[In the field] Legislative Day 2005

More than 600 PCOs attended NPMA’s Legislative Day in late February in Washington, D.C., to meet with their senators and congressmen and discuss important regulatory issues affecting the pest management industry.

PCOs used these opportunities to educate their representatives about a pair of pressing issues: 1) EPA’s possible move towards making unjustified use restrictions on vitally necessary rodenticides; and 2) the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act.

Regarding the rodenticide issue, in late 2004 EPA issued a document encouraging the curbing of the use of rodenticides titled "Potential Risks of Nine Rodenticides to Birds and Nontarget Mammals: A Comparative Approach" (Revised Comparative Assessment or RCA). This RCA purports to be an "ecological risk assessment"; however,many, including the U.S. EPA’s own Scientific Advisory Panel, criticized the approach EPA used to assess risk. EPA’s next step in this process for curbing the use of rodenticides is to solicit Risk Mitigation Proposals.

NPMA’s Vice President of Government Affairs Bob Rosenberg said these actions suggest that EPA might be moving towards banning or restricting the use of rodenticides outdoors. Legislative Day attendees were encouraged to discuss this issue with their legislators and reinforce the industry’s position that: 1) EPA’s ecological risk assessment is flawed; and 2) EPA fails to consider the benefits of rodenticide use.

The other main goal for PCOs at Legislative Day was to find a co-sponsor for the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act. The issue involves an ongoing conflict between the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) — which both were enacted in 1972.

CWA granted authority to the U.S. EPA to restore and maintain the integrity of the nations’s waterways. It specifically required the U.S. EPA to more closely regulate discharges of large industrial operations and wastewater facilities through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit program. Meanwhile, FIFRA established a comprehensive regulatory system under which U.S. EPA would regulate the sale and use of pesticides through registration and labeling.

The dispute stems from a March 2001 court case titled Headwater, Inc. v. Talent. In this case, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that pesticide applicators must obtain an NPDES permit prior to applying pesticides directly to bodies of water. The court’s decision defied 30 years of regulatory and legislative history. Shortly after this decision, state water quality agencies began complying with the court’s directive by requiring mosquito abatement districts, irrigators and others to obtain NPDES permits. Similar cases are pending in other parts of the country.

Obtaining NPDES permits is costly, time consuming and bureaucratic. According to the Oregon Department of Agriculture, it costs an applicator more than $50,000 to obtain an NPDES permit to treat a lake for woods.

The National Pest Management Association has joined with other groups to remedy this situation, according to Gene Harrington, manager of government affairs, NPMA. Harrington urged Legislative Day attendees to lobby their legislators to become co-sponsors of the Pest Management and Fire Suppression Flexibility Act. The legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives by U.S. Congressman Butch Otter. It would codify an exemption for pesticide applications performed according to label instructions from CWA permitting requirements.

Harrington said co-sponsors were important so that this issue would get as much bi-partisan support as possible.