No Spray Coalition, Inc. v. City of New York
252 F.3d 148, 2001 WL 604987 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A product being used for its intended purpose is not "discarded material" and therefore does not constitute "solid waste" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Furthermore, a party cannot use the citizen suit provision of one statute (RCRA) to enforce an alleged violation of a different statute (FIFRA) that does not provide for a private right of action.
Facts:
- To combat the fatal, mosquito-borne West Nile Virus, the City of New York implemented a public health program involving the spraying of insecticides.
- The City sprayed the pesticides into the air, over land, and into the waters within its jurisdiction.
- Plaintiffs alleged the spraying occurred in densely populated areas.
- Plaintiffs claimed this method of application was contrary to the pesticides' label instructions, which they assert permitted use only in wooded areas and grassy pastures.
- The City planned to renew the insecticide spraying program in the subsequent summer.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the City of New York in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, a federal trial court.
- In their suit, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the city from renewing its insecticide spraying program.
- The claim was brought under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA).
- The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.
- The district court also dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claim entirely.
- Plaintiffs, as appellants, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, an intermediate federal appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the spraying of pesticides for their intended purpose of killing mosquitoes constitute the disposal of "solid waste" within the meaning of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. The spraying of pesticides for their intended purpose does not constitute the disposal of solid waste under RCRA. The statute defines "solid waste" as "discarded material," and this court has previously established that a material is not considered "discarded" until after it has served its intended purpose. Because the pesticides were being sprayed into the air with the specific design of reaching and killing mosquitoes, they were being used for their intended purpose and were not being discarded. While using the pesticide in a manner contrary to its label might violate the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), that statute does not grant a private right of action. Plaintiffs cannot use RCRA's citizen suit provision to enforce an alleged violation of FIFRA, as Congress has exclusively entrusted FIFRA's enforcement to the government.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of "solid waste" under RCRA, preventing the statute from being used to regulate the application of commercial chemical products as they are being used for their intended purpose. It establishes that RCRA governs the disposal of materials after their useful life, not their active use. The ruling also reinforces the legal principle against using a statute with a citizen-suit provision as an alternative enforcement mechanism for a separate statute that Congress has deliberately chosen not to equip with such a provision, thereby preserving distinct statutory enforcement schemes.
