| |
Source: Amanda Peterka, E&E Daily, 6/14/12
As Senate leaders continue to debate what farm bill amendments they will bring to the Senate floor for a vote, a provision targeting pesticide regulations is garnering bipartisan support.
The amendment, introduced by Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina and Republican Sen. Mike Crapo of Idaho, would reverse the 2009 ruling in National Cotton Council v. EPA, which forced U.S. EPA to require new Clean Water Act permits from pesticide users who spray over water.
The House passed a similar measure last year, but unlike H.R. 872, the Hagan-Crapo amendment would also require EPA to carry out a one-year study on the coordination among offices dealing with both Clean Water Act permits and the federal pesticides law.
"I'm sponsoring this amendment to protect farmers from burdensome and unnecessary regulations that keep them from doing what they do best: farming," Hagan said in a statement.
The measure counts among its co-sponsors six other Democrats -- Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Tom Carper and Chris Coons of Delaware -- and three Republicans -- James Risch of Idaho, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and David Vitter of Louisiana. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), a former Agriculture secretary who introduced a similar amendment to the farm bill, also supports the measure.
Several other Democrats have signaled that they would vote for it, according to a Senate aide who asked not to be identified to speak candidly about the political dynamic surrounding the amendment.
The measure essentially addresses what critics say is an unnecessary paperwork exercise and a duplication of pesticide rules already in place. They say the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is the appropriate place to regulate pesticides, not the Clean Water Act.
In a letter to Hagan yesterday, North Carolina Environment Secretary Dee Freeman expressed his support for the amendment.
"Our judgment -- based on extensive experience administering Clean Water Act regulations in North Carolina -- has always been that the FIFRA review and approval of pesticides provides adequate protection to water quality and human health," Freeman wrote, "since that review specifically contemplates the environmental effects on water resources."
Environmental groups, on the other hand, have supported the new permitting system, which took effect in November. Bill Snape, senior counsel with the Center for Biological Diversity, said the new form required to be filled out is so simple his high school son could fill it out.
"All it's asking is if you're spraying pesticides, you have to tell EPA," he said. "I don't understand how it's either an onerous thing or a bad thing."
The amendment is among several filed to the $969 billion farm bill that target environmental regulations. The most worrying ones, say environmentalists, are those that seek to limit EPA's authority to carry out the Clean Water Act.
But the Senate staffer said the Hagan-Crapo measure isn't the typical environmental rider.
"We don't see this as a traditional environmental rider, trying to gut the EPA," he said. "We're trying to create a common-sense amendment. It's not about whether pesticides should be regulated."
Even with the bipartisan support, it's still up in the air whether the amendment will get a vote. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) yesterday said he and Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) are working on a longer list of about 40 amendments to bring to a vote and until then hope to bring individual ones to the floor.
Both Reid and Stabenow have signaled that they intend to bring to vote only germane, or relevant, amendments to the bill. Stabenow said yesterday in a conference call that the farm bill or the Agriculture Committee weren't the correct mediums to address concerns with EPA.
But the Agriculture Committee last year took up and passed H.R. 872 in a voice vote, and Hagan's staff argued that that fact makes it relevant.
"Clearly, if the Agriculture Committee marked it up -- the same legislation minus the study that's in ours -- we think it is germane," the Senate staffer said.
This isn't the first call for Senate leaders to take up H.R. 827. Last winter, a bipartisan group of 25 senators, including some of the amendment's co-sponsors, signed onto a letter urging Senate leaders to allow a vote on the legislation. That group featured 14 Republicans and 11 Democrats
The Hagan-Crapo provision also counts among its supporters Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Agriculture Committee ranking member and an author of the farm bill.
Last year, Roberts introduced legislation in an attempt to delay the new pesticide requirement. He was also at the center of negotiations with Stabenow, Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) to strike a deal that would put a two-year moratorium on the new permits in return for a study on pesticide contamination
Even with the support from Roberts and Democratic senators, the measure still faces strong opposition. Boxer and Cardin, for example, are likely to take steps to block the amendment should it move forward.
In an emailed statement yesterday, Cardin's office said the Maryland senator opposes any "permanent, blanket exemption" in the Clean Water Act for pesticide applications.
"It is only pesticide applications over and on water that require permits," the statement said. "The risk of harsh chemicals polluting our nation's waters is too great to stop the permitting program."
Should the amendment not make it into the bill or should the farm bill fall flat, Snape of the Center for Biological Diversity said he expects to see the issue continue to crop up in big pieces of legislation. But he said the environmental community won't let it stand.
"We're going to fight tooth and nail about this," Snape said. "If they want to fight about this, then let's bring it on."
|
