Pesticide permits to protect water

Both the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the federal government regulate the use of pesticides in water, such as for mosquito control, and the Department of Agriculture regulates pesticides applied on land, in order to protect crops. Certified applicators, be they farmers or commercial applicators, must follow label directions for properly applying pesticides to crops; no state permit is currently required.

But a federal court decision required the PCA to draft rules regarding when someone needs a state permit to apply pesticides, specifically in or near water.

Now farmers are concerned the draft rules could lead to the PCA requiring farmers to obtain a permit prior to spraying their land. They don’t think they should be required to get a permit to do what they’ve been doing — applying a legal product in a legal manner, according to Bruce Kleven, a lobbyist for several agricultural organizations.

HF1122, sponsored by Rep. Paul Anderson (R-Starbuck), would limit the PCA’s ability to require a permit for aquatic pesticide applications to the same level as federal standards, which are waters that can be navigated.

PCA Deputy Commissioner John Linc Stine said the agency needs a broader definition because it has jurisdiction over “waters of the state,” which are broadly defined as surface or underground waters, except surface waters that are not confined but are spread and diffused over the land. Waters of the state include boundary and inland waters.

Farmers say “waters of the state” leaves a loophole that could allow the PCA to require a permit to apply pesticides in low-lying fields or other places where surface water may pool on their property.

The House Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Policy and Finance Committee approved the bill on April 26, and the House Agriculture and Rural Development Policy and Finance Committee approved it, as amended, April 28. A companion, SF776, sponsored by Sen. Julie Rosen (R-Fairmont), was rolled into the omnibus agriculture and rural economies bill but was removed by a conference committee for fear it would be vetoed by the governor.