In January 2019, three Colorado aerial applicators made the
bold decision to fight alleged drift cases brought against them, knowing the
claims had no basis in fact or science. After over a year of litigation, a final
court order was issued Wednesday clearing the applicators of all
wrongdoing.
Represented by attorney John Wright, applicators could have
saved themselves a lot of time and money by simply paying a $1,000 fine. However,
the cases brought against them were clearly a witch-hunt by the Colorado
Attorney General’s office.
Prosecutors claimed the applicators did things that were
scientifically impossible, such as drifting upwind and having two products
mixed in the aircraft (lamda-cyhalothrin and chlorpyrifos) somehow unmix in the
air before drifting.
Even more egregious, one case was from 2012 and the other
two from 2014. Claims were filed against the applicators at the time and
evidence was collected, but the applicators did not know this until years
later, long after they could collect meaningful evidence on behalf of
themselves. Thankfully meticulous record keeping aided in the claims being
dismissed. As a result of this, legislation is being considered in Colorado to
ensure applicators are informed of claims against them in a timely manner.
The judges in the decision cited the applicator’s
professionalism, specifically noting participation in Operation S.A.F.E. Fly-ins.
John Wright, the attorney who represented the three
applicators, is contracted with NAAA as part of the association’s legal services
program for members. Under the agreement, 2020 operator and pilot members
are eligible for a legal consultation of up to one hour on federal aviation
laws with Mr. Wright. Mr. Write is a commercial pilot based in Broomfield, CO.
You can read more about him here.
The timing of this case couldn’t be better as Colorado’s
Democratic majority legislature is undertaking efforts to more forcefully
regulate pesticides and from a multitude of different government jurisdictions.
The decision in this case is an
indication that government oversight was clearly excessive and unfair, thereby
questioning the need and reasoning to expand government control.