Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
Indiana legislature passes bills for ag land purchases, broadband grants
Make spring planting safety plans early to avoid injuries
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
Court rules pesticides need permits, even with labeling

By SHELLY STRAUTZ-SPRINGBORN
Michigan Correspondent

LANSING, Mich. — A court decision earlier this year could require farmers to get a permit to apply pesticides even if they are applied in compliance with pesticide labeling laws.

Last month, the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) filed a joint petition with the American Forest and Paper Assoc., the National Cotton Council, CropLife and other industry petitioners, asking the full U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to review its ruling.

In the case National Cotton Council vs. EPA, the judicial panel reversed a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule that would have clarified that Clean Water Act (CWA) permits are not required for pesticide application near waters, so long as the application complies with pesticide labeling laws.

The recently filed petition asks the court to reverse or clarify this decision, which vacated the 2006 EPA rule exempting certain pesticide applications in, near or around water from CWA permit requirements.
In its ruling the Appeals Court said, “we hold that the EPA’s Final Rule is not a reasonable interpretation of the Act and vacate the Final Rule … we conclude that the statutory text of the Clean Water Act forecloses the EPA’s Final Rule.

“The EPA properly argues that excess chemical pesticides and chemical pesticide residues, rather than all chemical pesticides, are pollutants. However, the Final Rule does not account for the differences between chemical and biological pesticides under the language of the Clean Water Act.

“Further, because the Act provides that residual and excess chemical pesticides are added to the water by a ‘point source,’ there is no room for the EPA’s argument that residual and excess pesticides do not require an NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit.”

A rehearing has not been scheduled.

Andy Kok, Michigan Farm Bureau assistant general counsel, said in its ruling “the court said you have to require permits of people who are spraying pesticides that may end up in waterways of the United States.” This, he said, could include residential spraying,
applications at campgrounds, insect control and more.

“So, if you are spraying (a herbicide) along your driveway and it could end up running down the driveway and into a storm drain it could end up in a river … you would need a permit,” Kok said. “That’s what turned this case into something that is mildly problematic, into something that is potentially widely problematic.”
The previous EPA ruling allowed farmers to spray pesticides without a permit because they are already following provisions of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Farmers have been required to follow FIFRA regulations since 1972.
“There is no reason to add a permit on top of what are already very stringent requirements,” said MFB Commodity and Marketing Department Manager Bob Boehm.

AFBF President Bob Stallman said the current ruling “could result in a permitting program that complicates farmers’ effective use of important crop protection tools. Complications that are inevitable with any permitting process would impede the effective and time-sensitive use of pesticides to combat disease and insects that can destroy crops.”

Impacts on Michigan’s agriculture industry are still unknown. If the ruling is upheld, however, it would mean more paperwork and permit fees for farmers, according to Kok.

“The typical discharge permit is 20 pages long and costs hundreds of dollars per year in fees, plus application costs,” Kok said.
The decision would also have broad implications beyond agriculture and would affect mosquito abatement programs that protect the public against West Nile Virus and Lyme Disease, along with other control programs for pests such as gypsy moths.

The EPA has said it would not seek a rehearing on the issue. Instead, it filed a motion asking the court to delay enforcement of the ruling for two years to provide the agency and state officials time to develop and implement a permitting program.

5/14/2009