MEDIA RELEASE

Prosecution after watermelon crop destroyed by spraydrift
For immediate release: Monday 19 February 2007

An agricultural spraying company which destroyed over $17,000 worth of a neighbour’s watermelon crop has received hefty fines from the Environment Court.

It was the first successful prosecution of its kind in the Bay of Plenty.

Environment Bay of Plenty prosecuted the spray contracting company, the director of the company, and the spray operator for serious breaches of the Bay of Plenty Air Plan.

The company was contracted to control weeds in a maize crop at Te Teko near Whakatane. It sprayed a pre-emergent weedkiller close to the boundary. As a result, spraydrift destroyed part of a watermelon crop on the neighbouring property.

Environment Bay of Plenty principal compliance officer, Steve Pickles, says several factors in combination contributed to the crop damage happening. One was that the contractor was spraying too close to the boundary. Another factor was the lack of buffering shelterbelt between the target land and the neighbouring property. Wind conditions also played a part.

The company also failed to notify the neighbouring land owner of the spraying, as required by the Regional Air Plan.

In early February, Environment Court Judge Brian Dwyer convicted and fined the spray company $4500, the company’s director in his personal capacity a further $4500, and the spray operator an additional $2000. All three had earlier pleaded guilty.

The regional council’s lawyer, Simon Ward, told the Court that proper notification of the neighbouring property owners would likely have avoided the spraydrift damage altogether. If that had been done, the watermelon grower would have been present at the time of the spraying and would have made sure it did not happen so close to the boundary or in unsuitable conditions. Mr Ward emphasised that as spraying is a high risk industry, professional contractors must strictly adhere to the Air Plan rules.

Mr Pickles was pleased with the Environment Court sentencing decision. “It is important that the public have confidence in the actions of spraying contractors. This case has highlighted the need for all spraying contractors to ensure that they carry out their operations in compliance with the law, and that they make sure their staff are adequately trained.”

ENDS

© Scoop Media