November-December 2005
House Bill Addresses Water/Pesticide Controversy
Numerous farmers and pest control experts testified at a House subcommittee regarding a bill that would amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA). The amendment would eliminate the need to obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits when using pesticides near water. The group stated that lawsuits from non-governmental organizations have cost the pest control and farming industry millions of dollars and hurt production capabilities of many smaller growers and applicators.
The bill, entitled “Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act” was introduced in spring by legislators from Idaho and California. The bill would eliminate the need for growers and pesticide applicators to apply for a state or county permit to spray pesticides near or around standing water or water supply sources.
The Chairman of the National Water Resources Association, Scott Campbell, and an attorney specializing in clean water law stated that activist litigation has produced a number of erroneous interpretations of the legal pesticide spraying requirements of the FWPCA over the last four years. “Agriculture has been dramatically impacted in states within the Ninth Circuit because of these decisions,” stated Campbell. “Effective delivery of water requires periodic treatment of surface water canals and ditches to reduce growth of moss and other aquatic plants. Common sense suggests that wise use of beneficial chemical products, in accordance with the label restriction previously adopted by EPA, is more than adequate to protect the environment and allow the human population to obtain the benefits of these pest control substances.”
The FWPCA, also known as the Clean Water Act, authorizes EPA to protect the nation’s waterways by regulating discharges from large industrial operations and wastewater facilities through issuance of NPDES permits. Both the FWPCA and FIFRA were enacted in 1972, and in ensuing years, confusion has reigned over which act is the final authority over the spraying of pesticides over or near standing water or water sources. Pesticide users contend that proper use of a pesticide via labeled directions does not require NPDES permitting, while activists have responded to that position by suing at the state and county level those companies or individuals that have sprayed pesticides over or around water without such a permit.
Edward Flanagan, a blueberry grower from Maine, testified that farmers that request NPDES permits from state and county governments are told they do not need them. However, by filing a citizen suit under the act, the activists could have their legal expenses paid by the grower if they prevail in court. However, if the grower prevailed, he could not seek reimbursement. Consequently, in order to avoid a costly, drawn-out legal matter, the growers get a permit that the State of Maine and EPA don’t consider necessary. (Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, 10/3/05).
