Farmworker advocates and residents have filed a lawsuit against the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR), accusing the agency of creating contradictory protections for a cancer-causing pesticide nearly a decade after a court ordered the state to strengthen its oversight.
The lawsuit, confirmed as filed on February 4, was brought by Lindsay residents Rocio Ortiz and Ana Barrera, along with Californians for Pesticide Reform (CPR) and the Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network. The plaintiffs argue that DPR’s regulations for the fumigant 1,3-Dichloropropene, commonly known as 1,3-D, violate the state Administrative Procedure Act and the California Food and Agricultural Code.
1,3-Dichloropropene is a soil fumigant used in large-scale agriculture to control nematodes and other pests. The chemical is injected into soil, where it can vaporize into a gas capable of drifting beyond treated fields.
DPR has classified 1,3-D as a toxic air contaminant and recognizes it as a human carcinogen. Exposure has been linked to increased cancer risk and other serious health effects, particularly for people who live, work, or attend school near treated agricultural areas. Advocates say the communities most affected are often rural, low-income, and predominantly Latino.
According to the complaint, DPR issued two separate regulations — one for people living near pesticide applications and another for people working nearby — that set different limits for exposure to the same chemical.
The residential bystander regulation, which took effect in 2024, uses a target air concentration of 0.56 parts per billion (ppb) per day over a 70-year lifetime. A second rule intended to protect occupational bystanders took effect Jan. 1, 2026, establishing a threshold of 0.21 ppb over a 40-hour workweek for 40 years.
Advocates say the differing standards create confusion and weaken protections for communities and farmworkers exposed to the pesticide.
“After everything our communities have endured, it is devastating to see DPR still refuse to do its job,” plaintiff Ana Barrera said in a statement. “We live, work, and raise our children near fields where this chemical is used.”
Rocio Ortiz, another plaintiff, said the regulations leave families “living with constant worry” about harmful exposure.
The lawsuit also points to findings from the state’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, which in 2022 established a No Significant Risk Level for 1,3-D equivalent to 0.04 ppb, which is far lower than either DPR regulatory target.
Plaintiffs argue the occupational standard assumes farmworkers are exposed only during work hours, even though many also live near treated fields and could face continuous exposure. The complaint further alleges that the regulation is based on a typical 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. schedule despite many farmworkers starting earlier, when emissions are higher.
“DPR cannot have regulations that contradict each other and allow different levels of exposure to 1,3-D at home or at work for the same people,” said Angel Garcia, co-director of CPR. “The law requires clarity, consistency, and meaningful protection — none of which are present here.”
This marks the fourth time community members and advocates have gone to court over DPR’s handling of 1,3-D. A 2018 trial court ruling — later upheld on appeal — found the department violated the law by adopting an “underground regulation” without a public process.
Following that decision, DPR created a rule for residential bystanders. A court later ordered the department to develop a second regulation addressing risks to workers. Advocates say the newest rules still fall short of legal requirements.
The plaintiffs are seeking to invalidate both regulations and require DPR to adopt a single, consistent rule that better protects public health.
California Rural Legal Assistance and the law firm Michael Freund and Associates are representing the plaintiffs.
DPR has not yet publicly responded to the lawsuit.
