No Pesticide Permit? No Problem!

Spraying herbicide near a Florida canal.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosyfinch/5187534354/sizes/m/in/photostream/">kenschneiderusa</a>/Flickr


In 1996, the Talent Irrigation District in Oregon set out to kill off aquatic weeds in irrigation canals by spraying herbicides in the water. But in addition to a lot of dead weeds, it got a lot of dead fish—92,000 steelhead salmon. Since then, legal battles have raged over how the government should regulate pesticides used on or near waterways.

On Tuesday, pesticide users marked a possibly major victory in that battle, as a bill that would allow them to bypass the Clean Water Act and spray pesticides over waterways passed through the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee.

Currently, once a pesticide has been deemed safe by the EPA, there’s nothing to compel users of the pesticide to follow guidelines in the Clean Water Act for minimizing how much pesticide makes it into streams, lakes, or other water bodies. But in the long wake of the Talent incident, in 2009 a federal court ordered the EPA to require pesticide users to get a permit before they could spray into water.

After some delay, that permit was set to be available in October. But the bill, H.R. 872 (given the opaque moniker Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act), would bar the EPA or states from requiring it, freeing pesticide users to spray without regard for the damage the pesticide might cause to aquatic plants and animals.

Despite the fact that pesticides are known to wreak havoc on amphibians and groundwater supplies, proponents of the bill argue that the permits will place an undue burden on farmers and other pesticide users. The American Farm Bureau Federation, which supports the bill, states on its website that the permit could “create significant delays, costs, reporting burdens and legal risks from citizen suits for thousands of permit holders without enhancing the environmental protections” afforded by current pesticide regulation.

As May Wu of the Natural Resources Defense Council put it, “This bill would take that permit and throw it in the trash.”

FACT:

Mother Jones was founded as a nonprofit in 1976 because we knew corporations and the wealthy wouldn't fund the type of hard-hitting journalism we set out to do.

Today, reader support makes up about two-thirds of our budget, allows us to dig deep on stories that matter, and lets us keep our reporting free for everyone. If you value what you get from Mother Jones, please join us with a tax-deductible donation today so we can keep on doing the type of journalism 2019 demands.

We Recommend

Latest

Give a Year of the Truth

at our special holiday rate

just $12

Order Now

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.