Pesticide Spraying Rule Challenged In Court

Agricultural chemical manufacturers and environmentalists have filed lawsuits challenging a recent EPA decision that allows pesticides to be sprayed into or near waterways without first obtaining a permit under the Clean Water Act.

Last month, EPA issued a final rule stating that federal discharge permits are not necessary when using pesticides to control waterborne pests or to control pests found over or near waterways (C&EN, Dec. 4, page 15).

"The EPA rule, while a step in the right direction, only applies to aquatic uses and forest canopy applications of pesticides," says Jay J. Vroom, president of CropLife America, which represents U.S. pesticide makers.

A lawsuit filed by the group in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia argues that EPA should expand the rule to all pesticides, including those used in production agriculture.

"Broadening the rule would provide needed assurance to farmers and ranchers who follow the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide & Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) in applying pesticides that they will not need a Clean Water Act permit," Vroom says. FIFRA is the primary federal law governing the registration and application of pesticides.

Similar lawsuits challenging the EPA rule have been filed separately by pesticide manufacturers BASF, Syngenta, and Bayer CropScience and by several allied agricultural groups including the Illinois Fertilizer & Chemical Association and the National Cotton Council.

Environmental activists have criticized the agency's decision, arguing that chemicals sprayed to control mosquitoes and other pests in or around water can also poison fish and wildlife. A lawsuit filed by the activist group Baykeeper in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco contends that EPA is ignoring its duties under the Clean Water Act.

"Congress was quite clear in directing EPA to regulate pesticide pollution," says Deb Self, executive director of Baykeeper. "Rather than enforcing laws as Congress wrote them, once again the Bush Administration has simply interpreted the law to suit its purposes."