Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H.R. 953

Does a Permitting Requirement for Using EPA-Approved Pesticides Need to be Eliminated?

Argument in favor

This bill would eliminate a duplicative and unnecessary permit which makes it more costly for farmers, ranchers, and local pest control agencies to protect crops or eliminate mosquitoes with pesticides the EPA has already approved.

operaman's Opinion
···
05/24/2017
If the EPA has already approved certain makes of pesticides for use near waterways, why make it more costly for farmers, ranchers, and local pest control agencies to protect crops or eliminate mosquitoes. Why must the application of approved pesticides require duplicate permitting? The answer is government and control. Like giving a blanket permit for application except days ending in "Y." Let's makes it less costly for farmers, ranchers, and local pest control agencies to protect crops or eliminate mosquitoes without tying both arms behind a user's back
Like (48)
Follow
Share
Erik's Opinion
···
05/24/2017
If it's already been approved by the EPA, then there's no need for a permit. Cut the red tape.
Like (15)
Follow
Share
Loraki's Opinion
···
05/25/2017
Countable member G.F. said: "The [EPA] was the cause of the poisoning of the Colorado waters, the waters of Flint Michigan and is accountable for more environmental catastrophes than any other federal agency yet they just cover up all their failures. We need to re-evaluate their existence." I agree! I also agree with Sponsoring Rep. Bob Gibbs' statement: "Everyone, especially farmers, want clean water." If you read the NAY comments, you get the impression that they think farmers are all stupid, irresponsible, and greedy. Perhaps some of them are, but I think it's wrong to assume that most, if not all, are. I believe most people are cautious and conscientious about using such chemicals. Contrary to liberal beliefs, most of us don't have a death wish, and we realize how necessary and desirable it is to protect our water, pollinators, and the rest of our environment!
Like (15)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The additional permitting requirement helps ensure that pesticides or insecticides don’t taint waterways without imposing burdensome costs on local governments, farmers, and ranchers.

JustinM.D.Nelson's Opinion
···
05/24/2017
This is why the EPA exists. It protects us from practices that are hazardous to our environment. Please stand by decisions made by the EPA, especially now that we have a president and administration that is so hostile against sound environmental policy.
Like (145)
Follow
Share
Josh.'s Opinion
···
05/25/2017
I am dismayed that my representatives would choose to eliminate a small regulation that ensures that America's beautiful natural resources are not poisoned by pesticide use. The only thing this regulation was hurting was the patience and pockets of pesticide makers.
Like (89)
Follow
Share
Brittany's Opinion
···
05/22/2017
These regulations are put in place to protect the public!!
Like (81)
Follow
Share

What is House Bill H.R. 953?

This bill would eliminate a permitting requirement for the use of pesticides near “navigable waters” that have already been regulated, tested, and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). A 2009 court ruling required that a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit be issued prior to the use of EPA-approved pesticides to kill mosquitoes and other flying insects; aquatic weeds and algae; aquatic nuisance animal control; and forest canopy pest control.

Impact

Users of pesticides; and the EPA.

Cost of House Bill H.R. 953

$0.00
The CBO estimates that enacting this bill would not increase spending.

More Information

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) introduced this bill to clarify what’s needed to use EPA-approved pesticides by eliminating a “duplicative and unnecessary” permit:

“This is a classic example of why so many Americans are frustrated with Washington. Bureaucratic red tape is making it more difficult and costly for farmers to responsibly protect their crops or local mosquito and pest control agencies to safeguard public health. Requiring an NPDES permit is unnecessary. It only adds compliance costs, and no new environmental protections.”

This legislation was passed by the House Agriculture Committee on a voice vote, and has the support of 47 bipartisan cosponsors including 43 Republican and four Democrats. Similar legislation has been introduced in each session of Congress since the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in the 2009 case National Cotton Council v. EPA.

 

Media:

Summary by Eric Revell

(Photo Credit: USDA / Public Domain)

AKA

Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2017

Official Title

To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Congressional intent regarding the regulation of the use of pesticides in or near navigable waters, and for other purposes.

bill Progress


  • Not enacted
    The President has not signed this bill
  • The senate has not voted
      senate Committees
      Committee on Environment and Public Works
  • The house Passed May 24th, 2017
    Roll Call Vote 256 Yea / 165 Nay
      house Committees
      Committee on Agriculture
      Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
      Water Resources and Environment
    IntroducedFebruary 7th, 2017

Log in or create an account to see how your Reps voted!
    If the EPA has already approved certain makes of pesticides for use near waterways, why make it more costly for farmers, ranchers, and local pest control agencies to protect crops or eliminate mosquitoes. Why must the application of approved pesticides require duplicate permitting? The answer is government and control. Like giving a blanket permit for application except days ending in "Y." Let's makes it less costly for farmers, ranchers, and local pest control agencies to protect crops or eliminate mosquitoes without tying both arms behind a user's back
    Like (48)
    Follow
    Share
    This is why the EPA exists. It protects us from practices that are hazardous to our environment. Please stand by decisions made by the EPA, especially now that we have a president and administration that is so hostile against sound environmental policy.
    Like (145)
    Follow
    Share
    I am dismayed that my representatives would choose to eliminate a small regulation that ensures that America's beautiful natural resources are not poisoned by pesticide use. The only thing this regulation was hurting was the patience and pockets of pesticide makers.
    Like (89)
    Follow
    Share
    These regulations are put in place to protect the public!!
    Like (81)
    Follow
    Share
    This does not benefit the people, it benefits big companies who'd rather cut corners than ensure safety for our environment.
    Like (60)
    Follow
    Share
    Once again Republicans show what's really important for them: increasing corporate America's profits... And protecting the environment for them is just one more liberal conspiracy
    Like (57)
    Follow
    Share
    Very disappointed that my congressman voted YEA on this. Polluting waterways is very serious since it will eventually pollute ground water. Can't regulate the use of pesticides enough to protect water. Once again, the rich get richer and POLLUTE.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    You should have voted no if you believe in clean air, water, and land. These items are for the best for protecting human life. If you voted yes, you must have been paid well. I am very disappointed in you. I want future generations to live with clean air, water, and land. We and they deserve this. I do not understand how money can be more important than human life. This is very sad.
    Like (26)
    Follow
    Share
    Senators of Kentucky. VOTE NO! Pesticides were made to do one thing, KILL. Sure they KILL bugs, but they also KILL and/or poison birds, reptiles, fish, crustaceans, small mammals, and eventually as they build up over time THEY WILL KILL anything that preys on them, including HUMANS! This permitting process and the EPA is likely our only line of defense. Use some common sense and keep it.
    Like (22)
    Follow
    Share
    Much of my thesis work was dedicated to looking at how detrimental agriculture runoff is to our water systems. This is incredibly dangerous, especially for the farmers and their families who rely on this water for drinking.
    Like (17)
    Follow
    Share
    If it's already been approved by the EPA, then there's no need for a permit. Cut the red tape.
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Regulations are put in place for a reason! Quit stripping them in the name of protecting businesses and to allow them to wreak havoc on the public's rights!
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    Countable member G.F. said: "The [EPA] was the cause of the poisoning of the Colorado waters, the waters of Flint Michigan and is accountable for more environmental catastrophes than any other federal agency yet they just cover up all their failures. We need to re-evaluate their existence." I agree! I also agree with Sponsoring Rep. Bob Gibbs' statement: "Everyone, especially farmers, want clean water." If you read the NAY comments, you get the impression that they think farmers are all stupid, irresponsible, and greedy. Perhaps some of them are, but I think it's wrong to assume that most, if not all, are. I believe most people are cautious and conscientious about using such chemicals. Contrary to liberal beliefs, most of us don't have a death wish, and we realize how necessary and desirable it is to protect our water, pollinators, and the rest of our environment!
    Like (15)
    Follow
    Share
    We should be working toward eliminating pesticide use near waterways not making it easier and more profitable. There's at least a few jobs in implementing that strategy don't you think? Remember, we can live without pesticides but we can't live without clean water.
    Like (11)
    Follow
    Share
    Keep invasive species out of the Great Lakes. If you ruin the lakes, what will life in Michigan be like?
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Farmers grow our food, they need the natural water and soil to do so. If the EPA already approved it, why are they having to make more steps. Big government likes regulatory action. Small government empowers its people by dismantling regulations!
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Just because a chemical has been approved does not mean that it is safe to use in all situations nor that local agencies do not need to know when it is being used. This is not an expensive or time consuming burden.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Disappointed you voted against this, Congressman. The materials are already approved by the EPA, so the only reason to redundantly require permitting is to extort the agriculture industry. Basically it's saying "This behavior is perfectly fine for a person to do, but if you don't pay us, we'll throw you in jail for not paying us. Your only crime will be that you did not pay us before you engaged in something we have already said you are free to do." There is an immoral scheme here where the government has taken away a freedom and is selling it back to them. So now you're on record opposing the elimination of government extortion. Congratulations.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    Glad this passed, we have so many regulations now you probably violate one waking up in the morning
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    No pesticides for humans
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE