May 2nd, 2003: Appeal Filed in United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Below is a summary of the major legal issues involved in the case, paraphrased from the legal document's table of contents. The full document is available here.

1. The aerial and ground discharge of pesticides from helicopters and trucks into water without a permit constitutes a violation of the CWA [Clean Water Act]
1. The application of pesticides over and into waters of the united states constitutes the "addition" of pesticides
2. Pesticides discharged over and into waters of the united states constitutes the discharge of a "pollutant"
3. Pesticide spraying over and into waterbodies surrounding new york city constitutes a discharge into "navigable waters of the united states"
4. Helicopters and spray trucks are "point sources" for purposes of the CWA [Clean Water Act]
5. The discharge of pesticides over and into the water bodies surrounding new york city was "without a permit" as required by the CWA
2. Pesticide spray drift that is discharged into water from adjacent lands without a permit constitutes a violation of the CWA
3. Pesticides discharged over and into water without a permit constitutes a violation of the CWA, 33 u.S.C. ß 1311, Regardless of whether its application is in conformity with labeling requirements under FIFRA [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act]
4. Pesticides discharged over and into water without a permit constitutes a violation of the CWA when its application is in violation of labeling requirements under FIFRA [Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act]
5. The Clean Water Act has a "zero discharge" standard, thus any amount of discharge constitutes a violation of the CWA