A state appellate court recently declared that California regulators failed to adequately research the environmental impact of pesticides regularly sprayed as part of the state's Pierce's Disease control program.

The court has ordered California Department of Food and Agriculture to do more research and redo its environmental impact report. According to the court, this research should have been completed before the state launched the program in 2003.

The decision is the latest in an ongoing conflict between agriculture officials who want to be prepared should Pierce's Disease threaten the grapegrowing or nursery plant industries, and environmentalists who say the state has failed to consider the least intrusive alternatives.

Already pesticides have been sprayed in urban areas where sharpshooters have been discovered, including Sacramento and Contra Costa counties and -- in the summer of 2004 -- Vacaville.

The pest control program's main aim is to eradicate the glassy-winged sharpshooter, which is a dangerously efficient carrier of Pierce's Disease and which devastated Southern California vineyards in 1999 and 2000. The environmental groups that initially brought the lawsuit -- Californians for Alternatives to Toxics and People Opposed to Insecticide Spraying in Neighborhoods -- agree with state agriculture officials that there is a crucial need to prevent and combat sharpshooter infestations. However, they successfully argued to the court that DFA hadn't done enough to safeguard human and environmental health.

"Californians have a right to know what's being sprayed on them," said Patty Clary of Californians for Alternatives to Toxics. "The Environmental Quality Act is there so we know what's happening, and once we know we can work to have plans changed so the bad effects aren't so bad."

The focus of the pest control program is nursery plants, especially those being exported from regions of southern California with a history of glassy-winged sharpshooter infestations, according to Clary.

Studies by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have shown that some of the 30 pesticides approved for use in the pest control program pose health risks when people are exposed to high doses. Some, such as carbaryl and pyrethroids, are toxic to the human central nervous system.

Napa County Agricultural Commissioner Dave Whitmer conceded that the current Pierce's Disease control program may indeed have "too broad a list of materials (pesticides). It listed anything that could be used and was registered for use in an urban environment," Whitmer said. Meanwhile, the DFA is deliberating whether to appeal the appellate court's decision, according to Steve Lyle, the DFA's public affairs director. The court said the DFA "failed to fulfill its obligations" by not performing an adequate study.

"An environmental impact report is an 'environmental "alarm bell" whose purpose it is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached ecological points of no return," the court wrote, and went on to describe the environmental impact report as "the heart of the California Environmental Quality Act." State officials contend that the pest control program has never put the public's health at risk because several studies show that one-time exposure to low doses of toxic pesticides do not result in illness.

Whitmer added that no reports of malady have surfaced in places where pesticide sprayings have already happened.

"We'd be hearing about illness in those areas from the health community and individuals themselves," Whitmer said.

However, Lowell Downey, who heads Napa-based People Opposed to Spraying In Neighborhoods, argues that the pesticide applications could adversely impact the most vulnerable segments of the population.

"Children, pregnant women, the elderly, people sick at home --they have zero tolerance. The state says 'use as directed,' when study after study reports the harmfulness of accumulated pesticides on our bodies," Downey said. "I want more from my government."

In court papers, the California Association of Winegrape Growers defended the DFA's course of action and said it is dangerous to undermine the current program.

Association president Karen Ross said, "Our concern would be a gap or an interruption in the control program, and that we would be setting ourselves up for an infestation of glassy-winged sharpshooter. Once an infestation occurred, there would be very few choices and there would be more pesticide use to eradicate the pest than if we had prevented the infestation from happening in the first place."

Ross said her association also reminded the court that the wine industry is at work in 46 of California's 58 counties and contributes about $45 billion annually to the state economy.

Environmentalists contend that they too want to see California's vineyards safeguarded from sharpshooters. But Downey said conventional pesticides can be too strong for organic farms, and that including less toxic solutions will only help the state combat the pest.

Some of the alternatives Downey advocates include:

* A kaolin clay product called Surround that creates a non-toxic barrier between the pest and its host plant. Kaolin clay is an edible mineral long used as an anti-caking agent in processed foods and toothpaste.

* As an alternative to pesticide spraying, an urban property owner could opt to remove all the plants from their property.

* Hand inspection of plants to assure that glassy-winged sharpshooter is not on a property, and that property doesn't require spraying.

But if these alternatives are to work, a plan for implementing them must be formed long before a dreaded outbreak arrives, Downey said.

"We need to have an alliance with farmers who are willing to come in and help people in the cities," Downey said. "I want to find solutions so that we can eliminate and eradicate the bug, but also protect the vulnerable people in our population."

Whitmer assured that though none of the above alternatives are laid out in the state's pest control plan, people would have the chance to opt out of conventional pesticide spraying on their property and use alternatives, as long as they ended up sharpshooter-free.

"One of the things we're going to do in dealing with this is have real interactions with property owners before doing inspections," Whitmer said. "Folks will have the opportunity to tell us their concerns about what we do. The problem becomes when too many people in an area want the alternative. But we're always open to people removing the plant material entirely from a property to ensure they have eliminated glassy-winged sharpshooter from their properties," Whitmer said.

Whitmer said the law allows for property owners to take care of the problem themselves. "But if they don't," he said, "the law gives us the authority to abate the nuisance for them, and send them a bill for that."