Fairhurst v. Hagener ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                  FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    WILLIAM FAIRHURST,                    
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    No. 04-35366
    v.
    JEFF HAGENER, Director, Montana              D.C. No.
    CV-03-00067-SEH
    Department of Fish, Wildlife &
    OPINION
    Parks,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Montana
    Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
    Argued and Submitted
    August 3, 2005—Seattle, Washington
    Filed September 8, 2005
    Before: David R. Thompson, Thomas G. Nelson, and
    Kim McLane Wardlaw, Circuit Judges.
    Per Curiam Opinion
    12673
    12676               FAIRHURST v. HAGENER
    COUNSEL
    Alan L. Joscelyn, Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman,
    Helena, Montana, for the appellant.
    Rebecca J. Dockter, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife &
    Parks, Helena, Montana, for the appellee.
    OPINION
    PER CURIAM:
    William Fairhurst appeals the district court’s grant of sum-
    mary judgment in favor of Jeff Hagener, director of the Mon-
    FAIRHURST v. HAGENER                 12677
    tana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (“Department”).
    We hold that a pesticide applied to a river pursuant to an
    intentional scheme aimed at eliminating pestilent fish species
    is not a “pollutant” for the purposes of the Clean Water Act
    (“CWA”), 
    33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387
    , and thus not subject to
    the Act’s permit requirements. We have jurisdiction pursuant
    to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    , and we affirm the district court.
    I.   BACKGROUND
    Hagener initiated a ten year program known as the Cherry
    Creek Native Fish Introduction Project (“Cherry Creek Proj-
    ect”), in which the Department sought to re-introduce a threat-
    ened fish species called the westslope cutthroat trout. Because
    this species was threatened in part by competition with other
    non-native trout species, Hagener’s program included a plan
    to remove the non-native fish. The Department would apply
    the pesticide antimycin into the water for short periods of time
    over the course of several years and afterwards reintroduce
    the westslope cutthroat. As the Department began executing
    the project, it performed at least one application of antimycin
    to Cherry Creek.
    Fairhurst sued Hagener under the citizen suit provision of
    the CWA. Fairhurst claimed that in order to legally disperse
    pesticide into United States waters, Hagener was required by
    the CWA to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
    tion System (“NPDES”) permit, which Hagener had not
    secured before applying the antimycin. The parties stipulated
    that the Department applied the antimycin in accordance with
    the requirements of the label approved by the Environmental
    Protection Agency (“EPA”) pursuant to the Federal Insecti-
    cide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 
    7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136
    (y). The parties further stipulated that the Cherry
    Creek Project “went according to the plan which included
    application of Antimycin directly to the waters of the U.S.
    . . . Consequently, the species killed were rainbow and Yel-
    lowstone cutthroat trout.” Fairhurst sued for an injunction
    12678               FAIRHURST v. HAGENER
    proscribing all future unpermitted applications of the antimy-
    cin.
    Fairhurst and Hagener each moved for summary judgment.
    The district court granted Hagener’s motion and denied
    Fairhurst’s on March 24, 2004. Fairhurst timely appeals here.
    II.   STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
    The Clean Water Act requires that a government agency
    obtain a NPDES permit before discharging any pollutant from
    any point source into navigable waters of the United States.
    
    33 U.S.C. § 1323
    (a). The NPDES permit system “allows a
    polluter who obtains a permit to discharge a specified amount
    of the pollutant.” Headwaters, Inc. v. Talent Irrigation Dist.,
    
    243 F.3d 526
    , 530 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 
    33 U.S.C. § 1342
    ).
    “Absent the required permit, such discharge is unlawful.”
    League of Wilderness Defenders v. Forsgren, 
    309 F.3d 1181
    ,
    1183 (9th Cir. 2002). The NPDES program allows the EPA
    to “issue permits on a case-by-case basis, taking into account
    local environmental conditions.” Headwaters, 
    243 F.3d at
    530
    (citing Am. Mining Cong. v. United States Envtl. Prot.
    Agency, 
    965 F.2d 759
    , 762 n.3 (9th Cir. 1992)). Further, Con-
    gress has given “the Governor of each State desiring to
    administer its own permit program” permission to do so, pro-
    vided that the EPA Administrator approves the Governor’s
    program. 
    33 U.S.C. § 1342
    (b). When the state permit program
    is in force, the federal permit program is suspended. See 
    33 U.S.C. § 1342
    (c).
    [1] The CWA defines the term “discharge of a pollutant”
    as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any
    point source other than a vessel or other floating craft.” 
    33 U.S.C. § 1362
    (12). “Pollutant,” in turn, means
    dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sew-
    age, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical
    wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials,
    FAIRHURST v. HAGENER                 12679
    heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand,
    cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural
    waste discharged into water.
    
    33 U.S.C. § 1362
    (6).
    III.   DISCUSSION
    The parties have stipulated that “Cherry Lake and Cherry
    Creek and its tributaries are all navigable waters or waters of
    the United States for purposes [of] the . . . Clean Water Act.”
    Moreover, the parties do not dispute that the discharge of anti-
    mycin was an “addition” from a “point source.” Nor do they
    dispute that Hagener did not seek or obtain a NPDES permit
    from the Federal or State NPDES program. The crux of the
    parties’ disagreement is whether the antimycin as applied to
    Cherry Creek should be characterized as “chemical waste,”
    and thus whether it falls under the CWA’s definition of “pol-
    lutant” in 
    33 U.S.C. § 1362
    (6), rendering its unpermitted
    application illegal under the Act. Hagener also argues that if
    the antimycin is a “pollutant,” its use in accordance with its
    FIFRA label eliminates the requirement that he also obtain a
    NPDES permit.
    A.   “Chemical Waste”
    We consider whether a pesticide applied directly and inten-
    tionally to United States waters for the purpose of eliminating
    pests is a “chemical waste” for the purposes of 
    33 U.S.C. § 1362
    (6), when such application is carried out in accordance
    with an EPA-approved FIFRA label, and when the pesticide
    performs as intended. We review issues of statutory interpre-
    tation de novo. Res. Invs., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs,
    
    151 F.3d 1162
    , 1165 (9th Cir. 1998).
    In Headwaters, 
    243 F.3d at 526
    , we were presented with a
    similar question. In that case we considered whether the her-
    bicide Magnacide H, applied to irrigation canals “for a benefi-
    12680                FAIRHURST v. HAGENER
    cial purpose, the clearing of weeds,” was a “chemical waste”
    for the purposes of 
    33 U.S.C. § 1362
    (6). 
    Id. at 532
    . We noted
    that acrolein, the active ingredient in Magnacide H, is “a toxic
    chemical that is lethal to fish . . . which takes at least several
    days to break down into a nontoxic state.” 
    Id.
     We also noted
    in passing that “it would seem absurd to conclude that a toxic
    chemical directly poured into water is not a pollutant,” 
    id. at 532-33
    , although we declined to decide the question whether
    the intentionally applied and properly functioning portions of
    acrolein were “chemical wastes.” Answering this question
    was unnecessary because “the residual acrolein left in the
    water after its application qualifies as a chemical waste prod-
    uct and thus as a ‘pollutant’ under the CWA.” 
    Id. at 533
    (emphasis added). We therefore found that the CWA required
    an entity desiring to dispense a chemical that leaves residue
    into the waters to obtain a NPDES permit for discharge, even
    when the chemical bears a FIFRA label.
    [2] Unlike Headwaters, this case squarely presents the
    issue whether pesticide intentionally applied directly into the
    water in accordance with all applicable requirements of
    FIFRA should be characterized as “chemical waste.” Here the
    parties do not assert that there was residual chemical left in
    the water after the antimycin had performed its intended pur-
    pose. On the contrary, as the district court noted, “it is unchal-
    lenged that following application, the antimycin dissipated
    rapidly” and left no residue. Fairhurst again conceded as
    much at oral argument.
    [3] Because the factual scenario presented here differs from
    Headwaters’, and there is no other controlling circuit law on
    the meaning of the term “chemical waste,” we next look to the
    plain meaning of the statutory term. In Northern Plains
    Resource Council v. Fidelity Exploration & Development Co.,
    
    325 F.3d 1155
     (9th Cir. 2003), we defined “waste” as “any
    useless or worthless byproduct of a process or the like; refuse
    or excess material.” 
    Id.
     at 1161 (citing Am. Heritage Dictio-
    nary 672 (1979)). Merriam-Webster’s definition is in the
    FAIRHURST v. HAGENER                        12681
    same vein: “damaged, defective, or superfluous material pro-
    duced by a manufacturing process.” See Merriam-Webster
    online, www.merriam-webster.com. Because the parties stipu-
    lated that the antimycin was applied and functioned as
    intended, it was not “damaged” or “defective.” Moreover, the
    parties do not claim that any portion of the pesticide applied
    to the water was “superfluous material” or “refuse or excess
    material.” A plain meaning analysis of the phrase “chemical
    waste” thus suggests that a pesticide that is intentionally
    applied to the water and leaves no excess portions after per-
    forming its intended purpose is not a “chemical waste.”
    [4] This analysis accords with the EPA’s construction of
    the CWA’s definition of “chemical waste” in the context of
    intentionally applied pesticides. In July, 2003 the EPA issued
    a memorandum entitled “Interim Statement and Guidance on
    Application of Pesticides to Waters of the United States in
    Compliance with FIFRA” (“Interim Statement”) to address
    this issue. Available at http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
    pesticide_interim_guidance.pdf.1 The Interim Statement
    asserts that the “EPA has evaluated whether pesticides applied
    consistent with FIFRA fall within any of the terms in section
    506(2) [defining the term ‘pollutant’], in particular whether
    they are ‘chemical wastes’ or ‘biological materials.’ EPA has
    concluded that they do not fall within either term.” 
    Id.
    [5] The EPA’s Interim Statement is entitled to some defer-
    ence. In Resource Investments, Inc., 
    151 F.3d at 1165
    , this
    court held that “an agency’s construction of a statute it is
    charged with enforcing is normally entitled to deference if it
    1
    In February 2005, the EPA issued an “Interpretive Statement and
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the Application of Pesticides to Waters
    of the United States in Compliance with FIFRA” (“Interpretive State-
    ment”). 70 Fed. 3d Reg. 5093 (Feb. 1, 2005). While the Interpretive State-
    ment has now superceded the Interim Statement, the Interpretive
    Statement mirrors the language and analysis of the Interim Statement,
    which was in effect at the time the dispute arose and the district court con-
    sidered the case.
    12682                   FAIRHURST v. HAGENER
    is reasonable and not in conflict with the expressed intent of
    Congress.” See also League of Wilderness Defenders, 
    309 F.3d at 1189
     (quoting Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 
    323 U.S. 134
    ,
    140 (1944), for the proposition that the discretion the courts
    should afford to an agency interpretation of a statute “will
    depend on the thoroughness evident in [the agency’s] consid-
    eration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with ear-
    lier and later pronouncements, and all those factors which
    give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control”).
    [6] The Interim Statement arrives at its conclusion by first
    analyzing the plain meaning of the term “waste,” and finding
    that “[p]esticides applied consistent with FIFRA are not such
    wastes; on the contrary, they are EPA-evaluated products
    designed, purchased and applied to perform their intended
    purpose of controlling target organisms in the environment.”
    The Statement then asserts that its interpretation comports
    with the intent of Congress by pointing out that the
    interpretation—which entails that pesticides are “pollutants”
    in some circumstances and not in others—tracks the under-
    standing of the primary sponsor of the CWA, who stated that
    “[s]ometimes a particular kind of matter is a pollutant in one
    circumstance, and not in another.” 
    Id.
     (quoting Senate Debate
    on S. 2770, 117 Cong. Rec. 38,838 (daily ed. Nov. 2, 1971)
    (Statement of Senator Muskie)).2 Finally, the Statement notes
    that pesticides are not “waste,” for CWA purposes, only when
    they are applied in a manner consistent with an EPA-
    approved FIFRA label. 
    Id.
    [7] We find the EPA interpretation as articulated in the
    Interim Statement “reasonable and not in conflict with the
    expressed intent of Congress.” Res. Invs, Inc., 
    151 F.3d at 1165
    . The interpretation also accords with the plain meaning
    of the term “chemical waste.” Moreover, the EPA interpreta-
    2
    Senator Muskie also stated that “defining or applying these definitions
    to particular kinds of pollutants . . . is an administrative decision to be
    made by the Administrator.” 
    Id.
    FAIRHURST v. HAGENER                      12683
    tion does not conflict with Headwaters, as in that case the
    “chemical waste” for which a NPDES permit was required
    was not a pesticide serving a beneficial purpose and intention-
    ally applied to the water, but was a chemical that remained in
    the water after the Magnacide H performed its intended, bene-
    ficial function. Therefore, we conclude that pesticides that are
    applied to water for a beneficial purpose and in compliance
    with FIFRA, and that produce no residue or unintended
    effects, are not “chemical wastes,” and thus are not “pollu-
    tants” regulated by the CWA. Because intentionally applied
    and properly performing pesticides are not “pollutants,” a
    potential discharger is not required to secure a NPDES permit
    for such pesticides before discharge.
    The parties stipulated that the antimycin was applied inten-
    tionally and in a manner that comported with the EPA-
    approved FIFRA label. Moreover, the parties do not claim
    that the antimycin had any unintended effects, or that any res-
    idue from the antimycin remained after the pesticide per-
    formed its intended function. Thus, we hold that the CWA did
    not require Hagener to secure a NPDES permit.
    B.   FIFRA
    Because we have held that the antimycin applied to the
    Cherry Creek drainage during the Cherry Creek Project is not
    a chemical waste, and thus not a pollutant for the purposes of
    the CWA, we do not address Hagener’s argument that he was
    not required to obtain a permit because he was in compliance
    with the requirements of FIFRA.3 We do note, however, that
    this argument is explicitly foreclosed by Headwaters. See
    Headwaters, 
    243 F.3d at 531-32
    .
    3
    Nor do we address Hagener’s contention that his pesticide dispersal is
    exempted from the NPDES permit requirement because the department
    “applied for and received a short-term exemption from water quality stan-
    dards from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).”
    12684                FAIRHURST v. HAGENER
    The district court expended considerable effort attempting
    to “give effect to each” of the two statutes in question here,
    the CWA and FIFRA, citing Headwaters’ statement that
    “[t]he CWA and FIFRA have different, although complemen-
    tary, purposes.” Headwaters, 
    243 F.3d at 531
    . However,
    Headwaters explicitly held that “registration and labeling . . .
    under FIFRA does not preclude the need for a permit under
    the CWA.” 
    Id. at 532
    . On the contrary, Headwaters noted that
    “[e]ven [a] cursory review of the statutes reveals that a FIFRA
    label and a NPDES permit serve different purposes”:
    FIFRA establishes a nationally uniform labeling sys-
    tem to regulate pesticide use, but does not establish
    a system for granting permits for individual applica-
    tions of herbicides. The CWA establishes national
    effluent standards to regulate the discharge of all
    pollutants into the waters of the United States, but
    also establishes a permit program that allows, under
    certain circumstances, individual discharges.
    FIFRA’s labels are the same nationwide, and so the
    statute does not and cannot consider local environ-
    mental conditions. By contrast, the NPDES program
    under the CWA does just that. . . . The NPDES per-
    mit requirement under the CWA thus provides the
    local monitoring that FIFRA does not.
    
    Id. at 531
    .
    As Headwaters explained, FIFRA is a labeling statute that
    informs the user of a pesticide how to safely use it. FIFRA
    regulates solely through its registration requirement, and its
    prohibition against the sale, distribution, and professional use
    of unregistered pesticides. 7 U.S.C. §§ 136a(a), 136j(a)(1).
    The statutory scheme puts the onus on manufacturers and dis-
    tributors to draft and secure approval of the FIFRA label
    before placing their products on the market. There is no statu-
    tory enforcement mechanism governing usage of FIFRA
    products according to the label. The CWA, by contrast, regu-
    FAIRHURST v. HAGENER               12685
    lates the amount and type of pollutants dispersed into the
    waters of the United States. The NPDES requirement allows
    the EPA to consider “local environmental conditions,” and
    issue permits for “individual discharges.” Headwaters, 
    243 F.3d at 531
    . Headwaters accordingly held that a person who
    disperses a “pollutant” as defined by 
    33 U.S.C. § 1362
    (6)
    must secure a NPDES permit, regardless of whether or not the
    pollutant is dispersed according to instructions on the FIFRA
    label. Headwaters is not disturbed by our holding today; here
    we address dispersal of a pesticide that is not a chemical
    waste and thus not a pollutant.
    IV.   CONCLUSION
    [8] A chemical pesticide applied intentionally, in accor-
    dance with a FIFRA label, and with no residue or unintended
    effect is not “waste” and thus not a “pollutant” for the pur-
    poses of the Clean Water Act. Because Hagener’s application
    of antimycin to Cherry Creek was intentional, FIFRA-
    compliant, and without residue or unintended effect, the dis-
    charged chemical was not a “pollutant” and Hagener was not
    required to obtain a NPDES permit.
    AFFIRMED.