Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chair, I rise today also in support of H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. The House Committee on Agriculture, which I serve on, as does Chairman Gibbs, passed…
Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chair, I rise today also in support of H.R. 953, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017. The House Committee on Agriculture, which I serve on, as does Chairman Gibbs, passed this bill out of committee every Congress since the 112th Congress. The bill language was likewise included in the 2012 farm bill, reported out of the committee, as well as in the 2013 farm bill the House sent to conference. It was also included in the committee-reported text of the FY 2012 Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. But it has never reached the President's desk.
For more than 100 years, the Federal Government has administered its responsibilities under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA, to review and register pesticides in a responsible way that protects human health and the environment.
Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA or a State authority issues a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit, NPDES permit, and that regulates the discharge of pollutants. NPDES permits specify limits on what pollutants may be discharged from point sources and in what amounts. Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the EPA has interpreted its responsibilities related to pesticide use such that compliance with FIFRA would mitigate the need for duplicative permitting under the Clean Water Act.
As litigation in the early part of this decade began to challenge this interpretation, the EPA ultimately responded with the promulgation of a regulation on November 27, 2006, to clarify how these two laws operated. Under the EPA's final rule, the Agency codified its earlier interpretation that permits for pesticide application under the Clean Water Act were unnecessary where pesticides were used in accordance with their regulation under FIFRA.
Following the finalization of this regulation, the rule was challenged in numerous jurisdictions. The case was ultimately heard in the Sixth Circuit wherein the government's interpretation of the interaction of these two laws was not given the deference we would normally expect. The final court order nullified the EPA's regulation and imposed what is viewed as a burdensome, costly, and duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water Act for literally millions of pesticide applications.
This order has imposed a burden on the EPA, State regulatory agencies, and pesticide applicators, costing our economy in terms of jobs as well as severely threatening the already critical budgetary situation facing governments at all levels. It is particularly unfortunate that this court order imposed a new requirement that has imperiled our water resource boards, our mosquito control boards, and our forestry and agricultural sectors, yet has provided no additional environmental or public health protection. On the contrary, by imposing this costly burden on public health pesticide users, it has jeopardized public health as it relates to protection against insect-borne diseases such as the Zika virus, West Nile virus, various forms of encephalitis, and Lyme disease.
I recently heard from the Macon County Mosquito Abatement District in my district based in and around Decatur, Illinois. They can attest that the price of complying with NPDES permitting is very high. Though they had in place a reliable system of tracking chemical usage and treatment areas for years, the added burden of the NPDES requirements have caused them to spend a large portion of the district's annual budget on software strictly just for compliance and reporting processes. The recurring yearly fees associated with the software are a never-ending burden needlessly placed on abatement districts. The fear of litigation dictates the detailed tracking of EPA-approved products and diverts those funds from their actual purpose of controlling mosquitoes.
The EPA has provided technical assistance to draft this very narrow legislation. The goal of this legislation has been to address only those problems created by the decision of the Sixth Circuit and to be entirely consistent with the policy of the EPA, as stated in their November 27, 2006, final rule governing application of pesticides to waters of the United States in compliance with FIFRA.
I urge all Members to vote for this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. Chairman, we agree that no one thinks this bill is going to harm anyone. We are trying to look for commonsense provisions, and I am thankful to my colleague for making this a bipartisan solution.
I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Yoho).