suit-the law, FIFRA, does not allow the use of paraquat to eradicate marijuana in areas of known wildlife habitat, and the court found that would include national forests and other public lands. I know a question that always comes up-I get it from the press all of the time and which was a major question of concern at the last hearing-is: "Wait a minute, paraquat was used on crops and in great quantities throughout the country. So if it is used on crops, why is it so horrible to use it in national forests or other public lands?"

We would like to emphasize the distinction which the law makes in that regard, because we believe it to be logical and correct. Paraquat spraying is legal for crop use in large open areas on private property under carefully controlled conditions, and only for specified uses that eliminate concern of direct contact with edible plants and fruits. Clay soils and exposure to sunlight in such areas is guaranteed. Uses are limited, for example, to pre-emergence usesthat is, before you sow seeds, you spray a field with paraquat to eliminate weeds—or as a harvest aid for nonfood crops. For example, with cotton you can spray paraquat on the almost-ripe cottonballs and the vegetation falls off leaving the ball there to be picked. Since, over time, paraquat does degrade in the sunlight, in the proper soil, under the proper conditions, if used in this limited manner, there is, hopefully, no harm to human beings who eat any of these crops, the reason being that by the time the plant grows up and everything, then the paraquat is inert, it is biodegradedbut only under these carefully controlled conditions.

Spraying paraquat on small plots of marijuana in uncontrolled conditions in various spots in the national forests and other public lands where you don't know what the soil is and often sunlight is not hitting the area, where any wildlife can come into the area and forage on the contaminated vegetation, is an entirely different

matter.

These areas have been set aside for more natural uses. They are not crop areas. They are congressionally mandated for wildlife protection and recreational use. There is just no place for paraquat in these areas with the known adverse effects on wildlife, in particular, as well as recreational users.

We believe that, in such areas, paraquat use is inappropriate, and that mechanical removal is more compatible and more efficient. We believe that if we just put it out of our mind about using paraquat in these areas, which presently is prohibited by law anyway, and get on to the business of figuring out when it is best to go in and chop it down by hand, when you can use a bush hog, perhaps when you can use the dye and odor effect-the sooner we just put the idea of paraquat out of our minds for these areas, I think we can get on to the business of eradicating marijuana in a sensible way.

Thank you very much.

[The statement of Mr. Middleton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FREDERICK S. MIDDLETON III on BEHALF OF THE SIERRA

CLUB

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Frederick Middleton, an attorney with the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund. I am testifying here today on

behalf of the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club is a national conservation organization having over 350,000 members with chapters in every state within the United States of America.

Our testimony today focuses on the use of paraquat in our National Parks, National Forests, and other public lands.

The Sierra Club stands in support of the exercise of responsible, environmentally sensitive law enforcement activities in protecting America's public lands. The Club views law enforcement as an integral part of the public lands management process, and has long favored the view that law enforcement powers should be granted for public lands managers.

The illegal growing of marijuana is but one of many types of illegal activities which are constantly occurring on public lands. And to which the Sierra Club is opposed. Another such illegal activity on public lands which has concerned the Sierra Club for many years is the digging and removing of archaeological artifacts protected by the Antiquities Act of 1906, 16 U.S.C. 431. In other instances, the Club has also supported law enforcement of statutes regulating the operation of off-road vehicles. Enforcement of the law in all such areas is of the utmost concern to the Sierra Club.

The Sierra Club also has long opposed the introduction and spread of exotic species on public lands. Our efforts to prohibit Asian crested wheat from growing on Bureau of Land Management Land has been long cited. We have opposed the introduction of other exotic species, such as tamarisk and kudzu, intentionally introduced into America from foreign habitats to control soil erosion. We view marijuana as an exotic plant and oppose its cultivation on our public lands.

The Sierra Club recognizes that the growing of marijuana on public lands is illegal. We also see a potential danger to campers, hunters, hikers and others engaged in legal multiple-use activities on public lands from those who might cause harm to them in defense of their illegal crops.

The Sierra Club does not question the right and duty of the Government to eradicate illegal substances on public lands. However, the method of eradication is of fundamental concern to us.

Our position in this regard is one of plain, common sense. In choosing an eradication method, we believe that the government must weigh the financial cost of each alternative method against its health and environmental consequences, and choose that method which can eradicate marijuana with minimum harm and minimum financial costs.

We believe that after you receive the evidence on the high potential health and environmental harm of using paraquat, you will agree with us that the dangers of using this highly toxic herbicide are too great, and that manual techniques offer a clearly superior alternative which can achieve effective results at less cost and with no adverse environmental and health effects.

ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF PARAQUAT USE ON PUBLIC LANDS

At the previous hearing before this committee on October 5, 1983, various witnesses gave lip service to the need to weigh the costs and benefits of a government program to use paraquat to eradicate domestic marijuana crops. Yet there was no testimony with regard to the substantial direct environmental costs of using paraquat. Nor was there any real consideration given to other more benign alternative methods of eradication.

Yet it is beyond dispute that paraquat is extremely toxic to man, fish, wildlife, and vegetation in the amounts and concentrations associated with normal use. Ingestion, inhalation, or direct skin contact with small amounts of paraquat can cause death in humans. Non-fatal exposures to paraquat can cause a broad range of harm to humans, ranging from severe damage to irritation in the liver, lung, eye, and

nose.

The chronic effects of lower levels of exposure associated with non-fatal damage to humans and other organisms are still unknown. However, the potential for chronic effects in humans, including long-term organ damage, reproductive defects, and genetic effects is widely recognized.

As with humans, wildlife that ingest, breathe, or come into surface contact with paraquat may be killed or severely harmed. Numerous field studies show that the application of paraquat has resulted in large kills of fish and wildlife in nearby

areas.

The application of paraquat on national forest and other public lands can lead to harmful exposure to paraquat in many ways. First, paraquat can directly contact nans, birds, animals, and fish in the target area.

wildlife can be affected indirectly through subsequent foraging or grazing nated, but edible vegetation. Humans and wildlife can be affected by conof contaminated water supplies or contaminated animals or berries. elaborate description of these effects can be found in the evidence which y submitted in court in the case of Sierra Club v. Mullen, C.A. 83-2592, ct Court for the District of Columbia. Copies of that evidence have been able to staff counsel for this committee.

ra Club is highly concerned with the misleading and erroneous testimony the potential environmental effects of paraquat that was given to this by the Drug Enforcement Administration on October 5, 1983. At that officials painted a rosy picture of a benign, harmless chemical, vested mp of approval from the Environmental Protection Agency. The governd have this committee believe that once paraquat is sprayed and contacts or soil it poses no further danger to man or beast. This is simply not the

nple, the DEA has testified that paraquat binds tightly to soil and is ndered biologically inactive. Paraquat does not bind tightly to all "soil", › clay particles in the soil. The soils throughout our national forests are nging from soils high in organic matter to rocky, sandy soils. Some areas onal forests and other public lands have soils containing very small proclay, and paraquat is not rendered biologically inactive after spraying in the DEA has testified that paraquat is not a hazard after it has dried. it is true that paraquat breaks down naturally in the environment over cially in the presence of sunlight, toxic residues can remain on vegetation 0 days. Numerous studies indicate that foraging on contaminated vegetaor weeks after the spray has dried-can lead to significant numbers of vildlife.

3.

le DEA is wrong to suggest that there is no danger of significant leaching runoff. A rainstorm that occurs soon after spraying can result in contamioff, and leaching can occur in soils with a low clay content. Again, field licate that applications of paraquat have often resulted in large kills of nearby areas removed from the area actually sprayed.

QUAT USE ON PUBLIC LANDS IS PROHIBITED BY THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE,
FUNGICIDE AND RODENTICIDE ACT

o testified to this committee in October that paraquat is "registered" by r the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for use na on our public lands. This also is an erroneous statement.

a 15-person EPA team initiated a broad, scientific review of paraquat to knowledge of the chemical and its effects. The review was specifically dexamine the full range of effects of paraquat on fish and wildlife as well as his review was completed on July 1, 1982. Of particular concern to EPA plication of paraquat in non-crop areas that provide prime wildlife habioncluded that both avian and mammalian wildlife would be significantly less sites that "represent potentially serious exposure opportunities" are f-limits to paraquat use.

g up on this study, on May 19, 1983, the paraquat registration was thereed to prohibit the use of paraquat in areas of potential wildlife habitat. on-crop use now allowed by law is in industrial and commercial installae wildlife is unlikely to be present.

ember 1, 1983, the Sierra Club and their environmental organizations gainst the DEA, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Department of Interior, I part that the use of paraquat to eradicate marijuana on our public lands egistered use and was unlawful under FIFRA. The United States District he District of Columbia agreed, and a final order has now been entered in hich prohibits indefinitely the use of paraquat to eradicate marijuana on al lands. A copy of the court's order on our motion for a temporary rerder and a copy of the final consent judgment are attached to this testild like to emphasize the distinction which the law makes-since we bebe a logical one. Although highly toxic, paraquat spraying may be justiɔp use in large open areas on private property-but only under carefully conditions and for specified uses that eliminate concern of direct contact e plants and fruits. Clay soils and exposure to sunlight in such areas is

O-84--14

guaranteed. Large areas can be efficiently defoliated by herbicide spraying, whereas mechanical means of removal may be extremely costly and impractical.

Spraying paraquat on small plots of marijuana in uncontrolled conditions in our National Forest and other public lands is a different matter entirely. These areas have been set aside for more natural uses and are congressionally mandated for wildlife protection and recreational use. In such areas, paraquat use is inappropriate and mechanical removal is more compatible and more efficient.

MECHANICAL DESTRUCTION AS THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

Common sense argues for the use of mechanical destruction of illegal marijuana on public lands. Marijuana plots on public lands are typically no more than small clearings in the forest. Huge tracts of land that can be efficiently sprayed by air are not involved. In the rare case where helicopters are necessary for access, they can be used to bring in personnel-but they need not be used to conduct actual spraying operations.

In order to ensure the safety of people in the area where paraquat spraying is planned, on the ground surveillance is necessary to prevent entry into the spray area both prior to and after spraying. The August, 1983 DEA operation in Georgia, for example, required continuous surveillance for four days. Ultimately, the sprayed marijuana was removed manually by agents in any event to ensure that it did not enter the market place. There is no question that the Georgia operation could have been conducted in a few hours, rather than four days, with the same manpower and without the necessity of spraying by helicopter, if the plants had simply been manually removed. This would have brought a great savings to DEA and the taxpayers, and would have avoided the adverse environmental effects of paraquat use.

Upon consideration of plaintiffs' motion for a

temporary restraining order, defendants' opposition thereto, plaintiffs' reply, the oral argument of the parties on

September 13, 1983, and the entire record herein, and it appearing that the aerial spraying of paraquat on public lands

by defendants is in violation of the Environmental Impact