Audubon presents hundreds of dicamba symptom observations; lawmakers question data and enforcement

The joint Agriculture Committee heard competing accounts on dicamba impacts and enforcement: Dr. Dan Scheinman of Audubon Arkansas presented volunteer‑collected observations of dicamba symptomology on native and ornamental plants across Eastern Arkansas, and Scott Bray of the Arkansas State Plant Board reviewed case files, settlements and enforcement outcomes.

Dr. Scheinman said Audubon volunteers documented 363 locations where native plants on public lands displayed dicamba symptoms across roughly 20 counties, including state natural areas, cemeteries and research stations. He noted tissue samples collected by plant‑board inspectors have tested positive in some public‑land cases and argued the problem goes beyond local drift to a landscape‑scale build-up driven by volatility: "It's not about drift during application. The problem is volatility, which occurs hours or weeks after application." (Dr. Dan Scheinman)

Scott Bray told the committee that, for 2020, the plant board had opened 487 pesticide enforcement case files (215 alleged dicamba). He said 65 cases reached settlement proposals totaling approximately $1.8 million in civil‑penalty offers (mid‑range amounts), with 29 of those contested by attorneys and others settled at lower amounts through informal hearings.

Several lawmakers pressed for clarity about how complaint locations are counted. Representative Jed (Jett) and others noted that Audubon’s maps and the Plant Board spreadsheets include many closely spaced latitude/longitude pins and asked whether multiple pins in a small area could reflect a single application or be consolidated into one case file. Bray said inspectors investigate each reported location, and that case files may be consolidated if evidence shows they derive from a single application or event.

Some members, including Representative Jay, expressed concern that clustered points and cross‑border spraying from neighboring states that use different label timelines could skew the data and unfairly implicate Arkansas farmers. Other members asked whether homeowners or municipal uses (lawn treatments) could explain findings; Dr. Scheinman replied that homeowner lawn applications use much lower concentrations than agricultural applications and that many affected sites are not maintained lawns but cemeteries and natural areas.

Public testimony from farmer Terry Fuller reiterated scientific critiques of volatile dicamba formulations, citing weed‑science expert Dr. Ford Baldwin: "Volatile dicamba sprayed in summer crops simply cannot be kept on target," Fuller read on Baldwin’s behalf. The transcript records committee members’ continuing interest in enforcement results and the plant board’s handling of complaints and fines.

The committee did not adopt new enforcement rules during the session; members flagged ongoing concerns about data presentation, cross‑border issues, permit streamlining for aerial gunning (related to feral hog operations) and the plant board’s case processing timeframes as subjects for follow‑up.

The plant board and Audubon said they would provide additional information to legislators on request, and the committee proceeded to other agenda items.