The authors’ reply

Clark, Stephen L.; Scott, R.; Hall, Lenwood W.; Mitchell, Gary; Giddings, Jeffrey M.; Dobbs, Michael G.; McCoole, Matthew D.; Henry, Kevin; Valenti, Ted

doi:10.1002/etc.3175

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Toxicity testing has several additional benefits compared to monitoring individual chemicals: 1) it addresses effects of new chemicals that are not on standard monitoring lists like the Clean Water Act list of priority pollutants (40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A); 2) it allows monitoring programs to look for effects of chemicals for which there are no commercially available chemical analysis methods; and 3) it integrates the effects of all chemicals in the water. Despite a 1999 USEPA review that found that a preponderance of evidence showed that toxicity test results are reliable qualitative predictors of aquatic ecosystem community impacts (de Vlaming and Norberg‐King 1999), some have questioned the appropriateness of using laboratory tests with indicator organisms to evaluate attainment of water quality standards based on examples that may overestimate (e.g., Hall et al 2009; Clark et al 2015a, 2015b; Weston et al 2015) or underestimate (Morrissey et al 2015) ambient aquatic toxicity. Only a few current‐use pesticides are on the Clean Water Act Priority Pollutant list (40 CFR Part 423, Appendix A), and commercial laboratories rarely offer services measuring most of the >1000 registered current‐use pesticides.…”

Section: Aquatic Toxicity Monitoring Revealed Challenges For Pesticide and Water Quality Regulatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water Quality Impairments Due to Aquatic Life Pesticide Toxicity: Prevention and Mitigation in California, USA

Moran¹,

Anderson

Phillips

et al. 2020

Enviro Toxic and Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The management of pesticides to protect water quality remains a significant global challenge. Historically, despite regulatory frameworks intended to prevent, minimize, and manage off‐site movement of pesticides, multiple generations of pesticide active ingredients have created a seemingly unending cycle of pesticide water pollution in both agricultural and urban watersheds. In California, the most populous and most agricultural US state, pesticide and water quality regulators realized in the 1990s that working independently of each other was not an effective approach to address pesticide water pollution. Over the years, these California agencies have developed a joint vision and have continued to develop a unified approach that has the potential to minimize pesticide risks to aquatic life through a combination of prevention, monitoring, and management actions, while maintaining pesticide availability for effective pest control. Key elements of the current California pesticide/water quality effort include: 1) pesticide and toxicity monitoring, coupled with watershed modeling, to maximize information obtained from monitoring; 2) predictive fate and exposure modeling to identify potential risks to aquatic life for new pesticide products when used as allowed by the label or to identify effective mitigation measures; and 3) management approaches tailored to the different pesticide uses, discharge sources, physical environments, and regulatory environments that exist for agricultural runoff, urban runoff, and municipal wastewater. Lessons from this effort may inform pesticide management elsewhere in the world as well as other chemical regulatory programs, such as the recently reformed US Toxic Substances Control Act and California's Safer Consumer Products regulatory program. Environ Toxicol Chem 2020;39:953–966. © 2020 SETAC

show abstract