Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act (S. 718) is in the Hopper . . .*

I am so sorry to post again so soon.  I know I'm a windbag and all.  However, when something comes up, I've just gotta pass it along.

So I've learned that S. 718, the creatively titled "Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011," is up for a vote in the Senate.  The House version passed back in March. 

The argument for the bill is that it will reduce "redundant" permitting requirements for folks in agriculture.  It is their position that once a farmer is permitted to apply pesticides, the farmer should not then also need a Clean Water permit; in actuality, this situation will only arise in those cases where pesticides are to be applied near or within bodies of water.  Another common argument in favor of "reducing" pesticide permit requirements is that the economy requires it.  I think the Puget Sound folks and the Chesapeake Bay folks would have a different point of view on how the economy is impacted.  (For more on this, please watch "Poisoned Waters" on PBS.  Here's the link:  http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/view/?autoplay
This second link has some great articles on this subject, as well.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/poisonedwaters/safe/
And one more, this time a commentary:
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/mwu/pesticide_industry_bill_would.html

My argument against the bill is consistent with my belief in erring on the side of caution.  This bill does not impose additional restrictions.  It removes them.  This bill is a legislative overturn of a Sixth Circuit Court decision, a decision that said the EPA is obligated under existing laws (the Clean Water Act) to treat pesticides as a pollutant.  I dare anyone to claim that a pesticide is not a pollutant . . . ask the crab farmers in Chesapeake Bay whether it's a pollutant.  Their livelihoods matter, too.


If you are a Michigan resident, please place a call to Senator Debbie Stabenow.  She is the chair of the Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committtee and that's where this bill has spent the last couple of weeks.  Give her a call; speak to an aide.  It's not difficult or scary (I am serious, most of them sound about 13 years old.)  Here are her numbers: 
Upper Peninsula Office: (906) 228-8756
Northern Michigan Office: (231) 929-1031
Flint/Saginaw Bay Office: (810) 720-4172
Southeast Michigan Office: (313) 961-4330
Mid-Michigan Office: (517) 203-1760
Western Michigan Office: (616) 975-0052
Washington, DC Office: (202) 224-4822

Find your senator at http://www.congress.org/.  Place a call.

I know that I gave my "big government" speech last time, but let me just say it again - most regulations feel onerous to those who have to comply with them.  I personally hate having to put my seven-year old in a booster seat, and driving the speed limit is often inconvenient (especially in those dang 25 mph zones) but I don't expect those laws to be repealed.  I expect to either follow them or risk penalties.  I don't think those things make my government "big."  Those things make my government useful to the daughter who wouldn't otherwise be in a booster and the other drivers and pedestrians made safer in the vicinity of my motor vehicle.  Right? 

Lastly . . . who stands to benefit from this law?  Not us.  Not those of us who drink or bathe in water, that is.  When there's a skull-and-crossbones on the label, I really don't want it in my glass.  You?  Just sayin'. 

I already placed my call.

So now it's your turn.  Call 'em.  Go.

*Okay, so technically there's no "hopper" in the Senate.  But . . . it's sorta at that stage.  Thought I'd correct that for all of you government-philes.  :)