By KEVIN WALKER

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A deadline for implementation of a rule requiring more environmental permits for pesticide applications has come and gone without the passage of mitigating legislation, to the dismay of agricultural stakeholders and their advocates in Congress.

“There are no winners today,” said U.S. Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), chair of the House Agriculture Committee, on Oct. 31 – the date the new U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rule took effect, with no legislation to halt it.

“Because this is a duplicative permit, there will be no additional environmental gains. The farmers, ranchers and business owners who will be burdened with additional costs and paperwork from this duplicative permit will have less time and money to invest in jobs.

“This is an example of the Senate at its worst. At a time when we could be focusing on job growth and making better use of taxpayer dollars, we are instead going to place an additional burden on agricultural producers, foresters, mosquito control districts, public health agencies, the federal government, state agencies and regular citizens.

“We could have averted this situation had the Senate majority acted earlier. The House passed (House Resolution 872) with bipartisan support in March. Senator Reid’s (Harry, D-Nev.; Majority Leader) failure to bring it to the Senate floor in the past six months is unacceptable. It’s time to put the focus back on American jobs by passing legislation like H.R. 872,” said Lucas.

The new regulations arose from a 2009 ruling by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in National Cotton Council, et al v. EPA. The ruling stated for the first time that pesticide applications could require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the Clean Water Act in addition to compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).

Although it may not be clear exactly how the new regulations will affect farmers, agricultural interests fear the new rule will expose pesticide applicators to more lawsuits and force them to complete time-consuming and costly paperwork. The new rules could affect agricultural pesticide applicators as well as local governments.

In a letter last summer to EPA chief Lisa Jackson, National Assoc. of Counties (NACo) Executive Director Larry Naake expressed his concerns about the new regulations.

He wrote under the new rules, anytime a pesticide is applied on or near a “waters of the U.S.,” a NPDES permit would be required.

“Counties use pesticides in a number of ways, including treatment of weeds in ditches on the side of the road and treatment of mosquitoes and other pests,” Naake wrote.

“This permit includes tight documentation requirements for communities of over 10,000, which will be a financial hardship for many of our rural counties.

“NACo considers a county under 50,000 to be rural. Rural counties often have small staffs, which are asked to do a wide variety of jobs and may not have the technical knowledge to comply with these documentation requirements.

“If more waters become jurisdictional because of the guidance, has the EPA looked at additional financial costs for state and local governments to implement the pesticide permit program? How many more waters, including ditches, will be considered jurisdictional under the pesticide permit program by the Draft Guidance?” he asked.

H.R. 872 would have effectively nullified the 2009 ruling. The EPA would have been able to revert to its previous practice of using FIFRA only to regulate pesticide applications.

It’s not clear what is going to happen with this impasse. The National Corn Growers Assoc. (NCGA) issued its own statement about the lack of action in the Senate. “NCGA is disappointed the Senate did not approve H.R. 872 prior to the October 31 deadline, when the NPDES pesticide permitting program takes effect,” NCGA President Garry Niemeyer, an Illinois corn farmer, said last week.

“Despite broad bipartisan support for the proposal, lawmakers were unable to identify a path forward for this important legislation. As a result, farmers like me are now exposed to a new set of legal liabilities and regulatory requirements under the Clean Water Act, without a guarantee of any additional environmental benefits.”