A complaint from a Thorndike resident about a strong pesticide odor near Mount View High School has resulted in a state investigation that found no evidence of illegal pesticide use, but did uncover record-keeping and equipment compliance violations at a large corn field across from the school that could lead to enforcement action by the Maine Board of Pesticides Control.
The complaint was filed by Michael Clark, who lives on Mount View Road near both the Mount View school campus and a corn field operated by Marshall and Kevin Daly. Clark said he became concerned in May after encountering what he described as an overwhelming pesticide odor near his home.
“It was like when someone sprays pesticide in your garden — multiplied by a lot and it’s everywhere. It felt like I could taste it,” Clark said. He said the smell was so strong that he believed it must have been noticeable at the nearby school as well.
“They had to smell it from the school,” Clark said. “My concern was for the kids.”
Clark’s complaint prompted an investigation by the Maine Board of Pesticides Control, which sent inspector Lucien Saucier to review a May 8 herbicide application on the farm’s approximately 120-acre Kinney Field on Mount View Road, directly across from Mount View High School.
The field is part of a larger agricultural operation that has periodically drawn concern because of its proximity to the RSU 3 campus. The issue reflects a longstanding debate in Maine communities where active farmland borders schools and residential neighborhoods, raising questions about how to balance agricultural production with public health concerns.
According to the Board’s inspection report, Daly applied two herbicides commonly used in corn production: Roundup PowerMax, which contains glyphosate, and 2,4-D Amine. Investigators determined that both products were properly registered for use in Maine and were being used on a crop and target pest specifically identified on their labels. Inspectors also found that application rates were within legal limits. Roundup PowerMax was reportedly applied at two pints per acre, while 2,4-D Amine was applied at one pint per acre, below the product’s maximum labeled rate.
The report found no evidence of violations involving pesticide storage, disposal, mixing procedures, worker protection standards, personal protective equipment, environmental restrictions or off-target pesticide drift. Inspectors concluded that required protective measures had been followed and found no indication that the products were applied in a manner inconsistent with their labels.
However, the inspection did identify two compliance violations.
The first involved the farm’s spray equipment. Investigators found that the powered sprayer used during the application had not been calibrated on the date it was used. According to the report, that constitutes a violation of Board of Pesticides Control Chapter 22 regulations governing outdoor pesticide applications. Calibration is intended to ensure pesticides are applied accurately and to minimize the potential for off-target deposition.
The second issue involved pesticide application records. Inspectors found that the farm’s documentation was incomplete and lacked several pieces of information required under state regulations. While the log included the date, location, field size, sky conditions and product names, it omitted information such as application rates, target crop and target pest. Investigators were ultimately able to verify much of the missing information through interviews with Daly, but noted that the records themselves did not meet state requirements.
The inspection also addressed concerns about the field’s location adjacent to Mount View High School. According to the report, Maine law restricts certain applications of glyphosate and dicamba within 75 feet of school grounds. However, those restrictions do not apply to commercial farming operations. As a result, inspectors found no violation related to the proximity of the field to the school.
The findings reflect a broader debate that has played out in Maine and elsewhere regarding pesticide use near schools. Agricultural experts note that proximity alone does not necessarily indicate a health risk. Factors such as the chemicals involved, weather conditions, application methods and whether pesticide drift occurs all play a role in determining potential exposure. Children are often considered more vulnerable to environmental exposures, making schools a particular focus of pesticide safety discussions.
While the Board’s investigation found no evidence that herbicides were improperly selected, illegally applied or allowed to drift beyond the target area, inspectors concluded that the calibration and record-keeping violations warranted further review. The matter has been referred to the Board’s compliance staff and executive director to determine whether enforcement action is appropriate.
The Board has several options available. The least severe outcome would be compliance assistance or a warning letter directing the farm to correct the deficiencies and improve future compliance. Such actions are commonly used when violations are administrative in nature and no environmental damage, health impacts or pesticide misuse occurred.
The Board could also pursue a consent agreement, a negotiated settlement that is reviewed in a public Board meeting and may require corrective actions and a monetary penalty. Another possibility is a civil fine. Under Maine law, a private agricultural applicator may face penalties of up to $1,000 for a first violation and up to $2,000 if a previous violation has occurred within the preceding four years. The Board typically considers factors such as the seriousness of the violation, prior enforcement history, cooperation during the investigation and whether any actual harm resulted.
Because inspectors found no evidence of illegal pesticide use, off-target drift, environmental contamination or documented health impacts, the case is generally viewed as a compliance matter involving equipment calibration and recordkeeping rather than a pesticide misuse case. As a result, the most likely outcomes range from a warning letter or compliance assistance to a consent agreement or relatively modest civil penalty.
Asked about the investigation, the Maine Board of Pesticides Control declined to discuss specifics while the matter remains under review.
“As a matter of practice, to maintain the integrity of the process, we do not comment on open investigations,” the agency said in a statement, adding that any future discussion would occur through the Board’s public process if the matter is brought before the board.
For Clark, the findings may not fully resolve the concerns that prompted his complaint. But the investigation has provided the most detailed public accounting yet of what occurred during the May herbicide application, concluding that while the pesticides themselves were used lawfully, deficiencies in equipment calibration and record-keeping remain issues that state regulators may still pursue through Maine’s enforcement process.
This story appears through a media partnership with Midcoast Villager.
