[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H2264-H2266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FARMERS UNDERTAKE ENVIRONMENTAL LAND STEWARDSHIP ACT
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 311) to direct the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to change the Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure rule with respect to certain farms.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The text of the bill is as follows:
H.R. 311
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Farmers Undertake
Environmental Land Stewardship Act'' or the ``FUELS Act''.
SEC. 2. APPLICABILITY OF SPILL PREVENTION, CONTROL, AND
COUNTERMEASURE RULE.
(a) In General.--The Administrator, in implementing the
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure rule with
respect to any farm, shall--
(1) require certification of compliance with such rule by--
(A) a professional engineer for a farm with--
[[Page H2265]]
(i) an individual tank with an aboveground storage capacity
greater than 10,000 gallons;
(ii) an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than
or equal to 42,000 gallons; or
(iii) a history that includes a spill, as determined by the
Administrator; or
(B) the owner or operator of the farm (via self-
certification) for a farm with--
(i) an aggregate aboveground storage capacity greater than
10,000 gallons but less than 42,000 gallons; and
(ii) no history of spills, as determined by the
Administrator; and
(2) exempt from all requirements of such rule any farm--
(A) with an aggregate aboveground storage capacity of less
than or equal to 10,000 gallons; and
(B) no history of spills, as determined by the
Administrator.
(b) Calculation of Aggregate Aboveground Storage
Capacity.--For the purposes of subsection (a), the aggregate
aboveground storage capacity of a farm excludes all
containers on separate parcels that have a capacity that is
less than 1,320 gallons.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act, the following terms apply:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) Farm.--The term ``farm'' has the meaning given such
term in section 112.2 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations.
(3) Gallon.--The term ``gallon'' refers to a United States
liquid gallon.
(4) Spill prevention, control, and countermeasure rule.--
The term ``Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure
rule'' means the regulation promulgated by the Environmental
Protection Agency under part 112 of title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) and the gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas.
General Leave
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous materials on H.R. 311.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the Farmers Undertake Environmental Land Stewardship
Act--or the FUELS Act--is an important piece of legislation that brings
much-needed relief to the Nation's agricultural community. H.R. 311 is
a bipartisan bill that currently has 73 cosponsors from Members on both
sides of the aisle.
It passed the House unanimously last Congress and again last year as
an amendment to the farm bill. Additionally, this legislation has
gained the support of more than 30 producer organizations, including
every major farm group.
The EPA-mandated SPCC--or Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure--rules requires that oil storage facilities with a
capacity of over 1,320 gallons make costly infrastructure modifications
to reduce the possibility of oil spills.
These mandated infrastructure improvements, along with the necessary
inspection and certification by a specially licensed professional
engineer, would cost farmers tens of thousands of dollars.
The SPCC program dates back to 1973, shortly after the Clean Water
Act was signed into law. In the last decade, it has come down harshly
on agriculture, and the rules have been amended, delayed, and extended
dozens of times, creating enormous confusion in the farming community.
On top of that, the EPA has failed to engage in effective outreach to
producers and cooperatives on SPCC's compliance.
The FUELS Act is simple. It revises the SPCC regulations to be
reflective of a producer's spill risk and their financial resources.
The exemption level would be adjusted upward from an unworkable 1,320
gallons of oil storage to an amount that would protect small farms,
10,000 gallons.
The bill would also place a greater degree of responsibility on
farmers and ranchers to self-certify compliance if their oil storage
facilities exceed their exemption level. To add another layer of
environmental production, the producer must be able to demonstrate that
he or she has no history of oil spills.
The University of Arkansas conducted a study, concluding that this
bill would exempt over 80 percent of producers from SPCC compliance,
saving up to $240 million in costs in Arkansas alone. For the entire
country, it could save small farmers up to $3.36 billion.
The last thing the government should be doing is imposing an
expensive regulatory burden on farming families. There is no scientific
justification for such action, bolstered by the fact that the EPA
cannot provide data or even anecdotal evidence of agricultural spills.
A 2005 USDA report found that more than 99 percent of farms surveyed
haven't experienced a single incident. In fact, one year after this
report was published, EPA endorsed the 10,000-gallon exemption
threshold I am proposing in this bill. Unfortunately, they moved the
goalpost again a few years later.
By the nature of their occupation, family farmers are already very
careful stewards of the land and water. No one has more at stake than
those who work on the ground from which they derive their livelihood.
I urge support of the FUELS Act and our Nation's small farmers.
With that, I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my concern on consideration of H.R.
311. This legislation would inexplicably weaken environmental
safeguards against oil spills for one specific sector of our economy,
American farms.
Under current law, any facility that stores certain quantities of oil
is required to take precautionary steps to prevent the discharge of oil
into U.S. waters. These requirements apply across the board based on
the quantity of oil stored in the facility, which can range from an
industrial facility to a service station to, of course, a farm.
These steps, outlined in the EPA's implementation regulations, known
as the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure--or SPCC--rule,
require facilities put in place appropriate measures to prevent any
spilled oil from entering the water, which can include both the
construction of containment systems or more simplistic measures to
capture small leaks.
The SPCC rule also requires such facilities to have a plan in place
in advance that identifies additional measures to clean up any oil that
might otherwise escape such containment. These provisions generally
have been in place since 1974 and have been in force for farmers since
May 2013.
Since that time, all farmers who fall within the guidelines of the
SPCC rule should now have put in place appropriately scaled
countermeasures based on the size of their facility and the likelihood
of an oil spill reaching U.S. waters; yet H.R. 311 would modify the
existing obligations for farmers to comply with the SPCC rule.
In many instances, H.R. 311 would alleviate existing SPCC obligations
for farmers to develop oil spill contingency plans, especially for
those farmers that store less than 10,000 gallons of oil in above-
ground containers.
In summary, this bill would tell farmers that currently have these
measures in place to stop taking precautionary efforts to prevent
spills.
Why does this legislation make this change? Is it because the oil
stored on farms is less likely to spill or to pollute U.S. waters than
other facilities that store oil? There is no empirical evidence in the
committee record that this is the case.
Is it because the oil stored on farms is any different from oil
stored at other facilities? Again, the answer is likely no.
The stated reason for this legislation is that these safeguards
simply cost too much for American farmers, but the reality is, for many
farmers, many of these costs have already taken place, especially any
capital costs that might have been required for containment structures.
So, in reality, many of the compliance cost concerns expressed in
this bill may well be overstated, as annual compliance costs may now be
reduced simply to cover periodic maintenance.
Mr. Speaker, again, I have concerns with this legislation, and I hope
that, as we continue to work through this issue, we will come up with a
more sensible way of addressing the protection
[[Page H2266]]
of our American farms, as well as the protection of our U.S. waters.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Washington, DC, March 11, 2014.
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative: Today, March 11, the House of
Representatives is scheduled to consider H.R. 311, under
suspension of the rules. This bill would decrease the
oversight of oil storage and safeguards against spills at
locations around the country for one class of facilities
without showing that they are safer than other facilities
with the same volume of oil.
H.R. 311 increases the amount of storage capacity that
triggers various requirements under the spill prevention,
control and countermeasure (SPCC) rules for any ``farm,''
defined as ``a facility on a tract of land devoted to the
production of crops or raising of animals, including fish,
which produced and sold, or normally would have produced and
sold, $1,000 or more of agricultural products during a
year.'' Consequently, more operations will be subject to
weaker requirements or will be exempt altogether, as compared
to the safeguards currently in place.
Oil is no less harmful to waterways and the people and
wildlife that depend on the nation's waters if it happens to
be spilled at an agricultural operation. It is common sense
that any facility located such that a spill could reasonably
reach waterways and cause harm--including agricultural
facilities--should take steps to prevent spills and plan to
respond to those that occur. Coming so soon after the
chemical and coal slurry spills in West Virginia and the coal
ash spill in North Carolina, it is nothing short of
astonishing that Congress would weaken protections that seek
to prevent, plan for, and address spills that could
contaminate drinking water supplies or harm aquatic life.
The changes that H.R. 311 would impose would weaken current
protections enormously. Take for instance the provisions that
exempt facilities from the SPCC requirements; under H.R. 311,
agri-businesses with an ``aggregate aboveground storage
capacity'' of oil of 10,000 gallons or less would be exempt,
compared with 1,320 gallons under current law. That provision
alone is troubling, but the bill is even weaker than it
appears at first blush, as it would also change the threshold
for storage containers that can be ignored in the calculation
of aboveground storage capacity from 55 gallons to 1,320
gallons, so long as a facility has not had a history of
spills. That would allow covered operations to avoid the SPCC
planning and prevention requirements entirely by having an
unlimited number of 1,319-gallon tanks on site.
Agri-business operations already have been given
significant flexibility in meeting the SPCC requirements.
They have had an extended period of time to comply with
changes to the applicable provisions; other facilities have
been subject to these requirements since 2010 or 2011,
whereas agri-businesses with the requisite oil storage
capacity were due to comply in May, 2013. Section 1416 of the
March, 2013 continuing resolution, Public Law 113-6, later
prohibited the use of funds to enforce this requirement until
September, 2013. The rules also provide flexibility in
developing plans for certain operations with smaller storage
volumes and a good history with respect to spills. And EPA
provided for individual extensions of the deadline under some
circumstances. Given that the deadline has now passed for
farms, it is hard to understand what H.R. 311 would
accomplish, aside from allowing newly-exempt operators to
ignore the plans and procedures they have already developed,
and rewarding those facilities that did not comply with the
rules on time.
Congress should not gamble the nation's water resources for
the sake of one industry. Please maintain sensible safeguards
against oil spills and oppose H.R. 311.
Sincerely,
Scott Slesinger,
Legislative Director,
Natural Resources Defense Council.
Mr. CRAWFORD. I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time and
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAWFORD. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlelady for her
comments. I would say that the 10,000-gallon threshold that we have
described here is actually taken right from the EPA.
Up to 2005, they were perfectly comfortable with the 10,000-gallon
threshold, so we are basically saying that we definitely want to work
with the EPA and use the thresholds that they see as viable or that
they did see up to that point.
The other thing is that, in agriculture, it is not a one-size-fits-
all type of a scenario, where there are different scales of production
and different levels of production.
Economies of scale are certainly better equipped and use lots more
fuel on their farm, and so we are trying to implement some guidelines
that do respect the financial resources as well as the size of the
operation.
And, again, there is no empirical evidence that there have been any
kind of spills that would warrant this level of regulation for farmers
and certainly not to the degree that 1,320 gallons calls for, and that
would catch up virtually every farmer in the United States.
What we are trying to do is to implement some common sense into this
in a way that even the EPA has already agreed to in past rules; so I
just would, again, urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this
important legislation. This will be, I believe, in total, the sixth
time that we will have passed this out of the House.
Again, I think this is good commonsense legislation. I urge my
colleagues to join in supporting H.R. 311.
With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Crawford) that the House suspend the rules
and pass the bill, H.R. 311.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the
rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________