California Ag Network

Tag: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

  • Syngenta Voluntarily Cancels CA Paraquat Registration

    Pesticide registrant Syngenta voluntarily cancelled registration of Gramoxone SL 3.0 — a product containing paraquat-dichloride — in California.

    The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have both designated paraquat as a restricted material, meaning only licensed dealers can sell it and only professionally licensed applicators can use it. Paraquat is under DPR reevaluation.

    Products containing paraquat that are registered by other companies are not affected by Syngenta’s voluntary cancellation. Gramoxone SL 3.0 may continue to be possessed and sold by DPR-licensed dealers for up to two years following the following effective date (April 1, 2028) of the company’s voluntary cancellation under California law. Growers using these products must do so in accordance with all applicable label directions, as well as state and federal regulations. Syngenta indicated that it will continue stewardship practices like training and safety resources while remaining stocks are distributed and sold.

    The DPR is continuing to move through the process of reevaluation of paraquat products registered in California, in alignment with AB 1963. The Department has released two preliminary assessments and will continue to require data and additional information from remaining registrants. The reevaluations is expected to be completed by January 2029.

  • EPA Settles with Hilmar Cheese Company Over Claims of Safe Drinking Water Act Violations

    Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a settlement with Hilmar Cheese Company Inc. for Safe Drinking Water Act violations at its facility in Hilmar, California, located in the San Joaquin Valley. The company will pay a $92,000 penalty for findings of permit violations related to the Underground Injection Control Program.

    “Facilities that include underground injection in their operations must comply with all permit conditions in order to protect underground sources of drinking water,” said EPA Pacific Southwest Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division Director Amy Miller. “Ensuring that businesses comply with our regulations is critical to preserving vital groundwater resources.”

    Injection wells are used to place fluid underground into porous geologic formations for storage or disposal. The Underground Injection Control Program works with injection well operators throughout the life of an injection well to confirm their practices do not contaminate drinking water. EPA conducts inspections to verify well operator compliance with the injection permit or applicable requirements.

    EPA classifies injection wells into one of six types. Hilmar Cheese Company is currently permitted to operate two Class I Non-Hazardous underground injection wells at its facility and is permitted to inject non-hazardous “Class I” fluids associated with its cheesemaking operations. These non-hazardous fluids include brine (salt water), facility wastewater, concentrated salt, and chemical additives (which must be approved by EPA) for the purpose of facility and injection well operation and maintenance.

    EPA performed a virtual inspection of the facility in March 2021, and made findings of permit violations that included failure to:

    1. Report changes in pressure within the casing/tubing annulus for both injection wells;
    2. Maintain a minimum pressure of 100 psi on the annular space of one of its injection wells;
    3. Report data as required by the facility permit over two months.

    This enforcement action helps ensure continued operation at the Hilmar Cheese Company’s facility complies with its underground injection control permit and avoid contamination of underground sources of drinking water.

    Read the public notice for the proposed settlement here.

    Learn about EPA’s Underground Injection Control Program.

    Learn more about EPA Enforcement Actions and Results.

    Learn more about EPA’s Pacific Southwest Region.

  • EPA Fines SJV Almond Grower for Clean Water Act Violations, Orders Restoration of Wetlands

    Today, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a settlement with Edward Lynn Brown, owner of an almond orchard near Merced, California, for violations of the federal Clean Water Act that impacted more than two acres of rare vernal pool wetlands . The settlement requires Brown to pay $212,000 in civil penalties and restore and preserve 15 acres of wetland habitat.

    On March 14, 2019, EPA inspected the site. Inspectors determined that earth-moving activities by Brown had discharged fill material into waters that flow into the San Joaquin River. This work had been undertaken without obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

    “Grading and filling wetlands of the San Joaquin River Valley without proper permitting impacts water resources and endangers California’s unique native plants and animals,” said EPA Pacific Southwest Regional Administrator Martha Guzman. “In a time of drought and climate change, it is essential to protect these rare and vital water resources and habitats from destruction.”

    Brown’s earth-moving activities from 2016 to 2020 involved building a retention basin and access roads and planting a new almond orchard. The impacts from these activities resulted in the degradation of over two acres of vernal pool wetlands adjacent to Parkinson Creek, a tributary of the San Joaquin River that bisects the ranch. This work violated provisions of a previous 2014 EPA Order, which had required Brown to notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of any proposed activity that may impact local water systems.

    A pond on the almond orchard that provides critical wetland habitat impacted by soil and sediment disturbances. (EPA photo)

    To mitigate these negative environmental impacts, under this settlement Brown has agreed to develop a plan for removing 1.9 acres of fill material, restoring, and enhancing 2.44 acres, and preserving 12.66 acres within an 81.39-acre area within the orchard.

    For more information on enforcement of Clean Water Act Section 309 visit: https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water-act-section-309-federal-enforcement-authority.

    To view information on the 2014 Clean Water Act enforcement action, visit: https://archive.epa.gov/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/f7437d2c778475d685257d94006344bc.html.

    To view the 2014 public notice, visit: https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/www3/region9/enforcement/pubnotices/pubnotice-merced-ranch.html.

    To view the proposed settlement, visit: https://www.epa.gov/publicnotices/edward-lynn-brown-merced-ca-proposed-settlement-cwa-section-309g-class-ii

    To view the Consent Agreement and Final Order, visit: https://www.epa.gov/ca/cwa-09-2022-0007-edward-lynn-brown-merced-ca-proposed-settlement-cwa-section-309g-class-ii

    Learn more about EPA’s Pacific Southwest Region. Connect with us on Facebook and on Twitter.

  • EPA Registers Long-Term Use of Sulfoxaflor While Ensuring Pollinator Protection

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a long-term approval for the insecticide sulfoxaflor— an effective tool to control challenging pests with fewer environmental impacts. After conducting an extensive risk analysis, including the review of one of the agency’s largest datasets on the effects of a pesticide on bees, EPA is approving the use of sulfoxaflor on alfalfa, corn, cacao, grains (millet, oats), pineapple, sorghum, teff, teosinte, tree plantations, citrus, cotton, cucurbits (squash, cucumbers, watermelons, some gourds), soybeans, and strawberries.

    “EPA is providing long-term certainty for U.S. growers to use an important tool to protect crops and avoid potentially significant economic losses, while maintaining strong protection for pollinators,” said Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. “Today’s decision shows the agency’s commitment to making decisions that are based on a sound science.”

    “Today’s action ensures reduced risk to pollinators and the environment through crop-specific label restrictions and provides farmers with a critical pest-management tool needed to protect crops from invasive sugarcane aphids, plant bugs and other pests,” said Jim Gulliford, Regional Administrator for EPA Region 7. “Here in Region 7, the registration of sulfoxaflor will help prevent significant hardship for producers of sorghum, corn, cotton and other commodities attacked by devastating insects.”

    Sulfoxaflor is an important and highly effective tool for growers that targets difficult pests such as sugarcane aphids and tarnished plant bugs, also known as lygus. These pests can damage crops and cause significant economic loss. Additionally, there are few viable alternatives for sulfoxaflor for these pests. In many cases, alternative insecticides may be effective only if applied repeatedly or in a tank mix, whereas sulfoxaflor often requires fewer applications, resulting in less risk to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife.

    EPA’s registration also includes updated requirements for product labels, which will include crop-specific restrictions and pollinator protection language.

    Background

    Sulfoxaflor is an important and highly effective tool for growers that targets difficult pests such as aphids and tarnished plant bugs (lygus). These pests can cause significant economic loss leading several states to request emergency exemptions in recent years. There are few viable alternatives for sulfoxaflor. In many cases, alternative insecticides may be effective only if applied repeatedly, whereas sulfoxaflor typically requires fewer applications resulting in less risk to non-target pests and plants.

    In 2016, following a 2015 decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacating the registration of sulfoxaflor citing inadequate data on the effects on bees, EPA reevaluated the data and approved registration that did not include crops that attract bees. The 2016 registration allowed fewer uses than the initial registration and included additional interim restrictions on application while new data on bees were being obtained. Today’s action, adding new uses, restoring previous uses, and removing certain application restrictions is backed by substantial data supporting the use of sulfoxaflor.