As evidenced by this announcement of newly-proposed regulations on pesticides in water.
From the EPA, pure and unedited:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 2, 2010
EPA Proposes New Permit Requirements for Pesticide Discharges
Action would reduce amount of pesticides discharged and protect America ’s waters
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a new permit requirement that would decrease the amount of pesticides discharged to our nation’s waters and protect human health and the environment. This action is in response to an April 9, 2009 court decision that found that pesticide discharges to U.S. waters were pollutants, thus requiring a permit.
The proposed permit, released for public comment and developed in collaboration with states, would require all operators to reduce pesticide discharges by using the lowest effective amount of pesticide, prevent leaks and spills, calibrate equipment and monitor for and report adverse incidents. Additional controls, such as integrated pest management practices, are built into the permit for operators who exceed an annual treatment area threshold.
“EPA believes this draft permit strikes a balance between using pesticides to control pests and protecting human health and water quality,” said Peter S. Silva, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Water.
EPA estimates that the pesticide general permit will affect approximately 35,000 pesticide applicators nationally that perform approximately half a million pesticide applications annually. The agency’s draft permit covers the following pesticide uses: (1) mosquito and other flying insect pest control; (2) aquatic weed and algae control; (3) aquatic nuisance animal control; and (4) forest canopy pest control. It does not cover terrestrial applications to control pests on agricultural crops or forest floors. EPA is soliciting public comment on whether additional use patterns should be covered by this general permit.
The agency plans to finalize the permit in December 2010. It will take effect April 9, 2011. Once finalized, the pesticide general permit will be used in states, territories, tribal lands, and federal facilities where EPA is the authorized permitting authority. In the remaining 44 states, states will issue the pesticide general permits. EPA has been working closely with these states to concurrently develop their permits.
EPA will hold three public meetings, a public hearing and a webcast on the draft general permit to present the proposed requirements of the permit, the basis for those requirements and to answer questions. EPA will accept written comments on the draft permit for 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.
More information on the draft permit: http://www.epa.gov/npdes
R197
Note: If a link above doesn’t work, please copy and paste the URL into a browser.
Let me repeat for emphasis, from the press release: “EPA will accept written comments on the draft permit for 45 days after publication in the Federal Register.”
Posted by Ed Darrell 
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
EPA posts greenhouse gas reporting requirements
June 29, 2010What’s that racket, that squealing, that ‘stuck’ pig noise?
Space-filling model of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) - Wikimedia image. Sulfur hexafluoride is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases known, with "global warming potential" 22,800 times that of CO2. EPA proposes to measure SF6 emissions as a first step toward reducing emissions. Warming deniers propose to stop the regulations.
EPA published regulations for measuring greenhouse gases as part of its CO2 emission regulatory program — and the noise is the reaction of the anti-warmists.
Here’s EPA’s press release — notice the links to longer explanations, and note especially that the regulations are not final yet, but are instead open for public comment.
These regulations are those complained about and proposed to be stopped by critics of the campaign to stop global warming. Alaska’s pro-warming Sen. Lisa Murkowski introduced a resolution to stop these regulations, with the support of junk science lobbyists including the National Center for Policy Research. Fortunately, on June 10 the Senate voted 47-53 to reject a motion to consider the resolution, S. J. Res. 26, “A joint resolution disapproving a rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.”
Both of Texas’s senators were suckered by the junk science. Sen. John Cornyn and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison both co-sponsored the losing resolution. Texas Gov. Rick Perry and Attorney General Greg Abbott filed suit to stop the regulations. Abbott’s opponent in the 2010 elections, Barbara Ann Radnofsky, probably the only one of these Texans who might understand sulfur hexafluoride’s role as a pollutant, criticized the suit and urged Abbott to spend his time protecting Texas oil fields from oil company sabotage.
Help control emissions from climate “skeptics,” and spread the good word:
Spread the word; friends don't allow friends to repeat history.