1 / 21

JOE’S GOT ISSUES

Joseph M. Conlon Technical Advisor, AMCA. JOE’S GOT ISSUES. The Clean Water Act. Water Pollution Control Act – 1972 Regulates discharge of pollutants into waters of U.S. EPA has authority to regulate Section 301(a) prohibits pollutant discharge unless permit issued IAW section 402.

jubal
Download Presentation

JOE’S GOT ISSUES

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Joseph M. Conlon Technical Advisor, AMCA JOE’S GOT ISSUES

  2. The Clean Water Act • Water Pollution Control Act – 1972 • Regulates discharge of pollutants into waters of U.S. • EPA has authority to regulate • Section 301(a) prohibits pollutant discharge unless permit issued IAW section 402

  3. Clean Water Act - Definitions • Pollution: man-induced alteration of chemical, physical, bio integrity of water • Pollutant: chemical waste, biological materials and agricultural waste

  4. Clean Water Act - Definitions • Point Source: discernible, confined and discrete conveyance such as pipe, ditch rolling stock, etc. from which a pollutant may be discharged • Does not include agricultural stormwater discharges or return flows from irrigation

  5. Clean Water Act – Civil Actions • Any citizen - against any person, including government entities alleged to be violating effluent standards • Against EPA Administrator if alleged failure to perform duties under CWA

  6. Headwaters vs. Talent Irrigation • March 12, 2001 - 9th Circuit decision for plaintiffs • Magnacide H – acrolein • Residual acrolein considered chemical waste • EPA - enforcement low priority

  7. Headwaters vs.Talent Irrigation • FIFRA – nationally uniform labeling system, but no permitting system for individual application • EPA approves pesticides with knowledge that pesticides containing pollutants may be discharged from point sources only pursuant to obtaining NPDES permit

  8. Altman vs. Town of Amherst • Sept 26, 2002 – 2nd Circuit decision • Application of adulticides (malathion, resmethrin, permethrin) to wetlands w/o NPDES permit

  9. Is a Pesticide a Chemical Waste? • Is it a chemical pesticide? • Is it an aquatic pesticide? • Is it applied for public benefit? • Is it applied IAW FIFRA?

  10. Rulemaking Petition • Requested change in definition of “pollutant” • Requested change in definition of “discharge of pollutant” • Specifically exempt larvicides/adulticides

  11. EPA Interim Guidance • July 11, 2003 EPA issues guidance memo • Pesticides applied IAW label not pollutants • Addresses jurisdictional issues • Talent was FIFRA violation • Comments provided 14 October

  12. Further Litigation LWD vs. Forsgren No Spray Coalition vs. NYC Gem County - St. John’s Organic farm

  13. Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee • October 29-30, 2003 • Bill Meredith – AMCA Representative • PPDC: 42 stakeholders • ESA Issues • Mosquito Product Labeling Issues

  14. ESA Lawsuits OR Nat. Res. Council v. EPA & OR DEQ: claims fish species affected by aquatic product - failure to consult Cascade Resources Advocacy Group (Ctr. For Biological Diversity) v. EPA: failure to consult PLUS alleging violations of the Migratory Treaty Act 11 Enviros v. USDA: failure to consult in issuing field test permits for biopharming OR Nat. Res. Council v. Bureau of Rec.: salmon and suckers harmed by fungicides and aquatics in Klamath Basin irrigation canals and adjacent crops Washington Toxics Coalition v. EPA: salmonid species, interim buffers for 40+ ais ag/professional use only - 6 ais urban NRDC v. EPA: suit alleging EPA is not doing enough to protect endangered species in Chesapeake Bay and major Midwestern and Southern rivers from atrazine Citizens Against Toxic Substances v. EPA: salmon and forestry plants in N. California. EPA now working on concurrences on determinations with NMFS and FWS Defenders of Wildlife v. EPA: fenthion/mosquitoes – alleges violation of Migratory Bird Act - threatening certain protected migratory and endangered birds Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA: Red legged frog in CA. Two of four claims denied, further action pending Center for Biological Diversity and Save Our Springs Alliance v. EPA: Atrazine/Diazinon/Carbaryl – alleges failure to note risks to Barton Springs Salamander

  15. PPDC – ESA Issues • Need enhanced communication w/USFWS • Ecological Risk Assessments • Screening level for broad taxonomic groups • Risk Quotients (RQ) • If RQ high, then species-specific • County Level Bulletins • Specific areas • Last resort

  16. Risk Assessments – AMCA Concerns • Who conducts risk assessments (RA)? • Who funds RA? • Will EPA, USFWS, NMFS be funded to perform roles? • Can RA be challenged? • How are priorities determined? • Which pesticides reviewed first?

  17. ESA Rulemaking Proposal • Habitat destruction and invasive species worst threats • USFWS & NMFS propose regulations for improved consultation • agree that EPA RA’s adequately protect ES • do not require separate reviews by agencies • To be periodically reviewed by agencies • reduces red tape and redundancy • National Wilderness Institute supports proposal • ESA lawsuits used to limit access to pesticides • not used to protect species

  18. Mosquitocide Labeling Issues • Restricted Use designation • Separate Directions for Mosquito Control • “Use over water” • Hazard Statements • Lead Agency Consult • Calibration Requirements on Label • “Repeat as Needed”

  19. Environmentalist Issues • All adulticides need RU label • Spraying doesn’t stop WNV • No level of exposure is safe • Spray only when problem quantified • Source reduction & Pub Ed are the answers • Don’t allow registrants to specify application intervals

  20. The Future • Challenges • Washington NPDES Permit • Lyndhurst et al. • Gem County, venue

More Related