Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 (H.R. 872) is an amendment to the Clean Water Act that would take away authority of the EPA, or a state environmental agency, to require a permit to apply pesticides near waterways, lakes, rivers and streams. The bill passed the House at the end of March, but companion legislation in the Senate is facing opposition from Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland.
One issue is that of jurisdiction, according to Cardin’s National Communications Director Sue Walitski — because the bill has not yet been reviewed by all the committees that have markup authority over the bill, the Environmental and Public Works Committee, and the Water & Wildlife Subcommittee, which Cardin Chairs and has complete jurisdiction over the CWA.
“Senator Cardin has put a hold on the bill,” Walitski told the Spy. “For more than a decade federal court decisions have determined that people who use pesticides in and over water bodies should apply for Clean Water Permit to help protect public health and natural resources, and this bill would create a blanket exemption to the Clean Water Act. As Chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee, Senator Cardin believes the environmental risks posed by this bill requires that it receive full and careful consideration. By placing a hold on the bill, it allows for a better conversation with the Environmental and Public Works Committee and the Agriculture Committee. Senator Cardin is really hoping that the [two committees] can find a responsible resolution that would protect public health.”
Proponents of the legislation in the House said the EPA permitting process is duplicative because farmers and other pesticide users are already required to register under Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. The bill would do away with the National Pollutant Discharge Eliminations System (NPDES) Permit required under the EPA as long as pesticide users are current in the FIFRA registry.
Congressman Bob Gibbs (R-OH) said in March the bill was aimed to, “remove a costly, lengthy, and duplicative regulatory process that would prove to be a huge barrier to job creation. Now, not only will we continue to have a safe environment, but also a better environment for economic growth.”
But Walitski said that it’s not enough to just to be registered to use pesticides under FIFRA because it would skirt the CWA requirement for direct applications to lakes, rivers and streams.
The House bill was introduced by Bob Gibbs (R-OH), and inspired by a 2009 court case, National Cotton Council v. EPA. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that CWA permits were required for pesticide applications in or near waterways. The court ruling cleared the way for the EPA to start requiring permits in late October of this year.
Maryland House votes for HR 872:
Yeas
MD-1 Harris, Andy [R]
MD-6 Bartlett, Roscoe [R]
Nays
MD-2 Ruppersberger, C.A. [D]
MD-3 Sarbanes, John [D]
MD-4 Edwards, Donna [D]
MD-5 Hoyer, Steny [D]
MD-7 Cummings, Elijah [D]
MD-8 Van Hollen, Christopher [D]
Write a Letter to the Editor on this Article
We encourage readers to offer their point of view on this article by submitting the following form. Editing is sometimes necessary and is done at the discretion of the editorial staff.