But at times over the past 10 months, Dan Schaeffer and his nearby farming colleagues couldn't see 100 feet along Crestview Road just east of Hazelton because of blowing sandy rangeland soil.

That, in itself, isn't a problem, except for the wind-rippled sand drifts clogging the drainage ditches along the road.

It's the lethal chemical, Oust, hitching a ride along with the airborne dust that has a group of 93 farmers near here wringing their hands. The herbicide, used by the Bureau of Land Management to keep unwanted weeds under control on nearby rangeland, is destroying an estimated $100,000 in sugar beets, potatoes, barley and other crops, the area farmers say.

With harvest coming on, and poor or dead crops in the ground, the growers say they need a resolution, and fast.

"We're not a bunch of corporate farmers with big. deep pockets," said Schaeffer. "This is a family community. We're still mom and pop farms out here."

"If somebody accepts responsibility, then all we've lost is a bunch of sleepless nights," said area farmer Daryl Serr.

But who will step forward?

Critics of DuPont, the manufacturer of Oust, say the chemical giant should be held responsible.

But a company spokeswoman, pointing to evidence of other herbicides in soil samples, said it's too early to determine if Oust is even the cause of the trouble. Also, the company said its Environmental Protection Agency-required label for the product provides all the warning any responsible purchaser would need to use the product.

And some quietly question the BLM's choice to use the product despite label warnings against applying it to "powdery dry soil or light sandy soil when there is little likelihood of rainfall after treatment."

The BLM says it used the chemical -- sprayed by two different contractors over a period of days -- correctly and that drought conditions that might have spread it were an act of God.

And until more information is gathered about the extent and cause of the problem, those involved -- including the politicians -- say they can do nothing.

Meanwhile, farmers wait for someone to tell them something that will make nervous bankers relax -- something that tells them their livelihood is still intact.

The situation

Growers first recognized a problem with their crops in mid-May. Their search for the culprit turned to a lightning-caused wildfire that ripped through 20,000 acres of rangeland in a matter of a few hours late last summer.

The very fast, very hot blaze wiped out everything in its path, including 600 to 700 cattle. Vegetation was burned to the ground, leaving a blackened, dusty moonscape littered with groups of singed, bloated cattle corpses.

As a prelude to reseeding the scorched sagebrush desert, the BLM first had to keep weeds, like cheatgrass, under control. Contractors using helicopters and trucks sprayed the area with Oust in October.

When last summer's drought conditions, the cause of the intensity of last August's blaze, didn't abate through the winter and spring, the dusty, bare soil began to blow eastward into the fields there.

Another group of farmers, also on the downwind side of a range fire site near Aberdeen, is facing a similar, if not as severe, situation.

"Their severe damage is equivalent to our moderate damage," said Schaeffer, who was selected by the Hazelton-area farmers to be their spokesman.

"It's one of the most significant cases in the 10 years I've been at the Department of Ag," said Bob Spencer of the Idaho Department of Agriculture, who's heading up research on the problem along with the University of Idaho's extension program.

So far, 93 farmers between Hazelton and Paul have come forward with claims of possible Oust-caused damage.

"We're getting complaints from as far as 28 and 30 miles away," said Spencer.

And while most evidence points to a contamination by the BLM's Oust, the rub is proving it to the satisfaction of the government and DuPont.

To that end, 17 soil samples from damaged fields within 10-mile radius of the fire have been analyzed at the University of Montana.

Only one sample, near the edge of the 10-mile radius, was found to not have at least traceable amounts of Oust. The heaviest contamination occurred closest to the fire site. One private sample, about 24 or 25 miles out, found a trace of the chemical -- which could be enough to affect a field, Spencer said.

However, investigators found evidence of another herbicide, Assert, in three other samples. And another sample found Metribuzin, another soil sterilant. DuPont spokeswoman Gabrielle King points to these deviations as evidence other substances may be at work.

Spencer agreed with DuPont that the presence of other substances may affect a grower's claim of damage. But, he said, Oust's role in some of the fields is evident.

"It doesn't take much of this stuff," he said.

Some of the sampling equipment registers .125 parts per billion of the chemical.

"Whether that amount takes a plant out or just damages it, we don't know," Spencer said. Some plants, such as the weeds now infesting thin grain fields around Hazelton, are more resilient.

Because Oust, a soil sterilant, attacks the plant's root system and becomes active only after contact with moisture, like irrigation water, sugar beets and other tuber crops are especially vulnerable.

Some damage, especially to potatoes, may not be evident until harvest time.

Pros and cons

BLM began experimenting with Oust, a soil sterilant used mainly as a weed killer in industrial parks, for use in Idaho's sagebrush desert about 10 years ago.

"It's a good tool," said Joe Russell, the BLM's Shoshone-based range manager. "That's why we use it -- because it gives us good control."

Russell has overseen the use of Oust several times in his district, including one job just north of the currently affected area.

He said the agency is careful about when and where it sprays.

"We don't go out and spray in July or August," he said. "We wait until October, when it's supposed to be a little more wet."

Russell said widespread use started in 1997, but it is mostly used in Russell's district. Use peaked last summer, he said.

He can't say how things got away the way they did this time.

"All I'm going to tell you is that we can't predict what the winter and spring will bring us," he said.

But some say Oust shouldn't be used anywhere, no matter the conditions, much less within throwing distance of crops as it was used near Hazelton.

"I think the chemical is too lethal," said Stewart Turner Sr., a forensic agronomist based in Washington state. "It should be taken off the market."

Turner and his son, Stewart Jr., also a forensic agronomist, have been involved in 15 to 18 cases of various magnitude involving Oust in the last 15 years. The most significant was in Franklin County, Wash., in 1985, when a local highway district sprayed the chemical in its roadside ditches in very similar circumstances as those in Hazelton. Resulting crop damage in nearby fields led to what he called a less-than-optimum settlement for the farmers.

"DuPont is a very experienced litigator," said the younger Turner, a vocal critic of the company. He compared DuPont to "Al Capone in Chicago before Eliot Ness showed up."

He claimed DuPont changed its EPA label in 1988 as a direct result of the Franklin County incident, including much more restrictive language about the use of the product.

The 1988 label, which specifically says "do not" use Oust in certain types of conditions, especially on dry, sandy soils where rainfall is not likely, is not nearly as restrictive as the product's 1998 label. The new label simply tells users of the hazards of using in certain situations.

While the Turners and Spencer say the language is much less restrictive and less legally binding, DuPont's King said the new label is "more restrictive."

"I think they're putting too much emphasis on the words 'do not,'" King said, calling the change an "evolution in labeling." The old label "doesn't tell you what will happen if you do." She also pointed out the new label was approved by EPA.

King would not comment on the long-term effects the Hazelton contamination might have on crops, saying there's not enough information about the chemical's effect under those specific circumstances yet.

But others involved with the investigation have warned growers in the most heavily affected areas to expect three to four years of no or at least anemic yields.

Turner also warns growers not to be complacent.

"It's totally a 'trust me' deal," he said. "These farmers are being told to trust the government, the same government that sprayed this stuff in the first place.

"Those farmers should know DuPont won't settle voluntarily."

The wait

When Tom Murphy's sprouting sugar beet plants didn't look right this spring, he replanted. Then he did it again. And again.

"I've spent $27,000 on this field to date, and I'll get nothing," Murphy said. "Overall, I'm looking at a $100,000 loss."

Members of Idaho's congressional delegation say they're well aware of the growers' pain and are working toward a number of solutions. But until more information about the cause and extent surfaces, they say, there's not much they can do.

"We have to know what we're up against," said Luci Willits, U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson's spokeswoman.

Meanwhile, the increasingly poor crop commodity market, industry consolidation, rising energy and fuel costs and a record drought year are the least of some Hazelton-area growers' problems.

One bit of good news, however, did come for the growers this week. The U.S. Department of Agriculture approved their crops for human and animal consumption. It's been a big worry, especially whether beer companies would buy their barley -- at least what can be harvested.

Whatever else they get out of this growing season will likely have to come from Congress or the courts -- a time-consuming option most farmers don't like to think about.

"Without a court fight, I don't think we're going to get anything out of the BLM," said Serr.

Times-News politics and state government reporter Michael Journee can be reached at (208) 733-0931, Ext. 231, or by e-mail at mjournee@magicvalley.com.