Dicamba Spray-Drift Issues

Overview

Spray-drift issues with respect to dicamba and the use of  XtendiMax with VaporGrip (Monsanto) and Engenia (BASF) herbicides for use with Xtend Soybeans and Cotton are on the rise.  Usage of dicamba has increased recently in an attempt to control weeds in fields planted with crops that are engineered to withstand it.  But, Missouri (effective July 7) and Arkansas (as of June) have now taken action to ban dicamba products because of drift-related damage issues. 

So, what factors help determine the proper application of dicamba?  In addition, if drift occurs and damage crops in an adjacent field, how should the problem be addressed?  Can the matter be settled privately by the parties involved?  If not, what legal standard applies in resolving the matter – negligence or strict liability?

Issues associated with dicamba drift – that’s the focus of today’s post.

Uniqueness of Dicamba

In many instances, spray drift is a straightforward matter.  The typical scenario involves either applying chemicals in conditions that are unfavorable (such as high wind), or a misapplication (such as not following recommended application instructions).  But, dicamba is a unique product with its own unique application protocol. 

I asked an expert on chemical applications to provide me with an assist on the issues associated with the application of dicamba.  Jeff Haggerty of Heinen Bros. Ag near Seneca, KS, has many years in the agricultural chemical application business and provided some helpful comments to me, and the following bullet points summarize his thoughts on the matter:

• Dicamba is a very volatile chemical and is rarely sprayed in the summer months. This is because when the temperature reaches approximately 90 degrees Fahrenheit, dicamba will vaporize such that it can be carried by wind for several miles.  This can occur even days after application.
• The typical causes of spray drift are application when winds are too strong, a temperature inversion (temperature not decreasing with atmospheric height) exists or there has been a misapplication of the chemical.
• For the new dicamba soybeans, chemical manufacturers reformulated the active ingredient to minimize the chance that it would move off-target due to it volatility.
• Studies have concluded that the new formulations are safe when applied properly, but if a user mixes-in unapproved chemicals, additives or fertilizer, the safe formulations revert to the base dicamba formulation with the attendant higher likelihood of off-target drift.
• Soybeans have an inherit low tolerance to dicamba. As low as 1/20,000 of an application rate can cause a reaction.  A 1/1000 of rate can cause yield loss.
• The majority of crops damaged from vapor drift may not actually result in yield loss. That’s particularly the case if drift damage occurs before flowering.  However, if the drift damage occurs post-flowering the likelihood of yield loss increases. Also, studies have shown that a slight rain event can stop the volatilizing of dicamba.
• The label is the law. This is particularly true with the new chemicals used on Xtend crops. The labels are very specific with respect to additives, nozzles, boom height, and wind speed and direction.

Damage Claims – Building a Case

Negligence.  For a person to be deemed legally negligent, certain conditions must exist. These conditions can be thought of as links in a chain. Each condition must be present before a finding of negligence can be obtained.  The first condition is that of a legal duty giving rise to a standard of care.  To be liable for a negligent tort, the defendant's conduct must have fallen below that of a “reasonable and prudent person” under the circumstances.  A reasonable and prudent person is what a jury has in mind when they measure an individual's conduct in retrospect - after the fact, when the case is in court. The conduct of a particular tortfeasor (the one causing the tort) who is not held out as a professional is compared with the mythical standard of conduct of the reasonable and prudent person in terms of judgment, knowledge, perception, experience, skill, physical, mental and emotional characteristics as well as age and sanity. For those held out as having the knowledge, skill, experience or education of a professional, the standard of care reflects those factors. For example, the standard applicable to a farmer applying chemicals to crops is what a reasonably prudent farmer would have done under the circumstances, not what a reasonably prudent person would do.

If a legal duty exists, it is necessary to determine whether the defendant's conduct fell short of the conduct of a “reasonable and prudent person (or professional) under the circumstances.”  This is called a breach, and is the second element of a negligent tort case.

Once a legal duty and breach of that duty are shown to exist, a causal connection (the third element) must be established between the defendant's act and (the fourth element) the plaintiff's injuries (whether to person or property).  In other words, the resulting harm to the plaintiff must have been a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct at the time the conduct occurred. Reasonable foreseeability is the essence of causality (also known as proximate cause).

For a plaintiff to prevail in a negligence-type tort case, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof to all four elements by a preponderance of the evidence (just over 50 percent).

Typical drift case.  In a straightforward drift case, the four elements are typically satisfied – the defendant misapplied the chemical or did so in high winds (breach of duty to apply chemicals in a reasonable manner in accordance with industry standards/requirements) resulting in damages to another party’s crops.  In addition, the plaintiff is able to pin-down where the drift came from by weather reports for the day of application combined with talking with neighbors to determine the source of the drift (causation).  In many of these situations, a solution is worked out privately between the parties.  In other situations, the disaffected farmer could file a complaint with the state and the state would begin an investigation which could result in a damage award or litigation.

Generally, what are contributing factors to ag chemical drift?  For starters, the liquid spray solution of all herbicides can physically drift off-target.   This often occurs due to misapplication including such things as applying when wind speed exceeds the recommended velocity, improper spray pressure, and not setting the nozzle height at the proper level above the canopy of the intended plant target.  Clearly, not shielding sprayers and aerial application can result in an increased chance of off-site drift.  Also, the possibility of drift to an unintended field can be influenced by droplet size if the appropriate nozzle is not utilized. 

Dicamba drift cases.  As noted above, dicamba is a different product that is more volatile than other crop chemicals.  That volatility, the increased likelihood of drift over a broader geographic area, and that dicamba drift damages can occur several days after application, makes it more difficult for a plaintiff to determine the source of the drift.  Thus, the causation element of the plaintiff’s tort claim can be more difficult to establish with dicamba-related damage claims.  In addition, soybeans are inherently sensitive to extremely low dicamba concentrations, thus elevating the potential for damages. 

Clear patterns of injury indicate physical drift which could make the causation element easier to satisfy.  Wind speed at time of application, sprayer speed, sprayer boom height above the plant canopy, nozzle height, tank cleaning, sprayer set-up and whether the application occurs at night rather in the daylight, are also factors that are within the applicator’s control.  Failure to follow label directions, meet common industry standards or manufacturer guidance on any of those points could point toward the breach of a duty and could also weigh on the causation element of a tort claim.

Relatedly, another factor with dicamba, as noted above, is whether it was applied on a hot day.  The chemistry of dicamba has a “vapor curve” that rises with the temperature.  While I have not seen that vapor curve, it would be interesting to see whether that curve has a discernibly steeper slope at a particular temperature.  If so, that would indicate the point at which dicamba becomes very volatile and should not be applied.  Indeed, the Banvel (brand name of dicamba) label specifically states that the chemical is not to be applied “adjacent to sensitive crops when the temperature on the day of the application is expected to exceed 85 [degrees Fahrenheit] as drift is more likely to occur.”  To the extent any particular defendant can establish that application occurred when temperature on the day of application was forecast to exceed 85 degrees, the duty and breach elements of the plaintiff’s tort claim would be easier to satisfy.

Dicamba manufacturers have protocols in place to aid in the safe application of the products.  Thus, in quantifiable damage cases, it is likely that an application protocol was not followed.  But, establishing that breach to the satisfaction of a jury could be steep uphill climb for a plaintiff.  That’s particularly the case with dicamba given its heightened volatility.  As previously noted, damages could be caused by physical drift, temperature, volatility or temperature inversions.  Is a particular cause tied to the defendant’s breach of a duty owed to the plaintiff? 

Strict liability.  Most pesticide drift cases not involving aerially-applied chemicals are handled under the negligence standard.  However, a strict liability approach is sometimes utilized for aerially applied chemicals.  See, e.g., Langan v. Valicopters, Inc., 567 P.2d 218 (Wash. 1977); but see Mangrum v. Pique, et al., 359 Ark. 373, 198 S.W.3d 496 (2006)(the aerial application of chemicals commonly used in farming communities that are available for sale to the general public is not an ultrahazardous activity triggering application of strict liability).  In such a situation, liability results from damages to others as a result of the chemicals.  It makes no difference whether the applicator followed all applicable rules for applying the chemicals and did so without negligence.  The strict liability rule is harsh, and is normally reserved for ultra-hazardous activities. Do the present issues associated with dicamba drift damages warrant the application of the strict liability rule?  Only time will tell whether the theory is pled in a future case and whether the court would apply it.

Conclusion

The dicamba drift issue is an important one in agriculture at the present time with respect to soybean and cotton crops.  While the new dicamba formulations will not eliminate the problem of physical drift, proper application procedures by following label directions can go a long way to minimizing it.  Likewise, drift issues can also be minimized by communication among farmers that helps determine the planting location of particular crops, their relative sensitivities to dicamba and following acceptable setbacks.  But, farmers that sustain damage should quantify the economic loss, and see whether it can be determined if the source of the loss arose from a causally-connected breach of a duty.