Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Agriculture Pesticides topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local resident describes $1.4 million in alleged orchard losses from off‑label dicamba use
Summary
A person speaking at the July 3 City of Evansville Tree Advisory Board meeting described multi-year crop and tree damage they attribute to off‑label dicamba volatility and said legal and insurance avenues have been delayed, estimating losses of about $1.4 million.
A resident addressing the City of Evansville Tree Advisory Board on July 3 described ongoing crop and tree damage they attribute to off‑label use and volatilization of the herbicide dicamba, and estimated total losses at roughly $1.4 million.
The resident said the affected grower has been unable to harvest for “at least 3 or 4 years” because spray drift or volatilization damaged trees and crops and that insurance may not cover losses if application instructions were not followed. "So we have now pushed his total losses up to about $1,400,000," the speaker said. "And the soybean farmer is just dragging his heels and somehow... this guy cannot get in the court."
The resident described dicamba as volatile and said the chemical’s drift risk depends on a narrow window of wind and temperature. "Dicamba volatilizes," they said. "There's a very, very narrow window between wind and temperature and this guy is just super sloppy." They urged public attention and media pressure to accelerate legal action, saying the farmer affected will not recover the full loss but that publicity could help force timelier legal resolution.
The speaker said the orchardist has had to remove trees that were killed over several seasons, and outlined the additional labor and replanting costs tied to a five‑year recovery cycle before harvests could resume. The speaker also said they consulted with the Indiana State Chemist’s office about historical use of dicamba and enforcement challenges.
These remarks were delivered during the meeting’s public comment portion and did not prompt a formal board action recorded in the meeting minutes. The board did not offer a substantive response on record during the session.
The board’s meeting transcript records the resident’s allegations and estimated losses but does not include corroborating evidence, court filings or insurance determinations. The meeting record therefore reports the speaker’s statements as attributed claims rather than verified facts.
