RAH, I wasn't disagreeing with potential liabilities....the EPA attempts to take away an applicator's right to have them proved to be at fault....regardless of conclusions, here are the 2 most pertinent excerpt from your link that supports my claim....
First, risks are inherent and presumed.....
Pesticide use inherently involves risks to humans and the environment.[14] One of the risks is the possibility that spray applications will cause particles to drift onto neighboring properties causing damages
Second, damage must be proven in court (which the EPA is trying to stop)....
Generally, plaintiffs who can show that defendants breached a label instruction or regulatory provision can succeed in recovering damages.[24] However, for claims not involving labeling or regulatory provisions, plaintiffs need to establish trespass or another common law cause of action as a basis for the recovery of damages. These claims prove challenging for plaintiffs to establish. Due to the common usage of pesticides, strict liability is generally not available as a cause of action.[25] Nuisance may be defeated by an anti-nuisance defense.[26] FIFRA preempts negligence claims concerning labeling,[27] and remaining negligence claims tend to be difficult to prove.[28] This means that persons injured by spray drift damages often seek to sue in trespass. Yet, the intangible nature of spray drift makes it difficult for plaintiffs to meet the requirements for a trespass claim. States’ approaches to trespass for securing damages resulting from spray drift vary, and this can mean that plaintiffs must carefully plead interference with exclusive possession together with injury to a res, meaning substantial property damages or damage that is physical,[29] to establish their cause of action in trespass.
