DPR’s “Enforcement” Failure: How an Unfit Enforcement Officer Couldn’t Reach the Contamination Site in Lassen County

When herbicide runoff from W.M. Beaty & Associates’ aerial spraying flowed down the mountainside into my stream and pond, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) dispatched a team to investigate. What happened next is an embarrassing example of why California’s pesticide enforcement system is broken — and why Lassen County residents cannot rely on state regulators to protect our water, soil, or health.

The Incident

In early July 2025, DPR’s Environmental Monitoring Branch and Enforcement Branch arrived in Lassen County to collect soil and water samples following a contamination complaint. The target area was the steep, burned terrain above my property, where RRF Lassen-Plumas LLC, managed by W.M. Beaty & Associates, had conducted large-scale aerial herbicide spraying without proper best management practices (BMPs) to prevent runoff.

The runoff flowed directly into a small stream and pond — both of which feed downstream ecosystems and groundwater. Despite clear evidence of runoff and burned vegetation, DPR has refused to inspect the actual contamination source site for more than four months.

The Enforcement Officer Who Couldn’t Make It

According to DPR’s own internal email written by Dr. Atac Tuli, PhD, a Research Scientist III with the department, Enforcement Officer Brian Orlando ($109,512/year) — the DPR enforcement person responsible for ensuring compliance with pesticide laws and label requirements — was physically incapable of completing the site inspection. As the DPR team hiked toward the contamination site, Tuli reported that:

“Elevation and hot temperature made Brian dizzy so we told him not to go any further and rest in the shade until we come back to pick him up. We made sure that he had plenty of water.”

I personally witnessed the incident — Orlando could not make it more than a few hundred feet up the dirt road before giving up and returning to the van. This means the state’s primary enforcement officer never reached the contaminated area, while I and the monitoring scientist responsible for sample collection carried all the equipment nearly a mile uphill and back. The terrain was moderately steep — and the stretch where Orlando turned back wasn’t even steep yet. Rugged country and mountain roads are exactly where environmental violations occur. If DPR’s field enforcement personnel can’t handle walking in mountain conditions, how can they possibly claim to enforce pesticide laws that protect rural residents and ecosystems? They can’t — and they don’t.

Months Later: Still No Follow-Up Inspection

Since that failed July 2 field day, Director Karen Morrison, Brian Hughes (Assistant Director, DPR), Fidel Pérez (Environmental Program Manager I, Enforcement Branch), Paul Ryan (Senior Environmental Scientist, DPR), and Sidney Bastura (Environmental Program Manager, DPR Enforcement Branch Headquarters) have refused to even respond or reschedule a complete site inspection. Despite repeated requests, no enforcement staff have returned to examine the upslope property where W.M. Beaty & Associates sprayed herbicides without erosion or runoff controls.

Instead, DPR appears to be avoiding confrontation with the very entities responsible for the contamination — RRF Lassen-Plumas LLC and W.M. Beaty & Associates, both well-connected players in the timber and biomass industry. One DPR official admitted they are “concerned” about being sued if they step foot on the RRF Lassen – Plumas property managed by W.M. Beaty & Associates where the contamination originated. An employee on the Environmental Monitoring team also stated that this was the first time they had ever collected samples at a logging herbicide contamination site. This means DPR is not routinely monitoring or testing these sites that span across most of California, and the logging companies know this. Based on that, I highly doubt my property and water being contaminated is an isolated incident.

What the Emails Reveal

The DPR’s internal correspondence exposes a troubling culture of unfitness and bureaucratic avoidance. While the scientists who did reach the site collected samples diligently, the Enforcement Branch — led by the very people charged with protecting public health — lacked the physical ability and professional resolve to complete the job.

The result is a pseudo-investigation designed for optics, not outcomes. The contamination source remains unexamined, the responsible companies remain unpenalized, and DPR continues to bill taxpayers for enforcement activities it cannot perform.

A Broader Pattern of Evasion

This case is not isolated. Across Lassen County and Northern California, pesticide enforcement is dominated by paperwork rather than fieldwork. Physically unfit enforcement agents, poorly trained county staff, and state leadership unwilling to confront powerful industry actors have created a system that fails exactly where it’s needed most — in the field, in rural counties, and in defense of real people affected by chemical contamination.

The Bottom Line

When the California Department of Pesticide Regulation sends an enforcement officer who can’t walk more than a few hundred feet up a dirt road to inspect a contamination site — and won’t reschedule — the agency has lost credibility as an environmental protector. Rural communities like ours deserve field enforcement officers who are fit, qualified, and unafraid to hold industry accountable.

It is clear that this agency is not here to protect our water, our land, or the people’s health. Protect Lassen will continue documenting these failures publicly to ensure accountability, transparency, and protection of California’s water and soil.

Update: Sydney Bastura Environmental Program Manager at DPR Claims of “Bullying”

DPR management attempted to dismiss contamination concerns by reframing legitimate questions as “bullying” and “discourteous communication,” even though DPR’s own workplace harassment and bullying policies do not apply to members of the public. These internal directives govern the conduct of DPR employees, not private citizens filing contamination complaints. Instead of addressing the lack of a source‑site inspection or the confirmed contamination, DPR attempted to weaponize employee‑only policies as a way to silence criticism.

DPR attached its “No Harassment” and “Workplace Violence and Bullying Prevention” policies to its letter, implying the complainant had violated rules that legally cannot be violated by a member of the public. The policy itself states it applies to “employees, applicants, contractors, and temporary staff”—not residents, landowners, or complainants. Using an internal HR rule to threaten a contamination victim is a misuse of authority and a deliberate attempt to intimidate, restrict communication, and shift attention away from DPR’s enforcement failures.

By invoking internal employee protections against a private citizen, DPR avoided addressing the real issue: its own refusal to inspect the illegal spray zone, its inability to send a physically capable enforcement officer, and the ongoing environmental risks created by unpermitted aerial herbicide application. This tactic tries to make the public the problem instead of the contamination—and it does nothing to protect water, soil, or public health.

Sources:

• DPR Enforcement Branch correspondence, June 25–26, 2025 (Fidel Pérez, Environmental Program Manager)
• Internal DPR email, “RE: Soil Sampling”, July 3, 2025