Opinion ID: 1254699
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Are Chemical Pesticide Residuals Added to the Water by Point Sources?[7]

Text: The EPA further defends its Final Rule by arguing that excess pesticide and residue pesticide are not discharged from a point source. In other words, though excess and residue pesticides have exactly the same chemical composition and are discharged from the same point source at exactly the same time as the original pesticide, and though excess and residue pesticides would not enter the Nation's waterways but for the discharge of the original pesticide, the EPA concludes that excess and residue pesticides are not discharged from a point source because at the moment of discharge there is only pesticide. This is so, according to the EPA, because excess and residue pesticides do not exist until after the discharge is complete, and therefore should be treated as a nonpoint source pollutant. 71 Fed.Reg. at 65,847. The Clean Water Act defines point source as any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including a variety of mechanisms such as container, rolling stock, or vessel or other floating craft. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). The EPA and the courts agree that pesticides are applied by point sources. See 71 Fed.Reg. at 65,847; League of Wilderness Defenders v. Forsgren, 309 F.3d 1181, 1185 (9th Cir.2002); Headwaters, 243 F.3d at 528. The EPA argues that, at the time of discharge, the pesticide is a nonpollutant, and the excess pesticide and pesticide residues are not created until later, presumably after they are already in the water. Therefore, according to the EPA, pesticides at the time of discharge do not require permits because they are not yet excess pesticides or residue pesticides. But there is no requirement that the discharged chemical, or other substance, immediately cause harm to be considered as coming from a point source. Rather, the requirement is that the discharge come from a discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14), which is the case for pesticide applications. The EPA offers no direct support for its assertion that a pesticide must be excess or residue at the time of discharge if it is to be considered as discharged from a point source. This omission of authority is understandable, as none exists. The Clean Water Act does not create such a requirement. Instead, it defines discharge of a pollutant as any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12). The EPA's attempt at temporally tying the addition (or discharge) of the pollutant to the point source does not follow the plain language of the Clean Water Act. Injecting a temporal requirement to the discharge of a pollutant is not only unsupported by the Act, but it is also contrary to the purpose of the permitting program, which is to prevent harmful discharges into the Nation's waters. Defenders of Wildlife, 127 S.Ct. at 2525. If the EPA's interpretation were allowed to stand, discharges that are innocuous at the time they are made but extremely harmful at a later point would not be subject to the permitting program. Further, the EPA's interpretation ignores the directive given to it by Congress in the Clean Water Act, which is to protect water quality. As the EPA itself recognizes, Congress generally intended that pollutants be controlled at the source whenever possible. 73 Fed. Reg. at 33,702 (citing S.Rep. No. 92-414, p. 77 (1972)). Here, it is certainly possible for pesticide residue to be controlled at its source because the discharge of the pesticide introduces such residue into the water. The EPA's newly asserted temporal element also runs contrary to its own recent interpretation of the Clean Water Act's term addition. See 73 Fed Reg. 33,697 (June 13, 2008). The EPA determined that transfers of water from one body of water to another do not constitute the addition of a pollutant to the new body of water, and in doing so clarified its understanding of the term addition. 73 Fed Reg. 33,697. The EPA explained: Given the broad definition of pollutant, transferred (and receiving) water will always contain intrinsic pollutants, but the pollutants in transferred water are already in the waters of the United States before, during, and after the water transfer. Thus, there is no addition; nothing is being added to the waters of the United States by virtue of the water transfer, because the pollutant at issue is already part of the waters of the United States to begin with. . . . . As noted above, EPA's longstanding position is that an NPDES pollutant is added when it is introduced into a water from the outside world by a point source. Gorsuch, 693 F.2d at 174-75. Id. at 33,701. Given the EPA's understanding of addition of a pollutant as stated above, it is clear that under the meaning of the Clean Water Act, pesticide residue or excess pesticideeven if treated as distinct from pesticideis a pollutant discharged from a point source because the pollutant is introduced into a water from the `outside world' by the pesticide applicator from a point source. See id. This interpretation coincides with the method of determining whether a discharge is from a point source that the Supreme Court recently cited with approval: For an addition of pollutants to be from a point source, the relevant inquiry is whetherbut for the point sourcethe pollutants would have been added to the receiving body of water. Miccosukee, 541 U.S. at 103, 124 S.Ct. 1537 (quoting Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Florida Water Mgmt. Dist., 280 F.3d 1364, 1368 (11th Cir.2002)). It is clear that but for the application of the pesticide, the pesticide residue and excess pesticide would not be added to the water; therefore, the pesticide residue and excess pesticide are from a point source.