Understanding the Clean Water Act: Regulations, Pollutants, and Civil Actions

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