Back to the West Nile Virus listserv archive.
Subject: [WNV-L] EPA: Use of Mosquito Control Pesticides Over Water
Date:
July 16, 2003
Posted by:
Environmental Risk Analysis Program <envrisk@cornell.edu>
[This article pertains to an EPA memo—"Interim Statement and Guidance on Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States in Compliance with FIFRA"—written by G. Tracy Mehan III, Assistant Administrator for Water (4101 ) and Stephen Johnson, former Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (7101), who is currently EPA's acting deputy administrator. The Statement is dated July 11 and was distributed to EPA Regional Administrators on July 15, 2003. The Guidance specifically addresses use of insecticides over water for control of mosquito larvae and adults. Full text is posted to ERAP's WNV webpages at: http://environmentalrisk.cornell.edu/WNV/WNVEducDocs/EPAGuidanceJuly03.pdf. — LCL] Source: Inside EPA Date: July 15, 2003 UPCOMING EPA POLICY ASSERTS BROAD CLEAN WATER ACT EXCLUSION FOR PESTICIDES EPA is poised to announce that various uses of pesticides in the nation's waters does not require a Clean Water Act permit, a policy stance that appears to challenge findings by two federal appeals courts that such pesticide applications do require water permits. In a July 11 memo, EPA water chief Tracy Mehan and former pesticides chief Stephen Johnson — who is currently EPA's acting deputy administrator — tell agency regional administrators that the use of pesticides is not subject to permitting requirements under the water act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System when areas are already regulating pesticides under another federal statute. A source tracking the issue says the memo was sent out to regions July 15. According to the memo, EPA will issue an interim guidance in response to a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that reversed a district court ruling that no permit was needed for a town to employ pesticides. In Altman v. Town of Amherst, New York, the 2nd Circuit found that, "Until the EPA articulates a clear interpretation of current law . . . the question of whether properly used pesticides can become pollutants that violate the [Clean Water Act] will remain open." The memo addresses two specific sets of circumstances where the agency argues that permits are not necessary if requirements under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) are met. One circumstance is when pesticides are used to control pests that are present over U.S. waters that result in a portion of the pesticides being deposited in those waters, "for example, when insecticides are aerially applied to a forest canopy where waters of the United States may be present below the canopy or when insecticides are applied over water for control of adult mosquitoes." The agency's assertion appears to contradict a 9th Circuit appeals court decision in League of Wilderness Defenders v. Forsgren late last year, which ruled that aerial pesticide spraying that might reach waters requires water act permits. The ruling addressed pesticide drift into waters from aerial spraying by the Forest Service to control moth infestation. The second circumstance addressed in the memo would exclude from water act permits certain applications of pesticides directly to U.S. waters. The memo states "examples of such applications include applications to control mosquito larvae or aquatic weeds." In a 2001 ruling in Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District, the 9th Circuit held that irrigators must obtain permits to apply herbicides to irrigation canals. EPA said after the Talent decision that permitting requirements highlighted in the case would be a low enforcement priority. But an environmentalist familiar with the issue is raising legal questions about the EPA memo, saying the anticipated agency policy is disingenuous, pointing to an amicus brief EPA filed in the Talent case, which stated that compliance with FIFRA does not necessarily mean compliance with the water act. However, in the memo EPA states that its Talent brief did not address whether pesticide application is regulated by the Clean Water Act or "the circumstances under which pesticides are 'pollutants'" under the act. One EPA official declined to comment, while other agency officials did not return calls. The memo argues that pesticides, applied consistently with the FIFRA regulations, do not constitute pollutants under the water act — saying pesticides are neither "chemical wastes" nor "biological materials." The memo does add that the interim guidance does not bar state or tribal authorities from pursuing more stringent controls over pesticide applications. The memo says EPA plans to request comment on this interim guidance through the Federal Register prior to issuing a final agency position. However, the agency instructs regions to follow the guidelines laid out in the memo until such a final position is determined. — Matt Shipman Date: July 15, 2003 © Inside Washington Publishers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WESTNILEVIRUS-L is an email discussion group for communication and discussion about West Nile Virus, particularly regarding policy, risk reduction and public education issues. It is moderated by Dr. Lois Levitan at Cornell University's Center for the Environment. Archives are posted at: http://environmentalrisk.cornell.edu/WNV/WNV-L_ArchiveIndex.html. To subscribe (or unsubscribe), send an email request with your name and contact information to <envrisk@cornell.edu>. To receive messages once a day in digest format, subscribers can send an email to <listproc@cornell.edu> with message: "set WESTNILEVIRUS-L mail digest-nomime". Subscribers are encouraged to post to the group by sending messages to <envrisk@cornell.edu>. Please put "WNV Listserv" in the subject line and send only unformatted text, without attachments. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------