of EPA. Federal activities likely to be affected would include timber,
mining and other operations, issuance of permits, federal funding
and other federal activities (Krause and Porterfield, p. 9).
Nonpoint source pollution control is also the focus of the Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA) pursuant to the 1990 amendment (16
U.S.C. Sec. 1451 et seq.) of that act (Thunberg, p. 13). As amended,
Section 6217 of the act authorizes the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration (NOAA) and the EPA to assist coastal states
with an approved coastal zone management program to develop
NPS control programs (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, pp.
1-4). Erosion from cropland, confined animal facilities, application of
nutrients and pesticides to cropland, grazing management and
cropland irrigation have all been recognized as sources of agri-
cultural NPS pollution affecting coastal waters (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, p. 2-2). NPS pollution control under the Coastal
Zone Management Act has raised questions regarding regulatory
duplication between Section 319 plans under the CWA and 6217
plans under the CZMA. These questions could be addressed as part
of the reauthorization process for the CWA.
Other questions raised by the agricultural sector regarding NPS
oversight center on the lack of adequate resources necessary for ef-
fective implementation and the costs to the regulated community.
Agricultural producers contend market realities have not been ade-
quately considered by legislators and regulators in structuring NPS
programs. They argue that because of their inability to increase
product prices, they cannot meet added NPS program costs and re-
main in business.
Environmentalists counter this argument by noting that of the esti-
mated 60 percent of existing water quality violations attributable to
NPS pollution, agriculture is responsible for a significant proportion
of those violations (Copeland, p. CRS-5). Since agriculture is a major
part of the problem, they argue, agriculture should play a major part
in its solution.
Citizen Suits
With the exception of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Ro-
denticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. Sec. 136, et seq.), all major environ-
mental laws contain citizen suit provisions. Under these provisions,
when the federal government fails to act, private citizens can sue the
administering agency to comply with its statutory, non-discretionary
legislative mandates. That is, enforcement of the “shalls” not the
“mays” of enacted legislation. Citizens may also sue the violator of
the law.
Citizen suits are viewed by a number of environmentalists as nec-
essary and effective tools for implementing environmental policy
within the agricultural sector. Critics view these provisions as plac-
180