![]() ![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
AgricultureOVERVIEW A strong agricultural industry is essential to the Nation's economic stability, the viability of many rural communities, and the sustainability of a healthful and high quality food supply for the American public. Agricultural producers are primary stewards of many of our Nation's natural resources, have played a key role in past efforts to improve water quality, and are important partners in implementing improved measures to protect the environment and public health. Voluntary and regulatory programs serve complementary roles in providing agricultural producers with the assistance and certainty they need to achieve individual business and personal goals, and in ensuring protection of water quality and public health. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program applies to some agricultural producers, particularly operators of larger or higher risk animal feeding operations. For most agricultural producers, however, a variety of voluntary programs provide the technical and financial assistance to help producers meet technical standards and remain economically viable. Note that the NPDES regulations exclude irrigated agriculture and agricultural stormwater runoff from the universe of entities requiring permit coverage. Discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations, concentrated aquatic animal production facilities, and silviculture, as well as discharges to aquaculture projects are not excluded from permitting requirements.
Final Rule on Aquatic PesticidesChronologyNovember 27, 2006 - EPA Publishes Final Rule on Aquatic Pesticides      January 19, 2007 - Industry and Environmental Groups Challenge the Rule           January 7, 2009 - Court Issues Decision, Vacates November 2006 Rule                April 9, 2009 - EPA Requests Stay; Industry Requests Rehearing                      June 8, 2009 - Court Grants EPA 2-Year Stay EPA Publishes Final Rule on Aquatic Pesticides (November 27, 2006)On November 27, 2006 EPA issued a final rule clarifying two specific circumstances in which a Clean Water Act (CWA) permit is not required to apply pesticides to or around water. They are: 1) the application of pesticides directly to water to control pests; and 2) the application of pesticides to control pests that are present over or near water, where a portion of the pesticides will unavoidably be deposited to the water to target the pests. The action put into effect a rule that confirms EPA's past operating approach that pesticides legally registered under FIFRA for application to or near aquatic environments, and legally applied to control pests at those sites, are not subject to NPDES permit requirements. The rule became effective on January 26, 2007. Clarifying when the CWA applies to pesticide use is critical because confusion over when a permit is required could hinder public health officials' efforts to prevent or respond to an infestation of mosquitoes that may carry the West Nile virus, or to control an invasive species that may damage valuable natural resources. EPA solicited public comment on both an Interim Interpretive Statement and proposed rule in Federal Register Notices published on August 13, 2003, and February 1, 2005, respectively. After considering these comments, EPA maintains its position that the two circumstances addressed in the final rule for which NPDES permits are not required are reasonable and consistent with the language and legislative intent of the CWA.
Industry and Environmental Groups Challenge the RuleOn January 19, 2007, EPA received petitions for review of the Aquatic Pesticides rule from both environmental and industry groups. The case, National Cotton Council, et al, v. EPA, was assigned to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Court Issues Decision, Vacates November 2006 RuleOn January 7, 2009 the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held in National Cotton Council, et al, v. EPA, that the final rule was not a reasonable interpretation of the CWA and vacated the rule. Reversing EPA's November 2006 Aquatics Pesticides rule, the Sixth Circuit held that CWA permits are required for all biological pesticide applications and chemical pesticide applications that leave a residue in water when such applications are made in or over, including near, waters of the U.S. The court's decision, which applies nationally, is effective seven days after the deadline for rehearing expires or seven days after a denial of any petition for rehearing. Parties had until April 9, 2009 to seek rehearing. EPA estimates that the ruling affects approximately 365,000 pesticide applicators that perform 5.6 million pesticide applications annually. EPA Requests Stay; Industry Requests RehearingOn April 9, 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) chose not to seek rehearing in National Cotton Council v. EPA. DOJ instead filed a motion to stay issuance of the Court's mandate for two years to provide EPA time to develop, propose and issue a final NPDES general permit for pesticide applications, for States to develop permits, and to provide outreach and education to the regulated community. Court Grants EPA 2-Year StayOn June 8, 2009, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals granted EPA a two-year stay of the mandate in National Cotton Council et al v. EPA in response to their request on April 9, 2009. EPA plans, before the ruling takes effect (April 9, 2011), to issue a final general NPDES permit for covered pesticide applications, to assist authorized states to develop their NPDES permits, and to provide outreach and education to the regulated community. EPA will work closely with state water permitting programs, the regulated community and environmental organizations in developing a general permit that is protective of the environment and public health. NPDES permits will be required for pesticides applied directly to water to control pests and/or applied to control pests that are present in or over, including near waters. Irrigation return flows and agricultural runoff will not require NPDES permits as they are specifically exempted from the CWA. EPA will update this site regularly to keep the public apprised of the status of this issue. (last updated: June 12, 2009) Additional Supporting InformationFinal Rule on Water TransfersEPA is publishing a final rule to exclude water transfers from regulation under the NPDES permitting program. The final rule defines a water transfer as an activity that conveys or connects waters of the United States without subjecting the transferred water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. This does not apply to pollutants introduced by the water transfer activity itself to the water being transferred. Water transfers are activities that divert water between waterbodies, typically through the use of pumps or passive redirection through tunnels, channels, and/or natural stream water features. Water transfers are necessary to allocate water resources to meet the water needs of those downstream in the receiving waterbody. Such needs include public water supply, irrigation, power generation, flood control, and environmental restoration. The Bureau of Reclamation administers significant transfers in western States to provide approximately 140,000 farmers with irrigation water. With the use of water transfers, the Army Corps of Engineers keeps thousands of acres of agricultural and urban land in southern Florida from flooding in former areas of Everglades wetlands. Many large cities in the west and the east would not have adequate sources of water for their citizens were it not for the continuous redirection of water from outside basins. For example, both the cities of New York and Los Angeles are dependent on water transfers from distant watersheds to meet their municipal demand.
WHAT CAN I FIND ON THIS WEB SITE? Click on the links below to find out more information and facts on AFOs, CAFOs, and the NPDES permitting program for CAFOs.
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
![]() |
|
![]() |
||
|