RL32884 - Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?
14-Jun-2007; Claudia Copeland; 19 p.
Update: Previous releases:
December 12, 2006
December 5, 2005
October 27, 2005
Abstract: This report provides background on the emerging conflict over interpretation and implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). For the more than 30 years since they were enacted, there has been little apparent conflict between them. But their relationship has recently been challenged in several arenas, including the federal courts and regulatory proceedings of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this report, a brief discussion of the two laws is followed by a review of the major litigation of interest. EPA’s efforts to clarify its policy in this area, including a regulation issued in November 2006, are discussed, as well as possible options for EPA and Congress to address the issues further.
FIFRA governs the labeling, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides, including insecticides and herbicides. Its objective is to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides. It establishes a nationally uniform labeling system requiring the registration of all pesticides sold in the United States, and requiring users to comply with the national label. The CWA creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme to control the discharge of pollutants into the nation’s waters; the discharge of pollutants without a permit violates the act.
Five federal court cases testing the relationship between FIFRA and the CWA have drawn attention since 2001. In two cases concerning pesticide applications by agriculture and natural resources managers, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that CWA permits are required for at least some discharges of FIFRA-regulated pesticides over, into, or near U.S. waters. It held in a third case that no permit was required for the specific pesticide in question. Two other pending cases involve the use of pesticides for mosquito control. In these cases, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet addressed whether the application of FIFRA-approved pesticides requires a CWA discharge permit.
The judicial rulings alarmed a range of stakeholders who fear that requiring CWA permits for pesticide application activities would present significant costs, operational difficulties, and delays. Pressed by many to clarify its long-standing principle that CWA permits are not required for using FIFRA-approved products, EPA in November 2006 issued a rule to formalize that principle in regulations. Environmental activists strongly oppose EPA’s actions, arguing that FIFRA does not protect water quality from harmful pollutant discharges, as the CWA is intended to do. Other stakeholders, such as pesticide applicators, endorse the rule, although some would like to see its application broadened to include pesticide drift.
Some believe that the controversy will only be resolved by congressional action to clarify the intersecting scope of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA. Legislation intended to do so by codifying EPA’s policy in law was introduced in the 109th Congress, but it was not enacted. Legislation to reverse the policy was not introduced. Whether these issues will receive attention in the 110th Congress is unclear for now.