{ "id": "RL32884", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL32884", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 457827, "date": "2016-12-15", "retrieved": "2017-01-03T22:40:31.681619", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": "This report provides background on the emerging conflict over interpretation and implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). For the more than 30 years since they were enacted, there had been little apparent conflict between them. But their relationship has recently been challenged in several arenas, including the federal courts and regulatory proceedings of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this report, a brief discussion of the two laws is followed by a review of the major litigation of interest. EPA\u2019s efforts to clarify its policy in this area are discussed, including a regulation issued in 2006 that was subsequently vacated by a federal court, as well as possible options for EPA and Congress to address the issues further. \nFIFRA governs the labeling, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides, including insecticides and herbicides. Its objective is to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides. It establishes a nationally uniform labeling system requiring the registration of all pesticides sold in the United States, and requiring users to comply with the national label. The CWA creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme to control the discharge of pollutants into the nation\u2019s waters; the discharge of pollutants without a permit violates the act.\nSeveral federal court cases testing the relationship between FIFRA and the CWA have drawn attention since 2001. In two cases concerning pesticide applications by agriculture and natural resources managers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that CWA permits are required for at least some discharges of FIFRA-regulated pesticides over, into, or near U.S. waters. It held in a third case that no permit was required for the specific pesticide in question. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a CWA discharge permit for mosquito control activities was not required before April 2011.\nSeveral of the rulings alarmed a range of stakeholders who fear that requiring CWA permits for pesticide application activities would present significant costs, operational difficulties, and delays. Pressed to clarify its long-standing principle that CWA permits are not required for using FIFRA-approved products, EPA in 2006 issued a rule to formalize that principle in regulations. Environmental activists strongly opposed EPA\u2019s actions, arguing that FIFRA does not protect water quality from harmful pollutant discharges, as the CWA is intended to do. Other stakeholders, such as pesticide applicators, endorsed the rule. However, the rule was challenged, and in 2009, a federal court vacated the regulation. The federal government asked the court to stay the order vacating the exemption for two years, to provide time for working with states to develop a general permit for pesticide applications covered by the decision. The court denied the request for rehearing and granted the requested delay, which was extended until October 31, 2011, when EPA issued the permit. Despite the agency\u2019s efforts to minimize regulatory burdens and cost, the permit is controversial.\nSome believe that the controversy will only be resolved by congressional action to clarify the intersecting scope of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA. The House passed legislation intended to nullify the 2009 federal court ruling in the 112th and 113th Congresses. Similar bills were approved by House and Senate committees in the 114th Congress (H.R. 897, S. 659, and S. 1500). The House passed a modified version of H.R. 897, retitled the Zika Vector Control Act, on May 24, 2016. Separate Senate legislation, S. 2899, was proposed to provide a temporary, 180-day waiver of the pesticide general permit (PGP) and its reporting requirements for the purpose of public health pesticide applications of a mosquito control program. Similar waiver provisions were debated in connection with FY2017 appropriations legislation, but none was enacted.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32884", "sha1": "b34aab2f701051f14331145d9ae75d69e925c0e4", "filename": "files/20161215_RL32884_b34aab2f701051f14331145d9ae75d69e925c0e4.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32884", "sha1": "421974946bc837998497970140404175d0ef6003", "filename": "files/20161215_RL32884_421974946bc837998497970140404175d0ef6003.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4874, "name": "Pesticides & Chemicals in Commerce" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 457006, "date": "2016-11-10", "retrieved": "2016-11-21T15:08:17.176109", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": "This report provides background on the emerging conflict over interpretation and implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). For the more than 30 years since they were enacted, there had been little apparent conflict between them. But their relationship has recently been challenged in several arenas, including the federal courts and regulatory proceedings of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this report, a brief discussion of the two laws is followed by a review of the major litigation of interest. EPA\u2019s efforts to clarify its policy in this area are discussed, including a regulation issued in 2006 that was subsequently vacated by a federal court, as well as possible options for EPA and Congress to address the issues further. \nFIFRA governs the labeling, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides, including insecticides and herbicides. Its objective is to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides. It establishes a nationally uniform labeling system requiring the registration of all pesticides sold in the United States, and requiring users to comply with the national label. The CWA creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme to control the discharge of pollutants into the nation\u2019s waters; the discharge of pollutants without a permit violates the act.\nSeveral federal court cases testing the relationship between FIFRA and the CWA have drawn attention since 2001. In two cases concerning pesticide applications by agriculture and natural resources managers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that CWA permits are required for at least some discharges of FIFRA-regulated pesticides over, into, or near U.S. waters. It held in a third case that no permit was required for the specific pesticide in question. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a CWA discharge permit for mosquito control activities was not required before April 2011.\nSeveral of the rulings alarmed a range of stakeholders who fear that requiring CWA permits for pesticide application activities would present significant costs, operational difficulties, and delays. Pressed to clarify its long-standing principle that CWA permits are not required for using FIFRA-approved products, EPA in 2006 issued a rule to formalize that principle in regulations. Environmental activists strongly opposed EPA\u2019s actions, arguing that FIFRA does not protect water quality from harmful pollutant discharges, as the CWA is intended to do. Other stakeholders, such as pesticide applicators, endorsed the rule. However, the rule was challenged, and in 2009, a federal court vacated the regulation. The federal government asked the court to stay the order vacating the exemption for two years, to provide time for working with states to develop a general permit for pesticide applications covered by the decision. The court denied the request for rehearing and granted the requested delay, which was extended until October 31, 2011, when EPA issued the permit. Despite the agency\u2019s efforts to minimize regulatory burdens and cost, the permit is controversial.\nSome believe that the controversy will only be resolved by congressional action to clarify the intersecting scope of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA. The House passed legislation intended to nullify the 2009 federal court ruling in the 112th and 113th Congresses. Similar bills have been approved by House and Senate committees in the 114th Congress (H.R. 897, S. 659, and S. 1500). The House passed a modified version of H.R. 897, re-titled the Zika Vector Control Act, on May 24, 2016. Separate Senate legislation, S. 2899, would provide a temporary, 180-day waiver of the PGP and its reporting requirements for the purpose of public health pesticide applications of a mosquito control program. Similar waiver provisions were debated in connection with FY2017 appropriations legislation, but none was included in a bill that Congress passed on September 28, 2016, providing government funding through December 9, 2016 (H.R. 5325/P.L. 114-223).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32884", "sha1": "49911ae49e5964f4d2ec5dbb02666b15906f2a16", "filename": "files/20161110_RL32884_49911ae49e5964f4d2ec5dbb02666b15906f2a16.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32884", "sha1": "d7861a4aefab50c8da771c2e7de62f65bd58ddf0", "filename": "files/20161110_RL32884_d7861a4aefab50c8da771c2e7de62f65bd58ddf0.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4874, "name": "Pesticides & Chemicals in Commerce" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 456333, "date": "2016-09-29", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:22:37.406329", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": "This report provides background on the emerging conflict over interpretation and implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). For the more than 30 years since they were enacted, there had been little apparent conflict between them. But their relationship has recently been challenged in several arenas, including the federal courts and regulatory proceedings of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this report, a brief discussion of the two laws is followed by a review of the major litigation of interest. EPA\u2019s efforts to clarify its policy in this area are discussed, including a regulation issued in 2006 that was subsequently vacated by a federal court, as well as possible options for EPA and Congress to address the issues further. \nFIFRA governs the labeling, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides, including insecticides and herbicides. Its objective is to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides. It establishes a nationally uniform labeling system requiring the registration of all pesticides sold in the United States, and requiring users to comply with the national label. The CWA creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme to control the discharge of pollutants into the nation\u2019s waters; the discharge of pollutants without a permit violates the act.\nSeveral federal court cases testing the relationship between FIFRA and the CWA have drawn attention since 2001. In two cases concerning pesticide applications by agriculture and natural resources managers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that CWA permits are required for at least some discharges of FIFRA-regulated pesticides over, into, or near U.S. waters. It held in a third case that no permit was required for the specific pesticide in question. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a CWA discharge permit for mosquito control activities was not required before April 2011.\nSeveral of the rulings alarmed a range of stakeholders who fear that requiring CWA permits for pesticide application activities would present significant costs, operational difficulties, and delays. Pressed to clarify its long-standing principle that CWA permits are not required for using FIFRA-approved products, EPA in 2006 issued a rule to formalize that principle in regulations. Environmental activists strongly opposed EPA\u2019s actions, arguing that FIFRA does not protect water quality from harmful pollutant discharges, as the CWA is intended to do. Other stakeholders, such as pesticide applicators, endorsed the rule. However, the rule was challenged, and in 2009, a federal court vacated the regulation. The federal government asked the court to stay the order vacating the exemption for two years, to provide time for working with states to develop a general permit for pesticide applications covered by the decision. The court denied the request for rehearing and granted the requested delay, which was extended until October 31, 2011, when EPA issued the permit. Despite the agency\u2019s efforts to minimize regulatory burdens and cost, the permit is controversial.\nSome believe that the controversy will only be resolved by congressional action to clarify the intersecting scope of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA. The House passed legislation intended to nullify the 2009 federal court ruling in the 112th and 113th Congresses. Similar bills have been approved by House and Senate committees in the 114th Congress (H.R. 897, S. 659, and S. 1500). The House passed a modified version of H.R. 897, re-titled the Zika Vector Control Act, on May 24, 2016. Separate Senate legislation, S. 2899, would provide a temporary, 180-day waiver of the PGP and its reporting requirements for the purpose of public health pesticide applications of a mosquito control program. Similar waiver provisions were debated in connection with FY2017 appropriations legislation, but none was included in a bill that Congress passed on September 28, 2016, providing government funding through December 9, 2016 (H.R. 5325).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32884", "sha1": "19cf975ae546e391623ad9c006d15a375ab8b064", "filename": "files/20160929_RL32884_19cf975ae546e391623ad9c006d15a375ab8b064.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32884", "sha1": "bd54b929970e36f8f6b7cd9bac673653481b7e24", "filename": "files/20160929_RL32884_bd54b929970e36f8f6b7cd9bac673653481b7e24.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4874, "name": "Pesticides & Chemicals in Commerce" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 453053, "date": "2016-05-31", "retrieved": "2016-06-21T21:11:36.822819", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": "This report provides background on the emerging conflict over interpretation and implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). For the more than 30 years since they were enacted, there had been little apparent conflict between them. But their relationship has recently been challenged in several arenas, including the federal courts and regulatory proceedings of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this report, a brief discussion of the two laws is followed by a review of the major litigation of interest. EPA\u2019s efforts to clarify its policy in this area are discussed, including a regulation issued in 2006 that was subsequently vacated by a federal court, as well as possible options for EPA and Congress to address the issues further. \nFIFRA governs the labeling, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides, including insecticides and herbicides. Its objective is to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides. It establishes a nationally uniform labeling system requiring the registration of all pesticides sold in the United States, and requiring users to comply with the national label. The CWA creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme to control the discharge of pollutants into the nation\u2019s waters; the discharge of pollutants without a permit violates the act.\nSeveral federal court cases testing the relationship between FIFRA and the CWA have drawn attention since 2001. In two cases concerning pesticide applications by agriculture and natural resources managers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that CWA permits are required for at least some discharges of FIFRA-regulated pesticides over, into, or near U.S. waters. It held in a third case that no permit was required for the specific pesticide in question. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a CWA discharge permit for mosquito control activities was not required before April 2011.\nSeveral of the rulings alarmed a range of stakeholders who fear that requiring CWA permits for pesticide application activities would present significant costs, operational difficulties, and delays. Pressed to clarify its long-standing principle that CWA permits are not required for using FIFRA-approved products, EPA in 2006 issued a rule to formalize that principle in regulations. Environmental activists strongly opposed EPA\u2019s actions, arguing that FIFRA does not protect water quality from harmful pollutant discharges, as the CWA is intended to do. Other stakeholders, such as pesticide applicators, endorsed the rule. However, the rule was challenged, and in 2009, a federal court vacated the regulation. The federal government asked the court to stay the order vacating the exemption for two years, to provide time for working with states to develop a general permit for pesticide applications covered by the decision. The court denied the request for rehearing and granted the requested delay, which was extended until October 31, 2011, when EPA issued the permit. Despite the agency\u2019s efforts to minimize regulatory burdens and cost, the permit is controversial.\nSome believe that the controversy will only be resolved by congressional action to clarify the intersecting scope of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA. The House passed legislation intended to nullify the 2009 federal court ruling in the 112th and 113th Congresses. Similar bills have been approved by House and Senate committees in the 114th Congress (H.R. 897, S. 659, and S. 1500). The House passed a modified version of H.R. 897, re-titled the Zika Vector Control Act, on May 24, 2016. Separate Senate legislation, S. 2899, would provide a temporary, 180-day waiver of the PGP and its reporting requirements for the purpose of public health pesticide applications of a mosquito control program.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32884", "sha1": "90d9aaad93873dd67465d7514efe9d15710ed5b0", "filename": "files/20160531_RL32884_90d9aaad93873dd67465d7514efe9d15710ed5b0.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32884", "sha1": "5432ed8a4a2789f871defeaf52fae5154cd1a93f", "filename": "files/20160531_RL32884_5432ed8a4a2789f871defeaf52fae5154cd1a93f.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3096, "name": "Chemicals in Commerce" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 449288, "date": "2016-01-28", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T17:22:57.006548", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": "This report provides background on the emerging conflict over interpretation and implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). For the more than 30 years since they were enacted, there had been little apparent conflict between them. But their relationship has recently been challenged in several arenas, including the federal courts and regulatory proceedings of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In this report, a brief discussion of the two laws is followed by a review of the major litigation of interest. EPA\u2019s efforts to clarify its policy in this area are discussed, including a regulation issued in 2006 that was subsequently vacated by a federal court, as well as possible options for EPA and Congress to address the issues further. \nFIFRA governs the labeling, distribution, sale, and use of pesticides, including insecticides and herbicides. Its objective is to protect human health and the environment from unreasonable adverse effects of pesticides. It establishes a nationally uniform labeling system requiring the registration of all pesticides sold in the United States, and requiring users to comply with the national label. The CWA creates a comprehensive regulatory scheme to control the discharge of pollutants into the nation\u2019s waters; the discharge of pollutants without a permit violates the act.\nSeveral federal court cases testing the relationship between FIFRA and the CWA have drawn attention since 2001. In two cases concerning pesticide applications by agriculture and natural resources managers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that CWA permits are required for at least some discharges of FIFRA-regulated pesticides over, into, or near U.S. waters. It held in a third case that no permit was required for the specific pesticide in question. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that a CWA discharge permit for mosquito control activities was not required before April 2011.\nSeveral of the rulings alarmed a range of stakeholders who fear that requiring CWA permits for pesticide application activities would present significant costs, operational difficulties, and delays. Pressed to clarify its long-standing principle that CWA permits are not required for using FIFRA-approved products, EPA in 2006 issued a rule to formalize that principle in regulations. Environmental activists strongly opposed EPA\u2019s actions, arguing that FIFRA does not protect water quality from harmful pollutant discharges, as the CWA is intended to do. Other stakeholders, such as pesticide applicators, endorsed the rule. The rule was challenged, and in 2009, a federal court vacated the regulation. The federal government asked the court to stay the order vacating the exemption for two years, to provide time for working with states to develop a general permit for pesticide applications covered by the decision. The court denied the request for rehearing and granted the requested delay, which was extended until October 31, 2011, when EPA issued the permit. Despite the agency\u2019s efforts to minimize regulatory burdens and cost, the permit is controversial.\nSome believe that the controversy will only be resolved by congressional action to clarify the intersecting scope of the Clean Water Act and FIFRA. The House passed legislation intended to nullify the 2009 federal court ruling in the 112th and 113th Congresses. Similar bills have been approved by House and Senate committees in the 114th Congress (H.R. 897, S. 659,and S. 1500).", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32884", "sha1": "edf14370f1bdb827fb5db88b1d293091d38f5828", "filename": "files/20160128_RL32884_edf14370f1bdb827fb5db88b1d293091d38f5828.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32884", "sha1": "fab76b5243b7aadb748221dfb0ced3f4f6214360", "filename": "files/20160128_RL32884_fab76b5243b7aadb748221dfb0ced3f4f6214360.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3096, "name": "Chemicals in Commerce" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc816811/", "id": "RL32884_2015Aug06", "date": "2015-08-06", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150806_RL32884_f366f3029632ed8368d6853ffa2ffbcc2dffb4e7.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150806_RL32884_f366f3029632ed8368d6853ffa2ffbcc2dffb4e7.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc817975/", "id": "RL32884_2015Mar20", "date": "2015-03-20", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150320_RL32884_a79ef97adfd2cb71497d13173ef20e90dff46fdc.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150320_RL32884_a79ef97adfd2cb71497d13173ef20e90dff46fdc.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc332950/", "id": "RL32884_2014Mar19", "date": "2014-03-19", "retrieved": "2014-08-27T12:47:05", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": "This report provides background on the conflict over interpretation and implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). A brief discussion of the two laws is followed by a review of the major litigation of interest.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20140319_RL32884_b52ad35c0987139ec144bf504c25b3e232e08247.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20140319_RL32884_b52ad35c0987139ec144bf504c25b3e232e08247.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental protection", "name": "Environmental protection" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental law and legislation", "name": "Environmental law and legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water pollution", "name": "Water pollution" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Hazardous substances", "name": "Hazardous substances" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Insecticides", "name": "Insecticides" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Pesticides", "name": "Pesticides" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc811839/", "id": "RL32884_2012Jul13", "date": "2012-07-13", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20120713_RL32884_902415a7adafa3d5438ecfa30e32bc3cb80c526a.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20120713_RL32884_902415a7adafa3d5438ecfa30e32bc3cb80c526a.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc817320/", "id": "RL32884_2011Nov08", "date": "2011-11-08", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20111108_RL32884_9a37974132a3de79ba67f2244e5b74f62fe0400b.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20111108_RL32884_9a37974132a3de79ba67f2244e5b74f62fe0400b.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc29658/", "id": "RL32884_2010Oct13", "date": "2010-10-13", "retrieved": "2010-12-04T14:26:25", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": "This report provides background on the conflict over interpretation and implementation of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act. A brief discussion of the two laws is followed by a review of the major litigation of interest. EPA's efforts to clarify its policy in this area and the November 2006 rule and the 2009 federal court ruling are discussed, as well as possible options for EPA and Congress to further address the FIFRA-CWA issues. In June, EPA proposed a draft general CWA permit that it intends to finalize by April 2011 in response to the court ruling.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20101013_RL32884_219e29f3dfb9d89b2f5b072e9c70d50814d28bdb.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20101013_RL32884_219e29f3dfb9d89b2f5b072e9c70d50814d28bdb.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental protection", "name": "Environmental protection" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Environmental law and legislation", "name": "Environmental law and legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water pollution", "name": "Water pollution" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Hazardous substances", "name": "Hazardous substances" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Insecticides", "name": "Insecticides" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Rodenticides", "name": "Rodenticides" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Fungicides", "name": "Fungicides" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Pesticides", "name": "Pesticides" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc807641/", "id": "RL32884_2009Jun16", "date": "2009-06-16", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20090616_RL32884_2fa86694a6efc0141cf7cec22c4e9df7e15b9169.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20090616_RL32884_2fa86694a6efc0141cf7cec22c4e9df7e15b9169.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc806055/", "id": "RL32884_2007Jun14", "date": "2007-06-14", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20070614_RL32884_6e103d97328c373a142123decccb309b71df423b.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20070614_RL32884_6e103d97328c373a142123decccb309b71df423b.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc814811/", "id": "RL32884_2006Dec12", "date": "2006-12-12", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20061212_RL32884_7d8f188d2dc336da6fa5f92d14b8e827e921e14b.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20061212_RL32884_7d8f188d2dc336da6fa5f92d14b8e827e921e14b.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9205/", "id": "RL32884 2005-10-27", "date": "2005-10-27", "retrieved": "2006-09-18T09:38:41", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality : Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20051027_RL32884_dde9103b240ff9b38a5347001359df6151c71667.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20051027_RL32884_dde9103b240ff9b38a5347001359df6151c71667.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Agriculture", "name": "Agriculture" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water law and legislation", "name": "Water law and legislation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Pesticides policy", "name": "Pesticides policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Pesticide regulation", "name": "Pesticide regulation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Water resources", "name": "Water resources" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Hazardous substances", "name": "Hazardous substances" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc810888/", "id": "RL32884_2005Aug29", "date": "2005-08-29", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20050829_RL32884_7e080707386fcaa20f412b1dd3fee5b7f301d267.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20050829_RL32884_7e080707386fcaa20f412b1dd3fee5b7f301d267.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc805447/", "id": "RL32884_2005Jun03", "date": "2005-06-03", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20050603_RL32884_d2cbe2841d037e01db671803dfc62220d22a0002.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20050603_RL32884_d2cbe2841d037e01db671803dfc62220d22a0002.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc822246/", "id": "RL32884_2005Apr25", "date": "2005-04-25", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Pesticide Use and Water Quality: Are the Laws Complementary or in Conflict?", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20050425_RL32884_77ae40cc116fa678dbec396337d413fcce2426d5.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20050425_RL32884_77ae40cc116fa678dbec396337d413fcce2426d5.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Appropriations", "Energy Policy", "Environmental Policy" ] }