Anti-EPA House Votes To Let Agribusiness Dump Pesticides In Our Water

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

Poor farmers - all those billions of dollars they receive in federal subsidies... it's hell.

maybe that's why they get those subsidies, so they can hire a lawyer to understand all the regulations!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Poor farmers - all those billions of dollars they receive in federal subsidies... it's hell.

What does that have to do with an additional needless regulation?

[lostinblue 1,989]

EPA is developing a pesticide general permit in response to the 6th Circuit’s January 2009 ruling that discharges from pesticides into federal waters were pollutants, and, therefore, will require a permit under the CWA.

The agency estimates the decision will affect approximately 35,000 pesticide applicators that perform about 500,000 pesticide applications annually.

Farm groups and their allies on Capitol Hill decried the legal mandate, arguing that CWA regulation was unnecessary since pesticides already are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

[lostinblue 1,989]

http://www.agri-pulse.com/House_approves_pesticide_permit_bill_03312011.asp

WASHINGTON, March 31 – The U.S. House of Representatives approved H.R. 872, the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011 with a strong bipartisan vote of 292 to 130. This legislation states that National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits are not required when applying pesticides according to their EPA approved label.

The bill eliminates a costly and duplicative permitting requirement for the application of pesticides already approved for use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The requirement is the result of what many lawmakers say is a “misguided” court decision in National Cotton Council v. EPA by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require new permits prior to pesticide application.

On Monday, the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals gave federal and state water regulators until Oct. 31 of this year to promulgate the new permitting process stemming from its decision in National Cotton Council v. EPA. The original deadline was April 9. But that extension “did not fix the underlying problem,” Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., and Ranking Member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said in a “Dear Colleague” letter.

“The impact on all pesticides users required to obtain this extra permit will be the same in October as it is today. There is no difference in the burden, cost, or real impact on their livelihoods,” they wrote.

After passage on the House floor today, Chairman Lucas and Peterson issued the following statements.

"I am proud to be a part of the bipartisan effort that led to the House passage of H.R. 872. The last thing the agricultural community needs is another government mandate. This bill eliminates a costly and duplicative permitting requirement that is the result of a court’s fundamental ignorance of Congressional intent. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to join our efforts so that we can get a bill to the President before more valuable resources are wasted," said Chairman Lucas.

“We first began looking into ways to address this issue last fall and I am pleased that, on a bipartisan vote, the House has approved H.R. 872. The courts are not the place to decide agriculture policy and this bill makes clear that it was never the intent of Congress to burden producers with additional permit requirements that would have little to no environmental benefit. I urge the Senate to quickly follow suit and provide certainty to producers by passing this legislation,” said Ranking Member Peterson.

Similar legislation is expected to be introduced in the Senate.

To see the roll call vote: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll206.xml

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

292-130 means a LOT of Democrats also voted for it.

Great News.

[Pooky 3,792]

292-130 means a LOT of Democrats also voted for it.

Bi-partisanship means nothing to loonies like Thinkprogress.org, if it's something they don't support. Then, it's "some Democrats have been lured/cajoled/induced over to the dark side to pass evil legislation".

And it is rather strange that the purely partisan opposition to this measure rates barely a mention from some who were so vocal when the other side did the same.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[lostinblue 1,989]

The bill eliminates a costly and duplicative permitting requirement for the application of pesticides already approved for use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The requirement is the result of what many lawmakers say is a “misguided” court decision in National Cotton Council v. EPA by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require new permits prior to pesticide application.

New permits = more fees + more denials for incomplete paperwork perhaps more fines.... Your government at work.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The bill eliminates a costly and duplicative permitting requirement for the application of pesticides already approved for use under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The requirement is the result of what many lawmakers say is a “misguided” court decision in National Cotton Council v. EPA by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ordered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require new permits prior to pesticide application.

New permits = more fees + more denials for incomplete paperwork perhaps more fines.... Your government at work.

As I suspected the chaneg really does nothing. No reason not to howl about Republicans though and make up something not true to lure/cajole people not to vote for them. Obviously, the truth would not be conducive to voting for Democrats.

[Peikko 1,575]

Bi-partisanship means nothing to loonies like Thinkprogress.org, if it's something they don't support. Then, it's "some Democrats have been lured/cajoled/induced over to the dark side to pass evil legislation".

And it is rather strange that the purely partisan opposition to this measure rates barely a mention from some who were so vocal when the other side did the same.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

No it isn't. This is the most disingenuous poppycock ever. Not commenting implies nothing, it's not strange, it's not indicative that those who don't comment approve of, agree with or in any way have anything to do with an OP. If one had to comment in every thread in order to maintain credibility one would be very busy indeed. Not commenting is not commenting, period.

As I have entered in here, I will say that Steven does post some unutterable drivel and most of the time I choose to ignore it because it isn't worth commenting on, it's really that simple.

[mawilson 2,133]

What does that have to do with an additional needless regulation?

Took federal money? Now they own you, so bend over and take it.

[Pooky 3,792]

No it isn't. This is the most disingenuous poppycock ever. Not commenting implies nothing, it's not strange, it's not indicative that those who don't comment approve of, agree with or in any way have anything to do with an OP. If one had to comment in every thread in order to maintain credibility one would be very busy indeed. Not commenting is not commenting, period.

As I have entered in here, I will say that Steven does post some unutterable drivel and most of the time I choose to ignore it because it isn't worth commenting on, it's really that simple.

And you commenting on my comment about people not commenting and not not commenting is quite ironic, not to mention unnecessary. I'm sure those posters referred to in my comment are sufficiently capable of commenting (or not) on their own behalf, if they wish to do so.

And my comment was just an observation, no more. It needed no comment or rebuttal.

[Peikko 1,575]

And you commenting on my comment about people not commenting and not not commenting is quite ironic, not to mention unnecessary. I'm sure those posters referred to in my comment are sufficiently capable of commenting (or not) on their own behalf, if they wish to do so.

And my comment was just an observation, no more. It needed no comment or rebuttal.

I did comment, I said that most of the time the hack pieces that Steven posts merit no comment, this piece included.

I wasn't aware that your 'observations' could not be called out as ####### but it's good to know that if you say that something is strange, then strange it is, and that's a fact.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Took federal money? Now they own you, so bend over and take it.

I grew up on a family farm. We didn't ride around in a Benz paid for by federal money. We worked our butts off. You have a strange idea what it means to be a farmer. We are not getting rich on federal grants. You need to stop looking down your nose at farmers and realize just what it takes for you to have your dinner.

Edited April 3, 2011 by JohnSmith2007

[mawilson 2,133]

I grew up on a family farm. We didn't ride around in a Benz paid for by federal money. We worked our butts off. You have a strange idea what it means to be a farmer. We are not getting rich on federal grants. You need to stop looking down you nose at farmers and realize just what it takes for you to have your dinner.

I believe in organic farming which relies on biological diversity in

the field to naturally reduce habitat for pests.

My dinner doesn't have any pesticides, GMOs, petroleum- or sewage

sludge-based fertilizers in it. Natural fertilizers (manure, compost)

work perfectly fine.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

I believe in organic farming which relies on biological diversity in

the field to naturally reduce habitat for pests.

My dinner doesn't have any pesticides, GMOs, petroleum- or sewage

sludge-based fertilizers in it. Natural fertilizers (manure, compost)

work perfectly fine.

elitist!

Edited April 3, 2011 by charles!