Drift Complaint and the Neighbor's Tomato Plants
An inspector responds to a complaint that a herbicide application on a 40-acre row-crop field drifted onto a neighboring half-acre vegetable garden. The complainant reports curled, cupped tomato leaves and yellowing beans first noticed two days after the application. The applicator's records show a 2,4-D-type product applied at label rate with a ground rig, wind reported as 'light and variable' at the time, boom height 30 inches, and no buffer. The applicator says drift was impossible because 'the wind was calm.' The garden is 60 feet downwind of the field edge. The applicator holds a current license and the product is registered for the site.
1. What evidence should the inspector gather, and how should the symptom report be weighed?
Read the worked answer
Gather: the application record (product, EPA reg. number, rate, carrier volume, nozzle type, boom height, speed, start/end times, wind speed and direction at the field), weather data from the nearest station for the application window, photographs of symptomatic plants with a scale and location, a sketch or GPS map of field, garden, and prevailing wind, and statements from both parties. Symptom description (cupped/curled tomato, yellowing beans) is consistent with a growth-regulator herbicide, but symptoms alone are not proof of source. Look for a gradient: damage should be worst nearest the field edge and diminish with distance, and should appear on the exposed side of plants. 'Calm' is not an exoneration; light and variable wind, temperature inversions, and fine droplets can move product, and a 60-foot downwind distance with no buffer is a plausible exposure pathway.
2. How should the inspector classify the case at this stage, and what determines whether it becomes an enforcement action?
Read the worked answer
At this stage it is an open complaint with a plausible pathway, not a confirmed violation. The determination turns on whether the applicator failed to follow label directions or applicable drift-minimization requirements (e.g., droplet size, boom height, wind-speed limits, buffer distances) and whether off-target movement occurred. If records show label compliance and no credible pathway, the case may close as inconclusive. If records are incomplete, label directions were not followed, or evidence supports off-target movement, refer for enforcement. Do not decide based on the applicator's opinion or the complainant's anger; decide on the record and the physical evidence.
3. The applicator's records are missing nozzle type and wind speed. What is the compliance consequence?
Read the worked answer
Incomplete application records are themselves a recordkeeping deficiency independent of whether drift occurred. Missing nozzle type and wind speed impair the ability to evaluate drift and may violate recordkeeping requirements for restricted-use or state-required records. The inspector should note the deficiency, request any available supporting data (sprayer settings, weather logs), and document that the absence of records limits the drift analysis. The applicator should be advised to record wind speed/direction, nozzle type and size, boom height, and buffer compliance on every application going forward.