Kings County Economic Community Development Association v. Hardin

Civil No. F-565 (E.D. Cal. January 26, 1972)

A suit by California farm workers alleging that the use of pesticides by growers thereatens their health and safety and calling upon the Secretary of Agriculture to consider the environmental effects of those chemicals in the operation of the farm subsidy program is dismissed, since the plaintiffs lack standing to sue; there is no reasonable relationship between farm subsidies and environmental effects of pesticides and the complaint fails to allege a substantial controversy. [See 333 F. Supp. 1302 (N.D. Calif. July 21, 1971) for dismissal on grounds of improper venue]

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Burton D. Fretz
P.O. Box 425
Santa Maria, Calif. 93454

Peter H. Reid
1221 Broadway
Redwood City, Calif. 94063

Counsel for Defendant
Dwayne Keyes United States Attorney
Joel A. Wallock Assistant U.S. Attorney
Room 8536 Federal Building
United States Courthouse Building
650 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, Calif. 95814

[2 ELR 20152]

Crocker, J.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiffs' order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue were argued and submitted.

Burton D. Fretz and Peter H. Reid appeared for plaintiffs; Joel A. Wallock, Assistant U.S. Attorney, appeared for defendants.

Plaintiffs in this action are farm workers residing in California who allege that unfettered use of economic poisons and other agricultural chemicals by growers has threatened their health and safety. Plaintiffs ask this court to compel the Secretary of Agriculture to consider the environmental effects of these agricultural chemicals in the operation of the federal farm subsidy program.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is granted for the following reasons:

1.Plaintiffs lack standing to sue as the statutes authorizing the farm subsidy programs do not give the protection sought here, and the National Environmental Policy Act does not provide plaintiffs with standing to sue.

2. The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as there is no reasonable relationship between farm subsidies and the environmental effects of agricultural chemicals.

3. The complaint fails to allege that there is a substantial controversy between the parties.

It is not necessary to decide the propriety of the preliminary injunction.