 |
|
 |
| ||
|
Lukewarm Pesticide Policy
President Clinton isn't the only one wrestling with word definitions these days: the state's Regional Water Quality Boards are attempting to define "frequent," following the State Water Board's adoption of a controversial guidance policy for preparing toxic hot spot cleanup plans under the Bay Protection and Toxic Cleanup Program.
Under the policy adopted on September 2 - which will guide the cleanup of toxic pollution from an array of sources, from abandoned mercury mines to oil refineries -pesticides in the water column detected as "infrequent pulses" are not considered hot spots.
"It's sort of like the rules changed at the very end of the game," says the Central Valley Regional Board's Jerry Bruns, noting that the definition of a hot spot should have been determined years ago. In the absence of state direction, Regional Board staff developed and used a working definition, concluded that water column pesticides qualified as high priority candidate hot spots - and submitted a draft cleanup plan to the State Board in December 1997. The new policy throws this cleanup plan into question. Studies have found high levels of pesticides, including diazinon and chlorpyrifos, in Central Valley waterways. For example, a risk assessment conducted by Novartis, the registrant for diazinon, concluded that the mainstem San Joaquin River is probably acutely toxic to sensitive species about 30% of the time, while other studies have found toxicity in the river up to 50% of the time. The new policy doesn't provide any guidance as to whether this is frequent enough to qualify for hot spot status.
The new policy does require that cleanup plans be consistent with a 1993 Management Agency Agreement with the Department of Pesticide Regulation that lays out a four-step process for reducing pesticide releases, beginning with a program of voluntary controls. "We don't have the authority to regulate pesticide use on land - that's DPR's responsibility," says the State Board's Craig Wilson. "We felt that the managing agreement was the tool that should be used to deal with pesticides." Wilson notes that under the policy, pesticides that are detected as frequent pulses can still be addressed under the cleanup program.
Critics say that by relying on the agreement, the Board is shirking its responsibility to protect the state's waterways. "This policy gives pesticides special treatment compared with all other pollutants," says another State Board staffer, who asked not to be identified. "The data available definitely support action against pesticides. This decision was totally political and had nothing to do with science."
"The State Board has declared that it is unwilling to regulate pesticides," says DeltaKeeper Bill Jennings. Jennings contends that the DPR has failed to keep several key commitments under the management agreement, including securing sponsors to develop and implement a self-regulation program for pesticides and developing quantitative response limits (QRLs) to help determine whether pesticide concentrations conform to water quality objectives. Jennings adds that the DPR receives 65% of its funding from a tax based on the volume of applied pesticides.
Both Jennings and Bruns also point out that unlike the Bay Protection Program, the management agreement process has limited public access and accountablity. "The effect of the State Board's policy is to eviscerate the intent of the legislature and make it subject to a private deal between two agencies," says Jennings.
Bruns says the Central Valley Board has asked the Bay Protection Program's scientific advisory committee for guidance on what constitutes a frequent pulse. The issue was expected to be the focus of an October 23 Board meeting.
In the absence of action by regulatory agencies, DeltaKeeper is prepared to sue individual farmers to prevent pesticide discharges into Central Valley rivers. "We'd prefer to see effective enforcement of clean water laws by state agencies," says Jennings. "The failure to enforce them leaves us little alternative but to use the courts."
Contact: Jerry Bruns (916)255-3093 or Bill Jennings (209)464 5090
[ ABAG HOME | SFEP HOME ]
Copyright © 2002, San Francisco Estuary Project