Welcome to the Department of Pesticide Regulation

Final Enforcement Orders

Back to Administrative Enforcement Actions
To Structural Disciplinary Review Committee Decisions

  • Color Green Wholesale Nursery Docket No. 154 (PDF, 163, kb) County of Riverside, County file number 466-ACP-RIV-07/08.
    Color Green Wholesale Nursery appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s findings of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulation, sections 6702(b)(2) and 6760(a). The fine levied by the commissioner was $500.

    The Director’s decision became final on May 12, 2008.


  • Cavanagh Flying Service Docket No. 153 (PDF, 295 kb) County of Stanislaus, County file number 5-ACP-0607-021.
    Cavanagh Flying Service, a licensed aerial applicator, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Stanislaus County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Respondent violated FAC 12973 by applying a pesticide in conflict with the label instructions–"Do not allow spray to drift from the application site and contact people, structures people occupy at any time and the associated property, parks and recreation areas, non-target crops, aquatic and wetland sites, woodlands, pastures, rangelands, or animals." The CAC levied a maximum Class B fine of $1,000 after determining that the county failed to prove that the violation resulted in an actual health effect to any person but that the county did prove that the application posed a reasonable possibility of creating a health or environmental effect because of the number of persons present and their ages. The Director upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class B fine of $1,000.

    The Director’s decision became final on April 3, 2008.


  • Michael Wickstrom, Wickstrom Jersey Farms, Inc. Docket No. 152 (PDF, 63 kb) Merced County Agricultural Commissioner (County File No. 002-ACP-MER-07/08)
    Wickstrom appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of Merced County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director reversed the commissioner’s decision in its entirety that Wickstrom violated FAC section 12973. Michael Wickstrom, Wickstrom Jersey Farms, Inc., appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Merced County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director reversed the commissioner’s finding that the appellant had committed a violation Food and Agricultural Code section 12973 by applying two pesticide products containing bromacil in violation of the label directions. The Merced CAC levied a fine of $700. Upon review of the record, the Director reversed the commissioner’s decision in its entirety.

    The Director’s decision became final on February 25, 2008.


  • Sutter Butte Dusters, Inc., Docket No. 150 (PDF, 705 kb) County of Sutter, file number ACP-SUT-06/07-013.
    Sutter Butte Dusters, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Sutter County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Respondent violated 3 CCR sections 6434 and 6626(b) by failing to file Notices of Intent and Pesticide Use Reports for the applications of a restricted materials on three sites in Sutter County. The Director upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class B fines of $2199 for three violations of 3 CCR 6434 and three violations of 3 CCR 6626(b).

    The Director’s decision became final on December 26, 2007.


  • Erik Mogensen-Mogensen Landscaping Docket No. 148 (PDF, 155 kb) County of Placer, File No. 037-ACP-PLA-06/07
    Mogensen Landscaping appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Placer County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s decision and proposed fine, which found that the appellant had committed violations of 3 CCR sections 6602, 6670, 6724, 6726, and 6738, and one violation of FAC section 11701.
    The appellant had stipulated to each of the violations cited by the Placer CAC; nonetheless, Mogensen’s appeal was based upon its alleged ignorance of the statutory scheme of DPR/CAC, that he wasn’t properly informed of his duty to adhere to the DPR/CAC statutory scheme by the state Contractor’s Licensing Board or his pesticide suppliers, and that a warning would have brought him into compliance, as opposed to being charged with six violations and fined. The Placer CAC levied a fine of $1,100. Upon review of the record, the Director upheld the commissioner’s decision in its entirety.

    The Director’s decision became final on September 16, 2007.


  • L & M Agricultural, LLC Docket No. 147 (PDF, 159 kb) (County File 15-ACP-SB-05/06)
    L & M Agricultural, LLC, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that the appellant had committed a violation of Food and Agricultural Code section 12973; L & M failed to comply with the conditions of its methyl bromide permit by failing to insure that there were no occupied structures in the outer buffer zone during an application of methyl bromide. The Santa Barbara CAC levied a fine of $350. Upon review of the record, the Director upheld the commissioner’s decision in its entirety.

    The Director’s decision became final on August 21, 2007.


  • L & M Agricultural, LLC Docket No. 146 (County File No. 43-ACP-SB-05/06)
    L & M Agricultural, LLC, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that the appellant had committed violations of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, sections 6626(a), 6734(a) and (b) and 6734(c); by not filing its Pesticide Use Reports as prescribed by regulation; that its the employee had no soap available at the decontamination site; and that the emergency eyewash water available to L&M’s employee was very dirty and unsuitable to use on eyes. The Santa Barbara CAC levied a fine of $800. Upon review of the record, the Director upheld the commissioner’s decision in its entirety.

    The Director’s decision became final on August 21, 2007.


  • Falconer Vineyards Docket No. 144 (County File No. 06/07-ACP-LAK-001)
    Falconer Vineyards appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Lake County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Respondent violated 3 CCR section 6702(b)(5) by failing to take all reasonable measures to assure that his employee handle and use pesticides in compliance with the laws, regulations and label directions. The Respondent failed to assure that his employee have a pint of eyewash immediately available on his person or on the tractor. The Director upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class B fine of $250 for one violation of 3 CCR 6702.

    The Director’s decision became final on July 16, 2007.


  • Chuck Jones Flying Service, Docket No. 142 (County File No. 014506003)
    Chuck Jones Flying Service, a licensed aerial applicator, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Shasta County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Respondent violated Title 3, California Code of Regulations (3 CCR) section 6614(b)(2) by applying a pesticide under circumstances where there was a reasonable possibility of damage to non-target crops. The Director upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class A fine of $2,000 for two violations of 3 CCR 6614(b)(2) in that two different fields were treated and the two applications resulted in actual damage to non-target crops in two different adjacent fields.

    The Director’s decision became final on March 12, 2007.


  • Robert Hughes-Bloom’s Landscape Maintenance, Docket No. 140 (County File No. 040-ACP-PLA-05/06)
    Robert Hughes-Bloom’s Landscape Maintenance appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Placer County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that the appellant had committed violations of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, sections 6602, 6724, 6726, 6738(b)(1)(C); by its employee not possessing a pesticide label when applying the pesticide; by not providing documentation that the employee had been trained in pesticide handling; that the employee did not have emergency medical information available; and that the employee was not wearing eye protection when applying a pesticide with hand-held equipment (a backpack sprayer). The commissioner imposed a total penalty of $2,400 for the six violations (the appellant stipulated to two of the six violations); however, the appellant did not contest the fine. Upon review of the record, the Director upheld the commissioner’s decision in its entirety.

    The decision became final on January 10, 2007.


  • Western Farm Service, Docket No. 139 (County File No. 027-ACP-SLO-05/06)
    Western Farm Service appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the San Luis Obispo County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Food and Agricultural Code section 12973, based on the appellant’s failure to use a pressure gauge during an application of InLine as required by permit. The commissioner levied a fine of $700.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 28, 2006


  • Ted Ohlmer, Docket No. 138 (County File No. 1270608)
    Ted Ohlmer, a licensed aerial applicator, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Mr. Ohlmer violated Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6614(b)(1) by proceeding with the application of a pesticide when there was a reasonable possibility of contaminating a person’s body or clothing who is not involved in the application. The Director further upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class A fine of $2,500 in that the application resulted in the creation of an actual health hazard.


    The Director’s decision became final on December 26, 2006.


  • S & S Helicopters, Docket No. 137 (County File No. 17-ACP-MAD-05/06)
    S & S Helicopters appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Madera County Agricultural Commissioner. The fine levied by the commissioner was $3,000. The Director dismissed the appeal and directed the commissioner to withdraw its decision and order. Due to a technical malfunction, the commissioner was unable to produce a record of the hearing that was sufficient to conduct the appeal

    The Director’s decision became final on November 1, 2006.


  • Robert Cantrell, Docket No. 136 (County File No.  017-ACP-FRE-05/06)
    Robert Cantrell, a licensed aerial applicator, appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Fresno County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Mr. Cantrell violated FAC section 12973 by failing to apply the pesticide in a manner to avoid spraying or drifting on persons not involved in the application in violation of the label’s instructions. The Director further upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class A fine of $700 in that the application resulted in the creation of an actual health hazard.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 27, 2006.


  • Charles S. Mosesian - Mosesian Vineyards, Docket No. 135 (County File No. 05-ACP-MAD-04/05)
    Charles S. Mosesian - Mosesian Vineyards (Mosesian), appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Madera County Agricultural Commissioner. Upon review of the record, the Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Mosesian violated four sections of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (3CCR). The Director found that Mosesian failed to: display at a central location its application-specific information for its employees that handled pesticides (3 CCR section 6723.1(a)); assure that training was completed before its employee was allowed to handle pesticides (3 CCR section 6724(d)); assure that its employee had one pint of water immediately available for emergency eye flushing (3 CCR section 6734(c)), and; display at a central location its application- specific information for its employees that worked in the fields (3 CCR section 6761.1(a)). The fine levied by the Commissioner was $1,050.

    The Director’s decision became final on November 8, 2006


  • Continental Landscape, Inc., , Docket No. 134 (County File No. 05/05-ACP-AMA)
    Continental Landscape, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Amador County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations (3 CCR), section 6678, based on the appellant’s failure to properly label a backpack sprayer. The Director overturned the commissioner’s finding of violations of 3 CCR sections 6738(b)(1)(C) and (c)(1)(C) for failling to assure that employees wore personal protective equipment. The portion of the fine levied by the commissioner that was upheld on appeal is $400.

    The Director’s decision became final on December 11, 2006


  • G & S Farms, Docket No. 132 (County File No. 025-ACP-SB-05/06)
    G & S Farms appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Santa Barbara County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Food and Agricultural section 12973, based on the appellant’s failure to maintain legible warning signs throughout the restricted entry interval as required by permit. The fine levied by the commissioner was $250.

    The Director’s decision became final on September 11, 2006.


  • Marvin D. Horne - Docket No. 131 (County File No. 11-ACP-MAD-05/06)
    Marvin D. Horne appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Madera County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s findings that the appellant had committed violations of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, sections 6622(b), 6626(a), 6724(a), 6724(f), 6726(b), 6734(a)(2), and 6738(i): purchasing and using a pesticide for the production of an agricultural commodity without first obtaining an operator identification number for Madera County; failure to submit pesticide use reports in a timely manner; failure to have on hand a written training program for its employees; failure to produce documentation that appellant was certified as a private applicator or possessed other necessary qualification when training was conducted for his employees; failure to have emergency medical care information at the work site or in the work vehicle; failure to provide his employees extra coveralls at the decontamination site; and failure to provide his employees with protective eyewear as required by the label on the Wilbur-Ellis Dusting Sulfur. The commissioner imposed a total penalty of $1,950 for the seven violations.

    The Director’s decision became final on August 4, 2006.


  • Trinkle Ag Flying, Inc., Docket No. 129 (County File No. 001-ACP-SJ-05/06)
    Trinkle Ag Flying appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of two violations of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6600(e), based on the appellant’s failure to exercise reasonable precaution to avoid contamination of the environment. The fine levied by the commissioner was $2,000.

    The Director’s decision became final on June 23, 2006


  • James Peter Wulf, Docket No. 128 (County File No. 10-ACP-MAD-05/06)
    James Peter Wulf, as owner and operator of an orchard in Madera County appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Madera County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that Mr. Wulf violated Food and Agricultural section 12973 by applying the bait in handfuls from a Honda and by filling to overflowing the bait boxes, in violation of the label’s instructions. The Director further upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class A fine of $1,000 in that the application constituted an actual environmental hazard.

    The Director’s decision became final on May 31, 2006.


  • Dean Brand Construction, Docket No. 127 (County File No. ACP-PLU-2005/06-001)
    Dean Brand Construction appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Plumas County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Food and Agricultural section 12973, based on the appellant’s application of a pesticide, Jasco Termin-8, on interior surfaces in conflict with the label. The fine levied by the commissioner was $2,000.


    The Director’s decision became final on July 19, 2006.


  • George Hahn, dba Tree & Plant Rescue, Docket No. 126 (County File No. 349-ACP-RIV-05/06)
    George Hahn, as owner and operator of Tree & Plant Rescue appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that violations of Food and Agricultural sections 11701 and 12995 occurred, based the appellant’s operation of a pest control business without having a pest control business license, and on his use of an unregistered pesticide. The Director further upheld the commissioner’s levy of a Class B fine in relation to operating a pest control business without a license but overturned the commissioner’s levy of a Class C fine for the use of an unregistered pesticide. The Director found that the use of an unregistered pesticide warrants the levy of a Class B fine. The fine levied was $500.00.

    The Director’s decision became final on April 5, 2006.


  • Inland Crop Dusters, Inc., Appellant, Docket No. 125 (County File No. 014-ACP-KER-03/04)
    Inland Crop Dusters, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Kern County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that the appellant had committed one violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6614(b)(3) when it made an aerial application of Danitol to a cotton field and a man, while driving to work, was drifted on and became physically ill. Section 6614(b)(3) provides ”(b) Notwithstanding that substantial drift would be prevented, no pesticide application shall be made or continued when: (3) There is a reasonable possibility of contamination of nontarget public or private property, including the creation of a health hazard, preventing normal use of such property. In determining a health hazard, the amount and toxicity of the pesticide, the type and uses of the property and related factors shall be considered.” The commissioner imposed a penalty of $1,000 for the violation. Upon review of the record, the Director found that substantial evidence supported the commissioner’s decision and affirmed the decision in its entirety. Inland filed a writ of mandate with the Superior Court of Kern County. On May 9, 2006, Inland withdrew its writ and paid the$1,000 fine.

    The Director’s decision became final on May 9, 2006.


  • Dave Sills, Sills Ag Consulting, Inc., , Docket No. 123 (County File No. 016-ACP-PLA-04/05)
    Dave Sills and Sills Ag Consulting, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Placer County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6434 and imposition of a fine of $50, based on the finding that the Notice of Intent (to apply pesticides) message left for the Commissioner referred to the wrong field, which resulted in a failure to properly notify the Commissioner of the actual pesticide application.

    The Director’s decision became final on July 5, 2005.


  • The Gardener’s Friend, Inc, Docket No. 122 (County File No. 001-ACP-CAL-04/05)
    The Gardener’s Friend, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Monterey County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6614(b)(1) and imposition of a fine of $700, based on a finding that, despite preventing substantial drift, the applicator made and continued a pesticide application when there was a reasonable possibility of contamination of the bodies or clothing of persons not involved in the application process.

    The Director’s decision became final on June 1, 2005.


  • San Joaquin Sulphur Company, Docket No. 121 (County File No. 001-ACP-CAL-04/05)
    San Joaquin Sulphur Company appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the Calaveras County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director overturned the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6568(a) and (c) in counts one and two. The Director found that the regulations require that a pest control dealer obtain a restricted materials permit or an operator identification number prior to delivery of a restricted material. The Director found that it was not a violation of the regulations where the pest control dealer did not obtain a permit prior to sale where delivery had not yet occurred. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding in count three that a violation of 3 CCR section 6568(c) occurred because of appellant’s failure to obtain a copy of the operator identification number prior to delivery of the pesticide.

    The Director’s decision became final on March 1, 2005.


  • The Bejoca Company, Docket No. 120 (County File No. 032-ACP-SD-02/03)
    The Bejoca Company appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the San Diego County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding that the appellant violated Title 3, California Code of Regulations, sections 6602, 6726(b), and 6738(c) based upon the appellant’s stipulation of the violations during the hearing. The fine levied by the commissioner was $352.

    The Director’s decision became final on August 19, 2004.


  • Trinkle Ag Flying, Inc. Docket No. 119 (County File No. 003-ACP-SJ-02/03)
    Trinkle Ag Flying, Inc. appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decision of the San Joaquin County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Title 3, California Code of Regulations, section 6600(e) based on the appellant’s failure to exercise reasonable precautions to avoid contamination of the environment. The fine levied by the commissioner was $400.

    The Director’s decision became final on June 3, 2004.


  • Department of Water Resources, Docket No. 117 (County File No. 028-ACP-YOL-02/03)
    The Department of Water Resources appealed to the Director from a civil penalty decsion of the Yolo County Agricultural Commissioner. The Director upheld the commissioner’s finding of a violation of Food and Agricultural Code section 12973, based upon the appellant’s drift onto non-target crop fields. The fine levied by the commissioner was $401.

    The Director’s decision became final on May 27, 2004.


To obtain additional information, please contact the following offices:
  • For Director’s appeal decisions regarding county agricultural commissioner decisions, contact the Office of Legal Affairs at (916) 324-2666 or by FAX at (916) 324-1491.
  • For orders cancelling or suspending a pesticide product registration, contact the Pesticide Registration Branch at (916) 445-4377 or by FAX at (916) 324-1719.
  • For orders cancelling or suspending a license or certificate, such as a pest control business license or pest control aircraft pilot certificate, contact the Pest Management and Licensing Branch at (916) 445-4038 or by FAX at (916) 445-4033.
  • For all other final enforcement orders, contact the Pesticide Enforcement Branch at (916) 324-4100 or by FAX at (916) 445-3907.