[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11359-11360]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 OBJECTION TO CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 872

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I have filed a formal objection to the 
consideration of H.R. 872, a bill to exempt pesticide applications from 
coverage under the Clean Water Act. I rise today to explain the 
reasoning for my opposition to this bill.
  H.R. 872 is based on the notion that the law governing the licensing 
of pesticides provides all the environmental

[[Page 11360]]

safeguards that are necessary. In proponents' view, obtaining a Clean 
Water Act permit would be duplicative. That is incorrect.
  As chairman of the Water and Wildlife Subcommittee of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Committee, I have serious concerns about 
how pesticide pollution is impacting human health, natural resources 
and the economies that depend on them.
  Today, more than 1,800 waterways in the United States are known to be 
impaired because of pesticide pollution. Limited water quality sampling 
suggests the number is actually much higher. In a nationwide study 
conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, more than half of the streams 
sampled had concentrations of at least one pesticide that exceeded a 
guideline for the protection of aquatic life. In California alone, more 
than one in four of the State's waters are officially listed as 
impaired because of pesticide pollution.
  Chesapeake Bay is the most biologically diverse estuary in the 
country and serves as a vital economic resource to the region. One 
recent study found that portions of the bay with higher concentrations 
of pesticide pollution exhibited decreased species diversity and 
reported a ``surprising number'' of such sites in the lower bay. 
Pesticide pollution in the Chesapeake has been linked to fish kills and 
abnormalities. Moreover, extensive samples taken from Chesapeake 
tributaries displayed a range of pesticides and herbicides. Atrazine, 
one of Maryland's most used herbicides, was detected in every water 
sample taken. The active ingredient in atrazine is resistant to natural 
degradation in water and inhibits photosynthesis in plants. The USGS 
found that concentrations of atrazine commonly found in agricultural 
streams and rivers produced reproduction and development abnormalities.
  Pesticides, by their very nature, consist of various toxins. They are 
regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 
Act, FIFRA, to determine if they are generally safe to use. The law is 
not designed to deal with the many real-world instances in which those 
``general'' conditions are not applicable.
  Pesticide pollution can cause severe reproductive and developmental 
harm and even death. Even at levels that allow for the product to be 
registered, pesticides may cause health problems in fish, amphibians 
and other aquatic species. Additionally, pesticide pollution can affect 
human health through contaminated drinking water and bioaccumulation in 
those that eat contaminated fish.
  These pollution levels are the result of massive releases of 
pesticides that are having adverse environmental impacts that go far 
beyond what is regulated under the general application rule in FIFRA. 
We need FIFRA, but we also need the Clean Water Act.
  Approval of a pesticide under FIFRA only requires that the active 
chemical ``will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the 
environment.''
  Clean Water Act permits, on the other hand, are approved based on a 
pesticide's impact on a specific waterway. It takes into account the 
water body specific context including specific uses, such as swimming 
and fishing, and whether significant fish species rely on the waters. 
Additionally, Clean Water Act permits place enforceable limits on the 
amount and type of pollutants that can be discharged.
  FIFRA registration is not an acceptable substitute for water 
discharge permits. The localized impact assessment and enforceable 
discharge limits of Clean Water Act permits are far better equipped to 
address water quality issues than FIFRA's nationwide cost-benefit-based 
assessment. To exempt pesticides from comprehensive regulation would 
unreasonably compromise the quality of our waterways.
  Clearly, the Nation has a problem with pesticide pollution in our 
waters that needs to be addressed. The courts have said so, and 
scientific data reinforce that conclusion. That doesn't mean that every 
backyard application of a weed-killer needs a Clean Water Act permit. 
Providing targeted exemptions of de minimis users of pesticides makes 
good sense. Generally speaking, backyard applicators and local lawn 
care companies should be exempt from coverage. Regulating these users 
would do little to improve water quality and would be an unnecessary 
burden on them. Emergency applications to control mosquito outbreaks 
associated with West Nile virus or a new outbreak of gypsy moth, for 
example, should be allowed. Permits could be obtained after-the-fact in 
these emergency situations without penalty. Agricultural applications 
to land should continue to be exempt. Permits should be easy to obtain 
and impose minimal monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements.
  H.R. 872 simply goes too far, providing blanket exemptions and 
ignoring the real water quality problems that pesticides are causing in 
America's waters today. I support a more balanced approach.
  The Clean Water Act has resulted in tremendous successes in 
preserving and restoring U.S. waterways, but many of our waterways are 
still impaired and require further attention. To categorically exempt 
pesticides from Clean Water Act permitting would be a step backwards in 
our nationwide efforts to ensure our waterways are healthy and safe. We 
can do better.

                          ____________________