Document text
http://www.omniture.com --> Sections Home Page Local News AP News Blogs Archives Business Classifieds Event Calendar Classic Forums Forums Life Opinion Obituaries Multimedia Photo Gallery Readers Photo Gallery Sports Tempo Weather Road Cams Special Coverage 2006 Britt Festivals --> Shop Our Valley AutoFinder HomeFinder JobFinder Search Our Valley Special Sections Distinctly Northwest Women in Business Homelife Magazine Joy Magazine Oregon Golf Info Oregon Wine Info Other Publications Local Links Ashland News eSouthernOregon Newspapers In Education Personals Customer Service Advertise With Us Place Classified Ad Contact Us FAQ's Home Delivery Site Map Email Story to a Friend January 1, 2007 Federal pollution definition gets court challenge By Paul Fattig Mail Tribune ASHLAND — The National Center for Conservation Science & Policy has joined five other environmental groups in filing a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency over a change in the Clean Water Act. Filed earlier this month, the lawsuit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco seeks to reverse the EPA's decision made earlier this year to redefine the word "pollutant" to exclude pesticides, explained Chad Woodward, water quality project manager for the Ashland-based center. "If the rule is not contested, the Clean Water Act will allow pesticide applications directly to our drinking water sources," Woodward said in a prepared statement. "This would create unacceptable ecological and human health risks." The center believes the EPA's decision could result in aerial spraying and other direct applications of pesticides into wetlands, streams and rivers, Woodward said. The EPA had concluded that pesticide applications are not covered by the act because the Federal Insecticide Fungicide & Rodenticide Act label on the pesticides provided adequate protection. Advertisement But woodward countered that the warning labels on pesticides do not provide adequate regulatory safeguards. "For the EPA to say that pesticides are not pollutants is like saying poison is good for you," said Charlie Tebbutt, an attorney for the Western Environmental Law Center and lead counsel for the petitioners. "The EPA is ignoring the requirements of the Clean Water Act and cannot go unchallenged." If the decision is not changed, it would place fresh water, fish, wildlife and human populations at risk, according to the plaintiffs. "This is not what the Clean Water Act intended," Tebbutt concluded. Joining the center in the legal challenge are Oregon Wild, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance, Baykeeper and Saint John's Organic Farm. The groups represent a farm in Idaho and a cross section of environmental groups from California and Oregon. Would you like to respond to this story? If so Click Here to visit our forums. Advertisement Copyright © 1997-2007 Mail Tribune, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Website Feedback online casinos news Home Security Systems Online Casino Reviews Trunks, Footlocker Fundraisers UK Homeowner Loans Casinos Canada Cord Blood Banking Discount Hotel Reservations Texas Electric Choice Compare Electric rates in Texas Online Casino Windermere Van Vleet Men's Clothing Debt Help New Hampshire Primary