Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Environmental Law

Application of Administrative Procedures Act
to State Agencies is Statute Specific

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Patterson Flying Service v. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 161 Cal. App. 4th 411 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007), the California Fifth District Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Superior Court, which had denied the writ of administrative mandamus petition of an aerial spraying business. The Stanislaus County Agricultural Commissioner imposed a fine on the business for its failure to follow aerial application directions when applying pesticides.

Background

The County Agricultural Commissioner sent a notice of proposed action notifying the appellant, Patterson Flying Service (Patterson), that the Commission planned to fine it for violating Food and Agriculture Code § 12973. Id. at 417. Section 12973 provides, "[t]he use of any pesticide shall not conflict with labeling registered pursuant to this chapter which is delivered with the pesticide or with any additional limitations applicable to the conditions of any permit issued by the director or commissioner." Id. The notice asserted that the appellant inappropriately applied a pesticide called Dimethoate, which drifted onto Elena Ruiz while on adjacent property. Id. at 417-18. Additionally, the notice informed Patterson that it was entitled to a hearing upon request. Id. at 418. At Patterson's requested hearing, the evidence indicated that Patterson applied both Dimethoate and a second pesticide, Warrior, to the field adjacent to Ruiz's property in a manner inconsistent with the products' labeling. Id. The hearing officer held that the $5,000 fine was appropriate, and the Commissioner agreed. Id. Thereafter, the appellant petitioned the superior court for a writ of administrative mandamus. Id. Holding that the Commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence, the court denied the appellant's request. Id. This appeal followed.

Arguments

The appellant contended that the Commissioner failed to follow the procedures set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), and that the evidence did not support the Commissioner's findings. Id. at 419. It also asserted that the provisions of the APA applied to decisions rendered by the County Agricultural Commission because it was an agency created or appointed by joint or concerted action of the state and one or more local agencies, as described in Government Code § 11410.30. Id.

The Commission contended that it was a local agency to which the APA did not apply. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

The California Law Revision Commission's comments to § 11410.30 state, "[l]ocal agencies are excluded [from following § 11410.30] because of the very different circumstances of local government units when compared to state agencies." Id. at 419-20. However, the court concluded that the office of county agricultural commissioner was a local agency created or appointed by joint or concerted action of the state and one or more local agencies for purposes of § 11410.30; therefore, the APA applied to hearings conducted under the authority of the county agricultural commissioner. Id. at 422. After reviewing Government Code § 22501, the court stated that the formal hearing procedures of the APA applied only when the statutes relating to the agency so provided. Id. In the instant case, the statute governing the hearing by the county agricultural commission, California Food & Agr. Code § 12999.5, did not require a formal hearing pursuant to the APA. Id. For this reason, the court held that the Commissioner was not required to follow APA procedures. Id.

When findings of fact are challenged on evidential grounds, the "power of the reviewing court begins and ends with the determination as to whether, on the entire record, there is substantial evidence, contradicted or uncontradicted, that will support the administrative agency's determination." See id. at 426. After reviewing the evidence, the court found that there was substantial evidence to support the hearing officer's findings that there was substantial drift from the target site, the spray or drift of the pesticide created an actual health or environmental hazard, and the appellant was not subjected to a penalty pursuant to an underground regulation. Id. at 419, 432. Additionally, the court held that there was no need to present evidence that the labeling was registered separately from the registration of the pesticide. Id. at 429. For these reasons, the court held that the evidence supported the Commissioner's findings.

The case was decided on March 27, 2008.