Vineyards

I am hoping those who are interested might take a moment to let me know their stand on something. I have a foot in both camps on the subject of farming, in that I do farm. I believe ag is very important to this counties ambiance and draw. It is a beautiful place to live and visit, both. Over the years, my having been here since 1989, I have noticed the decline of orchards for vineyards, as I am sure you have, as well. Most are not organic. Many have inserted themselves into pre-existing neighborhoods, where people live because they enjoy nature, solitude, peace, and quiet. Vineyards, especially for many years at the onset, are not conducive to this lifestyle. There is large machinery, traffic from workers, dust/mud, and long days of noise and activity. This is then followed by the spraying of poisons into the ecosystem, and over the property boundary which air does not recognize. This is often done at night, with lights and noise added to the insult of air/water contamination.

I have friends who are going through this destruction of their lives right now. They are so distraught, in that their once coveted peace and quiet has been destroyed and they are met with casual, weak attempts to placate by the owners of the vineyard. They have been told by the owners that they do not have to do anything and can do whatever they want, that any effort on their part to buffer the situation is out of the goodness of their hearts. I wonder if this is so.

If this is so, how can that be? Why is there not a substantial buffer between residential neighborhoods and vineyards, with a required WIDE pollinator hedgerow to protect the residents from noise, air pollution, and visual mar? Not everyone is enamored with vineyards, thinking them so very beautiful. It could be, and is, argued that a vineyard is better than a bunch of houses. Are these the only two options?

Please, if you would like to share your thoughts and shed some light on how you feel about this, I would be most interested in the feedback.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by fullhousefarm:

I am hoping those who are interested might take a moment to let me know their stand on something. I have a foot in both camps on the subject of farming, in that I do farm....

---

This letter is very good. The only thing I might add is that the vineyard operations are more industrial than farming... due to the heavy equipment (usually diesel powered) and amount of traffic (trucks of all kinds hauling potties, equipment, etc) servicing the vineyard. Also the fans they use on frosty nights (usually March-April about 4-5:30 a.m. when coldest) are high in the air and very,very noisy. There is no hedge row high or thick enough to prevent noise from waking up people and scaring animals who live nearby.

I had forgotten about the fans. Not all of the vineyards have these...maybe. I had also not considered the industrial side of this endeavor.

Hello, I am a resident of the Ft. Ross area, and have watched as this lovely land has been taken over by moneyed interests with the wine industry, and their "event centers"! I agree with this post wholeheartedly. In the 16 years I have lived here on the coast I have watched in horror as the pristine & delicate ecosystem here has been compromised, ruined in countless places, and really caused many problems for residents, wildlife and the first nations people, from whom we have stolen the land in the first place.

I am constantly ashamed of the way we ruin our home, and sell it to the highest bidder! May we all wake up to our responsibility in this matter and try to work together to fix this situation. Of course, it means the grape growers, the winery owners, and the people who support them may have to wake up a bit and realize the rest of this sacred Planet does NOT owe them a living! I will NOT vote for anyone local or national who does not understand how we all need to respect our home & each other! (from a friend of the planet!!)

not shy about letting your own opinions taint the way you setup your survey, are you? not that I intend a criticism - it's your survey! But no, it doesn't bother me, and I have exactly the situation you describe: a big orchard that's been turned into a vineyard. I did enjoy having a space that was full of old apple trees, but it wasn't mine and it wasn't being economically farmed. So I'm glad to see it being made productive. But I have a prejudice toward small-time commercial activity in a community. I like to see neighbors making a living in the area.

For example, I feel the same way about the southern end of Santa Rosa Avenue. Apparently lots of people find the area around Friedman's an eyesore, but I love it the way it is. And have said so in other contexts on Wacco.
Now, if you were asking about opening retail businesses on old farmland, I'd have a different answer.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by fullhousefarm:

I am hoping those who are interested might take a moment to let me know their stand on something. I....

---

The Board of Supervisors has the power to adopt standards regarding vineyard development and their environmental impact. The County of Sonoma bends over backwards to assist vineyards. Regulations are slow to happen and usually only partially address the problem. Preserve Rural Sonoma County is trying to banish Event Centers (few grapes, commercial food prep, and parties of hundreds) in agricultural land. The County is dragging their four feet even when they have recognized Event Centers and the movement to party pads in agricultural land is a problem for neighbors. Call your Supervisor. Pay attention to the candidates. Hopkins, for instance, is supported by mega-Big Wine money and Noreen Evans is not. Which one will more likely assist communities against Big Wine and Event Centers?

Thank you for this comment. I have written Hopkins for her views on this subject and not heard back yet. I would like to do the same for other candidates. Do you have suggestions on how to do this most effectively?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Ernieman:

The Board of Supervisors has the power to adopt standards regarding vineyard development and their environmental impact. ...

---

Thank you so much for the suggestion to go to the Board of Supervisors. I have looked into the Right to Farm Ordinance, and it is pretty bad for home owners. I noticed that Mike Reilly was the only supervisor who voted against it. I have been trying to contact him but have not yet found a way. I have emailed to Efren Carrillo about it and have not yet received a response. It seems that trying to amend this Ordinance would be our best bet on getting any concessions for homeowners who have been invaded by industrial vineyards next door. If you have more suggestions, they would be very welcome.

Here is a suggestion. Support and elect Noreen Evans.

Mega vineyards and and event centers: BAD
Industrial farming: BAD
Small organic farms: GOOD.
Noreen Evans will have our back on this.
Big wine will do whatever they can to stop her from getting elected.

Housing-or-Vineyards certainly aren't the only options, as all of the old orchards attest to. There are certainly those too in the equestrian world, another major "economy" in Sonoma County, that loathe many of the vineyards that have gone in to replace pastures, hay-fields, facilities and space to ride. Unfortunately, so far as the vineyards are concerned, Sonoma County has a Right to Farm Law on the books. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, in that its intent is to protect farmers and agriculture from the encroachment of other activities, residential and commercial, that may not be accustomed to, or willing to live with what's required to maintain a working farm. However, in the case of your friends it's somewhat working in reverse, in that it's the vineyards that have encroached upon their lifestyle but have the protection as if they supercede the established community. These laws generally protect farming activities from nuisance complaints, including the spraying of pesticides even if adjacent to organic farms, etc. The exceptions would probably be if herbicide drift destroyed someone else's property (crops, landscaping), but as far as anything else is concerned - pesticide drift, soil and water contamination - it's often hard to prove harm. Certainly a major harm that the vineyards are causing is their draw down of our water supplies to fuel their intensive management systems.

With that said, the old orchards are a rather different story, being less intensively managed than the vineyards. Certainly a major factor going for them is that, at least after their initial establishment, they're all dry farmed, as in rain fed only. If the vineyards didn't have access to creek or well water as they do (often already illegally), the situation would be very different in this county. You can still make a living dry farming wine, and in fact it produces a better product (though of a lesser quantity) but this isn't why investors put vineyards in in Sonoma County.

I don't know enough about practical options for your friends at the moment, except to encourage them to keep a working relationship and open dialogue with their neighbor. Pushing for work on creating hedgerows and other barriers, including if they have to do some of the work themselves to move the process along, would do much to buffer the stresses. But I can already foresee, as the drought returns next water year, that many things are going to have to change in this county regarding the wine industry. Already as glyphosate is being found in the wines, the ground and surface water, as well as the sheer amount of irrigation required to grow grapes at the current industry standard, a big conflict is in the making. To begin to put more pressure on changing how we allow some of our community members (the vineyards) to act towards the rest of the community (which often seems to be with total disregard), people and environment included, is an essential process for many more of us to pick up.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by fullhousefarm:

Thank you for this comment. I have written Hopkins for her views on this subject and not heard back yet. I would like to do the same for other candidates. ...

---

I did receive a response from Hopkins, as follows:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...15-54-29-3.png

"Thank you for taking the time to write to me. As a farmer yourself, I wonder if you are aware of the County's Right to Farm ordinance? This was passed by the voters, and has been part of Chapter 30 of the County Code since the year 2000. As the county increased in population, with developers building in agricultural areas of the county, a movement began to protect farmers and ensure that our greenbelts of agriculture are protected.

Whenever property changes hands in the county, one of the disclosures is the Right To Farm ordinance. This puts property owners on notice that they may be subject to noise, inconvenience, smells, and other intrusions from farmer's practices when they live in the rural area.

As to the replacement of apples with grapes, are you aware that pesticide use - even in non-organic vineyards - is dramatically reduced when grapes replace apples? Also, the agricultural commissioner does regulate pesticide drift - wine grape growers are required to report their pesticide use and confine the application to their property.

Your idea of hedgerows is a good one, and would probably reduce some impacts from farming on your friends, but unfortunately, it is true that farmers are not required to install them. Impacts from farming practices to residents are unfortunate, but they are the price of living in our beautiful rural zones."

The Right to Farm should not be interpreted as The Right to HARM, which is what the over-grown wine industry here does. It is the main user of the cancer-causing RoundUp and other deadly poisons, which when sprayed can drift for miles.

Sonoma County is no longer really an agricultural county; it is an alcohol county. According to Go Local, 96 % of veggies and fruits sold here are imported. Though there are many good wine grape growers here, most of the production of wine is in the hands of global alcohol corporations. Proof of this is in the booklet "They Myth of the Family Winery: Global Corporations Behind California Wine," published by the Marin Institute.

The wine industry has become more of a pest than the glassy winged sharpshooter to food ag. and the economy. Wine is a notorious boom-and-bust product and will soon bust. What then? That land will be sub-divided and sold off to build McMansions. We are losing our rural land to the over-production of one product. As a boy on our family farm in Iowa I once dropped a basket of eggs, and learned not to put all my eggs in one basket.

Linda mentions the Right to Farm ordinance... which is what I also saw,read, and mentioned. We bought our house in 1999. This went into effect in 2000. We were never notified anything about it and of course never suspected that it would be so horribly in favor of industrial "farming"when we did finally start hearing things about it in local news.

This ordinance says buyers of land near farming operations need to be notified about all the things they can do next door before you buy. It says NOTHING about when vineyards move into already established areas next to homes, small farms, etc, who are already living and operating there. So there are no notifications or protections required for those already living there when land converts through sale to vineyard operation and it happens to be near you.

This ordinance is sadly lacking in ways the "farmers"need to operate in order to be respectful and protect from harm any neighbors whose land they invade by setting up operation next door or across the street. It seems that it should be reworded such that existing and proposed operations would have to make amends.

"Industrial 'farming," as mentioned below, has taken over. Those regimented stakes in the ground insult nature, which is diverse, rather than ordered by humans. The bloated wine industry rules Sonoma County. We local residents are, indeed, unprotected from the damage done by the wine industry and somewhat at the mercy of the wine barons. We need a big push-back. Most of the profits leave the county, whereas we pay the costs. A simple costs/benefits analysis reveals that the plant, animal, and elemental kingdoms (here in the natural Redwood Empire) lose, and the commercial "Wine County" benefits.

Shepherd, as always, your home-grown wisdom comes shining through! Thanks for that!
Rev. BE :waccosun:

I want to echo the paragraph below. The Agricultural Commissioner and others contend that orchards demand more pesticides and water than vineyards to be productive. This has not been my experience with established orchards. I bought my small farm 24 years ago. I have never watered or used any pesticides on my apple trees.

In recent years, after using much mulch and compost, I no longer irrigate my vineyard, where I grow mainly boysenberries, as well as some raspberries. If it gets beyond 95 degrees during the harvest and threatens to damage the berries, I do use an old-fasioned hose system to get some water to them. Irrigation and pesticide use seem to have become addictions by many in the wine industry, seeking to maximize profit.

"With that said, the old orchards are a rather different story, being less intensively managed than the vineyards. Certainly a major factor going for them is that, at least after their initial establishment, they're all dry farmed, as in rain fed only. If the vineyards didn't have access to creek or well water as they do (often already illegally), the situation would be very different in this county. You can still make a living dry farming wine, and in fact it produces a better product (though of a lesser quantity) but this isn't why investors put vineyards in in Sonoma County."

The land is the heritage of human beings. It was never intended for privatization. It was once considered sacred. Every part of life was once considered sacred. Our systems have warped the intention and we have lost sight of the truth. In order for these systems to prevail, there must be human betrayal. Human beings must align their allegiance to the system and not life itself. And in order for such allegiance to take place, food, water and land must be controlled. There had once been tribal allegiance in which our loyalty rested with our community. We betray our hard-wiring which tells us to love one another, to enter conflict fiercely but not war, to grieve one another, to listen to dreams around the fire, to give thanks to the beautiful water, the beautiful sun, and the beloved land and all it's inhabitants. We are the lost people and it is my deepest prayer that we will remember who we once were and go forward with all our strength into a brave new world.

This is one of the most meaningful things that I have seen on this thread. Environmentalist Bill McKibben of 350.org describes most Americans with a phrase something like ultra-individualist or hyper-individualist. I value individuality, but it is different than what he is speaking of.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by dominus:

The land is the heritage of human beings. It was never intended for privatization. ...

---

Hopkins has communicated further with me. In part...

From Lynda Hopkins:
I do believe in Right to Farm, because it protects all of us (farms like yours or mine, dairies that might have foul odors, etc.). And because the most common situation is that houses go up in agricultural areas -- the situation of a wealthy retiree from the Bay Area coming in and building a McMansion out in agriculturally-zoned land comes to mind... not the other way around. I really want to make sure that Sonoma County's landscape stays a working agricultural landscape. And I believe deeply that we need more diversity-- more food farms and orchards, more dairies and ranches!

However I do believe we need to work on making sure that pesticides don't drift. And there actually are ordinances on the books stating that farmers can't just "do whatever they want" -- their right to pollute does not extend to neighboring properties. So whoever told you that to your face was wrong. A woman from Occidental has brought this ordinance up lately. The Ag Commissioner's office could possibly take a more active role in enforcing it:

https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/legbills/calcode/030201.htm#a6614

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by fullhousefarm:

I did receive a response from Hopkins, as follows:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/wacco...15-54-29-3.png

"Thank you for taking the time to write to me. As a farmer yourself, I wonder if you are aware of the County's Right to Farm ordinance? This was passed by the voters, and has been part of Chapter 30 of the County Code since the year 2000. As the county increased in population, with developers building in agricultural areas of the county, a movement began to protect farmers and ensure that our greenbelts of agriculture are protected.

Whenever property changes hands in the county, one of the disclosures is the Right To Farm ordinance. This puts property owners on notice that they may be subject to noise, inconvenience, smells, and other intrusions from farmer's practices when they live in the rural area.

As to the replacement of apples with grapes, are you aware that pesticide use - even in non-organic vineyards - is dramatically reduced when grapes replace apples? Also, the agricultural commissioner does regulate pesticide drift - wine grape growers are required to report their pesticide use and confine the application to their property.

Your idea of hedgerows is a good one, and would probably reduce some impacts from farming on your friends, but unfortunately, it is true that farmers are not required to install them. Impacts from farming practices to residents are unfortunate, but they are the price of living in our beautiful rural zones."

---

My response to Hopkins (and she did mention some issues she was having with the spraying of a neighbor) as follows:

I will be at the forum this Thursday, though. I want to know who is taking a serious look at industrial farming/ranching, farms and ranches owned and/or backed by money interests outside our county. If we want to make sure "Sonoma County's landscape stays a working agricultural landscape", it might be worth a more detailed look at what that really means. Does it mean mowing over existing oak groves, meadows, and wild lands to put in vast vineyards that destroy habitat and break migration paths? This is just a tip of the iceberg, Lynda. If you believe our county needs diversity, remember the chaos of nature and that we are part of that diversity!! Industrial farming practices notoriously ignore that fact.

I am genuinely sorry you are dealing with the poisons another neighbor is imposing on your life. My heart goes out to you and to my friend in a similar situation. Those chems should be illegal, and I hope they are someday. At least California is stepping up to the plate to finally warn people of the dangers they represent to our health...but, they left out the environment. How is it your neighbor, or anyone, has "the right to pollute", Lynda? No one should have the right to pollute.

It is my dream that we design small communities, that naturally and currently exist, of our counties' residences and assist them in growing their own food ORGANICALLY. For being a part of the community, they would receive government assistance in the form of education and dollars. They would be available for those who are members in other communities, for example travelers, who wish to eat healthy organic food. It would not be a Farmer's Market, just a community. It would not be a commune, just a normal neighborhood, but we would be united by our goal to eat and drink local and organic. If you follow my actions over decades, they demonstrate this commitment in how I live my life personally and how I educate others who come here. I would choose a representative who supports this kind of living.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by fullhousefarm:

Hopkins has communicated further with me. In part...

---

I am glad that another farmer will be at the KOWS-PRSC 5th District Supervisors Candidates Forum this Thursday. The doors open at 6:30 and the program, to which all 5 candidates have been invited, is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. I will be arriving by at least 6:15 to the Sebastopol Center for the Arts in the Vets Building on High Street. I would welcome meeting any of you in person. Please come up and introduce yourselves.

I will also be the time-keeper, representing KOWS, where I have a program. I will try to help keep an orderly, fair program for the many that we expect to this free event. I will have my cow bell with me for anyone who goes too long after I have put up the STOP sign. :) We have also decided not to permit signs at the event, though candidates will each have a table to display their materials.

I don't understand Hopkins saying that pesticides shouldn't drift. If she is an organic farmer why would she not be opposed to pesticide use? Am I missing something?

Agreed ... "Pesticide drift" is not the only way that the use of pesticides can affect us all ... I'm really getting sick of finding dead and dying bees ... can't we just ban pesticides county wide? ... there are other ways ... I live in old apple orchard and the trees are never sprayed or watered and the yield is quite good ...

https://www.motherjones.com/tom-phil...over-past-year

I also don't understand Lynda's comments. How do ordinances prevent pesticide drift? Even rules that say a farmer cannot spray once wind speed gets too strong does not mean they will always adhere to that. We can not be home watching them all the time and then calling the Ag Commissioner to tell them not to do that again. The damage is already done. And even if they adhere to all the rules on spraying, just because you don't see plumes of spray in the air does not mean that you are not getting it flowing across your property line. What other ordinances are there that prevent farmers from doing whatever they want? I would like to read them. Why does the Right to Farm Ordinance not also address the rights of others already living nearby and list things that farmers and vineyard owners must do in order to make their operation less onerous to neighbors and wildlife?

My take on Hopkins, based on what she said about pesticide drift, is that pesticides are OK, and the rules say they are not supposed to drift. What it sounds like is that pesticides are OK with her. Is this the position of an organic farmer? It calls into question her credibility.

We have another option for the 5th District who hasn't taken big Ag-winery money, Ratto Group money, nor is he an opportunist who moved here just to prolong an already exceedingly lengthy run as a career politician.

I respectfully request that you all consider our real, local candidate Tim Sergent for Supervisor. He's lived in the 5th district for almost 20 years, he actually works for a living (like most of us), he is a public school teacher, he's a good guy, he's your neighbor, and I know he's our best choice. https://www.sergentforsupervisor.com/ :waccosun:

Based on what I've been reading, you won't get any help from Hopkins on the pesticide issue. Right to Farm, is sounding more like right to poison.

yes - i recently met tim sergent in occidental, spoke with him at some length and really liked him and his values.
he has actually worked within the DC beltway for a couple of years, worked abroad, has had a variety of other professional / life experiences - and plays decent guitar.

i would feel very good to have him be my/our political representative. truly, jude

Yes, besides being adamantly opposed to poisons being applied to our food in their various and insidious ways, I am an advocate for wildlife INCLUSION in development designs. Agriculture is a beautiful thing most necessary. Although we might joke on the subject, wine is not food. Wine Interests put in hundreds, sometimes thousands, of acres of mono-crop and then fence it regardless of the countless wild life homes destroyed AND migratory patterns blocked. This mindless (at best) disregard of others in the name of the mighty dollar is sickening and will eventually have a consequence we cannot sweep under the toxic field.

I hear Sergent is a capable, decent guy, but to put the knock on Noreen as a "career politician" is totally unfair. There are lots of those types around, but not Noreen. She has been a public servent in the truest sense of representing the public interest.

I gotta jump in here ...Noreen may have been Ok to represent us in her Samta Rosa district, but she felt she couldn't win there. Everything I read about about her is about her experience as a politician. Give someone with new ideas, who knows our community because he has lived here. Tim Sergent has the experience necessary to do the job, speaks Spanish (no translator by his side) and shows up at everything. Plus no big money! That is what West County is about last I checked, local pride. A lot of smart people fully capable to do the job live here.

There has been a lot of chatter about Round-up after recent tests found traces of it in bottled wine, even organic wine. A Napa biodynamic grower wrote that even the CA Pesticide Safety Manual estimates that as much as 55% of sprays leave the target site. So...something for everyone who lives near a vineyard to be concerned about.

"Even the California Pesticide Safety Manual that we have had to study in order to spray sulfur (and we are certified biodynamic/organic) estimates as much as 55% of sprays leave the target site. (My husband wrote a rather funny but exceeding upsetting blog on this 5 years ago: https://harmslavender.com/2011/04/18...wine-and-food/) after having to read and be tested on pesticide application. It is an experience all of us should have! It gets you down to the gritty details of the insanity of use of these poisons." Patricia Damery

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Richard Nichols:

I don't understand Hopkins saying that pesticides shouldn't drift. If she is an organic farmer why would she not be opposed to pesticide use? Am I missing something?

---

Patricia, my gratitude to you and your husband for what you do and for speaking up here.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by KWilson:

There has been a lot of chatter about Round-up after ...

---

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Momof2:

I gotta jump in here ...Noreen may have been Ok to represent us in her Samta Rosa district, but she felt she couldn't win there. Everything I read about about her is about her experience as a politician. Give someone with new ideas, who knows our community because he has lived here. Tim Sergent has the experience necessary to do the job, speaks Spanish (no translator by his side) and shows up at everything. Plus no big money! That is what West County is about last I checked, local pride. A lot of smart people fully capable to do the job live here.

---

I was at a candidates night and Evans actually touted her expertise at bureaucracy. In my experience bureaucracy can be used by a professional politician as a way to obfuscate and delay getting stuff done. I would rather have somebody who can cut through it and be innovative. Hopkins and Lynch were much more familiar with the issues facing west county than Evans. They also had some good ideas about housing and roads that were not the usual tax and spend crap that Evans liked. She wants pot legalized so it can be taxed to oblivion and put the small growers out of business in favor of probably Dole or Monsanto. Give me an enthusiastic thinking person over the old pro any day.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by KWilson:

There has been a lot of chatter about Round-up after recent tests found traces of it in bottled wine, even organic wine. ...

---

I attended the Graton forum and what Lynda said about the problems of drift related to a question concerning GMO's, not pesticides

I am not sure where you got that information, but I was the one who had the conversation and GMOs were not mentioned. Perhaps you are referring to a different conversation...

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by jomo:

I attended the Graton forum and what Lynda said about the problems of drift related to a question concerning GMO's, not pesticides

---

A note on toxicity: besides using Round up for herbicide, vineyards also spray various fungicides, some repetitively. I have just learned of things like Vivando and ammonium polyphosphate as well as Pristine, which is made up of chemicals called boscalid and pyraclostrobin. It is frightening to think of all this getting on plant material and into the soil and having birds and insects eat it... never mind having it drift over into your property so you can breathe it and it can get onto your organic garden! Does anyone have a good source of information for finding out all the things that vineyards use and what their toxicity levels are?

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Goatarch:

...Does anyone have a good source of information for finding out all the things that vineyards use and what their toxicity levels are?

---

You can get a pesticide report on usage by crop here: https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur14rep/14_pur.htm
Go to bottom of page and choose Sonoma County. For grapes, the list is huge. To give you an idea, there were over 2 million pounds of pesticides applied to vineyards in Sonoma County in 2014. Over 60,000 pounds of Round-Up (glyphosate). This site does not mention toxicity levels though. Wondering why you know so many people with cancer? This is a travesty.

Department of Pesticide Regulation 2014 Annual Statewide Pesticide Use Report Indexed by Commodity Sonoma County Commodity	Agricultural	Amount	Unit
Chemical	Pounds Applied Applications	Treated	Type
DIDECYL DIMETHYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE	< 0.01	1	2.50	A
DIETHYLENE GLYCOL	38.82	22	164.33	A
DIFENOCONAZOLE	1,393.71	981	17,124.74	A
DIMETHYL ALKYL TERTIARY AMINES	10.63	103	1,235.90	A
3,7-DIMETHYL-6-OCTEN-1-OL	0.03	1	2.00	A
DIMETHYLPOLYSILOXANE	3,753.66	3,366	63,151.06	A
DIMETHYL SILICONE FLUID EMULSION	0.54	62	374.25	A
DINOTEFURAN	81.48	40	833.27	A
DIOCTYL DIMETHYL AMMONIUM CHLORIDE	< 0.01	1	2.50	A
DIPHACINONE	0.06	17	438.32	A
DIQUAT DIBROMIDE	32.13	8	37.65	A
DISODIUM OCTABORATE TETRAHYDRATE	1.23	1	25.50	A
DODECYLBENZENE SULFONIC ACID	0.59	2	67.00	A
EMULSIFIABLE POLYETHYLENE	1.28	2	19.00	A
ENDOSULFAN	34.22	5	45.50	A
ETHYLENE GLYCOL	22.63	2	8.00	A
ETOXAZOLE	55.43	23	504.09	A
FARNESOL	0.01	1	2.00	A
FATTY ACIDS, MIXED	152.16	326	2,137.96	A
FENARIMOL	0.67	3	17.98	A
FENHEXAMID	7,082.48	913	14,241.97	A
FENPYROXIMATE	7.39	3	99.80	A
FLAZASULFURON	75.07	224	3,084.40	A
FLUAZIFOP-P-BUTYL	7.03	1	7.00	A
FLUDIOXONIL	568.66	135	2,574.08	A
FLUMIOXAZIN	2,033.06	771	9,127.43	A
FLUOPYRAM	2,172.14	1,067	19,645.59	A
FORCHLORFENURON	0.84	42	263.58	A
GARLIC	17.15	61	378.80	A
GERANIOL	0.03	1	2.00	A
GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM	877.98	155	1,758.37	A
GLYPHOSATE, ISOPROPYLAMINE SALT	16,696.43	899	11,433.26	A
GLYPHOSATE, POTASSIUM SALT	60,279.68	2,654	35,690.16	A
0.34	1	1,000.00	S
Total Pounds On This Chemical	60,280.02
HEXYTHIAZOX	13.54	4	70.67	A
HYDROGEN CHLORIDE	1.91	2	67.00	A
HYDROGEN PEROXIDE	428.61	20	203.27	A
HYDROTREATED PARAFFINIC SOLVENT	18.41	1	16.00	A
2-(3-HYDROXYPROPYL)-HEPTA-METHYL TRISILOXANE,
ETHOXYLATED, ACETATE	14,224.53	3,176	64,382.34	A
IMIDACLOPRID	2,759.73	383	9,702.49	A
INDAZIFLAM	344.72	569	8,546.25	A
ISOPROPYL ALCOHOL	42.32	164	2,029.47	A
ISOXABEN	681.12	131	1,176.73	A
KAOLIN	14,125.00	162	1,682.98	A
KEROSENE	13.24	46	495.23	A
KRESOXIM-METHYL	927.17	343	6,763.47	A
LAVANDULYL SENECIOATE	28.10	13	389.75	A
LECITHIN	520.19	343	2,935.51	A
LIGNIN SULFONIC ACID, CALCIUM SALT	7.21	2	8.00	A
LIME-SULFUR	6,980.38	360	2,526.25	A
LIMONENE	44.76	2	18.05	A
MALATHION	0.64	2	6.00	A
MANCOZEB	8,148.52	304	5,246.62	A
MANEB	54.40	2	34.00	A
MEFENOXAM	0.09	1	2,000.00	S

Chemical vineyards, such as those of the Jenkins on Pleasant Hill Road, kill. They kill bees and vegetation and harm the most vulnerable humans, including children and elders. It is a disgrace that this once ag county, now an alcohol county, continues allowing such to happen, all worshiping the dollar god.

"The Myth of the Family Winery: Global Corporations Behind California Wine" by the Marin Institute documents how international alcohol corporations rule Sonoma County's Big Wine. Napa County has the highest rate of cancer in California, with Sonoma County rising up the death count.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by KWilson:

You can get a pesticide report on usage by crop here: https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur14rep/14_pur.htm
Go to bottom of page and choose Sonoma County. ...

---