PESTICIDES IN THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER
Surveillance and Analysis Division
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region IS.
Son Francisco, CA 94111
Report No: 002-73
-------
PESTICIDES IN THE LOWER COLORADO RIVER
Prepared by:
SURVEILLANCE & ANALYSIS DIVISION
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
APRIL 1973
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
I. Introduction * 1
*> - .~.-**fc> . . ^ -*'
II. Conclusions and Recommendations ^ 2
III. .The Pestic&e Problem?- 3
A. Area of Concern ......... 3
B. Water Use and Water Quality Standards ... 6
C. Pesticide Usage 6
D. Water Quality and Related Data 9
IV. Technical Control Measures 17
A. Physical Control Measures 17
B. Pesticide Alternatives. . . . 19
V. Legal Controls 21
Appendix. . . 24
.A. Bibliography. 24
-------
ii
LIST OF TABLES
Number ' > ^ Page
1. Irrigated Land's Adjacen^ to
Lower Colof ado River* . . . . T" . 5
2. . Major Pestficide Usage", Yuma County,
Arizona 8
3. Summary of USGS Pesticide
Data for Lower Colorado River Water Samples. . 11
4. Recommended Drinking Water
Standards 13
-------
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Number , ' -_. ^.Page
.i^. -.,-,^-fe
1. Irrigated Lcftids - Low@r Colorado River ..... 4
-------
-1-
I. INTRODUCTION
In the Lower Colorado River Basin from Parker Dam to the
international border are several irrigated agricultural
areas subject £Q heavy^jjjgsticide usage. The poss'ible
pollution of the Colorado River resulting frorn. applica-
tion of pesticides on' hese lands has been an environ-
mental concern for several years.
. *:-- -5-
The objectives of this report are to: (1) assess the
problem of pesticide pollution in the Lower Colorado
River on the basis of current information, (2) describe
legal and technical controls available, and (3) define
the need for further study. Authority for preparation
of this report is granted in Section 104 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.
Sources of information utilized include published data,
STORET retrievals, telephone conversations, and a
field visit to appropriate Federal, State, and local
offices in the Lower Colorado River area.
-------
2
II. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
^
Conclusions;
1. Chronic levels of chlgrinated hydrocarbon pesticides
in water and fish injf&e Lower Colorado River are
below maximum values* specified by proposed drinking
water an^l_FDA standards.
2. Data are not available to define the extent of water
and fish contamination by organophosphate and car-
bamate pesticides in the Lower Colorado River.
3. Major quantities of organophosphate and carbamate
pesticides are used in the irrigated lands adjacent
to the Lower Colorado River below Parker Dam.
4. There are several possible ways that contamination
of surface waters by pesticides may be occurring
in the Lower Colorado River.
5. Technical control measures are available to reduce
pesticide concentrations in irrigation return flows.
6. Legal means of requiring implementation of pesti-
cide control measures are available.
Recommendations
1. A short-term field investigation should be conducted
in the Lower Colorado River area to determine the
extent of surface water contamination by organo-
phosphate and carbamate pesticides and the modes
of contamination.
2. Based on results of the proposed investigation,
EPA should recommend technical control measures
needed to reduce or eliminate contamination of
the Lower Colorado River by all forms of pesti-
cides.
3. EPA should utilize all legal means available to
insure implementation of recommended control measures
or their equivalent.
4. Information developed from the proposed investigation
should be used to re-evaluate the existing USGS/EPA
monitoring program in the Lower Colorado River area.
-------
-3-
III. THE PESTICIDE PROBLEM
A. Area of Concern
The area of_concern ^s irrigated lands neair^and
adjacent to '"the Coforado River from Parker Dam on
the Arizoria:-Califorftia border, downstream to the
Southerly International Boundary of Arizona and
Mexico .^-""These artras, shown in Figure 1, are:
(1) Colorado River Indian Reservation, (2) Palo
Verde Irrigation District, (3) Cibola Valley, (4)
Yuma Project and Auxiliary Project, and (5) Gila
Project.
Year-round cropping is practiced in the study area.
Major crops are feed crops, cotton, lettuce, citrus,
and cantaloupes . Crops receiving the heaviest
pesticide applications are cotton, lettuce, and
citrus. It is estimated that a total of approxi-
mately 300,000 acres in the study area are being
irrigated (Water Resources Council, 1971) . Return
flows from the five areas . are discharged to the
Colorado River with the exception of one drain
from the Yuma Project which flows to Mexico (Table 1)
-------
-4-
Lake. H"\/a.s<-
j.. Colorado Rive.r Indian
/? e. se r vo. r ion
2.. Palo V&rAe.
3.Ci/>o/a Valley
4. Vumo. Project
S. Gilo- Proj e c f
ARIZONA
mperial Dorr)
A -^ J*
7 *
-------
-5-
Table 1 - IRRIGATION LANDS ADJACENT TO LOWER COLORADO RIVER
;Estimated*
Area
Colorado River
Indian Reservation^
Palo Verde Irriga-
tion District
Cibola Valley
Yuma Project,
all Division and
auxiliary projects
Gila Project
30 ,
120,000
5,000
50,000
90,000
Return Flow 'Disposition
Drain to Colorado River
near Palo Verde Diver-
sion Dam.
Drain to Colorado River
50 miles above Imperial
Dam.
Drain to Colorado River
near Palo Verde Drain.
Reservation Division - Drain
above Morelos Dam to
Colorado River.
Other Division - Below
Morelos Dam to Colorado
River and Main Drain to
Mexico.
Drains above and below
Morelos Dam to Colorado
River.
* California Water Quality Control Board, 1967
-------
-6-
B. Water Use and Water Quality Standards
The Colorado River is the major source of irrigation
water for agricultural lands located in th.e study area,
In additiqgi-to ixxd
-------
-7-
Pesticide usage figures have not been compiled for
the California portion of the study area. Due to
similarity in crops and consequently pests, types of
pesticide used are probably comparable to those for
Yuma Countyic- ...
-------
Table 2 - MAJOR PESTICIDE USAGE, YUMA COUNTY, ARIZONA
Pesticide
Name
Toxaphene
Perthane
Thiodan
Sevin
Parathion
Telone
MSMA
Dacthal
Cryclite
Azodrin
Sodium Chlorate
Type*
(CHC)
(CHC)
(CHC)
carbamate
O-P
(CHC)
arsenic
phthalic acid
NA3A1F6
O-P
NaC103
Quantities
1969
439,767
132,431
132,551
122, 679
386,049
423,625
183,830
21,568
139,536
84,177
89,124
- Ibs
1970
137,884
39,650
55,716
208,560
302,463
857,000
218,120
130,550
184,000
50,274
62,500
Principal** Months of
Method of Heaviest
Agpj.i cation Use
A & G
A & G
A & G
A
A & G
G
G
A & G
A
A & G
A
July
July
Sept.
July
July
Jan. ,
Apr.
Feb.
Oct.
July
Sept.
- Sept.
-. Sept.
1 NS;V-
I; Viv -.,
- Sept;>'
- Nov. ,
Mar, #
- Aug .
- Apr . , Aug ,
- Nov.
- Sept.
- Oct.
- Nov .
I
CO
I
* CHC - Chlorinated Hydrocarbon
O-P - Organophosphate
** A. - Aerial spraying
G - Ground rigs
-------
-9-
Detailed information on quantities of pesticides
applied by ground versus aerial spraying^is^. not
available. A study by the University of Arizona
(1969) reported- /fcfcwt much work-is done by ground
rigs. By July, ae-rial spraying takes over, with an
estimated 80% of the spraying taking place in the
months of June JJirough October. Aerial spraying is
used Bn all five irrigated lands in the study area.
The potential for contamination of surface waters
by pesticides is greatest during the four months of
heaviest use, i.e., July - October. Specific modes
of contamination include:
1. Storm runoff from fields recently dosed with
pesticides.
2. Drifting of pesticide spray during aerial
application.
3. Sub-surface drainage and tailwater
from irrigated fields.
4. Accidental or purposeful dumping of pesticide
mixes into waterways and washing of pesticide
application equipment in waterways.
The relative magnitude of contamination caused by
each mode has not been documented. Field inspec-
tions by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration (1968) indicated that the dumping
of excess mixes and washing of application equip-
ment in waterways may be one of the more important
sources of pesticide pollution.
D* Water Quality and Related Data
Present joint EPA/USGS monitoring of waters in the
Lower Colorado River area for pesticides is limited
to four stations. The sampling is performed
monthly by the U.S. Geological Survey at the
following locations:
1. Colorado River at Imperial Dam.
2. Colorado River at the Northerly International
. Boundary (NIB) above Morelos Dam.
-------
-10-
3. Main Outlet Drain Extension (Mode) below
Morelos Dam.
4. Main drain at Southerly International Boundary
Sampling jfor pesticfdes in previous years has been
conducted at:
. *-~ -~
5. Yuma Main Canal below Colorado River Siphon.
6. Colorado River at Yuma.
7. Colorado River at Parker Dam.
Samples are analyzed for Aldrin, ODD, DDE, DDT,
Dieldrin, Endrin, Heptachlor, Heptachlor epoxide,
Lindane, Chlordane, 2, 4-D, Silvex, and 2, 4, 5-T.
Other chlorinated hydrocarbons are reported If detec-
ted during the analyses.
Organophosphates and carbamate type pesticides are
increasingly being used in the area concurrent with
a phasing out of the persistent chlorinated hydro-
carbons. The USGS is not analyzing for organo-
phosphates or carbamates.
A summary of available data is presented in Table 3.
It indicates that chronic concentrations of chlorin-
ated hydrocarbon pesticides in the Lower Colorado
River are low. All values reported are well below
proposed drinking water standards. (See Table 4.)
The existing monitoring program, with monthly sampling
at four locations for the parameters indicated, is
sufficient to detect long-term trends in concentra-
tions of persistent pesticides in the Lower Colorado
River. The sampling locations are such that if in-
creased pesticide concentrations were detected, the
general area of probable responsibility could be lo-
cated, i.e., the Gila Project, the Yuma Project, or
those upstream from Imperial Dam. The routine monthly
sampling is not adequate, however, to detect possible
short-term high concentrations that could result from
spills or dumping of pesticides, nor to define spe-
cific drains responsible.
-------
LOWER COLORADO RIVER WATER SAMPLES*
Maximum Reported Concentration -
Station**
4 5
General Period
of Record
Pesticide
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
'Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor-Epox
Lindane
10/70-9/72 2/71-9/72 9/72 8/72-9/72 10/68-8/70
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 " Q. 000
0.090 "
11 " " 0..000 "
" " " 0.000 "
0.010 " " 0.010 "
0.000 " " 0.000 ! "
0.000 ! "
" " " 0.000 "
" " " 0.000 "
" " " 0.000 "
1
7/59-9/657 ' 9.
I
';
0.000 . 0
0,000
0.001 . ,
0.004
0.021
0.001 , ': i
.' ,'.
0.000 !.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
I
M
-------
Table 3 - continued
2, 4-D
2. 4, 5-T
Silvex
Malthion
t
parathion
Diazinion
Methy - Parathion
0.000
ii
ti
ii
ii
it
ii
2.70
0.000
it
"
H
»
ii
0.000 0.240
0.000 0.070
0.000 0.040
0.000
-1
* .
* STORET retrieval, 12/72.
** Station numbers are those used in text.
t
M
to
I
-------
-13-
TABLE 4 - RECOMMENDED DRINKING WATER STANDARDS*
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Lindane
' Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
.Health
0.001
0.003
0.05
0.001
0.0005
0.0001
0.0001
0.005
1.0
0.005
Organophosphate and Carbamate (total) 0.1 (parathion)
Chlorophenoxy Herbicides
2, 4-D 0.02
2, 4, 5-T 0.002
2,4. 5-TP Silvex 0.03
*Recommendations of EPA Federal Technical Committee on Drinking
Water Standards to the EPA Advisory Committee on the Rivision
i
and Application of DWS, (established by EPA Order 1385.9).-
-------
-14-
The lack of data on organophosphates and carbamates
precludes an attempt to define the extent of
contamination by these types of pesticides. Analysis
of samples -taken in 1971 at Imperial Dam and above
Morelos Daig-jshowed^Qfi^traces of organophosp'hate;
however, tfie number pr samples was not adequate to
declare art "absence "of contamination.
Other dci~a relate"cT to the pesticide pollution problem
are the analysis of fish samples collected in the
waterways of interest. During 1967 and 1968, the
Arizona Game and Fish Department sampled fish in
Lake Havasu, the Colorado River above Imperial Dam,
Mittry Lake, and the Main Drain which goes to Mexico.
Concentrations of DDT and its related products were
well below the FDA action level of 5 ppm in all
samples from Lake Havasu, which is above the irrigated
areas of concern. However, in the three areas below
irrigated lands more than 40% of the samples -collected
contained levels of DDT or its decays products, in
excess of 5 ppm. One sample from Mittry Lake con-
tained 187.5 ppm (FWPCA, 1968). -
Fish kills prior to 1969 also indicate a substantial
problem has existed in the past. In the period
1964-1968, six fish kills caused by pesticides were
reported in the Lower Colorado River area (FWPCA,
1968).
Data on pesticide concentrations in fish and fish
kills subsequent to 1969 are limited. What is avail-
able does not indicate the continuance of the problem
of contamination by chlorinated hydrocarbons. From
1969 through October 1972, only one fish kill
resulting from pesticides was documented. The kill
occurred in a drainage ditch, following a storm. The
type of pesticide involved was not determined.
As part of the National Pesticide Monitoring Program,
the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sports
Fisheries and Wildlife annually collects fish samples
during the fall (September, October and November) from
Lake Havasu and Imperial Dam in the Lower Colorado
River area. Eleven chlorinated hydrocarbons insecti-
cides are analyzed for in whole fish. All samples
analyzed have been well below action levels set by
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
-------
-15-
In June and July 1971, EPA Region IX personnel
collected whole fish samples from the Lower Colorado
River area below Parker Dam. These samples were
analysed for chlorinated hydrocarbons and results
showed pesticide concentrations well below .EDA .action
levels. * --**** - . : --
*'- -> *~~ - -.
There are essentially no data available on the extent
of orgattophosphate- and carbamate contamination
of fish. Due to the short-lived nature of these
pesticides, sampling of both fish and water should
be conducted during and/or immediately following ap-
plication.
In summary, available information indicates that
chronic contamination of the Lower Colorado River
by chlorinated hydrocarbon type pesticides is not
a problem. There are, however, significant gaps in
the information needed to assess the significance
of the total pesticide pollution problem in the area.
The existing monitoring programs are not sufficient
to determine the frequency or magnitude of localized
acute pollution incidents resulting from spills or the
washing of pesticide application equipment in water-
ways. The relative significance of the various
possible means of pesticide contamination has not
been defined. The pesticide content of most drains
discharging to the Colorado River has not been deter-
mined. Data on the contamination of water and fish
by the short-lived organophosphates and carbamates
do not exist.
A short-term field investigation conducted in the
period of heavy pesticide usage from July to
September would provide much of the needed infor-
mation .
The investigation could be conducted in two phases.
The first phase would be designed to determine if
surface water contamination by the short-lived
organophosphate and carbamate pesticides is indeed
a problem. It would involve the sampling of water and
aquatic life in the Colorado River and in drains from
lands recently sprayed with pesticides. Sampling
immediately following pesticide application and
continuing for several days would be necessary.
The samples would be analyzed for the specific
pesticide compounds applied to the area studied.
-------
-16-
If results of the first phase did indicate a problem/
a more detailed study could then be initiated. Sam-
pling of the various types of return flow, i.e.,
tail water, tile drainage, and if possible storm
runoff, woyld be necessary to determine the-relative
significants of eaclWhode of contamination. Contin-
uous monitoring of aerll major drains would provide
information on the specific areas contributing to
the problem and teke significance of dumping pesticides
or washing of equipment.
Information derived from the proposed study would
provide a basis for re-evaluating and developing
recommended revisions to the existing USGS/EPA moni-
toring program in the area. Results would also be
necessary prior to recommending specific control
measures. With the phasing out of persistent
chlorinated hydrocarbons, emphasis should be shifted
to compounds receiving major usage. Frequency and
location of sampling may also need to be altered due
to the short-lived nature of the organophosphates
and carbamates.
Technology available to reduce the pesticide pollution
problem and legal means of implementing control
measures are discussed in the following sections.
-------
-17-
IV. TECHNICAL CONTROL MEASURES
A. Physical Control Measures
, ^
Pollution >of surfaca waters as a result of'pesticide
applications can tTegreatly reduced or eliminated
through properly -designed drainage systems, care-
fully controlled irrigation practices/ and intelli-
gent farming practices.
Tail water is excess water which reaches the down-
slope end of each furrow when flood irrigation is
practiced. Traditionally, tail water in the study
area is routed to the nearest surface drain. This
water usually carries large quantities of pesticide
residue, crystallized salts, and debris picked up
in the initial surge down the furrow. A source of
pollution of surface waters, tail water can be mini-
mized or eliminated by the careful application of
irrigation water or through disposal by ponding,
evaporation and infiltration.
Much of the irrigated farm land in the Lower Colorado
River Basin is drained by deep tile drain systems.
Water which percolates past the root zone remains in
contact with the soil column for at least 6 feet
before reaching the tile drain. During percolation
through the column, chlorinated hydrocarbon and
organo-phosphorus pesticides tend -to be absorbed on
soil particles. Although long-lived chlorinated
hydrocarbons may subsequently be leached from the soil
and continue through the drainage system to reach
surface waters, the deep drainage systems are effec-
tive in limiting the return of organo-phosphorus
compounds.
Recent research shows that concentrations of organo-
phosphorus compounds recovered in tile drains are
also reduced by increasing the time lapse between
irrigation water applications. Careful timing
of irrigation applications provides additional
possibilities for reduction of pesticide pollution
in waters receiving irrigation drainage. Thus,
properly designed deep drainage systems and proper
timing of water and pesticide applications can reduce
the quantities of pesticides reaching surface via
' irrigation return drainage.
-------
-18-
Treatment of irrigation return flows prior to their
discharge to surface streams is another control
possibility. Chlorinated hydrocarbons have been
removed successfully from small streams and lake out-
lets in MisgsLouri aryd^alifornia using dams constructed
to cause the wastewater to pass through activated
carbon. Effficiency*6f pesticide removal fr^m this
method has been reported to be 40 to 50 percent.
Some systems employ activated carbon cylinders sus-
pended from overhead racks in a manner causing waters
to pass over and through the cylinders. The latter
system has advantages in that the cylinders are
quickly and easily replaced and the efficiency ap-
proaches 60 to 70 percent.
Drip basins are a recent control innovation more
suited to irrigation return flows since suspended
solids cause activated carbon flow-through devices
to become clogged. This system relies on the. fact
that the newer organo-phosphorus compounds are
readily and quickly hydrolyzed in alkaline waters.
In practice, the wastewater is diverted into a lagoon
and then is charged with slaked lime, held in sus-
pension by aerators, and maintained at a pH of 8.5
to 9.0. After 8 to 12 hours dentention, the pesti-
cides are degraded into phosphorus compounds that
form precipitates which settle out or are broken
down into harmless components such as methane and
C02» Such systems hold promise for economic and
efficient removal of organo-phosphorus compounds
from irrigation drainage.
Dumping of unused pesticide mix and the clean-out of
pesticide application equipment in irrigation drains
and canals are believed to be a major source of pesti-
cide pollution in the Lower Colorado River system.
No satisfactory method has been employed for preven-
tion of this activity in the Lower Colorado River
growing areas. Possibile technical control measures
range from elaborate schemes for the tagging of
pesticides with dyes or trace elements to equally
elaborate schemes of sealing and centralized inspec-
tion of application equipment.
-------
-19-
B. Pesticide Alternatives
Much work has been and is being done on methods
of pest control which reduce the necessity for
applicatiqn of pesticides. Fanning practices
designed t& iriterfOpT the life cycle of the pink
bollworm^^a major cotton pest, is one example.
Interruption of the pest's life cycle can be attained
by thestburning or- shredding of cotton stalk immediately
after harvest, deep plowing with a mold board plow
at the earliest possible date, filling of cracks
and crevices in the soil after plowing, and two
irrigations 7 to 10 days apart shortly after plowing.
Early harvesting and clean picking are also extremely
important in preventing the emergence of egg-laying
moths during the following spring. Such control pro-
grams may require the impetus of regulatory action.
Biological control holds substantial promise-for
reducing pest insect populations without the need for
application of dangerous chemicals. At the present
time, two such techniques are in- the experimental
stages. One technique involves sterilization of the
males of the target species, such as the pink boll-
worm or screw worm. The sterilized males are then
broadcast by the millions throughout infested areas
where they mate with normal females which then lay
non-viable eggs. This technique has been successful
and resulted in the virtual elimination of screw
worm populations in the southwest.
The second technique involves the enhancement of
populations of parasites. Experimental work has
shown that wasps can be effective in controlling
populations of insects such as the pink bollworm.
The female wasp attacks and kills the target organism
and deposits her eggs in its carcass. Upon hatching,
the young wasps utilize the carcass for food and as
they reach adulthood the cycle is repeated. Other
than as a nuisance factor to man, wasps are harmless.
Their prolific nature causes them to be useful in
the protection of crops from insect pests. Experi-
mental and test scale work utilizing other predator
parasite organisms is also underway at and by a
number of research organizations.
-------
-20-
A third method of biological control/ already
experiencing success against insect pests on lettuce,
kale, and similar crops, is the bacillus insecticide.
The material, applied ds a bacterial culture .which
is antagonistic to a*Tf£ecific pest. A brand name
now in routine use- ie" "Thuricide. " . . .
Perhaps ^fche greatest disadvantage in the employment
of biological control is that it requires the
participation of every farmer in an area, and each
participant runs the risk of losing one or more
crops until success is achieved. A possible
solution to this aspect of the problem would be
protection through federally sponsored crop insurance
for the period of time required to attain control.
Until physical and biological controls can be made
completely effective, applications of chemical
pesticides will continue. The effects on water
quality can be minimized through judicious selection
of the chemical to be used. Organo-phosphorus
compounds and carbamates are readily degraded in
the environment, while chlorinated hydrocarbons
are extremely persistent. The acute and chronic
toxicity levels of the organo-phosphorus compounds
are on the order of 100 to 1,000 times more than
for chlorinated hydrocarbons. The organo-phosphorus
compounds have a more immediate lethal effect on
the insect pest, are much more expensive than
chlorinated hydrocarbon compounds, require more fre-
quent application, and are extremely hazardous to use,
It follows that the chlorinated hydrocarbon pesti-
cides require heavier applications to obtain a kill
but have a more lasting effect resulting in fewer
applications and lower costs, and are safer to use.
Economics and personal safety are much more com-
pelling arguments than is water quality to the farmer
who makes the selection for pesticide control. Thus,
further regulatory activity may be necessary in order
to bring about the use of non-persistent pesticides.
-------
-21-
V. LEGAL CONTROLS
There are several legal approaches that could be used to
control pesticides in the Lower Colorado River. Since
all of them ares7extensi
-------
-22-
A permit if granted can be so conditioned that pesticides
are removed or otherwise rendered innocuous. As to mass
percolation, the rule is not so clear. Although FWPCA
Section 502 (14)^ includes "concentrated animal feeding
operation" as i^ing wittaft* the definition of "point
source", a fair- reading^of the whole Act indicates that
inclusion of this operation was a legislative fiat for
policy reasons not an-^xtension of the logic of the other
inclusions. It is doubtful that a cultivated field could
be called a "point source" or can be controlled by FWPCA,
Section 301.
The discharge of toxic substances is prohibited by FWPCA
Section 301 except as it may be in compliance with Sec-
tion 307. Section 307 provides for regulations for
effluent standards for toxic substances. These have not
been promulgated. Therefore, any discharge of a toxic
substance is prohibited until tolerable effluent standards
are established by regulation. After regulations are
adopted, the discharge of toxic substances may be per-
mitted only within those limits. FWPCA Section 307(d)
prohibits the violation of any of these standards from
any source not limiting it to any point source. It could
be argued that this permits a prohibition that would be
applied to "mass percolation" as well as to point sources,
but until -the effluent standards have been promulgated
(and presumably litigated), this is viewed as premature.
In the meantime, if it can be factually established that
the discharge from any of these three classes of sources
(tail water, tile drainage, dumping) is toxic, Section 301
prohibits the discharge at this time. As to "mass perco-
lation" , establishing the conditions necessary to meet a
burden of proof will not be easy. If because of dilution
or degradation the pesticides are not in fact toxic as
they reach the river, it will be difficult to persuade
a court to give relief. After all, anything is toxic in
some concentration and therefore since "toxic Pollutants"
as used in the Act must be given some discrete meaning,
it must mean toxic in fact, as found in the environment.
The Refuse Act, Section 13 (33 USC Section 407) could be
used to cover any of these discharges but the language of
that Act has already been stretched almost to a breaking
point. Except for the case of "dumping", it is likely
-------
-23-
that a court would be unwilling to extend the Refuse
Act further. Since Congress has now passed to the
FWPCA Amendments of 1972, it is likely that a court would
be less inclined to stretch the meaning of the Refuse Act.
Questions of prjpof and^j^rshalling evidence seemed to be
great under tiffs Act a*s_compared to "the FWPCA._
+ - , a-
If these substances can be called "hazardous substances"
within the leaning ofFWPCA Section 311(a) (14), their dis-
charge may be absolutely prohibited. There is, however,
a logical inconsistency in the Environmental Protection
Agency registering the application of pesticides under
FIFRA and prohibiting their discharge under FWPCA. It
may be that regulations to be promulgated under FWPCA
Section 311 can be- framed to resolve this problem; if so,
it will require some very careful drafting.
Section 504 FWPCA contains a certain power for the
Environmental Protection Agency to respond to emergencies
and this can include a situation where there is endanger-
ment to the welfare of persons. This procedure can cer-
tainly be used in an episodical situation, but it is
difficult to foresee a District Judge granting emergency
relief under this section in a situation that is essen-
tially continuous. Of course, in the case of a genuine
episodical emergency event, Section 504 should be used
and is certainly available.
It is now fairly well established that there is a Federal
common law of nuisance (Illinois vs. the City of Milwaukee,
4 ERC 1001). .This is still, however, a comparatively
novel remedy and it might be difficult to build a suffi-
ciently strong factual basis to support this relief. If
the discharged pesticides are extremely difficult to
identify after they reach the river, nuisance would be
a difficult remedy to apply.
In conclusion, the FWPCA offers the best enforcement tool
for control of tail water and tile drainage. Either the
Refuse Act or the FWPCA can be used to control dumping.
A very strong factual case would have to be built to use
other remedies such as nuisance. Lacking such evidence,
cooperation of other agencies having to do with irrigation
supply and return flow is the only feasible means to con-
trol mass percolation.
-------
-24-
APPENDIX A - BIBLIOGRAPHY
Water Resources Council, 1971, Lower Colorado,Region
Comprehensive Framev^rk Study, Appendix X -.Irri-
gation and*'Drainag*e. ' "
$'- > a-" ' "" '
California Water Quality Control Board, 1967, Water
Qualit?=-'Control policy for Colorado River in
California.
University of Arizona, 1969, Arizona Community Study
on Pesticides: Progress Report No. 15.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1968,
Investigation of Pesticide Pollution of the Inter-
state Waters of the Lower .Colorado River Basin.
------- |