01/13/05 Buffers stay. What`s next?

01/13/05 Buffers stay. What`s next?

It was the hope that opponents of a 2004 court injunction ordering pesticide no-spray buffer zones along waterways that provide endangered and threatened species habitat in Washington, Oregon, and California would get their day in court. But alas, the U.S. Supreme Court announced this week that it will not hear the appeal of the Washington Toxics Coalition versus Environmental Protection Agency case. So what is next for opponents of pesticide no-spray buffers? According to Heather Hansen of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests, it appears the legal challenges for the specific W.T.C. vs. E.P.A. case for the time being is exhausted unless the Supreme Court reconsiders. HANSEN: That doesn't mean that they won't ever hear this issue. There are a number of similar cases in different courts around the country. And it very well may be that in the future, one of those cases will make it to the Supreme Court, and it will impact the underlying case law. But as groups like Friends of Farms and Forests, CropLife America, and others get behind upcoming cases, the question is how soon those legal matters will come before the High Court. HANSEN: I don't know if they are to the stage of development yet where they are ripe for the Supreme Court. But CropLife certainly will continue to monitor all of them, and monitor the issue as a whole, and figure out what the appropriate steps are. In the meantime, E.P.A continues efforts to comply with the court order. HANSEN: The next step in the process from E.P.A.'s viewpoint is complete consultations on each product. They will be developing county bulletins, which have rules to manage the pesticides in different areas. And as they develop those bulletins with specific rules that relate to each specific product in each specific area, then the buffers will go away, and the new county bulletin will take the place of the buffer. Of the list of fifty-four pesticides that were included in the original W.T.C. lawsuit, E.P.A. has made determinations and narrowed the list of products that would have significance to salmon to twenty eight. And according to Hansen, even those pesticide buffers are listed for specific areas. HANSEN: There's one product that only has a buffer in one specific watershed. Some of them have buffers along, say, the Columbia, but not on the West Side, or visa versa. You can go to the Department of Agriculture's website in both Washington and Oregon and see where the buffers apply on which products.
Previous Report01/12/06 Idaho`s new authority over wolves
Next Report01/16/06 Private animal I.D. management