EPA Faces Atrazine Water Quality Standards Lawsuit

• A coalition of environmental and public health groups has sued the EPA over its failure to set water quality standards for the pesticide atrazine.
• Atrazine, the second most used pesticide in the U.S., is linked to birth defects, cancer, and fertility problems, and is banned in over 60 countries.
• Plaintiffs allege the EPA violated the Clean Water Act and Administrative Procedure Act by delaying the establishment of criteria since 1999.
• A report indicates atrazine contaminates 25% of continental U.S. rivers and is found in drinking water serving 40 million people across 36 states.
• The lawsuit seeks a court order for the EPA to develop and publish atrazine water quality criteria, which could lead to new compliance obligations for agricultural businesses.

Legal professionals should closely monitor the progression and outcome of this case, as it could lead to new compliance obligations, potentially revised discharge limits under the Clean Water Act, and an increased risk of liability for atrazine contamination.

A coalition of environmental and public health organizations has initiated legal action against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seeking to compel the federal body to establish comprehensive water quality standards for atrazine. This widely used herbicide, primarily applied to corn, sugarcane, and sorghum crops, has been linked to severe health issues including birth defects, cancer, and fertility problems. The lawsuit, filed on a recent Wednesday, specifically accuses the EPA of violating the Clean Water Act by failing to develop and issue necessary water quality criteria for the pesticide, and further alleges an unreasonable delay in this process, which constitutes a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

The plaintiffs in this significant legal challenge include the Center for Biological Diversity, the Center for Environmental Health, and the Pesticide Action & Agroecology Network. These groups contend that the EPA's inaction leaves Americans vulnerable to the well-documented dangers of atrazine, which is known to disrupt hormones. Nathan Donley, environmental health science director at the Center for Biological Diversity, criticized the agency's stance, noting that the rest of the world has largely moved to ban this "incredibly dangerous pesticide" while the U.S. continues its use.

Atrazine holds the distinction of being the second most commonly utilized pesticide across the United States, primarily employed to control annual grasses and broadleaf weeds before their emergence. Its pervasive use has led to extensive environmental contamination, with a recent report from the Center for Biological Diversity estimating that atrazine pollutes nearly 860,000 miles of rivers nationwide. This figure represents approximately 25% of all river and stream miles in the continental United States, with contamination levels recognized by the EPA itself as harmful to aquatic ecosystems.

Beyond rivers, atrazine has also been frequently detected in drinking water supplies, particularly in agricultural regions where cornfields and other farming operations contribute to runoff. Research conducted by the Environmental Working Group’s Tap Water Database highlights this widespread presence. The plaintiffs assert that atrazine has been identified in the water systems of at least 36 states, affecting over 2,000 utilities and serving an estimated 40 million people. Alarmingly, in twelve of these states, more than one million individuals are reportedly exposed to the pesticide. The health implications extend beyond humans, as atrazine is a known hormone-disruptor capable of chemically castrating male frogs at low concentrations and genetically altering fish.

The current legal challenge underscores a long-standing issue of regulatory inaction by the EPA regarding atrazine. The agency initially commenced a process in 1999 to establish water quality criteria for various pollutants, a process that, for atrazine, has never been brought to completion. This prolonged delay is central to the plaintiffs' claim that the EPA has violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Further highlighting this regulatory inertia, the Center for Biological Diversity submitted a records request earlier this year, seeking documents related to the period between the EPA's 2001 release of proposed atrazine aquatic life criteria and its subsequent release of proposed revised criteria two years later. The organization was informed that the agency possessed no responsive documents for this critical timeframe.

In recent years, the EPA did propose a runoff mitigation plan for atrazine, which included a 20% reduction in the maximum annual application rate and the implementation of a mitigation system. However, the efficacy of this plan has been called into question by a peer-reviewed study published earlier this month. This study concluded that the EPA's proposed mitigation efforts would only succeed in bringing a mere one percent of the country's 11,248 contaminated watersheds down to safe levels, suggesting a significant shortfall in addressing the widespread problem of pesticide water contamination regulations.

The lawsuit seeks a federal court ruling that the EPA has indeed failed in its duty to develop and publish water quality criteria for atrazine, criteria essential for safeguarding both human health and aquatic life. The plaintiffs are requesting a judicial order that would mandate the EPA to undertake this task, specifically requiring consultation with expert fish and wildlife agencies during the process. This legal pressure could significantly alter the landscape of pesticide water contamination regulations.

Should the court side with the plaintiffs, the outcome would likely compel the EPA to establish new or substantially revised water quality criteria for atrazine. Such a development would have direct and profound implications for agricultural businesses that rely on the pesticide, as well as any entities whose operations contribute to atrazine runoff. Legal professionals should closely monitor the progression and outcome of this case, as it could lead to new compliance obligations, potentially revised discharge limits under the Clean Water Act, and an increased risk of liability for atrazine contamination. As Tom Fox, senior legislative counsel at the Center for Environmental Health, emphasized, "Pesticides like atrazine that are clearly linked to reproductive harms and cancer don't belong in our water supplies. EPA needs to take action now as required by the Clean Water Act." Protecting the environment from such pesticides also benefits farmworkers and farming communities who suffer from these poisons polluting their water, according to Margaret Reeves, a senior scientist.

This lawsuit could compel the EPA to establish new or revised water quality criteria for atrazine, which would directly impact agricultural businesses using the pesticide and any entities whose operations could lead to atrazine runoff. Lawyers should monitor the case outcome for potential new compliance obligations, revised discharge limits, or increased liability risks related to atrazine contamination under the Clean Water Act.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service