Can a California county pass ordinances limiting how pesticides are used in the coastal zone, even when its Local Coastal Program calls for those limits?
Question
- May a county adopt ordinances to regulate the use of pesticides in the coastal zone to implement Local Coastal Program requirements?
- May a county take other actions, legislative, regulatory, or otherwise, to address the environmental impacts of pesticide use in a Local Coastal Program without violating Food and Agricultural Code section 11501.1?
Conclusion
- No. Food and Agricultural Code § 11501.1 preempts local ordinances that regulate the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides. An ordinance violating this restriction is "void and of no force or effect." A county cannot pass generally applicable pesticide-use ordinances, even to implement a Local Coastal Program (LCP), unless the Department of Pesticide Regulation approves under § 11503.
- Yes, with limits. Even without ordinances of general application, a county can address pesticide-related impacts in its coastal zone through:
- Site-specific permit conditions on individual land-use permits.
- Policies that reduce pest pressure (and therefore the need to spray).
- Rules that mitigate post-use effects of pesticide application (training, certification, runoff controls).
- Advisory publications recommending best practices.
- Restrictions on pesticide use by county employees on county-owned land.
Official Citation: 107 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 32
Plain-English summary
California's Coastal Act requires coastal counties to adopt Local Coastal Programs (LCPs), the planning rulebook for what can happen in the coastal zone. Some LCPs address agricultural and landscape pesticide use, which can run off into the ocean.
The trouble is that California has decided to centralize pesticide-use rules at the state level. Food and Agricultural Code § 11501.1 says counties cannot regulate "the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides." If they do, the rule is automatically void.
So can a coastal county that wants tighter pesticide rules in its LCP write them as county ordinances? The AG says no. Section 11501.1 leaves no daylight for general pesticide-use ordinances, even ones tied to coastal protection. The narrow escape hatch in § 11503 lets a county get more restrictive rules approved by the Department of Pesticide Regulation, but that requires going through DPR.
That does not mean coastal counties are powerless. The opinion lays out five categories of action they keep:
- Site-specific permit conditions. When a county issues an individual coastal development permit, it can attach pesticide-related conditions to that single permit. That is not "regulation of pesticide use" generally; it is a project-specific land-use condition.
- Reducing the demand for pesticides. A county can adopt sanitation rules to reduce rodents and other pests, which lowers the need to spray. Those rules don't regulate pesticides directly.
- Mitigating post-use effects. A county can require training in cleaning and runoff control after pesticides have been used. The pesticide use itself is unregulated; the cleanup is.
- Best-practice advisories. A county can publish recommendations and educational materials. Recommendations are not ordinances.
- Internal county operations. A county can restrict pesticide use by its own employees on county-owned property. That is a procurement and management choice, not a generally applicable rule on private parties.
The opinion is a useful map of the gap between "we can ban pesticide X countywide" (no) and "we can shape how pesticides are used in the coastal zone in our planning and permitting decisions" (yes, in the listed ways).
What this means for you
If you are county counsel or a planning director in a coastal county
Treat any LCP provision that reads as a generally applicable pesticide-use restriction as preempted. Rewrite the same policy goal as either (a) site-specific permit conditions you attach when a project comes in, (b) demand-reduction rules (sanitation, fencing, integrated pest management), (c) post-application mitigation requirements (BMPs in cleanup and disposal), (d) county-property restrictions on county employees, or (e) advisories. If the goal really requires a generally applicable use restriction, build the package and submit to DPR under § 11503.
If you are a county supervisor
Do not enact a coastal pesticide-use ordinance assuming the LCP gives you authority. It does not. Ask your county counsel which of the five categories above can carry the substance you want, and whether the package needs DPR approval. The political win of "we banned it in the coastal zone" can disappear in litigation under § 11501.1.
If you are an environmental advocate working through county government
Use this opinion to redirect the ask: instead of seeking a county pesticide ordinance (which the AG just confirmed is preempted), push for project-specific permit conditions on new coastal developments, sanitation/IPM ordinances that reduce baseline pesticide demand, post-use BMP rules, and county-procurement restrictions on county-owned land. Or push the county to seek DPR approval under § 11503 for a more restrictive use rule.
If you are an agricultural operator or pest control operator
This opinion confirms that any county-level coastal-zone pesticide ordinance regulating your use of registered pesticides is likely void unless DPR has approved it. That is your check on overreach. Site-specific permit conditions on a particular development, however, can lawfully restrict pesticide use on that parcel.
Common questions
Q: Why does state law preempt coastal pesticide rules even when the Coastal Act calls for environmental protection?
The Coastal Act's environmental protection mandate operates within the state regulatory system, not above it. Section 11501.1 is a clear preemption of local pesticide-use rules. The AG read both statutes together and concluded that nothing in the Coastal Act authorizes counties to override § 11501.1.
Q: What does the § 11503 process look like for a county that wants stricter rules?
A county submits its proposed regulation to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, which evaluates the proposal. Approved local rules can take effect; unapproved ones remain preempted. The opinion does not detail DPR's process beyond pointing to § 11503 as the authorized route.
Q: Can a coastal city, rather than a county, adopt pesticide ordinances?
The opinion addresses counties, but § 11501.1's preemption language ("ordinance or regulation") covers cities and counties alike. A city that wants stricter pesticide rules in its coastal zone faces the same DPR-approval requirement under § 11503.
Q: What is a "site-specific" permit condition, and how is it different from an ordinance?
An ordinance is a generally applicable rule (every property in zone X must follow rule Y). A site-specific permit condition is a requirement attached to a single development permit ("this project, on this parcel, must do A, B, and C"). The AG drew this line because § 11501.1 preempts general regulation of pesticide use, not the project-by-project conditioning of land-use approvals.
Q: What happens if a county passes a preempted ordinance anyway?
Section 11501.1(b) gives the DPR Director authority to notify the local entity that the ordinance is preempted. If the local government does not repeal the offending rule, the Director "shall maintain an action for declaratory relief" to void it and "shall also bring an action to enjoin enforcement." That makes preemption self-executing once DPR moves.
Background and statutory framework
Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 11501.1. Subdivision (a) declares pesticide registration, sale, transportation, and use "of statewide concern" and occupies "the whole field of regulation," excluding local rules. Subdivision (b) authorizes the DPR Director to notify a local entity of preemption and to seek declaratory relief and an injunction if the rule is not repealed.
Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 11503. The narrow escape hatch: a county can get more restrictive local rules approved by the DPR Director.
Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq. (California Coastal Act). Establishes the Coastal Commission, the coastal zone, and the requirement that local governments adopt and implement Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) addressing coastal land use, public access, and resource protection.
Local Coastal Program. A planning document, certified by the Coastal Commission, by which a coastal county or city implements the Coastal Act in its coastal zone. The LCP can identify pesticide-related concerns; what the AG opinion clarifies is the scope of the implementing tools available to a county under preemption.
Citations
- Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 11501.1 (preemption)
- Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 11503 (DPR approval pathway)
- Cal. Food & Agric. Code §§ 11401-14103 (pesticide regulatory scheme)
- Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30000 et seq. (California Coastal Act)
- Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 30500 (Local Coastal Programs)
Source
- Landing page: https://oag.ca.gov/opinions/yearly-index
- Original PDF: https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/opinions/pdfs/21-1001.pdf
Original opinion text
TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
State of California
ROB BONTA
Attorney General
OPINION
of
ROB BONTA
Attorney General
SUSAN DUNCAN LEE
Deputy Attorney General
No. 21-1001
March 20, 2024
The HONORABLE ROBERT H. PITTMAN, SONOMA COUNTY COUNSEL, has requested an opinion on questions relating to regulation of pesticides in California's "coastal zone."
QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND CONCLUSIONS
- May a county adopt ordinances to regulate the use of pesticides in the coastal zone to implement Local Coastal Program requirements?
No. Food and Agricultural Code section 11501.1 expressly preempts local ordinances regulating "the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides." Ordinances violating this restriction are "void and of no force or effect." Given this broad preemption, a county may not adopt ordinances or other laws of general application to regulate the use of pesticides, even to implement Local Coastal Program requirements, unless it obtains approval from the Department of Pesticide Regulation under Agricultural Code section 11503.
- May a county take other actions, legislative, regulatory or otherwise, to address the environmental impacts of pesticide use in a Local Coastal Program without violating Food and Agricultural Code section 11501.1?
Yes. Although a county may not adopt ordinances or other laws of general application that purport to regulate the use of pesticides in the coastal zone absent approval from the Department of Pesticide Regulation, it may take certain other actions, legislative, regulatory or otherwise, to address the environmental impacts of pesticide use in the coastal zone without violating section 11501.1. For example:
- In deciding whether to grant an individual land-use development permit for a particular site, a county may condition the permit on site-specific restrictions on pesticide use.
- A county may adopt policies or regulations aimed at reducing the need for pesticide use in the first instance, such as sanitary rules for the reduction of rodents and other pests.
- A county may adopt policies or regulations that mitigate the local post-use effects of pesticides, such as by requiring training and certification in methods of cleaning that minimize the leaching of pesticides after they have been used.
- Similarly, a county may publish recommendations or advisory policies encouraging best practices regarding pesticide use or alternatives to pesticide use.
- And a county may restrict the use of pesticides by its own employees in the course of their work, or on property owned by the county, so long as those restrictions apply only to county operations and do not purport to impose generally applicable restrictions throughout the county.
BACKGROUND
In this opinion, we consider whether a county may adopt ordinances to regulate the use of pesticides, or otherwise adopt policies to address the environmental impacts of pesticides, in the coastal zone to implement a Local Coastal Program under the California Coastal Act. We begin by reviewing the applicable legal principles.
State law preempts local government attempts to prohibit or regulate the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides without the approval of the Department of Pesticide Regulation. California's Food and Agricultural Code establishes a statutory scheme governing the use of pesticides. Its purposes include protecting public health, worker safety, and the environment; authorizing the issuance of permits for controlled pesticide use; ensuring proper labeling of pesticides; and encouraging the development of less harmful pest control methods.
To further these purposes, the Legislature has established the Department of Pesticide Regulation within the California Environmental Protection Agency. The Department's mission is to protect the environment and human health by regulating pesticides and by supporting integrated pest management.
Food and Agricultural Code section 11501.1 places statewide responsibility for pesticide regulation in the hands of the Department. Subdivision (a) preempts any local ordinance or regulation that prohibits or attempts to regulate the "registration, sale, transportation, or use" of pesticides:
(a) This division and Division 7 (commencing with Section 12501) are of statewide concern and occupy the whole field of regulation regarding the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides to the exclusion of all local regulation. Except as otherwise specifically provided in this code, no ordinance or regulation of local government, including, but not limited to, an action by a local governmental agency or department, a county board of supervisors or a city council, or a local regulation adopted by the use of an initiative measure, may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any matter relating to the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides, and any of these ordinances, laws, or regulations are void and of no force or effect.
Subdivision (b) provides that, if the Department's Director "determines that an ordinance or regulation, on its face or in its application, is preempted by subdivision (a), the director shall notify the promulgating entity that it is preempted by state law." If the local entity does not repeal the preempted ordinance or regulation, then "the director shall maintain an action for declaratory relief to have the ordinance or regulation declared void and of no force or effect, and shall also bring an action to enjoin enforcement of the ordinance or regulation."
Full opinion text continues in the linked PDF.