Federal ruling restricts use of pesticides.

Byline: Scott Maben The Register-Guard

A federal judge in Seattle has restricted the use of 38 pesticides along Northwest salmon and steelhead streams to protect the fish from potential harm.

Thursday's ruling in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency bars any application of the pesticides within 20 yards of streams supporting threatened and endangered salmon. The order also establishes 100-yard stream buffers in which aerial spraying is prohibited.

The Willamette and McKenzie rivers as well as many coastal streams are covered by the decision, which takes effect in two weeks in Oregon, Washington and Northern California.

The ruling makes an exception for disease control that threatens public health, such as spraying mosquitoes infected with West Nile virus.

Local governments also may continue to spray to combat noxious weeds.

U.S. District Court Judge John Coughenour also ruled that home and garden centers and other stores selling seven pesticides frequently detected in urban waterways must warn buyers that the products may harm salmon.

The retail advisories are to begin in 60 days.

The restrictions, which amplify previous rulings by the judge, are to remain in effect until the EPA determines whether the pesticides are likely to harm protected fish.

Conservation, fishing and pesticide watchdog groups that filed the suit celebrated the order as a victory for salmon recovery efforts in the region.

"It's a landmark decision that puts protection in place on the ground that's desperately needed," said lead attorney Patti Goldman of Earthjustice, a Seattle firm specializing in environmental law.

"The EPA has been dragging its feet in the face of its own findings that these pesticides get into streams at levels that harm salmon," Goldman said.

Representatives of pesticide manufacturers and Northwest farmers said the restrictions are unnecessary and will prove devastating to agriculture and pest control in the region.

"These are critical products used in the control of diseases, weeds and insects," said Pat Donnelly, executive vice president of CropLife America, a Washington, D.C.-based group speaking for companies that produce, sell and distribute virtually all crop protection and biotechnology products used by U.S. farmers.

"This restriction of the products on the basis of the judge's decision will have major impacts on end users and consumers of those products for no apparent benefit," Donnelly said.

Coughenour in 2002 found the EPA had violated the Endangered Species Act with respect to pesticides that pose a threat to salmon.

Coughenour ordered the agency to begin bringing its pesticide authorizations into compliance with the law by consulting with the National Marine Fisheries Service, now known as NOAA Fisheries.

Unsatisfied with the agency's progress, the judge last summer indicated he would impose the buffer zones after the fall crop-growing season.

"This is a case where there's real harm, and the EPA kept saying, 'Well, we'll get to it someday,' ' Goldman said.

The buffers will cost Northwest farmers and fruit growers as much as $583 million a year in lost revenues, according to a U.S. Department of Agriculture study last August, Donnelly said.

"We think that's pretty severe," he said.

Farmers will pay the price for the EPA failing to communicate with federal wildlife biologists on these pesticides, said Heather Hansen, director of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests, an organization of pesticides and fertilizer users.

"This lawsuit has always been about paperwork. It's never been about salmon," Hansen said.

"We're going to take valuable farmland out of production and put people out of business," she said. "It's not only the farmers. In certain areas, I think there will be a huge ripple effect on the whole economy."

The ruling also will restrict the actions of homeowners, golf courses and parks located along salmon streams, she noted.

Aimee Code of the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, a Eugene-based group, said she's heard lots of theories about the impact buffers will have on farmers.

But producers already have other options, including less-toxic chemicals and non-chemical treatments within the buffers, Code said.

"What the science shows is that these pesticides are getting into salmon waters, and no one has the right to pollute," she said. "They need to be used in a manner that won't contaminate the waters we all need to survive."

EPA officials contacted Thursday afternoon said they hadn't heard about the ruling and weren't prepared to comment.