how rich is this? if i intentionally apply a pollutant it isn't a pollutant.so, if i intentionally fire a bullet, is it not a bullet? if janet jackson had intentionally shown her nipple at the super bowl would it not have been a nipple? butter my ass and call me a biscuit. and this is just one of the EPAs recent moves for us, the reglar folk. see another thread i posted earlier
here--###--
originalPosted on Tue, Nov. 28, 2006
EPA allows spraying pesticide over watersMICHAEL DOYLEMcClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration pleased farmers and frustrated environmentalists Monday by declaring that pesticides can be sprayed into and over waters without first obtaining special permits.
The heavily lobbied decision is supposed to settle a dispute that's roiled federal courts and divided state regulators. It's popular among those who spray pesticides for a living, but it worries those who fear poisoned waters will result.
"We need to act fast to stop mosquitoes when they are found," argued Jim Tassano, a pest-control operator in the California foothills town of Sonora. "Any delay results in adults emerging. It is far cheaper and much more effective to kill them as larvae . . . (and) if a permit is required, the costs would skyrocket."
The EPA decision gave the pest operators what they wanted. It also closely parsed the English language for what the all-important word "pollutant" means.
EPA officials concluded that a pesticide, when it's deliberately applied, isn't a "pollutant" under the terms of the 1972 Clean Water Act. Consequently, after considering nearly 700 public comments, officials ruled that federal "discharge" permits aren't necessary when using pesticides to control waterborne pests.
~snip~
.
.
.
complete article
here