046
492
74
21,600
15,025
106,431
102,421
Stanllslaus1
29,695
9,578
323
211
78
1
65
63
15
5.997
129
14,075
224
217
25,093
3,616
553
13
3
8
96
3
112
68
24,109
851
33,865
Tularel
3,578
183
248
237
57
148
3,433
5
57,246
25,098
1,210
161
34,485
27,125
7,731
3,888
14,263
3,520
2,971
109
245
305
9,430
932
4,033
76
23.544
13 7, i 21
Total
94,253
412
15,234
241
486
8,429
302
148
3,691
6
3,375
71,745
29,512
1,591
16,415
246,906
69,809
80,033
9.179
16,691
49,738
20,201
2,o;.o
30
323
2,627
19,351
1,404
5,102
76
375
33,163
2,076
75,494
1. Includes non-bearing acreage aa well as harvested acres.
-------
Table 1.3 Harvested Acre* of Vegetable Crops (1970)
Crop
Asparagus
Beans
Beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Chinese Veg.
Cora
Cucumber
Egg Plant
Garlic
Lettuce
Melons
Ginteluupe
Caaaba
Cranshaw
Honeydew
Persian
Wat erne Ian
Other
Onions
9eaa
Peppers
Petatoea
Pumpkins
Radishes
Spinach
Squash
Sweet Potatoes
Toroatoea
Turnips
Misc.
Tota?.
1970
1969
Fresno
350
120
275
160
300
5,733
25.000
100
350
410
40
400
950
650
750
325
680
12.240
25
3,325
52.183
54.435
Kern Kings
553
4.590
914
614
3,010
4,190 1,750
3.510
787 50
6.420
159
318
39.680 590
105
2.555 912
1,280 576
68.856 3,898
72,440 4,660
i
[ Naders Merced
2,630
736
220
3,680
30 700
1,110
500
292
1.50C
10 3,870
750 9,798
585
2,510 26,500
3,195 31,737
San Joaquin
26,245
1,680
100
18
770
400
125
1,500
440
63
495
230
291
1,530
2,070
4,535
880
1,865
962
435
320
32,500
2,650
76,904
86.30S
Stanislaus
8,910
77.0
435
815
20
900
2,590
150
1,020
853
1,230
3,640
990
400
2,060
60
330
9,090
4,080
JS.293
39,800
Tulare
317
1,857
12
3.10
67
170
35
745
30
448
110
66
348
615
148
1,248
6,526
Total
26,512
15,980
100
720
573
5,360
1,215
275
1.967
2,110
67
1,004
9,183
37.783
630
580
4,036
220
7,638
2.800
10,780
8,900
3,478
44,260
1.362
750
2,060
968
5,115
69,113
25
32,496
-------
Table 1.4 Harvested Acres of Seed Crops (1970)
Crop Fresno Kern Kings Madera
Alfalfa 60,v686 11,367 4,606 800
Barley 5,243 5,487
Beans 300
Cabbage 60
Canteloupe
Carrot 135
Clover 140
Cotton 8,105
Cowpeas 861
Grain 1,160
Oats
Wheat 400
Lettuce 75
Onion 230
Ornamental
Potatoes
Squash
Vegetable 3,102 173
Misc. 46,182 376 1,352 80
Total
1970 123,318 13,9'<7 1.1,845 1,800
1969 63,196 9,685 2,300
i
Merced San Joaquin Stanislaus Tulare Total
100 85 1,877 79,521
404 11,134
1,957 6,940 11 9,208
60
93 93
135
1,272 460 1,872
8,105
861
6,470 7,630
19 19
125 525
75
230
385 385
960 960
58 58
360 3.431;
110 1,720 49,820
2,318 li,272 4,057 559
i-,.-*-2 16,t'67 3,19'.
-------
and lives cock has risen ateadily. The principal uses of cropland in the
valley in 1970 were as follows:
acres
Pasture and range 7v867,235
Field crops 2,870,065
Fruit and nut crops 812,670
Vegetable crops 275,670
Seed crops 172,106
Except for pasture and range, the breakdown by crop and by county for
each of the remaining four categories can be seen in Tables 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,
and 1.4, which were obtained from the county agricultural commissions"
annual report.
To maintain the high quality of their agricultural products, and a high
level of productivity in the valley, the farmers there depend heavily on pesti-
cides to combat diseases, insects, and weeds. According to a recent report of
the U. S. Department of Agriculture, the use of pesticides has accounted for
10-15% of the increase in farm output in the nation since 1940, and also is
responsible for $2-2.5 billion of the annual saving in production resources.
It has been estimated that approximately 20% of all pesticides sold in the
United Stetes are aold in California, and 50% of the pesticides used in
California are applied in the San Joaquin Valley.
References, Chapter 1
Durrenberger, R. W. 1965. Patterns on the land. Palo Alto, California,
National Press Books.
Pafford, R. J. and E. P. Price. 1969. A disposal system for agricultural
waste waters in the San Joaquin Valley of California. Transaction of the
Seventh Congress of the International Commission on Irrigation and Drain-
age, Mexico City, 1969. (R. 30, Question 26).
U. S. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. South West Region
Central Pacific Basin Project. 1967. Effects of the San Joaquin Master
Drain on water quality of the San Francisco Bay and Delta. San Francisco
U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
16
-------
CHAPTER 2
INVENTORY OF USES
Recognizing the inaccessibility of data on pesticide use, the University
of California Agricultural Experiment Station, in 1969, initiated "A Study of
Chemicals Released in the San Joaquin Valley." Fresno County was selected for
a pilot effort because it is not only the t;op .county in agricultural production
in the United States, but also the biggest consumer of pesticides among the
counties of California.
Under the aegis of this study, a data bank on pesticide use was developed
from information contained in pesticide use reports filed in the Fresno County
Agricultural Commissioner's Office in 1968. These reports are required for all
pesticides used by licensed agricultural pest-control operators and for all
grower-applied pesticides that are on the list of injurious materials. A particu-
lar pesticide applied by the grower that was not on the list of injurious materials
is not necessarily recorded in the data bank. This portion of our data bank in-
cludes 43,149 records of agricultural pesticide use in 1968 in Fresno County.
In collaboration with this study, the California Department of Agriculture
developed an elaborate system for collecting and processing the same type of
information on pesticide use on a current basis for the entire state, starting
in January 1970. The report form for agricultural use of pesticides is shown
in Figure 2.1. The unshaded portion is the copy forwarded to the California
Department of Agriculture. When these reports were received in Sacramento, the
following data were encoded and punched onto c&rds: the chemical; commodity or
crop; pest (up to a maximum of 3); location (county, township, range, and section);
date of application; acreage; mode of application (aerial, ground, or other);
formulation type; concentration of active ingredient (in percent or in pounds
17
-------
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
PESTICIDE USE REPORT
P.C.O.
Covnty No. Towmllip
Rang*
Section
Bcne &
Meridian
Dated) Applied
Supplier
Brond(i)
Total Acreage
or Unif« Treated
11
Commodity Treated
Peit{») Treated
10
Method of Application
Ground Air
Other
12
Volvm« Per Acre
13
\USTOMERV \ \
v\\\
~ X ^ ^» • X V|
A«nCATO« 4 Nd^ \~ \1 PCTMIT Nbl
?. \ \. \. \ r^? \
00
14
Material (i)
Applied
Formula-
tion
15
Concen-
tration
16
Rate per
Acre
17
Total Amount of
Material Uwd
18
•"BATE OPiCHARGcV \ \\
\ \ \ \ \ \
VCVVVVVVx
Figure 2.1 Pesticide Use Report
-------
per gallon); and the rate of application per acre. Each record was then sub-
jected to various verification procedures, and when a record showed an unregistered
use, a report was sent to the county agricultural commissioner for appropriate
action, such as sampling the treated area for residue analysis.
In addition to the reports on agricultural uses of pesticides, the 1970
files include records on pesticide use for residential and structural pest control,
insect vector control, and uses by governmental agencies. Monthly and quarterly
summary reports are published by the state (California Dept. of Agriculture,
1971). When the records for 1970 were completed, the entire file of the state's
data, comprising 677,662 records, was entered into our data bank. For the
present case study, the records for the eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley
were extracted from the file and subjected to various verification routines.
This initial search yielded 207,140 records. Of these 29,363 were found
to be artifacts entered into the file by the state to facilitate the generation
of its various reports and summaries. For example, each agricultural record
contains space for three target pests. However, for certain data manipulations,
it was convenient for the Department of Agriculture to enter duplicate records
into the file when there was more than one target. These duplicate records
were readily identifiable, and had to be taken into consideration in certain
summaries, but they did not represent records of separate pesticide use. Of the
remaining 177,777 records, 69 (.04%) were eliminated by our verification procedures,
for reasons as follows: unreasonable dose rates, as explained below (54); in-
ternal inconsistency between dose rate and total amount applied (6); application
in 1971 (7); erroneous chemical code (2).
On the basis of type of user (and consequently, the source of the report)
the 177,708 records in the 1970 San Joaquin Valley file can be broken down into
four groups, as shown in Table 2.1. Agriculture accounted for 88% of the
records in the San Joaquin Valley file, and accounted for 91% by weight of
19
-------
fML U» V
CUPClH
PHCKAU
CNLUHUPI
OUT MID*
otr*utf U
kftNkB
MtThTL f
DUU1
0(»(,THO»U
01AJ1HON
AK11 HULL
PNOMLOhC
IVMHCM U1LI
L Uli
lL
tiL
1C*
IUS»1
16ii
6« 5
it ;
Jt *
zv a
J* 2
2 %
4 i
>|9»
673V
JZ95
27i
1*77
101V
1612
26S1
79
154)
3J6«
t89
65*5
16J!
3'*
2646
1022
411U
94
J'.
0
1614
iiu
7/1
10*6
J615
I91i
16(
31U
itse
90V
r 7
129V
485
JUU.t
65
IBJ
274
I6U2
106
161
2167
3T|
42u
40»
497
2*
I3«j
I486
1SU2
6*i
674
ru
54
212
*}
977
2*B
171
122
tut
28 J
1)6
1320
lt«6
4*2
334
*ie
298
4t)»
64
JIB
?t?
2
U7
24*
to
12V
ajv
»>9
2*
76
¥7
t
u«7i i.e.
57 J4«a,s
«92C9a.a
81110. i
r657*r «»
«Q*Vfli,t
B6378V,) t
02U4y?,A
/557ji,3
510*41. i
67*34*..< s
•47418, i
•21948, S
J934&3»B
34>2r9,T
30325?.9
»26I)'.7
324361,0
/7*D47,2
2»912B,e
251*11. J
4*8406,0
24282U»T
201t92«4
1?17U4.1
l««»W, J
!»•»* IN 1
Jf»4--),4
7i»,0 117
462,1
1»5J#8,5
l>Vt«V.2
12'2M,«
iiairtti
woru.i
»r j»», i
tj)«o.r
»»52*.l
9104 l.»
922>.«
•Ji4B,B
mrv.i
**r*«,6
*6fl',«
TiSIJi*
M2*>i«
'2111,9
rur«4,o
69*00.4
*»6Ud
6U749.)
6I«9A*2
6U06U.9
4Q661.J 1
i»r»»,i
»n*a,T
5*207. (i
)>442.»
121*1. t 1
»JS4^.r
5t*d?,0
«»rjv,f
• 4211 .3
4»?9j,;
4I»»lt«
I»«0*i6 1
)'*!«.)
Jil2U.6
J/011,5
>**rr,6
i»4r»,r
14976,0
14)47. »
12*16. r
izor.A
I9s;g,r
2»*MtO
3 1 1 'J i . 1
2rajj.i
2r)«««i
14042.4
*J24.o ]
>2«r*4 1
Z?r2», 4
1C66U2
31096.0
jnue,6
zyte*,s
ms3,a
19)06.5
IS512.J
101*6.1
0 • U 0 O.i)
O.u 2 »V,2
0.0 6 lSiO.0
U.U J
OtU
O.V
t3r« a^
o,c
0uo
2 « 2 'j . o
2 210. (y
1 4u.U
3 7.0
IT 10067. b
11 52.2
2 lU.k
5 1B7.B
1 tc.u
0 U.U
1 I >U
2 J».U
U 112i.2
23 124.4
0 U.U
0 OiO
118 U267.8
0 UiU
0 U|0
u u.u
0 U.U
> 100 9
2 16. V
2 612. t
1 2b.tf
0 U.U
0 U.U
5 143. U
2 16. V
18 2261J.3
0 U.U
C OtU
f it*
• I««U
u u.u
U 0*0
0 U.U
8 127*1. U
1 207 ,U
0 ,U
0 ,b
0 iti
I1 iU
o ,u
37 (54 .8
0 til
It 27V ,t
b ,n
I .6
0 ,U
0 .(,
0 ,tl
0 ,lt
0 ,U
b/ j>7J<;¥»«6
!i ^oiV5» v,«
66 < ' 6010 1 -V
1UJ* 6 |u»5.r
jjv5 N revf.e
1» ir ".1<:«1 1, i
joy^ j;'avv^.!-
1V8 ^MCiJ.t
jlbl^ ^J66SC.i:
*16l <1/40V.1
3Ci ^Ull'/'.i
2706 i«lf*J, 1
» 1 i 1 1 D S !> V . *
1 1 Ji 14>J7 1 .6
5 1 1 b 1 '.' i J • w , 1
6U4 9«U.>/.*
ijyu eut«,e
3204 7V6J*tV
IttJ 75BJJ.V
2/J i'fiti.t
1602 7/iJJ.S
lf» 7V704.V
lev 7uuj7,b
4^7 4A61^,1
lifrC 57^«.j
6/4 >J>4^.f
78 5I9/-.2
1012 «22U^.6
Itlft 37AV/.f
14U 373«W.o
lUl JCOtl.b
28 fl J6*iO,^
U7 3i*l,e,v
1^4 3,/
Jj« j^*5/.6
4^ Ji^J*,J
If 3J.V
12 21. I/ ,/
84 2151*,*
65 A'lpy.}
2 1V55J.P
7 lvJofr.5
V 105U.J
IOJ60. J.
20
-------
!«>!« 2.1 - Contlnu*
Subitinci Agricultural Vector Control Btructuril and
1 • . 1«.1J..C1.1
• •I" III 11922. 1 O.U
IPY4N 99 17791.1
lO»*29 tJ iroit. 9
I*}U lint .UIIMI 199 1*951.5
no-Mil 12 16474,1
IINl UHOl ||0 16)42.1
COPPtM UlYCHLUMlOl 19 1171.2
«<2*«-0») HI 14719,1
'«• 211 11111,0
OltLOMH t|| 1U!7,1
•NliNIC ICIV 19 11799,1
»I1*«I» 11 5 11919,0
*MN*1K 1 110,0
111 199 11179.1
IM*OIIL* 100 11191.1
H«l« 157 10111,0
000 15 1040S.5
••t»EllU« CKlUHlOt 2 117,9
OKOMIt 99 9971,7
'IMC 0 0,0
CMUOI SP 199 9*91,1
llnll 111 9171,0
IPC 91 9lt*.l
1>*>9>T 102 1910,7
111 17 9171,1
CimiU 1 1199,0
I1DII1II III 1579,0
Old* 2* 2909, 5
C»LU»l»l 0 0,0
CNDUtntll 509 1021, 1
0»t» 90 7941,2
•OllttCt II 7796.1
gg»Un 21 7999,2
*LO«1« 1 11,1
1C* 29 2911.7
POT*II1U« MIIKlll 29 4919,1
C1NYLINI UICHIUNIU 6 ttll*0
fUU« 17 1509,9
POIYNM 19 1120. 1
OIC*HI* lit 912 ,1
melon miNMi a tot ,o
•I) COM fUUIIO 5 575 !o
CPU 10 519 .6
l*roon o ,0
l*0n 119 9272,1
AnngnltiM NIHATI 9 9i40,o
**p*n o 0,0
pn*nl Jpl/PRUMLIUHl 21 124*,*
nJflNCllun 91 1742*1
llUltn 91 4111,9
OMP *nini tUTI 22 «»M,I
ntnutntii lui7«n lot *lll,t
inongitnu in 4119,9
OICHTl 1 4000,0
iliimtiic icu tu loii.o
lUOlOX POlYtUUIUl II 1111,1
Mill* 79 1111,0
nuntlim 99 17)9,7
goTMAN 19 1912,1
•T««l« 290 1921,1
PCP 1 201,0
UMtigil 209 1117,7
MNUUN 19 17 1011* I
M*CIMIY i 1117,7
CUTOn** 20 1112,7
pnoniinint it i*7t,o
CMION ItTMCniUHl 1 1919,0
OU*»I» 0 0,0 9
melon NIY«*IC I 1190,0
**nngu 10 1711 >t
TtMllUN 1 2*91,0
UNMlm 11 101*, 1
colon i 1110,0
•IP 1 111,0
ONar-u»BP nuium 9 inu.o
1»*OC> in 14 2119,0
HYV*H 11 1419,2
tlKtl 12 lltO.O
giHirHgpNinui, 20 2097,2
iggiiin nni»u o 0,0
tOOlUn PCP 9 1764,1
0*1*11 n i I7ii,i
Tonuun 7 ui,i
CNIUP.UNIB 9* 7*9,1
ruun 9 ist 1,1
no«wnu> 7 iii.i
line ntMMtu 10 1111,1
Oil 01 ClYIUUll* 1 1150,0
llnoinc 14 io*,t
TtUfd IN II 479.1
•guwcnun u 1107,1
YDYtotn. icu I li.i
gicMini 70 iioo,*
•»tic com" itngo it ioo>,o
>!!•« 0 0,0
i*itg i 914.*
riMOOt 11111*11 97 911, •
21MC PNWWmgt, 1 21*
41*11 1 712. |
gngcNp 9 007,
con-in uiiiu-icii 7 it*,
tuoiu* ,iuo»iuc*t * in.
l*luon. it ||4,
llMMIlln 1 110,
gn*P * 717.
INUTHVlCllC OLYeUL 1 791,
OYMtt • 710,
N*PH|H 4UT1C ICIO 17 709.
»ll*N»l.H*t»«lOUlP 25 t*l.
IMP* * 194.
CIPC • • *».
dim 0 417.
0*0
0*0
o.u
0.0
0.0
0.0
.0
• 0
• 0
,0 99
,0
,0
57 .0
,0
>0
*0
.0
,0
0,0
0*0
0*0
Ot*U
0 ,U
11,0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0 1
19.9
0*0
0*0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0*0 99
0,0
,0
,u
.0
.u
!o
49 .9
1 511 .0 14
.0
1199.0
0*1,
0,0
0,0
0*0
0*0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0*0
0,0
0,0
11,2 1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
2447.7 91
0,0
0,0
0*0
2**0 2
0*0
51.*
0*0
0*0
242.7
O.U
0,0
19,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0 51
0,0 1
0,0
0,0
0*0
0*0
0,0 1
0,0
0,0
o.u
It*. 4
o.u
0.0
o.u
o.u
o.u
o.u
0.0
o.u
9*0
0*0
0.0
0.0
O.I
0.0
0.0
0.0
0*0
1192.
0.
0,
0.
I9BI*
0.
0*
2619,0
0.0
0*0
,0
*0
*0
• 0
tO
tO
0*0
0,0
171,0
0,0
0*0
2101*0
11.1
117,5
0.0
0.0
0,
0*
0.
7156.
4,
0,0
0,0
0,0
0*0
110,0
1,0
1421,0
0.0
0*0
11.2
0.0
*.o
0,0
2*1.2
0,0
1*0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0*0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
70,*
0,0
111,1
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
411,9
0,0
0,0
0,0
417.1
0.0
2115,0
0.0
0.0
22t.<
551,1
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0,0
177,1
0,0
225.4
0,0
0.0
904,1
711,1
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
91*. 1
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
P*0
.0
.0
.0
O.U 0 .0
0.0 0 .0
c—,^,..
0 0*0
0 0*
0 0.
0 0*
U 0*
U 0*
0 0.
0 U.
0 0.
47 11744.
1 1*
0 0*
0 U.
91 7741.
U O.U
0 0.0
5 169,5
0 U.O
* 9221,0
0 0,0
9 *92B,2
0 0*0
2 1.2
0 0.0
9 2)06,7
0 0*0
1 2*9
0 0.0
0 0.0
I 5101. •
1 1127,5
2 1,1
0 0*0
0 0,0
0 0*t
1 0*1
21 I041.9
0 0,0
0 O.u
0 0*0
0 0*0
10 955,1
1 0.1
0 0*0
0 0*0
1 19*t
0 0.0
0 0.0
II 4925.0
7 2059.7
0 .0
0 .0
0 ,0
0 .0
1 .0
0 .0
U .0
o .0
0 .0
1 .0
0 >0
0 ,0
15 1119.4
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0,0
0 0.0
0 0.0
2 41. u
1 140.0
0 U.O
0 0.0
0 U.U
1 196,1
12 107,1
0 0.0
20 1771.2
0 O.U
0 U.U
21 1919,1
0 0,0
0 0,0
17 1079. V
0 0,0
0 0,0
1 11,2
2 1.4
0 0.0
11 1015.4
0 0*0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0,0
0 0,0
67 911.9
1 0.1
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0,0
1 lit
0 O.U
0 0.
" 0.
0 0.
0 U.
U 0.
u u.
0 U.O
0 U.O
kcorot 1 t
IB1
»7
9
1 9
2
1 0
1
I
26
142
)
• 9
• 99
9UU
162
15
*
9*
<
1*9
201
51
119
B7
291
9
171
96
1
5«>
io
II
21
406
49
2
9
4
IB
1
5
»7
225
16*
I
11
• 0
9«
94
22
104
119
1
All
II
79
1UO
15
250
92
205
55
20
96
6
911
10
1
56
2
11
9
l«
21
27
20
21
5
4
21
II
>
90
20
590
19
12
II
70
21
II
4
11
49
>
1
1
2
OJ«.fc
(1)1 "
70)0 '
ob56
6476
6}<><
5U6
4tt*
Hit
i'>3
254!>
142U
1175
l.al
lu«5
U6U9
Ollu
V9I2
9*211
945]
9«7«
V46I
9*09
91M
B97B
1909
B59U
B991
B927
Bull
79I«
77V6
75VJ
71oC
rou*
6963
6«11
650b
6128
tin
Hlf'j
575U
96*4
5115
9272
914V
1925
475V
4742
111*
1571
4215
4127
40UU
9914
9tl2
9141
1759
1942
9521
9421
9IB7
9141
i 1 if
9112
2*76
2*1*
2014
2I9U
2711
2««B
2406
25UV
2J75
22BU
2249
2199
211V
2097
17I>
1714
I79«
I70U
III'
1561
1179
1112
I99U
lluu
1222
lluf
104
too
100
9B
91
91
91
<2/
«U7
B64
Bit
*26
tlu
111
756
71U
7U9
696
6>*
640
647
21
-------
:«ble 2.1 - Continued
**.*«**
~~fTc
Tnnm • ' — r
SbltAuCNt
CUPftM CANflUNAU 1
ZIMC COPP-IR
MAUtX
PIVAl
CNOR1M 2
D«QC
AtfAlFA UEtl
SODIUM NtlAWQMME
BlNUl 923
LANBAM
&TRTCNN1NC
NPA
PIN1ANE
1080
Nti CODE FOUhD 1
DDVP
tlNtlAK
A2AK
HUTKOPWUS C B C
TCTMhAN
VCRkAN
TN1NAH
ANNUM 1*
NU tOUC FOUND
2*4*0(01 lit TNYtANlN
Pfc[N01 H1A2INE
CPA
HilHYtlbUlHlOCTANA
AVUHUt 200 5
LtAU
MRMON |
PHOSTUUW t
• ARtAMIfc
KURUN
OlOWAT
NAA* &ALT
URt&AN L
KARATHAhl
DTFDNATi
Ml CODE FUUNC
B1MAPACNTL
TftlPHCNHTIM NTORU
ETHUtMt UUHLOMZI) 1
CAftARtlN
rune At
N1ACJOE
COAA
CCRtftAh H j
PVRUMR1NS
B-H1RI
MVTRIIM 0
CALCIVR CVA*ANI1>1
ire
ALRUSIPT MBC
MBK RlPtlkENT 11
RATKATi
KLPUH1
FUMAR1M
TNlAtlKUUOLE
HYANIRE 1UX
RUTtNUNi
Hi TMtl NEKC BtftlUA
StNLIAN MIL
D1MITAN
*u.iu ruNftiu
BIN^EME
CYANOiftS
ottu on
ITAUTNBICI-
NOA
BUTUXU1MARUL
PUB
• llti «(»»• CbCNtH
BUTUIUU
AMNUHlUfc IHIQCTAHA
RCR0
SIRLPlONTCIli
CAIDMI
AKUklC ttflMVi
•CTALPtHTDE
NtCOPtl HCPr«
AURAMlht
01PHAC1M
MTPU
IMLLtUM SUIVAU
ABRISIRU
ITRTCHNlIlt VULF4TC
pint OK
LIBHASAN*!
OIANHUHIUM fHUifMA
ttBHANTtlh
tlAMlICIOE
FftUlTUNt 1, CUIUN
MR 2*4
UTAl 15684
*.rle«U«r.
orda | Pounde
«36,
6*0.
»*«!
563,
»«*
42l!
4.9*
399,
,
36 ,
34 ,
,
125,
g
322,
V.
243*
243,
23 !
23 ,
4 .
20 ,
3 .
7%,
Ht
40,
33*
31,
2U.
12*
116.
no.
103,
0,
60.
B9,
ru.
B4 i
51*
61.
60,
£*!
rs!
ra.
ro!
44 »
60,
90,
44,
40,
10,
2*,
U*
0*
21!
21*
20.
IB,
IB,
IB,
o*
12,
0,
10*
f,
«*
u.
•i
7,
0*
*,
s.
4(
0.
0,
V,
o,
0,
0,
o*
o.
o.
U.2
0*0
v
}
}
1
1
1
1
)
1
1
)
[
9
1
>
9
a
i
i
i
!
D
I
D
9
i
339
Vector Contcol 1
«cor(U 1 Pounds B
0,U
0,0
0.0
Q«0
0.0 10
0*0
o.u
0.0
o.u
0,0
0.0
0. 2?
c!
0,
0,
?2. 12U
0.
0,
0,
0,
0.
0*.
0,
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0 1
0.0
o.u
o.u
9,0
0,0 *
OtO
o.u
0.0
o.u
o.u
o.u
0,0
o.u
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0*0
0.0
1 0*0
0,0
o.u
o, e
0.
JJ!
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
26,
0,
0,
*o
.0
• u
.0
,0
0.0
0.0
3,1
0,0
0,0
0.0
0*0
o.u
0.0
0,0
0.0
• 0
a
"
,0
*v
o!
0,
o! 42
o
o,u
o,u
0,0
0,0
o,u
o.u
0.0
-. '»»*»'* .!>»_
Structure! and Cov*r»enl: Agaacleu
ecorda 1 Bounds ff^orda ] Poun^ ^
1 0.0 1 6,0 1
0. 0 0*0
0, U O.U 1
0, 0 ><*
0, 0 tU
0* 27 4J ,2 1'
0* 0 .02
0, 0 *U
0* 0 *°
377* 0
0* 0 0.0
0. 0 !«
0* 0 ,0
0* 1 ,3
* 0 ,0
*o o o«o
.0 l 4.4
,0 0 0,0
;*? j a<- i
3.1 Q o.O
0*0 0 0*0
3*0 7 0,0 43
0,0 0 Q.Q
0,0 J 2*i
0.0 0 0,0
0.0 5 2.0
1.9 o 0.0
1*0 0 O.U
0.0 0 0,0
o.e o o.u
0.0 0 O.U
0.0 2 0,3
0.0 0 0,0
0.0 1 0,1
03J923.6 2299 4964436.7 l777bt!
:°::r
640,0
5VU.6
503,7
4 Jii , V
421,4
4)5,4
39V, 6
3?7,V
363,3
34J.6
342,2
346,5
1 334,2
*'l*,^
324,1'
322.6
29V, 4
26 J, t
?"v'?
2ie]2
2 Je ,o
22* ,0
2 1 'A , (i
102**
I/?!D
I7/.1
1*0, y
13J.U
U1.3
12J,0
it'.v
Ut.i!
llu.v
!«*'*
v«!&
«4.4
94,4
0V, 3
tie. «
fl*t , V
6f ,5
01,6
6U 0
JV,'£
1 1 , 9
76,0
'*.*
72.1
To. 4
70,0
6/4 ft
6U,5
bu'.D
46,0
44,0
43,2
30,0
30,0
If6, 3
26,0
26, U
24,0
21,4
10,6
16,*,
16,1
16,7
14. »
V,*
6,9
6,0
6,0
B.U
6.3
6,3
5*9
5.0
4.4
4*U
ill
3*0
3, If
2.9
*§5
2, i
i,0
1*9
1*U
0,9
0,7
U,4
0,1
22
-------
the materials reported; vector control accounted for 2% of the records and
2% by weight; structural and residential accounted for 9% of the records and L%
by weight; government agencies accounted for 1% cf the records and 6% by weight.
Mercury-treated seed is the weight of the treated seed, not of the mercury
compound itself. Mercurials will be discontinued for seed treatment after 1971
(Fielder, 1971), and only existing inventories of mercury-treated seed may be
used in 1972. This is probably the most reasonable method of disposing of these
hazardous materials. It might be noted, though, that the hazard associated with
these materials has been confused by certain widely-publicized incidents (Dunlap,
1971).
The discovery of excessive levels of mercury in commercial and game fish
in Canada and the United States in 1970 came at a time of extreme public sensi-
tivity to news about environmental toxicants. However, there is no reason to
attribute the "mercury problem" of aquatic and marine organisms to the cierc-iriai
fungicides used as seed dressings in agriculture. The principal source of mercury
in fish involves the conversion of elemental mercury to methyl mercury by benthic
organisms, and the incorporation of methyl mercury into the biota. Mining opera-
tions and the discharge of elemental mercury from certain industrial processes
such as the electrodes of chlor-alkali plants, are the most common sources
of mercury added to the naturally occurring environmental burden of this element.
In 1969 a farmer in New Mexico fed mercury-treated seed grain to hogs and
poisoned his family by feeding then the pork (Curley, 1971). Pathetic incidents
of this sort (Eyle, 1971) highlight the need for safeguards surrounding the
storage of any hazardous material and ways of guaranteeing that they will be used
only for their intended purpose. Whether such incidents should have had a sub-
stantial Impact on public policy concerning the legitimate use of mercurials for
the protection of seeds from fungi is another question.
A more common hazard of mercurial fungicides on seeds is the seemingly in-
23
-------
evitable poisoning of some nontarget organisms, including gaa:e birds, as they
consume the treated seed. This is a true environmental cost of such Lreacmeut-,
and should be included in cost-benefit calculations of mercurial seed-treataer.v.
Because the four categories of records in our data file differed slightly
in the nature of the information reported, and because of the particular focus
of the present case study, the agricultural records were studied in greater
detail than were the others. In addition, some of the materials reported in
Table 2.1 were considered of only secondary interest or importance for the present
case study because the materials were applied in relatively small quantities, or
were not considered to be pesticides (e.g., spreaders), or were not considered
particularly hazardous (e.g., petroleum solvents).
On the basis of the above-mentioned criteria, the forty-eight pescicioes
in Table 2.2 were selected for more intense study and additional verification.
The concentration and dose rate (pounds per acre) were checked for each record of
each of these chemicals. The present case study excluded those records that
seemed excessive and therefore most likely to contain errors (attributable to
misplaced decimal points, keypunch error, erroneous specification of pounds of
active ingredient per gallon of formulation, etc.). Such exclusion eliminated
fifty-four records.
On the basis of pounds applied of the forty-eight pesticides in Table 2.2,
the eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley are rated in following descending
order of pesticide use: Fresno» Kern > Tulare > San Joaquin > Kings > Merced >
Stanislaus » Madera. Of the total pounds applied, Fresno used 38.4%. The
counties are listed in Table 2.2 from north to south in the valley, from San
Joaquin County to Kern County. Heavy use of toxaphene and DDT is associated
with Fresno, Kings, and Kern Counties, in the central to southern portions
of the valley, where cotton is a major crop. Def-Defoliant, used to defoliate
cotton prior to harvest, shows a similar use pattern. The pesticides in fable
24
-------
Toxaphene
COT
Telone
D-D Mixture
Parathlon
Kelthane
Methyl Bromide
Carbaryl
2, 4-D
Malathlon
Phorate
Chloropicrin
Cuthlon
Def -Defoliant
Maneb
Methyl Parathion
Trifluralin
N> DBCP
*•" Endoaultan
Ethlon
Naled
Delnav
Slnox
Cap tan
Dylox.
Dlmethoate
Diaz inon
Azodrln
Sodium Araenlte
Dlayston
Propani ]
DNBP
Dalapon
Oml te
Dacthal
Sioazine
Carbophenothion
Paraquat
FoUld
Tetradifon
Phosphamidon
Tepp
Phoaalone
Table
2.2 S«
-------
2.2 are listed in decreasing order of total pounds of agricultural use. In
this sequence, Telone, D-D mixture, methyl bromide, and chlorop.lcrin rank 3,
4, 7, and 12. However, the total acres to which these four chemicals were
applied (the right hand column of Table 2.2) are comparatively small, While ".he
dose rate for other pesticides is typically in the range of one to throe pounds
of active ingredient per acre, these four compounds are commonly applied directly
to the soil at the rate of 100 pounds or more per acre for nematode control
(Lyndall and Mather, 1971). Parathion ranks fifth in Table 2.2, but is the
first of the organophosphorus pesticides in pounds used in the San Joaquin
Valley (and in California). With 10,835 agricultural applications in the valley
in 1970, parathion is also the most frequently used pesticide in Table 2.2. Its
high acute toxicity to man makes this compound a source of serious concern to
environmental and occupational health authorities.
For a view of the crops that are the principal users of chemical pesticides
in the San Joaquin Valley, Table 2.3 shows the top 26 crops in terms of the.
pounds of the 48 selected pesticides. When the same field received application
on more than ore occasion, its acreage was counted each time, and when more than
one chemical was applied simultaneously, each was entered separately in Table 2.3,
as if the constituents had been applied on separate occasions. The 48 chemicals
were used on a toal of 117 commodities or crops.
Pesticide treatment of the 26 crops in Table 2.3 used 10,361,638 pounds
of the 48 chemicals listed in Table 2.2. This is 98.5% of the eight-county total
of these pesticides (10,522,282 pounds). Thus, the use of the pesticides tends
to be concentrated on a comparatively few crops.
Cotton is the top crop in terms of pounds of the 48 pesticides applied in
the San Joaquin Valley, accounting for 30% of the total, in spite of the fact
that cotton production is concentrated in the southern and western part of the
Valley. One could speculate on whether government price-support policies might
26
-------
be inadvertently providing economic incentives to excessive pesticide use. If
the cost of the "externalities" of pesticide use could be estimated, then govera-
ment policymakers would be in an improved position to foster the judicious use
of pesticides.
Table 2.3 Some crops protected by chemicals
San Joaquin Valley, 1970
CROP
Cotton
Alfalfa seed
Fallowland
Oranges
Grapes
Tomatoes
Sugar beets
Almonds
Peaches
Sweet potatoes
Alfalfa hay
Potatoes
Barley
Beets
Beans, dry
Nursery plantings
Strawberries
Nectarines
Lettuce
Melons
Milo
Walnuts
Rice
Corn
Onions
Plums
Selected Pesticides
APPS
19,363
4,795
2,035
11,059
10,534
3,276
735
3,096
5,647
146
3,340
2,856
1,560
316
2,425
355
226
1,838
1,926
1,050
1,464
2,113
274
725
768
1,799
ACRES
2,087,176
635,934
179,849
299,529
377,941
229,620
82,804
147,774
144,537
1,504
388,734
237,816
243,438
25,923
166,855
19,998
2,008
29,805
109,902
97,196
110,537
55,768
26,927
66,024
39,533
28,355
POUNDS
3,181,577
1,018,566
765,614
696,267
651,482
504,514
408,699
332,060
321,611
319,382
315,751
278,938
175,546
166,588
152,662
139,400
136,213
127,216
99,921
95,248
990,661
90,099
76,973
76,066
73,883
72,701
The individual agricultural pesticide use records have space for one chemical,
one crop or commodity, and up to three pests. Table 2.4 shows the frequency with
which the chemicals listed in Table 2.2 were applied against particular pests.
When an application was directed against more than one pest, the application,
acres, and pounds were included in the totals for each pest in compiling Table
27
-------
Table 2.4 Some Agricultural Pests Managed by Chemicals
San Joaquin Valley, 1970
Pest
Nematodes, non-specified
Lygus bugs
Mites, non-specified
Worms, non-specifidd
Veeds, non-specified
Aphids, non-specified
Bo 11 worm
Scales, non-specified
Thrips, non-specified
Leaf Hoppers , non-specified
Stinkbugs , non-specified
Blight, non-specified
Twig borer-
Citrus Thrips
Pox
Artuyworms , non-specified
Brown rot
Fungus
Loopers, non-specified
Oriental fruit moth
Potato tuberworm
Corn earworm
Cutworms, non-specified
Peach twig borer
Beet armyworm
Mildew, non-specified
Insects, non-specified
Two-spotted spider mite
Dead arm
Disease, non-specified
San Jose Scale
Measles
Leaf rollers, non-specified
Omnivorous leaf roller
Leaf curl
Pink bollworm
Alfalfa weevil
Pea aphid
Moth, non-apecified
Potato Aphid
Selected Pesticides
Appls.
1118
10549
28336
11892
9877
8401
1184
5944
7248
6474
880
1781
2795
3061
81
1202
1298
471
1502
1755
1149
461
1382
992
230
876
229
242
408
32
953
277
613
300
343
' 52
448
98
403
172
Acres
29692
1383133
1662490
847273
868029
745134
180780
141150
256167
294954
127359
156246
103949
79784
754
106182
29168
26815
101326
50127
82497
43023
67628
32297
35256
31880
18988
65087
11864
912
22352
9742
23855
11311
7870
6466
35850
26448
23208
21014
Pounds
2343963
2193313
2139432
1362971
1353049
769255
439170
415440
3963t>0
310951
236168
209873
189712
174544
169822
160011
150380
150236
120166
87865
84235
83872
76127
71308
64820
62959
58098
56852
53209
52061
50630
49024
38772
30923
27754
25506
24969
24280
23413
21596
28
-------
2.4. Also, when the same field received application on more, than one occasion,
its acreage was counted each tine an application was made. When more than one
chemical was applied simultaneously, it was treated, in Table 2.4, the same as
if the constituents had been applied separately. Table 2.4 lists only the top
40 pests, in terms of total pounds of the selected pesticides. These chemicals
were used against a total of 169 different pests.
The pest list in Table 2.4 illustrates one of the limitations inherent in
the pesticide reporting system, viz., the limitations of those filing the reports.
Although the pest codes make provision for hundreds of pests, the broader cate-
gories, such as "mites, non-specified," are favored over more refined entomologi-
cal identification of the pests.
In August 1970, Chemical and Engineering News announced: "After eleven
years of uninterrupted growth, production of pesticides slipped 7.4% last year
to 1.1 billion pounds, according to a just-released report by the U. S. Tariff
Commission. Sales (at the manufacturers' level) were also down, amounting to
929 million pounds, valued at $851 million, compared to 960 million pounds,
valued at $849 million, in 1968." The announcement was accompanied by a graph
of pesticide production (Figure 2.2).
Pesticide output turned downward in 1969
1200
1000
800
600
BSD
1962
1964 1966 1968
Source: US. Tariff Commission
Figure 2.2
29
-------
In February 1971, the Agriculture Stabilization and Conservation Service
of USDA published "The Pesticide Review 1970," reporting increasing re-
strictions on and scrutiny of pesticide use, and the search for safer methods
of pest management. That report also quoted the U. S. Tariff Commission figures
referred to above.
In September 1971, the U. S. Tariff Commission published preliminary
figures for 1970. That report stated: "U.'S. production of pesticides and
related products in 1970 amounted to 1,034 million pounds—6.4 percent less than
the 1,104 million pounds reported for 1969. Sales in 1970 were 881 million
pounds, valued at $870 million, compared with 929 million pounds, valued at
$851 million, in 1969." Table 2.5 compares the 1970 use of some pesticides
in the San Joaquin Valley (all the uses shown in Table 2.1) with use for the
entire state of California, and with sales figures for the entire nation as
gleaned from the preliminary report of the U. S. Tariff Commission.
Detailed figures on the history of individual pesticide use in the San
Joaquin Valley are not generally available. Our agricultural file of pesticide
use in Fresno County for 1968, however, is comparable to the 1970 data, in
numbers of applications and acres. Table 2.6 shows changing patterns of pesti-
cide use, reflected in comparison between these two files of data.
Substantial reductions in the use of toxaphene and DDT in the San Joaquin
Valley between 1968 and 1970 are due to several factors, including cancellation
of their registration for use on many crops, increasing pest resistance, and the
availability of alternative chemicals.
Methyl and ethyl parathion showed substantial increases. These highly toxic
broad-spectrum organophosphorus insecticides have taken over a significant part
of the work for which DDT was formerly used. Phorate, another organophosphate,
showed a spectacular increase, and meta-systox, dimethoate, guthion, and ethion
all experienced notable increases in use.
30
-------
Table 2.5 Comparisons of Pesticide Use and Sales
Pesticide
1970 Use (1
San Joaquin
Valley
000 Pounds)
California*
1970 U.S. Sales
(1,000 Pounds)
Aldrin-toxaphene group: 1,796 3,483
Aldrin 7.2 53.7
Chlordane 8.4 661.3
Dieldrin 13.4 95.6
Endrin .4 12.9
Heptachlor 0.0 .5
Toxaphene 1,766.2 2,659.3
2,4-D groupb 303 1,217
84,225
59,700
Oithiocarbamic acid
salts:
Ferbam
Maneb
Met ham (Vapam)
Nabaas
Zlneb
Methyl parathion
DDT
Methyl bromide
Parathion
Kel thane
Carbaryl
Malathion
Phorate
Guthion
Trifluralin
Endosulfan
Ethion
Naled
Delnav
Diazinon
Azodrin
Propanil
Dalapon
Simazine
Paraquat
TEPP
Diuron
285
1.6
242.1
4.9
27.3
9.5
223
870
422
590
511
327
654
270
248
217
192
189
186
145
105
97
76
102
102
80
55
59
644 40,013C
4.2
503.2
9.4
42.6
84.6
930 39,869
1,165' 34,019
3,102 21,790
1,172 15,504
645
892
1,100
481
468
241
508
220
316
184
265
158
76
242
312
137
65
112
aTaken from California Dept. of Agriculture (1971), not directly
from the data bank.
Includes 2,4-D acid and its esters and salts.
c"Includes ferbam, maneb, metham, nabam, and zineb, plus the
remaining dithiocarbamates which are used chiefly as pesticides."
(U.S. Tariff Commission, 1971, p. 4).
31
-------
Table 2.6 Changing Patterns of Pesticide Use in Agriculture
Fresno County, 1968 and 1970
Chemical
1968
Apple.
Acres
1970
Appls .
Acres
Change
1968-70
Acres
Toxaphene
DDT
Parathion
Kelthane
Carbaryl
2.4-D
Malathion
Phorate
Gutblon
Maneb
Methyl parathion
Trlfluralin
EndoBulfaa
Kthion
Ma led
Delnav
Slnox
Captan
Dylox
Dimethoate
Diazinon
Azodrin
Propanll
Dalapon
Dacthal
Slmazlne
Paraquat
Tetradifon
Phosphamidon
TEPP
Diuron
Meta-Systox-R
3,915
3,584
2,009
1,803
1,216
747
1,216
69
384
52
1,083
578
1,358
60-4
1,209
446
134
135
1,504
621
2,267
2,418
88
59
15
453
631
489
206
603
120
403
624,329
521,786
113,567
113,952
20,816
116,968
87,549
11,108
11,195
2,076
108,440
51,916
157,817
36,081
65,586
12,624
12,303
1.869
226,844
60,875
5,159
276,612
10,175
3,376
1,119
12,493
66,375
20,904
10,597
39,092
4,858
5,288
2,241
2,645
3,571
1,281
679
784
980
1,082
1,415
158
1,686
824
1,074
1,184
1,674
470
427
242
354
975
356
536
88
182
26
446
1,017
403
157
806
172
458
321,446
309,118
161,650
111,449
22,034
104,797
73,219
116,912
46,143
4,506
167,468
81,322
89,778
67,023
83,177
13,662
38,508
2,872
41,562
94,690
9,443
61,691
10,337
11,546
2,077
12,822
111,002
28,412
7,223
57,250
10,079
62,144
-302,883
-212,668
48,083
-2,503
1,218
-12,171
-14,330
105,804
34,948
2,430
59,028
29.406
-68,039
30,942
17,591
1,038
26,205
1,003
-185,282
33,815
4,284
-214,921
162
8,170
958
329
44,627
7,508
-3,374
18,158
5,221
56,856
32
-------
In 1969, the San Joaquin District of the California Department of Water
Resources reviewed the records of pesticide use in Kern County for the period
1948 to 1968. The records yielded information on acres treated with various
pesticides, and showed the long-term trend of decreasing use of organochlorine
Insecticides and increasing use of organophosphorus and carbamate compounds.
Figure 2.3 is taken from their report.
The dramatic decline in the use of azodrin between 1968 and 1970 is associated
with its adverse effect on wildlife, and increasing restrictions on its use.
This case is discussed in detail in the final chapter of the present report,
Some herbicides that made noteworthy increases in use during the two-year
period are paraquat and trifluralin.
References. Chapter 2
Anonymous. 1970. Pesticide Output Turned Downward in 1969. Chera. Eng. Mews
48(33):15.
California Dept. of Agriculture. 1971. Pesticide Use Report 1970. Sacramento,
Dept. of Agriculture.
California Dept. of Water Resources. 1969. Indications of Changes in the
Manufacture, Use and Water-Borne Concentrations of Agricultural Insecticides
Sacramento, Dept. of Water Resources.
Curley, A., et^ _al., 1971. Organic Mercury Identified as the Cause of Poisoning
in Humans and Hogs. Science 172:65-67.
Dunlap, L. 1971. Mercury: Anatomy of a Pollution Problem. Chem. and Eng.
News 49(27):22-34.
Eyle, T. B. 1971. Alkylmercury Contamination of Foods. J. Amer. Med. Assn.
215:287-88.
Fielder, J. W. 1971. Notice of Proposed Changes in the Regulation of the
California Department of Agriculture Pertaining to Economic Poisons. Sacra-
mento, California Dept. of Agriculture.
Fowler, D. L., J. N. Mahan and H. H. Shepherd. 1971. The Pesticide Review
1970. u. S. Dept. of Agriculture. Washington, U. S. Govt. Print. Off.
U. S. Tariff Commission. 1971. United States Production and Sales of Pesti-
cides and Related Products. Washington, U. S. Govt. Print. Off.
33
-------
KM-
80-
UI
or
3
8 60
UJ
-------
CHAPTER 3
APPLICATION TECHNIQUES AND TYPES OF PESTICIDE MATERIAL BEING USED
Pesticides are applied in a variety of ways: from aircraft, from ground
spray rigs, and by direct injection into the soil (and occasionally into water).
A seemingly simple question—what percentage of pesticides is applied aerially?—
needs several clarifications before it can be answered. What chemicals does
one include in the category of "pesticides"? Does the question refer to the
percentage of pesticide applications, apart from the quantities involved in
separate applications? Or the percentage of pounds of pesticide? Or the per-
centage of treated area? For different purposes, different forms of the basic
question are significant.
Table 3.1 shows the modes of application reported for 48 chemicals in the
San Joaquin Valley in 1970. In terms of pounds applied, approximately half of
this material was applied by air; in terms of acres treated, approximately two-
thirds was applied by air. The major component of the "other" category in the
pounds list of Table 3.1 is the fumigants: Telone, D-D mixture, methyl bromide,
chloropicrin, and DBCP, which commonly include soil injection procedures (or
fumigation of stored products with methyl bromide), as contrasted with the "ground"
category, referring to ground spray rigs of various types.
Until 1970, the California Department of Agriculture published an annual
bulletin summarizing acreages treated by licensed pest-control operators (Cali-
fornia Dept. of Agriculture, 1970). During the years 1963 to 1969, aerial applica-
tion accounted for 75.3% to 80.0% of this acreage. The percentage for the eight
counties of the San Joaquin Valley, in the period July 1, 1968, to June 30, 1969,
was 76.0% (5,550,233 acres applied aerially; 1,746,695 acres applied by ground).
In addition to these figures for licensed pest control operators, each county
agricultural commissioner had been asked to estimate the acreage treated by the
growers themselves; for the eight counties, this totaled 2,567,336 acres, giving
35
-------
Tiki* 3.1
OJ
Hod* af A»«Ue«tlOB of Scloctod ••Mlclvm
UTO
*«ricolt«o
Ot-i,53
11521.06
)**i0.27
465.00
«76.*0
•3ol!53
476V0.91
1208.91
2716.16
603.82
it3l>4,6*
740,66
7U5.60
476.60
1131.17
660.50
1491.01
727.52
"ml™
350.31
4)0,90
4V6.33
624.00
1429.15
1301,79
212,00
lao.oo
195.22
664. 4U
350.73
160.10
4/8.3?
102.60
til. Of
510.34
V 1/3. 60
*„-
A«rl«l
441659.10
0.00
5.00
226335.20
16*605.05
46.00
101632.06
3*1911.5*
170031.60
1623*2.15
60.00
95566.9*
1*9865.60
103184.51
3J02S22.10
1162.00
0.00
181223.70
556*6.50
166779,60
4681.20
7)230.20
12031.10
10/366.50
156264. 21
3*912.50
70769,31
0.00
41*71.50
1/5*7.00
25217.30
107*1,50
15*65.66
29*1.50
14.00
15649.00
29H15.14
30569.00
72697.70
36461,66
62654.25
2686.00
7989.25
0.00
99691 , SO
10.00
4330.0U
Imported, by Mode of
| Ground
40606.10
08*32.19
65*2.52
226)49.44
242166.12
1690.47
2*848.06
616*1.76
25600.6?
1056)9.10
1367.03
1*6260.40
15561.25
7031.50
9259.75
166027.**
11536.44
.9203.90
7*4*0.8*
335*1.16
46249. 79
12707. 02
5740.65
2857.50
64516,72
36802.74
*)*12.15
1*722.41
51*06.60
53*. 60
10664,61
12513.6*
333)7.82
5709,60
46905.87
63206,75
U405.25
3*64.70
14336.56
222*6.66
9652.06
21351.57
20704.28
7039.10
79/5.01
4590.51
12595. 02
Application
I Other
2250.00
2159.50
626,50
1528.11
5212.2)
2232.00
3376.29
656.23
5543.86
1356.1)
1*2*0.6)
406.16
2)11.6?
290. Og
31*. OC
14*4.00
1*64.50
2*11.05
1356.50
I)*). 32
665.00
610.00
*7T.OO_
327.00
3*3.00
1375.5Q
354.00
2*73.00
272,00
62U3.10
1*5.00
173.50
200.25
76.00
723.25
69V. 00
1340.00
30.00
i«*.oa
757.00
463.6)
17*. 00
356.00
;a.oo
2*0.93
«7.00
626, bo
TOTAL
4794405.66
431*254,27
1*43:
-------
a total estimated treated acreage of 9,864,264.
The 76% applied aerially by licensed pest-control operators Is somewhat
higher than the percentage of aerial application derived from the data bank,
However, in addition to pest-control operators' records, the data bank includes
records from the growers, and application by ground rig is probably the dominant
mode of application in the latter case.
In making his decision about mode of application, a grower must (consciously
or unconsciously) optimize a number of parameters, including costs, urgency,
area to be treated, and effectiveness. In a general way, effectiveness is
associated with coverage and particle size.
The danger of environmental contamination of nontarget areas by drift is
connected more closely to questions of droplet or particle size and micrometeor-
ological conditions than to the choice between aerial and ground application
(Akesson jelt al., 1970; Brazelton, 1971). Aside from the consideration cf
aerial versus ground application, coverage by a given quantity is related
inversely to particle size. (It will be recalled that the number of spherical
particles from a given volume is inversely proportional to the third power of the
particle diameter.) While coverage and effectiveness increase with decreasing
particle size, however, the problem of confining the pesticide to the target area
also increases. For all practical purposes under field conditions, particles be-
low 50 microns in diameter are aerosols, and although these small particles are
extremely effective as adultlcldes and have a remarkable immediate effect on pest
populations, they do not settle out of their own accord but probably remain air-
borne until they undergo photochemical decomposition or are carried to earth by
rain or dust. On the other hand, particle sizes much above 500 microns are not
practical from the point of view of coverage, except where the pesticide will
be translocated and is effective as a systemic poison, or where the material
must be rigorously confined to the target area because of its high toxicity to
37
-------
man or to other desired species in the vicinity of the target area. In the wide
range between 50 and 500 microns, finer sprays may be used where the material
has low toxicity to nontarget organisms and where low doses are applied over
large areas. Medium sprays in the range of 250 to 300 microns are used for ordinary
spraying, and the coarser sprays for more highly toxic materials. In aerial
application, droplet size is regulated by modification of nozzle size and shape,
mode of operation, pressure, and direction In relation tu the jet stream. In
ground spray rigs, the pesticide may be applied under hydraulic pressure from
booms and nozzles or by blower types.
The picture is further complicated by the facts that application equipment
invariably produces a range of droplet sizes, and that droplet size decreases
while the pesticide or its solvent is evaporating.
Next to droplet size, the most important factor influencing drift is the
climate in the immediate locality of application. In practice, spraying by ground
or aerial application is not recommended when winds reach 10 miles per hour or
in periods of temperature inversion or in generally turbulent weather. To a
limited extent, adverse weather is more tolerable when the hazard or likelihood
of drift is reduced by the nature of the material (lower toxicity to nontarget
species) or by a larger droplet size.
Only after these factors are taken into consideration is it meaningful to
generalize that the likelihood of drift of applied pesticides increases in the
following order: soil injection
-------
material adsorbed on inert material and wetting and dispersing agents added.
Before application, the wettable powder is diluted with water, forming a suspen-
sion. A given pesticide tends to persist longer on leaf surfaces when applied
as a wettable powder than when applied as an emulsifiable concentrate. The
dust type of formulation ordinarily comes in a ready-to-use form, already diluted
to a few percent of active ingredients absorbed on finely divided solid part?Lcles.
The pesticide use reports include information about the formulation type.
Found in addition to the types mentioned above are pellets, granuJes, sprays,
liquids, etc. There is a degree of ambiguity among the formulation types reported.
For example, emulsifiable concentrates are sometimes reported as liquids. How-
ever, Table 3.2 provides some insight into the forms in which the 48 pesticides
were used.
The quantities reported in the preceding tables have been sumarized for a
twelve-month period. However, the pesticide use reports include the date of
application. Thus, it is possible to examine the pesticide use pattern during
the twelve-month period, as shown in Figures 3.1-3.4.
Figure 3.1 shows the quantities of three organochlorine compounds—toxaphene,
DDT, and kelthane (dicofol)—used in agriculture in each month of 1970 in all
eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley. The use of all three pesticides is
most concentrated in May-September. A combination of the first two is commonly
applied as an insecticide on cotton, and their heaviest use is in the more southern
of the eight counties. Kelthane, a miticide, is chemically related to DDT
(Figure 3.5) but is much less persistent.
Cl Cl
I I
[I
I-\_. / - C -CCI3 Cl \-/ "" c* ~CCI3
\~_/ ^j \—f ^
H
DDT Kelthane-or Dicofol
Figure 3.5 Two Organo^'
39
-------
Table 3.2 Formulation-Types of Selected Chemicals
San Joaquin Valley, 1970
Chemical
Pounds Reported, by Formulation
Wettable
Powder
Dust
Other
"Dry"
anulsifiable
Concentrate
"Liquid"
Other
"Wet"
Toxaphene
DDT
Telone
D-D Mixture
Parathion
Kelthane
Methyl Broalde
Carbaryl
2, 4-D
Malathion
Phorate
Chloropicrin
Guthion
Def -Defoliant
Maneb
Methyl Parathion
Trifluralln
DBCP
Endosulfan
Ethion
Maled
Delnav
Sinox
Cap tan
Dylox
Dimethoate
Dlazlnon
Azodrin
Sodiun Arsenite
Disyaton
Propanil
DNBP
Dalapoo
Omite
Dacthal
Simazine
Carbophenothlon
Paraquat
Folcid
Tetradifon
Phosphamidon
Tepp
Phosalone
Diuroa
Lead Ar senate Stan
Meta-Sys tox-R
Lead Ar senate Baa
Ansar 170
90.00
30,430.58
0.00
13,801.92
332,297.04
20,264.76
332,773.70
99,339.50
4,115.89
86,027.51
3,842.69
182,834.28
14,381.70
0.00
196.433.78
3.538.60
851.34
0.00
9,373.86
36,855.02
773.66
245.78
73.60
14,591.14
122,021.70
1.91
62,581.20
0.00
48.00
1,047.78
0.00
0.00
70,003.73
45,698.66
62,775.08
69,106.67
4.939.87
102.78
0.00
4,045.97
342.00
100.55
0.00
47,543.68
43,261.34
97.50
33,920.56
0.00
529.80
92.90
0.00
0.00
1.658.63
28,127.32
32,480.10
198,971.11
0.00
7.123.30
1,395.63
662.40
1,239.61
0.00
18,050.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
14,088.26
9,362.64
40,060.38
0.00
0.00
51,570.91
76.00
0.00
4.370.68
0.00
0.00
609.27
0.00
0.00
40.70
768.00
0.00
0.00
2,584.91
0.00
0.00
661.30
0.00
6,506.52
0.00
240.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.00
190.45
0.00
, 0.00
11,124.77
486.30
71,510.08
13,021.95
460.46
408.27
179,156.89
23,281.87
217.00
0.00
8,824.33
741.92
38.32
0.00
7,261.67
0.00
18.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
4,166.15
0.00
2.278.13
0.00
72.00
53.500.83
0.00
0.00
4,726.00
151.65
5.721.40
1,034.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.36
0.00
0.01
0.00
4,150.40
949.95
0.00
2,960.11
0.00
597,423.98
275,738.85
330,453.75
72,790.00
120,966.67
141,113.31
21.57
2,633.29
84,756.11
93.932.76
38,420.22
0.00
87,994.59
104,373.40
3,705.76
128,321.96
171,730.36
95,772.88
71,962.30
65,417.14
40,659.04
47,950.33
27,937.62
64.00
178.27
38,629.07
11,593.13
33,820.91
16,153.54
15,510.16
58,225.12
10,200.44
332.84
8,939.41
0.00
364.80
21,547.12
24,240.25
9,553.92
27,629.01
19,471.26
22,745.74
31,740.13
0.00
0.00
15,756.47
0.00
10,981.96
1,150,681.14
556,199.56
482,250.25
656,582.76
125,121.90
319,011.71
220.68
12,169.48
208,226.66
101,045.19
46,313.93
44,834.76
141,368.59
138,306.27
15,052.07
86,994.22
43,914.16
103,979.52
86,477.07
75,202.14
102,188.75
95,882.69
111,960.54
64,678.18
832.25
78,175.27
18,147.53
62,620.69
73,644.56
12,634.72
17,608.82
65,179.39
208.52
16,627.80
1,403.94
0.19
40,288.43
42,284.91
47,644.73
25,032.08
35,151.00
25,802.25
21,805.53
0.00
0.00
25,175.47
537.60
26,417.36
17,001.00
7,138.47
7,788.80
12,556.60
7,372.84
1,837.66
0.00
16 . 13
5,693.81
1,059.82
445.09
0.00
3,206.47
141.00
0.00
3,676.75
858.94
1,440.00
2,540.30
2,110.37
937.24
1,219.68
1,027.50
35.00
0.00
1,564.83
99.50
87.50
1,143.68
46.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.00
0.00
0.00
251.74
160.67
2,862.25
373.00
1,243.63
287 . 50
0.00
0.00
0.00
962 'IS
7*J£. • J J
0.00
0.00
40
-------
700
630
560
1 490
z
8 420
I 350
u.
280
210
o
CL J40
70
0)
o
FIGURE 3.1
—•-TOXAPHENE
—o-DDT
—*—KELTHANE
FMAMJ JASOND
FIGURE 3.2
«-PARATHION
o-MALATHION
N 0
MONTHS, 1970
41
-------
to
o
o
x
i-
_
2
FIGURE 3.3
—•— 2,4-D
x™-TRIFLURALiN
J FMAMJJASOND
FIGURE 3.4
TELONE +
D-D MIXTURE
CHLOROPICRIN
M A M J J A S
MONTHS, 1970
0 N D
-------
Figure 3.2 shows monthly use in the eight counties of the two top organo-
phosphorus insecticides, ethyl parathion and malathion. Malathion use reaches a
peak in the summer months, and has a longer period of heavy use than do the organo-
chlorine compounds of Figure 3.1. Malathion is used in large quantities on citrus,
particularly oranges, which tends to extend the use into September and October.
The use pattern of parathion has several peaks, reflecting the wide variety of
crops and insect pests on which it is used. A big user is peaches, and the drop
in use in June and July is attributable partly to the interval required between
application and the entry of harvesters into peach orchards, in July and August.
Parathion is noted for high acute toxicity to man and other mammals, while mala-
thion, being much less toxic, is used extensively in residential pest control
(see Table 2.1). Such use is not included in Figure 3.2, which shows only agri-
cultural uses.
Figure 3.3 shows, in contrast to insecticides, the use of two herbicides in
agriculture in the San Joaquin Valley in 1970. Use of herbicides in weed control
is concentrated in the early months to eliminate undesirable plants before they
establish themselves as competitors for space, water, and nutrients (U.S. Agri-
cultural Research Service, 1969). Herbicide hazards to desirable plants (crops)
from application in summer impose additional limitations on their use beyond
the early spring.
Figure 3.4 shows the application of some soil fumigants by months. Teione
and D-D mixture, being similar substances, are combined in this diagram. Being
commonly applied by direct injection into the soil for control of root nematodes
(Lyndall and Mather, 1971), they are not generally applied during the growing
season. The times of high use are in the spring and postharvest periods.
Graphs of this type prompt several questions and speculations. The princi-
pal compartments of the environment in which most pesticides are degraded to
nontoxic materials are the atmosphere and the soil. In the atmosphere, the
43
-------
dominant degradative process is presumably photochemical (Crosby, 1969). The
use of many of these materials is concentrated in the months of intense sun-
light (Figures 3.1 and 3.2), reducing their ability to persist in the environ-
ment, although the well-known persistence of DDT (or its derivative, DDE) in the
lipids of biota can be explained by its heavy use over a period of many years,
and its biological concentration through food chains. This latter phenomenon
is noted in the food chain of the various trophic levels of aquatic biota to fish-
eating birds to other predatory birds; it is also observed in terrestrial biota
up to terminal carnivores, Including man.
A practical consequence of this natural phenomenon is the long-standing ban
on the use of DDT on alfalfa grown for hay, to prevent the buildup of excessive
levels of DDT and metabolites in meat and milk from cattle fed the hay. Even
so, a large portion of the DDT used in the San Joaquin Valley in 1970 was on
alfalfa grown for seed.
Compared with insecticides, a larger proportion of applied herbicides and
soil fumigants reach the soil. The reason is the time of year in which they are
applied (low crop cover) and the mode of their application. The dynamics of soil
systems are thus of considerable interest. In addition to degradation by soil
microorganisms and by hydrolysis, the less reactive pesticidal materials can
persist in soil by adsorption, and by absorption and storage within the cells of
soil organisms (Kearney, Nash and Isensee, 1969). For the more volatile
materials, vaporization and escape into the atmosphere is significant, and for
more soluble materials, leaching by percolating water is possible. (In regions
of high rainfall or excessive irrigation, or in regions of unstable soil sus-
ceptible to erosion, a mode of undesirable pesticide dispersal is the transport
of pesticides adsorbed on soil particles. These conditions are not very common
in the San Joaquin Valley, however.)
In addition to questions about the ultimate fate of pesticides in the
44
-------
environment, prompted by Figures 3.1-3.4, there is also the uncertainty of hazards
that combinations of pesticides may give rise through "potentiation"—an in-
crease in 'killing power1 beyond that expected from a mere summation of the
constituents. This phenomenon is sometimes exploited for the grower's advantage.
Potentiation may have many causes. In one mechanism, for example, one of the
chemicals may deactivate an enzyme system of the target organism that ordinarily
detoxifies the other chemical (by hydrolysis, oxidation, etc.), thus vastly
increasing the susceptibility of the organism to intoxication by the pesticide
that it ordinarily detoxifies.
The point, here, is that organisms (including man and other nontarget organisms)
are exposed unintentionally to combinations of pesticides, and some of these combin-
ations might have unpredictably high toxicity. For example, the relatively low
mammalian toxicity of malathion is generally attributed to the ability of mammals
to hydrolyze the compound before it exerts its toxic action. During the months
of high usage, however, a mammal might conceivably be exposed also to another
material that would deactivate the hydrolytic enzyme system that protects it from
malathion.
Although Figures 3.1 to 3.4 were composed from tabulated data, for the present
study it was convenient to obtain similar information directly from the computer
in the form of histograms. With this program, it was possible to derive the use
pattern for any specified chemical against any specified pest or group of pests
on any specified crop or group of crops, in any county or group of counties in
the San Joaquin Valley. Figure 3.6 is an example of such a histogram.
References, Chapter 3
Akesson, N. B., W. E. Yates and S. E. Wilce. 1970. Controlling Spray Atomiza-
tion. Agrichem. Age. 13:10-17.
Brazelton, R. W. 1971. Control of Chemical Drift. Berkeley, California.
U. C. Agri. Ext. Serv. Bull. No. 5.
45
-------
California Dept. of Agriculture. 1970. Field Crops and Agricultural Chemicals;
Acreages Treated for Agricultural Pest Control, by Counties, July 1968
through June, 1969. Sacramento, California Dept. of Agriculture. (Issued
March 16, 1970).
Crosby, D. G. 1969. The Nonmetabolic Decomposition of Pesticides. Annals.
N. Y. Acad. Sci. 160:82.
Kearney, P. C., R. G. Nash, and A. R. Isensee. 1969. Persistence of Pesticide
Residues in Soils. In; Chemical Fallout. Edited by M. W. Miller and G.
G. Berg. Springfield, 111., Thomas, p. 54-67.
Leach, S. S. 1966. Pesticide Formulations; How to Calculate Dosage and Mix
Pesticides. In; Pesticide Information Manual. Edited by the Northeastern
Regional Pesticide Coordinators. Durham, New Hampshire, University of New
Hampshire, p. C5-C16.
Lyndall, R. C. and S. M. Mather. 1971. The Nematode Study Committee and
California's Nursery Nematode Control Program. Down to Earth. 27:12-17.
U. S. Agricultural Research Service. 1969. Suggested Guide for Weed Control.
* Washington, U. S. Govt. Print. Off. (U. S. Agr. Res. Serv. Handbook, No. 332).
46
-------
177069.15
160668.95
147669.85
137620.95
73231.47
72618.97
45590.72
25457.59
12984.40
7412.61
129.69
**
**
** **
** **
******
********
********
********
********
********
**********
************
************
************
**************
**************
**************
** **************
** ****************
**** ****************
************************************************
--- 1 --- 1 --- 1 --- 1 --- 1 --- i-~-i --- 1 --- 1 --- i --- 1 --- 1
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
END HISTO 6 MIN, 11.3 SEC.
Figure 3.6 Total pounds of DDT applied on cotton
in the San Joaquin Valley by month
1970
47
-------
CHAPTER 4
ROUTES OF PESTICIDE ENTRY INTO THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
The routes of pesticide entry into the water environment have been dis-
cussed in many review articles (Nicholson, 1970; Nicholson and Hill, 1970;
U. S. Dept. of HEW, 1969; Foy and Bingham, 1969; Westlake and Gunther, 1966;
West, 1966). This section presents first, under each route, a general review
of the route, and then discusses the applicability of each route to the San
Joaquin Valley.
Figure 4.1 shows the cycling of pesticides in the environment and the
various routes by which they may enter the water environment. These routes can
be classified as:
1) Runoff and sediment transport
2) Subsurface drainage
3) Direct application
4) Atomospheric transport
5) Industrial wastes
6) Municipal wastes
7) Agricultural wastes
8) Accidents and spills
Runoff and Sediment Transport
Runoff is generally considered to be the major route of pesticide move-
ment into the water environment (Nicholson, 1970; Nicholson and Hill, 1970;
U. S. Dept. of HEW, 1969; Bailey, 1966). Edwards et al^. (1970) reported that
runoff water and surface runoff are more important routes than leaching in trans-
port of dieldrin from soil into ponds. Nicholson and co-workers have done in-
tensive studies on the routes of pesticide movement into the water environment, and
48
-------
PESTICIDE APPLIED
Degradotion
SPRAYS, GRANULES
PELLETS. FUMIGANTS
Volatility
codistiilolion Interception
— • 1
-Runoff
\
A
1
i " "*
i
Volatility,
i
soil
Codistilloiion,
Wind,
1
Erosion
1 Ra
in,
j Vcporous
1 Diffusion
i
incorporation
| MAN |
Spillage,
Accidents,
i
Industry,
Sewo
-------
In their two recent articles (Nicholson, 1970; Nicholson and Hill, 1970) they
specified runoff as probably the single most widespread and significant source of
low-level contamination of surface water by pesticides. During runoff the pesti-
cide may be adsorbed on eroding soil particles suspended in the runoff water,
or both. Factors influencing runoff are: 1) the nature of the pesticide; 2) the
extent of its use; 3) edaphic considerations; 4) climatic factors; 5) topog-
raphy; a<. A 6) practices in xand use and management. Pesticides with short
persistence time naturally have less runoff potential than the more persistent
pesticides. Chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides, because of their low solubilities
in water, are probably transported with the soil particles in the adsorbed state
rather than in solution. Lichtenstein (1958) showed that soils that are high in
humus will yield less insecticides than sandy soils. Heavy rainfall immediately
after application of pesticides will have a high potential for pesticide trans-
port into the water environment.
Most studies focusing on runoff have been conducted where rainfall is high
and land is sloped. In such areas an unexpected heavy rain after pesticide ap-
plication can wash pesticide from the soil into the water environment. The San
Joaquin Valley, however, is relatively flat and has low rainfall (about 15 inches
or less annually). Hance, runoff there is not expected to be the real problem
as it is in the northeastern section of the country, where rainfall is high and
land is hilly.
Ever, so, the irrigation of crops in the San Joaquin Valley can give rise to
pesticide runoff in some cases. In flood irrigation, where water is applied at
one side of the field and allowed to flow to the other side, it never reaches
the other side at the same time in all checks. When excess water accumulates
at the end of a check, farmers sometimes allow it to overflow into the drainage
system where pesticide may be transported in the runoff. Sprinkler or furrow
50
-------
irrigation has no such potential.
Runoff potential is prevalent in areas adjacent to the San Joaquin Valley,
such as the Sacramento delta region, where rice cultivation is intense. Swift (1966)
reported fish losses directly attributable to runoff water from the rice fields
that contaminated drain ditches and other waterways. He pointed out that these
losses occurred because some farmers did not follow directions for the use of
dieldrin under such practices. The directions were that the water from the
rice fields should not be allowed to runoff for at least 10 days, to allow most
of the dieldrin to settle to the bottom, along with sediments, during the wait-
ing period.
A recent study of watershed management in the California region (California
Dept. of Water Resources, 1970) found that erosion activity in most of the
regions of the San Joaquin Valley was "none to moderate." Erosion was severs
only in very small areas in the western part of the valley. The reason may be
that agricultural developments are new there. Sediment yield values in California
were reported to be lowest in the San Joaquin Valley.
West (1966) reported that the greatest source of pesticides reaching waters in
California was runoff from agricultural land. Data are insufficient to de-
termine whether that finding can be applied to the San Joaquin Valley.
Experts interviewed differed as to the importance of pesticide movement
with runoff and the transport of sediments. A study on this aspect is planned
by the River Basin Planning Group in the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
Scientists at the Southeast Water Laboratory are working to develop means
of predicting runoff pollution and preventing it (Nicholson, 1970). Being
considered as the basis for a new formula for predicting pesticide loss from the
soil is the Universal Soil Loss Equation, developed by soil conservationists to
guide conservation farm planning throughout the U. S. According to Nicholson
(1970), recommended chemicals and practices would be used after this equation
51
-------
predicts what to anticipate. In the Soil Loss Equation, A » RKLSCP, where
A is the computed soil loss in tons per acre, R is the rainfall factor, K is
the erodability factor, L is the effect of slope length, S is the effect of
slope gradient, C is the crop-management factor, and P is the erosion-control
practice factor. Applicability of the equation to erosion problems was dis-
cussed by Johnson and Moldenhauer (1970).
Subsurface Drainage
Bailey (1966) reported that, barring accidental contamination, biocides
from agriculture enter surface water courses from two principal sources: 1)
subsurface drainage; and 2) overland flow drainage. Other investigations
(California Department of Water Resources, 1968; Johnston e£ al. , 1967) showed
that only a small proportion of the pesticides applied to a field were found in
tile drainage. The U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1969)
indicated that ground-water sources, the same as rainfall, make only a minute
contribution of pesticides to a surface water such as a perennial stream.
Most reported results show very little downward movement of pesticides in the
soil. Swobada and Thomas (1968) showed that, under normal rainfall, parathion
was very unlikely to contaminate underground water supplies by leaching. Aksenov
jt: al. (1970), from studying 2,4-D amine salts, concluded that 2,4-D is not un-
likely to reach ground-water levels. Grasso e_£ al. (1968) found neither chlorinated
hydrocarbons nor organophosphate insecticides in underground waters from various
Italian regions. Leh (1968) studied the Vertical movement of several herbicides
in soil columns and concluded that ground water is not likely to become contam-
inated under normal agricultural practice. Lichtenstein (1970) reported in a
review article that commonly used insecticides appear unlikely to move through
soils with water. Hindln (1970) concluded from a literature review that about 90
percent of the recoverable DDT residue will reside in the top three inches of the
soil (cultivation or plow depths). The main factors influencing the vertical
52
-------
Acid Herbicides-3/1
Mice. Herbicides V
Phenylurea, Triazine,
and other Herbicides c
CIPC and Toluidine Herbicides
p Thionazin
f Diazinon
Disurfoton and Phorate
I Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Insecticides
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
T ....... T
No Movement MOBILITY FACTORS Maximum Movement
Figure 4.2 Relative mobilities of pesticides in a subirrigated
column system (Harris, 1967; Harris, 1968)
a Includes dicamba, tricamba, 2,3,6-TBA, amiben, methoxyfenac, and fenac.
b Includes DNBP, pyrichlor, 7175, norea, and cycluron.
c Includes morwron, buturon, linuron, diuron, atrazine, simazine, propazine,
promefryne, EPIC, pebulate, vernolate, and diphenamid.
d Includes benefin, planovin, CIPC, trifluralin, and dipropalin.
e Includes aldrin, o,p'-DDT, DDE, dieldrin, endrin, and heptachlor.
53
-------
Table 4.1 Solubility of Pe*tlcld** is Mtar
Paatlclde tad It* degradation product*
Solubility
<*•>
Chlorinated hydrocarbon inaectlcmea'
Chlordana
BUT .
tndoaulfan
Kalthana
Methoxychlor
Perthaita
Toxaphane
OrgMOphoimhorut inaectlctde*
Axodrin
Bay t «x
CirbophaaothlOQ
Deloav
Dlailnon
Dinethoat*
May* ton
Dylox
Rtblon
Guthlon
Malathlon
Hat* Syatox R
Mtthyl parathlon
Haled
Paraoxon
Parathlon
Phorate
Fboaphamldon
Syatox
Othar toaacttcldaa
Carbaryl
Laad iraaoaca, dibaaie
Inaolubla
Ineolubl*
0.001; 1
Inaolubl*
Inaolubla
0.1
Inaolubla
0.*; 1
Soluble
34, J6
0.34
Inaolubla
40
20,000; 30,000
66
120,000; 150.000
2
33
14S
Solubla
SO
Inaolublc,
2,400
20; 25
501 8}
Very soluble
666; 2000
40
Inaolubla
iBitrale .
Aaaar 1M*
iaaar 170*1
itraclna
Coppar aulfata pantahydiat*
2,4-D
1,4-0 aodlum aalt
Bactbal
Dalapan aodlum aalc
Oaf Dafollant
Dluroa
anr
HagnaaluB chlorate
KCP*
faraquat
Propantl
Pyraion
Siauiaa
Sodium araanlta
Sodiua chlorate
Sodlioi TCA
Sutand
teUaa
Trlfluralla
Other peaticldee
Captan (fungicide)
Cbloroplcrln (fiaUgaoC)
OBCP (fumigant)
D-D •Iztur* (funigant)
(thylena dlbroalda (fuBigant)
Manab (fwigicida)
Methyl braeUd* (fualgant)
0«it« (acaracide)*
Ziram (fungicide)
Vary eoluble
Very aolotla
Very aolubl*
70
240.000
5001 900
30,000; 45,000
<0.5
900.000
Inaoloble
40; 42
50; 1000
Very aoluble
1174; 1600
Very aoluble
225» 500
Solefcle
Soluble
500,000
Very aoluble
45
92
24
Ineoluble
2.000
1.000
Inaolubla. 2,800
4,300
Few ppa
13,400
Very low aolublllty
'Except whtr. Indicated otherolae, ell the dete are from: Cunther, P.A., W.E. W«atl«ke, end P.S.
Jeglu (1968). ttnortad aolubllltlee of 736 peatlclde chemlcel* In water. Rea. Rev. 20: 1-148.
Aa far aa poaalbla f>-- «.;l'i!>tltci« reported are at claaa to 25* C.
Chemical Dlvlalon. 1971. Inaecticide - Mltlclde.
Slltchell, 1.1. (1966). Faatlcldeas ptopertia* and prognoala. «dv. Chem. geriea 60 1 1-22.
'vaed Science Society of America (1970). Herbicide Handbook. WSSA Kooograph 3, p. 368.
*Unitad State* Rubber Company Chemical Dlvielon. Agricultural Chemical*.
54
-------
movement of pesticides are the type of pesticide, Its solubility, its formula-
tion, the soil type, climate, and the microbial population. Bailey and White
(1969) discussed many of these factors in a review article. It is generally
believed that the tendency for pesticides to move through soil increases from
finer-textured soil to coarse-textured soil. This trend is supported by twenty-
one references cited by Bailey and White (1969). The lower tendency of movement
in finer-textured soils is due mainly to the higher adsorption of pesticides in
such soils. The rate of downward movement has been shown to be related in-
versely to adsorption (Harris, 1966; McCarty and King, 1966; Perry). Another
property determining movement is solubility. The more soluble a pesticide,
the faster it moves downward in soils. Gray and Weierich (1968) correlated
the depth of leaching of five thiocarbamate herbicides with their solubilities
in water. Ashton (1961) showed that the relative movement of four substituted
ureas were related directly to their water solubilities. Table 4.1 shows the
water solubilities of selected pesticides used in the San Joaquin Valley. The
least soluble of these are the chlorinated hydrocarbons, and their downward move-
ment in soils reflects this fact (Figure 4.2). Sometimes, however, the rate of
movement of a pesticide may differ from the one expected from its solubility in
water. Thus, DDT can be solubilized by humic acid fractions and can move readily
in soils (Ballard, 1971).
Its persistence also determines whether a pesticide would contaminate sub-
surface water. Even moving very slowly in the soil, a highly persistent pesti-
cide may eventually reach underground water, whereas less persistent pesticides
may first dissipate by degradation or other processes. An example was cited by
Beran and Guth (1965), who studied the movement of lindane, DDT, parathion, and
aldrin in several soil types. Only lindane in a sandy soil reached the ground
water. Its relatively high solubility and high persistence made that possible.
The main climatic factor affecting pesticide movement is rainfall. Other
55
-------
things being equal, the more and oftener that water (rainfall or Irrigation) is
applied, the greater is pesticide movement. Movements determined for pesticides
in soils are difficult to compare under a common scale because most studies have
been carried out under different environmental and soil conditions. Only two
studies examined the movement of several pesticides under the same conditions.
These are reported in Figure 4.2 and Table 4.2. Figure 4.2 shows the relative
mobilities of pesticides in a subirrigated soil column. It can be seen that
the mobilities vary from "no movement,' for chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides,
to "maximum movement," for some of the benzoic acid herbicides. Table 4.2
arranges in decreasing order the mobilities of 16 herbicides as determined by
soil thin-layer chromatography. Here again, acidic herbicides are among the
most mobile.
Since the downward movement of pesticides depends mainly on soil charac-
teristics, the soils in the valley must be considered before such movement can
be discussed. The soils of this study area were discussed by Storie (1951).
The soils in the San Joaquln Valley are called valley soils formed on
alluvium from upland terraces. These particular soils include recent alluvial
fans, shallow soils over hardpan, and the basin soils. Saline and alkali soils
are present in various parts of the valley. The general texture of the soils is
loam, although in the central part of the valley the soils are mostly clay. Be-
cause of the finer texture of clay soils and the occurence of hardpans and
alkalinity, it is improbable that pesticides move downward and contaminate ground
water there.
The eastern side of the valley has coarser-textured soils than the western
side, and the hardpans are sometimes present. Two localized areas in the eastern
side have wind-modified sandy soils. The site where pesticide is most likely
to move downward to underground water is these localized and isolated wind-
56
-------
Table 4.2 Herbicide Mobility as Measured by
5oil-tbin-l«yer Chromatography
Chil
Herbicide Silt
*
R_ Value on
lum Eager s town
Loam Silty Clay Loam
Dicamba 0.96 0.96
Amiben .87 .91
Fenac .62 .84
MCPA .62 .78
2,4-D .50 .69
Dephenamid .39 .49
Monuron .44 .48
Atrazine .35 .47
Simazine .41 .45
Fropazine .24 .41
Diuron .23 .24
Prometryne .08 .25
CIPC .13 .18
Diquat .04 .06
Paraquat .00 .00
Trifluralin .00 .00
Lakeland
Sandy Loam
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.94
.89
.89
.96
.77
.60
.37
.59
.19
.13
.00
Helling and Turner, 1968.
R_ value is a quantitative indication of the front of
movement.
herbicide
57
-------
modified sandy soils.
In considering contamination of underground water, the depth of water
tables should also be considered. If the water table is very deep, it is less
likely that pesticides move to the underground water.
Pesticides may reach the subsurface drainage system instead of percolating
further down into the underground water. Johnston et a_l. (1967) studied the
movement into open drains and tile drains of pesticides applied to soils of the
San Joaquin Valley. The quantities of chlorinated hydrocarbon residues they
found were only relatively small in tile drainage effluents, and higher in
effluents from open drains that collected both surface and subsurface drainage
waters. When the concentration factor of the water percolating through the
soil was considered, the total quantity of residue in the tile drainage effluent
did not exceed—and is generally less than—the total quantity of residue ap-
plied in the irrigation water.
The California Department of Water Resources (1968) studied the fate of
DDT and lindane applied to a 110-acre plot in Western Fresno (San Joaquin Valley).
The researchers concluded that tile drain discharge does not remove a significant
proportion of pesticides applied to fields; considerably more pesticides remain
in the soils of a field or are removed through decomposition in the soil than
are removed by tail water (surface runoff) or tile drainage.
Before the effects of pesticides in the drainage water can be considered,
the drainage system in the San Joaquin Valley should first be described. In the
northern and central parts of the valley, the drains empty into the San Joaquin
Valley River—both directly and indirectly in the northern part, and only
indirectly in the central part. In the southern parts, the effluent from the
drain is pumped back into an irrigation canal, and each grower, being responsible
for the effluent from his own drains, pumps it into irrigation water going on to
his own land. A large-scale San Joaquin Master Drain has been proposed for the
58
-------
western side of the valley. If completed, this Master Drain would remove
agricultural drainage water of the west side of the valley and return it to
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (see Chapter 1).
Bailey et al. (1967) analyzed pesticides in drains of California and re-
ported that concentrations were lowest in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Values were higher in the Sacramento Valley and highest in the San Joaquin
Valley. The California Department of Water Resources (1968b), monitoring pesti-
cides in the drains of the San Joaquin Valley from 1963 to 1967, found that
pesticide concentrations in material in those drains was not significantly higher
than concentrations in surface waters in areas of possible disposal (San Francisco
Bay area and San Joaquin Valley). On the basis of this and other studies, a
subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations (1967) recommended that
surface drainage (tailwater) from irrigated lands, because of its relatively
high pesticide content, be excluded from the Master Drain, but stated that these
waters were of acceptable quality for irrigation and should be so reused without
discharge to surface streams. The subcommittee also recommended that the sub-
surface drainage waters should be monitored, and that those containing excessive
quantities of pesticide compounds should receive appropriate treatment before
entering the Master Drain.
Tables 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6 show pesticide concentrations in surface
and subsurface drain effluents in 1969 and 1970 as determined in the San Joaquin
Valley drainage monitoring program. The reporting of chlorinated hydrocarbons
and organophosphorus compounds as unknown or unidentified does not indicate un-
reliability in the analyses. They may be unknown either because of the lack of
a standard with which the results can be compared or because of unknown decompo-
sition products. These tables show that the concentrations of pesticides are
higher in the surface drains than in the subsurface drains. It can also be
noted that many of the identified organophosphorus compounds found in the
59
-------
Table 4.3 Pesticide Concentrations in Subsurface Drain
Effluents In San Joaquln Valley - 1970
Pesticide
Summation of 17
Times
Sampled
Times
Detected
Stations
Reported Concentration
fin ppt)1
Max.
Min.2
Avg.
AvS.4
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
BHC
ODD
DDE/Dieldrln
DDT
Dacthal
Dieldrin
Heptachlor
Kelthane
Lindane
Slmazine/Atrazine
Toxaphene
Complex Chlorinated
Compounds as DDT
Unknowns as DDT
Summation of Identified
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Pesticides5
60
6
1
1
19
3
4
2
3
6
11
14
15
17
7
2
7
240
4780
43
28
45
2850
390
630
1750
140
2
-
-
2
4
10
14
15
3
5
70
5
4
2
0
0
21
302
5
3
6
157
31
136
130
19
5
2
7
35
1608
21
21
32
486
67
262
242
33
43
2850
129
180
ORGANIC PHOSPHOROUS
COMPOUNDS
Parathlon,
Thimet
Unknown as
60
Methyl
Parathion
8
1
10
170
74
215
10
-
13
29
0
23
76
74
47
ppt = parts per trillion
2
Detected minimum concentration
Average value includes 0 value when chlorinated hydrocarbons were
not detected
4
Average value includes only the detected chlorinated hydrocarbons
Does not include Complex Chlorinated Compounds as DDT or Unknowns
as DDT
Actual minimum concentration possible
*
California Dept. of Water Resources, 1970
60
-------
Table A. A Pesticide Concentrations in Surface Drain
Effluents in San Joaquin Valley - 1970*
Pesticide
Times
Sampled
Times
Detected
Reported Concentrations
(in ppt)1
Max.
Min.
Avg.
Avg.*
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
BHC
DDD
DDT
Daethai
Kelthane
Toxaphene
Complex Chlorinated
Compounds as DDT
Unknown as DDT
Summation of Identified
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Pesticides2
18
3
3
9
A
3
10
6
2
10
20
A50
A780
75
A200
132000
320
6 5
3 5
1 62
13 712
A 2A
88 866
80 15182
3 65
9
9
82
12A6
A8
1125
227A6
162
16
7265
5 1A15
1592
ORGANIC PHOSPHOROUS
COMPOUNDS 18
Ethion
Thimet
Methyl Parathion
Parathion
Unknown as Parathion
1
1
3
1
A
225
35
190
190
175
—
-
10
-
15
17
3
13
15
15
225
35
72
190
59
ppt • parts per trillion
Does not include Complex Chlorinated Compounds as DDT or Unknown as DDT
Average value includes 0 values when chlorinated hydrocarbons were not
detected
Average value includes only the detected chlorinated hydrocarbons
California Dept. of Water Resources, 1970
61
-------
Table 4.5 Pesticide Concentrations in Subsurface Drain
Effluents In San Joaquin Valley - 1969
Pesticide
Summation of 15
Times
Sampled
Times
Detected
Stations
Reported Concentration
fin ppt}1
Max.
Min.2
Avg.
Avg
4
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS 51
BHC
ODD
DDE/Dieldrin
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Kelthane
Simazine/Atrazine
Toxaphene
Complex Chlorinated
Compounds as DDT
Unknowns as DDT
Summation of Identified
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Pesticides5 51
ORGANIC PHOSPHOROUS
COMPOUNDS 41
Guthion Like
Unknown as Dinzonin
Unknown as Parathion
37 1325
2
1
19
2
22
2
11
82
0
0
44
12
6
1
19
8
1
1
3
2
7
7
24
118
21
-
109
22
-
-
62
58
1260
695
190
3
5
_
3
4
—
-
19
35
94
26
3
5
1
-
9
2
-
-
2
2
61
33
14
22
10
10
23
14
21
11
34
47
442
242
30
113
2
5
11
ppt = parts per trillion
2
Detected minimum concentration
Average value includes 0 value when chlorinated hydrocarbons were
not detected
4
Average value includes only the detected chlorinated hydrocarbons
Does not include Complex Chlorinated Compounds as DDT or Unknown
as DDT
Actual minimum concentration possible
it
California Dept. of Water Resources, 1969
62
-------
Table 4.6 Pesticide Concentrations in Surface Drain Effluents
In San Joaqutn Valley - 1969*
Pesticide
Times
Sampled
Times
Detected
Reported Concentrations
(in ppt)1
Max.
Min.
Avg.
Avg.
CHLORINATED HYDROCARBONS
BHC
DDE
ODD
DDT
Daethai
Dieldrin
Kelthane
Telodrin
Toxaphene
Concentrated Chlorinated
Compounds as DDT
Unknown as DDT
Summation of Identified
Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
Pesticides2
19
265
1
4 94 15
9 8900 35
1
3 27 7
2 2800 15
v _. _.
11 31500 216
4
10
3480
5520
92
8
1
0
5
557
460
2
98
0
2780
237
331
6
6
24
1177
8740
15
1408
7
4803
1125
629
19
16 40400
12 3955 4697
ORGANIC PHOSPHORUS
COMPOUNDS 14
Baytex
Diazonin
Imidian
Methyl Trithion
Parathion
Unknown as Parathion
1
1
1
1
3
8
-
—
-
-
• 500
2160
-
—
-
-
6
7
0
0
Q
0
37
195
2
5
5
5
173
341
ppt * parts per trillion
Does not include Complex Chlorinated Compounds as DDT or Unknown
as DDT
o
Average value includes 0 values when chlorinated hydrocarbons were
not detected
Average value includes only the detected chlorinated hydrocarbons
California Dept. of Water Resources, 1969
63
-------
surface drains are not found in the subsurface drains. The reason may be the
greater biodegradability of these compounds, permitting their destruction during
passage through the soil before reaching the subsurface drains.
Direct Application
Pesticides are applied to water for the control of aquatic weeds, rough
fish, and aquatic insect pests. To minimize undesirable consequences, these
activities are generally managed by professionals. Even so direct application
of pesticides to water is (along with surface runoff) one of the two major
pathways of pesticides into the aquatic environment, according to a report
of the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare (1969). That report also
cited instances of damage to the aquatic environment from direct application
of pesticides to water. A possible cause given for the damage was insufficient
study before application.
Table 4.7 shows the pesticides applied in the San Joaquin Valley in 1970
by the California Department of Water Resources and Irrigation District Agencies.
Most of these applications are carried out on water or in the areas surrounding
water. As can be seen from the table, almost all the chemicals used are herbi-
cides, which are used to control weeds in irrigation and drainage canals, on
ditchbanks, in farm ponds, and in irrigation reservoirs. Pesticides used in
the river banks and ditch banks have a high potential of getting into surface
water supplied by drift, overlap spray, or runoff.
Dissipation is an extremely important factor in the use of herbicides for
control of aquatic and bank weeds. Most of the herbicides registered for use
in aquatic situations have water-use restrictions which require at least partial
dissipation of the herbicide before normal water use is resumed (Timmer et al.,
1970). The pathways leading to dissipation are almost as varied as the chemi-
cals themselves. According to Timmer et^ EI!. (1970) volatilization is the most
64
-------
Table 4.7 'Pesticides Applied in San Joaquin Valley by
California Dept. of Water Resources and Irrigation District Agencies (1970)
Pesticides
Number of Reports
Amount Applied
(Ibs)
A* California Department of
Water Resources:
Atrazine 10
Bromacil 14
Fenac 5
2,4-D 3
Simariue 7
Copper sulfa-penta- 5
hydrate
Paraquat 11
Spreaders 2
Ansar 138 21
DSMA 1
Copper hydroxide 1
Ans&r 170 4
JBNBP 1
Dalapon 4
Amitrole 4
>• Irrigation District
Agencies:
Petroleum solvents 113
Paraquat 15
Amitrole 48
• Animate 12
Ansar 138 42
Atrazine 17
Diuron 14
Hyvar 2
Simazine 14
2,4-D 29
2,4,5-T 5
Spreaders 7
Bromacil 9
Dormant oils 2
Silvex 4
Sodium chlorate 6
PCP 15
Tordon 2
Ansar 170 83
Carbon disulflde 1
Copper sulfa-penta- 6
hydrate
Sulfur 2
Dalapon 30
Copper aulfate basic 1
Slnox 12
Xylene 4
DSMA 4
Trysben, TCB 3
Borax. 2
3488.00
2676.80
8628.00
3542.00
1376.80
14823.80
647.00
28.00
24160.19
4358.25
2079.00
67.00
198.00
173.40
251.72
3310814. 4S
7634.00
8705.13
2321.80
9834.52
5210.80
2946.40
155.20
8828.40
1477.24
2121.97
422.92
1340.64
218120.00
76.00
7542.76
3115.35
1116.24
43886.69
240.00
112.70
4706.71
1742.40
1514.40
148462.48
426.00
509.96
273.75
65
-------
important factor in the dissipation of aromatic solvents and acrolein. Sorption
process predominates in the disappearance from water of herbicides such as
diquat, paraquat, and possibly endothal. Biological and chemical degradation
accounts for much of the loss of 2,4-D, silvex, dichlobenil, and other herbi-
cides.
Atmospheric Transport
Atmospheric transport to the aquatic environment can be due to drift of
pesticide applied aerially, to volatilization and codistillation of the pesti-
cide from the terrestrial environment, and to wind erosion.
Drifts of 8 to 12 miles from place of application were cited by West (1966).
Widespread transport of pesticides by air and rain were reported by Cohen and
Pinkerton (1966). Large amounts of DDT were found in Texas, 9 miles distant
from and 1,600 feet higher than the place of application (Lasher and Applegate,
1966). Pesticides found in the Sierra Nevada at high altitudes (12,000 feet)
were supposed to be wind-borne drift of aerosol DDT released from the Central
Valley of California (Cory £t al., 1970). Risebrough et al. (1968) regarded
the European-African land areas as the source of chlorinated hydrocarbon in-
secticides found in airborne dust at Barbados. The insecticides (adsorbed on
the dust) were carried some 3,727 miles by the transatlantic movement of the
northeast trade winds. Those workers claimed that the amounts of pesticides
contributed to the tropical Atlantic ocean by the trade winds are comparable
to those carried to the ocean by the major river systems emptying into that
portion of the ocean. Hindin (1970) studied the fate of DDT and ethion applied
aerially to land area with a cover crop. He concluded that, on average, about
35 percent of the DDT and 50 percent of the ethion did not reach crop height.
It was assumed that these percentages of the insecticides were lost to the
atmosphere. Several other instances of drifts were cited by Middleton (1966).
66
-------
The amount and distance of drift is influenced by wind velocity and air
movement, temperature, humidity, height of release above ground, and size of
droplet, with this last factor affected by pressure, nozzle size, and carrier
(Higgins, 1967).
Major ways of loss of some pesticides can be volatilization and codistil-
lation. Acree et al. (1963) reported that codistillation of DDT with water
should be considered as a route of loss of DDT. Table 4.8 shows Mitchell's
(1966) calculation of the loss of various insecticides based on results re-
ported by Bowman et_ al. (1964). It illustrates the loss by codistillation
20 hours after the insecticides were introduced into a jar of water containing
mosquito larvae.
Table 4.8 Loss of Insecticides from Waters
Insecticide
Aldrin
Heptachlor
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Heptachlor epoxide
DDT
Lindane
Starting cone.
U8/1
24.0
210.0
200.0
24.0
25.0
25.0
23.0
% codistillate
(after 20 hrs. at 26
93%
91
70
55
42
42
30
.5°C)
L. E. Mitchell (1966)
Lloyd-Jones (1971) reported that about half of the DDT applied to field crops
may enter the atmosphere by evaporation.
Volatilization depends on the pesticide used. Lichtenstein and Schulz
(1964) reported that parathion, unlike some chlorinated hydrocarbon insecti-
cides, was not lost through volatilization. Higgins (1967) reported that, of
all of the weed killers, 2,4-D, because of volatility, is the one causing the
greatest damage. He also mentioned that this is the area in which selection
67
-------
of formulation is important, for the volatility of 2,4-D depends on its formu-
lation.
Volatilization of a pesticide depends on many other factors, such as air
velocity, pesticide concentration, pesticide vapor pressure, temperature,
relative humidity, soil water content, and bulk density of the surface soil
(Igue, 1970). Pesticide lost to the atmosphere by volatilization and co-
distillation may travel long distances, not necessarily contaminating the
adjacent water environment but perhaps causing a problem elsewhere.
The high summer temperatures in the San Joaquin Valley may make atmospheric
transport of pesticides an important route of loss. Significant amounts may thus
be lost through volatilization and codistillation. Such losses may travel
long distances, however, and how much enters the waters of the San Joaquin
Valley cannot be determined from our present knowledge.
Drifts during pesticide application may also be an important route of
pesticide loss in San Joaquin Valley. Chapter 3 shows that about half of the
amount of pesticides was applied aerially—to 2/3 of the total agricultural
area. Transport by aerial drift may thus be considerable, though such drift
presents more problems to adjacent land (if crops there are sensitive to pesti-
cides) than it does to the water environments. Of course, pesticide drifts
may sometimes be transported hundreds of miles.
Industrial Wastes
Nicholson (1970) reported that the source of pesticides in water that
was most significant after run-off was industry. The types of industries in-
volved include producers of basic pesticides, pesticide femulators, cooperage
firms that reclaim used pesticide drums, operations that apply wool preservatives,
textile plants that mothproof woolen yarns and fabrics with dieldrin, and paper-
manufacturing industries that use phenyl mercury acetate as a fungicide.
68
-------
Disposal of pesticide wastes has become a major problem because these
wastes (surplus, discharge, and used containers) may contaminate surface and
ground waters. Mitchell _et al. (1970) did an exploratory study of pesticide
migration from waste disposal pits in 1967. They found respective concentrations
of DDT, toxaphene, and methyl parathion up to 7.40, 129.50, and 99.20 ppm.
Concentrations were highest in the vicinity of the pit bottom, and at the water
table (about 9 or 10 feet deep).
The movement of pesticides from waste-disposal sites is a potential hazard
both to the environment and to human health. Old and rusting containers repre-
sent some of the worst hazards. Small quantities of the chemical can drip
out of rusty containers, periling the water supply and human health. The
problem of disposal of pesticide wastes is further complicated by the lack
of data on pesticide persistence beyond 6 inches of soil depth under different
conditions of temperature, pressure, oxygen tension, and other environment
conditions. The California Department of Agriculture requires that all pesti-
cide containers be discarded at Class I dump sites (capable of handling
hazardous material by being s.o situated that no liquid drainage can later reach
ground waters). There are presently only eleven Class I dump sites in the
state, none of them in the San Joaquin Valley (San Francisco Sunday Examiner
and Chronicle. February 28, 1971). Used pesticide containers, mostly 1-gallon
or 5-gallon cans, have piled up in many locations, largely because of the
difficulty of finding an approved location for dumping them. Dump sites
approved for disposal of agricultural chemicals are few and far between. A
special disposal campaign, conducted jointly in March 1971 by the Department
of Agriculture and Public Health and the Water Resources Control Board,
attempted to alleviate the problem temporarily by identifying existing dump
sites that might be temporarily approved for use in the campaign. (More about
this campaign in Chapter 8.)
69
-------
Municipal Wastes
Pesticides may also enter water along with municipal wastes such as
sewage effluents. A review (1971) of pesticide monitoring programs in California
prepared by an Ad Hoc Working Group of the Pesticide Advisory Committee to
the State Department of Agriculture reported that substantial quantities
of pesticides, mainly chlorinated hydrocarbons, have been discharged to surface
waters through municipal and industrial waste discharges. The quantities of
waste water discharged are so large that even low concentrations cf pesticides
in the water result in a large emission. The group pointed out that the dis-
charge of the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts contained high concen-
trations of pesticides at least from December 1969 through May 1970. Los
Angeles County Sanitation District emissions of total identified chlorinated
hydrocarbons during that period exceeded all of the other known discharges of
pesticides to the ocean by a wide margin. The group also pointed out that if
such emissions from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts outfalls have
been occurring for a number of years, this one source may overshadow all other
sources of DDT in Southern California marine waters.
Recently Burnett (1971) studied the distribution of DDT residues in
Emerita analoga Stimpson along Coastal California and concluded that animals
near the Los Angeles County sewer outfall contain over 45 times as much DDT
as animals near major agricultural drainage areas. The probable source of
this high concentration of DDT in the sewer outfall was thought to be a
plant that manufactures DDT. Burnett pointed out that the above obser-
vation suggested that historically the buildup of residues in California
coastal marine organisms could be attributed, to a significant degree, to
industrial waste discharge rather than merely to extensive agricultural usage.
Not enough information is available on the pesticides concentration in
municipal wastes in the San Joaquin Valley area.
70
-------
Agricultural Wastes
Pesticides may enter water with wastes such as plant residues from agri-
culture and from the food industry.
Hindin (1970) reported that the major mode of DDT disappearance from a
treated plot is by crop removal. By harvest time, some of the less stable
organic phosphorus compounds may be metabolized by the plant to nontoxic end
products. Plants can metabolize DDT also, though much more slowly, so it may
persist with crop residue for a long time.
Wastes or residues from grasslands, grainfields, rangelands, and orchards
are sometimes burned to rid the land of the material or to control a disease.
Such burning may emit some pesticides that do not degrade in the burning oper-
ation. Such pesticides entering the. air may find their way into water. Plant
residues are sometimes left on the soil or incorporated into the soil and as
the plant material decomposes it returns metabolic products back to the soil.
Hart (1966) reported that plant residues are not generally a serious
pollutant of water.
Accidents and Spills
Some other sources of entry of pesticides include accidents and spills.
Several instances of accidents and spills are reported elsewhere (Nicholson,
1970; U. S. Department of HEW, 1969; West, 1966). Accidents and spills occur
during storage, packaging, transport, and application. Although of serious
concern, they affect only a localized area for a short period. In addition,
with careful measures taken, most spills can be cleaned up. Therefore pesti-
cide contamination by spills and accident is not a major route of pesticides
to the water environment of the San Joaquin Valley.
71
-------
Seasonal Variation of Pesticide Use in the San Joaquin Valley
and Pesticide Concentrations in the Sag Joaquin River
and Surface Drains
The time that a pesticide may take to reach the river from its initial
point of application will vary with the route it takes. This is generally in
the following order:
Atmospheric transport Surface runoff Subsurface
and
-------
TOXAPHENE
DDT
-X-KELTHANE
J FMAMJ JASOND
Figure 4.3 Seasonal variation of pesticides used in
San Joaquin Valley
0 N D
Figure 4.4 Seasonal variation of the concentrations of
total pesticides identified in San Joaquin
River (Bailey et al., 1967)
1965
1964
73
-------
O
ffi
CC
-------
Bailey, G.W. 1966. Entry of biocides into water courses. In: Agricultural
Waste Waters. Los Angeles, University of California, Water Resources
Center, p, 94-103 (Water Resources Center Report No. 10).
Bailey, G. W. and J. L. White. 1970. Factors influencing the adsorption,
desorption, and movement of pesticides in soil. Res. Revr. 32:29-93,
Bailey, T. E. and J, R. Hannum. 1967. Distribution of pesticides in
California. J. Sar.it. Eng. Div., Amer. Soc. Civil Eng., 93:27-43.
Ballard, T. M. 1971. Role of humic carrier substances in DDT movement through
forest soils. Soil. Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc. 35:145-47.
Beran, F. and J. A. Guth. 1965. Organic insecticides in various soils, with
particular reference to possible ground water pollution. Pflanzenschutz-
berichte, 33:65-117.
Bowman, M.C., F. Acree, Jr., C.S. Lofgren, and M. Beroza. 1964. Chlorinated
insecticides: fate in aqueous suspension containing mosquito larvae.
Science 146:1480-81.
Bunnett, R. 1971. DDT residues: distribution of concentrations in Enerita
analoga (Stimpson) along coastal California. Science 174:606-8.
California Dept. of Water Resources. 1968a. The fate of pesticides applied
to irrigated agricultural land. Sacramento, California (Its Bulletin No.
174-1).
California Dept. of Water Resources. 1968b. Progress report. San Joaquin
Drainage investigation quality and treatment studies through Dec. 31,
1967. Sacramento, California (Its Bulletin No. 174-2).
California Dept. of Water Resources. 1969. San Joaquin Valley drainage
monitoring program, 1969 summary, Sacramento, California.
California Dept. of Water Resources. 1970. San Joaquin Valley drainage
monitoring program, 1970 summary, Sacramento, California.
California Water Resources Control Board. 1971. A Review of Pesticide Moni-
toring Programs in California. Prepared by Ad Hoc Working group of the
Pesticide Advisory Committee to the State Department of Agriculture,
Sacramento, California.
Cohen, J. M. and C. Pinkerton. 1966. Widespread translocation of pesticides
by air transport and rain-out. In; Organic Pesticides in the Environment.
Washington, Amer. Chem. Soc., p. 163-76. (Adv. Chem. Ser. 60).
Corey, L., P. Fjeld and W. Serat. 1970. Distribution patterns of DDT residues
in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Pest. Monit. J. 3:204-11.
Edwards, C.A., A.R. Thompson, K.I. Beymon and M.J. Edwards. 1970. Move-
ment of dieldrin through soils. I. From arable soils into ponds. Pestic.
Sci. 1:169-73.
Foy, C.L. and S.W. Bingham. 1969. Some research approaches toward minimizing
herbicidal residues in the environment. Residue Rev. 29:105-35.
75
-------
Grasso, C., G. Bernard! and E. Harlottini. 1968. Detection of pesticides in
underground waters. Ann. Sanit. Publ. 29:1029-32.
Gray, R.A. and A.J. Weierich. 1968. Leaching of five thiocarbamate herbi-
cides in soils. Weed Sci, 16:77-79.
Gunther, F. A., W. E. Westlake, and P. S. Jaglan. 1968 . Reported solu-
bilities of 738 pesticide chemicals in water. Residue Rev. 20.1-J^8.
Harris, C. I. 1966. Adsorption, movement and phytotoxicity of monuron and
s-triazine herbicides in soils. Weeds 14, 6-10.
Harris, C. I. 1967. Movement of herbicides in soil. Weeds 15, 214-16.
Harris, C. I. 1969. Movement of pesticides in soil. J. Agr. Food. Chem. 17,
80-82.
Hart S. A. 1966. Agricultural wastes and the waste water problem. .In:
Agricultural Waste Waters. Water Resources Center, University of California,
14-16.
Helling, C. S. and B. C. Turner. 1968. Pesticide mobility: Determination by
soil thin-layer chromatography. Science 162, 562-63.
Higgins, R. E. 1967. Hazards of drift phytotoxicity and hazards to animals.
Proc. Western Weed Control Conf. 21, 28-30.
Hindin, E. 1970. Occurrence of pesticides in aquatic environments: Part I.
Insecticide distribution on an agricultural plot. Pullman, Washington,
Washington State University, Technical Extension Service. (College of
Engineering).
Igue, K. 1970. Volatility of organochlorine insecticides from soil. A Ph.D.
dissertation. University of California, Riverside.
Johnson, H. P. and W. C. Moldenhauer. 1970. Pollution by sediment: Sources
and the detachment and transport processes. In; Agricultural Practices
and Water Quality. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University, p. 3-20.
Johnston, W. R., F. T. Ittihadich, K. R. Craig and A. F. Pillsburg. 1967.
Insecticides in tile drainage effluent. Water Resour. Res. 3:525-37.
Lahser, C. and H. G. Applegate. 1966. Pesticides at Presidio III. Soil and
water. Texas J. Sci. 18:386-95.
Leh, H. 0. 1968. Studies on the vertical movement of herbicides in the soil
with special regard to the possibilities of ground water contamination.
Nachr. Bl. dt. Pfl Schutzdienst. Stuttg. 20:99-106.
Lichtenstein, E. P. 1958. Movement of insecticides in soils under leaching
conditions. J. Econ. Entomol. 51:380-83.
Lichtenstein, E. P. 1970. Fate and movement of insecticides in and from
soils. In; Pesticides in the Soil; International symposium. East Lansing,
Michigan, Michigan Statfe University, p. 101-6.
76
-------
Lichtenstein, E. P. and K. R. Schulz. 1964. The effect of moisture and micro-
organisms on the persistence and metabolism of some organophosphorus in-
secticides in soils, with special emphasis on parathion. J. Econ. Entomol.
57:618-27,
Lloyd-Jones, C. P. 1971. Evaporation of DDT. Nature 229:65-6.
McCarty, P. L. and P. H. King. 1966. The movement of pesticides in soils.
Eng. Bull., Purude University, Ext. Ser. No. 121:156-71.
Middleton, J. T. 1965. The presence, persistence and removal of pesticides in
air. In; Research in Pesticides, edited by C. 0. Chichester. New York
Academic Press, p. 191-8.
Mitchell, L. E. 1966. Pesticides: properties and prognosis. In: Organic
Pesticides in the Environment. Washington, Amer. Chem. Soc., p. 1-22.
Adv. Chem. Ser. 60.
Mitchell, W. G., D. A. Parsons, P. F. Sand, D. D. Lynch, and W. S. Cook, Jr.
1970. An explanatory study of pesticide migration from waste disposal pits,
1967. Washington, U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
p. 14.
Niagara Chemical Division. 1971. Insecticide-Miticide. Middleport, N. Y.
Nicholson, H. P. 1970. The pesticide burden in water and its significance,
In; Agricultural Practices and Water Quality. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State,
p. 183-93.
Nicholson, H. P. and D. W. Hill. 1970. Pesticide contaminants in water and
mud and their environmental impact. In; Relationship of Agriculture to Soil
and Water Pollution; Cornell University Conference on Agricultural Waste
Management. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University, p. 171-79.
Risebrough, R. W., R. J. Huggett, J. J. Griffin and E. D. Goldberg. 1968.
Pesticides-Transatlantic movement in the Northeast Trades. Science 159:1233.
Storie, R. E. and W. W. Wein. 1951. Generalized Soil Map of California.
Berkeley, California., Calif. Agr. Exp. Sta. Ext. Ser. (Manual 6).
Swift, J. E. 1966. Pesticides, wildlife and water relationship in California,
In; Agricultural Waste Waters. Los Angeles, Water Resources Center,
University of California, p. 9-14.
Swoboda, A. R. and G. W. Thomas. 1968. Movement of parathion in soil columns.
J. Agr. Food Chem. 16:923-27.
Tinnier, F. L., P. A. Frank and R. J. Demint. Herbicide residues in agricultural
water from control of aquatic and bank weeds. In; Agricultural Practices
and Water Quality. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University, p. 193-208.
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1970. Comprehensive
Framework Study, California Region. Appendix VIII. Watershed Management.
Prepared by the California Region Framework Study Committee for the Pacific
Southeast Inter-Agency Committee Batsr Resources Council.
77
-------
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. 1969. Report of the Secretary's
Commission on pesticides and their relationship to environmental health.
Part I and II. Washington, Govt. Print. Off.
U.S. House Committee on Government Operations. 1967. Water Pollution -
Central and Northern California. Hearings before a subcommittee of the
Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Nineteenth
Congress, first session. Washington, Govt. Print. Off.
U.S. Rubber Company Chemical Division. Agricultural Chemicals.
West, I. 1966. Biological effects of pesticides in the environment. In;
Organic Pesticides in the Environment. Washington, Amer. Chem. Soc.
p.38-53. (Adv. Chem. Ser. 60).
Westlake, W.E. and F.A. Gunther. Occurence and mode of introduction of
pesticides in the environment. In_; Organic Pesticides in the Environment.
Washington, Amer. Chem. Soc. p.110-21. (Adv. Chem. Ser. 60).
78
-------
CHAPTER 5
DEGRADATION, METABOLISM, AND PERSISTENCE OF PESTICIDES
IN THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
Degradation of Pesticides
When a pesticide is applied to soil or water it does not always remain in
the same form for long. It may be transformed into other chemicals—biologi-
cally by soil and water microorganisms, nonbiologically by photolysis, or by
chemical means. These transformations often affect the persistence, toxicity,
and other physicochemical properties of the pesticide. Study of the effect of
pesticides on the aquatic environment therefore requires knowledge of the degra-
dation products and their toxicities and persistences.
The metabolic and degradation products of pesticides in soils, water, plants,
and animals were recently discussed in great detail by a number of investigators
(Menzie, 1969; Kearney and Kaufman, 1969; Ware and Roan, 1971; White-Stevens,
1971; Dahm, 1970; Kearney, 1966). Since this study is concerned primarily with
the effects of pesticides on the aquatic environment, only the degradation products
in soil and water are considered. These products of pesticides selected from the
top 100 pesticides used in the San Joaquin Valley, are shown in Table 5.1. The
column "Agents" indicates whether the degradation product is microbial or photo-
chemical and whether it was degraded in soil or water. As can be seen, informa-
tion available on the degradation of pesticides in water is scant compared with
that in soil. However, the degradation products found in soil could also be
detected in water. The main differences between the soil and water environ-
ments are in the concentrations of pesticide, adsorbate, or microorganisms.
Some of the ways in which pesticides are degraded biologically are by
hydrolysis, hydroxylation, dehalogenation, dehydrohalogenation, desulfuration
(- oxidation), 0-dealkylation, N-dealkylation, reduction, conjugation, and ring
79
-------
?able 5.1 D«g«dattve and Hitabollc Producta of PrutteU**
Degradation
Degi*K)
Utttaaara si *i- f'1/
Jobnaon et al. (J967)
Kalliun and Andrews (1963)
Holer at al. (1969)
Baker and Appleg»t« (1970)
Cuenxl and Beard (1967)
Llcbtenteln et al.. (1971)
Keil and Fr teeter (1969)
ttatatiBura e_t al. (1971)
Lope* (1970)
Moler et al. (1969)
Baker and Applegate (1970)
Cueui and Burd (1967)
MatavBttra and Bovuh (1968)
Uchtentteln et al. (1971)
Cueul and Beard (1»»7)
Cueaai ud Beard (19*7)
Moier et al^. (1969)
Baker end Applegate (1970)
Cuensl and Beard (1967)
Baker end Applegat? (197C)
Hataoura et al. (1971)
Cromkj (1970)
Crotisjr (1970)
Crosby (1»70)
Fernaade* (1966)
ferneadea (1966)
Fanaadei (1966)
Menaie (1969). Data (1970). Pukuta end
Six (1971)
Mitchell e£ al. (19*«)
Metcalf et al. (L96J)
Hetcalf et al. (196J)
80
-------
Takla I.I - Coottmiad
reetldde*
Carbophaao-
tUon
Uawthoata
Walloon
Degradation Product!
»-WelhyUh\o-«-cr**ol
(iiupected product)
MjMthyl-o-thlophoephorlc
•eld (eoepected product)
Carbophenothion lulfoxld*
Deraethyl dlMthoete
0.0-aiaathyl pho.pboro-
dlthlolc acid
Carfcoxy derivative
0,0-Wnthyl phoaphoro-
dlthlolc acid
2-Ieopropyl-4-e»thyl-6-
hydroxypyr laid toe
Degradation Agent
Natural river water
Natural river water
DV light
Alkali hydrolyale, pH » U.
Alkali hydrolysis. PI - 11
Alkali hydrolyela, »a • 11
Alkali hydrolyela, pH - 11
Bydrolyaaa ie loll
Soil Blcreorgaaleof
Dlethyl thlophoepborlc add tydroljreea in coil
Bipheoeadd
By la*
DUystoe
NelathlOB
B-Mtfcyl-2 .2-dlBbenv-
leeetavU*
Mcr.yl-2 ,2-dlpheDT-
]«ceteeld*
2,2-Myhenyleeetendde
2.2-Mphanylecetlc add*
ieiubvtecl
BenMebeM.
•eniole add
DiMthjrl 2.2-dlchloro-
rtnyl pteapbete
PiMthyl phoaphate
mcbloToetheaol
Deametbvl trichlorfon
0-Hetbf 1-2 .2 ,2-trlchlno-
ecid
2.2.2-rrlchloTo~l-oydra»3r-
etbyl ehaephonlc acid
Dleulfoua aulf one
Mnvlfoton enUozlde
Methyl malata
DeOHthyl malathlon
IhleMlle »cld
Soil mlerMrganiaatt
DV light
DV light
Soil •icroorganiene
Soil •Icroorganlen*
07 light
DV light
DV light
Alkaline condttlooe
Acid condition*
Acid condition!
Acid Condition*
Mlcroorganleew
Mieroorganlrae
DV light
DV light
Soil alcroorgenlaa*
Soil •Icroorganiene
Chemical bydrolyaee
Soil
Eichelberger and Llchtenberg (1971}
Elcbelberier and Llchtenberg (1971)
Mitchell at ml. (1968)
Brady aad Aurth«r (1963)
Brady and Aurther (1963)
Brady and Aurther (1963)
Brady and Aurthu (1963)
Homed e£ tl. (1967)
Sethucathan and To«hlda (1969)
Konrad *t_ al. (1967)
CoUb Ft al. (1949)
Roeen (19t7)
Roaen (19*7)
Golab et al. (1968)
Caleb et el. (196S)
toaen (19*7)
Rnen (1967)
Roeen (1967)
Halcion et al. (1955)
Meule (1969)
Meniie (1969)
Heul* (1969)
Zayed at al. (196S a. b)
Zayed et el. (1965 ., b)
Mitchell et aj.. (1968)
Mitchell et al. (196(1)
MatauBura and Bouih (1966)
Mauunira and loiuh (1966)
Konrad et al. (1969)
Konrad et^ al. (1969)
eta
thtophoepherte
Methyl thlonalete
Ch*Hd±al hy4roly»e*
Soil
•ydrolyel* in acid pi
CheBlcal hydrolyal*
Konrad at al. (1969)
Koorad at al. (1969)
Muhlnuna aad Schroder (1957)
Konrad at a^. (1969)
Konrad a£ al. (19(9)
81
-------
Table S.I - Continued
Pesticide
Degradation Product.
Degradation Agent
Methyl psre-
rtloe
Farathloa
Phorate
Dlethyl fu.ar.te Hydroly.e. 1" ba.lc pi
r>ltts:bjrl phosphorodithlolc
acid Bydroly.es In basU pB
2-«ereaptodlethyl .uccln«t« Bydwlyse. In acid pH
Hetabollm nearly similar to p»rathion.
Unlike parathlon, on photoly.fs methyl
parathion give, rise only to the
corresponding paraoxon, which In turn
glvee rl.e to a less polar compound.
talnoparathloo
p-Nltroph*nol
p-laUnopheool
Dietbyl thlophospborlc
acid
Dletiyl-ortlio-tJilopbce-
pboric acid
DKFU (0,0-Diethyl phoa-
Soil aicroorganlsn*
Soil microorganism
Lake sediments - microorganism*
Rhlzoblua
Soil Blcroorganisns
Lake aedinenta (sterilised)
Direct sunlight and Irradiation by Hg
discharge lamp
Sunlight
Hater
Soil •icroorganlsms
Lake aedibeents (sterilised)
Water
phorotiiolc acK)
Fsrsoxan
8-Itbyl parathlta
S-Fhenyl p*r«thion
PnoApborodithtoita
aulroJdae
«hiiobiu»
UV light
0V light
0V light
Soil aler<
0V light
rhoephorothlolate suUide Soil aicroorganlsac
fbp*pboTOthlolate sulf out Soil alcrcorganisaa
OT light
Ruweleo* - oxoo Sail
Dietbyl phosphoroditbiole
•c" *«il
DIMhyl phoepborotbiolc
A eobatituted pbeoozaaooe Soil
Other
iMecticioesi
Carbaryl
l-IUpbthy], N-bydroxr-
Mthylcarba»te
Mthylcarbsuts
J-Hydroiy-1-naph thyl
Hthylearbssuts
Soil fmgu*
Soil fungus
(oil fungus
82
Reference
MuhLmann and Schroder ()957)
Huhlnanti and Schroder (1957)
Kublmaun and Schroder (1957)
Dana (1970)
Heule (1969)
Lichten.teln and Schult (196't)
Miller e£ al. (1966)
Craeti et al. (1970)
Hick and Oaha (1970)
Llcbtensteln «r.j Schult (1964)
Graets et^ el. (W70)
Sandi (1958)
Heule (1969)
Elchelberger and Licbtensteln (1971)
Llchteneteln and Schulz (1964)
Greets et al. (1970)
Elcbalberjer and Llchtccstein (1971)
Hick and Daha (1970)
Koivlstoinen (1962)
Kolvlstolneo (1962)
Koivlstoinen (1962)
Ahsed st al. (19S8)
Mitchell e: al. (1968)
Muted e_t al. (1958)
Ahaed et al. (1958)
Mitchell et «l. (1968)
Colinese and Terry (1968)
Colineee and Terry (1968)
Colinese and Terry (1968)
Colinese and Terry (1968)
«„ tet ^.n., (1971)
Lul and lollag (1971)
Uii and lollag (1971)
-------
T«bl« 3.1 - Coatlmmd
Faatlcida
Degradation Froducta
Degradation Agent
Reference
l-Raphthol
Fhthallc act*
garble Idan
itrailaa Bydroxyatraxina
amitrol.
2.*-*
2-Chloro-4-aalno-6-
laopropylamlrvo-a-trlazlne
2-Chloro—4-athylaBlno-6-
•-trlailna
J-*aino-1.2,4,-trlazolyl
alanina
Oraa
Cyanaalda
2.4-Olchlorophanol
4-Chlorocatachol
3.3-Otchloroeatlehal
VOH-2.4-B
6-OH-2.4-D
4-OH-2.J-0
a-Cblorovutonie acid
M tonic *cU
a*Ck loro- > - c» t
a-Cbloco-4-hydroxy
•ectle *eld
4-Chloro-2-bydtoxy
•cctic «eid
Sail mtcr
0V light
DV light
C*t«ly§ed by *d«otptlen oa clays
C«t«ly««d by idBotftioo in toil
Sail fungi
Soil
Chaleal hydralysea la »otl
Soil fungi
Soil fungi
K, colt
0V light
DV light
Soil Blcroorganlsm*
Soil aicroorgaaisiu
l«ct«rla
Soil mlctoorganlnu
0V light
Soil mlcroorganlcna
Soil •icToorgaaliaa
VV light
Soil •Icroorgaalstss
MleroorgaalKw
kcCcrli
Soil •Ictaorganlrau
Soil nlcroorganlsiu
Kicroorganisaa
Soil •icroorganlatu
•ieraargaalaas
Soil •Icroorgan! raa
Soil idcioorganima
Soil •icroorganlan*
•acttcla
«V light
0V light
UV light
Llchtaaateln ti al . (1966)
Croaby and Lcitle (1964)
Ctoaby a.id teltia (196'0
Kuaaell at. al. (1968)
Araatrong at al. (1967)
Couch ^t al. (1965)
Oolcn at^ £l (1969)
Skippar a£ >1. (1967)
Kaufnan and Blake (1970)
Kaufman and BUV« (1970)
Hllliaos at al. (1963)
Pli-wr a£ al.(!S67)
tlimun at al.(1967)
Staanaoa and Walker (1936)
Loo. at .al. (1967)
Eollag at al_. C1968»)
Kaarnay «i al. (S.966)
Croaby and Tucaas (1966)
Staanaoa and Ualkat (1936)
Kaarnay a£ al, (1968)
Croa&y ana Tut*t.i (1966)
at. a^. (1968)
laulknet and Woodcock. (1964)
Bollagat^al. (I968b)
Erana (1961)
Eearnqr a£ al. (1968)
Fiiillmti and WoodcoLV (1964)
Evans (1961)
raullour and Woodcock (1964)
Farnley and Evsna (1959)
Evan* (1961)
Evana (1961)
Bollag at al. (1968b)
Croaby and Tuc«>« (1966)
Croaby and Tut.se (1966)
Crosby and TUHBB (1966)
83
-------
Table 3.1 - Continued
_
Peaticlde 1 Degradation Product!
Dalapoa
Dae thai
Dluvon
KCFA
Pyruaie acid
Maaochloraproalouata
o-Chloro aery late
•louia
Hoaeetethyl derivative
Pre« diaerbogyl analog
J , J ,5 ,6-Tec rachlorotere-
•btkallc actd (a predicted
product)
J- (3 ,4-Dlchlareyhonyl)-
1-Mthylurea
1- (3 .*-DlchloTophany 1)
area
3,4-Dlchloraanillna
4-Chloro-2-Mthyl*heaol
6-OB-MCP*
3-Chloro-I-wUiylut*chol
MM
Degradation A»».4t Mferenee
Soil microorganlaa Kearney «it a_l. (196*a)
Cell free enilme froa bacteria Kearney it «!.. (1964b)
Many Btcroorganiaaa Haoaie (1969)
Cell free raslote froas bacteria Kearney et al. (19646)
Call £rea eniiac fro* bacteria Kaarney <_: al. (19&'-t>;
Soil Skinner et aj.. (1964)
Soil Skinner lit al. (1964)
Irradiation, >290mp Croiby and Li (1969)
Soil Dalton e_t. al. (1966)
Soil Daltou «_t El. (1966)
Soil Dalttm ac. *l. (1966)
loll •icraorgaclaa lollag *t_ al. (1967)
loll bacteria Gaunt and Zvaoa (1961)
loll bacteria Gaunt and (vane (1961)
loll bacteria Gaunt and Kv.oa (1961)
«-«eebyl-a-certo)rjpmelhyl*n»-
Peraquet
ao-twtengllde
^*tetfcyl«l.yl.=.tlc acid
MatHvl-A-chloro*.-!
•yo roiyp hcnozy ACA £ i c
acid
l~ltochyl-4-carboKypyrl-
dlniw
dloluei ion'
Soil bacteria Gaunt and gvooe (1961)
Soil bacteria (Jaunt and BvaM (1961)
Sacterla Steenaon and Walker (19S7)
Soil fungi Faulkner « al. (1965)
Soil bacteria Bocarth ejj tl. (1966)
m U«hc Fundarburk et al. (1966)
0V light SUd. (19e5)
Bacterial laclate Funderburk and bozarth (1967)
•ethyl taint kydrochloxlde 0V light Sled* (1965)
ProBanll
Fropionic acid
3,t-Dichloraaallln*
Soil microorganism Bertha at al. (1969)
Soil nicroorganlaii Bartha *t al. (1969)
1.3-Bi»{J,*-dichloropBenyl>
Pyraion
Sinox
trlMine
J§3* .*.* '-Tetrachloro-
"•*""""'
J.3' ,«'-Irlchloro-»-(3,«-
dlchloroentlino) atob«n-
•aoe
5-/uilnc-»-chloro-3(ZR>-
pyrKU'tnon*
J-*»ano-S-nltro-t>-ct«»ol
3-Hathyl-S-nltrocatechol
*"" Fli«Bar at. al. (1970)
Soil mlcroovganlaa. g.rth» ^ ^ {195a)
Soil «lcroorg.nl.«. fU.tmk» and K«rney (1970)
Call
tlnka (1970)
Soil bacteria Il>gAlld ^ JeMtn (lfM)
Boil icroorganl.. glltth .„„ ^^ (WQ)
Soil bacteria TwMk ^ ^^ (W6S)
Soil bacteria T*«flk and Ev.™ (i,66)
84
-------
table I.I - Continued
•eftuide
g buiiee
TCA
Degradation Product
J-»lethyl-5-e*inocel«chol
l,3lVTfiny«'ro»ytoluene
J-A»lno-S-nltro-»-creeol
ftydroxyelueiine
Z-Chloro-*-eol3o-«-ethy-
leftlno-e-trlaai&e
Chloroform
C«rton dloside
Degradation Agent
Doll batter 1*
Soil bacteria
Soil bacteria
Soil uleroorganiiBa
Soil •ieroorgenlane
UT light
UV light
tefertnc*
tevfik end tvane (1966)
Teuftk end Eveiu (1966)
Rudi end Mohw«4 (1970)
Harrla (1965)
Kaarnay et al. (1965)
Ban«i-Jl >nd Uher (1924)
biwrjl «ad Dh.r (1924)
Trlflur«lla
a,a,«-Tilfluoro-J,6-dlnltro-
»-prciiyl-i>-tolu)dln« Aerobic di|T*dation la iolU
Anaerobic dcgrtdctlon in lollt
UV light
Aerobic degradetioa in eolla
DV light
Aerobic degradation in eoile
Anaerobic degradation in eolla
Aerobic degradation ie aolle
0V
o,a.o-trlfluoro-S-oltro-W-
«,«,o-trlfluor»-5-«ltro-
COllMB*-} , <-dl«10«
nitroao-p-coluidlne
«,o,»-trUluototolunne-3,4,9-
triemlaa Aerobic degradation in eolle
Anaerobic degradation in aoile
e,e,e-Trlfluoro-»,S-dlpropjl-
toltildlne-],4,S-trlemlae Anaerobic degradation in aolla
«,»,e»"TtlfluoTO-li-propyl-
Anaerobic dagredation in eoll*
Frobat et el. (1967)
Frobet et al. (1947)
rrobet end Tape (1969)
Frobet et al. (1967)
Frobet end Te*o (1969)
Frebet et el. (1967)
Probat et .1,. (1967)
Frohet et al. (1967)
Froeac and Te«e (1969)
Frobet «. al. (1967)
Frobat et el. (1967)
FrebeC ee.el. (1947)
Frobat at ai- (1967)
Other
euttcldea t
Chlorobenxl-
lete 4,4'-01cKlorobeniophenone
4,4'-Mehlorobe»illc
ecu
Chiorobentllate
DBCF B-Fropanol
Naneb Siallar
lab. 0,
V
Catbooyl aulfide
gtbyleoedlaaloe
ftbylevi thlourea
Ithyleoe thlunedliulftde
evlflda
Telooe J-Cnloroallyl elcohole
3-Chloroecrylle ecid
Teaet
Teast
Teeet
Soil
to Haban
Soil
Chaiicel degradation
goll
Chemical degradation
goll
Chaalcal degradation
Chealcal degradetlon
Chemical degradation
Chemical degradation
Chemical hydrolyeee in *olla
Cheaicel kydrolyeee and then by toll becterla
Chemical hydrolyeae eed then by coil bacteria
Kiyaaafcl et el. (1970)
Mlyesaki et al_. (1970)
Mlyeiaki et al. (1970)
tnomaaon et aj.. (1971)
Fukuto and Slu (1970)
Hunnecke et el. (1962)
Ludwig end Thora (1960)
Kuanecke tt al. (1962)
ludwig and thorn (1960)
Moje et^ al. (1964)
tudvlg end Thorn (1960)
Ludvlg end Thorn (1960)
Ludwig end Thorn (1960)
Ludwig end Thorn (1960)
Thoieeon et al. (1971)
Thooaaon et al. (1971)
Btlaen and Caatro (1971)
85
-------
cleavage (Kaufman, 1970; Dahm, 1970; Menzie, 1969; Kearney and Helling, 1969).
Nonbiological degradation may be mineral- and organic-matter surfaces in
the soil, by water, and by photolysis. Nonbiological degradation is discussed
in detail elsewhere (Crosby and Li, 1969; Crosby, 1970). The dividing line be-
tween biological and nonbiological reactions is not always clear. Difficulties
in obtaining sterile soil without changing the physicochemical properties of soil
have precluded clear distinctions between the two processes. Further, degrada-
tion pathways and products are often the same in the different processes, so
that it is very difficult to distinguish which of the above-mentioned processes
is acting on the pesticide in the field.
So far, no balance sheet has been proposed by which the contribution of each
of these processes could be ascertained. The contribution of each of these
processes depends on many factors: micrcbial activity, physicochemical condition
of the soil or water, etc. For example, photodecomposition may be important at
the soil surface, with other processes becoming important when the pesticide
moves beneath the surface. Hence, an important factor in considering the contri-
bution of the different degradation processes is the time a pesticide remains
on the surface versus the time it remains beneath the surface.
Another point about Table 5.1 is that some of the results were obtained in
the laboratory under controlled conditions. How important that could be in cer-
tain cases in the field is not known. For instance, most of the evidence of
photolysis comes from experiments conducted in the laboratory under artificial
conditions, generally under mercury lamps emitting principally at 254 my. In the
few practical experiments carried out in the field, losses of biological activity
were proposed to be due to photodecomposition, although the results were affected
by other processes: volatility, nonphotochemical hydrolyses, etc. Interpreting
the results reported ir. the table therefore requires care plus knowledge not yet
available.
86
-------
RRM.
Application losses
Volatility
Leaching, volatilization, penetration, adsorption
Enzymatic (probably bacterial),
degradation (-(-teaching and
volatilization)
Time
Figure 5.1 Theoretical breakdown curve for soil insecticides
(Edwards, 1966).
87
-------
Persistence of Pesticides and their Degradation Products
The persistence of pesticides has been studied mainly for two reasons:
1) to see whether effects will be carried over to the next crop; and 2) to
see how long the pesticide remains in the soil or water to threaten the terrestrial
or aquatic environment. The present study is interested in the second aspect.
In study of water pollution, persistence is as important as toxicity. An in-
crease in the persistence and toxicity of a pesticide or its degradation products
can damage the aquatic environment.
Persistence depends on many factors: the pesticide itself, soil type,
temperature, moisture, air movement, relative humidity, cover crops, microorganisms,
application rate, mode of application, etc. Edwards (1966) separated these factors
into arbitrary classes of gradually decreasing importance: primary, secondary,
tertiary, and quaternary factors. Primary factors include the chemical structure
of the pesticide and its intrinsic stability and volatility. Secondary factors
include the soil type, which influences adsorption, desorption, and leaching.
Tertiary factors Include soil temperature, soil moisture, and soil cultivation.
Quaternary factors include the formulation and concentration of the pesticide
and the soil's mineral content and acidity.
The main processes by which these factors affect the persistence of a pesti-
cide are: decomposition by soil microorganisms, adsorption by soil colloids,
leaching, chemical decomposition, volatilization and codistillation, adsorption
by plants and other organisms, and soil cultivation. Figure 5.1, from Edwards
(1966), shows how these processes influence the decay of soil insecticides at
various times of its life. The figure, developed for soil insecticides, can be
generalized for all pesticides.
The different processes affecting the persistence of a pesticide are briefly
discussed below.
88
-------
Decomposition by microorganisms; Practically all soils contain micro-
organisms that are capable of breaking down pesticides (Donaldson, 1968).
Optimum conditions of moisture, temperature, aeration, and pH favor intense
microbial activity. Since the chemical nature of a pesticide affects the ease
with which it is utilized as an energy source by microorganisms, pesticides
differ in persistence. Alexander (1965) reported that the microbial degrada-
bility of even similar chemicals such as chlorinated phenoxyalkanoates differed
with the position of the chlorine atom in the molecule. Kearney and Pliinmer
(1970) discussed other examples of the relation between chemical structure and
persistence or biodegradability.
There has been evidence that repeated applications of pesticides are less
stable than the initial application, and this was proposed to be due to adapta-
tion of the chemical by the microorganism, causing later applications of the
pesticide to break down in a shorter time (Donaldson, 1968; Aly and Faust, 1964).
Adsorption by soil colloids and sediments; Soil type may be the most
important single parameter affecting the adsorption of pesticides to soil
(Pierce et^ al., 1971). Soil type is a very general term, however, neglecting
great variability in properties such as content of organic matter, clay content,
ion-exchange capacity, surface area, and pH. Generally considered the most
important of these various properties for correlation with pesticide adsorption
is the content of minerals and organic matter (Pierce et al., 1971). The
persistence of a pesticide generally increases with an increase in organic matter
(Harris, 1969; Warren, 1954; Lichtenstein e_t al., 1960; Edwards, 1966) and with
an increase in clay content (Warren, 1954). The longer persistence is due to
increased adsorption of the pesticide onto the organic matter or clay particles,
thus decreasing the availability of the pesticide for microbial decompsoition,
volatility, and leaching. However, Hance (1970) in a recent review paper indicated
89
-------
that sorptioa may increase or reduce the rates of microbial, photochemical, and
chemical decomposition of pesticides. He discussed examples of the influence
of sorption on each of these processes. According to him,adsorption might be
expected to affect microbial activity in one of two conflicting ways. There
is likely to be a greater population density of microorganisms on or near soil
surfaces than in the soil solution, so it might be expected that adsorption
could enhance microbial activity by increasing the concentration of pesticide
in areas rich in microorganisms. Conversely, if microorganisms are able to
attack pesticides only in solution then adsorption would slow degradation.
Another reason for increased persistence of a pesticide in soils liigh in
organic matter is increased formation of resistant complexes of organic matter
and pesticides. Stewart et al. (1971) reported parathion persistence for
several years and proposed that parathion formed resistant complexes with the
lignin fraction of the soil organic matter. In certain cases organic matter may
decrease the persistence time of pesticides (Dubey et ai_., 1964). Increased
microbiai activity in soils of high organic matter could increase microbial
breakdown of the pesticides (Dubey jit al., 1964).
In natural water, adsorption of chemicals by sediments is an important
process by which a pesticide disappears from the environment. Krone (1966),
from a study of the effect on water quality of sediment inflows to the San
Francisco Bay system, reported that the sediments can buffer significant amounts
of sorbable material such as heavy metals and pesticides disposed of in the bay.
When these sediments, having sorbed toxic compounds, are deposited and not re-
worked, the sorbed compounds are permanently removed from the water. This finding
is supported by recent work of Veith and Lee (1971) who showed that the sorption
of toxaphene on lake sediments was irreversible in aqueous solution, and that leach-
ing of appreciable amounts of toxaphene from the sediments by water was highly
90
-------
improbable.
Leaching; Leaching is another process by which a pesticide disappears
from the place where applied. The pesticide does not disappear but is trans-
ported to another place. Leaching depends on the water solubility of the pesti-
cide, adsorption, and the amount of rainfall or irrigation water applied.
Leaching is discussed in detail in the previous chapter.
Chemical decomposition; Like microbial decomposition, chemical decomposi-
tion decreases the persistence time of pesticides. For instance, Lichtenstein
and Shulz (1964) found that parathion was more persistent in dry soil than in
moist soil. They explained this as being due to the hydrolysis of parathion in
moist soil.
Volatilization and codistillation; The persistence of a pesticide may also
be affected by volatilization and codistillation. This is one of the reasons
why a pesticide has a shorter persistence at the soil surface than beneath the
surface. Factors affecting volatilization and codistillation are discussed in
the previous chapter.
Photodecompoaition; Like microbial and chemical decomposition, photode-
composition also affects the persistence of a pesticide. If sunny.conditions
prevail after a pesticide is applied, photodecomposition can occur at the soil
surface before the pesticide is leached into the soil. In the San Joaquin Valley,
since large amounts of pesticides are applied during the sunny summer months,
certain pesticides may be lost in significant quantities through photodecomposition.
Absorption by plants and other organisms: Uptake by plants and other
organisms decreases pesticide concentrations in soil and water, thereby affecting
persistence.
Soil cultivation; Lichtenstein and Schulz (1961) found that daily disking
of a loam soil decreased the residue levels of DDT and aldrin in soils. They
proposed increased volatilization of the insecticides as the cause. Lange eu_ al.
91
-------
(1971) studied the persistence of herbicides under different cultural practices
at the West Side Field Station, in the San Joaquin Valley near Five Points,
California. The residual characteristics of some herbicides varied considerably
with the different cultural methods. For example, trifluralin showed essentially
no residue when applied to the surface and sprinkler-irrigated, but left some
residue if mechanically incorporated and then sprinkler- or furrow-irrigated.
The persistence of a pesticide is usually different in water from that in
soils. Available data on the persistence of pesticides is limited in nacural
water as compared with soils. The limited information available indicates that
some pesticides have a longer persistence in water than in soils, and some have a
shorter. 2,4-D persists longer in natural water than in soils (Aly and Faust,
1964; DeMarco £t al., 1967; Schwartz, 1967), and many insecticides persist longer
in soils than in natural river water (Eichenberger and Lichtenberg, 1971). Pesti-
cides in water, unlike in soils, have high freedom of movement and mixing. When
a pesticide is added or transported to water, most of it gets adsorbed to sedi-
ments. After adsorption, a small fraction of the pesticide is gradually desorbed
and released into the overlying water, where the pesticide concentration is
maintained in dynamic equilibrium (Huang, 1971). Studies on major agricultural
river basins of California have indicated that an average pesticide concentration
of 0.1 to 0.2 ppb in water may mean that bottom sediments contain 20 to 500 ppb
(Bailey e_t al., 1967). When a pesticide is added or transported to natural water,
the concentrations in the water and in the muds differ greatly in changes over
time. The concentration in water may decrease rapidly, whereas the concentration
in the bottom mud or sediments may increase for a period and then slowly decrease
(Bridges et al., 1963).
Generally, the persistence time is lower in water than in the sediments.
When 2,4-D is applied to natural water, only 1% remains in the water after a
month (House et a_l., 1967), whereas 6% remains in the sediments even after
92
-------
month (House et al., 1967), whereas 6% remains in the sediments even after ten
months (Smith and Isam, 1967). Johnson et^ al. (1966) reported that 3 to 9 years
after treatment of eight Wisconsin lakes with 0.1 ppm toxaphene., the levels of
toxaphetie were 1 to A ppb in the water and 0.2 to 1 ppm in the sediments.
From the preceding discussion, it is very clear that the persistence of a
pesticide depends on many factors and that differences in these factors from
place to place make it impossible to attribute an absolute life to any pesti-
cide. A pesticide will differ drastically in persistence time with different
conditions of experiment as reported in the literature. Most cases reported
the time required for the disappearance of only a certain percentage of the
pesticide initially applied. Because different workers used different bases
in measuring the percentages of disappearance, the persistence times of pesti-
cides cannot be compared on a common scale, Also, persistence studies were
conducted in different soil types at different application rates, making
a valid comparison even more difficult.
Table 5.2 reports the persistence of selected pesticides from the top 100
pesticides used in the San Joaquin Valley. In some of these results, persistence
time has been taken as the time required for loss of the phytotoxicity of a
herbicide. Loss of phytotoxicity, however, does not necessarily mean that all
the herbicide has disappeared. A herbicide may remain in substantial concentra-
tion adsorbed to soil colloids and not show phytotoxicity. A pesticide may also
have been transported away from the point of application by leaching, runoff, or
volatilization. Since the pesticide is not necessarily lost from the environment,
persistence time thus calculated should be interpreted with care. Similarly,
although pesticides may have low persistence in water, they may persist for a
long time adsorbed in the aquatic sediments.
Some persistence results are reported in terms of the half-life of pesti-
cides. Lichtenstein jet al. (1971) recently cautioned against the use of half-
93
-------
cides. Liechtenstein et al. (1971) recently cautioned against the use of half-
life in pesticide persistence because the rate of decline, which depends on many
factors, is not constant at all times. It is usually faster initially than later
on. Bro-Rasmussan e± al. (1970) also found that the rate of decline of several
pesticides decreased irregularly with time.
Persistence of pesticides in soils has been correlated with the chemical
character of the pesticide (Kearney &t al_., 1969; Pierce e£ al_. , 1971). Pierce
jet
-------
Orgoncchlorine insecticides
BHC, Dieldrir.
Hnmn
Heptachlcr, Aldrin, Metabolites
3 4
Years
5
Urea, triazine, and piclorom herbicides
BNmUflBEMfiBttffiU
^H^HHBMUHUIUJP
Propazine, Picieram
&^
Simazine
HI
Atrazine, Monuron
rim
Diuron
Linuron, Fenuron
Prometryne
i
II I ! I I
02 46 8 10 12 14 16 18
Months
Phosphate insecticides
Moiathion, Parathion
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Weeks
Benzoic acid and amide herbicides
,3,6-TIA
JBrrlmLnrn
Bensulide
Oiphenamide
CDAA, Dicamba
i i I
j_
468
Months
10 12
Phenosy. tolusdine. and nitrile herbicides Carbamate and aliphatic acid herbicides
-- — -i i ..-.-.... ' i.i i .1 i i- M - •--- i ii • i • • • - • • — ...
012 3456
Months
Dalapon, CIPC
BB
CDEC
I
IPC, EPTC
m
Borban
4 6 8 10 12
Figure 5.2 Persistence of individual pesticides in soils
(Kearney et al., 1969)
-------
Table 5.2 FeraUtene* of Peeticide* tot Th*lr Degradation rroduct* IB Soli and Hater
Pesticide end
legradatlon Product*
Otganochlorin*
Ina#cticlde0!
Chlordan*
DDT
EndoeulCan
Toxaphen*
Organophoe-
phorue insecti-
cide* :
Bay tax
Carbophenc-
thioa
Application fteta
10 ug/llter
Six retea renging
0.625 to 20 Ib/ecre
llormel rate*
10 Ib/acre/year
1 to 2 Ib/acre
20 lb/ecte/ye*r
1 to 2 1/2 Ib/acre
10 lb/*cr*
1 Ib/acre
100 ppm
High rat*
Normal
10 te 20 Ib/acre
10 te 20 Ib/ecre
25 lb/*er*
2 lb/*er.
10 ug/llteT
10 ug/llier
20 lb/ acre/year
1*0 ppm
50 ppm
100 ppm
10 ug/llter
10 dg/liter
2 to * Ib/ecr*
10 ug/liier
10 ug/ liter
TTJM of toll
et Water
natural river water
Loam *oil
Soil*
Noratl .grleultnr*!
•oil*
Sandy clay Mil
Soil*
Sandy clay '(oil
Sell*
Silt lomm •oil
Main* forest aoil
Soil
Sandy loam
Soil
Kormal agricultural
•ell*
Sell
Sell
•5 *oil type*
Soil
Natural river we tar
Natural river water
Sandy clay *oil
Soil
Sandy lots
Sandy loam
Natural river water
Metural river water
floe eandy *oll
Natural river water
Natural river water
r*r*i*taoc* Tin*
2 60 r «*.
14.3 month.
9 to 13 y*er*
5 year*
* yeare
1 to 6 yeari
4 y**r*
» to 30 ye*re
15 y*««
9 ym*T*
30 year*
* ye*r*
17 year*
3 yearn
4 year*
>4 rear*
>10 year*
• yeare
96 d«y*
2 week.
« week.
4 yaa*c
>6 year*
11 year*
1* year*
2 w*«k*
4 week*
6 to t month*
2 weeks
4 week.
Comment*
831 remain*
50X rnulni
25X reualn»
25 to OZ remain*
Half life
SI renalna
B*lf life
SX remain.
1C. 61 reaeis*
Little lo*t
Ferel*tenc*
22Z renmln*
39X r*m*ln*
36Z nmrnein*
23 to OS remelne
fer*i*t*ac*
Peril* e coca
44Z riMia*
Bo a*t*ct*ble
•mount* remain
51 remain*
OX remain*
E*U life
••rdctenc*
50X remain*
45X remein.
10Z remain*
OX rmm*in*
<5X remain*
10X remain*
OX remain*
Uferenca*
llcb*lb«g*r and Ucntoberg
(1971)
Oateg.r et *1. (1970)
Stevart »nd Toec (1971)
blarney et «l, (l»e»>
Herman. on *t *1. (1971)
Edward* (196ft)
Bera*n»on «t «1. (1971)
Edward* (1«M)
LlctwwtelB Si Si- U971)
Diamond *£a^. (1970)
Mcmcod *t *i. (1970)
IzeciyMkl (19M)
NUB and tfoelaea (1967)
lobert* *t *i. UH2)
IXrney et *t. (1969)
Clov* et ft^. (1961)
aUnjtil. (U54)
•lemlng and thine* (1953)
»y*r •£ *i. (196S)
Elclwlb«T*ac and LlcAtenberg
(1971)
tlcaelberger and Llcbtnberg
(1971)
Bermajuon e_t *1. (1971)
VeatUko and Antonio (1960)
***h and HooUoB (1967)
k**h ar4 Voolcoa (1967)
ElchelUrger and Llchtenberg
Elchelbergei and Uehtankeri
(1971)
Hull* *t *1. (19,1)
Elchelbcrger and Llchtenberg
tlchelberger and Ucotenbare
(1971)
96
-------
Table J.2 - Continued
Putlclde end
Degradation Product!
DlMlnon
Dloethoat*
Ithloo
Cuthloa
Halethlon
Hethyl
parathlon
Parathlon
PAr«avan
Application Rate
3 Ib/ecre
Ugh application
r*t«S
larmal
2 *tt hectare
2 to 4 Ih/acre
1 i»i/Uter
2 «•/ (Met***
* to 6 Ib/ecr.
10 Wf /liter
10 Kg/liter
2 to * lb/*cre
JO Ib/acre
lormal
S IWacr.
10 di/Ht.r
10 vt/Uter
20 *s/K|
10 us/liter
10 vi/lfter
31.4 Ik/acre
11.4 11 /acre
1 Ih/aere
} Ib/acre
•ormal
10 vi/liter
20 ppm
type; of Soil
or Hater
Different type*
Of Mill
toll
Soil
Submerged tropical
•oil
Koraal aplcultural
•oil.
S«nd> lea toll
Lou Mil
Flo* em4y loll
Silt lou .oil.
•tody loa •olli
UMM «oll
fine ceaily eoll
•aturml river water
Ratural rivet water
fine landy soil
loa> eoll
Bormal agricultural
•alia
Silt loa» aoll
Soil
•acucal river water
Natural river water
SatW-clarer eoll
•atural river water
latnal river water
Sandy loea coll
Saady loaa aoll
511 ty clay loaa aoll
Soil
Silt loa. noil
Boreal agricultural
•Oil!
Sandy loan aoll
latural rlvar water
Vater
Silt loea aoll
Para la teoee Tt»«
20 week*
9A «fM«ba
AO weexa
i.W day.
SO to 70 daye
12 weeka
1 Month
10 ewnch.
6 to t wntha
1 aonth
2 aonth*
2 to 3 Booth!
S weak.
S weeks
6 to S euntha
S months
1 week
8 daye
2 day*
2 weeka
4 weeks
7 to 11 day.
2 weeka
4 weeka
4 yean
16 yeara
2 Booth*
5 year.
3 Booth*
1 week
4 week*
4 weeka
23 Booth*
1 dey
CoBxent*
\19i)6}
Malone e£ al. <19«7)
Sethunathan and
KacRae (1969)
Kearney et^ «1. (1969)
Barrls (1970)
Bro-Raanussan ej. al. (1970)
Mulla et. al. (1961)
Parlwr and Daway U96S)
Bro-IUaauaaan «_f a^l. (1970)
Mulla et al. (1961)
Elchelberger and Lleblenbeig
(1971)
Slchslberger and Llcbtenberg
(1971)
Malla et al. U9sl)
8chul> et al. (1970)
learney et al. (1969)
tlchtenatein and Schuli (1963)
taygo and Schuli (1963)
Eichelb^^r^er and Licbtenberg
(1971)
Eichelberger and Llcbtanberg
(1971)
Obuchovska (1967)
Elchelbetger and Licbtenberg
(1971)
Eichelberger and Llchtenberg
(1971)
Stewart e_t al. (197»
Stewart et. al.. (1971)
Knutson e^ al. (1971)
MacFbee jet al. (1960)
Uchtemitetn f.nd Scbulz (1Q65)
Kearney rt_ al. (1963)
Harrl. (1970)
EicheJberger *nd Licbtenberg
(1971)
Huhlmann and Schrader (15S7)
tichtenateln and Scbulz (1965)
97
-------
T.bla 5.2 - Continued
Pesticide and
J>«tTad«U?1 Product-I ^jjllratton Etta
Type of Soil
or Water
Contents
Reference
p-Rltro-
phenol
Aalno-
perethion
Phorata
20 pp.
20 ppa
10pp.
Rormel
2 to 8 Ib/acre
Other
insecticide* i
Cuter?!
Herbicides l
Aaltrole 2 to 10 Ib/ecre
1pp.
1pp.
» ppm
3 to IS Ib/ecre
S.t Ib/ecre
Atrulae
2.4-B
2 to 10 «•/ "•««•
1 to 100 pp*
1 end 2 Ib/ecre
lorael
2 Ib/ecre
2 to 4 Ib/acre
2 to 3 iVecre
3 to • Ib/ecre
3.2 to 4 Ib/ecre
Bonel
0.5 to 3 Ik/acre
* Ifc/acr*
3.* Ib/ecre
10 Ib/ecre
1.1 Kg/ hectare
Silt loen eoil
Silt loan soil
Silt lo*a eoll end
sandy loot eoll
Sandy Ion eoll
Monel agricultural
•olle
Bandy loaa eoll
Fine sandy eoll
Ueter (no mud preeent)
litter (aud present)
Moist Ion field eoU
Pond vater
food vatsr
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
•oil
Four Reveilao lolls
Soil*
Kor»el egrlculturel
•oils
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Soil
Howl agricultural
•oil*
Motet loea eoll
f*et (oil*
Cley loea eoll
Severel mil typee
Fodsollc toll
16 doy*
2 oey*
1 month
68 deye
2 week*
1 to 2 ueeke
2 ahocth*
17 day*
10 dey*
3 to 5 veeka
29 dey*
>201 daye
30 deye
T ««ke
1 to 3 month!
4 to 5 Bontbl
4 aootba
34 200 deye
10 eunthe
1? men the
4 to 7 month*
4 to 7 eoathi
12 monthe
4 to 8 wmth*
1 BOBth
1 to 4 week*
4 to 18 veek*
2 oonthe
2 to 14 week*
2 to 7 veek*
Ho reelduu tlchtenaleli ini Schuli (1965)
detected
No realduee Llchtensteln and Schulz (1965)
detected
Complete breekdovn farlcer and Deway (1965)
50X re«aloe Way and Scopes (1968)
25 to OX reaaloe Kearney _«t. al. (1969)
-------
Tiki* J.I - Cmtlnued
Featlclde end Type of Soil
Degradation Products Application Rat* or water Persistent. Tim*
Averse.* soil 1 aonth
1000 ppa H.ter 1 Booth
1000 ppm Sediment* 10 month*
689 to 967 ppB Water 1 month
10 DPB »ond* 6 week*
Lake mid. 1 to 2 month*
Surface water >J weak*
Aerobic w*n lak
water 1 week
Cold deoxygeoatcd
lake, v.ter 13 weak*
4 to 40 lb/*cre Soil* 1 month
S Ib/acre Soil* 1 month
Dactbal tecommended rat** Moet soil type* 100 day*
Dalapon SO ppa 43 different tang* from
California soil- 2 to 8 weeks
Soil* 5 weeks
SO ppm Different type* of
soils (20 to 27X
moisture) 4 to 5 week*
50 ppm Different type* of
•oil* (6 to 11Z
moisture) 14 week*
•on*! normal agricultural
aoil* a week*
5 to 40 Ib/acra Motet Iocs, fisld coll 10 to 60 day*
7.4 to 20 Ib/acre Soil* 1 month
20 lh/«cr* toll* 3 to 4 month*
6 to « Ib/acra Soil* 1 to 2 month*
Dtphananld Recommended rete* Most .oil type* 3 to 6 month*
Boreal Normal agricultural
•oil* B montha
3 to 4 Ib/acre Soil* 10 to 17 aonth*
3 Ib/acra Sell* 3 aoath*
3.7S Ib/acre Soil* <3 month*
Dluron Normal Mom*! *grleultural
•oil* a month.
1 to 3 Ib/acr. Holat loam field coil 3 to t montha
10 to 40 Ib/acre Motet loam field aoll 6 to 24 montha
Comment. Reference
Persistence Sheets and Harris (1965)
1Z remains House e_t al. (1967)
61 remain. Smith and I. on (1967)
1 to 21 resiains Aveiitt (1967)
Far«l*tenc* c°pe. Wood and Wallet O9
Persistence *ly »nd *suat (1964)
Persistence Robaon (1968)
Persistence CeKsrco (1967)
Ptrslatenc* DeMarco (1967)
Reslduel pbyto-
toxlclcy Sheet* and aarxi* (1965)*
Residual pbyto-
toxiclty Sheet* and Harris (1965)*
Averege half life Weed Science Society of
America (1970)
Total diaappearance
to 66Z remaining Bay e£ al. (1965)
So phytotoxlclty Sweet et al. (1958)
Mo realdue remains Thie j. (1953)
Much remains Thleg* (1955)
25 to OX remtlae Kearney e_u al. (1969)
Per. la tenet Olnsmen (1961)
Realdual phytc-
toxiclty Sheets and Harris (1965)'
Residual phyto-
toxlclty Sheeta and Harris (1965)*
Residual phyto-
toxlclty Sheets and Harris (1965)*
Aversge per«ia- Heed Sclincl Society of
teoc* Aaerlcal 0970)
25 to OX remains **arney e_t al. (1969)
Realdual phyto-
toxlclty Sheets and Harrla (1965)*
Realdual phyto-
toxlclty Sheet, and Barris (1965)*
Realdual phyto-
toxlclty Sheeta and H.rrla (1965)*
25 to OX remains Kearney *t_ al. (1969)
Persistence Kllngmen (1961)
Persistence Kllngman (1961)
99
-------
T.ble S.I - Continued
Pa*ticlds and Type of Soil
Dae.rad.tlon Products Application Rat* or Water P.reletence Time Comment*
1 to 2 It/acre Clay loam and ailt
loam sjlli 18 to 20 vaek* Persistence
Reference
Bryant sod Andrews (1967)
0.3 to 3 ppm Fond water 28 d.ya Mo detectable
reatdut McCr«ren et el. (19M)
3.6 to 4 lb/*cre Soil* 5 to 7 month* Residual ph y to-
toxic Ity
1 to 2 • Ib/scr* Sells 4 to 8 months Realdual phyto-
toxicity
2 IWacre Soil* 13 month* Residual phyto-
toxlclty
Mir 6 to 9 Ib/acr. Molar loam field
•oil 3 to 3 *«ka Pord.tenc*
16 Ib/scrs teit 4 to >8 vaek* Persistence
8 Ib/acra Soil 6 montha Realdual phyto-
toxicity
12 It/acre Soil >5 month* Reslduel phyto-
toxlcity
0.83 It/acre Soil >3 sooth* Residual phyto-
toxiclty
B*WC 4 l«/ hect«r« Soil 28 weeka <0.01 ppm mains
30 'ppm Soil 7 daya Persistence
IKFA 1/2 to 3 Ib/acra Molat loan (laid
•oil 1 to 4 veeVa Persistence
lormal lenal •frlcultuMl
•oil • 3 months 25 to OX remains
P*r«*.uat Pond eater 15 day* do re»ldua
2.1 Co 2.5 ppm Food* 6 to 23 day* Persistence
230 to 2300 ppbv R***rvelr. 13 day* 0 to 180 ppbv
tsmatn.
1000 to 3000 ppbv Orovth pool* 12 days 80 to 300 ppbv
remains
Plsnsvla Recommendation
'*tea loll* Moderately persistent
rjrrum 4 ppm Soil 6 to 7 month* Almost di*-
appeared
Raeommandatlon
"'•• Soil* 3 to 6 montha Average per-
il* tence
SiaMlne 3.6 Ib/.cr. Clay loam soil (0 day. Persistence
1 to 4 Ib/acre Hoist loam field aoll 3 to 6 months Persistence
10-40 lb/.cre Hoist loem flsld .oil t to 24 month* Persistence
2 Ib/scre loll 17 month. Persistence
Sheets and Harris (H"M*
Sh<-eta and Ban-Is nd Bnvcls (196!)*
Burl* (1168)
Irulaau (1960)
Kllngman (1961)
Kearney at. al. (1969)
Coats e_t tl. (1964)
Crieod. et «1. (1966)
T«o (1967)
Tao (1967)
Ve*4 Science Society of
America (1970)
Borowltt (1S68)
Vud Science Society of
America (1970)
Agundl* (1964)
Rllngman (1961)
Kllngman (1961)
T.lbert and Fletchalls (1964)
Sotl ** "•*• 15X activity remains Allott <1970)
J U/ tartar* loll 11 veeka Total decomposition Swletochovokl tt_ al. (1962)
•ormal Rormal atriculturel
•o11 1 T*«r 25 to OX remain*
2 to 5 Ib/aer* Soil 12 ..mth, Re.idu.l phyto-
lt«arney et *1. (19W)
tonlcity Sheet, and Harris (19«5)»
0.45 to 4.5 lb/.cr. Sell j to 7 nmth. R..ldual ph»to-
100
-------
Tabla S.2 - Continued
Pesticide and
Degradation Product*
Sodlua
arsenica
Sodlna
chlorate
Sutan
ICA
Type of
Application Kate or Wat
4 Ib/acra Soil
3.2 to 4.0 Ib/acre Sell
Soil
er Persistence Tine
18 months
4 to 14 aootha
teeoaaandatloB rate* Soil* 9 year*
4SO to 1200 Ib/acra Moist loaa field aoll 6 to 12 month.
300 Ih/acra Soil >1 year
Recommendation rates Several soils 1.5 to 3 veeka
13 Ih/.cre Soil 42 to 64 days
Soil* 3 weak*
40 to 100 IV/acr* Molat loaa field soil 50 to 90 days
•anal Normal agricultural soil 12 weka
TUlaa
Trlfleralln
8 to 60 Ib/acra Bell*
12.5 to 67 li/acra Soil*
It to 30 Ib/acre Soil*
Ucommendatlen rate* Soil
1 and 2 Ib/acr* Sell*
1 to 3 aontha
7 to 12 aonth*
4 months
Comments
Residual phyto-
toxlcJ ty
Residual phyto-
toxlcity
Phytotoxlclty
Persistence
Persistence
Half 11 fa
No phytotoxlclty
Reference
Sheets and Harris (W65)*
Weed Science Society o£
America (1970)
Klingtnan (1961)
Nelson (1944)
America (1970)
Eat and Hanaer (1953)
Sweat £t al. (1958)
Persistence Kllngaan (1961)
25 to OZ remain* Kearney £t al. (1969)
Residual phyco-
toxic«ty
Residual pbyto-
toxleity
Sheets and Harris (1963)*
(aaldual phyto-
tozlcity Sheets and Harris (1965)*
Wo Injury to suboequsnt crops Weed Science Society of
America (1970)
>200 day* Psrelstsnc* laua ct_ al. (1970)
0.73 Ib/acra Boll* 10 to 12 month*
loraal leraal agricultural cell* 6 month*
10 to 15t remain* Prohat et al. (1967)
Heeds (4, (1). 22-6 (1966))
25 to OX reaalna Kearney et al. (1969)
Other peatlcldasi
Caeta*
(fungicide)
Buau* candy
Vail dlatrlbuted
la Mil Sail
Added la the fora of
drasalng* on the eur>
face of gla>* bead* Sell*
Sell
Chloropicrla
(fumlgant) 100 Eg/ hectare Sell
300 Kg/ hectare Sell
Habaa
(fungicide) 100 J>pa Ball
Urea
(fungicide)
Soil
soils 3 veeka
1 to 2 day*
21 day*
Half decay valve Uuga (1969)
Half life Griffith and Matheus (1969)
Little change
froa the initial
concentration Griffith and Mathhews (1969
>»3 daya Persistence Munnecke (1958)
i3 days
160 daya
>20 day*
>35 day*
10 ppa remain* Tagaua and Toma-u (1969)
10 ppa remain* Tagawa and Taaaru (1969)
Persistence Doaach (1958)
ter.lat.ac.
Boaach (195*
*1hat* author* coaplUd tha paralstaoca data froa othar aourca*.
101
-------
Lack of sufficient information presents similar comparisons on the persistence
of pesticides in natural water. An insight into the effect of pesticides on the
aquatic environment, it is hoped, will result from this information on the
persistence of pesticides and their degradation products, together with informa-
tion in the other chapters on the toxicities of pesticides, amounts used, their
ability to move to the aquatic environment, and the ability of organisms to
take up these pesticides.
102
-------
References. Chapter 5_
Agundis, 0. 1964. The distribution and persistence of simazina and 2,4-D
in tropical soils. Abst. Meet. Weed Soc. Amer. p.15-16.
Ahmed, M.K. and J.E. Casida. 1958. Metabolism of some organophosphorus
insecticides by microorganisms. J. Econ. Entomol. 51:59-63.
Akamine, E.K. 1951. Persistence of 2,4-D toxicity in Hawaiian soils.
Bot. Gaz. (Chicago). 112:312-19.
Alexander, M. 1965. Persistence and biological reactions of pesticides
in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Proc. 29:1-7.
Allen, N., R.L. Walker, L.C. Fife, R.D. Chisholm, L. Koblitsky, J.F, Bullock,
C.R. Hodge, and E.E. Hall. 1954. Persistence of BHC, DDT and toscaphene
in soil and the tolerances of certain crops to their residues. Washington,
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. (Tech. Bull. No.1090.)
Allott, D.J. 1970. Herbicide residues. Agr. N. Ireland. 45:30-32.
Aly, O.M. and S.D. Faust. 1964. Studies on the fate of 2,4-D and ester
derivatives in natural surface waters. J. Agr. Food Chem. 12:541-46.
Armstrong, D.E., G. Chesters, and R.F. Harris. 1967. Atrazine hydrolysis
in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Proc. 31:61-66.
Averitt, W.K. 1967. An evaluation of the persistence of 2,4-D amine in
surface waters in the State of Louisiana. Proc. S. Weed Conf. 20:342-47.
Bailey, T.E. and J.R. Hannum. 1967. Distribution of pesticides. J. Sanit.
Eng. Div., Proc. Amer. Soc. Civil Eng. 93(SA5):27-43.
Banerji, R.C. and N.R. Dhar. 1924. Catalysis. XVII. Temperature coeffi-
cients of some dark and light reactions. Z. Anorg. Allg. Chem. 134:172-90.
Baker, R.D. and H.P. Applegate. 1970. Effect of temperature and ultraviolet
radiation on the persistence of methylparathion and DDT in soils. Agron.
J. 62:509-12.
Bartha, R., H.A.B. Linke, and D. Pramer. 1969. Pesticide conversion to
azo compounds by soil microorganisms. Umschau. 69:182-8"'.
Belser, N.O. and C.E. Castro. 1971. Biodehalogenation - the metabolism
of the nematocides cis- and trans-3-chloroallyl alcohol by a bacterium
isolated from soil. J. Agr. Food Chem. 19:23-26.
Bollag, J.M. , C.S. Helling, and M. Alexander. 1967. Metabolism of 4-chloro-
2-methylphenoxyacetic acid by soil bacteria. Appl. Microbiol. 15:1393-98.
Bollag, J.M., C.S. Helling, and M. Alexander. 1968a. 2,4-D metabolism.
Enzymatic hydroxylation of chlorinated phenols. J. Agr. Food Chem.
16:826-28.
103
-------
Bollag, J.M., G.G. Briggs, J.E. Dawson and M, Alexander. 1968b. 2,4-D
metabolism. Enzymatic degradation of chlorocatechols. J. Agr. Food
Chem. 16:829-33.
Bozarth, G.A., H.H. Funderburk, and E.A. Curl. 1966. Studies on the
degradation of l.l'-dimethyl-A.A'-bipyridinium salt by a soil bacterium.
Abstr. Meet. Weed Soc. Amer. p.55.
Brady, U.E., Jr. and B.W. Arthur. 1963. Biological and chemical properties
of dimethoate and related derivatives. J. Econ. Entomol. 56:477-82.
Bridges, W.R. , B.J. Kallman and A.K. Andrews- 1963. Persistence of DDT
and its metabolites in a farm pond. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 92:421-27.
Bro-Rasmussan, F., E. Noddengaard and K. Voldumclausen. 1970. Comparison
of the disappearance of eight organophosphorus insecticides from soil in
laboratory and in outdoor experiments. Pestic. Sci. 1:179-82.
Bruinsma, J. 1960. The action of 4,6-dinitro-o-cresol (DNOC) in soil. I:
The emergency from cress seed in DNOC-treated soil mixtures. Plant Soil.
12:249-58.
Bryant, T.A. and H. Andrews. 1967. Disappearance of diuron, norea, linuron,
trifluralin, diphenamid, DCPA and prometryne from the soil. Proc. S. Weed
Conf. 20:395-404.
Burschel, P. and V.H. Freed. 1959. The decomposition of herbicides in
soil. Weeds. 7:157-61.
Byers, R.A., D.W. Woodham, and M.C. Bowman. 1965. Residues on coastal
Bermudagrass, trash and soil treated with granular endosulfan. J. Econ.
Entomol. 58:160-61.
Chacko, C.I., J.L. Lockwood, and M. Zabik. 1966. Chlorinated hydrocarbon
pesticides: Degradation by microbes. Science. 154:893-95.
Chisaka, H. and P.C. Kearney. 1970. Metabolism of propanil in soils. J.
Agr. Food Chem. 18:854-58.
Clore, W.J., W.E. Westlake, K. Walker, and V.R. Boswell. 1961. Residual
effects of soil insecticides on crop plants. Pullman, Wash., Washington
State University. (Agr. Exp. Sta. Bull. 627).
Coats, G.E..H.H. Funderburk, Jr., J.M. Lawrence, and D.E. Davis. 1964.
Persistence of diquat and paraquat in pools and ponds. Proc. S. Weed
Conf. 17:308-20.
Collnese, D.L. and H.J. Terry. 1968. Phosalone - a wide spectrum organo-
phosphorus insecticide. Chem. Ind. (London). 1968:1507-11.
Cope, O.B., E.M. Wood, and G.H. Wallen. 1970. Some chronic effects of
2,4-D on the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
99:1-12.
104
-------
Couch, R.W., J.V. Gramlich, D.E. Davis and H.H. Funderburk. 1965. The
metabolism of atrazine and simazine by soil fungi. Proc. S. Weed Conf.
18:623-31.
Crosby, D.G. 1970. The nonbiological degradation of pesticides in soils.
In: Pesticides in the Soil. East Lansing, Mich., Michigan State Univer-
sity, p.86-94.
Crosby, D.G. and E. Leitis. 1964. The photodecomposition of carbamate
insecticides. Abstr. Meet. Amer. Chem. Soc. 148:11A.
Crosby, D.G. and M.Y. Li. 1969. Herbicide photodecomposition. In;
Degradation of Herbicides. Edited by P.C. Kearney and D.D. Kaufman.
New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc. p.321-63.
Crosby, D.G. and H.O. Tutass. 1966. Photodecomposition of 2,4-dichloro-
phenoxyacetic acid. J. Agr. Food Chem. 14:596-99.
Dahm, P.A. 1970. Chemistry and metabolism of insecticides. In; Agricul-
tural Practices and Water Quality. Edited by T.L. Willrich and G.E.
Smith. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State University, p.167-82.
Dalton, R.L., A.W. Evans and R.C. Rhodes. 1966. Disappearance of diuron
from cotton field soils. Weeds. 14:31-33.
Day, B.E., L.S. Jordan, and R.C. Russell. 1963. Persistence of dalapon
residues in California soils. Soil Sci. 95:326-30.
Demarco, J., J.M. Symons and G.G. Robeck. 1967. Behavior of synthetic
organics in stratified impoundments. J. Amer. Water Works Ass. 59:965-76.
Diamond, J.B., G.Y. Belyea and R.E. Kadunce. 1970. DDT residues in robins
and earthworms associated with contaminated forest soils. Can. Entomol.
102:1122-30.
Donaldson, T.W. 1968. Persistence of herbicides in the soil. Proc.
Victorian Weed Conf., 1st. 7:4-7.
Domsch, K.H. 1958. Die wirkung von Bodenfungiziden. II. Wirkungsdauer.
Z. Pflanzenkr, Pflanzenschutz. 65:651-56.
Dubey, H.D. and J.F. Freeman. 1964. Influence of soil properties and
microbial activity on the phytotoxicity of linuron and diphenamid. Soil
Sci. 97:334-40.
Edwards, C.A. 1966. Insecticide residues in soils. Residue Rev. 13:83-132.
Eichelberger, J.W. and J.J. Lichtenberg. 1971. Persistence of pesticides
in river water. Environ. Sci. Technol. 5:541-44.
Engvild, K.C. and H.C. Jensen. 1969. Microbiological decomposition of the
herbicide pyrazon. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1:295-300.
105
-------
Ercegovich, C.D. and D.E.H. Frear. 1964. The fate of 3-amino-l,2,4-triazole
in soils. J. Agr. Pood Chem. 12:26-29.
Evans, W.C., J.K. Gaunt, and J.J. Davies. 1961. The metabolism of chloro-
phenoxyacetic acid herbicides by soil microorganisms. Proc. Int. Congr.
Biochem, 5th, Moscow. 5:306-7.
Faulkner, J.K. and D. Woodcock. 1964. Metabolism of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid ("2,4-D") by Aspergillus niger van tiegh. Nature. 203:865.
Faulkner, J.K. and D. Woodcock. 1965. Fungal detoxification. VII. Meta-
bolism of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic and 4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic
acids by Aspergillus niger. J. Chem. Soc. 1965:1187-91.
Fernandez, M. 1966. Identification and toxicity of non-metabolic degradation
products of methoxychlor. M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Calif., Davis.
Fernley, H.N. and W.C. Evans. 1959. Metabolism of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic
acid by soil pseudomonas: isolation of a-chloromuconic acid as an inter-
mediate. Biochem. J. 73:22.
Fleming, W.E. and W.W. Maines. 1953. Persistence of DDT in soils of the
area infested by the Japanese beetle. J. Econ. Entomol. 46:445-49.
Funderburk, H.H., Jr. and G.A. Bozarth. 1967. Review of the metabolism and
decomposition of diquat and paraquat. J. Agr. Food Chem. 15:563-67.
Fukuto, T.R. and J.J. Sims. 1971, Metabolism of insecticides and fungicides.
In: Pesticides in the Environment, v.l, pt.l. Edited by R. White-Stevens.
New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc. p.145-236.
Gaunt, J.K. and W.C. Evans. 1961. Metabolism of 4-chloro-2-methylphenoxyacetic
acids by a soil microorganism. Biochem. J. 78:25-26.
Getzin, L.W. and I. Rosefield. 1966. Persistence of diazinon and zinophos
in soils. J. Econ. Entomol. 59:512-16.
Golab, T., J.V. Gramlich, and G.W. Probst. 1968. Studies on the fate of
diphenamid in soils. Abstr. Meet. Amer. Chem. Soc. 155:A-50.
Graetz, D.A., G. Chesters, T.C. Daniel, L.W. Newland, and G.B. Lee. 1970.
Parathion degradation in lake sediments. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 42:
R76-R94.
Griffith, R.L. and S. Matthews. 1969. The persistence in soil of the fungi-
cidal seed dressings captan and thiram. Ann. Appl. Biol. 64:113-18.
Grzenda, A.R., H.P. Nicholson and W.S. Cox. 1965. The persistance of four
herbicides in pond water. Proc. S. Weed Conf. 18:521-32.
Grzenda, A.R., H.P. Nicholson and W.S. Cox. 1966. Persistence of four
herbicides in pond water. J. Amer. Water Works Ass. 58:326-32.
106
-------
Guenzi, W.D. and W.E. Beard. 1968. Anaerobic conversion of DDT to ODD and
aerobic stability of DDT in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Proc. 32:522-24.
Gunner, H.B., B.M. Zuckeraan, R.W. Walker, C.W- Miller, K.H. Deubert and
R.E. Longley. 1966. Distribution and persistence of diazinon applied to
plant and soil and its influence on rhizosphere and soil microflora.
Plant Soil. 25:249-64.
Hamdi, Y.A. and M.S. Tewfik. 1970. Degradation of 3,5-dinitro-o-cresol by
Rhizobium and Azotobacter species. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2:163-66.
Hance, R.J. 1970. Influence of adsorption on the decomposition of pesticides,
SCI (Soc. Chem. Ind., London) Monogr. 37:92-104.
Harris, C.I. 1965. Hydroxysimazine in soil. Weed Res. 5:275-76.
Harris, C.I., E.A. Woolson and B.E. Humm. 1969. Dissipation of herbicides
at three soil depths. Weed Sci. 17:27-31.
Harris, C.R. 1970. Persistence and behavior of soil insecticides. In;
Pesticides in the Soil. East Lansing, Mich., Michigan State University,
p.58-64.
Hermanson, H.P., F.A. Gunther, L.D. Anderson and M.J. Garber. 1971. Install-
ment application effects upon insecticide residue content of a California
soil. J. Agr. Food Chem. 19:722-26.
Hernandez, T.P. and G.F. Warren. 1950. Some factors affecting the rate of
inactivation and leaching of 2,4-D in different soils. Proc. Amer. Soc.
Hort. Sci. 56:287-93.
Horowitz, M. 1968. Persistence of pyrazon (pyramin) and effects of soil
type on its activity. Abstr. Proc. Israel Weed Contr. Conf., 3rd.
House, W.B., L.H. Goodson, H.M. Gadberry and K.W. Kockter. 1967. Assess-
ment of Ecological Effects of Extensive or Repeated Use of Herbicides.
Springfield, Va., National Technical Information Service.
Huang, J.C. 1971. Effect of selected factors on pesticide adsorption and
desorption in the aquatic system. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 43:1739-48.
Hurle, K. 1968. Studies on long-term herbicide trials. I. Preliminary
report on the degradation of dinitro-o-cresol (DNOC) in the soil after
many years' use. Z. Pflanzenkr. (Pflanzenpathol.) Pflanzenschutz.,
Sonderh. 4:145-46.
Isom, W.H., H.P. Ford, M.P. Lavalleye and L.S. Jordan. 1970. Persistence
of herbicides in irrigated soils. Proc. Amer. Calif. Weed Conf. 22:58-63.
Johnson, B.T., R.N. Goodman, and H.S. Goldberg. 1967. Conversion of DDT
to ODD by pathogenic and saprophytic bacteria associated with plants.
Science. 157:560-61.
107
-------
Johnson, W.D., G.F. Lee and D. Spyridakir. 1966. insistence of toxaphene
in treated lakes. Air Water Pollut. 10:555-60.
Kallman, B.J. and A.K. Andrews. 1963. Reductive dechlorination of DDT to
DDD by yeast. Science. 141:1050-51.
Karinen, J.F., J.G. Lamberton, N.E. Stewart and L.C. Terriere. 1967. Per-
sistence of carbaryl in the marine estuarine environment. Chemical and
biological stability in aquarium systems. J. Agr. Food Chem. 15:148-56.
Kaufman, D.D. 1970. Pesticide metabolism. In; Pesticides in the Soil.
East Lansing, Mich., Michigan State University, p.72-85.
Kaufman, D.D. and J. Blake. 1970. Degradation of atrazine by soil fungi.
Soil Biol. Biochem. 2:73-80.
Kearney, P.C. 1966. Metabolism of herbicides in soils. Advan. Chem. Ser.
60:250-62.
Kearney, P.C., and C.S. Helling. 1969. Reactions of pesticides in soils.
Residue Rev. 25:25-44.
Kearney, P.C. and D.D. Kaufman. 1969. Degradation of Herbicides. New York,
Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Kearney, P.C., D.D. Kaufman and M.L. Beall, Jr. 1964a. Enzymatic dehalogena-
tlon of 2,2-dichloropropionate. Abstr. Meet. Weed Soc. Amer. p.13.
Kearney, P.C., D.D. Kaufman and M.L. Beall, Jr. 1964b. Enzymatic dehalogena-
tion of 2,2-dichloropropionate. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 14:29-33.
Kearney, P.C., D.D. Kaufman and T.J. Sheets. 1965. Fungal metabolism of
herbicides, metabolites of simazine by Aspergillua fumigatus. J. Agr.
Food Chem. 113:369-72.
Kearney, P.C. and J.R. Plimmer. 1970. Relation of structure to pesticide
decomposition. In: Pesticides in the Soil. East Lansing, Mich., Michigan
State University, p.65-71.
Kearney, P.C., E.A. Woolson, J.R. Plimmer and A.R. Isensee. 1969. Decontam-
ination of pesticides in soils. Residue Rev. 29:137-50.
Keil, J.E. and L.E. Priester. 1969. DDT uptake and metabolism by a marine
diatom. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 4:169.
Klingman, G.C. 1961. Weed Control; As, a Science. New York, Wiley.
Kluge, E. 1969. Duration of the effect of thiuram, ferbam and captan in
forest soils. Arch. Pflanzenschutz. 5:39-53.
Knutson, H., A.M. Kadoum, T.L. Hopkins, G.F. Swoyer and T.L. Harvey. 1971.
Insecticide usage and residues in a newly developed great plains irrigation
district. Pestic. Monit. J. 5:17-27.
Koivistoinen, P. 1962. Effect of sunlight on the disappearence of parathion
residues. Acta Agr. Scand. 12:285-97.
108
-------
Konrad, J.G., D.E. Armstrong, and G. Chesters. 1967. Soil degradation of
diazinon, a phosphorothioate insecticide. Agron. J. 59:591-94.
Konrad, J.G., G. Chesters, and D.E. Armstrong. 1969. Soil degradation of
malathion, a phosphorodithionate insecticide. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.
33:259-62.
Kroczynski, J. 1968. Studies on residues of DDT, Lindane and DMDT in soil.
Biul. Inst. Ochr. Rosl. 41:75-83
Krone, R.B. 1966. Predicted suspended sediment inflows to the San Francisco
Bay System. Prepared for Central Pacific River Basins Project. San
Francisco, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Southwest
Region.
Lange, A.H., B.B. Fischer and R. Hoover. 1971. Herbicide residues under
different cultural practices. Calif. Agr. 25:13-14.
Laygo, E.R. and J.T. Schulz. 1963. Persistence of organophosphate insect-
icides and their effects on microfauna in soils. Proc. N. Dak. Acad. Sci.
17:64-65.
Lichtenstein, E.P. and K.R. Schulz. 1961. Effect of soil cultivation, soil
surface and water on the persistence of insecticidal residues in soils.
J. Econ. Entomol. 54:517-22.
Lichtenstein, E.P. and K.R. Schulz. 1964. The effect of moisture and micro-
organisms on the persistence and metabolism of some organophosphorus
insecticides in soils, with special emphasis on parathion. J. Econ.
Entomol. 57:618-27.
Lichtenstein, E.P., T.W. Fuhremann, and K.R. Schulz. 1971. Persistence and
vertical distribution of DDT, lindane and aldrin residues, 10 and 15 years
after single soil application. J. Agr. Food Chem. 19:718-21
Lichtenstein, E.P., L.J. DePew, E.L. Eshbaugh and J.P. Seesman. 1960. Per-
sistence of DDT, aldrin and lindane in some midwestern soils. J. Econ.
Entomol. 53:136-42.
Lichtenstein, E.P., K.R. Schulz, R.F. Skrentny, and Y. Tsukano. 1966.
Toxicity and fate of insecticide residues in water. Arch. Environ. Health.
12:199-212.
Linke, H.A.B. 1970. 3,3',4'-Trichloro-4-(3,4-dichloroanilino) azobenzene,
a degradation product of the herbicide propanil, in soil. Naturwissen-
schaften. 57:307-8.
Liu, S. and J. Bollag. 1971. Metabolism of carbaryl by a soil fungus. J.
Agr. Food Chem. 19:487-90.
Loos, M.A., J.M. Bollag and M. Alexander. 1967. Phenoxyacetate herbicide
detoxication by bacterial enzymes. J. Agr. Food Chem. 15:858-60.
109
-------
Lopez-Gonzalez, J.D. and C. Valenzuela-Calaharro . 1970. Associated decom-
position of DDT to DDE in the diffusion of DDT on homoionic clays. J.
Agr. Food Chem. 18:520-23.
Ludwig, R.A. and G.D. Thorn. 1960. Chemistry and mode of action of dithio-
carbamate fungicides. In: Advances in Pest Control Research, v.3.
Edited by R.L. Metcalf. New York, Interscience Publ., Inc. p. 219-52.
MacPhee, A.W., D. Chisholm and C.R. MacEachem. 1960. The persistence of
certain pesticides in the soil and their effect on crop yields. Can. J.
Soil Sci. 40:59-62.
Malone, C.R. , A.G. Winnett and K. Helrich. 1967. Insecticide-induced
responses in an oil field ecosystem: persistence of diazinon in the soil.
Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 2:83-89.
Manorik, A.V. and S.M. Malichenko. 1970. Role of soil and plants in the
inactivation of simazine and atrazine. Agrokhimiya. 9:114-19.
Matsumura, F. and G. Boush. 1966. Malathion degradation by Trichodenua
Viride and a pseudomonas species. Science. 153:1278-80.
Matsumura, F. and G.M. Boush. 1968. Degradation of insecticides by a soil
fungus, Trichoderma viride. J. Econ. Entomol. 61:610-12.
Matsumura, F. , K.C. Patil and G.M. Boush. 1971. DDT metabolized by micro-
organisms from Lake Michigan. Nature. 230:325-26.
Mattson, A.M., J.T. Spillane and G.W. Pearce. 1955.- Organophosphorus
insecticides. Dimethyl 2 ,2-dichlorovinyl phosphate (DDVP) , an organo-
phosphorus compound highly toxic to insects. J. Agr. Food Chen. 3:319-21.
McCraven, J.P. , O.B. Cope, and L. Eller. 1969. Some chronic effects of
diuron on bluegills. Weed Sci. 17:497-504.
Menzie, C.M. 1969- Metabolism of Pesticides. U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. (Wash-
ington, Govt. Print. Off.)
Metcalf, R.L., T.R. Fukuto, and M.Y. Winton. 1963. Chemical and biological
behavior of fenthion residues. Bull. W.H.O. 29:219-26.
Mick, D.L. and P. A. Dahm. 1970. Metabolism of parathion by two species of
Rhizobium. J. Econ. Entomol. 63:1155-59.
Miller, C.W.. B.M. Zuckerman, and A.J. Charig. 1966. Water translocation of
diazinon-C11* and parathion-S35 off a model cranberry bog and subsequent
occurrence in fish and mussels. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc . 95:345.
Miskus, R.P., D.P. Blair and J.E. Casida. 1965. Insecticide metabolism.
Conversion of DDT to ODD by bovine rumen fluid, lake water, and reduced
porphyrius. J. Agr. Food Chem. 13:481-83.
110
-------
Mitchell, T.H., J.H. Ruzicka, J. Thomson, and B.B. Wheals. 1968. The
chromatographic determination of organophosphorus pesticides. Part III.
The effect of irradiation on the parent compounds. Chromatog. 32:17-23.
Miyazaki, S., G.M. Boush, and F. Matsumura. 1970. Microbial degradation of
chlorobenzilate (ethyl 4,4'-dichlorobenzilate) and chloropropylate
(isopropyl 4,4'-dichlorobenzilate), J. Agr. Food Chem. 18:87-91.
Moje, W., D.E. Munnecke and L.T. Richardson. 1964, Carbonyl sulphide, a
volatile fungitoxicant from nabam in soil. Nature. 202:831-32.
Hosier, A.R., W.D. Guenzi and L.L. Miller. 1969. Photochemical decomposition
of DDT by a free-radical mechanism. Science. 164:1083-85.
Muhlmann, R. and G. Schrader. 1957. Hydrolase der insektiziden phosphor-
s'aurester. Z. Naturforsch. B. 12:196-208.
Mulla, M.S., G.P. Georghiou, and H.W. Cramer. 1961. Residual activity of
organophosphorus insecticides in soil as tested against the Eye Gnat,
Hippelatea colluaor. J. Econ. Entomol. 54:865-70.
Munnecke, D.E. 1958. Persistence of nonvolatile diffusible fungicides in
soil. Phytopathology. 48:581-85.
Munnecke, D.E., K.H. Domsch, and J.W. Eckert. 1962. Fungicidal activity of
air passed through columns of soil treated with fungicides. Phytopathology.
52:1298-1306.
Nelson, R.T. 1944. Studies on microbial activity, chlorate reduction and
chlorate toxicity in soils treated with sodium chlorate. J. Agr. Res.
68:221-37.
Nash, R.G. and E.A. Woolson. 1967. Persistence of chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides in soils. Science. 157:924-27.
Obien, S.R. and R.E. Green. 1969. Degradation of atrazlne in four Hawaiian
soils. Weed Sci. 17:509-14.
Obuchowska, I. 1967. Stability of organophosphorus pesticides (methyl
parathion) in soils. Rocz. Panstu. Zakl. Hig. 18:655-59.
Onsager, J.A., H.W. Rusk and L.I. Butler. 1970. Residues of aldrin, dieldrin,
chlordane, and DDT in soil and sugar beets. J. Econ. Entomol. 63:1143-46.
Parker, B.L. and J.E. Deway. 1965. Decline of phorate and dimethoate
residues in treated soils based on toxicity to Drosophila melanogaster.
J. Econ. Entomol. 58:106-11.
Plimmer, J.R., P.C. Kearney, D.D. Kaufman, and F.S. Guardia. 1967. Amitrole
decomposition by free radical-generating systems and by soils. J. Agr.
Food Chem. 15:996-99.
Plimmer, J.R., P.C. Kearney, H. Chisaka, Y.B. Yount and U.I. Klingebiel.
1970. l,3-Bis(3,4-dichlorophenyl) triazine from propanil in soils. J.
Agr. Food Chem. 18:859-61.
Ill
-------
Piobst, G.W. and J.B. Tepe. 1969. Trifluralin and related compounds. In:
Degradation of Herbicides. Edited by P.O. Kearney and D.D. Kaufman. New
York, Marcel Dekker, Inc. p.255-82.
Probst, G.W., T. Golab, R.J. Herberg, F.J. Holzer, S.J. Parka, C. Van der
Schans and J.B. Tepe. 1967. Fate of trifluralin in soils and plants.
J. Agr. Food Chem. 15:592-99.
Pierce, R.H., Jr., C.E. Olney and G.J. Felback, Jr. 1971. Pesticide ad-
sorption in soils and sediments. Eviron. Letters. 1:157-72.
Rai, G.S. and C.L. Hamner. 1953. Persistence of sodium trichloroacetate in
different soil types. Weeds. 2:271-79.
Rakitin, Y.B. and T.P. Mikhailova. 1968. Detoxication of 2,4-D in derno-
podzolic soil. Agrokhimiya. 4:118-22.
Roberts, J.E., R.D. Chisholm and L. Koblitsky. 1962. Persistence of
insecticides in soil and their effects on cotton in Georgia. J. Econ.
Entomol. 55:153-55.
Robson, T.O. 1968. Some studies of the persistence of 2,4-D in natural
surface waters. Proc. Brit. Weed Contr. Conf., 9th. p.404-8.
Rosen, J.D. 1967. The photolysis of diphenamid. Bull. Environ. Contamin.
and Toxicol. 2:349-54.
Russell, J.D., M. Cruz, J.L. White, G.W. Baily, W.R. Payne, Jr., J.D. Pope,
Jr., and J.I. Teasley. 1968. Mode of chemical degradation of s-triazine
by montmorillonite. Science. 160:1340-42.
Sandi, E. 1958. Reduction of parathion induced by light. Nature. 181:499.
Schulz, K-R., E.P. Lichtenstein, T.T. Liang, and T.W. Fuhremann. 1970.
Persistence and degradation of azinphosmethyl in soils as affected by
formulation and mode of application. J. Econ. Entomol. 63:432-38.
Schwartz, H.G., Jr. 1967. Microbial degradation of pesticides in aqueous
solution. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 39:1701-14.
Sethunathan, N. and I.C. MacRae. 1969. Persistence and biodegradation of
diazinon in submerged soils. J. Agr. Food Chem. 17:221-25.
Sethunathan, N. and T. Yoshida. 1969. Fate of diazinon in submerged soil.
Accumulation of hydrolysis product. J. Agr. Food Chem. 17:1192-95.
Sheets, T.J. and C.I. Harris. 1965. Herbicide residues in soils and their
phytotoxicities to crops grown in rotation. Residue Rev. 11:119-140.
Skinner, W.A., D.E. Stallard and W.E. Priddle. 1964. The isolation and
identification of the metabolites of dacthal herbicide. Abstr. Meet.
Amer. Chem. Soc. 147:A4-5.
Skipper, H.D., C.M. Gilmour and W.R. Furtick. 1967. Microbial versus
chemical degradation of atrazine in soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer., Proc-
31:653-56.
112
-------
Slade, P. 1965. Photochemical degradation of paraquat. Nature. 207:515-16.
Smith, G.E. and B.C. Isom. 1967. Investigation of effects of large-scale
applications of 2,4-D on aquatic fauna and water quality. Pestic. Monit.
J. 1:16-21.
Smith, D.T. and W.F. Meggitt. 1970. Persistence and degradation of pyrason
in soil. Weed Scl> 18:260-64.
Steenson, T.I. and N. Walker. 1956. Observations on the bacterial oxidation
of chlorophenoxyacetic acids. Plant Soil. 8:17-32.
Steenson, T.I. and N. Walker. 1957. The pathway of breakdown of 2,4-dichloro-
and 4-chloro-2-methyl phenoxyacetic acid by bacteria. J. Gen. Microbiol.
16:146-54.
Stewart, D.K.R. and C.J.S. Fox. 1971. Persistence of organochlorlne in-
secticides and their metabolites in Nova Scotian soils. J. Econ. Entomol.
64:367-71.
Stewart, D.K.R. , D. Chisholm and M.T.H. Ragab. 1971. Long term persistence
of parathion in soil. Nature. 229:47.
Sweet, R.D., L. Feddema, G. Crabtree and D. Baker. 1958. Longevity of
several herbicides in soils. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 15:17-24.
Swietochowski, B., H. Zurawski, and J. Piss. 1962. The effect of environ-
ment on herbicides added to the soil. I. The rate of simazine decomposition
in the soil. Zesz. Nauk. Wyzsz. Szk. Roln. Wroclawiu, Roln. 15:73-82.
Tagawa, H. and K. Tomaru. 1969. Soil sterilization with fumigants. 2.
Factors that affect the amount of chloropicrin residues in soil. Bull.
Hatano. Tols. Exp. Sta. 65:85-91.
Talbert, R.D. and O.K. Fletchall. 1964. Inactivation of simazine and
atrazine in the field. Weeds. 12:33-37.
Tewfik,,M.S. and W.C. Evans. 1966. The metabolism of 3,5"dinitro-o-cresol
(DNOCJ by soil microorganisms. Biochem. J. 99:31-32.
Thiegs, B.J. 1955. The stability of dalapon in soils. Down to Earth. 11:2-4.
Thomason, I.J., C.E. Castro, R.C. Baines and R. Mankau. 1971. What happens
to soil fumigantjr?after nematode control? Calif. Agr. 25:10-12.
Veith, G.D. and G.F. Lee. 1971. Water chemistry of toxaphene-role of lake
sediments. Environ. Sci Technol. 5:230-34.
113
-------
Ware, G.W. and C.C. Roan. 1971. Interaction of pesticides with aquatic
microorganisms and plankton. Residue Rev- 33:15-45.
Warren, G.F. 1954. Rate of leaching and breakdown of several herbicides
in different soils. Proc. N. Central Weed Contr. Conf. 11:5-6.
Warren, G.F. 1956. Weed control in transplanted tomatoes. Prcc. N.
Central Weed Contr. Conf. 13:149-50.
Way, M.J. and N.E.A. Scopes. 1968. Persistence and effects on soil fauna
of some soil applied systemic insecticides. Ann. Appl. Biol. 62:199-214.
Wedemeyer, G. 1966. Dechlorination of DDT by Aerobacter aerog_enes_.
Science. 152:647.
Weed Society of America. 1970. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science
Society of America. Urbana, 111., The Society. (WSSA Monogr. 3).
Westlake, W.E. and J.B. San Antonio. 1960. Insecticide residues in plants,
animals and soils. In: The Nature and Fate of Chemicals Applied to Soils,
Plants, and Animals. Washington, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. (ARS 20-29).
p.105-15.
Williams, A.K., S.T. Cox and R.G. Eagon. 1965. Conversipn of 3-amino-l,2,4-
triazole into 3-amino-l,2,4-triazolyl alanine and its incorporation into
protein by Escherichia coli. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 18:250-54.
White-Stevens, R. 1971. Pesticides in the Environment. Volume 1, Part 1,
New York, Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Yeo, R.R. 1967. Dissipation of diquat and paraquat and effects on aquatic
weeds and fish. Weeds. 15:42-46.
Zayed, S.M.A.D., A. Hassan, and T.M. Hussein. 1965a. Organophosphorus
insecticides. II. Distribution and metabolism of 0,0-dimethyl-2 ,2 ,2-
trichloro-1-methoxy-ethyl phosphonate-32P in the adult larva of Prodenia
litura. Z. Naturforsch. B. 20:587-91.
Zayed, S.M.A.D., I.Y. Mastafa, and A. Hassan. 1965b. Metabolism of organo-
phosphorus insecticides. VII. Transformation of 32P-labeled dipterex
through microorganisms. Archiv. Mikrobiol. 51:118-21.
114
-------
CHAPTER 6
IMPACT OF PESTICIDE POLLUTION ON THE AQUATIC ENVIRONMENT
As mentioned previously, pesticides are applied in large quantities to
control hundreds of pests on scores of crops throughout the San Joaquin Valley.
The movement of these-chemicals through the ecosystem and their ultimate fate
is poorly understood.
Preceding chapters have discussed possible routes of movement of pesti-
cides, the degradation and metabolic products of individual pesticides, and
the persistence of these compounds in the environment. All of this information
is necessary for evaluation of the hazard or safety associated with the use of
a particular chemical. Specifically, these factors determine the concentrations
of a pesticide and its by-products that are found at a given time following its
application.
Calculating the probable concentration of a compound in a particular en-
vironment, although highly desirable, is not sufficient to predict what effects
that compound may have on the natural environment; it is also necessary to know
how various concentrations alter the biological community. This chapter discusses
information currently available on pesticide-organism interactions in the aquatic
environment. More important, it indicates information that is still lacking.
Much basic ecological research is still needed before a predictive model can be
fully developed.
Aquatic Ecosystems In The San Joaquin Valley
There are many and diverse bodies of water within the eight-county area
considered in this study. Many important waterways in the area are man-made, in-
cluding irrigation ditches and canals, numerous reservoirs, and the California
115
-------
aqueduct. The natural and man-made ecosystems range in size from small vernal
ponds to impoundments such as the San Luis Reservoir, and from intermittent
creeks to the San Joaquin River. The fish habitat exceeds 6,000 miles of streams
and canals and 59,000 acres of lakes and reservoirs that support both cold-water
and warm-water species (California Fish and Game, 1965). The varied habitats
are certainly occupied by different species assemblages, though the biological
components of these environments have seldom-been investigated. We are not aware
of any recent publications about aquatic communities in the San Joaquin Valley.
We present here a general introduction to aquatic communities, because a specific
description is impossible at this time.
Biological Communities in Aquatic Environments
The impact of an alteration to any system can be assessed only after one
understands how the system functions. Therefore, the nature of aquatic ecosystems
is briefly discussed before we consider the effect of pesticides in these en-
vironments.
Many ecology textbooks discuss the nature of biological communities. More
comprehensive treatment of the structure and function of ecosystems can be found
in Allee et. al. (1949), Odum (1959), or Smith (1966). Aquatic communities have
received special attention in texts by Reid (1961), Ruttncr (1953), and Warren
(1971), and "The Dynamics of Aquatic Ecosystems" were recently reviewed by Mann
(1969). These sources were consulted in preparing the following description.
Figure 6.1 diagrams some structure and Important relation in ecosystems.
Such presentations disregard the specific differences actually found in natural
communities. Every localized community is different from any other community, al-
though the types of organisms found are quite characteristic whenever environ-
mental conditions are similar. Different habitats have characteristically
different types of organisms. Furthermore, the fundamental differences between
116
-------
Energy
of
respiration
Small
carnivores
Herbivores
and
detritus feeders
Sun's
energy
ft 11 /
Primary
producers
Nutrients
Figure 6.1 Generalized Relationships of Ecosystems (from Mann, 1969)
117
-------
lentic and lotic environments are significant in determining the effects of
particular chemicals on the biota of these environments. These differences
must be taken into consideration in assessing environmental impact, although
they are not fully discussed in this section.
Lakes have been subdivided into the lake surface, limnetic zone, littoral
zone, profundal zone, and submersed structures. Streams could be regarded simi-
larly but are classified primarily with regard to flow rate. Fundamentally,
aquatic environments are populated by benthic populations and planktonic popu-
ulations. These can be considered as different population assemblages, despite
numerous interactions between species in these two assemblages. For example,
fish populations prey upon both planktonic and benthic populations, sometiir.es
switching from one to the other as the relative abundance of food organisms
changes.
Figure 6.1 divides the biological components of the ecosystem into primary
producers, herbivores and detritus feeders, small carnivores, top carnivores,
and decomposers. Primary producers are those organisms that can photosynthesize,
using solar energy to convert inorganic nutrients into organic compounds that
serve as an energy source for animal populations. Primary producers in the aquatic
environment can be algae, mosses, or higher plants. Herbivores are animals that
feed primarily upon plant material. Detritus feeders are primarily benthic
organisms that feed upon organic matter in the sediments. Carnivores are animals
that prey upon other animals. The interrelations between carnivore populations
are not well defined, but top carnivores are those species with no natural preda-
tor in the ecosystem under consideration. In fresh-water ecosystems the top
carnivores are usually fish, though some species of fish are not top carnivores.
Decomposers serve a vital function in ecosystems. Dead organisms or parts
thereof, feces, and other material excreted from all the other groups are used
as an energy source by the decomposers. In the process they convert organic
118
-------
matter back into nutrients to be used by the primary producers. Some materials
are decomposed by metabolic processes and excreted, but most decomposition is
thought to result from fungi and bacteria. Mann (1969) indicates that almost
nothing is known about the signficance of decomposers.
Figure 6.1 indicates two important processes: the flow of energy; and
the cycling of matter. As mentioned, the sun is a source of energy for primary
producers, whereas all other groups acquire energy by eating something. Con-
sequently, the upper levels of the food chain can be maintained only if the
lower levels are continually replenished. Primary production (photosynthesis)
is the only means of replenishment, so the structure of the entire ecosystem
is intimately tied to primary production. An especially important consideration
with regard to pesticides is the circulation of matter. Matter, unlike energy,
is not lost from ecosystems but is transferred from one species to another in
the food chain. If a prey species contains some toxic material, this is taken
in by the predator and can be lost by either degradation or excretion. Toxic
materials can thus be stored and accumulated by higher levels of the food chain,
leading to biomagnification (discussed later).
This very general introduction, it is hoped, will be sufficient for understand-
in the functioning of ecosystems. The following description of aquatic ecosystems
is primarily a listing of the types of organisms that are most common.
Planktonic populations include phytoplankton and zooplankton, as well as
bacterial and fungal decomposers. Phytoplankton, whose primary function is
photosynthesis, are usually green or blue-green algae, although diatoms are very
important in some environments. The phytoplankton are preyed upon by zooplankton
species, which may be protozoans, rotifers, or crustaceans. Frequently an en-
vironment will have three dominant zooplankton species, a rotifer, a cladoceran,
and a copepod, as well as several less important species. Protozoans and roti-
fers may be preyed upon by larger zooplankton, but fish are the major predator
119
-------
of all these groups. Plankton populations are more characteristic of lakes
and ponds, but are also found in some large, slow rivers.
Benthic populations are characteristic of both flowing and standing waters.
Filamentous and attached unicellular algae are frequently present in the euphotic
zone. In some environments this zone may also contain mosses as well as sub-
merged or emergent vacular plants. Benthic fauna consists primarily of annelids,
immature insects, and crustaceans (amphipods and crayfish). Other taxonomic
groups, especially ostracods and nematodes, are present in great abundance in
some environments, but their significance is largely undetermined. A major
source of energy for benthic populations is the detritus that falls when plankton
individuals die. This detritus is also the major substrate for decomposers in
the sediment.
Standing waters often have free-floating vascular plants. Any plant group
may be the major primary producer, depending on the particular environment.
In addition most fresh-water ecosystems have some fish species that prey
upon the other populations. Table 6.1 lists the major types of organisms that
a pesticide may affect in fresh-water aquatic ecosystems as discussed above.
Table 6.1 - Major Biological Components of Aquatic Ecosystems
Primary producers: Consumers: Decomposers:
Phytoplankton Zooplankton Fungi (in water
Attached filamentous algae -protozoa column and sediments)
Higher plants -rotifers Bacteria (in water
-submerged -Crustacea column and sediments)
-emergent
-floating Benthic invertebrates
-annelids
-insects
-crustacea
-molluscs
Figures 6.2 through 6.4 are representations of aquatic communities studied
120
-------
Terrestrial sources
DETRITUS
Aquatic sources
Pycnopsyche antico
Calopsectra exigua
Antherin
variegate
Eucolio
Inconstant
DETRITUS FEEDERS
Brillio flavifrons
Ephemera simulans
~ jua V\g—»MicfOtendlp»» gedalius
CARNIVORES
Phasgonophoro
copitata
\igronia sp.
Cyrnsiius
tTiafginolis.
Pentaneura tpp
Cottus bairdii
Prosimulium
hirtipes
• Chinmatopsyche sp.
Helicopsych* borealii
Ephemera simulans r-
Hobrophleboides
americano
Centroptilum
HERBIVORES
"PLANTS"""
Geora sp.
Isonychia albomanicata I Meridian Achnanthes Cymbella |
Psephenus herricki ^cyclotella Novicula Nitzschia H
Psilotreta indecisa '
^
Chimarra Eukiefferiello
•pp.
Stenonema fuscum
Polypedium spp.
_ Corynoneuro spp.
I Psychomyia flovida
Antocha sp.
Optioservus sp.
Agapetus sp.
Steneimis beomeri
and 14 other genera
in lesser amounts
» ^ •
Figure 6.2 Partial food web of small stream community (from Cummings et d. 1966)
-------
Solar Radiation
Solcr Radiation
t
External
ssolved Nutrient^
Pondweeas
Phytoplankt«rs
-•• -, - Zooplanktersfczzp;.'
rBroweers
^Bacteria V
Plankton Predators
Benthic Predato
Swimming Predators
Figure 6.4 Major pathways of material and energy transfer in a lake.
(from Lindeman, 1941)
122
-------
KJ
OJ
From
land
Synthesis
- Death and Waste
^J Saprophoges
Carnivores >• i
Carnivores I —
Microphages
Macrofauna
Herbivores
Sdlbbli
Saprobic microorganism
-v'organic
7777^.
>-t ^ — I Algae
I
Mocrovegetation
Holozoic
protozoa
^aTfefltP^^
. .• .'. •,»,;. *• -±>r ?:t f- ••'.-.• v\- .•:.•':*?.*£•, .'•.•.•.•-•.•-./.A!-- •...'.' ••>•••...-.«. • :,,T.1 '.-•y.- :•: '.'.•..."•.<•;_•!. *•..*' :I~.y.\'-s
i
| ^Microorganisms
matteV--- -~
^^^•g^vvy^gg^-g.^^ JG
sea
Tin ml*
Figure 6,3 Major pathways of material transport in stream community (from Hawkes, 1962)
-------
by three different groups of investigators. These representations are simplified,
but it remains clear that a disturbance at any point in such a system can produce
alterations in many other parts of the system. When multiple alterations occur,
the impact of the initial disturbance is very difficult to assess completely.
This problem is discussed in the next section.
Problems of Assessing the Impact of Pollutants
Pesticides sometimes present a hazard to the environment. These chemicals,
while contributing to man's health and welfare over the past 25 years, have some-
times been used without due consideration of their impact on nontarget organisms.
Unanticipated effects have caused, and continue to cause, environmental problems.
To avoid further environmental damage, it will be necessary to predict, over
extended periods, the numerous effects of different types of pesticides (and
other pollutants) in different environments.
The preceding discussion points out the complexity of most aquatic com-
munities. Accurately prediction of the impact of pollutants on such a system
requires increased knowledge of several basic aspects, including:
1) the residual level of pollutants maintained in the environment;
2) the magnitude and duration of periodic high concentrations of
pollutants;
3) -the species found in a community;
4) the effect of the residual and periodic high level(s) of pollutants
on individual species;
5) the magnitude of any synergistic effects that occur when more than
one pollutant is found in an environment; and
6) the effect on the community of altering the biology of an in-
dividual species.
It will also be necessary to know what changes take place in the community
124
-------
structure simply as a result of natural cycles. Some changes in community
structure may occur that are independent of pesticides. Natural and induced
changes must be differentiated before the impact of the pesticide can be properly
assessed.
The difficulties associated with assessing the impact of pesticide pollution
have been reviewed by a number of investigators, most recently by Cope (1971)
and Pimentel (1971). The major concern is establishing causal relationships or
differentiating between direct, indirect, and unrelated effects. Such relation-
ships cannot be determined without the basic information indicated above. Very
little basic information of this sort is currently available in the San Joaquin
Valley, although efforts are under way to obtain more of it.
The environment must be monitored for residual pesticide levels as well
as short-term pulses of high concentrations since some species are more suscepti-
ble to long-term low-level concentrations of a pesticide, while others are very
susceptible to short-term pulses of high pesticide concentration. This informa-
tion can be obtained only through an extensive monitoring system employed
frequently enough to detect periodic high concentrations of pesticides. A
recent report on pesticide monitoring by the California Water Resources Control
Board (1971) indicates that monitoring programs in California have been "a
fragmented and uncoordinated series of special studies of limited duration and
scope." Only four such studies were reported for the San Joaquin Valley, all of
short duration and limited to a small area. Should the recommendations of the
Board's report be accepted, a monitoring program will be established that will
provide some required information.
Table 6.2 lists some chemicals that we feel may have an impact on the
aquatic environment. The top 100 chemicals from Table 2.1 (Chapter 2) are
arranged by function (e.g., insecticides, herbicides) and chemical characteris-
tics (e.g., organophosphorus, phenoxyacetic acids). Some chemicals from Table
125
-------
P..,,c,d.
Drii.nQrhliirlf.li (ft)
BBt
Ch.ordflne
MtLhoxyehlor
Parth«nt
Organophoaphorut (20)
Milathion
Parathton
Phoreia
Cuthlon Ozlnphoa-nethyl)
Hechyl Ta.athlr-n
F.thion
Haled
Bay tea (Fenihlot.)
Delnav (Oloxathlon)
Dlm>thoatc
DU*in<>t.
Azodrin
Phoiphaaldon
TEPP
Phoaalone
K«t* Syntax S (Oxydencton-Bechyl)
Syatoi. (Dems ton)
Carbaaatea (2)
Carbaryl (Sevln)
Me thorny 1
Inorganic (2)
Acarlcldea (6)
Do man t olla
OnUe
Suaner alia
Chlorobenailat* (organothlorlne)
Herbicides (26)
Fhenoxyace'tlc Acid*
2,4-P group
HCPA
Trlazli.es
Sloaiine
Ami t role
Atraiine
Slnox (DHOC)
DNBP (Dlnaseb)
Planavln
Anaar 170 (MSMA)
Anaar 136 (cacodyllc acid)
Dalenon
Soaium TCA
BlpyridyJa
Paraquat
Sufcetituted 'Urea
Dluion
Carbaraares
Tlllan ;Pebulaie>
Sutan
Inorganic
Sodium chlorate
Sodlua araanitc
HAgnealun chlorate
Other
Oef-defollant
Xylene
Propanll
Dacthftl (Chlorothal-ncthyl)
Dlphenauld
Pyraion
Fungltldaa (12)
Dlthlocarbaoatea
Hanab
Nabaa
Zlran
C*pt*n
Folcid (Captafol)
Inorganic
Sulfur
Copper aulfa-pentahydrate
Zinc Sulrate
Copper SuHat« Bqclc
Copper oxychlorld* aulfate
Boi&x
Copper Hydroxide
NeaMtlcldes and Fuaiganto (6)
T*lone (Dlchloropropene)
D-D .fixture
Mftthyl brcolde
Chloropierlh
DBCP
CthyJena dlbrovfde
1 Rank in
1 San Juaquln
Valley
7
»
SO
B5
94
i:
13
21.
29
33
34
36
36
42
43
48
67
68
70
75
21
82
73
82
6
57
60
66
71
20
86
45
69
76
30
39
52
91
44
54
46
95
53
64
89
100
5
49
58
27
37
55
59
78
81
93
28
90
96
40
63
3
IB
19
47
61
65
87
1C
11
17
25
31
»9
San Joaautn Veil lay
'l7«!lli
191, /41
13,9114
32,458
22,729
654,248
621,046
269,564
248,438
188, 980
185,594
166,390
145,453
127,274
105,340
96.569 '
83,349
53,987
53,546
42,203
34" , 34«
326,991
34,994
48,121
37,697
2.039,574
72.234
69,674
57,774
51,974
32,837
336,132
6
21,301
102,258
53.967
40.317
217.409
145.372
83.100
26.056
103,550
77,618
101,849
21.954
79,633
59.45S
27,833
19,307
2,517,282
94,037
70,764
242,821
149,934
75.834
70.036
37.381
35,47?
22.791
242,091
27,308
21,918
131,254
60.074
9,138,557
411,414
345,500
100,976
66,960
58.238
32,087
820.493
755,751
441,887
251,624
201,192
19,554
Acute Oral -t
40
111
437-590
6,t',00
8,170
2,800
13
3.7
It. 4
208
430
215
43
630
108
21
12.5
1.12
120
65
5.0-6.8
850
17-24
10-50
825
Relatlvtly hanales?
1,350-2,200
32.2
>5,000
Relatively harmless
700-3,100
375; acid
66-805; aodlum aalt
700
>5,000
1,100-2,500
3,080
> 10, 000
25-40
50
> 2,000
440
1.350
9,330
3.200-5,000
155-203
3,400
3,997-4]659
1,200
10-50
325
Not available
1,384
>3,000
1,030
3,300
5,200
7,500
395
1,400
9,000
4,600
Hot available
300
Nut available
Not available
Not available
2,660-5,140
Not available
250-500
140
Very toUc
Very toxic
173
146
Han toxlclty data fro* PeatlctiU Haemal, grltlah Crop Protection Council, 1966.
12*
-------
2.1 are excluded because they are not primarily pesticides (e.g., spreaders,
urea, copper) or because seed weight is included (i.e., mercury-treated seeds),
as explained in Chapter 2. Selection of these particular chemicals was
necessarily arbitrary. Some types of pesticides (e.g., rodenticides, botanical
insecticides) used in San Joaquin Valley were not present in the top 100, but
these 100 chemicals include the major representatives of the most important
groups of pesticides.
Table 6.2 is based on the quantity of pesticides applied, since numerous
applications and large quantities indicate that a pesticide may have more impact.
Although these chemicals are important now, patterns of use change. As some
chemicals are displaced and others used more frequently, the pesticides having
an impact on the environment may change considerably.
Some pesticides not listed in Table 6.2 may have an impact on a localized
environment because of high application rates, such as chlorine, fenac, and
dicryl. However, rates are comparably high for xylene, copper sulfate, and
copper hydroxide, which are included in Table 6.2. Compounds which may present
a local problem because of especially acute toxicity include compound 1080
(primarily a rodenticide) and endrin (an organochlorine insecticide).
Many chemically distinct types of pesticides are being used in the San
Joaquin Valley. Previous environmental monitoring programs (reported in
Pesticides Monitoring Journal, 1967-1971), have analyzed chlorinated hydrocarbon
insecticides and phenoxyacetic acid herbicides almost exclusively. These two
classes include only 10 of the 84 chemicals in Table 6.2. Clearly, an accurate
description of pesticide pollution will require that monitoring programs in the
Valley have a different emphasis from programs now in operation elsewhere.
If more than a few pollutants are present in any environment, extensive
monitoring programs encounter logistic difficulties. Therefore, a monitoring
127
-------
program established in the Valley may be less extensive than desired. Met-
caif esi: al. (1971) designed a microcosm that has been used extensively in
assessing the environmental hazards from organophosphorus insecticides. If
such a system were used to screen the major pesticides in the San Joaquin Valley,
the initial monitoring program could emphasize the few pesticides most likely
to produce deleterious effects.
The species in the study area must be enumerated before impact is assessed.
Species differences in response to pesticides have been discussed for insects
(Burke, 1959), algae (Fitzgerald, 1971), and fish (Hatch, 1957; Cope, 1971).
The available data indicate that similar differences exist for other taxonomic
groups. Hence, knowing the species present is essential to predicting the
effects on particular habitat.
As mentioned, there have been very few studies of the aquatic biota within
the San Joaquin Valley. The plankton of the San Joaquin River were studied by
Allen (1920). More recent studies, by students at Fresno State College, have
yielded insufficient information for developing extensive species lists of most
taxonomic groups. Table 6.3 lists the fish species known to occur in Fresno
County. We feel the list is representative, although some species found else-
where in the valley may have been excluded. This is the only group of aquatic
biota for which such a list can be developed at this time.
After the species present are known, the effect of a pesticide on individual
species must be determined. Moore (1967) lists seven principal ways in which
a pesticide can affect a species: direct toxic effect; secondary poisoning
following pesticide accumulation in a food species; delayed expression of a
toxic dose (e.g., a concentration that affects metamorphism in insects); removal
of a food species; removal of a habitat species (e.g., aquatic weeds that pro-
vide protection for fish from predators); removal of competitors; and removal
of predators. Some of these effects will occur if the pesticide concentration
128
-------
Table 6.3 Fish Species of Fresno County (below 2,500 feet)J
Scientific Name
Species
Archoplithes
*Carassius
Catostomus
Chaenobryttus
Cottus
*Cyprinus
Entosphenus
*Gambusia
*Gasterosteus
Hysterocarpus
*Ictalurus
*Ictalurus
*Ictalurus
Lavinia
*Lepomis
*Lepomis
Micropterus
*Micropterus
Mylopharadon
*Notemigonus
Orthodon
Pagonichthys
*Pimephales
Pomoxis
*Pomoxis
Ptychocheilus
Roccus
*Salmo
*Salmo
Genus
interruptus
auratus
occidentalis
glulosus
gulosus
carpio
tridentatus
affinis
aculeatus
traski
catus
nebulosus
punctatus
epilicauda
cyanellus
macrochirus
dolomieu
salmoides
conocephalus
crydeycas
microlepidotus
macrolepidotus
promelas
annular Is
nigromaculatus
grandis
saxatalis
gairdnerli
trotto
Common Name
Sacramento perch
Goldfish
Western sucker
Warmouth
Riffle sculpin
Carp
Pacific lamprey
Mosquito fish
Three-spined stickleback
Tule perch
White catfish
Brown bullhead
Channel catfish
Hitch
Green fish
Bluegill
Smallmouth bass
Largemouth bass
Hardhead
Golden shiner
Sacramento blackfish
Splittail
Fathead minnow
White crappie
Black crappie
Sacramento squawfish
Striped bass
Rainbow trout
Browu trout
aThis list of fish species was obtained from Mr* Robert Craig,
Department of Zoology, U.C. Davis. It was compiled by searching
the literature for records of occurrence and by consulting with
Individuals in the California Department of Fish and Game. It is
the most comprehensive species list available for the study area
of this report.
Indicates species which have been used in evaluating pesticides,
according to Lawrence (1968).
129
-------
exceeds the acute toxicity of some species. However, the acute toxicity can
vary with the sex, development stage, and nutritional state of the individuals
involved (Cope, 1971). Toxicity is also affected by the femulation of the
pesticide (Alabaster, 1969) and with environmental conditions such as tempera-
ture, water hardness, pH, and dissolved oxygen. Toxicity will also depend
on the duration of exposure. Jensen and Gaufin (1964 a,b) have shown that 2-day
and 30-day LC (lethal concentration for 50% of a population) values frequently
differ by more than an order of magnitude. This emphasizes the need to monitor
chronic levels of pesticide pollution.
Since pesticide concentrations in the environment are frequently quite low,
it is essential that sublethal effects also be studied. The physiology, be-
havior, and reproduction of fish and invertebrate species have been altered
in the laboratory by exposure to low pesticide concentrations. Such changes
are largely undetected in nature, although they may be having profound effects on
the aquatic community.
One of the most complicated, and least studied, aspects of pesticide
pollution involves interactions between pesticides when more than one is
present in an environment. It is known that they can be antagonistic, additive,
or synergistic, but studies to date have been limited to a few pesticides and
species. O'Brien (1967) reviewed current knowledge of pesticide interactions.
Cope (1971) indicated that only three studies have been conducted on synergistic
or antagonistic effects on fish, and Moore (1967) pointed out that no work has
been done on such effects on natural populations. Since numerous pesticides
are applied to agricultural areas, there is a great need for extensive research
on interactions between pesticides. The degradation products of various pesti-
cides may also have synergistic effects.
Ivie and Casida (1970) discovered that rotenone catalyzes the photoisomeri-
zation of various cyclodienes. This finding might be used to lower residues
130
-------
of cyclodlene pesticides, which are quite toxic, but Georgacakis and Khan
(1971) have found that the photoisomers of several of these compounds are more
toxic to aquatic fauna than are the parent compounds. This investigation, one
of the first concerned with the toxicity of degradation products to aquatic
fauna, indicates the need for more research.
The problem of biomagnification is significant because it changes the
effective concentrations of pesticides that a species encounters. The toxicity
of pesticides to aquatic fauna is generally considered to result from exposure
to some concentration of pesticide in the environment. If some species con-
centrate chemicals, predators of these species are exposed to abnormally high
concentrations of pesticides. Furthermore, the predator contacts these pesticides
as an oral dose rather than an environmental concentration. Macek (1969) provides
a good review of current knowledge of biomagnification. Generally, the extent
of magnification is thought to depend on the amount of pesticide present in
various prey species as the pesticide moves up the food chain, but Hamelink
e_t al. (1971) suggest that the concentration in any organism depends on exchange
equilibria between the organism and its environment. Chadwick and Brocksen
(1970) believe that more than one process is responsible for both the concen-
tration and excretion of pesticides. These diverse points of view suggest the
present confusion on this very important process.
The last major difficulty in assessing the impact of pesticides results
from our rather primitive understanding of how ecosystems function. We can
describe the operation of an ecosystem only in general terms. Consequently,
a disturbance can be detected only when it has produced major alterations in
the ecosystem. Even then it is difficult to assess the significance of the
alterations (House et al., 1967). Most interactions of ecosystems are incredibly
complicated and subtle, and changes in these relationships could easily go un-
detected. Understanding of these interactions will require much basic research
131
-------
by community ecologists, probably In conjunction with systems analysts. Such
an understanding is nevertheless vital if we hope to assess the impact of any
pollutants.
When one speaks of the impact of a pollutant on an ecosystem it is auto-
matically assumed that the effects are deleterious, although this is not necessar-
ily correct. Alterations due to pollutants should be evaluated in particular eco-
systems as they affect the function of that ecosystem. However, most ecosystems
have several functions that may be affected by a given pesticides. More importantly,
the various uses of particular ecosystems may be poorly defined, so that it is
difficult to assess whether a particular effect is deleterious or not. The most
significant environmental alterations in the San Joaquin Valley have resulted
from large-scale irrigated agriculture. Pesticide pollution, a small portion
of this major alteration, should be assessed with respect to the over-all
goals of the region.
Available Information on the Effects of Pesticides on
Aquatic Environments
Despite the problems outlined in the previous section, one can attempt to
assess the impact of pesticides. Our assessment is based on published literature,
reports, and monographs. Procedures for searching the literature were dis-
cussed in the Foreword. More than 1,000 original articles were reviewed for this
chapter. The information gathered so far represents one of the most extensive
collections of information on pesticides and the aquatic environment in the
country. It is hoped that this information can be computerized and retrieved
as desired at a later date. For example, one should be able to recall all the
literature on the effect on any species of a particular chemical. Similarly, one
should be able to recall all literature on organophosphate insecticides and
aquatic invertebrates. In short, this system should be flexible enough to
132
-------
accomodate both generic and specific searches. If such a service were maintained
and made available for future projects it could save hours or days of searching,
avoid unnecessary and costly duplication of the effort, and result in substantial
saving of financial resources.
Literature Reviews; In recent years several reviews concerning pesticides
have appeared in scientific and popular literature. The first extensive compila-
tion of pesticide literature was provided by Rudd and Genelly (1956). They provide
an excellent account of use patterns, important legislation, and public attitudes
about the danger of pesticides to wildlife. They also gtve a detailed account of
the known effects on wildlife of 86 individual pesticides. Hazards to the environ-
ment from pesticides received public attention following the publication of
"Silent Spring" (Carson, 1961). That book was followed by the much less emotional
and'better balanced "Pesticides and the Living Landscape" (Rudd, 1964). Rudd's
book was reprinted, without major change, in 1970 and remains the best intro-
duction to the environmental hazards that may result from pesticide pollution.
Ecological problems resulting from pesticide use have been reviewed by Moore
(1967). Symposia which merit special attention include those edited by Gould
(1966), Moore (1966), Gillette (1969), and Miller and Berg (1969). A number of
recent reviews discuss more specific subjects in greater depth. Lawrence
(1962, 1969) compiled available data on herbicides and aquatic species, and
House £t al. (1967) reviewed the effects of repeated herbicide applications.
Edwards (1970) discussed the problems associated with persistent pesticides, and
Cope (1971) provided a recent evaluation of interactions between pesticides and
wildlife. Excellent accounts of the effects of pesticides on specific groups
of organisms have been presented by Johnson (1968) for fish, and Ware and Roan
(1971) for plankton and microorganisms. These reviews were useful in acquiring
a perspective from which to evaluate pesticide literature. A particularly useful
133
-------
reference has been "The Ecological Effects of Pesticides to Non-target Organ-
isms" (Pimentel, 1971), an encyclopedic listing of the effects of insecticides,
herbicides, and fungicides on many species, which was used to check the complete-
ness of our literature search.
Available Data; The literature search as served two important functions,
one qualitative and the other quantitative. The primary purpose was to obtain
quantitative information on the effects of various concentrations of individual
pesticides on important species in aquatic food webs. This information was to be
correlated with the concentration of those chemicals found in the aquatic environ-
ments of the San Joaquin Valley. The data obtained were tabulated and are pre-
sented in appropriate sections throughout this chapter. All information obtained
(except for fish) is presented, regardless of whether the species studied are
known to be present in the valley, for two reasons: 1) in the absence of a
comprehensive compilation of aquatic species in the valley it did not seem
desirable to eliminata any species; and 2) most data are for only a few species,
and making generalizations from these data is necessary.
Innumerable reports in both the popular press and scientific journals have
decried the environmental destruction resulting from the indiscriminate use of
pesticides. The standard rebuttal has been that care in using pesticides will
avoid environmental hazards. Frequently, these presentations have been
clearly biased; they either ignore what data are available or argue from very
limited data. Much of the discussion in the literature we collected was clearly
biased in one direction or the other, and has not been very helpful for assessing
the impact of pesticide, pollution in the aquatic environment.
Even so, considerable data have been accumulated. Tables 6.4-6.8 are com-
piled from literature we had access to. These tables are designed to indicate
whether information is available on the effects of individual chemicals on
134
-------
Table 6.4 Available Information on Effect of
Organochlorine Insecticides and Acaricides to Aquatic Species
Species
o
a
<1>
ji
81
8
H
p
V
C
4J
r-t
d
«)
VM
r-l
p
O
i
-------
Table 6.5 Available Information on Effect of
Organophosphoros Insecticides and Acaricides on Aquatic Species
Species
-------
Table 6.6 Available Information on Effect of Other
Insecticides and Acaricides on Aquatic Species
Species
.-4
CJ
H
|
4J
Lead
arsenate
Dormant
oils
Summer
oils
Primary producers
Phytoplankton
Attached algae
Vaacular plants
-submerged
-emergent
-floating
Consumers
Zooplankton
-protozoa
-rotifers
-Crustacea
Benthlc invertebrates
-annelids
-insects
-crustacea
-mollusca
Fish
Decomposers
Fungi
Bacteria
x
x
(x) Some information (laboratory or field) was obtained by our
literature search procedure.
(-) No information was obtained.
137
-------
Table 6.7 Available Information on the Effect of Herbicides cm Montarget Ac
uatic Species
Species
CO
t-i
o
r-(
U
O
•HO)
OTM
«O
(H
Tf
O
en
c
01
OJ
00
Primary producers
Phytoplankton -X--------X-X---KX----X--X-
Attached algae ________________-_-___---_-
Vascular plants
-submerged ___________________________
-emergent _____-_--______-_--_-___ -__
-floating ___________________________
Consumers
Zooplankton
-protozoa -____--_-________-_____-___
-rotifers ___________________________
-Crustacea -x--x----xx-x~---xxx--x----
Benthic invertebrates
-annelids _____--_-__--__--__x_______
-insects -X-XX-X-XXXXXK---X-X-------
-crustacea -x-xx---xxx-x----x-x-------
-mollusca ______--x-x--------x-------
Fish xx-xx-x-xx-xxx---xxx-xx---x
Decomposers
Fungi - ___________________________
Bacteria ___________________________
(x) Some information (laboratory or field) was obtained by our search procedure.
(-) No information was obtained.
-------
Species
.
r- 1 >,
3 43
0) (0
M t-i C
3 01 01 01
u-i a, a, 4J
i-i a, rt
3 O 0) )-i
0)
4J
cd
t-l
3
0)
o
a
•H
•s
£
s!
c
tfl
4-1
P.
n)
rj
^
3
0)
M
01
p* 0)
a. 4-1
0 a)
rj uj
1
>*
k
0 01
•a
N -H
01 M
a. o
O.-H
O J3
o o
T3
T-I
O
t-l
O
rz.
a
M
O
cq
v
M J
0) J
f3- i
o. Ts
O J
§
J=
at
-------
different components of the aquatic ecosystem, and to indicate, where new studies
are needed. The segments of our generalized aquatic ecosystem are listed by
rows, and specific pesticides in columns. An x means that some information is
available on the effect of that chemical on the biota concerned. A dash (-)
means that no information is available. No attempt is made to evaluate these
data. The compilations merely indicate whether information is available on the
matters concerned. Piinentel (1971) has observed that the most-studied pesticides
are not necessarily the most dangerous or even those used most widely. That
observation is substantiated by our study. Thus, Telone and D-D mixture, used in
large quantities (See Table 2.2 in Chapter 2), have seldom been studied. In
contrast, Endrin is probably the second-most studied pesticide, although only 421
pounds (Table 2.2) were used in our study area in 1970. Nevertheless, these charts
on availability of data may help in identifying the areas in greatest need of re-
search.
The bulk of our information concerns the effects of insecticides or herbi-
cides on a few invertebrate and fish species. Knowledge is limited on the effects
of pesticides on primary producers and decomposers. There is very little work
on the protozoans or rotifers, important groups of zooplankton, and surprisingly
little on annelids and molluscs, groups that constitute the bulk of the benthic
biomass in many environments. Each of the components of the biological com-
munity is important for the functioning of the community, and pesticide effects
must be elucidated at these various levels of the food chain. Some groups
of pesticides also have been poorly investigated. Knowledge on pesticide effects
decreases in the following order: insecticides and acaricides herbicides
fungicides nematocides and fumigants. Increasing applications of these latter
pesticides increase the need for additional studies on their effect on various
aquatic biota. These are some of the many unexplored areas involving pesticide-
140
-------
biota Interactions that need close attention.
The data that have Been useful in our evaluation can be divided into labora-
tory and field observations. Laboratory experiments have usually determined the
LC50 ^TLm^ value of a pesticide for some species. LC5Q is the concentration of
pesticide in the environment which kills 50% of a species in a given period
under the experimental conditions. It is important to note that the LC5Q is the
inverse of toxicity. That is, pesticides which are the most toxic have the
lowest LC5Q values. Studies have frequently described the LC Q of many different
pesticides for one or & few species. Sometimes a pesticide was selected and its
effect on several species was determined. Occasionally, a different value has
been used, such as an EC5Q. EC- is the concentration which immobilizes 50% of
a species in a given period. We have compiled LC5Q values in tables according
to type of pesticide and organism. Tables are provided on zooplankton, benthic
invertebrates, and fish — for organochlorine insecticides, organophosphorus insecti-
cides, and herbicides.
Laboratory investigations have recently been made on physiological mechanisms
through which a pesticide acts (Cope, 1971). When the physiological responses
to pesticides have been described, it will be easier to predict the effect of
sub lethal concentrations.
Laboratory experiments generally indicate the response of a single species to
a given pesticide under constant conditions. Such observations are necessary, but
direct extrapolation to field conditions is frequently impossible. Wilson and
Bond (1970) have shown that the LC,- of benthic invertebrates can be increased by
an order of magnitude by including sediment in the experimental container. Crosby
and Tucker (1966) took the survivors of an immobilization experiment on Daphnia
magna. placed them in fresh (pesticide-free) solution, and found that all those
exposed to paraquat at 6 ppm died within two days even though they appeared healthy.
These results indicate the caution needed in extrapolating from laboratory obser-
vations. 141
-------
Field observations have frequently been made after pesticides were applied
to an aquatic environment, either intentionally or accidentally. These observa-
tions may be more meaningful than laboratory determinations in assigning ac-
ceptable levels of pesticide concentration in waterways. However, since field
observations are complicated by subtle interactions between species in nature,
it is difficult to determine whether a given effect results directly or in-
directly from pesticide application or perhaps from some completely extraneous
factors. Pesticide pollution is claimed by some to be the major cause of fish
kill, but the actual cause of death is usually undetermined. Even if pestidices
are responsible they may act indirectly by making fish more susceptible to disease,
depressing the oxygen content of the water, or in some other manner. There is a
great need for increased field observations of accidental contamination as well
as experimentation with known pesticide concentrations in the natural environ-
ment. Field observations on pesticides used in the San Joaquin Valley are listed
in tables in this chapter (Table 6.14 for organochlorine insecticides, 6.18 for
organophosphate insecticides, and 6.23 for herbicides).
We shall discuss the various types of available data as they relate to
specific groups of pesticides.
Effects of Pesticides on Aquatic Environments
Pesticides can have direct or indirect effects on aquatic biota (Hunt
and Keith, 1968). Direct effects are those resulting from the toxic action of
pesticides during acute or chronic exposure. Indirect effects result from
environmental changes brought about by the use of pesticides. Despite the
numerous subtle effects possible in aquatic ecosystems, their frequency and magni-
tude have received little study, so their significance is diffisult to evaluate.
Consequently, most assessments of ecological impact are based on direct toxic
142
-------
effects to fish species.
Fish-kill data are useful for locating geographic areas where maicr harm
from pesticides is likely. However, an analysis based solely on fish-kill data
certainly underestimates the magnitude of pesticide effects. The California
Department of Fish and Game (1970) has compiled information on fish and wildlife
losses caused by various pollutants for the years 1965 through 1969. Data on
fish kills in the San Joaquin Valley are summarized in Tables 6.9 and 6,10.
The data indicate that fish kills have been relatively few from pesticides
compared with other causes. Also, loss of game fish has been less than the loss
of non-game fish. The California Department of Fish and Game initiated a systematic
approach to reporting and investigating fish kills in 1963. Fish kills from
pesticides were greatest in 1963, declining steadily since then (Hunt and Linn
1970). The Estimate of environmental impact of pesticides in Table 6.9 and 6.10
is minimal for two reasons: Some losses may have been undetected or unreported;
and, some reported losses were not fully analyzed. Thus, some fish kill recorded
as "unknown" may have been due to pesticides.
Besides fish kills, changes in fisheries have probably occurred that have
not been properly documented. Hunt and Linn (1970) cite reports of fisheries
that once flourished but are now absent, though no definitive information is
available on this subject. Indirect effects of pesticides on wild fish pop-
ulations have gone undetected in California, but Hunt and Linn (1970) conclude
that "the probability that they can occur under present conditions dictates the
need for further action."
According to Nicholson and Hill (1971), pollution problems that are severe
over a large area result from the use of pesticides that are toxic, persistent,
in widespread and voluminous use, and capable of being taken up and concentrated.
Deleterious effects may result in a localized area if a pesticide satisfies any
of these conditions. Localized effects are usually temporary, however, and may
143
-------
Table 6.9 Number of Fish Kills from Pesticides and Other
Pollutants* Reported for Counties gf the
San Joaquln Valley, 1965-1969
— — — _ ._ 1
County
San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Merced
Made r a
Fresno
Kings
Tulare
Kern
_
Cause
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
1965 1966
1 5
1 3
2 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1967 1968
1 0
3 5
0 0
0 4
1 1
1 2
0 0
0 0
1 2
0 2
0 4
0 1
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 0
1969
3
8
0
2
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
Other includes fish kills from unknown cauae.
'California Department of Fl*h and Game, 1970.
144
-------
Table 6.10 Total Number of Fish Killed by Pesticides and Other Pollutants*
Reported for Counties of the San Joaquin Valley, 1965-1969
County
Causa
1965
Gane
Species
Kon-gaac
Species
1966
Gane
Species
Non-game
Species
1967
Gaae
Species
Non-gaae
Species
1968
Gaae
Species
Non-game
Species
1969
Gane
Species
Non-gaae
Species
*>
in
San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Merced
Madera
Fresno
Kings
Tulare
Kern
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
Pesticides
Other
150
0
27
0
0
0
0
350
0
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
750
26,000
775
0
1,325
1,025
0
75
0
75
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,014
200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
805
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,725
6,157
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8,910
0
0
2
110
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6,000
700
0
0
1
1,000
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
' 0
0
0
0
30,575
0
32,800
1,025
200
H
0
1,375
400
2,675
100
0
350
0
0
0
2,000
0
525
0
1,506
0
0
0
50
3,000
550
0
1,000
0
0
1,825
1,206
0
15,027
0
325
0
0
0
25
0
4.000
(1,000
0
0
0
1,825
12,400
0
40,075
0
250
0
0
0
0
0
25
Total)
0
0
0
Other includes fish killed from unknown cause.
California Department of Fish and Game, 1970.
-------
not be a cause of concern. Since different groups of pesticides differ with
regard to the above criteria, danger to the San Joaquin Valley is assessed here
for the pesticides applied there in the greatest quantity.
Insecticides and acaricides! Thirty-eight of the top 100 pesticides used
in the San Joaquin Valley are applied primarily to control insects or mites
(Table 6.2). This is understandable when one considers that the major economic
losses from agricultural pests in fiscal 1968-1969 were from mites ($56,270,099),
corn earworms ($38,192,365), and aphids ($29,806,631) (Hawthorne, 1970). Most
(31) of the large number of insecticides and acaricides belong to two classes,
organochlorine and organophosphorus. The few others are discussed individually.
Organochlorine compounds; The best-studied group of all pesticides is the
organochlorine compounds, especially DDT. This is partly because they were the
first organic pesticides to be synthesized and used in large quantities. However,
major research efforts have been conducted because biomagnification and persistence
are particularly characteristic of organochlorine compounds (Mitchell, 1966;
Nicholson and Hill, 1971). Since they become concentrated in biological material,
West (1966) believes there may be no safe concentration in water.
Much research on residue determinations in various species has been conducted
and recently reviewed by Dustman and Stickel (1966), Stickel (1968), Edwards
(1970), and Pimentel (1971). Figure 6.5 indicates typical concentrations of
DDT found in various components of the ecosystem. Pesticide residues have been
determined in California for fauna of Clear Lake (Hunt and Bischoff, 1960; Linn
and Stanley, 1969) and the Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge (Godsef and John-
son, 1968). Analyses of pesticide residues in the San Joaquin Valley are still
insufficient to determine whether bioaccumulation poses a danger to aquatic fauna
146
-------
Estimate based on very few samples
Insufficient data available
Predatory
birds
10-0
Freshwater
fish
2-0
/ ^
Marine
fish
0-5
*r^*+f t
Predatory
mammals
1-0*
Herbivorous
insectivorous
birds
2-0
Herbivorous &
insectivorous
mammals
Plants
0-05
Soil
invertebrates
40
Aquatic
plants
0-01
Aquatic U\ Plankton
invertebratesrl 0
OOOl
Agricultural
soil
20
Natural
soil
Fresh
water
0-00001
water
0-000001
Atmospheric
dust
004
Rainwater
00002
Air
0-000004
Figure 6.5 Typical amounts of DDT (ppm) in the environment. (from Edwards, 1970)
-------
there (California Water Quality Control Board, 1971). Hunt and Linn (1970)
suggest that the pesticide residues in striped bass may be high enough to inter-
fere with reproduction, although that has not been documented. As with many
other pesticide problems, the significance of residue levels has not yet been
established (Wadleigh, 1968).
Organochlorine compounds have been the known or probable cause of numerous
fish kills in the San Joaquin Valley (California Department of Fish and Game,
1970). The magnitude of this problem is decreasing, however, because of
changing patterns of pesticide use (Table 2.6). The concentration of chlorinated
hydrocarbons in the San Joaquin River decreased steadily from 1963 to 1968
(California Water Quality Control Board, 1971) and is expected to continue to
decline.
Tables 6.11, 6.12, and 6.13 list LC,0 values of organochlorine compounds
to zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish. These values are significantly
higher than the concentrations of organochlorine compounds that have been found
in the valley (Green _et al., 1965; Bailey and Hannun, 1967; California Water
Quality Control Board, 1971). Thus, direct toxicity to aquatic fauna from
organochlorine applications is probably uncommon. Table 6.14 includes informa-
tion on some environmental effects that have been observed following applications
of organochlorine insecticides. The danger results not from acute toxicity
but from biomagnification and persistence.
It is unlikely that organochlorine pesticides have had more effect on the
aquatic feuna than any other group of pesticides in the San Joaquin Valley. They
will continue to have some effect because they are persistent in the environment,
though their impact should decrease because pesticide use patterns are changing.
Ofganophosphorus compounds; With the decreasing use of organochlorine
148
-------
Table 6.11
EC,0 (Immobilization) Values (ppb) of Organochlorine Compounds to Zooplankton
Species
Temperature
y-N
0)
1-1
o
J3
^>
0)
5
H
Toxaphene
1
Endosulfan
Chlordane
Methoxychlor
Per thane
Kel thane
Tetradifon
Chlorobenzi-
late
Ol
4J
•H
VI
<
Reference
Daphnia pulex 21C 48 20 0.4 Cope, 1966
60F 48 15 0.36 29 0.78 870 160 Sanders and
60F
48
48
15 0.36
1.48(LC50)
Daphnia magna
68F 24
68F
68F
20C
48
50
32
50
Daphnia carinata
78F 32
4.4
1.4
1
1
2.2
240
0.8
3.7
3.6
9.4 390
345
Simocephalus serrulatus 60F 48
60F 48 19 2.5
70F 48 10 2.8
20
20
24
5
5.6
550
550 180
Cope, 1966
FWPCA, 1968
Priester, 1965
Sanders and
Cope, 1966
FWFCA, 1968
Sanders and
Cope, 1966
Anderson, 1945
Anderson, 1959
MatIda and
Kawasaki, 1958
FWPCA, 1968
Sanders and
Cope, 1966
Sandars and
Cope, 1966
-------
I i t £ i
Speciea JJ * i *g •!
| v I si
Stonef H««
Ptargmrcya
15.5 48 7.0 19 5.6 5
21C 48 7 If
48-50? 48 7 19 5.6 5
11-12C 48 2,450
11-12C 72 2,450
U-12C 96 1,800
15.5 96 2.3 7.0 2.3 1
12.8C 5 day 3,000
12. 8C 10 day 1,100
12. 8C 15 day 510
12. 8C 20 day 365
12. 8C 25 day 290
12. 8C 30 day 265
A_cron_eurta
pflclflca 11-12C (.8 2,200
11-12C 72 320
11-12C 96 320
12. 8C 10 d«y 440
12. 8C 15 .9 z.6 1
21-27C 24 229 6-fi 3
Cray flan
clark 1 16-32C 34 600
16-32C 48 600
16-32C 72 600
(0
o c
^ C 41
& » d q ^ £ Reference
O j: i « ^ —
f H ^ £ -2 9
K <£ ^ H 6 <
5 9.0 Sanders and Cope, 1968
Cope, 1966
58. 3 FVPCA, 1968
Jensen and Oaufln, 1964*
5 1,4 Sdndsrs and Cope, 1968
lensen and taufin, 1964b
J.^nsRn and Gaufin, 196db
Jensen .ind Caafin, I96ia
Jenaer. and Ca-jfin, 1964d
Jensen and Gaufin, I96-'.a; Caufin ct_ ^1 . , 19(i'
JenF«n and GaufJn, i964b
Jensen and Gaufin, 1964b
Jensen and Gaufin, 1964b
Jensen anH Gaufin, 1964b
Jensen and Gaufin, 1964b
Sanders and Cope, 1968
Gaufin Bit jii., 1965
Caufin £l aj . , 1963
Gaufin £^: aj . , 1965
&0 2.9 370 350 Sanders, 1969
90 1.3 1*0 100 Sander e, l%9
90 1.3 310 140 100 FWPCA, 1968
26 0.8 110 060 SanOer*. 1969
Gau* In e_t al^. , 1965
1.6 Navgi an.1 Ferguson, 1970
1* Na8u* -«nd Fergusor., 1970
Kuncy and Oliver, 1963
Huncy s^d Olivet, 1963
aVeg\I and Fcrguaon (i970) have determined LC-. v«lu
150
-------
Table 6.13 LC5Q Values (ppb) of Organochlorine Compounds to Fish
Species
Temperature
6
o
J3
H
Toxaphene
1
Endosulf an
Chlordane
LI
Methoxychlo
1 Perthane
•H
S
Tetradifon
u
4
_j
Chlorobenzi
Aramite
References
Blueglll
Fathead minnow
Goldfish
Channel catfish
Rainbow trout
Brown trout
Largemouth bass
Carp
12. 7C
IB. 3
23. 8C
65F
2SC
25C
25C
55F
55F
24
24
24
48
96
96
96
96
96
96
96
24
48
48
96
96
96
96
9.7
6.8
6.6
3.5
18
5.1
14
5.6
14
13
50
2.8
11
3
2
4
16
8
32
19
27
21
16
5.2
7
2
2
10
3.2 220 74
170
95
22 62
52 64
82 56
50 52
1.2 10 7.2
Macek et al. 1969
Macek et al. 1969
Macek et al. 1969
1,100 35 FWPCA 1968
Henderson et al. 1959
Macek and McAllister 1970
Henderson et al. 1959
Macek and McAllister 1970
Henderson et al. 1959
Macek and McAllister 1970
Macek and McAllister 1970*
Mayhew 1955
7 100 710 FWPCA 1968
Cope 1965
Macek and McAllister 1970
Macek and McAllister 1970*
Macek and McAllister 1970*
Macek and McAllister 1970*
*Aa reported by Pimental (1971).
-------
Table 6.14 Some Reported Field Observations Following Application of Organochlotine Compounds
Environment
Concentration
Effects
Location
Toxaphene
DDT"
EndosulUn
Chlordane
Merhoxychlo
Per thane
Kelthane
Terradifo
0.1 ppm Chlronlisld larvae killed within three days, Colorado CushinR and Olive 1956
Cook 9 months Co repopulate. Chaoboruj*
larvae not killed immediately but absent 6
months later. Oligochaetes apparently
unaffected.
0.05 ppm Rapid loss from water column and uptake by New Mexico Kellman et «1. 1962
biota. Some trout and bullheads killed,
lake atill coxic 9 months after treatment.
Harked increase in growth rate of aurvlvlng North Dakota Warnick 1966
yellow perch.
0.005-0.035 ppm Fi*h toxicity varied but complete toxicity North Dakota Hennegar 1966
persisted for 7 months In some cases.
0.005-0.035 ppn Dominant zooplankton (Polyartha. Keratella. Norti. Dakota Needham 1966
Asplancha, Bronchlonua, Daphnia, and
Cyclops) apparently unaffected but numbers
decrease at 0.09 ppm. Change in species
composition in phytoplankton.
0.03-0.10 ppo Used an fleh toxicant, killed all gant fish California Johnson 196s
but not all trash fiah. Not recommended as
fish toxicant. Lake toxic to game fish for
10 montha.
1.5 ppm Eliminated all sculpins anri aquatic inaecte Alaska Meeham and Sheridar. 1966
and caused reduction in other invertebrate
groups. Benthic invertebrate populations
had not recovered 1 year later.
1 Ib/acre on Benthic stream Invertebrates reduced In Wyoming Cope 1961
watershed number Immediately, biomaas near normal
after 1 year but change in species
coopofIrlon. No fish mortality but DDT
residues found in fish 35 miles downstream
and 2 years after application.
1/2 Ib'acre Drastic reduction in insect species, some New Brunswick Ide 1967
Salmon forced to feed on less desirable
food ap«cies.
DDT accumulates rapidly in biota. After Ohio Keeks 196?
brataa and small vertebrates but high
concentrations in larger vertebrates.
Accumulates in brook trout, suckers and Pennsylvania Coll tt al_. 1967
crayfish. After 122 days concentration In
fish, crayfish and bottom sediments had
fallen to pre-treatment levels but water-
shed soils had high concentration.
0.28 kg/ha. Complete insect kill in 3 days, reappear Alaska Reed 1967
after few weeks but complete repopulatlon
takes more than 1 year. No direct fish
mortality but high pesticide concentrations
accumulate and growth rate falls because
of lack of food.
No reported observations.
0.005 ppa Applied as blackfly larvicide. Accumulates New York Burdick e£ al. 1968
•ore slowly than DDT but produces comparable
affects on aquatic fauna. Brook tr<>ut
concentrate to 1.8 ppm in 7 days bat soae of
this is lost when placed in freshwater.
No reported observations.
No reported observations,
No reported observations.
No reported observations.
No reported observations.
have been numerous recorded observation* on DDT; we have included representative examples.
152
-------
compounds there is a concomitant increase in organophosphorus compounds (Table
2.6). In terms of the top 100 chemicals (Table 6.2), crops in the San Joaquin
Valley received more pounds of organophosphorus compounds than of organochlorine
compounds. There have been very few detailed studies of environmental effects
following the application of organophosphoruscompounds. Thus, their impact can-
not be adequately evaluated at present.
Tables 6.15, 6.16, and 6.17 list some EC and LC values of organophosphorus
compounds for zooplankton, benthic invertebrates, and fish. As discussed in
Chapter 5, persistence is much less for organophosphorus compounds than for
organochlorine compounds, so the quantities entering the aquatic environment
may be considerably lower. Since no monitoring programs have been established
we cannot indicate how the actual concentration compares with the LC _ values.
Another factor that lowers the hazard of organophosphorus compounds is the rate
at which they are metabolized by aquatic fauna. Macek (1970) indicates that
organophosphorus compounds generally turn over in less than a week. Thus,
there is little chance for accumulation (biomagnification) within organisms
in the food chain.
Some research has been conducted on the toxicity of organophosphorus degra-
dation products. Wilson (1966), working with malathion, isolated 7 degradation
products, all less toxic to fathead minnows than malathion. However, naled and
dylox both hydrolyze to dichlorvos, which is more toxic to Simocephalus serrul-
atus. Daphnia pulex, and Pteronarcys californica than either parent product
(Sanders and Cope, 1966; 1968). No general conclusions can yet be drawn about
the significance of degradation products.
Table 6.18 lists environmental observations on the effect of organophosphorus
compounds. The few observations made indicate that the primary danger is direct
toxicity. Indirect effects will follow direct toxic effects, but their sig-
nificance has not been evaluated.
153
-------
Table 6.15 ^59 (Imnoblllzation) Values (ppb) of Organophoephorua Compounds to Zooplankton.
Species
41
D
3
«j
rt
hi
V
f
H
to
|4
a
o
5
a
H
C
o
X
iJ
a
c
o
•H
X
u
Vt
ffl
cu
V
u
w
o
J=
a,
c
o
vH
u
3
,
2
>
t-H
«
Q
g
&
«
*J
a)
J
w
a
a
8
(0
•M
O
c
V
I
•J
01
9V
O
a
o
•o
•H
s
3
£
a.
o
^:
P«
On
Si
H
01
C
o
•H
ffl
o
j:
FM
erf
4-1
(fl
X
C/>
2
41
X
c
ft
il
•o
1
Px
X
o
4J
-------
lophoiphorus ( (impounds t.i 6pm
I**
Slum-lilt,
'••""'•"•"•
£
1 5, Sr
I
*
''"
g
5
."l
1
S.
11
i
j3
fl
S
S
5
e
u
£
1(1
D
£
S
1
I
c
0
K.
5
|
2
|
£
g
c
1
-
f
lso
c
i
9.11
S
?
„,,,.„..
,,„,„„, .„.,»,
Copr, J9f>(,
\\-HC 4h 7.0 J.8
12.8r 5 d.iv 7.7 0.93
11. Of 10 day 5.1 f). i.f>
12.8C 15 dav 1.1 0.4}
12.Hi ?0 rf.iv 1.2 O.'.i
12.8C 10
-------
Table 6.17 LC» Values (ppb) of Orgaaophftaphorus Compounds to Fish
o
=
i
f.
220
s
09
1,310
2,404
3,404
1,<80
>
&
14
34
10,000
32,000
K
o
3,800
140,000
51,000
99,000
S
1
|
28,000
9,600
|
a
52
30
c
M
0
*e
§
0)
«
S
40
63
3.700
6,500
a
•o
g
j=
a
1
p.
a
1,100
1,900
790
21,000
g
•J
1
S
J
«
u
5
«
• >
£
41
S
>*
81
100
3,200
3,600
11,000
|
*
C
j;
0
3
225
Reference
Cope 1965
Macek et al. 1969
Macck et al. 19>,9
Maci-It ft al. J969
PlckerIn"g~St al. 1962
FVPCA 1968
Macek and McAllister 1970
Macek and McAllister 1970*
Pickering e^ aK 1962
Macek aad McAllister 1970*
19,000
8'^vn trout
targe mouth bass
Carp
Striped bass
12. 7C
65F
55F
55F
25C
24
24
48
96
96
96
96
130
170
68
285
50 190
6.590
25 240
49 2,750 380
10 160 7 8.000
14 930
4 4,740
5 5,220 1,540
36
69S 7,130 1,160
10.400
Alabaster 1969
34 Kacek et a^. 1969
17 Cope 1965
FVPCA 1968
Hacck and HcAllliter
Cope 1965
Macek and McAlllater
Pickering ££ al. 1962
Macek and McAllletcr
Wellborn 1969
1970*
1970*
•970*
reporced by Pinentel (1971).
-------
Chem i v a 1 En v i ronmen t
Aquarium
Pjrathimi Ponds
Cranberrv bogs
Ponds
Pond
Pond
on
Ponds
Diazlnon Cranberry bogs
Streams
Phosalone
Meta-systox R
Phosdrin
Systox
Carbophenothion
Concentration Effects i ,„- „ ion Reference
shed unaffected, other arthropud numbers
quickly.
inhibitory effect on growth.
0.4 Ib/acre at So apparent effect on ducks living on California Keith and Mull.i l^bb
in 144 hours.
0,1 and 1.0 Ib/acre No apparent effects on caged mallard California Nulla et al. 1966
mosquito fish (Gambusia af finis). Fish
parathion.
insect numbers caused fish to feed on
3 ppb No apparent effects on benthic inverts- California Cook and Conner* 1963
in zooplankton levels.
ducks
:;»s:r .:"s KH; ±r »«"• - «-.«*"-
benthic invertebrate species. atterson
more than 3 months.
immature Odonata populations.
fieh life.
50 ppb Changes composition of zooplankton in Kansas Ray and Stevens 1970
pond
0.32 ppm Fish killed immediately after appli- Massachusetts Miller et al. 1966
cation. Both freshwater mussels and
hours.
N B i k
higher than those normally required Jackson 1967
1/2-1 Ib/acre No decline in number of orders or New Brunswick Grant 1967
individuals of benthic fauna.
No recorded observations.
No recorded observations.
No recorded observations.
No recorded observations.
157
-------
There have been no reports that organophosphorus insecticides have had sig-
nificant effects on the aquatic environment in the San Joaquin Valley. Since they
are generally quite toxic, their misuse could have profound effects. Generally
they have been considered to be nonpersistent and to be metabolized readily by
plants and animals. Recent work by Kilgore and Marei (in press), however, shows
that parathion is translocated and stored in certain plants and that it persists
for much longer periods of time than has been generally assumed. The possible
implications for the aquatic environment are significant, and we believe that a
monitoring program for organophosphorus compounds should be established as soon as
possible with special attention given to the most toxic and persistent pesticides.
Other insecticides; Seven insecticides in Table 6.2 cannot be classified as
organochlorine or organophosphorus compounds. Table 6.6 indicates that no data
are available for these compounds, except for carbaryl. The LC _ values for
carbaryl are listed in Table 6.19. Carbaryl is not persistent in the environ-
ment which reduces environmental hazard associated with its use. The other six
pesticides, except for dormant oils, are applied in relatively low quantities
and should not produce a major problem. Dormant oils are applied in large
quantities but are primarily hydrocarbons, which can be metabolized by micro-
organisms. Large quantities should not reach the aquatic environment, and will
act primarily as nutrients for microorganisms if they do.
A potential danger from the lead arsenate compounds is discussed under
heavy metals.
Herbicides: Herbicides are increasing in use more rapidly than any other
group of pesticide in the United States. The Weed Science Society of America lists
over 120 organic herbicides, which account for more than 50% of all sales of
pesticides (Foy and Bingham, 1969). The effects of herbicides to the aquatic
158
-------
Table 6.19 LC50 Values (ppm) of Carbaryl to Aquatic Fauna
Species Temp. Tim
(hrs
Zooplankton
o kCrfj Reference
Daphnia pul ex 60 F 48 0.0064 Sanders and
Cope, 1966
60 F 48 0.0064 FWPCA, 1968
Simocephalus scrrulattus 60 F 4S n.(107fi Sanders snA
Benthic Invertebrates
Stone flies
Cope, 1966
Pteronarcvs californica 15.5 r. 24 n.030 Sanders and
Cope, 1968
48 0.015 Cope, 1966
48 0.013 Sanders and
Cope, 1968
96 0.0048 Sanders and
Pteronarrella badia 15.5 C 24
Cope, 1968
0.0050 Sanders and
Cope, 1968
48 0.0036 Sanders and
Cope, 1968
96 0.0017 Sanders and
Cope, 1968
Claassenia sabulosa 15.5 C 24 0.012 Sanders and
Cope, 1968
48 0.0068 Sanders and
Cope, 1968
96 0.0056 Sanders and
Amphi pod
Cope, 1968
Gammarus lacustris 70 F 24 0.040 Sanders, 1969
48 0.022 Sanders, 1969;
FWPCA, 1968
96 0.016 Sanders, 1969
Cray fish
Procambarys clarkii 16-32 C 24 5.0 Muncy and
Oliver, 1963
48 3.0 Muncy and
Oliver, 1963
72 2.0 Muncy and
Fish
Three-spined stickle-
Oliver, 1963
back 24 6.7 Stewart et
al., 1967
Brcwn trout 55 F 48 1.5 FWPCA, 1968
96 1.95 Macek and
McAllister, 1970
Rainbow trout 96 4.38 Macek and
McAllister, 1970
Carp 96 5.28 Macek and
McAllister, 1970
Lareenouth bass 96 6.4 Macek and
McAllister, 1970
Blueeill 96 6-76 Macek and
McAllister, 1970
Redear sunfish 96 11.2 Macek and
McAllister, 1970
Fathead minnow 96 14.6 Macek and
McAllister, 1970
96 13.0 Stewart et.
al., 1967
Goldfish 96 13.2 Mlcek and
McAllister, 1970
Channel catfish 96 15.8 Macek and
McAllister, 1970
Black bullhead 96 20.0 Macek and
McAllister, 1970
159
-------
Table 6.20 EC50 (immobilization) Values (pp») of Herbicides to Zooplankton.
Species
3
IX
a
1
1
(-*
10
O
e
i
•o
•j
m
Q
t
(M
W
3
r-J
1
Q
1
U
C
6
C
I
?
O
s
W
c
rt
T4
"o
tl
TrifluraJln
13
|
S
r-t
1
S
i
1
a
100 '.5 11 4.8 47 23 100 Cro-hy and Tucker 1966
21C 48 >100 5.6 0.1 4 0.56 1 30 56 mr'"^^
b8F 48 6 '•
Taphnla oule* 60F 48 D.J4 11 1.8 3.7 1 I fj^lor. ,M (iip, Wfcb
60F 48 0.24 J.7 1.4 FtfPCA 1968
16 1.4
Sanders and
FVPCA 1968
-------
Species
e
1
1
H
!
w
E
1
«
a
o
•3
>
O
s
•o
£
3
1-"
c
>.
X
c
o
E
1
I
c
6
1
1
3
i
I
1
3
j
E
s
1 I
I
g
i
Amicrole
|
<
|
Diphenaroi
c
1
1 Tillam
T>
c
D*
I
e
I
c
a
Reference
Amphipods
Gamma r us lacuscris
G. Easciatus
Isopods
Asellus brevicaudus
Ostracods
Cypridopsis vidua
Decapods
Paleomonotes kadia-
kensis
70F
60F
70F
70F
15. 5C
15. 5C
15. 5C
15. 5C
21C
24
43
46
96
24
48
96
48
46
1.4
0.76
0.76
0.44
6.5
3.2 5.9
5.9
3.2
1.8
2.1 MOO
1.8
1.8 MOO
l.t> >100
4.1 >100
2.6 >100
2.5 >100
2.2 >100
0.32 >8.0
0.3& 8.8
0.23 5.6
0.23 5.6
0.10 2.2
3.2
i.a
1.0
2.0
0.25
>100
MOO
MOO
0.7
0.38
0.38
0.16
2.5
1.8 >100
0.7
Orconectes nails
>100 >100 >100
>100
>100
58
MOO
Sand
FWPC
Sand
Sand
25 Sand
13 Sand
10 Sand
s 1969
1968
rs 1969
1969
1970
rs 1970
rs 1970
Sanders ,1970
Sanders 1970
Sanders 1970
Sanders 1970
15. 5C
60 F
21C
1S.5C
15.5C
44 5.0
15 2.3
3.8
2.3
2.8
2.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
3.0
>100 120
>100 38
HQO
,>100
3.6
2.8
Sanders and Cope 19&8
FWPCA 1968
Cope 1966
Sanders .ind Cope 1968
Sanders and Cope 1968
-------
Species
a
p.
1
£.
3
H
2-
s
a
s
?
u
S
B
>>
O
-9
O
HJ
O
u
1-
w
2
3
H
1
|
!
e
T«
1 Dalapon
41
•H
Sodium
o*
1
a
1
§•
D.
4)
U
1
S
1
O
c
n)
U
O
c
O
i
-H
i
1 Sodium
c
3
Reference
Bluegill
Rainbow trout
Fathead mlnnov
85F
45P
24C
85P
45 P
18C
4sr
55F
24
24
24
24
48
48
96
96
24
24
48
24
96
2.1 2.1
2.1
3.7
2.1
2.1
- 0.9
0.96
1.1
0.01
1.30
0.019
o.ooa
0.28
0.21
0.011
130 115
480
118 115
95 300
68 100
5 36.5
56
440
7.4
7.4
3.1
4.2
Qiannel catfloh
24 3,157
2,000
Davis »ai HujVss 1963
H-j^hes iinj i \ii 15r-?
Hughes flnj pjvii 19t>3
Cgp* 1965
Cope 1965
Sjrber and Pickering iVo^
t'.'i'CA ISeS
Bcntnont 1967
'rtughes and D-vis iirj
Cope 1965
Cope 1965
Cope 1965
Alabaster 1969
Cope 1965
7UTCA
Bohmont 1967
Surber and Pi-j-critis 19c2
Vellborn 19s>9
Uellborn 19o9
Bond zt. s^. 1959
Clemens and Sr.ced 1959
-------
1500 fiah killed
ponds
Dalapon
Sodium arsenic* ponds
50?. or more.
About 502 aE midges and worms killt
fot several days,. Toxic t<
mayflies and drjgonflies.
HcCcaren tt dl. 1969
MCPA
Tillan
Bromacil
SodLum TCA
No recorded ubst
163
-------
environment require special concern because the overwhelming proportion of
pesticides applied directly to and around waterways are herbicides (Table 4.3).
Table 6.2 indicates that the major herbicides used in the San Joaquin Valley
belong to several different chemical classes. These various classes affect
target and nontarget species in different manners (Weed Science Society of
America, 1970). More than four million pounds of herbicides were applied in
the San Joaquin Valley in 1970. Such large applications could present an
environmental hazard, though little harm to the environment from misuse of
herbicides has yet been reported. One reason that reported losses of wildlife
are few is that a permit must be obtained from the Fish and Game Department be-
fore substances are applied directly to water (Hunt and Linn, 1970). Such a
permit can be refused if there is danger of wildlife loss.
LC.Q values of herbicides to aquatic fauna are listed in Tables 6.20 to 6.22.
These values are generally higher than the LC,Q values for insecticides, and
considerably higher than the values usually encountered in the aquatic environ-
ment. Neururer and Slanina (1960) have suggested that only simazine approaches
toxic concentrations in waterways. No toxiclty data are available for several
of the herbicides listed in Table 6.2, including Ansar 170, an arsenical compound.
Field observations made on herbicides are listed in Table 6.23. The
following general statements can be made. Herbicides applied to running water
do not seem to be a hazard. In standing water, the concentrations necessary
to control aquatic plants are not toxic to the fauna. Only with sodium arsenite
is there severe toxicity from applications of the manufacturer's recommended
dose. The significance of alterations in the structure of the community is
difficult to assess.
Damage to the environment from herbicides usually results indirectly from
environmental alterations. Two major alterations affect the fauna. Since sub-
164
-------
merged vegetation frequently provides protection for fish species, its elimina-
tion makes them more susceptible to predation. Also, Walker (1964) mentions
that eliminating this vegetation might alter the feeding habits of some species.
A more general effect is a depression of dissolved oxygen concentration as a
result of the decomposition of vegetable matter killed by herbicides.
It has been suggested that herbicides could accumulate in the environment
and reach levels toxic to phytoplankton (Butler, 1965), Daphnia magna (Crosby
and Tucker, 1966), or fish (Hilitbran, 1967). However, all of these investi-
gations were conducted at concentrations seldom observed in nature.
The ecological impact of herbicides has been reviewed extensively by
House £t al. (1967), and Mullison (1970 a,b) discussed the effects of herbicides
on nontarget organisms and on the aquatic environment. Recent reviews on
pesticide-wildlife interactions (Johnson, 1968; Cope 1971j Pimentel, 1971) have
also briefly discussed the effects of herbicides on aquatic fauna. Except in
the arsenite, studies just mentioned, all of those reports conclude that damage
to the aquatic environment is unlikely from herbicides used as directed.
Miscellaneous pesticides; In addition to Insecticides, millions of pounds
fungicides, nematocides, and rodenticides are applied annually in the San Joaquin
Valley. Several of these are also applied to the soil in high concentrations
as fumigants. Even less information is available for assessing the impact of
these types of pesticides than for insecticides and herbicides. Knowledge on
fungicides, nematicides, and rodenticides in the aquatic environment is
comparable to knowledge on insecticides approximately fifteen years ago, which,
according to Cope (1971), was limited to "the benefits from pesticides as tools
in management ... and acute toxicity of economic poisons to a few species."
Table 6.2 lists the pesticides that we consider to be most important in
the San Joaquin Valley. Of these, 18 are not used primarily as insecticides
165
-------
or herbicides. Although over 13,000,000 pounds of these chemicals were applied
in the San Joaquin Valley in 1970, none are mentioned in the "Handbook of Toxicity
of Pesticides to Wildlife" (Tucker and Crabtree, 1970). "Ecological Effects of
Pesticides on Non-Target Species" (Pimentel, 1971) includes information on DBCP
and captan, but the effects of these two on aquatic species have apparently not
been investigated. The literature search for this report yielded no additional
information. Hence, it is unlikely that their overall environmental impact can be
assessed with confidence for several years.
Some research has been conducted on the effects on aquatic species of the
following fungicides: nabam, copper sulfate, copper oxychloride, sulfur, and
lime sulfur. Significant quantities of these chemicals are being applied in the
San Joaquin Valley. Of these, sulfur, which is ranked third in terms of pounds
used in the San Joaquin Valley, and lime sulfur are not expected to have much
impact on the aquatic environment. Sanders and Cope (1966) report immobilization
values of lime sulfur for the cladocerans Simiocephalus serrulatus and Daphnia
pulex of respectively 11 ppm and 10 ppm. These are the only available data
relating to aquatic fauna. Several reports have indicated that these fungicides
have caused significant mortality to beneficial insects (Pimentel, 1971). In
California, Bartlett (1963) has reported lime sulfur to be toxic to parasitic
wasps and predaceous coccinellids, both of which have played major roles in
various biological control programs.
Copper sulfate and copper oxychloride have each produced drastic reductions
in zooplankton populations when used as algicides. When used for aquatic weed
control, the margin of safety for fish is small because the concentrations of
these chemicals required to kill some weeds are high (DeVaney, 1968). Their
acute toxicities, however, are less than those of many insecticides. We believe
theue compounds are hazardous only when applied directly to a waterway. Crance
(1963) reported that after careful applications of copper sulfate as an algicide
166
-------
(0.05-0.08 ppm) there were increased zooplankton populations, including rotifers,
cladocerans, and copepods.
Nabam, at concentrations of 1 ppm, has been shown to inhibit photosynthesis
of estuarine phytoplankton (Ukeles, 1962). Wadleigh (1968) indicated that fungi-
cides are not a major cause for environmental concern, although organomercurial
compounds are quite toxic to man.
Mercury has recently been the subject of concern by environmentalists and
the Food and Drug Administration. It has been determined that mercury can
be taken up rapidly by aquatic species and has a slow turnover time (Manner,
1968). Moreover, the concentration found in fish tissue may be 3,000 (Johr.tLs
et al., 1967) to 7,000 (Banner, 1968) times that in the environment. The story
of mercury as it emerged in the popular press was similar to the story of chlor-
inated hydrocarbons. However, we do not believe that mercury will be an environ-
mental problem in the San Joaquin Valley, for two reasons: Since the total pounds
reported for mercury-treated seeds includes the weight of the seeds, the actual
weight of mercury is really much less. In fact, the California Department of
Agriculture estimates that, where mercury-treated seeds are applied, the amount
of mercury from this source is approximately 7-8 grams per acre annually. More
important, the use of alkyl mercury compounds will not be reregistered by the
Department for the treatment of seed grain after 1971.
Runoff from fields treated with nematocides or rodenticides is a potential
pollution problem, though no deleterious environmental effects from these sources
are known (Wadleigh, 1968).
Fumigants could present a problem in a local environment because they are
applied at a very high rates. Thomason et_ al. (1971) have found that the most
commonly used fumigants, including Telone, D-D mixture, and DBCP, were readily
degraded and should not present a significant problem.
167
-------
It cannot be overemphasized that only very limited information is available
for assessing the environmental impact of pesticides. Useful data have been
obtained for insecticides and herbicides, but not for nematocides, fungicides,
or rodenticides. Significantly more information must be generated for all
groups of pesticides before their effects in the aquatic environment can be
adequately assessed.
Summary
This chapter reviews the literature that is available for assessing the
impact of pesticides in the San Joaquin Valley. Four major conclusions can be
reached from the available information:
1) Only limited information is avilable concerning the effects of
pesticide use in the aquatic environment of the San Joaquin
Valley.
2) Both laboratory and field data regarding effects of pesticides
on primary producers and decomposers in the aquatic environment
are practically non-existent, and there is little information
about the effects on higher tropic levels.
3) Presently available data are insufficient to provide a more in-
depth assessment of the impact of pesticides on the aquatic
environment or to determine the extent to which damage might have
been done to the environment.
4) On the basis of the limited evidence, the agricultural use of
pesticides in the San Joaquin Valley would seem to have had no
significant adverse effects, upon the aquatic environment.
That is, the impact on the aquatic environment of pesticides usually seems
insignificant, though more data are needed to substantiate this conclusion fully.
168
-------
Few fish kills in the valley have been attributed to pesticides, and these
were limited to a short period and a limited area. Also, the major kills have
involved non-game fish, such as carp. However, no studies have been conducted to
determine whether fish food organisms are being limited by pesticides. If zoo--
plankton, phytoplankton, or benthic invertebrates have been suppressed or elimin-
ated by pesticides in the environment, these effects have been undetected. Mon-
itoring data obtained in the valley have not detected pesticide concentrations
exceeding the acute toxicity levels for aquatic species. Very few monitoring data
have been obtained to date, however, and periodic high concentrations may go un-
detected.
Proper assessment of the impact of pesticides on the aquatic environment
will require an extensive monitoring program regularly maintained throughout
the valley. More information will be needed on the effect of particular con-
centrations of pesticides on aquatic species, as well as a greater understanding
of how aquatic ecosystems function.
169
-------
References. Chapter 6^
Alabaster, J.S. 1969. Survival of fish in 164 herbicides, insecticides,
fungicides, wetting agents and miscellaneous substances. Int. Pest
Contr. 11:29-35.
Allee, W.C., A.E. Emerson, 0. Park, T. Park and K.P. Schmidt. 1949.
Principles £f Animal Ecology. Philadelphia, Saunders.
Allen, W.E. 1920. A quantitative and statistical study of the plankton ol
the San Joaquin River and its tributaries in and near Stockton, California
in 1913. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 22:1-292.
Anderson, B.C. 1945. The toxicity of DDT to Daphnia. Science. 102:539-
Anderson, B.G- 1959. The toxicity of organic insecticides to Daphnia.
In: Transactions of_ the Second Seminar on Biological Problems j.n
Water Pollution. Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Public Health Service, p.94-95.
Bailey, T.E. and J.R. Hannum. 1967. Distribution of pesticides in
California. J. Sanit. Eng. Div., Amer. Soc. Civil Eng. 93:27-43,
Ball, R.C. and F.H. Hopper. 1966. Use of ?1+As-tagged sodium arsenite in
a study of effects of a herbicide on pond ecology. In: Proceedings o£_
£ Symposium on the Use of_ Isotopes jln Weed Research. Vienna, International
Atomic Energy Commission, p. 149-63.
Bartlett, B.R. 1963. The contact toxicity of some pesticide residues of
hymei apterous parasites and coccinelid predators. J. Econ. Entomol.
56:6^4-98.
Bohmont, B.L. 19'67. Toxicity of herbicides to livestock, fish, honeybees,
and wildlife. Proc. West. Weed Contr. Conf., 20th, Salt Lake City, Utah.
21:25-27.
Bond, C.E., R.H. Lewis and J.L. Fryer. 1959. Toxicity of various herbi-
cidal materials to fishes. _In; Transactions of the Second Seminar on
Biological Problems in Water Pollution. Cincinatti, Ohio, U.S. Public
Health Service, p.94-95.
Brag^nskii, L.P. 1962. Experiment to determine the toxicity of some
herbicides for aquatic invertebrates. (An abstract from: Ref. Zh. Biol.,
1963. No.l D288).
Brahins kyyi, L.P. and L.P. Rotovs' ka. 1960. Effect of herbicide 2,4-D
on pond invertebrates. (An abstract from: Ref. Zh. Biol., 1961. No.6 D517),
Burdlck, G.E., H.J. Dean, E.J. Harris, J. Skea, C, Frisa and C. Sweeny.
1968. Methoxychlor as a blackfly larvicide, persistence of its residues
in fish and its affect on stream arthropods. N.Y. Fish Game J. 15:121-42.
170
-------
Burgoyne, W.E. 1968. Studies on effects of dursban and fenthion insecti-
cides on wildlife. Down Earth. 24:31-33.
Burke, H.R. 1959. Toxicity of several insecticides to two species of
beneficial insects on cotton. J. Econ. Entomol. 52:616-18.
California Dept. of Fish and Game. 1965. California Fish and Wildlife
Plan, v.3: Supporting data. Part A - Inventory of wildlife and inland
fish. Sacramento, Calif.
California Dept. of Fish and Game. 1970. Fish and wildlife losses due to
pesticides and pollution from 1965 to 1969. Sacramento, Calif. (A
mimeograph).
California Water Resources Control Board. 1971. A review of pesticide
monitoring programs in California. Report by the Ad Hoc Committee
on Pesticide Monitoring, California Dept. of Agriculture. Sacramento,
Calif.
Carson, R. 1961. Silent Spring. Boston, Houghton-Mifflin.
Chadwick, G.G. and R.W. Brocksen. 1970. Accumulation of dieldrin by fish
and selected fish-food organisms. J. Wildl. Manage. 33:693-700.
Christie, A.E. 1969. Effects of insecticides on algae. Water Sewage Works.
116:172-76.
Clemens, H.P. and K.E. Sneed. 1959. Lethal doses of several commercial
chemicals for fingerling channel catfish. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec.
Sci. Rep.--Fish. 316.
Cook, S.F. and J.D. Conners. 1963. The short-term side effects of the
insecticidal treatment of Clear Lake, Lake County, California, in 1962.
Ann. Entomol. Soc. Amer. 56:819-24.
Cole, H., D. Barry, D.E.H. Frear and A. Bradford. 1967. DDT levels in
fish, streams, stream sediments, and soil before and after DDT aerial
spray application for control of fall cankerworm in northern Pennsylvania.
Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 2:127-46.
Cope, O.B. 1961. Effects of DDT spraying for spruce budworm on fish in
the Yellowstone River system. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 90:239-51.
Cope, O.B. 1965. Sport fishery investigations. I_n: The Effect of Pesti-
cides on Fish and Wildlife. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, p.51-64.
(U.S. Fish Wildl. Sery. Circ. 226)
Cope, O.B. 1966. Contamination of the freshwater ecosystem by pesticides.
J. Appl. Ecol. 3(Suppl):33-44. (A special issue on Pesticides in the
Environment and Their Effects on Wildlife).
Cope, O.B. 1971. Interactions between pesticides and wildlife. Ann.
Rev. Entomol. 16:325-64.
171
-------
Cope, O.B., E.M. Wood and G.H. Wallen. 1970. Some chronic effects of
2,4-D on the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
99:1-12.
Cowell, B.C. 1965. The effects of sodium arsenite and silvex on the
plankton populations in farm ponds. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 94:371-77.
Crance, J.H. 1963. The effect of copper sulphate on Microcystis and
zooplankton in ponds. Prog. Fish Cult. 25:198-202.
Crosby, D.G. and R.K. Tucker. 1966. Toxicity of aquatic herbicides to
Daphnia magna. Science. 154:289-291.
Cummins, K.W., W.P. Coffman and P.A. Roff. 1966. Tropic relationships
a small woodland stream. Int. J. Theor. Appl. Limnol. 16:627-37.
Gushing, C.E. and J.R. Olive. 1956. Effects of toxaphene and rotenone
upon macroscopic bottom fauna of two northern Colorado reservoirs.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 86:294-301.
Davis, J.T. and J.S. Hughes. 1963. Further observations on the toxicity
of commercial herbicides to bluegill sunfish. Proc. S. Weed Conf.
16:337-40.
Demint, R.J., P.A. Frank and R.D. Comes. 1970. Amitrole residues and
rate of dissipation in irrigation water. Weed Sci. 18:439-42.
DeVaney, T.E. 1968. Chemical vegetation control manual for fish and
wildlife management programs. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Resource
Publ. no.48.
Dustman, E.H. and L.F. Stickel. 1966. Pesticide residues in the eco-
system. In: Pesticides and Their Effects on Soils and Water. Madison,
Wis., Soil Science Society of America, Inc. p.109-21. (ASA Special
Publ. no.8)
Edwards, C.A. 1970. Persistent Pesticides in the Environment. Cleveland,
Ohio, CRC Press.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1968. Report of the
Committee on Water Quality Criteria. Washington, Govt. Print. Off.
Fitzgerald, G.P. 1971. Algicides. Madison, Wis., University of Wisconsin
Water Resources Center. (Lit. Rev. no.2).
Foy, C.L. and S.W. Bingham. 1969. Some research approaches toward minimizing
herbicidal residues in the environment. Residue Rev. 29:105-35.
Frank, P.A., R.J. Demint and R.D. Comes. 1970. Herbicides in irrigation
water following canal-bank treatment for weed control. Weed Sci.
18:687-92.
172
-------
Gaufin, A.R., L.D. Jensen, A.V. Nebeker, T. Nelson and R.W. Teel. 1965.
The toxicity of ten organic insecticides to various aquatic invertebrates.
Water Sewage Works. 12:276-79.
Georgacakis, C. and M.A.Q. Khan. 1971. Toxicity of the photoisomers of
cyclodiene insecticides to freshwater animals. Nature. 223:120-21.
Gilderhus, P.A. 1966. Some effects of sublethal concentrations of sodium
arsenite on bluegills and the aquatic environment. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc. 95:289-96.
Gillett, J.W., ed. 1969. The Biological Impact of Pesticides in the
Environment. Corvallis, Ore., Oregon State University Press.
Godsil, P.J. and W.C. Johnson. 1968. Residues in fish, wildlife and
estuaries. Pesticide monitoring of the aquatic biota at the Tule Lake
National Wildlife Refuge. Pestic. Monit. J. 1:21-26.
Gould, R.F., ed. 1966. Organic Pesticides in the Environment. Washington,
American Chemical Society.
Grant, C.D. 1967. Effects on aquatic insects of forest spraying with
phosphamidon in New Brunswick. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 24:823-32.
Green, R.S., C.G. Gunnerson and J.J. Lichtenberg. 1968. Pesticides in
our national waters. In; Agriculture and tjie Quality of_ our Environment.
Washington, American Association for the Advancement of Science, p.137-56.
(AAAS Publ. 85)
Grzenda, A.R., G.J. Lauer and P.P. Nicholson. 1962. Insecticide contamin-
ation in a farm pond. II. Biological effects. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
91:217-22,
Grzenda, A.R., II.P. Nicholson and W.S. Cox. 1966. Persistence of four
herbicides in pond water. J. Amer. Water Works Ass. 58:326-32.
Hamelink, J.L., R.C. Waybrandt and R.C. Ball. 1971. A proposal: exchange
equilibria control the degree chlorinated hydrocarbons are biologically
magnified in lentic environments. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 100:1-7.
Hannerz, L. 1968. Experimental investigations on the accumulation of
mercury in water organisms. Rep. Inst. Freshwater Res., Drottingholm.
48:120-76.
Hatch, R.W. 1957. Relative sensitivity of salmonids to DDT. Prog. Fish
Cult. 19:89-91.
Hawkes, H.R. 1962. Biological aspects of river pollution. In: River
Pollution. _2. Causes and Effects. Edited by L. Klein. London,
Butterworth.
173
-------
Hawthorne, R.M. 1970. Estimated damage and crop loss caused by insect/mite
pests - 1969. Sacramento, Calif., Dept. of Agriculture. (E-82-12).
Henderson, C. and Q.H. Pickering. 1958. Toxicity of organic phosphorus
insecticides to fish. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 87:39-51.
Henderson, C,, Q.H. Pickering and C.M. Tarzwell. 1959. Relative toxicity
of ten chlorinated hydrocarbon insecticides to four species of fish.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Sec. 88:23-32.
Henegar, D.L. 1966. Minimum lethal levels of toxaphene as a piscicide in
North Dakota lakes. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Resource Publ. no.7.
Hiltibran, R.C. 1967. Effects of some herbicides on fertilized fish eggs
and fry. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 96:414-16.
Hooper, F.N. 1958. The effect of applications of pelleted 2,4-D upon the
bottom fauna of Kent Lake, Oakland County, Michigan. Proc. N. Central
Weed Contr. Conf. 15:41.
House, W.B., L.H. Goodson, H.M. Gadberry and K.W. Dockter. 1967. Assess-
ment of Ecological Effects of_ Extensive and Repeated Use of Herbicides.
Washington, Dept. of Commerce, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific &
Technical Information. (Rep. no.AD 824 314).
Hughes, J.S. and J.T. Davis. 1963. Variations in the toxicity to bluegill
sunfish of phenoxy herbicides. Weeds. 11:50-53.
Hunt, E.G. and A.I. Bischoff. I960.' Inimical "effects oh wildlife of
periodic ODD applications to Clear Lake. Calif. Fish Game. 46:91-106.
'. J> > ;-
Hunt, E.G. and J.O. Keith. 1967. Pesticide analysis in fish and wildlife.
In; Analytical Methods forPesticides, Plant Growth Regulators and
Food Additives. v.5. Edited by G. Zweig. New York, Academic Press.
p.147-89.
Hunt, E.G. and J.D. Linn. 1969. Fish kills by pesticides. In: The
Biological Impact oj[ Pesticides JLn the Environment. Edited by J.W.
Gillett. Corvallis, Ore., Oregon State University Press, p.97-102.
Ide, F.P. 1967. Effects of forest spraying with DDT on aquatic insects
of salmon streams in New Brunswick. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 24:769-805.
Ivie, G.W. and J.E. Casida. 1970. Enhancement of photoalteration of
cyclodiene insecticide chemical residues by rotenone. Science.
167:1620-22.
Jensen, L.D. and A.R. Gaufin. 1964a. Effects of ten organic insecticides
on two species of atonefly naiads. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 93:27-34.
Jensen, L.D. and A.R. Gaufin. 1964b. Long-term effects of organic insec-
ticides on two species of stonefly naiads. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
93:357-63.
174
-------
Johnels, A.G., T, Westermark, W. Berg, P.I. Persaon and 3. Sjostrand.
1967. Pike [ESQJL Lucj.ua. L_. ] and other aquatic organisms in Sweden .s
indicators of mercury contamination in the environment. Oikos.
18:323-33.
Johnson, D.W. 1968. Pesticides and fishes—a review of selected litera-
ture. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 97:398-424.
Johnson, W.C. 1966. Toxaphene treatment of Big Bear Lake, California.
Calif. Fish Game. 52:173-79.
Kallman, B.J., O.B. Cope and R.J. Navarre. 1962. Distribution and
detoxication of toxaphene in Clayton Lake, New Mexico. Trans. Amer.
Fish. Soc. 91:14-22.
Keith, J.O. and M.S. Mulla. 1966. Relative toxicity of five organo-
phosphorus mosquito larvicides to mallard ducks. J. Wildl. Manage.
30:553-63.
Kerswill, C.J. and H.E. Edwards. 1967. Fish losses after forest spraying
with insecticides in New Brunswick, 1952-62, as shown by caged specimens
and other observations. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 24:709-29.
Kilgore, W.W. and N. Marei. 1971. Parathion in plant tissues: new
considerations. A paper presented at the simposium on Degradation of
Synthetic Organic Molecules, held in San Francisco, June, 1971. (Pro-
ceedings of the National Academy of Science, in press).
Lawrence, J.M. 1958. Recent investigations on the use of sodium arsenite
as an algicide and its effects on fish production in ponds. Southeast.
Ass. Game Fish Comm. 11:281-86.
Lawrence, J.M. 1962. Aquatic herbicide data. Washington, Dept. of
Agriculture. (U.S.D.A. Handbook no.231).
Lawrence, J.M. 1969. Supplement to aquatic herbicide data. U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture Handbook 231.
Lindemann, R.L. 1942. The trophic-dynamic aspect of ecology. Ecology.
23:399-418.
Linn, J.D. 1968. Effects of low volume aerial spraying of dursban and
and fenthion on fish. Down Earth. 24:28-30.
Linn, J.D. and R.L. Stanley. 1969. TDE residues in Clear Lake animals.
Calif. Fish Game. 55:164-78.
Macek, K.J. 1969. The biological magnification of pesticide residues in
the food chain. In; The Biological Impact of Pesticides in the Environ-
ment. Edited by J.W. Gillett. Corvallis, Ore., Oregon State University
Press, p.17-21.
Macek, K.J. and W.A. McAllister. 1970. Insecticide susceptibility of some
common fish family representatives. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 99:20-27.
175
-------
Maoek, K..-1*, C. Kanchinson and C.B. Cope. 1969. The effects of temper-
ature on the susceptibility of bluegills and rainbow trout to selected
pesticides. Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. 3:174-83.
Mann, K.H. 1969. The dynamics of aquatic ecosystems. Adv. Ecol. Res.
6:1-83.
Matida, Y. and N. Kawasaki. 1958. Study on the toxicity of agricultural
control chemicals in relation to freshwater fisheries management. No.2.
Toxicity of agricultural insecticides to Daphnia carinata, King. Bull.
Freshwater Fish. Res. Lab., Tokyo. 8:1-6.
Mayhew, J. 1955. Toxicity of seven different insecticides to rainbow
trout, SaImo gairdnerii, Richardson. Proc. Iowa Acad. Sci. 62:599-606.
McCraren, J.P., O.B. Cope and L. Eller. 1969. Some chronic effects of
diuron on bluegills. Weed Sci. 17:497-504.
Meehan, W.R. and W.L. Sheridan. 1966. Effect of toxaphene on fishes and
bottom fauna of Big Kitoi Creek, Afognak Island, Alaska. U.S. Bur.
Sport Fish. Wildl. Resource Publ. no.12.
Meeks, R.L. 1967. The cycling of Chlorine-36 ring-labeled DDT in a
marsh ecosystem. Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State University.
Metcalf, R.L., G.K. Sanghu and T.P. Kapoor. 1971. Model ecosystem for
the evaluation of pesticide biodegradability and ecological magnifica-
tion. Environ. Sci. Technol. 5:709-13.
Miller, C.W, B.M. Zuckerman and A.J. Charig. 1966. Water translocation
of diazinon-C11+ and parathion-S35 off a model cranberry bog and subse-
quent occurrence in fish and mussels. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 95:345-49-
Miller, M.W. and G.G. Berg, eds. 1969. Chemical Fallout; Current Research
on Persistent Pesticides^ Springfield, 111., Thomas.
Mitchell, L.E. 1966. Pesticides: properties and prognoses. In: Organic
Pesticides in the Environment. Edited by R.F. Gould. Washington,
American Chemical Society. p.1-22.
Moore, N.W., ed. 1966. Pesticides in the environment and their effects
on wildlife. J. App. Ecol. 3(Suppl.) (A special issue).
Moore, N.W. 1967. A synopsis of the pesticide problem. Adv. Ecol. Res.
4:75-129.
Mulla, M.S., J.O. Keith and F.A. Gunther. 1966. Persistence and biological
effects of parathion residues in waterfowl habitats. J. Econ. Entomol.
59:1085-90.
Mullison, W.R. 1970a. The significance of herbicides to non-target
organisms. Proc. Northeast. Weed Contr. Conf. 24:111-47.
176
-------
Mullison, W.R, 1970b. Effects of herbicides on water and its inhabitants.
Weed Sci. 18:738-50.
Muncy, R.J. and A.D. Oliver, Jr. 1963. Toxicity of ten insecticides to
the red crawfish, Procambarus clarki (Girard). Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.
92:A28-31.
Nagvi, S.M. and D,E. Ferguson. 1970. Levels of insecticide resistance
in fresh-water shrimp, Palaemonetes kadiakensis. Trans. Amer. Fish.
Soc. 99:696-99,
Needham, R.G. 1966. Effects of toxaphene on plankton and aquatic inver-
tebrates in North Dakota lakes. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl. Resource
Publ. no.8.
Nicholson, H.P. and D.W. Hill. 1970. Pesticide contaminants in water and
mud and their environmental impact. Relat. Agr. Soil Water Pollut.,
Cornell Univ. Conf. 1970:171-79.
Nicholson, H.P..H.J. Webb, G.J. Lauer, R.E. O'Brien, A.R. Grzenda and
D.W. Shanklin. 1962. Insecticide contamination in a farm pond. I.
Origin apd duration. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 91:213-17.
Norris, L.A. 1968. Stream contamination by herbicides after fall rains
on forest land. West. Soc. Weed Sci., Res. Prog. Rep. 1968:33-34.
O'Brien, R.D. 1967. Synergism, antagonism and other interactions. In:
Insecticides, Action and Metabolism. New York, Academic Press, p.209-30.
Odum, E.P. 1959. Fundamentals of Ecology. Philadelphia, Saunders.
Oliver, K.H.. G.H. Parsons and C.T. Huffstetler. 1966. An ecological
study on the effects of certain concentrations of cacodylic acid on
selected fauna and flora. Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., Air Proving
Ground Center, Air Force Systems Command, U.S. Air Force.
Patterson, R.S. and D.L. vonWindeguth. 1964a. The effects of Baytex on
some aquatic organisms. Mosquito News. 24:46-49.
Patterson, R.S. and D.L. vonWindeguth. 1964b. The use of Baytex as a
midge larvicide. Mosquito News. 24:393-96.
Peterle, T.J. and R.H. Giles. 1964. New Tracer Techniques for Evaluating
the Effects of an Insecticide on the Ecology of a Forest Fauna. Columbus,
Ohio, Ohio State University Research Foundation Report.
Petruk, G.F. 1964. Effects of herbicides on heterotrophic microorganisms
in ponds. Mikrobiol. 33:1018-21.
Pickering, Q.H. , C. Henderson and A.E. Lemke. 1962. The toxicity of
organic phosphorus insecticides to different species of warmwater fishes.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 91:175-84.
177
-------
Pimental, D. 1971. Ecological Effects of Pesticides on _N_qn-Targ£t
Species. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.
Priester, L.E. 1965, The accumulation in metabolism of DDT, parathion
and endrin by aquatic food-chain organisms. Ph.D. Thesis, Clemson
University.
Ray, J. and V. Stevens. 1970. Using Baytex to control crayfish in ponds.
Prog. Fish Cult. 32:58-60.
Reed, R.J. 1967. Some effects of DDT on the ecology of salmon streams in
southeastern Alaska. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Spec. Sci. Rep.—Fish.
No.542.
Reid, G.K. 1961. Ecology of Inland Waters and Estuaries. New York,
Reinhold Publishers.
Rudd, R.L. 1964. Pesticides and the Living Landscape. Madison, Wis. ,
University of Wisconsin Press.
Rudd, R.L. and R.E. Genelly. 1956. Pesticides: Their Use and Toxicity
in Relation to Wildlife. Sacramento, Calif., California Dept. of Fish
and Game. (Game Bull. no.7).
Ruttner, F. 1952. Fundamentals of Limnology. Toronto, Quebec, University
of Toronto Press.
Sanders, H.O. 1969- Toxicity of pesticides to' the crustacean Gammarus
lacustus. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Tech. Papers. No.25.
Sanders, H.O. 1970. Toxicities of some herbicides to six species of
freshwater crustaceans. J. Water Pollut. Contr. Fed. 42:1544-50.
Sanders, H.O. and O.B. Cope. 1966. Toxicities of several pesticides to
two species of Cladocerans. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 95:165-69.
Sanders, H.O. and O.B. Cope. 1968. The relative toxicities of several
pesticides to naiad3 of three species of stoneflies. Limnol. Oceanogr.
13:112-17.
Schenk, C.F. and I. Jarolimek. 1966. Experimental aquatic weed control
with endothal-silvex, diquat and simazine. Ont. Water Resource Comm.,
Res. Publ. no.14.
Schouwenburg, W.J. and K.J. Jackson. 1966. A field assessment of the
effects of spraying a small coastal coho salmon stream with Phosphamidon.
Can. Fish. Cult. 37:35-43.
isrhj G.E. and B.G. Isora. 1967. Investigation of effects of large-scale
ia-plications of 2,4-D on aquatic fauna and water quality. Pestic. Monit.
J. 1:16-21.
178
-------
Smith, R.L. 1966. Ecology and Field Biology. New York, Harper and Row.
Stewart, N.E., R.E. Milleran and W.P. Breese. 1967. Acute toxicity of
the insecticide Sevin and its hydrolytic product 1-naphthol to some
marine organisms. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 96:25-30.
Stickel, L.F. 1968. Organochlorine pesticides in the environment. U.S.
Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Spec. Sci. Rep.: Wildl. No.119.
Surber, E.W. and Q.H. Pickering. 1962. Acute toxicity of endothal,
diquat, hyamine, dalapon and silvex to fish. Prog. Fish Cult. 24:161-71.
Thomason, I.J., C.E. Castro, R.C. Baines and R. Mankari. 1971. What
happens to soil fumigants after nematode control. Calif. Agr. 25:10-12.
Tucker, R.K. and D.G. Crabtree. 1970. Handbook of toxicity of pesticides
to wildlife. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish. Wildl., Resource Publ. no.84.
Ukeles, R. 1962. Growth of pure cultures of marine phytoplankton in the
presence of toxicants. Appl. Microbiol. 10:532-35.
vonWindeguth, D.L. and R.S. Patterson. 1968. The effects of two organic
phosphate insecticides on segments of the aquatic biota. Mosquito News.
26:377-80.
Wadleigh, C.H. 1968. Wastes in relation to agriculture and forestry.
U.S. Dept. Agr., Misc. Publ. no.1065.
Walker, C.R. 1962. Toxicological effects of herbicides on the fish
environment. Proc. Annu. Air Water Pollut. Conf. 8:17-34.
Walker, C.R. 1962. Simizine and other s-triazine compounds as aquatic
herbicides in fish habitats. Weeds. 12:134-39.
Ware, G.W. and C.C. Roan. 1970. Interaction of pesticides with aquatic
microorganisms and plankton. Residue Rev. 33:15-45.
Warnick, D.C. 1966. Growth rates of yellow perch in two North Dakota
lakes after population reduction with toxaphene. U.S. Bur. Sport Fish.
Wildl. Resource Publ. no.9.
Warren, C.E. 1971. Biology and Water Pollution Control. Philadelphia,
Saunders.
Weed Society of America. 1970. Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science
Society of America. Urbana, 111., The Society. (WSSA monogr.3)
Welborn, T.L. 1969. The coxicity of nine therapeutic and herbicidal
compounds to striped bass. Progr. Fish Cult. 31:27-32.
179
-------
West, I. 1966. Biological effects of pesticides in the environment. In:
Organic Pesticides in the Environment. Edited by R.F. Gould. Washington,
American Chemical Society, p.38-53.
Wilson, B.R. 1966. Fate of pesticides in the environment—A progress
report. Trans. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 28:694-705.
Wilson, D.C. and C.E. Bond. 1969. The effects of the herbicides diquat
and dechlobenil (Casaron) on pond invertebrates. Part I. Acute toxicity.
Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 98:438-43.
180
-------
CHAPTER 7
ALTERNATIVES TO PESTICIDES FOR
PEST CONTROL
Increases in farm output of 20% have been attributed to the use of pesti-
cides since 1940 (Shaw, 1971).
When one considers the world's burgeoning population and present levels of
malnutrition, it is clear that agricultural production must be maintained at
least at its present level. It is therefore necessary to keep pest populations
suppressed so they will not do unacceptable damage. At the same time, the use
of pesticides in agriculture is sometimes an unnecessary environmental hazard.
Several techniques have been proposed to reduce environmental hazard and simul-
taneously maintain or increase the production level. This chapter discusses
their applications in the San Joaquin Valley.
Pests are not biological entities; they are simply those species that are
a nuisance or are causing economic loss. Both vertebrates and plants can be
pests, but here we are concerned primarily with insects. Varley (1953) empha-
sized that few of the insects that feed on any plant species are economically
important, although almost any species can become a pest.. Major pests occur
with high population densities over a large geographic area. However, spatial
and temporal differences in population density must be considered in developing
methods for controlling a particular species (Smith and Hagan, 1959).
The use of pesticides to control pest populations has frequently produced
undesirable effects because knowledge is lacking on the interrelations of .eco-
systems. Pesticide use and accumulation have sometimes affected unrelated parts
of the biosphere, such as the aquatic environment or predatory birds. Unantici-
pated and undesirable changes have taken place more often in the agro-ecosystems
themselves. Areas of agricultural production are ecologically very simplified,
but numerous interactions still take place between species, and efficient
181
-------
pest management should consider these Interrelations.
The two major undesirable effects following the application of insecticides
to agro-ecosystems are pest resurgence and outbreaks of secondary pests (van den
Bosch, 1970a, 1971a). Pest resurgence occurs when the insecticide initially
kills most members of the target population but eliminates even more efficiently
the predators and parasites which are natural enemies of the target pest. Then,
after a brief period of suppression the pest species frequently reappears at
population densities that are higher than the original. When broad-spectrum
insecticides applied against a target pest eliminate the natural enemies of
previously innocuous species, secondary pest outbreaks may occur. In the absence
of natural control these species increase in population density and become eco-
nomic pests. Both pest resurgence and secondary pest outbreaks result directly
from a decrease in the population density of predator insects following the
application of broad-spectrum pesticides.
Acquiring the level of understanding necessary for proper management of
pest populations will require much basic research in the areas of population and
community ecology. Such research must include observations on the effect of
pesticide applications on the population density of all species in the agro-
ecosystem. In 1953, Varley entered a plea for biological studies to determine
why certain species are pests and others are not. No such information is yet
available. The necessary research will require financial support froiu state and
federal government and from farming agencies. It will also require considerable
time to be completed. In the interim, techniques are being developed that affect
fewer nontarget species. Altering only a few of the species relationships in
ecosystems may reduce the frequencies of undesirable effects.
One important consideration which has not been accurately assessed in the
past is the extent to which a pest must be suppressed. For example, an infesta-
182
-------
tion of 10 Ly^us hesperus per 50 net sweeps has been used as the economic thresh-
old for this pest in cotton in California. It has recently been shown that
population densities substantially higher than this produced little or no effect
on yield or fiber quality (Falcon £t al., 1970). Initially, insecticides seemed
to. be overwhelmingly successful and it was believed that eradication of pest
species was possible and desirable. That goal has persisted even though it has
been seldom achieved, if ever. Some control efforts have been aimed at maintain-
ing pest populations below an economic threshold (Hagan and Smith, 1958), the
level at which they cause a net economic loss. This change in attitude may
result in the application of substantially lower quantities of pesticides even
against pests for which no alternative means of control have been proposed.
More research is now directed toward determining the establishment of economic
thresholds of insect populations.
Even careful use of pesticides might have had deleterious environmental
effects, and unwise use has certainly increased environmental problems. The use
of pesticides is futile in some instances (e.g., against resistant mosquitoes).
Once these situations are detected, pesticide use should be curtailed since
continued use selects for genetically more resistant lines. To the contrary,
however, pesticides have frequently been applied in greater quantities in such
situations in an attempt to overcome the resistance. In other instances, pesti-
cides have been applied against some agricultural pests in quantities that ex-
ceeded the amounts needed to control them. This occurs when pesticides are used
prophylactically to prevent insect populations from acquiring pest status.
Prophylaxis in pest management is the major reason for excessive pesticide
applications (Dahlsten, 1971). Azodrin was recently used in this manner against
Lygus bugs in the San Joaquin Valley (van den Bosch, 1969).
Research on alternative methods of pest control increased markedly when
183
-------
the deleterious environmental effects of pesticides were discovered. Huffnker
(1970) reported that 240 papers were published on biological control in 1955.
In 1963 there were 1,400 papers, and the number has continued to increase.
This chapter was compiled from approximately 300 original research articles
and 25 review articles or monographs.
The need for change in pest management practicies is obvious when one
considers that: there are more insect pest species today than ever before; many
serious pests are resistant to pesticides; pest control costs are increasing;
and environmental pollution from pesticides is increasing (van den Bosch, 1970a,
1971a). It is hoped that alternative methods of pest control will reverse these
trends.
Alternative Techniques Proposed
Physical, chemical, and biological techniques have been proposed for con--
trolling insect pests and weeds. Some of these techniques were applied more
than 100 years ago but were discarded as pesticides were developed and used in
greater quantities (Shea, 1971). When the environmental dangers associated with
pesticide applications became evident and restrictions were placed on the use of
some pesticides, research on alternative means of control increased substantially.
The current status of alternative techniques was recently reviewed in articles by
Busvine (1968), Knipling (1969), Holcomb (1970), Hoffman (1970), Irving (1970),
and others.
Several techniques were extensively reviewed in "Pest Control" (Kilgore and
Doutt, 1967). A general overview of pest management and the environmental hazards
of increasing pesticide use is provided in "Scientific Aspects of Pest Control"
(National Academy of Science, 1966). These reviews are the source of much of
the information that follows on individual techniques. Table 7.1 lists the
major alternatives that have been proposed. Research has been conducted on all
184
-------
Table 7.1 Success of Pesticide Alternatives on California Crops
Crop
Pest
Alternative
Location
Success
Reference
Alfalfa
Citrus
Cotton
oo
Grape
Olive
Egyptian alfalfa beetle
Hypera brunneipennis
(Egyptian alfalfa
beetle)
CoItas eurytheme
(alfalfa weevil)
Alfalfa caterpillar
Spotted alfalfa aphid
Scale insects
Insect pests
Lygus bugs
Harrisina brillans
(grape skeletonizer)
Parlatonia oleae
(olive scale)
Integrated' Methoicychlor at 8-12
oi/acre to protect predators
Parasite: Dibrachoides druso
Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner
var. thuringiensis
Virusi Borrelina campeoles
Resistant alfalfa
Predators I coccinellds
Parasite i Trichogranma minutua
Predators: Hippodania convergens
Oriua sp.
Mavis ferua
Integrated
Larval parasiteat (Sturmia
harrisinae, Apantelcs
harrisinae)
and virus disease
Parasitic wasps: Aphytis
maculicorois; Coccophagoides
utilis
Southern California
California
California
California
New Mexico
California
Mexlcali Valley,
Mexico
California
California
California
Satiafactory
Stern et al,(1962)
Reproduces sue- van den Bosch, Dawson,
cessfully in Roth and Brown (1961)
test plots
Satisfactory Hall and Stern (1962)
Can be effective Hoffman (1959b)
Excellent Hoffman (1959b)
Overwhelmingly Hoffman (1959a)
successful
Neatly doubled Oliva Aleman (1961)
production;
pesticide costs
reduced more than
90%
-cost of pesti- van den Bosch (1971)
cide's reduced by
75*
-yield increased
Noneccnomic Clausen (1961)
damage in all
infested areas
Retards spread of
pest
Complete
Huffaker (1971)
Huffaker et al (1962)
Sunflower
Broomrape A
Brooarape B
Sunflower pyralid
Rust
Downy mildew
Resistant strains of sunflowers
Europe
97-100Z resistance Pustovoit (1960)
97-1002 re3istar.ee
Complete
Complete
Complete
-------
these techniques but many have not been tested on agricultural pests. The current
status of each technique is indicated in the following descriptions.
Physical techniques
Sound: Frings and Frings (1962) and Nelson (1967) have discussed the use of
sound to control insect pests. Some frequencies can be lethal at high intensities,
though low frequencies are more useful as an attractant to an insect trap or a
repellent. Much research is needed on the acoustical behavior of insects before
this technique can be employed satisfactorily. It is probably not economically
feasible to use sound for the control of agricultural pests in the field, although
it may be used against stored grain or household pests.
Infrared radiation: Although infrared radiation can be used to kill pests
in stored grains, it costs considerably more than fumigants and is no more
effective (Busvine, 1968).
Visible light: There are many possible control methods that use visible
light (Nelson, 1967). Particular frequencies can be used as attractants in light
traps for some species of insect pests (Stanley and Dominick, 1958; Deay, 1961),
and large-scale experiments are under way to determine the practicality of this
technique. Light can be used also to upset diapause in some species (Williams
et al_., 1965; Adkisson, 1964). For example, laboratory populations of cabbage-
worms [Pieris rapae] fail to diapause if exposed to daily flashes of light for 3
to 4 hours into the dark cycle of their photoperiod (Barket et _al., 1964). Such
effects will seriously alter the life cycle of a species.
Ultraviolet light; The primary use of ultraviolet light is as an attrac-
tant in insect traps. As few as three traps per square mile substantially reduces
the density of hornworm and looper populations (Knipling, 1969), and this tech-
nique may be used extensively.
186
-------
lonizinfi radiation: Stored-products pests can be killed by exposure to high
doses of ionizing radiation, but radiation is more expensive than fumigants and
has not been widely accepted. Sublethal does of ionizing radiation have been
used, however, to produce sterile male insects which produce no progeny when re-
leased to mate with females in natural populations. This technique has been used
to eradicate the screwworm, a livestock pest, from a.300,000-square-raile are in
the United States. Each week, 130 million sterilized screwworm flies are released
(Hoffman, 1970). This program, at an annual cost of $5 million, is estimated to
save ranchers $100 million per year (LaChance e± al., 1967).
Cuticle abrasion: Insects are susceptible to dehydration if their waxy
epicuticle can be abraded. Eberling (1961) indicated that silica aerogels can
be used effectively in some cases, whereas diatomaceous earth seems ineffective
(Carlson and Ball, 1962). This technique may be used for control of stored-
products pests.
Flame cultivators: Liquefied petroleum gas can be used to produce a
controlled flame to eliminate weeds and insect pests. The number of flame culti-
vators (25,000) in use throughout the United States was expected to increase be-
cause of the mounting cost of pesticide applications and public pressure against
pesticide use.
Other physical techniques; Physical methods lessening the quantity of
herbicides released into the environment include mowing, burning of plants, and
pruning, along highways or around power lines.
Chemical Techniques
Modern broad-spectrum pesticides have caused certain environmental damage
because they lack specificity. If new chemical techniques are to be substituted
for pesticides, increased specificity must obviously be a primary consideration.
187
-------
Pheromones; Pheromones are chemicals that are secreted into the external en-
vironment by an animal and elicit a specific response in other individuals of the
same species (Shorey and Gaston, 1967). Approximately 200 insect pheromones have
been discovered, of which 25 may be useful in control programs (Holcomb, 1970).
Small quantities of these chemicals can be used as attractants in traps. Larger
quantities may be sprayed on a field to disrupt mating behavior of pest species.
Pheromones have not yet been used successfully in the control of any pest, al-
though several research programs are investigating this possibility. The use of
sex pheromones and black-light traps for control of hornworms and loopers has been
especially encouraging. Recent reviews of pheromone literature include those of
Shorey and Gaston (1967), Regnier and Law (1968), and Jacobsen (1965).
Juvenile hormones; Basic research on insect physiology and endocrinology has
elucidated the role of hormones on growth, metamorphosis, and reproduction. Juve-
nile hormones are secreted by the corpora allata and prevent insect metamorphosis.
These are biologically active agents which could be used to control insect pests.
Williams (1967) indicated that juvenile hormones do not distinguish between bene-
ficial and pest species, although analogues secreted by coniferous plants display
considerable specificity. No practical uses have yet been developed, but this
might someday become a productive field for pest control. The use of insect
hormones to control pests was discussed by Ellis (1968).
Chemosterilants; Chemosterilants are chemical compounds which produce steril-
ity in individuals of a pest species without actually killing them. These compounds
may be used successfully in sterile-male programs, although additional research is
needed on the development of suitable compounds, application methods, and insect
mating habits (Kilgore, 1967). Some Chemosterilants are mutagenic and physio-
logically active toward a wide variety of animals. Therefore, a thorough investi-
gation of these compounds must be undertaken before they are applied to the
188
-------
natural environment (Borkovec, 1964). The available information has been
reviewed in monographs by Borkovec (1966), Kilgore and Doutt (1967), and
LaBrecque and Smith (1968). Although this technique is purely experimental
it may become widely used.
Attractants and repellents; Various chemicals have been developed as insect
attractants. These chemicals are used primarily to lure pests to traps, where they
are either killed or sterilized. Repellents are chemicals which elicit avoidance
reactions from a pest species. Past and present use of repellents has been re-
viewed by Painter (1967). It seems likely that repellents will be used most
widely for temporary control in limited areas.
Antibiotics; Only preliminary laboratory experiments have been conducted
on the use of antibiotics for insect control. Studies on the mode of action of
antibiotics suggest they may interfere with biosynthetic pathways (Busvine,
1968).
Biological Techniques
Kennedy (1953) suggested that all pest control is biological since it
involves "deliberate manipulation of a biological system called agriculture".
Classical biological control involves "the action of parasites, predators, or
pathogens on a host or prey population" (Stern e_t al., 1959). Several additional
techniques that employ biological principles have been proposed for regulating
insect populations.
Biological control (predators, parasites, and pathogens); Nearly every
species in nature is attacked by predators, parasites, or pathogens. Classical
biological control uses these natural enemies to produce a lower pest population
density than would prevail in their absence (Stern et al., 1959). The first suc-
cessful application of biological control followed the introduction of the preda-
189
-------
tor Rodolia cardinalis for control of the cottony-cushion scale in California s
citrus groves in 1889. Since the, cottony-cushion scale [Icerya purchasl) has
been completely controlled by this predator in 29 countries (DeBach, 1964b). The
literature on biological control was extensively reviewed in 1964 (DeBach, 1964a).
More recent reviews include an article by van den Bosch (in press) and books
edited by Huffaker (1971) and Clausen (in press).
Biological control is an attractive alternative because natural enemies
are very specific, do not contaminate the environment, and do not need to be
reapplied annually. Once a biological control agent becomes established against
a particular pest, it provides permanent control of the pest (Olkowski, 1971)
unless nonselective insecticides kill the control agent (Busvine, 1968). Van den
Bosch (in press) indicates that biological control is "perhaps the most success-
ful long-term suppressant of pest species of any of the insect control tactics
employed by man."
Predators have provided substantial success against some pests, although
parasites or parasitoides seem to offer more assurance of pest control. Most
predator and parasites have been insect species introduced to be used against
exotic pests, but Pimentel (1963) has suggested that many native species
could also be controlled by introduced biological control agents. Briand and
Welch (1961) have suggested the use of entomophilic nematodes in pest-control
programs. Their data indicate that nematodes could produce substantial control
of several pests, but this technique has not yet been fully developed.
Despite the numerous successes, the potential of biological control has
probably not been fully exploited. The method requires the discovery of predators
or parasites that might be useful, introduction of these organisms into a new
habitat, evaluation of the effectiveness of the control, and distribution of
successful control agents throughout the pest range (Irving, 1970).
In the United States only 20 of 520 introduced species have provided signifi-
190
-------
in
cant control against a major pest. However, a single success provides a sub-
stantial economic saving. DeBach (1962) determined that the degree of success ii
classical biological control is related directly to the effort expended on
introducing a natural enemy. In view of past successes, this method merits in-
creased effort.
The use of pathogens as a control agent is much more recent than the use of
predators or parasites. During the past 20 years, however, several field tests
have successfully employed microbial pesticides against insect pests (Tanada,
1967). The outstanding success involved the use of milky spore disease
against the Japanese beetle. Effective use of pathogens is currently limited
to a few pest species, but further research may increase this number.
The first commercial virus, VIRON/H, was registered by the USDA on
December 9, 1970, and used on a large scale for the first time in 1971 (Greer
e_t _al., 1971). This virus is specific for members of the genus Heliothis and
is used primarily against cotton bollworms. Field tests of the virus have obtained
better control than with insecticides 80-90% of the time, and in some areas the
virus can replace insecticides completely. Although the results of large-scale
applications have not been analyzed yet, viral pesticides may be an important
new means of pest control. Over 300 insect viruses are known that can be
applied against specific insect species.
There has been some concern that viruses or bacteria used to control pest
populations could infect man. Such seems unlikely, though caution should be
exercised (Steinhaus, 1959). These pathogens have very specific host re-
quirements; and because of such specificity should pose less hazard than
chemical insecticides.
An important aspect of biological control that has been ignored until
recently concerns the naturally occurring control of natural species (Huffaker,
1971). Recent work in California (Hagen e£ al., 1971) indicates that many
191
-------
potential agricultural pests are being controlled by natural enemies. Consequently,
whatever controls are used to replace pesticides, care must be taken to maintain
these native biological control agents. Natural control of several insect species,
including cottony—cushion scale, citrus red mite, California red scale citrus
mealybugs and long-tailed mealybugs in California, has been upset by pesticide
application for other pests (DeBach and Bartlett, 1951; Bartlett and Solomon,
1953; Bartlett, 1957).
Competitors; The establishment of a harmless ecological competitor to dis-
place a pest species has been suggested (Doutt, 1967), but limited understanding
of agro-ecosystems probably prohibits use of this technique at present.
Pest-resistant crops; Sophisticated breeding programs have been developed
to produce pest-resistant plants. Resistance can occur because plants deter in-
sects from attacking them, suppress or destroy the insects, or tolerate the insects
without loss of vigor or yield (Busvine, 1968). Practical successes have been
obtained from some crops against several serious pests including aphids, weevils,
and leafhoppers (Hoffman, 1970). Further successes may be expected because of
our increasing knowledge of genetic interactions, but it usually takes at least
10 years to develop acceptable resistant varieties (Hoffman, 1970).
Genetic manipulations; There have been several proposals for introducing
deleterious genes into natural insect populations. This ingenious technique is
receiving some support, but is still very speculative and may be successful only
against small and isolated populations (Busvine, 1968).
Sterile male: The mass release of laboratory-reared sterilized male insects
has been responsible for extermination of the screwworm throughout the United States.
Since this technique depends on overwhelming the wild insects with vigorous sterile
males, the pest must be sterilized without seriously affecting its sexual vigor
or longevity. Control of screwworm has been extraordinarily successful but the
technique is limited to pests which can be easily reared in the laboratory and
192
-------
occur in nature at relatively low population densities (Irving, 1970).
Cultural Control
Cultural methods have long been important in insect control. These methods
involve spatial or temporal manipulations of the crop and include the destruction
of plant parts left in the field after harvest, crop rotation, and early or de-
layed planting to avoid high emerging insect populations. Van den Bosch (in
press) indicated that only cultural control compares with biological control as
a successful long-term means of pest management. Four outstanding examples of
cultural control follow:
1) In Idaho, the beet leafhopper [Circulifer tenellus] was causing sub-
stantial damage to the sugar beet crop. It is known that the beet leafhopper
overwinters in Russian thistle (McCaull, 1971). This alternate host plant was
destroyed and replaced in useful forage grasses, so the pest species can no longer
reproduce (Knipling, 1969).
2) In 1961, $4 million were being spent annually to spray insecticide
resistant grape leafhoppers in California (Spencer, 1971). Although this pest
could be controlled by the predator wasp Anagrus epos, the predator disappeared
during the winter. It was determined that the wasp overwintered on blackberry
bushes, which were then planted near the vineyards. According to Dr. Richard L.
Doutt, Professor of Entomology at U. C. Berkeley, as little as 1/5 acre of
blackberries provides enough wasps to control grape leafhopper on a 3,000-acre
vineyard.
3) Perhaps the outstanding example of cultural control involves Lygus
bugs in cotton in California (Stern £t al., 1964, 1967; van den Bosch ejt al.,
1971). Alfalfa [Medicago sativa] is a preferred host of Lygus bugs, and inter-
planting alfalfa strips in cotton fields has proved a very effective control
193
-------
tactic in both experimental and commercial fields. A 16-to~32-foot strip of alfalfa
is sufficient to keep Lygus bugs out of 300-400 feet of cotton. This technique
is rather easy to employ and may receive wide application in the next few years.
4) A farmer in California has successfully grown 3,000 acres of tomatoes
without using any pesticides, simply by planting and harvesting early (Allen,
1971). The major pest outbreaks on tomatoes occur during September in California,
but proper timing of crops permits harvesting to occur before then.
Cultural control practices suppress pest populations substantially. Human
manipulation is a constant need, however, and additional techniques must often
be employed for complete control.
Integrated Control
As defined by Stern et al. in 1959, integrated control is "applied pest
management which combines and integrates biological and chemical control."
Since that time, integrated control systems have utilized all suitable techniques
to reduce pest populations and maintain them below their economic threshold
(van den Bosch et al., 1971). The problems that resulted from use of insecti-
«
cides illustrates that we cannot control a given pest alone but must consider
the ecosystem in which that pest exists (Doutt and Smith, 1971). Sophisticated
pest control requires a thorough understanding of the biology, ecology, and popu-
lation dynamics of the insects to be controlled and other species in the agro-
ecosystem. A given ecosystem must be manipulated on the basis of ecological
Information, such that no method of control disrupts any other control (Reynolds,
1971). For many pests, however, information ic lacking on the life history, host
plants, dispersal patterns, population dynamics, role of natural enemies and
numerous other characteristics (Irving, 1970). There are some outstanding
examples of successful integrated control programs (van den Bosch je_t al. , 1971;
Hoyt and Caltagirone, 1971), but such programs require extensive preliminary
194
-------
research and extended observation periods. Integrated control programs offer
the most rational approach to pest control, though their development and imple-
mentation will require substantial financial support.
Alternative Techniques for Crops of the San Joaquin Valley
The preceding section provides an extensive, though by no means ex-
haustive, listing of proposed alternatives to pesticides. The potential of
some of these techniques has not been established. Most will probably not have
widespread application but be applicable only to particular situations. Table
7.2 lists specific alternatives that have been field-tested on crops that are
grown in the San Joaquin Valley, and indicates their success where studied.
Techniques tested in other regions may have different success in the valley.
For example, Bathyplectes curculionis provides excellent control of alfalfa
weevils in Utah and Yuma Valley but fails in the San Joaquin Valley because it
cannot withstand the hot summers (van den Bosch e_t al., 1971) - Even though
the extent of control may differ, techniques have been listed to indicate that
they have been field-tested and may be a possible alternative.
Table 7.2 shows that alternative techniques have been applied against
numerous pests of field crops, seed crops, fruit and nut crops, and vegetable
crops. The techniques employed include cultural control, predators, parasites,
virus and bacteria diseases, resistant plants, and integrated control programs.
The most successful alternative to pesticides until recently has been various
forms of biological control. Integrated control programs have recently been
established for alfalfa, cotton, and grapes, and substantial progress has been
made on programs in citrus, apples, walnuts, peaches, and woody ornamentals
(van den Bosch, 1971b). Evaluating the success of alternative techniques
is very difficult. Clearly, the use of alternative techniques has lowered the
195
-------
Table 7.2 Sane Applications of Alternative Techniques to Crops Grown its the San Joaquin Valley
Crop
Alfalfa
Almonds
Cabbage
Citrus
Peat
Spotted alfalfa aphid
(Therioaphis naculata)
Alfalfa caterpillar
(Co lias eury theme)
Alfalfa weevil
(Hyp era aostica)
Egyptian alfalfa weevil
(Hypera bninneipennia)
Navel orangewom
Insect Pests:
Cabbage loopar
(Trichoplusia nl)
Imported cabbagewom
(Fieri s rapae)
Diamontlback moth
(Plutella tnacullpennis)
Fall armyworm
(Sporoptera frugiperdia)
Alternative
Pest-resistant alfalfa
Pest— resistant varieties
Integrated: native predators,
introduced predators, entomogenous
fungi and selective Insecticides
Biologlca 1 : pa thogen
virus, Borrelina campeoles
bacteria, Bacillus thurlngiensis
Cultural: Insecticide treatment
of stubble after harvest
Integrated: proper timing of insecti-
cide application to avoid killing
parasites
Biological: parasite
Bathyplectes curculionis
Biological: parasite
Dihrachoidea druso
B. nnurus
Mlcroctonus aethiops, M. coksi.
Patasson sp., B. stenostigma
Integrated: Methoxychlor at 8-12
Predators: Htppodamia convergena
Orius trlsticila
Nabis ferus
Parasites: Praon palitans
Trloxys utllis
Aphelinus semiflavus
Biological: pathogen
Bacillus thurlngiensis
Biological: pathogens
bacteria, B. thuringlensls spray
B. tnuringlensle dust
Virus, nuclear polyhedrosis
Both pathogens
Scak Insects Biological: predators
Purple scale Biological: parasite
{LeDldosaohes beckil) Aphytis lepldosaphes
Integrated: parasites and
oil spray for mites
Soft (brown) scale Biological; native predators
(Coccus hesperidum) Met^phY<;u* ly..tfcflJus
Location
New Mexico
California
California
California
Wyoming
Indiana
California
California
Yuma Valley,
Arizona
California
California
Southern
California
California
S. Carolina
California
Southern
California
Southern
California
California
Success
Excellent
Nearly complete immunity to attack
Successful throughout California
Savings of $10 million annually
Can be effective, but not reliable
Satisfactory, less effective
than viruses
64-99Z reduction In larval numbers
Satisfactory
Reduced to minor pest status
Parasite established in test plots
but not particularly effective
Successful (not in San Joaquin
Valley)
Increasing in number but success
undetermined
Released in alfalfa fields but
success undetermined
Satisfactory
Unsuccessful
Controls all but cabbage looper
Effective control of all four pests
Effective control of all four pests
Comparable to best insecticides
Overwhelmingly successful
Partial control
Control comparable to or better than
insecticides at less than half the
cost
Maintained below economic threshold
unless predators are killed by
Reference
Hoffman, 1959b
Knipling, 1969
Snuth and Hagen, 1959
van den Bosch, 1971b
Hoffman, 1959b
Kail and Stern, 1962
Steinhaus, 1951
Piadc and Larigne, 1964
Wilson and Armbrust, 1970
van den Bosch and Karble,
1971
van dan Bosch, et. j>l . t 1961
van den Bosch, et. al., 1971b
Stern, et. al., 1962
Summers and Price, 1964
Cteightoo, et. al. , 1970
Hoffman, 19S9a
DeBach and Landi, 1961
Bartlett and Evart 1951
insecticide drift from adjacent
crops
-------
Table 7.2 - Continued
Crop
Pest
Citrus mealybugs
(Pseudoccus cltri}
Alternative
Location
Success
Reference
Biological: native predators Southern Maintained below economic threshold Bartlett, 1957
CrytoUemuB montrouzieri California unless predatora are killed by in-
Leptomastidea abnormia sectlcide drift from adjacent crops
Cole cropa Cabbage looper
(Trlchoplusia nl)
Corn
Cotton
Deciduoua
orchards
Grapes
Olives
European cornborer
(Costrinia nubtlalta)
Pink Bollwona
Insect "pests
Ly&us bugs
(Lye.ua heaperus)
Olive Scale
(Parlatoria oleae)
Grape leaf skeletonizer
(Harrlaina brllltans)
Grape leaf folder
(Deaaia funeralis)
OQnivoroua leaf roller
Spider ttites
(Fotctrgnychtm vllInmettei)
Ctetranyehus pactftcua)
Olive scale
(Parlatoria oleae)
Biological: pathogens Texas
Bacillus thuring.lenei« and
polyhedrosis virus
Biological: pathogens Washington
virus
virus with Insecticide
Integrated: viruses and Maryland
organophosphorus insecticides
Biological: pathogen Quebec
Bacillus thuringiensis
Biological: pathogen Texaa
VIRON/™
Biological: pathogen California
Bacillus thuringiensis
Biological: native predatora California
Ccocorls paIleus
Habls amerlcoterus
Chrysopa carnea
Sterile - male, pheromones to live San Joaquin
males to traps, sterilization with Valley
radioactive cobalt
Biological: parasites and predators Mexico
Trichogacma minutum, Hippodania
convecgens. Orjus sp., Navis ferue
Biological: Native predatora California
compared to pesticides
Integrated California
Biological parasites California
Aphytls naculicornis. Coccophagoldes
utilis
Biological: pathogens California
Bacillus thuringicnsis
Biological: parasites
Sturicia harrislnae. Apantelea harriainae
Biological: pathogen California
Bacillus thuringlenflia
Cultural, disking and removal San Joaquin
of diseased clusters Valley
Biological: native predator San Joaquin
Kotaneiulue occidental^ Valley
Biologicali parasites California
Aphytis maculicornis. Coccopnagoides
utilla
Significant reduction in 7 daya
tfolfenbarger, 196S
Getzin, 1962
Significant mortality
Slightly better control than viruaea alona
Excellent
Slightly superior to insecticides
More successful than insectlcidea
in 80-902: of experimental cases
Woodall and Oilman, 1967
iludon, 1963
tireer, et. a^., 1971
Inhibits larvnl feeding and dUrupte Falcon, £f ..il-. 1S65
development but does not immediately
kill pest
Reduce bollvorm populations van uen Bosch, .et..a_^., 1969
approximately 50Z
more than 50Z
more than 50Z
Has successfully prevented this peat Hoffman, 1970
from becoming eatabliahed in the Valley
Yield doubled and pest control
coats vere reduced by 90%
Oliva Aleman, 1961
Only one pesticide program produced a Falcon, _et_.al.. , 1968
greater yield than the untreated control
Excellent yield at greatly reduced van den Bosch, ££.al., 1971a
coats
Complete control Kennett, 1967
Intermittent success Hall, 1955
Suppression to noneconomic level Clausen, 1961
Usually aa effective as Insecticides Jensen, 1969
without killing natural enemies of
other pests
Provides better control than Lynn, 1969
insecticides
Broad spectrum pesticides produced Flaherty, ot_,a_K , 1969
peat outbreak, balance being reatored
with selective acaricides
Complete control
Huffaker, «..«!.., 1962
Kennett, et.al., 1965
-------
Table 7.2 - Continued
VD
CD
Crop
Peaches
Pears
Strawberries
Sugar Beets
Sunflower
Tomatoes
Fest
Oriental fruit moth
Insect pests
Fear psylla
Two-spottec spider mites
(Tetranychus urticae)
Cyclamen mite
(Tarsonemus pallidus)
Beet leafhopper
Sunflower noth
(Korooeosoma electellum)
Broomrape A
Broomrape B
Sunflower pyralid
Rust
Downy mildew
Tomato fruitwarm
(Heliothis zea)
Tomato norm worm
Cabbage looper
(Trichoplusia nl)
Beet anaywonn
(Spodoptera exlqua)
Potato aphid
(Macrosiphum euphorbiae)
Alternative
Biological: parasites
Integrated
Biological: parasites
Antho coris antevolens, Chrysopa
plorobunda, Hemerobims angustus.
Trechnites insidlosus
Biological predator
Phytoseiulus perslmills
Biological: predators
Typhlodromus reticulatua
T, cucumetis
Cultural: destruction of alternate
host
Biological: pathogen
Bacillus thuringiensis
Pest-resistant varieties
Biological: predator
Biological: pathogen
Bacillus thuiinfliensis
Biological: parasite
Polistes sp.
Biological', pathogen
Bacillus thurlngiensis
Biological: pathogen
Bacillus thuringiensls
Location
California
California
California
California
California
Idaho
California
Europe
San Joaquin
Valley
California
N. Carolina
Carolina*
California
Western flower thrips
(Frankliniella occidentalis)
Walnut
Wheat
Leafminers
(LirlomyZa spp.)
Walnut aphid
(Chromophts juglandicola)
Hessian Fly
Biological: predator
Pest-resistant varieties
California
Kansaa
Success
Unsuccessful
Promising
As effective as insecticides against
psylla but fruit damaged by coddling
moth
Satisfactory
Provides satisfactory control if not
disrupted by insecticides applied
agalnat other pests
Insufficient control
97-100Z resistance
97-100% resistance
Complete resistance
Complete resistance
Complete resistance
Reference
Hoffman, 1959a
Hoyt and Caltagirone, 1971
Mad a en and Wong, 1964
Oatman, 1965
Huffaker and Kennett, 1953
Knlpling, 1969
Carlson, 1968
Pustovoit, 1960
Reduced pesticide cost fros $35 per Spencer, 1971
acre to 0-$8 per acre for M)00-acre ranch
No damage to fruit from pest Shorey and Hall, 1963
Suppresses below economic threshold
Comparable to insecticides but
Satisfactory
Satisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Unsatisfactory
Complete control
Virtual Immunity to pest dat .,„
Hoffman, 1959a
Shorey and Hall, 1963
van den Bosch (in press)
Knipling, 1969
-------
quantity of pesticides being released into the environment. Although the magnitude
of success of these methods is difficult to assess, they have provided a more
economical means of pest control. The following two examples will indicate the
economic importance of these techniques:
1) In 1955 the spotted alfalfa aphid, an exotic species introduced from
Mexico, caused losses in California alfalfa of nearly $13 million. When this
insect developed resistance to insecticides an integrated control program was
developed for its control (van den Bosch, 1971b). This program was implemented
in 1958, and losses fell to less than $2 million. Spotted alfalfa weevil is no
longer considered a major pest species (Hawthorne, 1970). If annual savings
during this period average $10 million, the total value of the program to date
is $140 million.
2) An even greater success occurred with cottony-cushion scale. In 1887
the entire citrus industry of California was threatened with destruction by
cottony-cushion scale [Icenrya purchasi], which had been introduced into
California in 1868 (DeBach et_ al., 1971). The vedalia lady-beetle [Rcdolia
cardinalis] waa introduced in 1888 and completely suppressed the scale by 1889
(Pouth, 1958). Recent studies indicate that cottony-cushion scale is still con-
trolled by vedalia beetles (DeBach e£ a.1. , 1971) , although this control is
frequently disrupted by the spraying o£ orchards for other pest species (DeBach
and Bartlett, 1951). The orange crop alone was valued at over $108 million in
1970. There were also substantial income from grapefruit, lemons, and tangerines
(California Department of Agriculture, 1970). More than 110,000 acres in the San
Joaquin Valley grow citrus crops at an estimated value of $1,815 per acre. These
figures give some indications of the economic value of the vedalia beetle,
Estimating the economic savings from alternative methods is complicated by
natural temporal differences in pest density. For instance, spotted alfalfa
199
-------
weevil might not have been an economic pest in any of the past fourteen years
even without the integrated control program. No one can say what damage would
have occurred in the absence of the alternative. Furthermore, once a pesl is
controlled there is a tendency to forget that it may re-emerge as a pest in the
future (Olkowski, 1971). We estimate the damage from pe.st species but do not
consider the savings that result from controlling species so they do not become
pests. DeBach (1964c) estimated that 5 major biological control programs produced
savings in excess of $110 million in California in 1923-1959.
Prospect of Change
Alternative techniques will be used more in the future, although a sub-
stantial increase will probably not occur soon. Contributing to increased
interest in alternative techniques are economics and the deleterious environ-
mental effects from pesticides. Many of these alternatives are yet to be
refined, however, and will not be practical for field application for several
years (van den Bosch, 1970a). Even techniques that can provide satisfactory
pest control may not be employed by fanners until they become an economic
necessity (McCaull, 1971; van den Bosch, 1971c).
Several changes are still needed before substantially fewer pesticides are
applied to agricultural commodities. The primary concern of the farmer is to
make as much profit on his crops as possible. This generally requires that he
raise crops with minimal pest damage. Many farmers obtain advice on pest control
from representatives of the pesticide manufacturer (van den Bosch, 1971c). The
representatives want to sell pesticides and recommend pesticides even if feasible
alternatives are available. They frequently advise farmers to apply pesticides
even if damage from pests is unlikely. Berg (1971) has indicated a feedback
effect: that whatever the results of a pesticide application, larger amounts
200
-------
are likely to be used in future applications. Alternative methods may achieve
substantial acceptance only when they are as easy to employ as pesticides (Grabow,
1971). It will also be necessary to provide information for the farmer as
efficiently as now done by pesticide manufacturers.
The nature of alternative techniques indictates that significant changes in
pest control will occur only if supported by governmental agencies. Substantial
profits can be made from pesticide sales but not from the sale of alternative
techniques (Olkowski, 1971). Consequently, there is no incentive for private
enterprise to develop alternatives. Biological and integrated control programs
have some supporters at both state and federal levels, though little financial
support. Senate Bill S 1794, introduced by Senator Gaylord Nelson on May
6, 1971, would allocate $4 million for "developing and testing the control
of agricultural and forest pests by the employment of integrated biological-
cultural means." If this bill passes it will provide a significant stimulus
for increased application of alternative techniques. At the state level, the
Assembly Committee on Environmental Quality held a hearing on November 10, .1971,
to discuss integrated control. This is the first such hearing ever held in
California. Its significance cannot be estimated at this time, though the
increased awareness of the need for alternative means of pest control is en-
couraging.
For control of some pests, techniques are available that are more economical
than pesticides. Development of additional methods of pest control will require
financial support and time for research and field testing. Utilization of
available techniques ifa not primarily a scientific concern; rather, it requires
economic, social, and political changes that may be difficult to produce. It
may be that acceptance of alternative methods of pest control will occur only if
environmental harm from pesticide use increases or pesticide costs becomes
unbearable,
201
-------
Reference, Chapter 7
Abeling, W. 1961. Physico-chemical methods for the removal of insect wax
by means of finely divided powders. Hilgardia 30:531-61.
Adkisson, P.L. 1964. Action of the photoperiod on controlling insect
diapause. Amer. Natur. 98:357-64.
Allen, F. 1971. Statement on integrated control, presented at a Hearing
before the California Assembly Environmental Quality Committee. Sacramento,
Calif., Nov. 10, 1971.
Barker, R.J., C.F. Cohen and A. Mayer. 1964. Photoflashes: A potential new
tool for control of insect populations. Science 145:1195-97.
Bartlett, B.R. 1957. Biotic factors in natural control of citrus mealybugs
in California. J. Econ. Entomol. 50:753-55.
Bartlett, B.R., and W.H. Ewart. 1951. Effect of parathion on parasites of
Coccus hesperidum L. J. Econ. Entomol. 44:344-47.
Berg, G.G. ]969. Discussion following presentation by R.L. van denBosch.
p. Ill In: Chemical Fallout. Edited by M.W. Miller, G.G. Berg, Springfield,
111., Thomas.
Borkovec, A.B. 1964. Insect chemosterilants: their chemistry and appli-
cation. Residue Rev. 6:87-103.
Borkovec, A.B. 1966. Insect chemosterilants. Published as Vol. VII of
the Advances in Pest Control. Edited by R.L. Metcalf, New Ycrk, Wiley/
Interscience.
Briand, L.J. and H.E. Welch. 1961. Use of entomophilic iiemacodes for insect
pest control. Phytoprotectlon 44:37-41.
Busvine, J.R. 1968. Insecticide resistence and the future of pest control.
PANS 14:310-28.
California Dept. of Agriculture. 1970. A Report on California's Principle
Crop and Livestock Commodities. Sacramento, Department of Agriculture.
Carlson, E.G. 1968. Control of sunflower moth larvae and damage to sun-
flower seeds. Calif. Agr. 22(7):6-8.
Carlson, S.D. and H.J. Ball. 1962. Mode of action and insecticidal value
of diatomaceous earth as a grain protectant. J. Econ. Entomol. 55:964-70.
Clausen, C.P, 1961. Biological control of western grape leaf skeletonizer
(Harrisina brillians) in California. Hilgardia 31:613-38.
202
-------
Clausen, C.P. (Editor and contributor). A world review of parasites, predators,
and pathogens introduced to new habitats. Washington, U.S. Department of
Agriculture (In press).
Creighton, C.S., T.L. McFadden, and J.V. Bell. 1970. Pathogens and chemicals
tested against caterpillars on cabbage. U.S. Dept. Agr. Prod. Ree. Rep.
114:1-10.
Dahlsten, D.L. 1.971, Statement on integrated control, presented at a Hearing
before the California Assembly Environmental Quality Committee. Sacramento,
Calif., Nov. 10, 1971.
Deay, H.O. 1961. Use of light traps to control insects. U.S. Dept. Agr.
ARS 20-10.
DeBach, P. 1962. An analysis of successes in biological control of insects
in the Pacific area. HawaiianEntomol. Soc. 18:35-45.
DeBach, P. (ed.) 1964a. Biological Control of Insect Pests and Meeds.
New York, Reinhold.
DeBach, P. 1964b. Successes, trends, and future possibilities. In:
Biological Control of Insect Pests and Weeds. Edited by Paul DeBach,
New York, Reinhold. p. 673-713..
DeBach, P. 1964c. The scope of biological control, jn; Biological Control
of Insect Pests and Weeds. Edited by Paul DeBach, New York, Reinhold.
p. 1-20.
DeBach, P. and B.R. Bartlett. 1951. Effects of insecticides on biological
control of insect pests of citrus. J. Econ. Entomol. 44:372-83.
DeBach, P. and J. Landi. 1961. The. introduced purple scale parasite,
Aphytis .lepido&aphes Compere, and a method of integrating chemical and
biological control. Hilgardia 31:459-97.
DeBach, P., D. Rosen and C.E. Kennett. 1971. Biological control of coccids
by introduced natural enemies. In; Biological Control. Edited by C.B.
Huffaker, New York, Plenum Press, p. 165-94.
Dethier, V.G., L.B. Browne and C.N. Smith. 1960. The designation of
chemicals in terms of the responses they elicit from insects. J. Econ.
Entomol. 53:134.
Doutt, R.L. 1958. Vice, virtue and the vedalia. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Amer.
4:119-23.
Doutt, R.L. 1967. Biological control. In; Pest Control,; Biological,
Physical, and Selected Chemical Methods. Edited by W.W. Kilgore and
R.L. Doutt. New York, Academic Press, p. 3-30. :
203
-------
Doutt, R.L. and R.F. Smith. 1971. The pesticide syndrome - diagnosis and
suggested prophylaxis. In; Biological Control. Edited by C.B. Huffaker,
New York, Plenum Press, p. 3-15.
Ellis, P. 1968. Can insect hormones and their mimics be used to control
pests? PANS (Pest Articles and News Summaries) 14:329-42.
Falcon, L.A., T.F. Leigh, R. van den Bosch, J.H. Black and V.E. Burton.
1965. Insect diseases tested for control of cotton bullworm. Calif.
Agr. 19(7):12-14.
Falcon, L.A., R. van den Bosch, C.A. Ferris,' L.K. Stromberg, L.K. Etzel,
R.E. Stinner and T.F. Leigh. 1968. A comparison of season-long-cotton-
pest-control programs in California during 1966. J. Econ. Entomol. 61:
633-42.
Falcon, L.A., R. van den Bosch, J. Gallagher and A. Davidson. 1971.
Investigations of the pest status of Lygus hesperus in cotton in central
California. J. Econ. Entomol. 64: 56-61.
Flaherty, D.L., C.D. Lynn, F.L. Jensen and D.A. Luvisi. 1969- Ecology
and integrated control of spider mites in San Joaquin vineyards. Calif.
Agr. 23(4):11.
Frings, H. and M. Frings. 1962. Pest control with sound: Part 1.
Possibilities with invertebrates. Sound 1(6):13-20.
Grabow, H. 1971. Statement on integrated control, presented at a Hearing
before the California Assembly Environmental Quality Committee,
Sacramento, Calif., Nov. 10, 1971.
Getzin, L.W. 1962. The effectiveness of the polyhedrosis virus for control
of the cabbage ]ooper, Tricho plusia ni. J. Econ. Entomol. 55:442-45.
Green, F., C.M. Tgnoffo and R.F. Anderson. 1971. The first viral pesti-
cide: a case history. Chem. Tech. 1971:3.42-47.
Hagan, K.S. and R.F. Smith. 1958. Chemical and biological methods of
pest control. Agr. Chem. 13:30-32, 89.
Hall, I.M. and V.M. Stern. 1962. Comparison of Bacillus thuringiensis
Berliner var. Thuringiensis and chemical insecticides for control of the
alfalfa caterpillar. J. Econ. Entomol. 55:862-65.
Hawthorne, W. 1970. Estimated damage and crop loss caused by insect/mite
pasts. Calif. Dept. of Agr. Rep. to County Agr. Comm. Issued Nov. 6,
1970'.
Hoffman, C.H. 1959a, Biological control of noxious insects, weeds. Part
I. Agr. Chem. 14(3):47-48, 91.
Hoffman, C.H. 1959b. Biological control of noxious insects, weeds. Part
II. Agr. Chem. 14(4):33-34, 135.
204
-------
Hoffman, C.H. 1970. Alternatives to conventional insecticides for control
of insect pests. Agr. Chem. 25(9):14-23, 35.
Holcomb, R.W. 1970. Insect control: Alternatives to the use of conven-
tional pesticides. Science. 168:456-58.
Hoyt, S.C. and L.E. Caltagirone. 1971. The developing programs of integrated
control of pests of apples in Washington and peaches in California. In: '
Biological Control. Edited by C.B. Huffaker, New York, Plenum Press.
p. 395-421.
Hudon, Marcel. 1963. Further field experiments on the use of Bacillus
thuringiensis and chemical insecticides for the control of the European
cornborer, Ostrinia nubilalis on sweet corn in southwestern Quebec.
J. Econ. Entomol. 56:804-8.
Huffaker, C.B. 1970. "Life against life - Nature's pest control scheme."
Environ. Res. 3:162-75.
Huffaker, C.B. (ed.). 1971a. Biological Control. New York, Plenuia Press.
Huffaker, C.B. 1971b. Preface to Biological Control. Edited by C.B.
Huffaker, New York, Plenum Press.
Huffaker, C.B. and C.E. Kennett. 1953. Developments toward biological
control of ajclamen mites on strawberries in California. J. Econ.
Entomol. 46:802-12.
Huffaker, C.B,, C.E. Kertnett and G.L* Finney. 1962. Biological control of
olive scale, Parlatoria oleae (Colvee) in California by imported Aphytis
macuiicorniB (Masi) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) Hilgardia 32:541-636.
Irving, G.W., Jr. 1970. Agricultural pest control and the environment.
Science. 168:1419-24.
Jacobsen, M. 1965. Insect Sex Attractants. Interscience Publishers,
New York, p. 154.
Jensen, F.L. 1969. Microbial insecticides for control of grape leaf
folder. Calif. Agr. 23(4):5-6.
Kennedy, J.S. 1953. Insect population balance and chemical control of
pests: Biological Control. Chem. and Ind. 1953:1329.
Kennett, C.E. 1967. Biological control of olive scale, Parlatoria qleae
[Colvee] in a deciduous fruit orchard in California. Entomophaga
12:461-74.
Kennett, C.E., C.B. Huffaker and K.W. Opitz. 1965. Biological control of
olive scale. Calif. Agr. 19(2):12-15.
Kilgore, W.W. 1967. Chemosterilants in Pest Control. Edited by W.W.
Kilgore and R.L. Doutt, New York, Academic Press, p. 197-239.
205
-------
Kllgore, W.W. and R.L. Doutt (eds.) 1967. Peat Control, New York, Academic
Press. '
Knipling, E. F. 1969. Alternative methods of controlling insect pests.
FDA Papers 3:16-18, 23-24.
LaBrecque, G.C. and C.N. Smith. 1968. Principles of Insect Chemosteri-
zatiou. New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts.
LaChance, L.E., C.H. Schmidt and R.C. Bushland. 1967. Radiation induced
sterilization. In; Pest Control. Edited by W.W. Kilgore and R.L.
Doutt, New York, Academic Press, p. 147-196.
Lynn, C.D. 1969. Omnivorous leaf roller, an important new grape pest in
the San Joaquin Valley. Calif. Agr. 23(4):16-17.
Me Caull, J. 1971. Know your enemy. Environment 13:30-39.
Madsen, H.F. and T.T.Y. Wong. 1964. Effects of predators on control of
pear psylla. Calif. Agr. 18(2):2-3.
National Academy of Sciences. 1966. Scientific Aspects of Pest Control.
Washington, The Academy.
Nelson, S.O. 1967. Electromagnetic energy. In; Pest Control. Edited
by W.W. Kilgore and R.L. Doutt. New York, Academic Press, p. 89-145.
Oatman, E.R. 1965. Predacious mite controls two-spotted spider mite on
strawberry. Calif. Agr. 19(2):6-7.
Oliva-Aleman, J. 1961. Possibilities of biological control of cotton
pests in the agricultural region of the Mexicali Valley. Fitofilo 14(32):
25-28.
Olkowski, W. 1971. Statement on biological control, presented at a
hearing before the California Assembly Environmental Quality Committee.
Sacramento, Calif., Nov. 10, 1971.
Painter, R.R. 1967. Repellents. In; Pest Control. Edited by W.W. Kilgore
and R.L. Doutt, New York, Academic Press, p. 267-85.
Pfadt, R.E. and R.J. Lavigne. 1964. Alfalfa weevil control by stubble
treatment. J. Econ. Entomol. 57:996-97.
Pimentel, D. 1963. Introducing parasites and predators to control native
pests. Can. Entomol. 95:785-92.
Pustovoit, V.S. 1960. Methods for finding varieties of sunflower immune
to the principal diseases and pests. Referat. Zhur. Biol. No. 22G627.
Regnier, F.E. and J.H. Law. 1968. Insect pheromones. J. Lipid Res. 9:
541-51.
206
-------
Reynolds, H.T. 1971. Statement on integrated control, presented at a
Hearing before the California Assembly Environmental Quality Committee,
Sacramento, Calif, on Nov. 10, 1971.
Shaw, W.C. 1971. How Agricultural Chemicals Contribute to cur Current
Food Supplies. In: Agricultural Chemicals - Harmony or discord for
food, people, environment. Edited by J.E. Swift, Berkeley, Calif.,
Div. of Agr. Sci., U.C., p. 18-24.
Shea, K.P. 1971. Old weapons are best. Environment 13:40-49.
Shorey, H.H. and L.K. Gaston. 1967. Pheroraones In_: Pest Control.
Edited by W.W. Kilgore and R.L. Doutt, New York, Academic Press.
p.241-65.
Shorey, H.H. and I.M. Hall. 1963. Toxicity of chemical and microbial
insecticides to pest and beneficial insects on poled tomatoes. J. Econ.
Entomol. 56:813-17.
Smith, R.F. and K.S. Hagan. 1959. Integrated control programs in the
future of biological control. J. Econ. Entomol. 52:1106-8.
Solomon, M.E. 1953. Insect population balance and chemical control of
pests. Pest outbreaks induced by spraying. Chem. Ind. (London)
1953:1143-49.
Spencer, S.M. 1971. Fighting insects with insects. Nat. Wild. 9(1):48,
51.
Stanley, J.M. and C.B. Dominick. 1958. Response of tobacco and tomato
hornworm moths to blacklight.' J. Econ. Entomol. 51:78-81.
Steinhaus, E.A. 1951. Possible use of Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner as
an aid in the biological control of the alfalfa caterpillar. Hilgardia
20:359-81.
Steinhaus, E.A. 1959. On the improbability of Bacillus thuringiensis
mutating to forms pathogenic to vertebrates. J. Econ. Entomol. 52:
506-8.
Stern, V.M. and R. van den Bosch. 1959. The integration of chemical
and biological control in combatting the spotted alfalfa aphid, Therio
aphis maculata (Buckton). Hilgardia 29:103-30.
Stern, V.M, R.F. Smith, R. van den Bosch and K.S. Hagen. 1959. The
integrated control concept. Hilgardia 29:81-101.
Stern, V.M., I. M. Hall and G.D. Peterson. 1959. The utilization of
Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner as a biotic insecticide to suppress
the alfalfa caterpillar. J. Insect Pathol. 1:142-51.
207
-------
Stern, V.M., R. van den Bosch and R.F. Leigh. 1964. Strip cutting of
alfalfa for lygus bug control. Calif, Agr. 18(4):5-6.
Stera, V.M., R. van den Bosch, T.F. Leigh, O.D. Me Cutcheon, W.R. SaJlee,
C.E. Houston, and M.J. Garber. 1967. "Lygus Control by Strip Cutting
Alfalfa", Berkeley, Calif., University of Calif., Agr. Ext. (AXT-241).
Summers, P.M. and D.W. Price. 1964. Control of navel orangeworra. Calif.
Agr. 18(12):14-16.
Tanada, Y. 1967. Microbial pesticides. In; Pest Control. Edited by
W.W. Kilgore and R.L. Doutt, New York, Academic Press, p. 31-88.
van den Bosch, R. 1969. The toxicity problem comments by an applied
insect ecologist. In; Chemical Fallout. Edited by M.W. Miller and
G.G. Berg, Springfield, 111., Thomas, p. 97-112.
van den Bosch, R. 1970. Pesticides: prescribing for the ecosystem.
Environment 12:20-25.
van den Bosch, R. 1971a. Insecticides and the law. Hastings Law J.
22:615-28.
van den Bosch, R. 1971b. Statement in support of U.S. Senate Bill
S1794 issued on September 30, 1971.
van den Bosch, R. Biological control. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Sys. 2:90-99
(In press).
van den Bosch, R., L.H, Dawson, V.D. Roth, and V.W. Brown. 1961. Promising
new parasites of the Egyptian alfalfa weevil imported from southern
Iran. Dibrachoides druso. Calif. Agr. 15(8):11.
van den Bosch, R., T.F. Leigh, D. Gonzalez and R.E. Stinner. 1969.
Cage studies on predators of the bollworm in cotton. J. Econ. Entomol.
62:1486-89.
van den Bosch, R. and V.L. Marble. 1971. Egyptian alfalfa weevil ... the
threat to California alfalfa. Calif. Agr. 25(5):3-4.
van den Bosch, R., T.F. Leigh, L.A. Falcon, V.M. Stern, D. Gonzalez and
K.S. Hagan. 1971a. The developing program of integrated control of
cotton pests in California. In; Biological Control. Edited by C.B.
Huffaker, New York, Plenum Press, p. 377-94.
van den Bosch, R., G. Finley and C. Lagace. 1971b. Egyptian alfalfa
weevil ... biological control possibilities. Calif. Agr. 25:6-7.
Varley, G.C. 1953. Insect population balance and chemical control of pests.
Population theory and economic entomology. Chem. Ind. (London) 1953:1250.
Williams, Carroll M. 1967. Third-generation pesticides. Scientific
American 217:13-17.
208
-------
Wilson, M.C. and E.J. Armbrust. 1970. Approach to integrated control of the
alfalfa weevil. J. Econ. Entomol. 63:554-57.
Wolfenbarger, D.A. 1965. Polyhedrcsis-virus-surfactant and insecticide
combinations, and Bacillus thuringiensis-surfactant combinations for
cabbage looper control. J. Invert. Pathol. 7:33-38.
Woodall, K.L. and L.P. Eitman. 1967. Control of the cabbage looper and
corn earworm with unclear polyhedrosis viruses. J. Econ. Entoiaol. SO: 1558-61,
209
-------
CHAPTER 8
LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USE
IN THE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY
Within the past seventy years, California has developed a regulatory system
for pesticides control that is far more detailed than systems of most other states,
It is claimed that this system provides "the most comprehensive control over the
sale and use of pesticides of anywhere in the world."-'- Although the system is
a product of state law and is in part administered directly by the State Depart-
ment of Agriculture, major responsibilities for administration and enforcement
are delegated to county Agricultural Commissioners. The following four matters
need to be considered pertaining to this regulatory system, particularly as it
operates with regard to the sale and agricultural use of pesticides in the San
Joaquin Valley: 1) the basic features, especially pesticides registration, permit
control of the use of certain pesticides, and regulation of the pest-control
business; 2) some effects of this system in preventing environmental damage;
3) suggested changes' that might increase environmental protection; and 4) impor-
tant litigation related to the use of agricultural pesticides.
I. Basic Features of the Agricultural Pesticide Regulatory System
A) Registration of Pesticides
For the manufacture or sale within California of any pesticide or "economic
poison," the manufacturer, importer, or dealer must obtain a general license and
an individual registration for each pesticide.2 Registration is carried out on
a product-by-product basis, as with federal registration of pesticides moving
in interstate commerce.-' Also as with federal law, the process of pesticide
registration is closely tied to the establishment of a "tolerance" as required
by California's "spray residue" law. In most cases the state's tolerance is
210
-------
the same as that established by the federal government under the Food, Drug and
Cosmetics Act.
All California pesticide registrations must be renewed annually. In 1970,
over 12,000 products were registered by the Director of Agriculture,6 involving
several hundred chemicals.1 Fewer than half of these were products registered
for agricultural use, the others being for home and garden use, vector control,
or structural pest control. In 1970, the annual license fee was greatly increased,
to forty dollars per registered product, which is expected to lead to a signifi-
cant decline in the number of registrations.^
The registration of pesticides includes approval of formulas and product
labels, and in 1970 the Director of Agriculture was given authority to adopt
a pesticide container code. The registered label, in principle, controls the
use that can be made of the product. It is unlawful in California to use pesti-
cides in conflict with the registered label or with supplementary printed direc-
tions delivered with the pesticide, unless expressly authorized by the Director
of Agriculture or the Agricultural Commissioner.H The use of registered pesti-
cides is controlled further by the prohibition of "any substantial drift to other
crops" and by the requirement in certain circumstances that the applicator of
pesticides be in possession of a signed recommendation showing the dose rate, pest
to be controlled, and other specified information pertaining to the application.12
In 1969 the legislature issued a sweeping mandate to the Director of Agriculture
with regard to pesticide registration: he is to "develop an orderly program for
the continuous evaluation of all economic poisons actually registered" in order
to "endeavor to eliminate from use in the state any economic poison which endangers
the agricultural or non-agricultural environment, is not beneficial for the pur-
poses for which it is sold, or is misrepresented."13 Refusal of registration or
cancellation of registration is expressly authorized for any pesticide:
211
-------
a) "Which has demonstrated serious uncontrollable adverse effects either
within or outside the agricultural environment."
b) "The use of which is of less public value or greater detriment to
the environment than the benefit received by its use."
c) "For which there is a reasonably effective and practicable alternate
material or procedure which is demonstrably less destructive to the
environment."
d) "Which, when properly used, is detrimental to vegetation, except weeds,
to domestic animals, or to the public health and safety."
e) "Which is of little or no value for the purpose for which it is intended."
f) "Concerning which any false or misleading statement is made or implied
by the registrant or his agent, either verbally or in writing, or in
the form of any advertising literature."^
Where the director has reason to believe that any of the above conditions apply
to a pesticide and that its continued use "constitutes an immediate substantial
danger to persons or to the environment," he is authorized, after notice to the
registrant, to suspend the registration pending a hearing and final decision.
B) Permit Control and Related Special Use Restrictions
In addition to the control over usage obtained through restrictions on the
registered label, a special set of use controls applies to many pesticides in
California. In two cases, those of Compound 1080 (sodium fluoroacetate) and
thallium, the material can, be legislative directive, be used agriculturally
only under the immediate supervision of a public official. Other pesticides
are subject, after investigation and hearing, to special regulation by the
Director of Agriculture where he finds that they are "injurious to the environment,
or to any person, animal or crop.' The Director of Agriculture has never
212
-------
published criteria for use in such investigations and hearings, but since 1950
the list of "injurious materials" has grown steadily. The list now includes some
thirty-three chemicals: four arsenic compounds, thirteen organic phosphorus
compounds, chloropicrin, a carbamate compound, and fourteen mercury compounds.
A separate portion of the injurious-materials lists, called "restricted materials,"
includes a number of chlorinated hydrocarbons such as DDT.1^
Part of the special regualtion of injurious materials consists of a set of
rules on the time and conditions of use. These rules require that the materials
be "substantially confined" to the property to be treated, that neither the mate-
rials nor the emptied containers be dumped or left unattended where they may
present a hazard, and that all persons known to be on property to be treated
be warned, before application, of the nature of the material and the precautions
20
to be observed. u They also require that some properties treated with certain
organic phosphorus compounds be posted, that adequate protective devices be
provided to employees engaged in handling or applying the materials, that noti-
fication be made to the owner of animals on property to be treated and in certain
cases to beekeepers with bees on the property, or within one mile of it, and that
the time be restricted within which workers are permitted to reenter the treated
01
property.
Another part of this special regulation consists of placing injurious mate-
rials under permit control.^ This permit system is administered and enforced
by the agricultural commissioners, leading to considerable variation in its opera-
tion throughout the eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley. One choice is whether
to use a "job" or "seasonal" permit system or something in between. A permit
system by the job requires that each particula'r application of a pesticide be the
subject of an approved written application for a permit, although renewals are
213
-------
generally granted over the telephone. The material to be used, the pest to be
controlled, and the location must be specified. A seasonal permit, on the other
hand, gives "blanket" approval for one, many, or all injurious materials to be
applied for various pest-control purposes throughout the agricultural season
or the calendar year. When issued to a professional applicator, it may be good
for all property within the county. A seasonal permit can be individualized to
some degree by requiring that an individual "notice of intent" be filed with
the agricultural commissioner within a specified time before each application.
Typically, this period ranges from 12 to 48 hours.
A second choice of importance in operation of the permit system for injurious
materials concerns permit conditions. Agricultural commissioners have the authority
to attach conditions to injurious-materials permits, ^ and this may be done either
generally or for particular permits granted. Such conditions can deal with a
range of local considerations, such as particular drift problems posed by the
local cropping pattern, meteorological conditions, and patterns of bee activity.
A third matter concerns the role of the grower, who is generally the owner
or lessee of the property to be treated. State regulations provide that either the
grower or a professional applicator, known as a pest-control operator, may apply
O /
for the permit, although in any case the applicator must be named. Some counties
in the San Joaquin Valley allow the professional applicator to take out the permit,
while others require that this generally be done by the grower himself. The
significance of these variations in operation of the injurious-materials permit
system are considered below.
Subject to special regulation in addition to the injurious materials is
a group of "injurious herbicides." Nine pesticides are on the injurious-herbi-
cides list, which covers herbicides, such as 2,4-D and 2,4,5-T, which have been
found by the Director of Agriculture to be "injurious to many plants and crops
214
-------
grown in various areas of the state."25 Injurious herbicides are subject to
n/:
special rules of use, many of which are designed to cut down the chances of
harmful drift to nearby susceptible crops. They are also subject in most cases
to permit control by agricultural commissioners,2^ who administer and enforce
the permit system for injurious herbicides much like that for injurious materials.
Regulations of the Director of Agriculture, however, specify that, within certain
designated "hazardous areas" (most of them within the eight-county San Joaquin
Valley area), permits to use injurious herbicides within the period from March
15 to October 15 may not have a term of more than one week.28
In addition to the special controls provided for injurious materials and
injurious herbicides, California law since 1969 has provided that the Director
of Agriculture "shall prohibit or regulate the use of environmentally harmful
material."29 NO definition of such material is provided, although "environment"
is defined for these purposes as "the aggregate of all factors that influence
the conditions of life in or about the state or within any portion thereof, and
which are affected by the use of economic poisons or related materials within
the state."^ Several recent specific actions taken by the Director of Agricul-
ture have been justified in terms of the need for environmental protection.
C) Regulation of the Pest-Control Business
The past two years have seen a substantial broadening of the regulation of
various phases of the pest-control business. Such regulation bears very directly
on pesticide usage, in particular as it allows for a separate set of use rules
for the professionals, who are estimated to sell nearly all and to apply more than
half of the agricultural pesticides used in California.
Of the three distinct phases—recommendation, sale, and application— within
the pest-control business, application has historically been subject to the closest
215
-------
control. This phase, in fact, has historically been considered to constitute
the "pest control business."32 jjo one may engage for hire in the agricultural
application of pesticides, i.e., act as a "pest control operator," without an
agricultural pest-control license.33 xo obtain such a license, information must
be submitted sufficient to satisfy the Director of Agriculture of the character,
qualifications, responsibility, and good faith of the applicant. The appli-
cant must pass an examination to obtain the license, which may be limited to
certain types of pest control: for example, weed control; control of pests other
than weeds in commercial plantings; or defoliation.35 This license is not required
for a person who operates only in the vicinity of his own property "for the accom-
modation of his neighbors" and is not regularly engaged in the business of pest
control. Even so, such persons must obtain a permit from the Director of Agricul-
ture and, like agricultural pest-control licensees, register with a county agri-
cultural commissioner.3"
For air operations, pest-control operators may employ only pilots with a valid
certificate or apprentice certificate of qualification issued by the Director
of Agriculture.3' By state law, employees who operate other pest-control equipment
(ground spray rigs, for example) may be required by the county agricultural
commissioner to qualify by examination or otherwise.38 This authority has not
been generally used, however. The equipment of pest-control operators is also
subject to control,39 an(j agricultural commissioners do inspect this equipment.
They may order an immediate shutdown of any equipment operated by an incompetent
person or otherwise operated in violation of state or local regulations.
The pesticide use rules in force for licensed pest-control operators comple-
ment and often duplicate those outlined above for the use of injurious materials.^
These rules govern all pesticides, "non-injurious" as well as "injurious," insofar
as most of the rules on the time and conditions for use are concerned. Noninjurious
216
-------
materials used must also be whoen in the pesticide use reports required of pest-
control operators; for nonprofessional applicators, use reports are required only
for injurious materials subject to permit control.^2 Regulation of the agricul-
tural pest-control business does not, however, require professional applicators
to obtain a permit for the use of noninjurious materials.
In contrast to the regulation of professional agricultural pesticide appli-
cators, which was begun by counties many decades ago, regulation of the recommen-
dation and sales phases of the pest control business is very new in California.
Since January 1, 1970, pesticide dealers—those "in the business of selling or
retailing pesticides directly to users for an agricultural use"—must be licensed
by the Director of Agriculture.^3 An applicant must satisfy the director of his
knowledge of the laws and regulations governing the use and sale of pesticides,
as well as his responsibility in carrying on the business of a pesticide dealer. ^
In addition, "agricultural pest control agents" must register with the agricul-
tural commissioner in each county where they act in that capacity- •* Such an
agent is broadly defined to include three occupational categories (often over-
lapping) : 1) those who, as an agent or employee of a pesticide dealer, distribu-
tor, or manufacturer, sell or offer for sale any pesticide for an agricultural
use; 2) those who, as an agent or employee of a pesticide dealer, make any recom-
mendation concerning the agricultural use of any method or device for the control
of any agricultural pest; and 3) those who, in connection with a pest-control
advisory service for hire (typically, the "independent consulting entomologist"),
make any recommendation concerning the agricultural use or application of any pesti-
cide. 46 "Agricultural use" is limited to commercial production, excluding home
and garden use.^ Legislation enacted very recently provides for state examination
I Q
and licensing of these agricultural pest-control agents, now to be known as
"agricultural pest control advisers."
217
-------
Unlawful activity by those under regulation is subject to administrative
proceedings against their state license and/or county registration, as well as
prosecution in the courts.^ Enforcement is carried out primarily by agricultural
inspectors on the staff of each county agricultural commissioner. The commis-
sioners, deputy commissioners, and agricultural insepctors in the eight counties
of the San Joaquin Valley in the period July 1, 1969, through June 30, 1970,
devoted an estimated 3,964 man-days to pesticide inspection and enforcement
work. The work consisted primarily of individual review of use reports that
pest-control operators must file, field inspection of pest-control equipment
and operations, audits of dealer and operator records, investigation of complaints,
and issuance of warning notices. All use reports, after such review, are now
forwarded to Sacramento for review by a computer. This review may indicate a
possible violation in a pesticide application (for example, a violation of dose
limitations established by the registered label), leading to a further check
in the field.
D) Other Relevant Laws and Regulations
Several other state agencies also have authority that does or could sig-
nificantly govern the sale and use of agricultural pesticides. Some of this
authority relates primarily to human health and safety, in particular the health
and safety of those exposed occupationally to agricultural pesticides. For
example, the Division of Industrial Safety (a part of the State Department of
Industrial Relations) has authority for the enforcement of Safety Orders for
Agricultural Operations. These orders include provisions on the operation
and decontamination of equipment used in application work and they require
medical supervision for all employees regularly occupied in the formulation or
application of organic phosphate injurious materials.^2 xhe reduction of occu-
218
-------
pational hazards from agricultural pesticides is also the subject of study
and, sometimes, enforcement activity by the State Department of Public Health
(through its Bureau of Occupational Health and Epidemiology) and by county depart-
ments of health.
Of greater importance to environmental protection, however, is the authority
of those concerned with resource protection. The State Water Resources Control
Board and regional water quality control boards administer and enforce the
State's Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and related sections of the
water code.53 Most of the eight-county San Joaquin Valley lies within the Central
Valley region, for which an Interim Water Quality Management Plan was promul-
gated in June 1971.5^ As part of this interim plan, the Central Valley Regional
Water Quality Board established "water quality objectives" providing that pesti-
cides in most of the region's surface water bodies shall not reach concentra-
tions "found to be deleterious to fish or wildlife," nor shall there be an "in-
crease in pesticide concentrations over background levels in indigenous aquatic
life."55 Further, specific limitations on pesticide concentrations were estab-
lished for particular bodies of water, e.g., 0.6 yg/liter in the Sacramento-
San Joaquin Delta, as determined by the summation of individual concentrations.5°
Such water-quality objectives, however, do not necessarily lead to the establish-
ment of waste-discharge requirements. It is this latter step, which normally
provides effluent standards as well as some receiving-water standards, that
lays the basis for enforcement against particular water users under the control
scheme provided by Porter-Cologne. During the past two decades regional water-
quality control boards establishing waste-discharge requirements in California have
concentrated on municipal and industrial dischargers, in most instances leaving
agricultural dischargers without significant regulation. Within the Central
Valley Region, for example, no waste-discharge requirements have been set for
219
-------
return irrigation waters, as to either pesticide content or other parameters.
In general, the hazard from pesticide residues in agricultural waste waters
seems to have been judged to be low. In February 1971, however, the State Water
Resources Control Board held two days of hearings on pesticides in the environ-
ment, and an Agricultural Advisory Committee to the Board was recently appointed
58
to study methods to control agricultural wastes that may harm water quality.
Thus, some general changes may be in the offing in water-quality policy and
regional board practice with regard to agricultural waste waters.
Water-quality officials in the San Joaquin Valley have thus not yet generally
regulated pesticide levels in agricultural effluent, although action has been
taken to avoid the possibility of degradation of ground and surface waters by
pesticide containers disposed of in dumps. Regional water quality control boards
classify dump sites in order to protect water bodies, and the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board, by resolution, determined in 1969 that
toxic chemicals—including agricultural pesticides and their containers—can
be disposed of on land only at Class I disposal sites. These are sites "located
on formations through which no appreciable seepage to usable waters can occur,
or underlain by isolated bodies of unusable ground water, and which are protected
from flooding and surface runoff and where waste materials and all internal
surface drainage can be restricted to the site. This broad policy determina-
tion was reached after consultation with the State Department of Public Health,
but the San Joaquin Valley's total lack of approved and publicly-controlled Class
I sites is a significant problem, considered further below.
The activities and attitudes of two other state agencies for the protection
of resources also bear on the sale and use of agricultural pesticides in the
San Joaquin Valley. The Department of Fish and Game, which has wardens and
deputies in the field throughout the valley, has for many years been concerned
220
-------
about the impact of pesticides on fish and wildlife. Section 5650 of the Cali-
fornia Fish and Game Code provides authority for enforcement activity of extra-
ordinary scope, for it makes it unlawful to deposit in, permit to pass into,
or place where it can pass into the waters of the state, any substance or material
that is "deleterious to fish, plant life, or bird life."61 Thus, in the case
of specific fish kills (for example, from direct application of pesticides to water
bodies), the Department of Fish and Game has engaged in its own direct enforce-
ment activity. It has also worked closely with the regional water quality
control boards, in accordance with the mandate of Section 5651 of the Fish and
Game Code that, in cases of continuing and chronic pollution, Fish and Game
shall "act through" the regional board "in obtaining correction in accordance
with any laws administered by such board for control of practices for sewage
and industrial waste disposal."62
In addition to the State Water Resources Control Board, regional water
quality control boards, and the Department of Fish and Game, California has
a State Air Resources Board "for administration, research, establishment of
standards, and the coordination of air conservation activities carried on within
the state."63 This board establishes air basin boundaries within the state,
sets quality standards for ambient air in each basin, and has various powers
in the control of vehicular emissions. The initial responsibility for control
of injurious air contaminants from nonvehicular sources, which appears to be the
category into which most pesticide emissions would fall, lies with county or
regional air-pollution control districts. These districts enforce a general
provision of the Health and Safety Code that prohibits the discharge of such
quantities of air contaminants as to "cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoy-
ance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or which endanger
the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public or which
cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property."65
221
-------
They also enforce more specific restrictions, certain of which are expressly
made applicable to agricultural operations, including the operation of
aircraft "to distribute seed, fertilizer, insecticides, or other agricultural
aids over lands devoted to the growing of crops or raising of fowls or
animals."66 However, despite the various possibilities for regulatory
activity regarding pesticides that state law gives to the State Air Resources
Board and the various air-pollution control districts, no significant action
has been taken. Existing standards for ambient air quality make no reference
to pesticides, and staff activity has been limited to some sporadic sampling
of pesticide residues in the atmosphere. Air-quality officials in California
presently give priority to urban air-pollution problems, such as smog; concen-
trate their rural air-quality efforts on problems of burning; and consider
that any hazards from agricultural pesticides are best managed by other
agencies of the state.
Aside from the specific authority given particular state or local agencies
to regulate either input (application) or output (waste) aspects of agricul-
tural pesticide sale and use, state law now has general environmental pro-
visions that may affect these activities. The California Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, similar in purpose and content to the federal National Environmental
Protection Act of 1969,67 requires, for example, that both state and local
agencies prepare environmental-impact reports for their proposed projects
that could have a "significant effect" on the state's environment.68 These
various forms of present or potential public regulation of pesticide activity
are supplemented by a form of "private regulation" through the use of restric-
tive contract provisions. These appear frequently in contracts between
growers and canneries, which seek to avoid over-tolerance pesticide residues
on food products. Pesticides clauses have recently also been inserted in
222
-------
contracts between growers and the United Farmworkers Organizing Committee,
which seeks to minimize pesticide hazards to union members.
11• Agricultural Pesticide Regulation and Prevention
of Environmental Damage
No complete assessment is yet possible of the effects of California's
present agricultural pesticide regulatory system in preventing environmental
damage, for far too little is now known about the nature and extent of environ-
mental damage brought about by agricultural pesticides, and about the manner
in which various laws and regulations have actually changed human behavior.
As an alternative to such an assessment, this section considers certain
administrative and structural aspects of the present regulatory system, and
their bearing on environmental protection in the San Joaquin Valley.
A) Registration of Pesticides
In its 1970 annual report to the California legislature on environmentally
harmful pesticides,70 the Department of Agriculture placed considerable emphasis
on its use of the pesticide registration system to eliminate environmentally
harmful materials. It noted continued progress in the phasing-out of DDT
and ODD, which have been removed from 67 crop and animal uses, plus home and
garden uses.71 These registration cancellations have led to a continued
sharp decrease in actual use of DDT and ODD. The use of DDT in California in
1970 and 1971 is shown in the following table, based on summaries of state
72
reports on pesticide use.
Use Applications Acresa Pounds
DDT—1970, first half 3,313 168,794.84 281,989.88
1970, full year 8,284 643,899.13 1,164,699-91
1971, first half 320 8,811.71 13,954.38
a
lNonagricultural uses such as structural and vector control are excluded,
223
-------
A number of registrations of products containing mercury were also canceled
in 1970,73 and the cancellation of most registrations for mercury compounds for
seed treatment has now been approved by the Director of Agriculture.'^ These
DDT/DDD and mercury cancellations, of course, have coincided with federal action
on these materials and with widespread public concern over their effects in
the environment.
In addition, the Department of Agriculture has reported registration can-
cellations of 91 different pesticides on farm crops, and "new restrictions"
on another 120 pesticides, many in the chlorinated hydrocarbon group.75 Since
pesticide registration is on a product-by-product basis, action on a single
chemical may mean many cancellations. In any case, many of these cancellations
were for reasons other than environmental protection, and at least 10,000
registrations remain in force. Further, in some cases the canceled materials
"have never been used in California or they have limited uses and substitute
materials are available."'" In carrying out its cancellations and restrictions
for environmental or other reasons, the Department of Agriculture has had the
services of a Pesticide Advisory Committee composed of experts,'' while the
staff of the department itself has only three permanent professional registra-
tion specialists. With the limited resources now devoted to the registration
process, 78 attention seems to be centered on materials that "come into the
limelight" for one reason or another, rather than on the "orderly program for
the continuous evaluation of all economic poisons actually registered," that
the legislature mandated in 1969.79 in view of the historic (and quite possibly
inevitable) extensive reliance on federal registrations by those in state
pesticide-registration work, as well as the prospect that the federal government
may require federal registrations for pesticides moving only in intrastate
commerce,SO it may be somewhat unrealistic to expect the State Department of
224
-------
Agriculture to carry out independently its own continuous and comprehensive
environmental evaluation of all registered pesticides.
Aside from the questions of which pesticides should receive a state
registration and how such decisions should be made, important questions arise
as to how the registered label should be employed to control use. Both those
in regulatory positions and those in one phase or another of the agricultural
pest-control business throughout the San Joaquin Valley are intensely interested
in the need for label standardization, an objective that suggests it might
be necessary to allow less diversity in the production of agricultural pesti-
cides. Minor variations in label requirements (e.g., maximum dose) for products
that are fundamentally the same chemical material make field monitoring and
enforcement of label requirements more complex than perhaps need be the case.
At the same time that there may be a need for standardization, however, a number
of local regulatory officials point out that proper control of pesticide use
might require much more information than most labels now provide. They assert,
for example, that more information is needed in many cases on the use of a
material in relation to local meteorological conditions, bee behavior patterns,
and worker reentry into the field.
B) Permit Control and Related Special Use Restrictions
Although in principle the registration process itself provides specific
control over the use of agricultural pesticides, since it is unlawful to use
the registered product contrary to the label or related directions without
special authorization, label provisions cannot deal with the multitude of local
problems that depend in large measure on local crop-production patterns and
practices. They can be no more than a direction from afar to the actual user—
and the user may or may not read the label, may or may not understand and re-
spect the label's directions for use, and may or may not anticipate a significant
225
-------
risk of detection should the use directions be violated. For more than two
decades the permit control system for injurious materials and injurious herbi-
cides has therefore been the vehicle in California for specific, direct contact
between the government and citizen as to pesticide usage. In the spring of
1971, when the Congress had under consideration the first version of an adminis-
tration bill to provide federal "environmental" pesticide control,*51 an official
communication to an official of the Council on Environmental Quality from a
California Department of Agriculture specialist in agricultural chemicals
suggested five situations in which California's permit system has "reduced"
pesticide problems. 2
1) In the early 1960's, DDT was drifting onto alfalfa hay that
was later fed to dairy cows, and illegal DDT residues resulted
in milk supplies. In 1963 DDT was classified as an injurious
material, and county agricultural commissioners, in granting
required permits, imposed restrictions prohibiting its use near
alfalfa. "We found that with the control of DDT by permit system
there were substantially fewer interceptions of hay with illegal
residues and fewer problems with DDT residues in milk and dairy
products. While certain other factors were also operating to
alleviate the drift residue problem, we believe the requirement
of a permit for use was by far the most significant."83
2) In 1946 and 1947, 2,4-D was first widely used on grain crops as a
selective herbicide. Susceptible crops such as grapes and cotton
were injured. The material was classified as an injurious herbicide,
and the highly volatile esters were prohibited in most areas of the
state. State regulations required that permits issued by county
agricultural commissioners incorporate various restrictions on
2,4-D applications. These covered minimum distances from suscepti-
ble crops, specifications of nozzle size, pressure, nozzle orienta-
tion on the spray boom, and similar items. "While these controls
did not eliminate every problem with 2,4-D, they worked effectively
to allow increasingly extensive use of 2,4-D and other phenoxy type
herbicides with a minimum of difficulties."84
3) In the early 1950's chloropicrin ("tear gas") began to be widely
used as a soil fumigant. In populated areas it sometimes drifted
into houses, requiring evacuation of the residents. Chloropicrin
was then placed on the injurious-materials list, permits were
made mandatory for most applications in the three counties where
problems had arisen, and certain specific use restrictions were im-
posed by state regulation. For example, in certain situations in
which this material is used in the specified counties, the area
must be covered with a gas-confining covering immediately after
226
-------
treatment. "There have been no further problems in these counties
in spite of continued and probably increased use of the fumigants."85
4) In 1947 parathion came into widespread use in California, and in
the next several years there were numerous illnesses and some
fatalities from parathion poisoning. In 1950 parathion was classi-
fied as an injurious material. "While the usage increased
greatly in the state in succeeding years we substantially were
able to reduce accidental injuries. The permit requirement
probably can not be given sole credit however, because there was
a strong program launched to educate users better about the hazards
of parathion."86
5) Before 1961 sodium arsenite caused an average of four or five
deaths a year in California. Many of these fatalities occurred
where the material had been purchased for home and garden use.
In 1961 sodium arsenite was classified as an injurious material,
and a permit was required for use. "This had the practical effect
of causing the product to disappear from retail outlets because
householders did not choose to go through the procedure of getting
a permit to use it. In any event the number of fatalities attributed
to this substance was promptly reduced to zero."87
These illustrations of operation of the permit system seem to justify
three general conclusions:
First, major initiatives for action have generally come from the state
rather than from the various counties. Under California law, only the state
(through the Director of Agriculture) can classify a pesticide as an injurious
material or injurious herbicide, but counties could do much to meet particular
problems—through county ordinance (placing a "noninjurious" material under direct
regulation) or through detailed permit conditions established by «-he counties
once the state has provided the basis for permit control. The counties in the
San Joaquin Valley have made scant use of either of these possibilities, al-
though individual commissioners "behind-the-scenes" may have urged the state to
act. County initiatives are not impossible in California, for one county out-
side the San Joaquin Valley (Imperial County, in the desert agricultural area
in the southeastern portion of the state) has for many years, by county ordinance,
required a permit for all noninjurious materials (i.e., all materials not al-
ready under state regulation) and has also made considerable use of its own
227
-------
permit conditions to control both injurious and noninjurious materials. With
the sharp increase in use of agricultural pesticides beginning just after World
War II, however, the counties in California have generally left the major
initiatives to the state. Indeed, it was the 2,4-D drift problems noted above
that led, in 1950, to the state's taking major aspects of the present regulatory
system over from the counties.
Second, as a general proposition, classification as an injurious material
or injurious herbicide, followed by special use restrictions and permit control,
has come after a problem has arisen. This sequence is clearly illustrated by
each of the five examples of operation of the California permit system noted
above. Even today organic phosphates with an established toxicity comparable
to some of those on the injurious-materials list have not been so classified
OQ
and hence are not subject to the extra control the permit system provides.00
Third, environmental considerations have been secondary in using the
permit system to bring more precise control of pesticide use. More typically
regulation has been undertaken because of pressure from a segment of the
agricultural world aroused over damage to crops or food products from pesticide
applications. Thus, the alfalfa hay growers and, particularly, the dairy
interests of the state pressured for the DDT restriction of 1963, although
the environment doubtless benefited incidentally through generally reduced
levels of DDT use. Similarly, 2,4-D was brought under special regulation
because of the concern of growers of susceptible crops. Where the motive
for control has not been the protection of grower interests, there has been
concern over occupational health (parathion), public health (sodium arsenite)
or public relations (chloropicrin). One attempt in the San Joaquin Valley
has been made to use the permit system for environmental purposes when the
pesticide Azodrin caused wildlife losses. That attempt is discussed below.
228
-------
As more pesticides become subject to permit control, questions about
the mechanics of the system become increasingly important. When permit lists
are short or agricultural activity in a county is relatively limited, each
pesticide application can easily receive individual review by regulatory
officials. Madera County, in the San Joaquin Valley, operates its permit
system largely on such a job basis. In contrast, the larger counties, with
intensive agricultural activity, may have hundreds of applications a week
during the busy season. One consequence can then be a mechanical "paperwork"
system: clerical personnel handle the applications that flood in, virtually
all are approved, and inspection personnel spend more time in the office than
in the field. A different consequence can be that permits are required on
a job basis only for infrequently used or specially hazardous materials. This
means there is no advance review of most applications at all be regulatory
officials, nor is there even any systematic way for knowing in advance what
materials are being used where for what purpose. This latter problem may not
be serious, insofar as field observation of application activity is concerned,
particularly where district agricultural inspectors within a county have detailed
information about the application equipment in use. But lack of opportunity
for advance review may abort any problem-preventive function of a permit system,
besides destroying any potential that the permit system has for reducing
marginally necessary (or even entirely unnecessary) applications that contribute
to environmental degradation.
Essentially, the problem in administering a large pesticide permit system
is to balance possible benefits in changed human behavior against costs of in-
creased paperwork and, possibly, economic losses from delays caused by a
cumbersome system. Fresno County recently changed its permit system in an
interesting fashion: instead of the applicators' notice of intent to make ap-
229
-------
plication going through the Department of Agriculture (as some other counties
have required, with the inevitable tie-up of county personnel in receiving and
handling notices of intent), the notice is (in most cases) simply placed, shortly
prior to the expected time of application, in a "drop box" in the district where
the application is to be made. The district inspector can pick it up, review
it quickly and systematically, and selectively follow-up on it as necessary.
Under this method of administering the permit system, a number of projected
pesticide applications have been denied by district inspectors. The system
reduces paperwork while providing advance review, which seems essential if
particularly hazardous or unnecessary applications are to be eliminated at
the local level.
C) Regulation of the Pest-Control Business
It has been fashionable for some years in certain entomological circles
to talk of the need to use agricultural pesticides on a "prescription-only"
basis. The parallel with the use of drugs for human medication is compelling
and places the two situations in striking contrast. In human medication a
certain drug is prescribed by a highly trained and state-licensed doctor,
ideally on the basis of careful consideration of need and relative net costs
and benefits to the patient. In agricultural pest control, those who recommend
a particular toxic chemical upon some kind of "diagnosis" may not have extensive
training in either entomology or, often, any agricultural science, and in the
past they have not been subject to any kind of occupational regulation by
the state. Instead, the occupational regulation has been imposed on the
applicators of agricultural pesticides, whose position is comparable to that
of the pharmacist.
Some steps are now being taken to correct this situation in California.
It will require a major occupational upgrading and restructuring. In the
230
-------
human-medication area, the potential individual cost to a patient from a
faulty recommendation seems to have been enough to bring close regulation
by the state. Failure to provide comparable regulation of those who recommend
agricultural pesticides has perhaps refl—ted a belief that any cost of faulty
recommendations will simply be economic, borne by the grower in the form of
wasted materials or crop losses from ineffective pest control. Closer regula-
tion of application work may have reflected a recognition that faulty appli-
cation can harm not only the grower but his neighbor, damaged by drift.
In any event, the possibility of major social costs has not been acknowledged
by the occupational regulatory system—particularly long-term public and occu-
pational health hazards and short-term or long-term environmental damage.
Thus, regulatory control of the use of registered pesticides in California
has concentrated exclusively on applicators until very recently. With regard
to air applications, control has been relatively strict over both pilots and
the pest-control operator licensees. But for ground applications, systematic
direct action has been lacking to ensure that actual operators of ground
equipment are fit for the work. Agricultural commissioners have the power
to examine the qualifications of operators of ground rigs, but they have not
ordinarily done so even though it seems important from many points of view,
including environmental protection and occupational health and safety.
Furthermore, with regard to the state licensees/county registratnts them-
selves, in most cases a violation results only in a "notice of warning." Such
notice may lead to an informal "office" hearing and then a formal hearing
before an examiner from the State's Office of Administrative Procedure, and
finally to suspension or revocation of the operator's license. The 760
warning notices issued by county officials throughout the state for the period
July 1, 1969, through June 30, 1970, in connection with the agricultural
pest-control business led to only 88 office hearings.89 These resulted in 56
-------
90
suspensions or revocations of agricultural pest-control authorizations. u
Despite the fact that roughly 45% of California's agricultural production
is from the San Joaquin Valley, of these 760 warning notices only 157 were
issued by inspectors in the eight counties of the valley—and 107 of these
were in Merced County.91
The possibility remains, of course, of prosecution for a misdemeanor.
Such prosecutions are rare. Department of Agriculture figures show only two
such prosecutions for the entire state in the period July 1, 1969, through
June 30, 1970.92
D) Other Relevant Laws and Regulations
As pointed out, several state agencies other than the Department of Agri-
culture have responsibilities bearing on regulation of the sale and agricultural
use of pesticides in the San Joaquin Valley. The effects of the activities of
these other agencies in working with the Department of Agriculture can be evaluated
best by considering two particular problems that have arisen in recent years.
One such problem is now largely resolved: adverse effects on wildlife from use
of the organic phosphate Azodrin. The second remains unresolved: potential harm to
water quality from disposal of used pesticide containers.
1) Azodrin and wildlife: In June 1965 the California Department of Agri-
culture registered Azodrin for the control of certain insect pests in cotton
fields. This pesticide was used in limited quantities in the San Joaquin Valley
in the 1965 cotton season, although wildlife losses associated with its use
were already known by the Department of Fish and Game.93 Such losses included
pheasant, doves, quail, jackrabbits, horned larks, meadowlarks, blackbirds,
killdeer, and sparrows.94 Field studies of Azodrin-wildlife relationships initially
emphasized dermal toxicity (e.g., as indicated by spraying pheasant and quail in
232
-------
experimental situations). That approach may explain the preliminary (1966)
conclusion of the Department of Fish and Game that Azodrin was "not as hazardous
to wildlife as certain other organic phosphate insecticides in common use."95
Even so, in terms of oral toxicity it was already recognized that "Azodrin is
one of the most toxic of all agricultural chemicals used in California to birds."96
A serious production setback in 1966 at the Shell Chemical Company,
manufacturer of Azodrin, made very little of the material available during that
cotton season. In 1967, however, the material was used very widely, particularly
for control of Lygus bug on cotton. The chemical received enormous publicity,
possibly the largest promotion in California pesticide history.97 Azodrin was
promoted as a major breakthrough in cotton pest control, and the manufacturer
and distributors suggested its use of a prophylactic fixed-schedule basis.98
By the end of 1967, applications of the material in the valley apparently ex-
ceeded 1,000,000 acres.99
Throughout that year, the Department of Fish and Game carried out intensive
field investigations of the effects of this pesticide on wildlife. Departmental
personnel expressed their serious concern to personnel of both the Department
of Agriculture and the manufacturer, and the latter agreed to inform users that
Azodrin should not be applied to cotton fields under irrigation. This agreement
was based on "circumstantial evidence that Azodrin-contaminated water might be
implicated in wildlife losses."100
Those with wildlife management responsibilities continued surveillance of
Azodrin use on cotton fields in the San Joaquin Valley throughout 1968. By
that time, Fish and Game officials, from field tests conducted by the Shell
Chemical Company, felt that "the greatest hazard to birds exists in treated
cotton fields where standing water and excessive weed growth are present."101
Such conditions, they reported, "are more apt to occur on small acreages of
cotton in diversified farming areas,"102 i.e., on the east side of the valley.
233
-------
Although the pesticide was still not under any form of special regulation,
usage was lower than in 1967. Local observers attributed the decline to the high
costs of regular, repeated applications, combined with doubts about the efficacy
of the material. Such observers noted in particular that Azodrin was nonselective,
harming beneficial insects as well as pests.103 A series of regulatory measures
designed to reduce harm to wildlife from Azodrin were agreed on in 1969 after
extensive negotiations between the Department of Agriculture, the Department
of Fish and Game, and the manufacturer. By May 1969 the concerned parties
agreed that Azodrin would be placed on the injurious-materials list; that
a permit would be required for any application within the state; that job
permits would be required after the end of July in certain "special areas"
(basically, the east side of the valley) and granted only after the agricultural
commissioner or his representative insepcted the property to be treated, con-
sulted with regional personnel of Fish and Game, and determined that the pesti-
cide could be used on the particular property without significant loss to
wildlife; that it would be emphasized to all persons using Azodrin that irriga-
tion practices should be managed so as to minimize the opportunity for contam-
ination of water with the pesticide; and that Azodrin use permits would be
issued 30 days or more in advance of the anticipated time of use, unless the
commissioner, after consultation with wildlife management personnel, determined
that this should not be done. "4
On the basis of this agreement, in mid-1968 the Department of Agriculture
proceeded with a hearing that led, on July 18, 1969, to the addition of Azodrin
to the injurious-materials list.^^ To prevent the use of Azodrin in areas
frequented by significant bird populations, use restrictions were promulgated
on a county-by-county basis. These became effective on August 1, 1969, with
job permits required in these special bird-protection areas and close consul-
234
-------
tation required between county agricultural commissioners and regional per-
sonnel of Fish and Game. Criteria for denial of permits were keyed to weed
conditions (denial for "excessively weedy" fields attractive to birds for
feeding), drainage conditions (denial for poorly drained fields attractive
to birds as sources of water), bird habitat (denial for fields with high
resident bird populations or adjoined by such), and surrounding crops (denial
for small fields surrounded by diverse crops attractive to wildlife or adjoined
by such).106
The final agreement was developed from years of negotiation between the
concerned agencies and the pesticide manufacturer and yet it appears that the
consultative system agreed upon entirely collapsed in the majority of San
Joaquin Valley counties. An example is Fresno County, the valley's leader
in production. The agreed regulations and procedures provided that Azodrin
use permits in Fresno County would be issued only on an individual-field
one-application basis, and that all fields would have to meet criteria of
the Department of Fish and Game before a permit would be issued by the agri-
cultural commissioner. The collapse in interagency consultation was recited
in an internal report made by personnel in Fish and Game's regional office:
"Beginning about the first of August, 1969 the Fresno County
Agricultural Commissioner's office began a program of periodically
notifying the Region 4 [Fresno] office of all requests for 'permits
to apply Azodrin. The first seven requests for permits, covering
16 separate fields, were field checked by Department personnel for
compliance with established criteria. Our personnel recommended
against the issuance of all seven permits. After that, permits were
issued by the Agricultural Commissioner without our prior recommenda-
tion. During the first four weeks of this program, there were 520
requests received for permits to apply Azodrin in Fresno County. Of
these, 474 were issued permits, 30 were refused, and 16 were requested
to alter operations before a permit could be issued."107
Although other San Joaquin Valley counties did not experience as heavy
Azodrin use in 1969 as did Fresno County, and anticipated close coordination and
consultation, often on a field-by-field basis, appears not to have occurred
235
-------
anywhere. Wherever Azodrin use was low that year, as in Tulare County, the
reason seems to be that personnel within the agricultural commissioner's
office simply decided to permit Azodrin only in extraordinary circumstances.
Control was tightest in the special bird-protection areas, mostly on the east
side of the valley, where the hazard to wildlife was supposedly greatest
because of the dominance of small and diversified acreage. Remarkably, the
west side seems better known for pheasant hunting, and it also has enormous
cotton acreages, with a concomitant enormous potential for Azodrin sales.
In any event, the emphasis in the criteria favored east-side protection and
seems to have left Azodrin sales on the west side comparatively unaffected
throughout the 1969 season.
Whatever the reason, by 1970 it was clear that the Azodrin problem would
not be solved by local consultation between agricultural and wildlife management
personnel in applying the agreed criteria. Whether no cotton field would qualify
for Azodrin if the criteria were strictly applied, whether local officials simply
cound not agree on what constitutes a "weedy" cotton field, whether there was
bias or intransigence on one side or the other, some other solution had to be
found. It was found at the state level, in modification of the registration
for Azodrin: a prohibition of its use on cotton under any circumstances after
July 15 each year.1^ Controversy has been minimal since this change, which
came five years after the initial warnings about Azodrin and after its use had
already peaked and begun a sharp decline for reasons largely unrelated to
wildlife.protection. This problem is thus, in a sense, resolved.
This sketch of. regulatory responses to the Azodrin-wildlife problem is
provided in some detail primarily as a major instance in which the regulatory
efforts of a resource-oriented agency have collided with the reality that the
significant powers in pesticide control are vested by state law in a production-
236
-------
oriented agency. The events in the valley seem to mirror patterns in pesticide
regulation at the national level: allegations of environmental harm; responsi-
bility given to the manufacturer for investigating the allegations; continued
unchecked use for several years while research continues; a frequent inability
of agricult-ural-production-oriented and resource-protection-oriented officials
to function together; and, finally in this case, effective regulation only
after the problem had largely disappeared for other reasons.
2) Ground disposal of used pesticide containers; The disposal of used
agricultural pesticide containers is a second problem area that has tested
the capacity to work together effectively of agricultural regulatory officials
and regulatory officials with public-health or resource-protection responsi-
bilities. Although certain methods of disposal, such as incineration,
may create problems in air quality, attention here is centered on the potential
for degradation of water quality associated with ground disposal of emptied
pesticide containers. As noted above, regional water quality control boards
in California have the authority to classify ground-disposal sites (such as
dumps) to protect water quality, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board, after consultation with the State Department of Public Health,
resovled in 1969 that used pesticide containers are to be disposed of only
at Class I dump sites (so situated that no liquid drainage can reach ground
waters later). Further, waste-discharge requirements have been set prohibiting
many dump sites throughout the valley from accepting such containers without
special authorization.
Although approved and publicly-controlled Class I dump sit;es are readily
available in many parts of California, at the end of 1970 there was not one
within the entire San Joaquin Valley. Consequently, by early 1971 a massive
backlog of emptied pesticide containers had built up in several of the San
Joaquin Valley counties. Early in 1971 state and industry personnel determined
237
-------
that a "one-time" special "clean-up" program of, used pesticide containers
should be undertaken.109 As with the Azodrin-wildlife "cooperative" project
of earlier years, the operation and consequences of this project illustrate
the potential for effective cooperation between industry, local regulatory
officials, and state regulatory officials in solving pesticide-created problems
that have environmental aspects. In this case, of course, the situation is
further complicated by the fact that emptied pesticide containers can be a
hazard to public health and safety as well as to soil and water quality.
The clean-up program was stimulated by complaints from agricultural
commissioners about the growing backlog of used containers being stored,
properly or improperly, on ranches and applicators' lots throughout the
state. Operation of the program itself was planned largely by an interagency
committee of state and industry personnel. The plan adopted was that, for
one time only, accumulated containers could be disposed of at selected Class
II sites, but only after being rinsed out to reduce the amount of concentrated
pesticide in them. Rinsing facilities were to be. provided by local pesticide
dealers and pest-control operators, who would work under the general supervi-
sion of the county agricultural cpmmissioners. This plan was approved by
representatives of the Department of Public Health, the Department of Water
Resources, and the,State Water Resources Control Board, as well as the
Director of Agriculture's Pesticide Advisory Committee. Implementation was
scheduled for early March 1971, so that the program could be completed before
the year's heavy spraying season began.
Thousands of used containers were in fact collected, rinsed, and disposed
of at various dump sites throughout the state. Participating counties reported
that some 28,000 containers had been handled, with no accidents or injuries
reported. A press release issued by the Department of Agriculture at the end
238
-------
of March, said that the program was "a great step forward," which "showed
agriculture's concern about environmental problems, and its willingness to
clean its own house ... Cleaning and disposal of empty pesticide containers
is an immediate and short-range solution to a serious problem, [although
the] long-range solution has not yet been found."HO One finds progressively
less enthusiasm, however, as one goes down the line from the top of the
state hierarchy, through intermediate-level state personnel who coordinated
the program, to local personnel who implemented it in the San Joaquin Valley
counties. The state coordinator of the program publicly stated several months
later that the program was "a success,"HI but as much in terms of gaining
knowledge of and attention for critical problem spots as in terms of actual
disposal of used containers or the development of procedures that could be
followed again in the future. Many of the agricultural commissioners them-
selves, in contrast, were sharply critical. Certain counties with serious
container-disposal problems refused to participate at all in the program.
The counties in the valley that did participate found that industry cooperation
was minimal in many cases, although industry support had been promised "at
the top" by the Executive Director for the Western Agricultural Chemicals Associa-
tion. Sites for collection and washing were not freely provided by many in the
industry, approval of procedures for disposal of the waste water from the
rinsing operations was in some cases difficult to obtain, and the commissioners,
with no special funds made available, found themselves charged with supervi-
sorial and transport responsibilities. The general views of agricultural
officials interviewed in the San Joaquin Valley can be summarized by a few
comments made by agricultural commissioners in response to a questionnaire of
the Department of Agriculture:H2
a) "Statewide news releases were premature. Agency and association
heads made certain comments without first determining whether
local representatives were in agreement."
239
-------
u) "before offering the help of the commissioner, the Director
should thoroughly discuss the program with..them. Extremely
poor communication between industry and industry representa-
tives."
c) "There is general lack of interest..."
All concerned with the problem of used pesticide containers in California
recognize that no long-term solution has been found, although opinions differ
as to the seriousness of the problem. As pest-control operators point out,
they apply millions of pounds of pesticides directly to the soil each year,
generally without restriction as to proximity to the water table, yet, in
the interests of water quality, they face severe restrictions in disposal
of emptied containers holding only a tiny fraction of the total amount of
chemical used. On the other hand, water-quality regulatory officials empha-
size that the materials often reach dumps in concentrated rather than diluted
form; that present data showing that pesticides travel slowly in the soil
and that residue levels are low in groundwater supplies do not assure against
a future "breakthrough" of accumulated residues to groundwater supplies; and
that any such breakthrough and the resultant pollution would quite possibly
be irremediable. Study is under way of four alternative management systems
for used containers, suggested by the Chief of the Bureau of Vector Control
1 1 Q
and Solid Waste Management in the Department of Public Health:
a) Disposal of all containers in Class I sites: this principle
is the present policy, at least in regions where adopted by
the regional water quality control board. New Class I sites
would have to be developed on a regional basis.
b) Disposal of rinsed containers in Class II sites: this would
require that approved procedures be developed to be sure the
containers are in fact decontaminated before ground disposal.
240
-------
c) Disposal of, unrinsed containers in Class II sites: this would
reverse current policy simply because of the implementation
difficulties encountered. As stated by the Department of
Public Health official mentioned above, many "individuals
familiar with the problem of disposing [sic] pesticide con-
tainers believe that current requirements are too restricitve.
It has been indicated that recognition has not been given to
the possible capability of the soil to sequester these materials
through chemical, biological or physical reactions, and there-
fore, if true, Class I disposal site conditions may not be
necessary." Variations might be appropriate, depending upon
geological conditions, rainfall patterns, and similar factors
at particular Class II sites.
d) Reuse of containers: this solution, involving some kind of
"recycling," is favored (with recycling by return of the con-
tainers to the seller) by three-quarters of the agricultural
commissioners who participated in the March 1971 clean-up.
Because most pesticide containers are damaged in one way or
another in use, they would have to be reconditioned to meet
state and federal standards. Commercial reconditioning in
California has been very limited so far, and done only on the
larger containers (30 or 55 gallons). Many local officials
appear to support the stated position of the former Executive
Director of the Central Valley Regional Water Control Board that
"the responsibility for disposing of these used containers should
be placed on the architects of the problem, i.e. the companies
who produce pesticides and who exercise control over the selec-
241
-------
tion of their product's shipping envelope. The responsibility
is properly theirs because the real cost of using a particular
CGuuainer is the sum of the costs of production and of disposal,
and optimization of these costs requires that the cardinal
decisions be made by one party."
California's experience in the March 1971 "one-time" pesticide container
clean-up, the legal and administrative measures creating the backlog that
required the clean-up, and present efforts to resolve the existing problem
(with its various environmental, public-health, and economic ramifications)
can be summarized as follows. The extensive prior consultation and planning
proved to be too little for the multitude of interests and entities involved.
Policy, made "at the top," was perhaps admirably and properly far-sighted
in seeking maximum protection of the public interest by limiting all pesticide
containers to the safest of disposal sites, but it failed to take adequate
account of the practical difficulties of implementation. Those at the county
level with implementation responsibilities, both for regulation of dump sites
and pesticide use generally and for the one-shot clean-up program, viewed
the program largely as one thrust upon them from the top. They were given
the field administrative responsibility without extra resources to carry out
this responsibility. The work load, further, was quite possibly unnecessarily
high since all pesticide containers were treated alike, regardless of the
hazard of the particular chemical. Then, despite the many field problems
encountered, the program was described from Sacramento as highly successful
and showing the excellent cooperation of all in agriculture. Greater attention
is no*' '"P.ing given within the state both to problems of pesticidal soil pollu-
tion in relation to water quality and to recycling alternatives to land
disposal of used pesticide containers.
242
-------
III. Protecting the Environment from Agricultural Pesticides
This section makes some broad suggestions for reform of the present
regulatory system. These should be considered as supplementation to, and in
some cases elaboration of, the more specific changes suggested in the preceding
section of this chapter. These broader suggestions are offered tentatively,
since further study and discussion is needed. Four areas will be considered:
inclusion in the "non-label" parts of the regulatory system of grower use of
non-injurious" materials; reforms in the sanctioning system in use for
professionals in the pest-control business; possible reorganization of state
and local government responsibilities for environmental protection; and basic
restructuring of the manner in which pest-control advice is made available
to and used by growers.
A) Grower Use of "Non-injurious" Materials
California has developed three focal points for control of the field
use of agricultural pesticides: the registered label; the list of "injurious
materials" and "injurious herbicides;" and the licenses required of professionals
in the pest-control business. Label restrictions have long been a feature of
both federal and state pesticide law, and cannot be entirely disregarded as
a means for affecting the way in which pesticides are used. There is good
reason to believe, however, that, standing alone_, label restrictions bring much
less control than the architects of the labeling system may have assumed, at
least when label restrictions are intended to reduce a social cost and not
merely the economic cost to the user of the material. In California, label
restrictions seem to have become a reality some decades ago for professional
pesticide applicators, for, once their business was brought under direct regu-
lation by the state, violations of label restrictions raised at least the
243
-------
possibility of a sanction of some kind against their licenses. Now, however,
these restrictions are acquiring increased importance to those in certain other
phases of the pest-control business. This development has been brought about
by the recent state requirements that recommenders of pesticides—the "pest
control agents"—register in the counties in which they give advice, together
with the fact that, like pest-control operators (applicators) and pesticide
dealers, they will soon be required to have a state license.
Thus, occupational control over "professionals" has been one way of
bringing home label restrictions to those working with pesticides in the field.
The other major way in which this goal has been accomplished, and further use
restrictions established and enforced, has been through the lists of injurious
materials and injurious herbicides, with concomitant permit control in most
cases. Nevertheless, these two historical patterns of regulatory activity
have left an obvious and serious hole in the structure: neither touches the
grower who uses "non-injurious" materials on his own property. He is subject
only to the use restrictions on the label, and, as suggested, these are of
very doubtful protection against social costs such as long-term environmental
damage from misuse or overuse of pesticides. There is thus a pressing need,
by one means or another, to subject growers to regulation comparable to that
now exercised over professionals in the case of all materials and over all
users in the case of injurious materials and injurious herbicides. This becomes
particularly important when it is recalled that the two "injurious" lists have
in fact grown on a very haphazard basis, that many so-called "non-injurious"
materials are of a toxicity comparable to that of materials on one of the
injurious lists, and that toxicity, whether acute or chronic, is not necessarily
the only reasonable criterion for subjecting a pesticide to special use restric-
tions. Serious consideration should be given to determining whether grower use
244
-------
of non-injurious materials can best be controlled by putting all pesticides
under some sort of permit system, by placing growers under licensing require-
ments similar or identical to those now imposed on the professionals, or by
some other system.
B) Sanctioning Violations by Pest-Control Professionals.
We have described how "notices of warning" lead very infrequently to any
kind of real administrative or judicial sanction against pest-control profes-
sionals, together with the apparent explanation: the attitude of "compliance
is our goal—let's work with the industry." This pattern is not unfamiliar
among administrative agencies with regulatory responsibilities, and there
is no intent here to derogate the value of "education" of those subject to
the often complex and detailed requirements of the law. Education is not
enforcement, and administrative discretion in carrying out enforcement activity
does not justify a lack of enforcement activity. Thus, it appears that a major
change may be in order in sanctioning patterns for violations.
One possibility for change is simply more vigorous use of the sanctions
already available: suspensions or revocations of county registrations, sus-
pensions or revocations of state licenses, and prosecutions for acts that
constitute misdemeanors or felonies. One inhibiting factor in the past seems
to have been the twin beliefs that: a) court proceedings through the district
attorney are appropriate in only the most serious cases, for this procedure
requires extensive work in building a case and district attorneys are too
busy with combating murder and rape to be asked to worry about various pesticide
offenses; and b) formal administrative proceedings that may lead to suspension
or revocation of a man's license are "too drastic" for most violations, which
local officials consider to be "minor." Thus, the "slap on the wrist" provided
245
-------
by the notice of warning is generally considered the appropriate response
when a violation is detected, although many officials state that individuals
who are chronic offenders—as shown by a file full of notices of warning—will
be subject to more serious action. In fact, it is difficult to find actual
instances where further administrative proceedings have been taken simply
because of an accumulation of warning notices over the years. In contrast,
formal proceedings typically involve a single incident regarded by local and/or
state officials as very serious (e.g., direct spraying of workers in a field
with an organophosphate). Thus, when agricultural commissioners and inspectors
throughout the San Joaquin Valley were interviewed, only one instance was
found where a series of notices of warning had led to formal administrative
proceedings (as opposed to the "office hearing," which amounts to calling an
individual in for a discussion of his violation of violations).
It may be that some intermediate sanction should be developed for
relatively minor violations that fall between the slap-on-the-wrist notice
of warning and the license or registration proceeding, with its threat of
loss of livelihood for weeks or months for an individual pest-control
professional and his employees. Many agricultural commissioners in the
San Joaquin Valley have reacted favorably to the idea of a system of "direct
citation" similar to that now in use for violators of traffic laws. Under
such a system, an agricultural inspector would have the authority simply
to "write a ticket" for an individual found to be in violation. This would
constitute a citation to appear in a local court and would obviate the neces-
sity of going through the district attorney. Questions that should be care-
fully studied are whether such authority is in fact now available to agri-
cultural commissioners and inspectors under California law, how best to
246
-------
acquire suck authority (jLf now lacking), and the most appropriate means for
exercise of such authority. Substantial strengthening and increased use of
present or new sanctions for violations of existing controls for agricultural
pesticide use offer considerable promise for much better control and, in-
directly, enhanced protection of the environment as well as of public and
occupational health and safety and the growers/consumers themselves.
C) Possible Reorganization of Responsibilities for Environmental Protection.
The rationale for formation of the Environmental Protection Agency was,
at least in part, the notion that no single agency should be charged with
the responsibility for both promoting the interests of a given industry and
regulating that same industry. A further thought was that all or most major
segments of the federal government engaged in environmental protection work
should be brought together in a single agency. Thus, activities in pesticide
regulation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture were transferred to the
Environmental Protection Agency. Organization on such a basis is "functional"
in terms of environmental protection but also involves "fragmentation" from
other functional viewpoints, e.g., the concept of dealing with agriculture in
a coordinated, comprehensive way through a single agency. Nonetheless, the
federal reorganization was apparently considered justified by the difficulties
created by promotion/regulation tensions, by existing splits in related
authority (as between USDA and the FDA), and by the high priority now given to
environmental protection.
Exactly these same kinds of problems exist at the state and local levels,
although the State Department of Public Health in California has less authority
over residues in food products than the Federal Food and Drug Administration
had prior to formation of the Environmental Protection Agency. It therefore
247
-------
follows that consideration ought to be given to state and local governmental
reorganization for environmental protection similar to the federal reorganiza-
tion. Such change has in fact been proposed at the sitate^ ami regional level,
although it is remarkable that one major recent effort along these lines
omitted direct pesticide use control from the elaborate list of functions
(establishment of environmental goals, conservation and development planning
and control, radiation control, air pollution control, coastal-zone protec-
tion, water-quality control, and solid-waste management) that were to be
transferred to a State Environmental Quality Board and eight regional environ-
mental quality boards. ^ Yet, unless the proposed regional entities are
established and well equipped with funds, the same kind of reorganization
may ultimately be necessary at the local level as well. Such reorganiza-
tion probably cannot take place immediately, and must be done very carefully.
What now exists is a reasonably active and well-trained field force of
agricultural inspectors who have responsibility for field enforcement
of controls on the use of agricultural pesticides. These inspectors are
subject to the same production/regulation tensions that were well-noted
publicly when federal pesticide-regulation responsibilities were transferred
from USDA to EPA. Indeed, these tensions are not unique to the pesticides
area, for agricultural commissioners and inspectors in several other areas
enforce laws and regulations "against" the agricultural interests they also
promote. Still, they are at least in the field and in active contact with
most segments of the agricultural world affected by pesticide use controls.
To shift these local regulatory responsibilities to a regional board without
providing that board with the same kind of field force could in fact decrease
the effectiveness of the regulatory system. It is notable, for example, that
enforcement of the Safety Orders for Agricultural Operations is now inadequate,
248
-------
and that the Division of Industrial Safety, charged with this enforcement
responsibility on a regional basis, has been very seriously understaffed
for many years. More encouraging are other examples of field enforcement
through regional offices, such as that carried on by the Department of Fish
and Game. But the danger of "going regional" without providing adequate
support must be emphasized, along with the crucial significance of maintaining
a large and active field force of inspectors. There is now a "field presence"
not only at the county level in California, but also at the level of districts
within each county. But agricultural district inspectors perform a variety
of functions aside from pesticide regulation; unlike the situation in the
federal government, there are no cadres of pesticide specialists scattered
through the local governments who can simply be brought together under one
roof for ready coordination of policy and gradual development of an integrated
approach to preservation and enhancement of environmental quality.
Much of the rationale for creation of the Environmental Protection Agency
within the federal government is sound also for local government as well as
state and regional government. Agricultural commissioners and inspctors,
closely tied to the needs of agricultural producers, often do have attitudes
toward pesticide use that differ fundamentally from attitudes of officials
engaged in resource protection. These differing attitudes are often disclosed
most clearly in terms of the perceived "burden of proof" when allegations are
made that a particular pesticide is causing or may cause certain environmental
damage, or in a different approach to making some rough kind of cost/benefit
analysis when some environmental damage occurs or is threatened. These ab-
stract considerations seem well-supported as to the San Joaquin Valley by
past developments in the Azodrin-wildlife problem and present developments in
ground disposal of used pesticide containers. In the absence of establishment
249
-------
of a new state agency for comprehensive environmental protection on a regional
and/or local basis, serious consideration should be given to the possibility
of achieving increased environmental protection through reorganization within
the present framework of city and county government. What must be stressed,
however, is the fact that implementation of such reorganization will be far
more difficult at the local level than at the federal level and that an
absolutely primary requirement is maintenance and strengthening of the
extensive regulatory field presence already developed in California agriculture.
D) Reform of Pest-Control Advice to Growers
The fourth and final broad suggestion for reform concerns the way in
which growers obtain pest-control advice. Such advice now comes from many
sources: neighbors; farm organizations; articles in various publications;
University of California "Pest Control Recommendations," published each
year for each agricultural county; University of California Agricultural
Extension farm advisors and pest-control specialists; a handful of consulting
entomologists; and salesmen for agricultural chemical companies. The last
source, the "fieldmen" associated in one way or another with a chemical company
is of the greatest importance. The company represented may be the manufacturer
or the basic chemicals, but it is more often a local company engaged in formu-
lation work. This local company will generally act as the primary distribution
point for the products of a particular major (national) chemical company,
although it can obtain all pesticides available in the market place. Many of
these local companies are "integrated" operations, engaged in formulation,
sales, and application work (increasingly, both ground and air application),
and thus are able to offer a "package" of services to their grower customers.
Such an integrated firm may need several kinds of state or local authorization,
250
-------
e.g., a pest-control operator's license with county registration(s), a
pesticide dealer's license, and county registration for each of its employees
who makes pest-control recommendations.
In previous and present reform of state control over the occupational
categories involved in pesticide usage, it has been assumed that what is
desirable is "more of the same." In other words, with a history of a license
requirement for the applicators, the appropriate regulation for dealers was
deemed to be a license requirement, and now the same process is being under-
taken for professional recommenders of pesticides. The fundamentally sound
premise of "pesticide-use-by-prescription-only" comprises three basic ideas:
1) that pesticides, or at least certain pesticides, should be applied only
with the approval of a "professional" recomraender; 2) that competence for
pest-control recommendation should be attested by a license; and 3) that
licensed professional recommenders should be independent in judging a particular
method of pest control, weighing ALL costs and benefits—individual and social,
short-term and long-term. Although the third idea is in many respects the
most important, recent reforms in the regulation of different phases of the
agricultural pest-control business in California!-^ are limited to the first
two of these three ideas.
In considering the critical importance of independence in pest-control
recommendations, one must keep in mind the dominance of salesmen of chemical
companies as a source pf pest-control advice. Most of the "pest control
agents" now registered in California are closely associated with a chemical
company, either as an employee or some kind of "commission agent." Agricul-
tural salesmen should be well-trained, highly experienced, and of integrity.
They must do their "field-checking" for their grower customers in a careful
fashion and may in particular instances advise against chemical control even
251
-------
where some pest problem exists. Such a salesman, must sometimes resist heavy
pressure from a customer who is anxious to spray regularly and heavily upon
sighting the first of a particular pest in the field. The classic high-pressure
hit-and-run encyclopedia salesman image thus does not generally apply to
chemical sales personnel in the San Joaquin Valley.
Nonetheless, very strong pressures operate on the pesticide sales force.
Pesticide use recommendations by agricultural chemical company salesmen are
not and cannot be independent, nor can the "prescription only" philosophy
ever be fully implemented while the recommendation and sales phases of pest-
control are not separated from one another. In earlier years many agricultural
chemical salesmen worked on a straight commission basis, and today many work
on a salary-plus-commission basis or are eligible for some kind of bonus
or similar financial reward when their sales exceed a fixed quota. Their
own initial training has come from the chemical company in many cases, and
any "refresher" course may be under the same auspices. Repeat business, of
course, depends on satisfying the grower, who is well aware of increased
direct costs through chemical control, yet neither the grower nor the salesmen
operate in a milieu which encourages sensitivity to environmental damage of
a long-term nature. Their time perspective is a short one, and their cost/
benefit analysis is entirely individual.
Thus, "prescription only" requires that professional (and presumably
technically competent) advice must come from an independent source. Judgment
in this area is as important as the technical competence required to pass a
licensing examination. Ultimately, the recommenders must be entirely separate
from the chemical companies engaged in the manufacture, formulation, and
sales of pesticides. This may require salesmen to establish themselves as
independent consultants on pest control, providing advice directly to the
252
-------
grower, with their fee probably related to the acreage supervised. A few
former salesmen now do such consulting work in California and their ranks
seem to be increasing slightly. If the sound premise of a "prescription
only" approach is seriously accepted by those with policy-setting and law-
making responsibilities in the state, they must go beyond licensing, which
at best only ensures a certain level of technical competence. They must
tackle the more difficult problem of independence, which involves a fundamental
restructuring in the manner in which growers obtain pest-control advice.
E) Pesticide-Use Law Reform and Environmental Protection
Of the four broad suggestions presented in this section for reform
in California pesticide law, only the third is put directly in terms of
environmental protection and enhancement. Even that suggested reform is
not directed specifically at protection of the aquatic resources of the
San Joaquin Valley. This section therefore ends by making clear the assump-
tions underlying the approach taken. These are twofold.
First, it is assumed that the many "discoveries" of environmental pollu-
tion in recent years point to the conclusion that the precise nature—and
sometimes even the general nature and magnitude—of various kinds of chemical
pollution of the environment cannot be foreseen and may not even be suspected
for a long period, even by those who are most critical of the widespread
release of different chemicals into the environment. This is of particular
importance with toxic chemicals such as pesticides, used in the first place
because of their power to kill living organisms. Where a particular hazardous
consequence from pesticide use can at a given moment in time be perceived and
documented, present machinery allows knowledge of this consequence to enter
into the judgment-making process and to influence determinations as to continued
253
-------
use of the material. At the same time this process often appears unduly
slow, cumbersome, and weighted in favor of continued use of the material.
Some of the specific reforms suggested above should bring substantial change
in situations where hazardous consequences are perceived and documented.
In so many cases, however, the pattern has been one of "use first, full
knowledge of consequences later." Since this characteristic is probably
inherent in the situation no matter how much research is done prior to use,
there is a strong case for the position that from an environmental point
of view the less pesticide used in agriculture the better. Without minimizing
either the present importance of pesticides to those engaged in agriculture
or the necessity to consider carefully the potential impact of reduced
pesticide usage on matters of general interest such as food prices, there
is a strong case for seeking a generally reduced level of agricultural
pesticides—whether "hard" (persistent) or "soft" (nonpersistent), whether
highly toxic to man or relatively nontoxic to man—in order to reduce the
risk of serious unforeseen long-term damage to the environment.
In seeking this reduction, environmentalists should have two strong
allies. First, within the field of entomology itself or, more precisely,
"economic" entomology, there is growing interest in the concept of "pest
management" as opposed to "pest control." The concept of pest management
stresses the use of particular methods of pest control in a system aimed
at keeping pest damage below an established level of economic damage. The
emphasis is on detailed knowledge of the agri-ecological situation in a
particular field and on decision-making on particular pest-control methods
(whether chemical, cultural, biological, or other) in a broad context of crop
management. The particular "kill" potential of a given chemical material
receives relatively less emphasis than in traditional "pest control," and
254
-------
i? considered to be only one of many mortality factors of possible influence
on pest infestation in a field.
A second ally for the reforming environmentalists may be found in those
responsible for the protection of public health and safety. For many decades,
the public-health aspect of pesticide use control centered on the consumer
of food products that receive pesticides at some stage. There are at present,
of course, numerous groups who oppose the use of any pesticide on any food
product at any stage, and there is also considerable controversy over both
the adequacy of particular federal or state pesticide residue tolerances
and the extent to which violations of these tolerances are detected and
enforcement vigorously pursued. In California, the public-health emphasis
has now shifted to concern over occupational health, particularly of those
frequently exposed to pesticides in the field, e.g., pilots, flagmenf
ground-rig operators, and field workers. At times a switch in chemical
materials may appear environmentally advantageous but occupationally disad-
vantageous. An example is the general trend to substitute organic phosphates
(often more acutely toxic to those exposed occupationally, but thought to
be less persistent and therefore less hazardous environmentally) for chlorinated
hydrocarbons (more hazardous environmentally in that biological magnification
causes an impact further up the food chain, but generally less acutely toxic
to those in immediate contact with the materials). If, however, the overall
quantities of toxic chemicals used in agriculture can be reduced, both those
exposed occupationally and the physical and biological environment stand to
gain.
A second assumption underlying the broad reform suggestions of this
section concerns the relation between regulatory controls of "input" (appli-
cation) and of "output" (waste). One reading of the present situation in the
255
-------
San Joaquin Valley, at least regarding protection of the aquatic environment,
might be that control of agricultural wastes should receive the prime
emphasis: 1) the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board should give
higher priority to "non-point source" agricultural pollution;116 2) estab-
lishment of waste discharge requirements for individual growers or for
irrigation and other special districts should proceed; and 3) these require-
ments should be vigorously enforced. Each of these developments is probably
desirable, and there are some indications that the policy direction to be
supplied by the State Water Resources Control Board will be toward total
elimination of surface runoff from California farms. Farmers would thus
be required to use water-application systems compatible with elimination of
surface runoff of irrigation waters, or ponding systems would be needed
on farms, or other measures would be required.
These would be important steps in waste control, but it would be unfor-
tunate if they were the sole response by water-quality officials to problems
of environmental degradation created by pesticides in agriculture. The
process will be slow, water-quality officials will have significant diffi-
culties in establishing standards, and the approach will remain piecemeal.
The work will presumably be coordinated with officials who have studied the
effects of agricultural pesticide.; on wildlife, but the waste-control steps
that seem most likely may not deal extensively with subsurface drainage
and soil pollution through pesticide concentration. Consequently, progress
in rationalizing and improving the system for controlling inputs is assumed
here to be even more important than progress in direct regulation of agricul-
tural wastes with some pesticide content. This second assumption explains
the emphasis given above to restructuring the manner in which growers receive
advice on pesticide use, to the development of closer regulation of grower
256
-------
use of noninjurious materials, and to the need for more rigorous sanctioning
of violators of pest-control regulations. Even the suggestion for possible
governmental reorganization is keyed in part to "input" control, for that
would place different hands on the control levers at the top. Unlike many
areas of environmental pollution, the field of pesticide pollution has an
apparatus for control of the inputs that make the wastes that create pollution.
Failure to recognize and use this existing apparatus would be a serious mistake
in future environmental reform efforts.
IV. Important Litigation Concerning Pesticides
in the San Joaquin Valley
By no standard can "important" litigation be considered to include the
typical crop-damage claim, settled through an insurance adjuster or otherwise,
or sometimes decided by trial. Such claims in the San Joaquin Valley over
the past several decades probably number in the hundreds, and they have been
disposed of within the framework of ordinary private law principles dealing
with negligence, trespass, and strict liability. The manner in which these
principles have been applied on occasion raises some important questions,
some treated in the legal literature,117 but there have apparently been no
pioneering pesticide-crop damage decisions in the San Joaquin Valley.
Brief mention should be made, however, of pesticide or pesticide-related
litigation of three sorts. First, there has been litigation during the past
several years over the question whether the work reports filed with agricul-
tural commissioners by pest-control operators are available to members of
the public under California's Public Records Act. Upon the advice of the
State Department of Agriculture, most agricultural commissioners have treated
these records as closed to the public except in very limited circumstances,
257
-------
e.g., where information from the records has been required by a physician
in order to treat a specific case of pesticide poisoning. The confidential
status of these records has been justified primarily on the ground that they
contain trade secrets. Several years ago, persons associated with the
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee sought general access to these
applicators' "spray reports" in the office of the agricultural commissioner
for Kern County, one of the eight San Joaquin Valley counties. This access
was initially denied, and several local firms engaged in pesticide application
work went to court to enjoin the agricultural commissioner from disclosing
the contents of the applicators' work reports in his custody. The court
issued the injunction on the theory such reports are excepted from the Public
Records Act by its own terms. Since that injunction was issued, the same
question has been litigated in Riverside County, which lies outside the San
Joaquin Valley. A comparable decision by the trial court was rendered
and appealed, the State of California intervened on appeal on behalf of
those seeking public access to the spray reports, and the Court of Appeal
for the Fourth District, in Uribe v. Howie, held that reports of pest-control
operator's application work are not exempt from public disclosure under the
Public Records Act.-*-1^ The Supreme Court of California denied review of
this decision, which is presently regarded by the Department of Agriculture
as a final disposition of the point. Although this question itself does not
affect pesticide use patterns directly, it may in some instances affect the
ease with which litigation may be brought regarding environmental damage.
A second area for brief note is litigation over farmworker health and
safety with regard to pesticides. California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA),
an OEO-funded law firm that practices "poverty law" in rural parts of California,
has been engaged in some very broad pesticide legal activity. In March 1970
an administrative complaint covering a series of pesticide matters was filed
258
-------
with, the Director of Agriculture.This complaint led to a conference
between the director and an attorney with CRLA. Certain administrative
actions since taken—in particular the setting of worker re-entry times
for a number of crops—may have resulted partially from this complaint.
Apparently no court action has ensued directly from this complaint, although
CRLA has unsuccessfully sought in court to ban the use of organic phosphates,
as well as to require the Farm Labor Service to consider pesticide hazards in
providing farm labor to growers. This litigation by CKLA has been state-wide
in character, not tied to any problems specific to the San Joaquin Valley.
Finally, the third kind of pesticide litigation to be mentioned here is
what is apparently the first "environmental" lawsuit over pesticide use in
San Joaquin Valley legal history. This suit was brought by Friends of the
Earth and Defenders of Wildlife, who seek to prevent the Fresno County Depart-
ment of Agriculture from use of the Compound 1080 in rodent control.121 in
September 1971 a temporary restraining order was obtained against use of
Compound 1080 by the county, but at a subsequent hearing a preliminary injunc-
tion was denied and the county thereafter completed its program of aerial
dissemination of the material. An amended complaint by the plaintiffs,
filed in November 1971, seeks permanently to enjoin use of Compound 1080 by
the county.
259
-------
Notes, Chapter 8_
1. Fielder, statement to the U.S. House of Representatives Select Subcommittee
on Labor (San Francisco, November 21, 1969), as quoted in California Department
of Public Health Community Studies in Pesticides, Report for 1969 at 123.
2. Sections 12811-12828, Agricultural Code Annotated of the State of California,
adopted March 15, 1967, effective November 8, 1967, with 1971 Pocket Supplement
covering legislation through the regular session of 1970 (Deering 1967, 1970)
(hereinafter cited as "Cal. Ag. C."). Section 12811 excepts from the license
requirement sellers of raw materials to a manufacturer and sellers of any
economic poison already registered by the manufacturer or wholesaler. On the
requirement of a license for manufacture as well as for sale, compare Cal.
Ag. C. §12811 with Cal. Ag. C. §12815. See also Cohen, "Department of Agri-
culture," in Nestle (ed.), California Administrative Agency Practice (California
Continuing Education of the Bar, California Practice Book No. 49, 1970), p. 292:
"No economic poison may be manufactured or sold in California unless a license
for sale of the product has been granted..." [Emphasis added.]
3. See generally on federal registration Rohrman, "The Law of Pesticides:
Present and Future," 17 Journal of Public Law 351, 356-360 (1960); the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 United States Code §§135-
135k; and Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970, §2(8)(i), which transfers juris-
diction for the administration of the FIFRA from the U.S. Department of Agri-
culture to the Environmental Protection Agency.
4. Cal. Ag. C. §§12501-12671.
5. Cohen, supra note 2 at 295 (California pesticide tolerances "closely follow"
federal tolerances). The California tolerances are established by regulations
of the Director of Agriculture, Cal. Ag. C. §12561, and are published at Title
3, §2490 of State of California, California Administrative Code (hereinafter
cited as "Cal. Admin. C.").
6. Legislature of the State of California, "interim Hearings of the Assembly
Committee on Agriculture on Pesticide and Worker Safety Laws," transcript of
hearings November 23, 1970, December 9, 1970, and December 10, 1970, at 59 of
November 23 hearings. A recent unpublished study estimates that about half
the pesticide products registered in California are not in interstate commerce
and thus are now exempt from the FIFRA's requirement of federal registration.
McGowen, "California State Department of Agriculture—Pesticide Registration"
(November, 1971), p. 6. An estimated 65% of new product registrations, however,
are of products not intended for shipment in interstate commerce. Ibid.
7. Cohen, supra note 2 at 290, estimated 800 chemicals at a time when there
were over 14,000 product registrations.
8. This percentage is based on information informally obtained from the Depart-
ment of Agriculture. One computer analysis showed approximately 38% of 1970
registrations to be of products approved for agricultural use.
9. Cal. Ag. C. §12812, as amended in 1970, imposes the $40 fee. Previously
this section provided for an annual fee of $100 per licensee. This fee covered
260
-------
ten products, with an additional fee of $10 per product. Cal Ag. C. §12813
provides for considerably lower fees for those who manufacture economic poisons
which do not exceed a total retail value of $2,000 per year. In November 1970
an official of the Department of Agriculture estimated the higher fees would
lead to a decline to about 10,000 product registrations. Legislature of the
State of California, supra note 6 at 61 of November 23 hearings. Information
informally obtained from the department indicates there are now estimated to
be between 10,000 and 11,000 product registrations in force.
10. Cal. Ag. C. §§12871-12872.
11. Cal. Ag. C. §12976 (formerly §12972) imposes these restrictions on the
use of any pesticide by "any person in pest control operations."
12. Cal. Ag. C. §§12976 and 12971.
13. Cal. Ag. C. §12824.
14. Cal. Ag. C. §12825.
15. Cal. Ag. C. §12826.
16. Cal. Ag. C. §§14061-14063 (Compound 1080) and Cal. Ag. C. §§14091-14098
(thallium).
17. Cal. Ag. C. §14005.
18. 3 Cal. Admin. C. §2461. Twelve kinds of seeds treated with any of the
listed mercury compounds are also listed as injurious materials, 3 Cal. Admin.
C. §2461(f), as are conifer seeds treated with endrin. 3 Cal. Admin. C. §2461
(g). Chemical compounds used to treat seeds for a wide variety of purposes
are "pesticides" or "economic poisons" under California law. (The term
"economic poison" is defined at Cal. Ag. C, §12753, and this term and "pesticide"
are used interchangeably. Cohen, supra note 2 at 290. See also Cal. Ag. C.
§11404.) Although technically the seeds, once treated with a pesticide, are
not themselves considered to be a pesticide, they are considered to be a
"material" subject to regulation under Cal. Ag. C. §14005.
19. 3 Cal. Admin. C. §2461.1.
20. 3 Cal. Admin. C. §2462.
21. Ibid.
22. 3 Cal. Admin. C. §§2463-2463.4. Cal. Ag. C. §14006 specifically provides
for the regulation of use of injurious materials by permit.
23. Cal. Ag. C. §14007.
24. 3 Cal. Admin. C. §2463(b).
25. 3 Cal. Admin. C. §2448.
26. 3 Cal. Admin. C. §2450.
261
-------
27. 3 Cal. Admin. C. §2451.
28. 3 Cal. Admin. C. §2451(.d). The various "hazardous areas" are described
at 3 Cal. Admin. C. §2449.
29. Cal. Ag. C. §14102. This prohibition or regulation is to be "pursuant
to" the existing statutes on economic poisons and injurious materials.
30. Cal. Ag. C. §14101.
31. California Department of Agriculture, report (untitled, undated and un-
signed typewritten report of six pages submitted to the California Legislature
pursuant to the requirement of Cal. Ag. C. §14104 that the Director of Agri-
culture submit an annual report to the legislature on "the use of environmen-
tally harmful materials, the control of these materials, programs leading to
their elimination or the elimination of the injury caused, and his progress
in improving the condition of the environment in relation to the use of such
materials"). This report provides "a listing of the significant actions
undertaken during the 1970 year." Id. at 1.
32. See Cal. Ag. C. §§11701, 11402 and 11403.
33. Cal. Ag. C. §11701.
34. Cal. Ag. C. §11704.
35. Cal. Ag. C. §11738 and 3 Cal. Admin. C. §3077. The regulations and
licenses issued under them distinguish, by type of pest, among eight types of
pest control. They also distinguish between air and ground application and
among use of spray, dust, and fumigation. For the year 1971 over 1,300
Agricultural Pest Control Operator licenses have been issued.
36. Cal. Ag. C. §11709. For the year 1971 over 100 persons have obtained
such a permit.
37. Cal. Ag. C. §11901.
38. Cal. Ag. C. §11738(c).
39. Cal. Ag. C. §11735(a).
40. Cal. Ag. C. §11737.
41. 3 Cal. Admin. C. §§3090-3098.
42. See Cal. Admin. C. §2465, which became effective in February 1970, for the
requirement that the holder of an injurious materials permit file a use report
"by the tenth of the month following the application," unless the material is
applied by a licensed agricultural pest control operator and included in the
operator's report. The record-keeping and reporting required of the licensed
operators—for all pesticides used—are described at Cal Ag. C. §.11733 and
3 Cal. Admin. C. §3090(g).
43. Cal. Ag. C. §12101. "Pesticide dealer" is defined at Cal. Ag. C. §11407.
262
-------
44. Cal. Ag. C. 112106. For the year 1971 over 1,000 Agricultural Pesticide
Dealer licenses have been issued, of which an estimated 300 are for branch
offices of a given firm.
45. Cal. Ag. C. §12001.
46. Cal. Ag. C. §11406.
47. Cal. Ag. C. §11408.
48. Senate Bill 1021, enrolled by the Legislature October 20, 1971, and
approved by the Governor October 29, 1971 (Chapter 1276). The sections of
this act which repeal the present requirements for the registration of agri-
cultural pest control agents and provide for state licensing and county
registration of agricultural pest control advisers become effective on July
1, 1972. Id. at §22. However, these sections authorize the issuance through
January 1, 1974, of'a "provisional license" to an applicant for an agricultural
pest control adviser license. Regulations are to establish "equivalent
experience qualifications in lieu of education and examination for a provisional
license as a pest control adviser up to January 1, 1974..." Id. at §5. During
this interim period, practitioners will have the opportunity ~to attend work-
shops on pesticide use to be developed by the University of California in
conjunction with the Department of Agriculture. The Sacramento Bee, "California
Life" section, p. 15 (December 4, 1971). Applicants will be examined in one
or more of seven categories of pest control. "Within each category, the exam
will probe understanding of state and federal pesticide laws; pesticide problems;
pest problems; host community problems; recognition of population dynamics; when to
treat; build up of secondary pest problems; ability to choose alternate means of
control; wildlife contamination; air and water pollution; proper timing of pest
control methods...proper equipment, farm worker safety...and questions about
many other areas which are yet undetermined." Ibid.
Other sections of Senate Bill 1021 substitute the term "restricted material"
for the term "injurious material," provide a nonexhaustive list of six criteria
to be used in the establishment of the restricted materials list, expand the list
of specific matters with which restricted materials regulations may deal, and
provide for permit control of all pesticides other than those on an "exempt"
list to be designated by the Director of Agriculture. Id. at §§6-20. The
provision in this bill that exempt materials "may be used without a permit pro-
vided that such use shall conform with the registered label or printed
instructions," id. at §16, appears to pre-empt the area with regard to such
materials, so that in the future counties will be barred from adopting for
them permit or related control.
49. In addition, provisions for financial responsibility aim to assure the
satisfaction of judgments against aircraft pest control operators. Cal. Ag. C.
§§11931-11940.
50. Derived from California Department of Agriculture "Reports by California
Counties (July 1, 1969 through June 30, 1970) [on the] Agricultural Pest
Control Business (Inspection Program, Legal Action) [and on] Injurious
Materials/Herbicides" (December 31, 1970).
51. 8 Cal. Admin. C. §§3298-3298.18.
52. 8 Cal. Admin. C. §§3298.15 and 3298.14.
263
-------
53. The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, enacted in 1969 and opera-
tive January 1, 1970, constitutes Division 7 of the California Water Code
(§13000 et seq.).
54. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region,
Interim Water Quality Control Plan (June 1971, two volumes).
55. Id. at vol. 1, VI-3. Volume one deals with the Sacramento River Subbasin
and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Subbasin.
56. Ld. at vol. 1, VI-4.
57. These hearings, held jointly with the chairmen of the nine regional water
quality control boards}took place in Los Angeles on February 18 and 19, 1971.
Statements submitted to the hearings are available from the State Water Resources
Control Board.
58. This committee has divided its work into four areas: dairy and feedlot
wastes, poultry wastes, salt balance problems, and pesticide and fertilizer
residues.
59. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region,
"Policy for the Control of Water Quality with respect to Solid Waste Disposal"
(Resolution No. 69-216, adopted March 14, 1969) at 1. The board's earlier
policy, which did not provide a systematic classification of solid waste
disposal sites with corresponding limitations on the materials to be deposited
therein, was established by "Policy for the Prevention and Control of Ground
Water Pollution with respect to the Disposal of Refuse to Land" (Resolution
No. 64-165, adopted September 18, 1964).
60. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region,
"Policy for the Control of Water Quality with respect to Solid Waste Disposal"
(Resolution No. 69-216, adopted March 14, 1969) at 1.
61. California Fish and Game Code §5650(f).
62. Id. at §5651. Civil proceedings before the regional board are supplemen-
tary to any criminal proceedings which may be brought under §5650 of the Fish
and Game Code. People v. Union Oil Co. (1969) 74 Cal. Rptr. 78, 268 C.A.2d 566.
63. California Health and Safety Code §39013. This section is found in
Division 26 of the code, a division known as the "Mulford-Carrell Air Resources
Act."
64. JEd. at §39051.
65. Id- at §39430.
66. Id. at §39442(c). This exception is to specific restrictions imposed on
discharges "from any single nonvehicular source of emission." The restrictions
are written in terms of darkness and opacity. Id. at §39441.
67. 42 U.S.C. §§4321-4347.
264
-------
68. California Public Resources Code, §§.21100 and 21.151.
69. Several of the interpretations included in the final three sections of
Chapter 8 were first suggested by one or another of the various county and
state officials interviewed in connection with the preparation of this chapter.
The information and advice provided by these officials was of very great assis-
tance in preparation of this chapter, but these officials are of course in no
respect responsible for any errors of fact or interpretation which may appear
herein.
70. California Department of Agriculture, supra note 31.
71. Id. at 4.
72. California Dept. of Agriculture, 1970. Pesticide use report, Jan.-June
1970. Sacramento, California.
California Dept. of Agriculture, 1970. Pesticide use report, 1970.
Sacramento, California.
California Dept. of Agriculture, 1971. Pesticide use report, Second quarter
1971. Sacramento, California.
73. California Department of Agriculture, supra note 31 at 4.
74. California Department of Agriculture, "Order Amending and Adopting Regula-
tions of the California Department of Agriculture Pertaining to Economic Poisons"
(adopted December 2, 1971; filed in the Office of the Secretary of State December
6, 1971; to take effect on the 30th day after filing with the Secretary of State).
The order provides that registration "for economic poisons containing mercury
compounds for seed treatment shall be cancelled effective January 1, 1972,"
but it also provides for three exceptions when registration may by granted.
These are for use to treat "breeders seed to insure adequate supplies of
planting seed that will be free of those diseases that are controllable only
by mercury compounds...seed to comply with requirements of other states and
foreign countries specifying mercury seed treatment as a condition of entry...
[or] seed for planting in specific areas of the state when the Director deter-
mines that an emergency disease condition exists in those areas." Id. at 1-2.
These registration cancellations do not directly affect seeds already treated
with mercury, see supra note 18, the planting of which is permitted through the
spring 1972 season "in locations considered safe." Memorandum from Department
of Agriculture (Chief, Agricultural Chemicals and Feed) to county agricultural
commissioners (November 10, 1971) at 1. "As pheasant hunting season approaches,
you are requested to closely supervise application of mercury treated seed in
order to avoid hazardous residue levels in game birds." Ibid.
75. California Department of Agriculture, supra note 31 at 4.
76. Ibid.
77. See Cal. Ag. C. §14103, which requires the Director of Agriculture to
consult with representatives of four other state agencies and with four "outside
experts of his selection from the fields of agricultural, biological, ecological,
and medical sciences" in "establishing criteria and regulations relating to
environmental injury and protection.1
265
-------
78. See generally McGowen, supra note 6.
79. Cal. Ag. C. §12824.
80. See generally U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Agriculture,
Hearings of February and March 1971 on the Federal Pesticide Control Act of
1971; U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Agricultural Research and General Legislation
of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, Hearings of March 1971 on the
Federal Environmental Pesticide Control Act; and the numerous bills presently
pending which would replace the FIFRA or alter it in one respect or another.
81. H.R. 4152, S. 745.
82. Letter dated April 1, 1971, from John C. Hillis to Dr. Terry Davies,
published in U.S. Senate hearings supra note 80 at 186-187.
83. Id_. at 186.
84. ld_. at 187.
85. Ibid.
86. Ibid.
87. Ibid.
88. McGowen, supra note 6 at 20-24.
89. California Department of Agriculture, supra note 50 at 2 (Agricultural
Pest Control Business, Legal Action).
90. Ibid.
91. Ibid.
92. Ibid. The county statistics for the same period on the control of injurious
materials/herbicides show 51 office hearings and zero prosecutions. California
Department of Agriculture, supra note 50 at 3.
93. California Department of Fish and Game Federal Aid Project FWIR (Pesticides
Investigations Project), "Azodrin Wildlife Investigations in California"
(1967) at 4.
94. Ibid.
95. Id. at 1.
96. Ibid.
97. See Shea, "Cotton and Chemicals," 10 Scientist and Citizen 209, 212 (1968).
98. Id. at 216.
99. California Department of Fish and Game, supra note 93 at 15.
266
-------
100. California Department of Fish and Game, supra note 93 at 13.
101. Department of Fish and Game (Manager, Region 4), Memorandum to All Wardens,
Captains, Unit Managers (April 9, 1968) at 4.
102. Ibid.
103. See, e.g., Memorandum from Department of Fish and Game Warden Cochran to
Captain Devers (October 8, 1968), which summarizes the author's opinions on
Azodrin usage in eastern Merced County in 1968. The conclusions were based on
contacts with two crop-dusting firms, several ranchers, and the Meri_ea oounty
agricultural commissioner's office.
104. Memorandum from Department of Fish and Game Chief of Operations to Regional
Manager, Region 4 (May 2, 1969) at 2.
105. Memorandum from Department of Fish and Game Deputy Director to Regional
Manager, Region 4 (July 24, 1969) at 1. The memorandum noted that Azodrin
was the first pesticide ever to be placed on the injurious materials list
"solely on the basis of its hazard to wildlife." Ibid..
106. Letter from Western District Manager, Shell Chemical Company, to all
Azodrin insecticide distributors and Central Valley pest-control operators
(August 1, 1969) at 1-2. An official statement of these criteria, in slightly
different form, was appended to a memorandum from Department of Fish and Game
Regional Manager, Region 4, to various unit managers and wardens (July 24, 1969).
107. Author not indicated, internal report in draft form entitled "Summary
Azodrin Program in Region 4—1969 Fresno County" (undated; located in Department
of Fish and Game Region 4 files).
108. The "Use and Directions for Applications" on cotton portion of the Azodrin
label now includes the following: "California—San Joaquin Valley only—AZODRIN
5 must not be applied later than 2 weeks after initiation of bloom and definitely
not after July 15 in order to avoid injury to.wildlife." See Azodrin label
in appendix to Shell Chemical Company, 1971 Shell Pesticide Directory.
109. Dietz, "Disposal of Used Pesticide Containers—Current Efforts to Correct
This Problem" (speech given at a meeting June 22, 1971, of the Pacific Branch,
Entomological Society of America) at 2. See also Western Agricultural Chemicals
Association, Newsletter No. 0083 (January 11, 1971).
110. California Department of Agriculture, press release (March 31, 1971) at
1-2.
111. Dietz, supra note 109 at 3.
112. California Department of Agriculture summary of comments made in response
to a questionnaire, "Used Pesticide Container Cleanup." This summary appeared
as an attachment to a memorandum dated March 29, 1971, from a departmental
inspection services official to the regional coordinator who coordinated this
program.
113. Memorandum from Chief, Bureau of Vector Control & Solid Waste Management,
Department of Public Health, to various local and state agencies (July 27, 1971)
at 3-6.
267
-------
114. California Legislature, 1971 Regular Session, Assembly Bill 1056 (intro-
duced March 18, 1971). This bill was passed by the California Assembly on
July 26, 1971, but "held" Cand thus effectively killed) in the California
Senate Committee on Governmental Organization.
115. See note 48 supra.
116. The basis for such activity was laid over five years ago when the Central
Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board co-sponsored a major symposium on
the subject, but little implementation followed. See Doneen (ed.), Agricultural
Waste Waters (Proceedings of a Symposium at Davis, California, April 6-8, 1966)
(Report no. 10, University of California Water Resources Center).
117. See van den Bosch, "Insecticides and the Law," 22 Hastings L.J. 615 (1971).
and see generally Annot., 37 A.L.R. 3d 833 (1971).
118. Atwood Aviation, Inc. v. Morley, No. 103595, Superior Court for Kern County.
The order granting a preliminary injunction was issued March 27, 1969. A
temporary restraining order had been issued August 22, 1968. Despite the decision
in Uribe v. Howie, infra note 119, an appeal filed in this case is being defended.
Oral argument is on the calendar of the Court of Appeal for the Third District
for December 20, 1971.
119. Uribe v. Howie (1971) 96 Cal. Rptr. 493.
120. California Rural Legal Assistance, Administrative Complaint to the Director,
State Department of Agriculture (March 3, 1970), filed on behalf of eight farm
workers. See also In re Arturo Gonzales et al., Petition for the Declaration of
Pesticide Emergency in the State of California and for the Establishment of
Pesticide Safety Program, a petition filed by California Rural Legal Assistance
with the Directors of the State Department of Agriculture and the State Department
of Public Health (March 5, 1970).
121. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v_. County of Fresno, No. 151035, Superior
Court for Fresno County.
268
------- |