User:Nichelle333/sandbox

Angelita c., et al. v. California Department of Pesticide Regulations (CDPR)

Introduction:

In June 1999, a complaint was submitted to the OCR on behalf of children and their parents attending schools located near areas where methyl bromide was used. The complaint claimed that CDPR had discriminated against Latino children by renewing the registration for methyl bromide in January 1999 without considering the potential health effects of this pesticide on children attending schools within a 1.5-mile radius of the application sites.

Background:

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, along with its implementing regulations, prohibits recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin. This prohibition includes both intentional discrimination and discriminatory effects resulting from neutral policies. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for the oversight and investigation of complaints related to Title VI discrimination, with its regulations outlined in (40 C.F.R. Part 7).

Complaint 16R-99-R9:

Filed in June 1999 by the Center for Race, Poverty & the Environment, California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. Filed on behalf of Latino parents and children at 6 schools in California.

The complaint targeted the California Department of Pesticides Regulation (CDPR) regarding the renewal of the registration of methyl bromide (MeBr). The complainants alleged discrimination against Latino school children due to the disproportionate percentage of Hispanic children attending schools near fields where MeBr was applied and the health impacts of this pesticide.

Research done by the complainants indicates that all schools near the vicinity of the release of methyl bromide have a majority non-white majority with Barton and Ohlone Elementary School having an above 95% ethnic majority in the student population. Complainants also claim that 35,000 pounds of methyl bromide is released annually which produces adverse effects on the schoolchildren within the proximity of its release. However, the main premise of the complaint was based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity of a recipient of federal financial assistance. To argue for a Title VI accusation, the complainants declared that there was a positive correlation between methyl bromide concentration and the probability that schools in the proximity of its release have a majority non-white student population. For example, in 1995 complainants calculated a total of 75,000 pounds of methyl bromide was released within a 1.5 mile radius of 476 students. Notably, the spraying occurred from mid-August through late May while school was in session. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) was in charge of evaluating these claims.

Investigation:

The OCR began analysis by addressing the claim of whether or not methyl bromide had an adverse effect on the students in the proximity of its spraying. To calculate this, they used data from 1995-2001 and created a model based on CDPR’s previously developed model. The results of the calculations revealed that both short-term and long-term exposures were above EPA's threshold of concern (35 ppb and 1.3 ppb, respectively). The claim that there was a disproportionate adverse effect on Latino schoolchildren was also given merit since the model found a large disparity from the years 1995-2001. Thus, it was determined that there is enough evidence to justify a prima facie violation of Title VI.

Aftermath

After the EPA issued a preliminary finding against the CDPR on April 22, 2011, they began engaging in private settlement discussions in which the complainants were not invited. On August 24, 2011, the EPA and CDPR came to an informal compliance agreement in which the EPA recommended stricter air monitoring of potentially harmful gasses, a process to acquire information from registered pesticide companies about where pesticide concentration is the greatest, a process to determine monitoring efforts are effective against long-term pesticide exposure, use of films that act as a barrier towards methyl bromide, setting limits on methyl bromide levels per town, and organizing three events per year as a means of outreach with the Latino community.

The Latino response to the settlement culminated in Garcia v. McCarthy, in which the plaintiff’s response to the settlement was that it was deficient; they argued that it does not provide those who are exposed to pesticides with remedy. The premise of their claim was based on the CDPR not indicating any changes being made to their registration in 2013 after having re-registered and lawfully certified as of January 26, 2012. According to the plaintiffs, the EPA failed to accurately investigate the potential harm done by the spraying of pesticides in terms of adverse healths effects and accused the EPA of “arbitrarily and capriciously” executing the voluntary compliance agreement that did not provide adequate gas exposure protection. It is also worth noting that the plaintiffs were excluded from the private settlement negotiations as well as the investigation.

References:

List of sources, legal documents, and citations used in the article