In 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reissued a five-year National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Pesticide General Permit (PGP) for Point Source Discharges. Shortly afterward, the EPA was sued by the Center for Biological Diversity for failing to comply with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the PGP reissuance.
To settle the lawsuit, the EPA is proposing to agree to a settlement that will impact the next reissuance of the PGP in 2026. The settlement requires the EPA to involve the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) in ensuring compliance with the ESA during the 2026 PGP update. The process will be like that used for individual pesticide active ingredients, with the EPA writing Biological Evaluations and the FWS following up with Biological Evaluations.
The proposed settlement would add yet another layer of redundancy to the NPDES PGP issue. NAAA has routinely commented that because pesticides with aquatic or forest uses have previously undergone ecological and ESA risk assessments, they have already been proven to be safe for use in aquatic areas when label directions are followed. The PGP offers no additional protection to aquatic areas and only serves to increase the paperwork required to make applications. Under the settlement proposal, the EPA would now be required to conduct ESA evaluations for a permit to apply pesticides that have already undergone ESA evaluations.
This redundant ESA compliance work would place additional work on an EPA that is already struggling to keep up with pesticide registration reviews while meeting its ESA obligations. Placing this additional burden on the EPA would only serve to slow the registration review process. NAAA will be submitting comments opposing the settlement for these reasons.