TAMPA, Fla. – The administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is heading into a hornet’s nest.
Lisa Jackson has been invited to appear before the U.S. House of Representatives agriculture committee this week, the first in what will be a series of hearings about the EPA’s “numerous regulatory assaults” on farmers, said committee chair Frank Lucas.
Jackson will be asked to explain the agency’s actions over the past couple of years. Lucas doesn’t think she’ll be overly excited about a return visit when the committee gets through with her.
Read Also
U.S. government investigates high input costs
The USDA and DOJ are investigating high input costs, but nothing is happening in Canada.
“One thing is clear, the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory assault on production agriculture must stop,” said Lucas to roaring applause from delegates attending the 2011 Commodity Classic.
Farmers are fed up with having to comply with what they consider to be a series of burdensome and frivolous environmental regulations.
One of the most disconcerting new regulations stems from a 2009 Sixth Circuit Court ruling that determined pesticides are a source of pollution subject to additional regulation under the Clean Water Act.
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on the case, so the lower court ruling stands. It instructs the EPA to develop a new pesticide permit for certain applications by April 9, 2011.
Indications are that the EPA’s new permit will only apply to pesticides registered for aquatic use.
But environmental activists have indicated that terrestrial pesticides should require a permit if there’s any chance they could come into contact with flowing water or drainage ditches and the court ruling enables lawsuits from citizen’s groups.
It puts farmers in a Catch-22 situation where they can’t get a permit but they may be sued if they don’t have one.
“The potential liability if you’re found in violation of the Clean Water Act is a fine of $37,500 a day,” said Mark Gaede, director of government affairs for environmental policy with the National Association of Wheat Growers.
“You can be fined with a fine that will put you out of business.”
Gaede said an anti-pesticide organization called the Environmental Working Group filed 91 notices of intent to sue prior to the court ruling. He anticipates they will renew those notices after April 9.
Farm groups are hoping for the quick passage of a bipartisan bill introduced in Congress last week that says extra permits are not required when applying pesticides according to their approved labels.
“Because the permitting program is currently scheduled to take effect April 9, it is imperative that Congress take action on this bill prior to that date,” said National Corn Growers Association president Bart Schott.
Lucas briefly outlined some of the other controversial regulations, such as one designed to limit the amount of coarse particulate matter in the air.
“The EPA wants farmers to till fields without producing any dust,” he said.
There’s a regulation that treats milk spills like oil spills and another one ensuring pesticide spray doesn’t drift more than one foot away from the original source.
“Do you know how many days it doesn’t blow in western Oklahoma in a year? Four days without wind is one of the signs of the end of time,” said Lucas to a chorus of laughter.
U.S. secretary of agriculture Tom Vilsack wasn’t nearly as critical of the EPA. He said the hearings will give the agency a chance to clear up some of the misconceptions about what is being considered.
And he noted that the EPA is not the originator of many of the contentious regulations.
“One of two things has happened – either EPA has been instructed to do this by Congress or they’ve been directed to do it by a court,” he told reporters.
