Source: https://nospray.org/judge-daniels-decision-no-spray/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 16:18:08+00:00

Document:
Plaintiffs bring suit under Section 505(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1) alleging that defendants violated the Act by discharging pollutants into the waters in and around New York City without a permit. Defendants moved for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Plaintiffs cross-moved for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, both defendants’ and plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment are denied.
In No Spray Coalition v. The City of New York, 2000 WL 1401458, the District Court addressed the issue of whether incidental drift of a pesticide into navigable waters constituted a violation under the CWA, finding that “[i]t would be stretching the language of the statute well beyond the intent of Congress to hold that the de minimus incidental drift over navigable waters of a pesticide is a discharge from a point source into those waters.” Id. at *3.
boroughs. West Nile has reappeared each summer since 1999, and each year the City renews its program to combat the mosquitoes.
(“SPDES”) permit. Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment. The District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion and granted defendants’ motion, finding that the CWA did not entitle plaintiffs to enforce its provisions by citizen suit. The Court interpreted the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act’s (“FIFRA”) non-allowance of enforcement by citizen suit to take precedence over CWA’s allowance of enforcement by citizen suit. See No Spray Coalition v. The City of New York, 2002 WL 31682387 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 2002).
The Second Circuit vacated the district court’s opinion and judgment. It ruled that a citizen enforcement suit under the CWA, based on chemicals regulated by FIFRA, could proceed even if the pesticide application alleged to violate the CWA did not also constitute a substantial violation of FIFRA. See No Spray Coalition v. The City of New York, 351 F.3d 602, 604 (2d Cir. 2003). The Second Circuit held that the “CWA authorizes any citizen to bring suit to enforce its requirements, regardless of whether the alleged violation of CWA also constitutes a substantial violation of FIFRA.” It remanded the case for further proceedings. The parties now seek to renew their motions for summary judgment.
The parties disagree on two principle issues. Primarily, they disagree as to whether the type of conduct allegedly performed by defendant could constitute a violation of the Clean Water Act. Second, if the acts alleged can constitute a violation of the CWA, the parties dispute whether sufficient evidence has been offered to find, as a matter of law, that defendants in fact did or did not violate the CWA by conducting its spraying program without an NPDES permit. Plaintiffs argue that defendants’ actions are covered by the CWA and that defendants’ failure to obtain a permit to spray over water is a violation of the Act. They present evidence that defendants sprayed insecticides directly over lakes, streams, ponds and marshes. That evidence 2 In 2000, the DEC stated that the City’s request to apply pesticides in areas adjacent to wetlands was exempt from State Environmental Conservation Law Article 24 and 25.
Declaration of James R. Miller at 5, ¶ 13. In 2001, 2002 and 2003, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene of the City of New York (“DOH”) applied for and obtained a New York State Environmental Conservation Law Article 24 permit from the DEC, covering spray activities in regulated fresh water wetlands and adjacent areas and all surface water bodies. Pursuant to the permit, the City claims that it observed 100 foot setbacks from fresh water bodies during ground applications and 300 foot setbacks from such areas when sprayed by aircraft. Declaration of Gregory Carmichael at 4, ¶ 12. This state permit has no relation to the federal permitting program and no argument has been made that the state permits exempted defendants from any federal requirements.
not constitute the discharge of a pollutant into navigable waters and, therefore, such a permit under the CWA is not required. Moreover, they challenge the sufficiency of plaintiffs’ evidence, maintaining that the City adhered to strict guidelines protecting against the direct application of the insecticides to water. Specifically, defendants point to guidelines that established 300 feet setbacks from water for aerial spraying, 150 feet setbacks from tidal water, and 100 feet setbacks from fresh water for ground spraying.
received the approval of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1973. See id.
The CWA defines “discharge of a pollutant” to include “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12). Plaintiffs allege that the spraying is a discharge; the trucks and helicopters from which the pesticides are sprayed are point sources; and the pesticides are pollutants that are discharged into waters of the United States. See No Spray Coalition, Inc., 2000 WL 1401458, * 2. Defendants claim that, as a matter of law, the spraying technique they incorporated allowed for atmospheric emissions and not discharges; the helicopters and trucks used to spray the insecticides are not point sources under the CWA; the insecticides used in the spraying program are not pollutants; and that they did not discharge pesticides over or into waters of the United States.
Defendants argue that “atmospheric emissions of pesticides do not constitute discharges.” Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendant’s Brief”) at 2. They contend that the Ultra Low Volume (“ULV”) method of application they incorporated released pesticide into “the atmosphere as a mist of fine particles, which remain suspended for several minutes and drift through the air and come into contact with mosquitoes.” Defendants’ Statement of Material Facts pursuant to Rule 56.1 of the Local Rules (“Defendants’ Facts”). Furthermore, they argue that the residual particles of pesticide that may have reached the water were minute and therefore, do not constitute a discharge of a pollutant under the CWA.
navigable waters from any point source.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12). Thus, in order to determine whether a pollutant was discharged, there must have been “an addition” of a pollutant. Although the statute has not defined “addition,” the Second Circuit, in Catskill Mountains, 273 F.3d at 491, adopted the position proffered by the EPA in National Wildlife Federation v. Gorsuch, 693 F.2d 156 (D.C.Cir. 1982) that for there to be an “addition,” a “point source must introduce the pollutant into navigable water from the outside world.” Catskill Mountains, 273 F.3d at 491(citing Gorsuch, 693 F.2d at 165). The Second Circuit added one caveat, agreeing with the D.C. Circuit’s view, which “provided that [the term] outside world is construed as any place outside the particular water body to which pollutants are introduced.” Id.
of Justice’s Environment & Natural Resources Division took the position that the use of mist blowers and hydraulic sprayers to spray pesticides in, on, or over waters of the United States constitutes the addition of pesticides to waters of the United States. Id. at 7.
alleged, can constitute point sources under the statutory definition. In Forsgren, the Ninth Circuit found that “an airplane fitted with tanks and mechanical spraying apparatus is a discrete conveyance” and held that it could constitute a point source under the CWA. Forsgren, 309 F.3d at 1185 (finding it “clear and unambiguous” that “the statutory definition of point source . . . clearly encompasses an aircraft equipped with tanks spraying pesticide from mechanical sprayers directly over covered waters”).
pollutants from their original source to the navigable water, they can most certainly constitute point sources under the CWA. See No Spray Coalition, 2000 WL 1401458 at *3 (holding, in dicta, that “the trucks and helicopters used to spray insecticides may be point sources”).
33 U.S.C. § 1362(6)(emphasis added). The legislative history of the CWA indicates that the term “pollutant” should also be interpreted broadly. See S.Rep. No. 92-414 at 76 (1972), reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 3668, 3742. However, the term ‘chemical waste,’ which the parties contend is at issue here, is not defined by the CWA and has not been defined by caselaw. 4 The City has used three insecticides: malathion (known in the industry as Fyfanon); resmethrin (Scourge); and sumithrin (Anvil).
Plaintiff contends that the pesticides in question are ‘chemical waste’ and are therefore ‘pollutants’ under the CWA. Defendants contend that pesticides being properly used for their intended purpose are not chemical waste, and therefore not pollutants.4 Defendants further proffer that compliance with FIFRA, upon this factual record, dismisses the need for a requirement to obtain a NPDES permit under the CWA. “FIFRA compliance is not dispositive of Clean Water Act compliance, but it is highly relevant and, in certain circumstances, FIFRA compliance means Clean Water Act compliance.” Transcript at 15. However, such an argument is dependent upon strict compliance with FIFRA. The City has not and cannot argue that it had permission to spray pesticides directly into or over the water. Under the New York State permit the City obtained, the City was required to observe specific setbacks from navigable waters when spraying. The heart of the dispute therefore still involves two issues: a factual determination as to whether the City did, in fact, spray pesticides in or over the water; and a legal determination whether this direct spraying, accidental or intentional, de minimus or not, constitutes the discharge of a pollutant under the CWA. A review of the factual record, the relevant caselaw and guidance memorandum issued by the EPA supports the conclusion that if the City in fact directly sprayed pesticides into the water, it was required to obtain an NPDES permit to do so. Having no permit under such circumstances, spraying pesticides into the water would be a violation of the CWA.
On June 11, 2003, the EPA released its “Interim Statement and Guidance on Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States in Compliance with FIFRA” (“Interim Guidance”).5 compliance under the CWA. Upon review of the District Court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s claims, the Second Circuit found that fact issues remained as to whether the pesticides were properly used and whether they were “pollutants” under the CWA. The Court did not take a position on the issue of whether FIFRA compliance equates to CWA compliance, but rather sought from the EPA “a clear interpretation of current law — among other things, whether properly used pesticides released into or over waters of the United States can trigger the requirement for NPDES permits.” The Second Circuit further posited that “[p]articipation by the EPA in this litigation in any way that permits articulation of the EPA’s interpretation of the law in this situation would be of great assistance to the courts.” Id.
The Interim Guidance also seeks to address the Ninth Circuit’s findings in Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation District, 243 F.3d 526 (9th Cir.2001) where the court held that the registration and labeling of pesticides under FIFRA does not preclude the need for a permit under the CWA. “The label’s general rules for applying the herbicide must be observed under FIFRA, but where the herbicide will enter waters of the United States, FIFRA provides no method for analyzing the local impact and regulating the discharge from a particular point source. The NPDES permit requirement under the CWA thus provides the local monitoring that FIFRA does not.” Id. The court highlighted that “FIFRA registration is a cost-benefit analysis that no unreasonable risk exists to man or the environment taking into account the economic, social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide,” Id. at 532 (citing Save Our Ecosystems, 747 F.2d 1240, 1248 (9th Cir. 1984), while “the granting of a NPDES permit under the CWA is not based on a cost-benefit analysis, but rather on a determination that the discharge of a pollutant satisfies the EPA’s effluent limitations, imposed to protect water quality.” Id. (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)).
The Interim Guidance outlined the EPA’s position as to the definition of ‘chemical waste.’ EPA does not believe that pesticides applied consistent with FIFRA are “chemical wastes.” The term “waste” ordinarily means that which is eliminated or discarded as no longer useful or required after the completion of a process” . . . . Pesticides applied consistent with FIFRA are not such wastes; on the contrary, they are EPA-evaluated products designed, purchased and applied to perform their intended purpose of controlling target organisms in the environment.
Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. 2778 (1984)(recognizing that considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer and that the principle of deference should be applied to administrative interpretations), the Interim Guidance is to be afforded consideration as reasonable and persuasive. “The weight accorded documents of this type when advanced for the purpose of statutory interpretation will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.” League of Wilderness Defenders,309 F.3d at 1189 (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944). The Supreme Court reaffirmed the holding in Skidmore, finding that “interpretations contained in formats such as opinion letters are ‘entitled to respect’ under our decision [in Skidmore], but only to the extent that those interpretations have the ‘power to persuade.’” Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587, 120 S.Ct. 1655, 146 L.Ed.2d 621 (2000).
portion of the pesticides being deposited into waters of the United States. The City does not argue that it sprayed directly over the water to control mosquitos present there. Indeed, by the City’s own admission, they were required to adhere to strict New York State guidelines in applying these pesticides. The New York State Environmental Conservation Law Article 24 permit from the DEC, which the City applied for and received in 2001, 2002, and 2003, specifically mandated that the City observe 100 feet setbacks from fresh water bodies during ground applications and 300 feet setbacks from such areas when sprayed by aircraft. Declaration of Gregory Carmichael at 4, ¶ 12. The circumstances covered by the Interim Guidance, therefore, do not apply to the City’s spraying. The City not only disputes that it sprayed pesticides over the water, its state regulated authorization to spray clearly prohibited such spraying of pesticides over the water. Therefore, any argument that compliance with FIFRA dispenses with any requirement to obtain a NPDES permit under the CWA is unavailing to defendants in support of their summary judgment motion. It is factually disputed whether the City sprayed in or over water, and such spraying would not be consistent with, or in compliance with, its FIFRA permit to spray over land.
argue that once pesticides are sprayed onto or into the air, land, and waters of New York City, they become discarded solid wastes within the meaning of RCRA § 1004(27). But we have indicated that material is not discarded until after it has served its intended purpose. We therefore agree with the district court that the pesticides are not being discarded when sprayed into the air with the design of effecting their intended purpose: reaching and killing mosquitos and their larvae.
No Spray, 252 F.3d at 150 (internal citations and quotations omitted). Under this definition, spraying pesticide over land to kill mosquitos in compliance with its FIFRA permit is not the discharge of a pollutant. However, pesticides sprayed by the City over water can be considered ‘chemical waste’ if they were either eliminated or discarded while no longer serving its useful and authorized purpose of killing mosquitos over land. Under such circumstances, if FIFRA does not authorize the spraying of pesticide over water, then authorization under the CWA is required in order to do so.
The two sets of circumstances offered by the EPA support this definition. Quite simply, if the City followed the FIFRA labels on the pesticides that warned against direct spraying over the water, the City would not have sprayed directly over the water, and therefore would not require a NPDES permit under the CWA. In order for a pesticide to be considered a ‘chemical waste,’it must no longer serve its purpose when discharged, and is therefore eliminated as no longer useful or required. Viewed in this manner, the pesticides used by the City in their spraying program cannot be considered ‘chemical waste’ if they were serving their purpose and were being sprayed over land to reach and kill mosquitos and their larvae. However, if plaintiffs are correct, and it is factually determined that the City is also further discarding unused pesticides over and into navigable waters, the City can be found to have violated the CWA by conducting its spraying program without the required NPDES permit. The City did not have permission to spray pesticides directly over or into the water under any state or federal law. If the City did discard the pesticides over water, it did so in contavention of the CWA. Such activity would constitute a discharge of a pollutant into navigable waters from a point source, and cannot be done without a NPDES permit.
Disputed issues of material fact exist as to whether defendants discharged a pollutant from a point source into navigable waters without a permit.7 Both plaintiffs’ and defendants’ motions for summary judgement are therefore denied.

References: § 1365
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1362
 § 1362
 v. 
 § 1362
 v. 
 § 1342
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1004