The Kings County Economic Community Development Association, in its complaint filed in this action, describes itself as “an unincorporated association of low-income persons who reside in Kings and Kern Counties, California; the members of said organization cannot afford to purchase bottled water and filters and accordingly must drink, wash and bathe in the high-nitrate water from wells in the vicinity of Delano, California.” Joined with the association, as plaintiffs, are individuals representing a class of “hand-harvest farm workers in the State of Cali fornia facing daily exposure to polluted waters in the State.”

Plaintiffs' concern is with the danger created by the poisonous aftereffects of agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. They have unsuccessfully sought administrative relief and have prepared a proposed “clean water plan” which has not received acceptance. This action was brought against the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of the Interior, and certain officials of both departments, to require them to take action in the control of water pollution caused by agricultural water users.

The complaint focuses on action required by the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq., and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1151 et seq. It is plaintiffs' aim eventually to secure action from federal agencies denying farm subsidies and loans to users of pesticides and fertilizers. By this suit they seek to compel defendants to take action in this direction by way of studies, hearings and re-j ports. ;

The District Court, finding no relief available under the Acts on which plaintiffs rely, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs’ difficulty is due to the fact that their concern is directed toward private rather than public action — the use of pesticides and fertilizers by private individuals.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, for example, requires compliance with applicable water quality standards by federal agencies having jurisdiction over federal facilities or engaging in public works activities. 33 U.S.C. § 1171 .

On this appeal, appellants’ principal emphasis is upon the National Environmental Policy Act. They assert, first, that appellees have failed to file an Environmental Impact Statement under § 102(2) (C), 42 U.S.C. § 4332 (2)(C). They regard the payment of farm subsidies as “major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”

But this simply is not so. Payment of the subsidies is mandatory under the Agricultural Act of 1970, 84 Stat. 1358 . The recipient is free to use the money in any way he sees fit. The fact that it (or other money of the recipient) was put to a use affecting the environment cannot convert that private use into federal action.

Appellants next contend that appellees have failed to comply with § 103 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4333 . Section 103 reads:

But a § 103 review was conducted and measures were proposed. Under date of September 9, 1970, the Council on Environmental Quality was advised of the Department’s review. The Secretary stated:

The fact that the report did not include any recommendation respecting farm subsidies was explained by affidavit of the Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Commodity Programs :

In our judgment this is a wholly rational explanation, and failure to conclude and recommend action to the contrary cannot be said to constitute a failure to comply with the Act.

Judgment affirmed.