Chemical drift from agricultural applications has been and will remain a problem for farmers, their neighbors and the environment generally. Even in the best of conditions, it is likely unavoidable. Factors such as wind, humidity and equipment condition and efficiency are only a few of the factors that affect the extent and nature of chemical drift. Understanding these factors and “controlling” them are key to avoiding or minimizing liability for damage to other properties and plants. Add to this the fact that (a) the urbanization of our population makes agriculture a little understood industry and (b) nobody wants to have chemicals used on their food, and you have a general distaste (no pun intended) for those who make their living “by polluting the earth” with chemicals, no matter how necessary to create a safe and ample supply of food.

Problematic for the applicator is that the factors previously mentioned (or others that may arise) generally cannot be controlled in any significant manner. In fact, chemical drift can occur even days after the initial application due to evaporation, rain or wind. As a result, court cases from state to state are confusing at best, rendering decisions that can best be characterized as very fact specific. As one might suspect, it is in general safe to say that the applicator very likely goes into any such case with those who will render a decision having a pre-supposed notion that they did something to kill the neighbors plants via an act that must have been a horrendous toxic spill of some sort. It is only by presenting good evidence of the care taken to minimize anything other than completely accidental damage that an applicator can start to overcome the bias against his business in general.