Groundwater & Pesticides -- Section 6.3 Making It Happen

It has now been more than two decades since aldicarb, EDB and DBCP began to shake up the conventional wisdom about pesticides in groundwater. And it has been almost a decade since EPA issued its Pesticides and Ground-Water Strategy. It took nearly a decade for EPA to move from a proposed Strategy to a proposed rule. But a proposed rule -- one that EPA committed to years ago -- seems today hopelessly stuck in a regulatory quagmire.

When the Strategy was being developed, chemical manufacturers were proponents of state flexibility and tailor-made solutions. The Strategy embraced those approaches, as did its offspring -- a proposed rule covering six troubling pesticides. But along with that flexibility came responsibility. Along with tailor-made solutions came the prospect of keeping tabs and taking action. And any faint interest there may have once been among the chemical makers seems to have waned. Ironically enough, at least one of their representatives has argued that EPA's rule would amount to "regulating in haste." Hardly, it seems.

Groundwater SMPs will join an array of national measures to reduce the risks to humans from contaminated ground water. EPA expects to issue a final SMP rule in FY 1997.

US EPA ¹

Complaints from chemical manufacturers and fears of pesticide users seem to have put the brakes on EPA's slow-moving response to protecting groundwater from pesticides. EPA has apparently been stymied by those who prefer inaction. It is time for them to hear another point of view.

If you would like to see EPA carry through on its commitments, write directly to EPA Administrator Carol Browner at 401 M Street, SW ( Mail Code 1101), Washington, DC 20460. Or send her an email at <browner.carol@epamail.epa.gov>. (See the Friends of the Earth sample letter at <http://www.foe.org/safefood/groundwater/writetoepa.html>).

The Bottom Line

Public participation can be time-consuming, but it can pay off. A petition by a single organic blueberry grower, recall, changed state policy in Maine. Elsewhere, sustained outreach work by Minnesota's Land Stewardship Project and effective advocacy by the Agricultural Resources Center in North Carolina have made a difference in how and to what extent pesticides are used in those states.

Without making it your life's work, you can make your state or tribal pesticide management plan better. And you can influence EPA's decisions about pesticide regulation. You can do that by bringing your interests and concerns to the table, asking tough questions and making sure that the decision-makers consider the wealth of information about the occurrence of pesticides in groundwater. You don't have to be an expert to deserve a voice in pesticide management decisions that affect your water quality, for even the "experts" don't have all the answers. If you are informed and interested, you belong in this debate. Your participation could mean the difference between clean and pesticide-polluted water.