According to the NAWG article, both CropLife America and RISE, trade associations for crop producers, point out the Second Circuit decision did not endorse a previous 2009 decision from the Court of Appeal, Sixth Circuit in National Cotton Council v. Enviromental Protection Agency. In that case the court found pesticide discharge is a point source of pollution, and therefore subject to additional regulation and permitting under the Clean Water Act. Thus the confusion.
Here is the NAWG analysis of the importance of the differing decisions"
Importantly, the Second Circuit held that applications under the auspices of EPA’s rule and applied in compliance with an EPA-approved FIFRA label is lawful as long as the rule remains in effect. The Second Circuit Court ruling also notes that nothing changes the EPA rule until the stay currently in place related to the Sixth Circuit ruling is lifted. These facts effectively mean that the use of crop protection products vital to agricultural production and public health is not in immediate danger."
Both CropLife American and RISE argue that these conflicting decisions highlight the need for some Congressional action on the matter.
To read the NAWG article, click here.
To read the Second Circuit decision, click here.
To read the Sixth Circuit decision, click here.
For additional information on the Clean Water Act, check out the National Agricultural Law Center's Clean Water Act Reading Room by clicking here.
Posted: 04/12/10
