Search Site   
Current News Stories
Solar eclipse, new moon coming April 8
Mystery illness affecting dairy cattle in Texas Panhandle
Teach others to live sustainably
Gun safety begins early
Hard-cooked eggs recipes great for Easter, anytime
Michigan carrot producers to vote on program continuation
Suggestions to celebrate 50th wedding anniversary
USDA finalizes new ‘Product of the USA’ labeling rule 
U.S. weather outlooks currently favoring early planting season
Weaver Popcorn Hybrids expanding and moving to new facility
Role of women in agriculture changing Hoosier dairy farmer says
   
News Articles
Search News  
   

Measure seeks to clarify pesticide use regulations

 

 

By SHELLY STRAUTZ-SPRINGBORN

Michigan Correspondent

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. House Committee on Agriculture last week approved H.R. 897, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2015.

Sponsored by Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-Ohio), this legislation seeks to clarify intent regarding pesticide regulation in or near waters of the United States (WOTUS). It would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA) to clarify Congressional intent, and eliminate the requirement of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the use of pesticides already approved for use under FIFRA.

FIFRA was enacted in 1947 to regulate pesticides and their usage in the United States. The CWA was enacted in 1972 as the primary federal law governing water pollution. A 2009 decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit applied the provisions of the NPDES permitting process under the CWA to pesticide applications that were already fully regulated under FIFRA.

As a result many farmers, ranchers, water resource boards and public health professionals involved in mosquito control are subject to costly and duplicative burdens they have said provide no quantifiable public health or environmental benefit.

"As a farmer, I understand how difficult and expensive it is to comply with the redundant federal and state permits under the Clean Water Act and FIFRA, which approves permits for FDA-approved pesticides," Gibbs said. "The burdensome and unnecessary cost to comply with the NPDES permitting requirements is unmanageable for applicants and often leads to costly litigation."

The bill addresses the Sixth Circuit’s holding in National Cotton Council v. EPA and returns the pesticide regulations to the status quo, before the Court became involved.

"EPA has estimated that approximately 365,000 pesticide users, including state agencies, cities, counties, mosquito-control districts, water districts, pesticide applicators, farmers, ranchers, forest managers, scientists and even everyday citizens, that perform some 5.6 million pesticide applications annually, would be affected by the Court’s ruling," Gibbs said.

"H.R. 897 will ensure that duplicative and harmful regulations will not stand in the way of effectively protecting our nation’s agriculture production, natural resources and public health."

Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), chair of the Agriculture Committee, added costly and duplicative regulations and permitting requirements on farmers "weaken the economy in rural America. The money and time that farmers have to spend fulfilling redundant, unnecessary requirements is time and money that can be put to better, more productive use.

"Making pesticides readily accessible for use is crucial to efficiently protect our nation’s food supply and natural resources," he added. "Correcting the erroneous court decision that created this duplicative process has been a priority for public health, water resources and agricultural stakeholders."

The expansion of jurisdictional waters under the proposed WOTUS rule would likely increase the regulatory cost and burden associated with this court decision on food production costs and mosquito-control programs. The Committee on Agriculture and full House passed this bill during two previous Congresses, but the Senate failed to act.

As part of the ongoing battle to "ditch" the WOTUS rule, several recent hearings have been conducted, featuring testimony on the detrimental effects the rule could have on agriculture and other industries. Mary Ann Borgeson, chair of the Douglas County Board of Commissioners and member of the Nebraska Assoc. of County Officials, testified during a March 14 field hearing in Lincoln hosted by U.S. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.).

She supported a request by the National Assoc. of Counties (NACO), which has urged the federal agencies to withdraw the proposed rule until further analysis of its potential impacts has been completed. Borgeson said under NPDES, a major emphasis of her county’s storm water management plan is to improve water quality by reducing storm water runoff volumes.

"This approach is lockstep with EPA’s push to implement green infrastructure as a key strategy to improve our nation’s overall water quality," she said. "Simply put, green infrastructure can have a significant positive benefit for water quality and, with this being an EPA priority, it is essential that the proposed waters of the U.S. rule be supportive and not contradictory to the continued implementation of green infrastructure across the country.

"If the waters of the U.S. rule negatively impacts the implementation of green infrastructure, it will mean more taxpayer dollars being wasted on process, rather than being directly spent on water quality improvement."

During the same hearing, Barbara Cooksley, cattle rancher and president-elect of Nebraska Cattlemen, which represents more than 3,000 producers in the state, expressed her concerns. She asked that the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers withdraw the proposed rule and sit down with ranchers to discuss concerns and viable solutions before any additional action is taken.

"Animal ag producers pride themselves on being good stewards of our country’s natural resources," she said. "We maintain open spaces, healthy rangelands and provide wildlife habitat while working to feed the world.

"To provide all of these functions, we must be able to operate without excessive federal burdens. As a beef producer, the proposed rule has the potential to impact every aspect of our family’s operation and others like it by regulating potentially every water feature on our land.

"What’s worse is the ambiguity in the proposed rule, which makes it difficult, if not impossible, to determine just how much our family ranch will be affected. This ambiguity places all landowners in a position of uncertainty and inequity," Cooksley said.

On March 17, National Cattleman’s Beef Assoc. past president Steve Foglesong testified before the House Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation and Forestry, and also urged Congress to prevent the approval of WOTUS.

"Let’s be clear – everyone wants clean water," he said. "Farmers and ranchers rely on clean water to be successful in business. But, expanding the federal regulatory reach of the EPA and Army Corp does not equal clean water."

3/25/2015