Liability for Spraying:  Herbicide Drift

1. Spray Drift and Liability of Applicators and Farmers  
2. Laws Governing Use and Impact of Agricultural Chemicals:  Liability for Damage Caused by Agricultural Chemical Drift (Michael T. Olexa, University of Florida)
3. Legal Aspects of Herbicide Drift (pdf format)
4. Pesticide Spray Drift (one-hour self-study module)
5. Survey of State Pesticide Regulatory Agencies:  Spray Drift Complaints and How They Were Resolved (l999)
6. Spray Drift and Contamination by Genetically Modified Organisms
7. Pesticide Application Liability (Ohio Extension)
8. North American Conference on Pesticide Spray Drift Management  (l998) (285 pages; pdf format)
9. Application Form & Questions for Farm/Ranch General Liability Insurance (pdf format)
10. Spray Drift of Pesticides (EPA fact sheet)
11. Law journal articles:
    • "A Tale of Three States:  Liability for Overspray and Chemical Drift Caused by Aerial Application in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi," by Robert W. Luedeman.  10 San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review 121 (2002).  14,906 words
    • "Applying Pesticides:  Toward Reconceptualizing Liability to Neighbors for Crop, Livestock and Personal Damages from Agricultural Chemical Drift," by Robert F. Blomquist.  48 Oklahoma Law Review 393 (Summer, l995).  16,902 words
    • "Chemical Trespass?  An Overview of Statutory and Regulatory Efforts to Control Pesticide Drift," by Sarah E. Redfield.  73 Kentucky Law Journal 855 (l984).  33,070 words
    • “An Analysis of State Pesticide Drift Laws,” by Theodore A. Feitshans.  9 San Joaquin Agricultural Law Review 37 (l999).  30,348 words
12. Draft Pesticide Registration Notice:  Spray and Dust Drift Label Statements for Pesticide Products (Published in the Federal Register for public comment in August 2001, and the comment period was extended to March 31, 2002.  Based on the numerous and diverse comments submitted, the EPA is planning to hold public meetings in the future to ensure that it has received input from all interested parties and fully understands all of the issues, concerns, and suggestions.  Following these meetings, EPA plans to draft and publish another proposal in 2003 for public comment.  These documents can be found at http://www.epa.gov/opppmsd1/PR_Notices/  )
13. McLain v. Johnson, 885 SW2d 345 (MO Ct App l994):  Plaintiff had a watermelon crop on land next to a neighbor who contracted with the defendant aerial applicator to spray herbicide (including 2,4-DB among others) on his soybean crop.  Plaintiff claimed the defendant was negligent in the aerial application.  The trial court (sitting without a jury) entered judgment for the defendant.  Judgment affirmed on appeal.  The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the defendant had to disprove his negligence since aerial spraying is an inherently dangerous activity.  Instead, the plaintiff had the burden of proving not only that his watermelon crop was damaged but also that the defendant was negligent in the aerial spraying.  And the plaintiff (in both courts' opinions) failed to carry this burden of proof, instead relying on the "sudden onset doctrine" to no avail.  The defendant argued that there was at least one week between the spraying and the watermelon plant loss,  that there may have been residues in the soil from the plaintiff's spraying on soybeans on that plot the previous year, and that the wind while blowing on the day of aerial application was coming from the wrong direction to blow spray over the watermelons.
14. Anderson v. State Department of Natural Resources Minnesota, 693 N.W.2d 181 (Minnesota, 2005)
15. Environmental Law and the Farmer   (written by a Canadian attorney; online booklet prepared by the Public Legal Educational Association of Saskatchewan, 2000)

16. Dow-AgroSciences TREFLAN HFP label:  Warnings, guidelines, disclaimers