(Beyond Pesticides, July 23, 2008) Aerial spraying for West Nile virus (WNv) over urban areas of Sacramento County, California has been halted for one week, after three days of spraying, in order to determine the success of the treatment. The results from a series of before-and-after mosquito trapping, dead bird testing and testing for infected mosquitoes are expected to take one week to complete before it is determined whether spraying should continue.

The Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District is hoping that previous treatments were successful in reducing infected mosquitoes and that it will not need to do more aerial spraying this season. Assistant manager, Gary Goodman, indicated that the possibility of continued spraying remains uncertain, as new data from dead bird testing, mosquito trap analyses and from human cases become available.

To combat WNv, the Sacramento-Yolo district has sprayed the pesticide, Evergreen Crop Protection EC 60-6T (which contains pyrethrins) over selected urban areas. Spraying for mosquitoes over urban areas of the county started in 2005, even though aerial sprayings over agricultural fields and from the ground using trucks or hand crews have occurred for a long time. In 2005 however, WNv began spreading broadly in northern California, and Sacramento was especially hard hit. Reported human cases, which usually involve either more severe symptoms or detection during routine blood donation, peaked at 880 in California in 2005. Nineteen people statewide died of WNv that year. In 2007, there were 380 reported human cases and 21 deaths, and so far this year there have been six reported cases and no deaths, according to the California Department of Public Health. The Sacramento-Yalo area reported 182 human cases in 2005. The disease most commonly passes with no symptoms, but it can be deadly or permanently disabling.

Spraying began late last week for three consecutive days after a delay due to smoke from wildfires that have ravaged the region. WNv often appears in late July, but this year signs of infection were confirmed earlier, with the first dead bird that tested positive for WNv found in March in the Sacramento-Yalo area. The public is now being urged to take precautions. Along with eliminating sources of standing water where mosquitoes breed, including abandoned pools and spas, the district is encouraging people to wear long sleeves and pants and mosquito repellant if they venture out at dawn or dusk, when mosquito activity is at its peak.

TAKE ACTION: To learn more about protecting yourself from mosquitoes and WNv this summer, read our factsheet, “How to Repel Mosquitoes Safely.” and visit Beyond Pesticides’ West Nile Virus/Mosquito Management program page.

Source: Sacramento Bee

(Beyond Pesticides, July 22, 2008) It is with deep sadness that we announce the death of Erik Jansson, noted environmentalist and conservationist, both nationally and in his beloved Southern Maryland, and founding board member of Beyond Pesticides. Erik died of apparent injuries resulting from a fall on June 27.

A memorial service will be held on Saturday, July 26, 2008, 9:00am at Myrtle Point Park, 24050 Patuxent Blvd., California, MD 20619. Directions to the memorial service can be found here.Please consider sharing your thoughts about Erik in the comments box below.

Appreciation from Jay Feldman, executive director, Beyond Pesticides
Erik Jansson helped give life to the Beyond Pesticides family and community, as he, back in the late 1970s, saw the need for a strong voice and advocate for those poisoned and the environment contaminated by pesticides. At that time, Erik was the pesticides and toxics lobbyist for Friends of the Earth (FOE) in Washington, D.C., going on to create the National Network to Prevent Birth Defects and then the Department of Planet Earth. Erik came together with other DC-based organizations, including farmworker, legal action, public health and environmental groups, to form an umbrella organization under which we could voice common concerns and positions —a true collaboration. The umbrella was named the National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP) and I was a member of the group as a staffer for a rural advocacy organization called Rural America.

Prior to that time Erik had been organizing with people across the country on the problem of pesticide spray drift. He brought activists together from across the country to organize and demand change. Erik knew the facts alone would not effect change. But, he knew that he had to bolster his advocacy with extensive research documents and citations. He turned both advocates and facts on government urging all of us to ensure that government worked for the people, not the polluters. To that end, in 1979, Erik, on behalf of FOE, petitioned both EPA and the Federal Aviation Administration to curtail spray drift. He proposed to: (i) impose restriction on aerial application of pesticides to protect inhabited and sensitive areas (ii) require written permission to spray pesticides within 1,000 feet of a person or another person’s property; (iii) establish a much more stringent enforcement program, including the creation of a system of “penalty points” to be levied against a pilot’s certificate for certain offenses involving spray drift onto person or property; (iv) other modifications of law.

It is fair to say, Erik moved ahead of the curve and put the issues in front of decision makers. In his petitions, he stated unequivocally that “people have a right not to be sprayed with any poison without their permission.” Erik got their attention. Even though the agencies may not have concurred with his creative solutions, the agencies acknowledged at the time that most of those commenting on the petitions “agreed with the basic need to reduce pesticide spray drift.” I don’t think you would ever see a communication between Erik and government regulators without him asking whether they were fulfilling their responsibility to taxpayers in carrying out their responsibilities. And he wasn’t alone. His petitions received large numbers of comments from organic gardeners, beekeepers, concerned citizens, health groups, and natural resource councils, expressing concern that pesticide drift may cause environmental contamination resulting in depleted fish stocks and poisoned birds, as well as crop or livestock damage.

I was relatively new to the movement at that time, having joined the staff of Rural America in 1977. Watching Erik, his energy, optimism, enthusiasm and belief that change was possible was an inspiration and a guiding light for me. No research effort, no amount of time, late nights, or weekends was too much for this incredibly committed person. No better example, perhaps, is Erik’s commitment to the banning of 2,4,5-T, the phenoxy herbicide used as half of the mixture of Agent Orange for defoliation in the Vietnam War, and throughout the northwest in forestry. As Carol van Strum documented in her book, A Bitter Fog, Erik went through EPA files, gleaned the stories of 450 poisoning victims and zeroed in on a letter from a women in Alsea, OR who reported on what her group thought, based on their own study, was an association between spontaneous abortion rates and herbicide use. So, Erik used his favorite tactic. He copied the letter and distributed it widely to decision makers in Washington DC and the media. Carol said upon learning of Erik’s death: “The result of his persistence was the EPA’s Alsea Study, which linked phenoxy herbicide spraying to “spontaneous” abortions in a 1600-square mile area surrounding Alsea, Oregon. Preliminary data from the study prompted EPA to issue an unprecedented emergency suspension of registrations of two phenoxy herbicides in early 1979.” She continues, “That was my introduction to Erik Jansson. He was the faceless hero in Washington, D.C. who forced EPA to act on the dangers of domestic herbicide use.”

Erik believed in the power of individuals with passion to effect change with his whole being. That is who he was, summoning all the energy he had to move change. It was no surprise then that he was attracted to David Brower’s (founder of FOE, and earlier executive director of the Sierra Club) style of organization in which he gave people a desk, phone, and typewriter, and later fax machine and computer, and asked them to pour their heart and soul into solving the problems contributing to environmental degradation and environmentally-induced illnesses. So, when I was looking for a space to work out of, to nurture NCAMP into a national grassroots organization, it was Erik who invited me to find a space at the FOE office. Erik not only invited me into the FOE office, but devoted his own resources to launching the organization. That began 27 years of Erik and I sharing the same office.

I think that Carol Van Strum really captured Erik when she wrote, “Privately, I tend to associate my favorite people with particular birds, and from [his first to our farm] onwards Erik was for me a stormy petrel — small, trim, and indomitable, a lonely spirit defying every tempest with unfeigned grace; to have him alight and visit was a rare privilege. The audacity and humor that inspired him to create the Department of the Planet Earth were so damn typical of this remarkable, unassuming champion.”

Erik’s latest project on global climate change had him advocating that organic farming qualify for carbon credits. Erik’s solution: Lobby the Chicago Climate Exchange and others to qualify organic farming for climate credits. Erik wrote: “The U.S. House of Representatives recently purchased a fraudulent carbon credit from the Chicago Climate Exchange: i.e. no-till farming from North Dakota. Conventional no-till does not reduce greenhouse gas because it uses high rates of commercial nitrogen fertilizer. Also, the carbon is at the surface of the soil where it can be oxidized.” In his style, Erik recently produced a 144-page Chartbook, entitled “Leveling U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emission in One Decade and then 80 Percent Below 1990 Levels by 2050.” That is Erik on the leading edge; giving us the next critical challenge to meet.

Erik was in many ways the organic farmer he advocated for; he planted seeds and nurtured their environment to create a healthy and sustainable future. I realize now that I am just one of those seeds that he nurtured, supported, and encouraged. Those who knew Erik know that he did all this for people, his community, the country and the world without seeking acknowledgement, credit, or accolades. Erik did what he thought was right and we are all better off because of him.

The board of Beyond Pesticides will be developing a strategy for continuing Erik Jansson’s legacy so that others may benefit from his spirit and commitment to a healthier world.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 21, 2008) Advocacy groups are encouraging California’s Senators to support Assemblywoman Fiona Ma’s bill (AB 977) that returns the ability to restrict pesticides to local jurisdictions. Currently, California and 40 other states have pesticide “preemption” laws that deny local authorities the right to pass pesticide restrictions that are more stringent than the state’s laws. Preemption laws are a result of intensive lobbying by the agrichemical industry, and groups in California and across the country believe the time has come to take back the democratic right for localities to adopt restrictions to protect environmental and public health. This authority enables local jurisdictions to respond to exposure scenarios that are not addressed by state law and address unique contamination or poisoning situations.

California’s preemption law, passed in 1984, was the first of its kind in the nation and explicitly states that no local government “may prohibit or in any way attempt to regulate any matter relating to the registration, sale, transportation, or use of pesticides.” The state law nullified the first attempt at local pesticide regulation, which was a 1979 Mendocino County prohibition on aerial herbicide spraying that arose from an incident in which herbicide drifted almost three miles to school buses. The frustrations over the lack of local control mounted again recently regarding the state of California’s desire to spray for the light brown apple moth, prompting renewed interest in overturning the undemocratic preemption law.

Realizing that federal and state pesticide regulations are often not strong enough to protect public health and the environment, and do not take into account local environmental or health issues, many towns, cities, and counties have been passing non-toxic landscape care policies, and school integrated pest management (IPM) policies. With preemption laws in place, however, these policies can only extend as far as government-owned property, and do not restrict the use of toxic chemicals for homeowners.

In 1984 the California State Supreme Court decided in favor of Mendocino County and its local pesticide regulation, but the state of California, with pressure from the pesticide industry, avoided the consequences of this decision by simply changing the law. The only way to give back local democratic authority in such critical environmental and health matters is to overturn this law, and for other states to follow suit with their preemption laws.

The issue of federal preemption of local ordinances made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 1991 that federal law (the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA) does not preempt local jurisdictions from restricting the use of pesticides (Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Ralph Mortier). However, the ability of states to take away local authority was left in place. The pesticide lobby immediately formed a coalition, called The Coalition for Sensible Pesticide Policy, and developed model state legislation that restricts local municipalities from passing ordinances regarding the use or sale of pesticides. The Coalition lobbyists descended upon states across the country seeking and passing, in most cases, preemption legislation that was often identical to the coalition’s wording. Nearly a dozen states voted down the measure. Congress has toyed with the idea of restricting local jurisdictions’ authority in FIFRA since the 1980s, but industry lobbyists have always been beaten back.

TAKE ACTION: If you live in California, contact your Senators to voice your position on this bill. For more information, contact Pesticide Action Network North America or Californians for Pesticide Reform. If you live in another state with pesticide preemption laws, share this legislation with your representatives in your state legislature.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 18, 2008) A recent New York Times report on current U.S. Department of Agriculture research shows weeds flourishing from increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Lewis Ziska, PhD, and his team of researchers, have found “noxious” weeds to be more adaptable to changing conditions than crops, predicting further growth of their productivity and range in urban and rural areas.

Dr. Ziska’s latest research focuses on weeds uniformly grown at three sites in Maryland: an organic farm in the western side of the state, a park in a Baltimore suburb, and a reclaimed industrial area in Baltimore’s inner harbor. The last was chosen because the city acts as a “heat island,” with temperatures averaging three or four degrees above those outside the city. Dr. Ziska’s team took soil from the organic farm, which already contained seeds from 35 weed species, and transplanted them into identical plots at the three locations, beginning the experiment in 2002.

The resulting plants tended to grow much larger closer to the city. Lambs-quarters grew six to eight feet on the farm and ten to 12 feet in Baltimore. Ailanthus grew five feet tall on the farm, compared to one in the city reaching 20 feet. Pollen output was also increased. Species succession, a process which takes native species decades to complete, was almost achieved by the end of five years of growth.

Of the changing climate and increasing carbon dioxide levels, Dr. Ziska said, “When you change a resource in the environment, you are going to, in effect, fabor the weed over the crop. There is always going to be a weed poised genetically to benefit from almost any change.”

According to the Times, weeds cost U.S. farmers 12 percent of their harvest, or $33 billion per year in lost revenue. Increased threat of weeds are leading companies like Monsanto to develop “Climate Ready” crop seeds, which are genetically altered to withstand drought and higher temperatures, and which promise huge financial incentives to their patent holders. Genetically engineered crops have a complicated and controversial history, globally and nationally, and have been found to increase pesticide use and resistance. According to Dr. Ziska, the answer is not to constantly change the tools with which we fight weeds, but to look to weeds and wild relatives of crops for the answer.

Sources: New York Times, Treehugger

(Beyond Pesticides, July 17, 2008) In a new study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, researchers have found an increased occurrence of intersex toads in areas with greater agricultural land cover. This points to a link between certain pesticides and endocrine disruption, a change in the hormonal balance that can have sexual and reproductive effects. Such results implicate pesticides in the decline of amphibian populations, and suggests that these chemicals are also adversely affecting humans.

The study, which was conducted in south Florida, looked at cane toads, Bufo marinus, at five sites with differing land use patterns ranging from suburban to nearly completely agricultural (primarily sugarcane and vegetables). Researchers examined physical characteristics such as coloration, sexual organs, and forelimb length, as well as hormone concentrations, and found a higher rate of feminization for toads in agricultural areas. In these areas, glyphosate (the active ingredient in Round Up herbicide) and atrazine (an herbicide) use is common.

Tyrone Hayes, PhD, was one of the first to document the endocrine disrupting effects of atrazine on frogs in a laboratory setting. Countering any doubts of why this work is important, Dr. Hayes said, “People often say, ”˜It is just frogs, so who cares?’ Well it does not matter whether you are a frog, a dog, a bat, a cat or a human. The compounds and the genes and the hormones that we are talking about are the same.”

This latest study, following on others, takes the issue out of the laboratory and attempts to address the effects of pesticides on amphibians in the environment. Because of the complexity of environmental factors and, as the authors say, the “milieu” of chemicals that may exist in the environment, it is much more difficult to prove definitive links between cause and effect outside the laboratory. In another study addressing frogs in the environment, researchers actually found increased intersex frogs in suburban areas. The two results do not necessarily contradict each other, and may indicate that a wide variety of chemicals are having endocrine disrupting effects on amphibians.

All of this work highlights the need for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a robust Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program that takes into account the effects, at all doses, pesticides can have on humans and wildlife, and eliminate the use of pesticides that are endocrine disruptors. The European Commission has taken steps to adopt a precautionary principle with endocrine disrupting chemicals, and has published its research here.

Source: Environmental Health Perspectives

(Beyond Pesticides, July 16, 2008) People exposed to pesticides are more likely to suffer changes in nerve responses and severe weakness in their neck and limb muscles in the days before they succumb to their symptoms. This is according to a new study, which found that the major cause of death was as a result of respiratory failure following acute organophosphate poisoning.

The study entitled, “The Spectrum of Intermediate Syndrome Following Acute Organophosphate Poisoning: A Prospective Cohort Study from Sri Lanka” published in the open-access journal Public Llibrary of Science (PloS) Medicine was a collaboration between researchers from Sri Lanka, Australia, and the UK. These researchers examined and assessed 78 consenting symptomatic patients with organophosphate poisoning and found that 10 suffered severe weakness in their neck and limb muscles and five of these eventually developed respiratory failure. Respiratory failure is the major cause of death after poisoning by organophosphates.

Lead author Pradeepa Jayawardane, clinical pharmacology lecturer at the University of Sri Jayawardenepura in Sri Lanka, and colleagues realized that there are changes in nerve transmission that are presented before individuals with organophosphate poisoning develop muscle weakness, also known as intermediate syndrome (IMS). IMS results in muscle weakness in the limbs, neck, and throat, and develops in some patients 24—96 hours after poisoning. Long-term nerve damage sometimes develops 2—3 weeks after poisoning. The functional changes that are associated with IMS (its pathophysiology) are poorly understood however.

Electric shocks were applied to certain muscles of the patients, using a technique called repetitive nerve stimulation (RNS). This technique allows researchers to trace changes in nerve transmissions during the course of poisoning. About 12.8% of patients (10 of 78) were diagnosed with IMS and the researchers saw specific changes in their neuromuscular transmission patterns – often before a physician could make in IMS diagnosis from clinical signs.

“In all 10 patients we demonstrated that the neuromuscular junction progressively fails, leading to muscle weakness,” said Pradeepa Jayawardane. About 38% of patients (30 of 78) presented muscle weakness that was not severe enough for an IMS diagnosis. In these patients, the researchers also found defined changes in their neuromuscular transmission patterns.

The findings reveal that IMS is a “spectrum” disorder in which the weakness and neuromuscular problems, caused by organophosphate poisoning, gradually progress over time through a series of electrophysiological changes that can sometimes resolve quickly and, only in the most severe cases, result in respiratory failure. Changes in nerve transmission that evolve during the development of IMS can be objectively monitored using RNS. Since the clinical signs of IMS come after changes in nerve transmission, the researchers suggest using these changes as an indicator of future outcome.

RNS tests might also be useful in the clinical management of patients with organophosphate poisoning, particularly since such tests could provide an early warning of impending respiratory failure. However, the researchers note that these findings need to be validated in further studies, particularly since most of the patients in this study had been exposed to a single organophosphate (chlorpyrifos). This would improve diagnostic and prognostic tools for clinical use in organophosphate-poisoned patients

Organophosphates, derived from World War II nerve agents, are a common class of chemicals used in pesticides and are considered to be the most likely pesticides to cause an acute poisoning. Many are already banned in England, Sweden and Denmark. Organophosphates are cholinesterase inhibitors and bind irreversibly to the active site of an enzyme essential for normal nerve impulse transmission- acetylcholine esterase (AchE), inactivating the enzyme. Symptoms include tingling sensations, headaches, tremors, nausea, abdominal cramps, fever, severe forgetfulness, convulsions and movement disorders. Repeated or prolonged exposure to organophosphates may result in the same effects as acute exposure, including delayed symptoms.

Most pesticide poisonings in developing countries result from deliberate ingestion of pesticides. About half the people in developing countries in Asia who kill themselves do it using pesticides, and aid agencies have been lobbying to ban their use.

Source: Medical News Today

(Beyond Pesticides, July 15, 2008) After three years of deliberation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed new rules for five highly toxic fumigant pesticides on July 10, 2008. Environmental health, community and farmworker groups say the rules, while substantially better than the past, still fall short of protecting people, workers and the environment. The rules will be published in the Federal Register on July 17, 2008.The fumigant review, mandated by the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, was conducted as a combined evaluation of five commonly used fumigants, called the “Fumigant Cluster Assessment.” The five fumigants included in the assessment are methyl bromide, metam sodium, metam potassium, dazomet, and chloropicrin. Methyl bromide was slated for phaseout by January 2005 under the Montreal Protocol because it is a potent ozone depletor, but the Bush Administration has sought annual “critical use exemptions,” keeping it on the market.

Fumigants, which are among the most toxic chemicals used in agriculture, are gases or liquids that are injected or dripped into the soil to sterilize a field before planting. Even with plastic tarps on the soil, fumigants escape from the soil and drift through the air into schools, homes, parks and playgrounds. Strawberries, tomatoes, peppers, carrots and potatoes are some of the major crops for which fumigant use is high.“So many people, including my family and friends, have been poisoned by these pesticides. I was hoping EPA would do more to protect farmworkers and rural communities,” says Teresa DeAnda, a resident of Earlimart, CA from Californians for Pesticide Reform.

Other mitigation measures include:

• Posting requirements: signs must include a “do not walk” symbol, date and time of the fumigation, date and time the buffer restrictions expire, fumigant product name, and contact information for the fumigator.
• Agricultural worker protections: workers who cut open tarps after fumigation will now be considered “handlers” and required to wear protective breathing masks; reentry intervals will be extended (but vary based on application); and, air monitoring will be required to determine if respirator action levels have been reached.
• Applicator and handler training programs: requiring fumigant registrants (pesticide manufacturers) to develop and implement training programs for applicators in charge of soil fumigations.
• Good agricultural practices: require, rather than recommend practices that help reduce off gassing.
• Application method, practice, and rate restrictions: restricting certain fumigant application methods and practices for which data are not currently available to determine appropriate protections, or that lead to risks that are otherwise difficult to address.
• Restricted use pesticide classification: all metam sodium/potassium and dazomet products will now be restricted use.
• Site-specific fumigant management plans: requiring that fumigant users prepare a written, site-specific fumigant management plan before fumigation.
• Emergency preparedness and response requirements: requiring registrants to provide, through their community outreach programs, training and information to first responders in high fumigant use areas and areas with significant interface between communities and fumigated fields.
• Notice to state and tribal lead agencies: fumigators must notify State and Tribal Lead Agencies for pesticide enforcement about applications they plan to conduct
• Community outreach and education programs: requiring fumigant registrants to develop and implement community outreach programs, including programs for first responders, to ensure that information about fumigants and safety is available within communities where soil fumigation occurs.

While these steps will likely reduce the number of poisoning incidents involving fumigant pesticides, environmentalists are disappointed that EPA is continuing to register outdated and unnecessary pest management chemicals.“Fumigation is an antiquated technology that relies on killing everything in the soil,” said Susan Kegley, Ph.D., senior scientist at Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA). “EPA has made some real progress with buffer zones, notification, posting and monitoring – they actually heard some of what we’ve been telling them. And they’ve put the burden back on manufacturers for responsible handling of these highly toxic chemicals. But it’s time to help farmers move beyond this ”˜scorched earth’ approach. The new rules are a small start.”

(Beyond Pesticides, July 14, 2008) According to calculations by the Associated Press (AP), the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “value of a statistical life” is $6.9 million in today’s dollars, a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago. The AP discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years.According to the federal government, the statistical value of a human life is calculated in the following manner. Suppose a new pesticide regulation reduces the annual risk of dying from cancer by 0.00001. In a population of 100 million, the regulation is expected, in a statistical sense, to result in 1000 fewer deaths from that cancer risk each year. If each person in that population of 1 million is willing to pay 7 cents a year for the reduction in mortality risks, $7 million is said to be the value of a statistical life (VSL).

Redefining Progress created the Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) in 1995 as an alternative to the gross domestic product (GDP). The GPI enables policymakers at the national, state, regional, or local level to measure how well their citizens are doing both economically and socially. The GPI starts with the same personal consumption data that the GDP is based on, but then makes some crucial distinctions. It adjusts for factors such as income distribution, adds factors such as the value of household and volunteer work, and subtracts factors such as the costs of crime and pollution. For more information, visit the Redefining Progress website.

(Beyond Pesticides, July 11, 2008) According to an internal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) memorandum, a Supreme Court decision is undermining the agency’s ability to enforce the Clean Water Act (CWA). Two House Committee Chairmen have sent a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson for more information regarding EPA’s enforcement efforts in the wake of the 2006 decision Rapanos et ux., et al. v. United States. The Rapanos decision was split 4-1-4 over the question of Federal protections for waters of the United States, including wetlands, under the Clean Water Act.

In the letter, Chairman James L. Oberstar of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Chairman Henry A. Waxman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, explain that information has come to them indicating that enforcement of key clean water programs is faltering.

The memo, obtained by Greenpeace and released by the Congressmen, was sent by EPA Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Granta Y. Nakayama and cites enforcement problems created by the Rapanos case and the subsequent guidance.

In the memorandum, Mr. Nakayama states, “Data collected from the regions shows that a significant portion of the CWA docket has been adversely affected.”

The letter from Congressmen Waxman and Oberstar goes on to quote the Nakayama memo as reporting that some 500 clean water enforcement cases were negatively affected in just nine months as a result of the Rapanos decision and agencies’ guidance, and that EPA dropped enforcement in 300 more cases between July 2006 and December 2007.

“The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has held three oversight hearings on the effects of the Supreme Court’s rulings in Rapanos and SWANCC (Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2001),” Rep. Oberstar said. “The Bush Administration has twice testified how it was responding to the uncertainty created by these decisions, but it never once revealed the full extent to which Federal attempts to protect clean water have been undermined. It took the release of an internal EPA document to bring that fact to light.”

“We need vigorous enforcement to protect our nation’s waters,” said Rep. Waxman. “But instead, hundreds of potential violations are being ignored.”

The letter requests that the Administrator provide complete and unredacted copies of all communications relating to the charges presented in the Nakayama memo. The letter further requests answers to a number of questions about EPA’s enforcement processes. It sets a July 21 deadline for the agency’s response.

The Clean Water Act has been an important tool in fighting pesticide poisoning and pollution in the U.S. It has played a roll in a variety of cases, from aerial spraying to mosquito prevention to oyster beds. More recently, EPA has exempted pesticides from CWA’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, a decision which was later challenged in a lawsuit.

Source: Washington Post