Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01341/USCOURTS-ca10-89-01341-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor A. Caranci
Appellant
Colorado Municipal League
Amicus Curiae
Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc.
Amicus Curiae
Coparr, Ltd.
Appellant
National Institute of Municipal Law Officers
Amicus Curiae
National Pest Control Association
Amicus Curiae
Sierra Club
Amicus Curiae
The City of Boulder
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH FILED 

Unit.ed States Court of Appeals 

'renth Cb:.~1it 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

COPARR, LTD., a Colorado Non-Profit 

Corporation, and VICTOR A. CARANCI, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

THE CITY OF BOULDER, 

Defendant-Appellee, 

and 

NATIONAL PEST CONTROL ASSOCIATION and 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL LAW 

OFFICERS, COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE, 

CONSERVATION LAW FOUNDATION OF NEW 

ENGLAND, INC., SIERRA CLUB, THE 

BOULDER COUNTY AUDUBON SOCIETY, PLANBOULDER COUNTY, and FRONT RANGE 

ORGANIC GARDENERS, 

Amici Curiae. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

AUG 15 1991 

ROBERT L. HOEC::::::.:2 

Clerk 

No. 89-1341 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

(D.C. No. 87-M-1865) 

Joseph D. Lonardo (Robert N. Wehner and Ann E. Bennington of 

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease, Columbus, Ohio; and Eugene F. 

Megyesy, Jr. and David E. Bellack of Saunders, Snyder, Ross & 

Dickson, P.C., Denver, Colorado, with him on the briefs), attorney 

for Plaintiffs-Appellants. 

Sue Ellen Harrison (Joseph N. de Raismes, III and Rosemary Lynne 

Gearhart, with her on the briefs), Boulder, Colorado, attorney for 

Defendant-Appellee. 

Lawrence S. Ebner of McKenna, Conner & Cuneo, Washington, D.C., on 

the brief for amicus National Pest Control Association. 

Appellate Case: 89-1341 Document: 01019715792 Date Filed: 08/15/1991 Page: 1 
Marva Jones Brooks of Atlanta, Georgia; William 

of Durham, North Carolina; Analeslie Muncy of 

Robert J. Alfton of Minneapolis, Minnesota; and 

III of Daytona Beach, Florida, on the brief for 

Institute of Municipal Law Officers. 

I. Thornton, Jr. 

Dallas, Texas; 

Frank B. Gwnmey, 

amicus National 

Geoff Wilson of Denver, Colorado; and James E. Hartley, Michael J. 

Kennedy and Britt D. Banks of Holland & Hart, Denver, Colorado, on 

the brief for amicus Colorado Municipal League. 

Janet McGowan of Boston, Massachusetts, on the brief for amicus 

Conservation Law Foundation. 

Mary A. Brauer, Denver, Colorado, on the brief for amicus Sierra 

Club, Boulder County Audubon Society, Plan-Boulder County, and 

Front Range Organic Gardeners. 

Before HOLLOWAY, BARRETT and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-1341 Document: 01019715792 Date Filed: 08/15/1991 Page: 2 
Colorado Pesticide Applicators for Responsible Regulation, a 

nonprofit trade association of commercial pesticide applicators, 

and Victor A. Caranci (collectively known as COPARR} appeal from a 

summary judgment order denying in part their request for 

declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Boulder. 

COPARR, Ltd. v. City of Boulder, 735 F. Supp. 363 (D. Colo. 1989). 

We affirm. 

Boulder enacted two pesticide ordinances, Ordinance 5083 and 

Ordinance 5129, with respective effective dates of December 31, 

1987, and August 5, 1988. On December 7, 1987, COPARR filed the 

instant suit, contending that these ordinances were invalid 

because the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act 

(FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136 et seq., preempted the regulation of 

pesticides by local governments. COPARR contended that in order 

to serve the interests of uniformity and expertise in regulation, 

Congress deliberately restricted regulatory authority over 

pesticide use to the federal government and the states. The 

district court found that 1) Ordinance 5083, providing for local 

enforcement of FIFRA and Colorado pesticide laws, was null and 

void in that it was preempted by FIFRA; and 2) Ordinance 5129, 

imposing certain notification requirements, was valid and 

enforceable. For detailed discussion, see COPARR, supra, 735 F. 

Supp. at 365-67. The issue on this appeal is whether the 

district court erred in finding that FIFRA does not preempt 

Ordinance 5129. 1 

1 Boulder does not appeal the district court's finding that 

Ordinance 5083 was void. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-1341 Document: 01019715792 Date Filed: 08/15/1991 Page: 3 
On January 14, 1991, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in 

Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, __ U.S. ( 1991), to 

answer the same question posed by the parties in the case at hand: 

whether FIFRA preempts local governmental pesticide regulation. 

This court determined to abate this appeal pending the Supreme 

Court's ruling in Mortier. 

On June 21, 1991, the Supreme Court held that FIFRA does not 

preempt the regulation of pesticides by local governments. 

Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, __ U.S. __ , 59 L.W. 4755 

(1991). The Court observed that FIFRA plainly authorizes the 

states to regulate pesticides and just as plainly is silent with 

reference to local governments. Properly read, however, the Court 

reasoned that the statutory language tilts in favor of local 

regulation. The Court thus held that "the more plausible reading 

of FIFRA's authorization to the States leaves the allocation of 

regulatory authority to the 'absolute discretion' of the States 

themselves, including the option of leaving local regulation of 

pesticides in the hands of local authorities." Id. at __ , 59 

L.W. at 4758. 

Following the Mortier decision, we requested supplemental 

briefing from the parties. The parties agree that, given 

Mortier's holding, the district court should be affirmed. Indeed, 

COPARR has noted that on May 31, 1990, Colorado amended the 

Colorado Pesticide Act to define and limit the extent to which 

municipalities may impose notification requirements: 

No county, city and county, or municipality 

enact or impose any notification requirements 

commercial applicators which are more stringent 

those [which the state has imposed]; except that 

-4-

shall 

upon 

than 

each 

Appellate Case: 89-1341 Document: 01019715792 Date Filed: 08/15/1991 Page: 4 
county, city and county, and municipality shall retain 

the authority to impose any notification requirements 

upon private individuals, property owners, and the 

general public. Any such notification requirement 

imposed by any county, city and county, or municipality 

on private individuals, property owners, or the general 

public shall not be held to be applicable to any 

commercial applicator, nor shall any commercial 

applicator be exposed to any liability for a failure to 

comply with any such notification requirement. 

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 35-10-112(3) (1984 Repl. Vol., 1990 Cum. 

Supp.). The parties agree, and we hold, that Boulder's Ordinance 

5129 is in conformity with these provisions and thus is in 

conformity with Mortier. 

AFFIRMED. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 89-1341 Document: 01019715792 Date Filed: 08/15/1991 Page: 5