Hidden behind the United States’ largest produce supply is a crisis in farmworker housing, one that not only endangers workers but also poses a risk to consumers far beyond the fields.
California grows more than a third of America’s vegetables and most of the country’s fruits and nuts. Thousands of farmworkers power this agricultural machine, many recruited from abroad under the H2A visa program. Legally, employers must provide safe, clean accommodations for these workers, but in practice, glaring lapses in enforcement have left some living in conditions riddled with vermin, mold, overcrowding, and at times, no mattresses for sleeping. California employs only a few full-time inspectors to oversee thousands of facilities, and some inspections have been conducted virtually via FaceTime rather than in-person site visits.
State agencies such as the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Department of Public Health (DPH) are charged with ensuring these standards are upheld. California’s employee housing law requires that all accommodations meet basic standards of safety and cleanliness. Workers must be provided with comfortable beds, an adequate number of bathrooms for everyone onsite, and living spaces that shield them from cold weather and pests. However, records show that the HCD has only a few full-time inspectors to cover a vast expanse of agricultural regions. In 2022, the department identified over 1,000 violations ranging from exposed wiring to roach infestations, yet it only issued a single citation.
What makes this especially alarming is the ripple effect beyond farmworkers’ immediate health. The HCD itself has acknowledged in a 2020 budget request, now no longer available online, that overcrowded, unsanitary living arrangements can trigger diseases like E. coli or Salmonella, which may contaminate produce, especially greens meant to be eaten raw.
Beyond the visible squalor and missed inspections lies a deeper question: Can the government be held accountable when its failure to act contributes to unsafe conditions and public health risks? For farmworkers, these conditions are a daily reality. However, for consumers, the consequences of this system can surface unexpectedly, miles away from the fields.
While food-borne illness lawsuits are common, no consumer has yet taken the bold step of challenging government immunity by arguing that regulatory failures around farmworker housing put the public at risk. It’s a legal question that, so far, remains unanswered.
Can the State Be Held Responsible?
Lawsuits in California against public agencies face tall hurdles due to immunity. Public entities and their employees are usually protected from liability when they make decisions involving public health. Specifically, Government Code § 855.4 states:
In general, neither a public entity nor its employees are liable for injury resulting from the decision to perform or not to perform any act to promote public health by preventing disease or the spread of disease where the decision was the result of the exercise of discretion vested in the entity or employees. The entity and employees are further immune from liability for injury caused by an act or omission in carrying out such a decision with due care.
Simply, if the HCD or the DPH is exercising judgment about how to protect public health, such as deciding how many staff to assign to inspections, they usually cannot be sued for those choices.
However, immunity has its limits. If an agency ignores or neglects a mandatory duty, a requirement spelled out by statute or regulation, they could be held liable. This type of non-discretionary responsibility is known as a ministerial duty. As explained in Greenwood v. City of Los Angeles, when a public entity’s decision-making is not based on policy judgment but rather on “a specific legal duty,” the entity is less likely to claim discretionary immunity.
The HCD’s broad mandate is laid out in the California Code of Regulations. Title 25, Section 74 states that the regulations’ purpose is to provide “minimum requirements for the protection of life, limb, health, property, safety, and welfare of the general public.” The US Supreme Court has long recognized a municipality’s duty to enforce regulations aimed at protecting public health. HCD’s mandate to ensure safe farmworker housing is equally essential to prevent broader harms, including potential contamination of the food supply. When the state fails to enforce these protections, it not only endangers vulnerable workers but also compromises the health and safety of the general public.
Further, in terms of buildings, Section 84 provides: “All structures or portions thereof which are determined by the enforcing agency to constitute a substandard building shall be declared to be a public nuisance and shall be abated by repair, rehabilitation, or removal in accordance with Health and Safety Code Sections 17980 through 17995.” There are no cases interpreting Section 84, but because the law says substandard buildings “shall be declared a public nuisance” and “shall be abated,” the HCD must take action when it finds unsafe conditions. This is not a policy choice but a legal requirement, an example of a ministerial duty. If HCD inspectors fail to follow these steps, their immunity from lawsuits could be weakened.
The provisions in the California Health & Safety Code are worth considering. Section 113713(a) provides that the DPH has a clear mandate to step in “for the protection of public health and safety” if local agencies aren’t effectively handling a situation. Additionally, Section 113980 states, “All food shall be manufactured, produced, prepared, compounded, packed, stored, transported, kept for sale, and served so as to be pure and free from adulteration and spoilage; … shall be protected from dirt, vermin, unnecessary handling, droplet contamination, overhead leakage, or other environmental sources of contamination; shall otherwise be fully fit for human consumption.”
Section 114409(a) provides, “If any imminent health hazard is found, unless the hazard is immediately corrected, an enforcement officer may temporarily suspend the permit and order the food facility or cottage food operation immediately closed.” While the language “may temporarily suspend” sounds discretionary, the gravity of an “imminent health hazard” in the context of executing a public duty could mean the officer must take immediate steps—turning that “may” into what courts might see as a mandatory, and therefore, a ministerial duty. If an enforcement officer discovers a serious threat but does nothing, and someone becomes ill as a result, the DPH could be held liable for neglecting its legal responsibilities.
When agencies claim “discretionary immunity,” they’re essentially arguing, “We used our professional judgment, and we’re protected by law.” But if a court finds that an agency was ignoring a mandatory duty, like failing to correct a known housing or health violation, the agency might lose that protection.
For instance, if contaminated food can be traced to an HCD failure to shut down substandard farmworker housing (where a dangerous condition bred pathogens), or a DPH failure to close a facility with an imminent health hazard, one could argue that the public entity should face legal consequences.
From Hidden Crisis to Household Risk
California’s vast agricultural economy is only as safe as the systems that support it. When agencies like HCD and DPH turn a blind eye to unsafe, overcrowded, and unsanitary living conditions for farmworkers, they are not just failing a vulnerable workforce, they are putting the entire food supply chain at risk. The diseases that incubate in hidden corners of substandard housing don’t stay there. They can travel from the fields to the packing plants, from the trucks to the grocery aisles, and ultimately, onto the plates of unsuspecting consumers across the country.
The plight of migrant farmworkers, whether in rural bunkhouses or rundown farm shacks, is not an isolated anomaly. It is evidence of a systemic shortcoming, where regulatory promises on paper fall short in practice. Every time a farmworker endures rodent-infested rooms, shares a single bathroom with dozens of others, or sleeps on the floor in a crowded motel, the risks multiply for everyone who relies on that farm’s produce.
Meanwhile, as demand for produce continues to rise, the state touts its agricultural success, but with insufficient inspections and negligible penalties, corners get cut behind the scenes. Consumers trust labels and certifications to guarantee safety, yet that trust erodes when revelations of infestation and squalor surface. Each neglected bunkhouse or forgotten trailer park is a potential breeding ground for bacteria that can break out well beyond farm boundaries.
As long as California fails to enforce its own rules, every consumer stands at risk. The next person harmed by these conditions won’t be a matter of if, but who. Unless agencies fulfill both their legal duties and moral obligations, we remain one missed inspection away from endangering families across the country.
