In Brief: Pesticides are created to kill things, so it should be no surprise that these chemicals have serious effects when they wash into salmon streams.

05/15/04

Last month I talked about the effects of pesticide use on human health and especially on seasonal farmworkers and their families. I want to follow up on the pesticide issue from another point of view: that of endangered salmon and steelhead.

In the Pacific Northwest, there is growing recognition that pesticides are likely contributing to the overall decline in salmon runs. The U.S. Geological Survey has found concentrations of pesticides in Pacific Northwest waters that stunt salmon growth and alter behavior, swimming ability, sexual development, and reproduction. Some pesticides are lethal to salmon and have been known to cause large fish kills. Pesticides also reduce the food supply and eliminate the vegetative cover used by young salmon.

The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for registering pesticides and prescribing conditions on their use. But for ten years -- since the first listing of salmon and steelhead -- the EPA has dragged its feet and has not even begun the process of consulting with National Marine Fisheries Service, charged with protecting salmon, to determine what changes need to be made in pesticide use to protect salmon and steelhead.

Representing Washington Toxics Coalition, the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides, and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, Earthjustice brought suit under the Endangered Species Act to force the two agencies to address the scientific evidence and take action to protect salmon from pesticides. In July 2002, a federal court ordered them to do just that. Faced with continuing inaction, the court itself finally imposed buffers banning the application of some pesticides near salmon-bearing streams. Predictably, pro-pesticide groups have appealed the decision.

In the meantime, the Bush administration has shown its usual ingenuity on behalf of industry. As part of a series of regulatory changes that would radically alter how the Endangered Species Act works, the Bush administration proposed revisions in federal regulations that would eliminate EPA's need to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service in determining use restrictions for pesticides. As history illustrates, without citizen enforcement and National Marine Fisheries Service consultation, EPA is unlikely to do much about the problem.

Certain members of Congress also appear eager to weaken the Endangered Species Act as it applies to salmon or any other imperiled species. For example, Representative Greg Walden's (R-OR) bill H. R. 1662, "Sound Science for Endangered Species Planning Act," seeks to dictate the use of specific kinds of scientific information and, under the guise of expanding scientific peer review, to add procedures that would delay decisions to protect species. Earthjustice is fighting both the administration's proposed change in regulations and Representative Walden's legislative proposal.

I began by mentioning last month's column concerning pesticides and farmworkers, and I'd like to return to that. Since I wrote that piece, the Seattle Times has reported on the first round of medical monitoring that came about as a result of Earthjustice's litigation on behalf of farmworkers, and it turns out that nearly one in four workers tested showed signs of over-exposure to dangerous pesticides. Had Earthjustice and our co-counsel, Columbia Legal Services, not gone to court on the farmworkers' behalf, these poisonings would have gone undetected and untreated and the state would have less incentive to require safer working conditions. It's a great example of law working to protect both humans and imperiled species.

Vawter "Buck" Parker, Executive Director
buckparker@earthjustice.org