NASDA SUBMITS COMMENTS TO EPA REGARDING NPDES PERMITS

News Date July 20, 2010

This week NASDA submitted comments to EPA regarding the draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for point source discharges from the application of pesticides.  These permits were mandated by a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

From the beginning, NASDA has maintained that pesticide applications should be regulated under the federal pesticide law, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and that Congress never intended these products to be regulated under the Clean Water Act (CWA). 

One of the primary issues addressed by NASDA’s comments relates to the impact the draft permit will have on institutional relationships, at both the state and federal levels.  In the majority of states, the department of agriculture is the lead agency for pesticide matters.  Most states are also authorized by the CWA to issue NPDES permits for activities within the state, but the authority to do so lies in a separate agency from the pesticide authority.

NASDA also emphasized in its comments problems associated with timing and resources available to states for developing their permits.  Nearly every state is facing significant fiscal challenges, and state pesticide programs are being forced to take new responsibilities despite being chronically underfunded for several years.  The record keeping and reporting requirements of the PGP impact the workload of the state agencies, and states need to be provided with sufficient resources to complete the mandated tasks. 

Regulation of pesticide application under the Clean Water Act has the potential to cause significant problems for applicators as well as state regulators.  Violations of the CWA carry hefty penalties for even minor paperwork errors or omissions, and these fines would be especially damaging to small businesses and public health groups with limited financial resources. Furthermore the citizen action provisions in the Act have the potential to expose applicators to litigation that would require significant legal costs regardless of how trivial the case may be.  The overall effect would not necessarily be to provide environmental protection, but would instead “deprive the public of important public health services of mosquito control districts and invasive species control programs that are integral to a safe and abundant food supply.”  (By: Jason Markovich, Contact: Nathan Bowen)