Now we will once again consider the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act. As
many of you will remember, this Committee met two years ago to mark up
this very same bill text. In fact, this is the fourth time this
Committee has marked up this bill.
The bill language was likewise included in the 2012 Farm Bill reported
out of this committee, as well as in the 2013 Farm Bill the House sent
to Conference. It was included in the Committee reported text of the FY
2012 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
But it has never gotten to the President’s desk.
As many of you recall, this bill language was drafted at our request by
the EPA Office of General Council. The problem we asked EPA to help
resolve stems from an uninformed court decision in the 6th Circuit Court
of Appeals. This decision invalidated a 2006 EPA regulation exempting
pesticide applications that are in compliance with the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act from having to also comply
with a costly and duplicative permitting process under the Clean Water
Act.
The attempt by those pressing this litigation to have federally
registered public health, aquatic and agricultural pesticides regulated
through the Clean Water Act permitting process is unnecessary, costly
and ultimately undermines public health. It amounts to a duplication of
regulatory compliance costs for a variety of public agencies, adds to
their legal jeopardy, and threatens pesticide applicators.
This unnecessary mandate applies not only to local and state interests
but also to federal agencies’ lands located in states directly regulated
by the EPA. For example, federal agencies such as the Army Corps of
Engineers authorize use of some of their lands for many purposes
including recreation and agriculture. These uses often require
pesticide applications to prevent mosquito-transmitted diseases and for
other purposes.
Therefore, though the local mosquito control district may be the entity
actually applying the pesticide, the Army Corps District is required to
obtain the permit and sign-off on related reports, thereby unnecessarily
driving up costs to the federal government. Further, the experience
has shown that the Corps is reluctant to assume permit responsibility
for activities that it is not actually performing.
While the future of the Waters of the U.S. Rule is uncertain, this
continues to be a regulatory burden that Congress never intended and I
urge my colleagues to support this legislation, once again.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu