Director’s Decision on an Appeal of a County Agricultural Commissioner Decision (Alexander Ag Flying Service, Docket Number 168)

The Director’s Decision on Alexander Ag Flying Service’s (AAFS) appeal of the civil penalty levied by the Sacramento County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) is enclosed.

The CAC determined AAFS applied Di-Syston in a manner causing drift onto an adjacent apple orchard, and charged AAFS with violations of Title 3 of the California Code of Regulations (3 CCR); sections 6600(d), 6600(e), and 6614(b)(1). The CAC adopted the hearing officer’s proposed decision and ordered a total penalty of $7,000 for the three violations.

AAFS appealed the CAC’s decision and penalty to the Director. The Director issued her decision affirming the CAC’s decision and penalty in March 2010. AAFS filed an appeal to the Sacramento County Superior Court requesting the Court to review the Director ‘s decision. AAFS failed to file their appeal timely and did not properly name DPR as the defendant, instead naming the Sacramento County Agricultural Commissioner. The Court issued a Notice of Entry of Judgment, denying AAFS’ appeal. The Director’s March 2010 decision became final on September 13, 2010.

This decision addresses the following concepts/issues:

• Director’s reliance on hearing officer’s perception of witness credibility
• Hearing officer’s evaluation of conflicting evidence by expert witnesses
• Expert testimony regarding drift

Please make this information available to your staff as a reference in preparing cases. If you have any questions, please contact David Haskell, Research Program Specialist II, at 916-445-4207, or the Enforcement Branch Liaison assigned to your county.

Sincerely,