Perhaps esshup can comment since he has recently completed and passed his aquatic applicator licensing, but I believe another grossly illegal way the EPA has tried to garner control over the use of legal aquatic chemicals has been to make it legal for ANY downstream victim to claim damage, and the applicator can not enjoy the due process of having them be proved at fault...the mere accusation makes it a violation.
It is the EPA's intent to grab more control by totally sidestepping legal activity and removing courts or law from their goal's path.
I think it absolutely should be legal for someone downstream to claim damage. Water isn't static, it moves from place to place and may provide a conduit for whatever is in it to do the same.
However I also think the accused should be provided due process, and not merely accused without proof or merit.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
