Wrong again genius. Read very slowly:
Arguing clean water permit requirements are burdensome, supporters introduced H.R. 872, Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, which reduces existing protections under CWA that are intended to prevent water contamination from pesticide use. Currently, under CWA, pesticide use that contaminates water may only be allowed if a state permit is obtained under the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES). This rule is now being challenged in the House of Representatives with H.R. 872 because the pesticide industry and users prefer the lax protection of water resources under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which creates pesticide labels. If left to FIFRA, most pesticide spraying in and over waterways would ensue without oversight because pesticide labels specify how the pesticide should be used, but more often than not are silent on questions of chemical discharge into water. The key here is that FIFRA provides broad guidance while CWA offers more localized control to protect against pesticide contamination of waterways that is occurring across the country. More on this issue from Beyond Pesticides' http://www.beyondpesticides.org/water/cwaalert.htmhttp://www.cleanwaternetwork.org/issues ... s-act-2011
This legislation would amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to prohibit states or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from requiring additional permits under the Clean Water Act. It would also amend the Clean Water Act (CWA) to exempt discharges of pesticides to waterways from the CWA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.
FIFRA regulates the sale and use of pesticides but does not provide protections tailored to the conditions in specific bodies of water. Relying only on that law would cause a dangerous vacuum in protecting human health and ecosystems. Pesticides discharged into our waterways harm aquatic life and contaminate drinking water supplies. The legislation seeks to undo an important 2009 federal appeals court ruling in National Cotton Council v. U.S. EPA, that found EPA's pesticide permitting under FIFRA insufficiently regulates pesticide users who discharge into waterways. The court ordered EPA to begin issuing permits under the water pollution law by April 9, 2011.
Because of this court decision, EPA has moved forward with a NPDES general permit for pesticides. By issuing a general permit, as opposed to having each individual discharger obtain a permit, EPA can provide timely and efficient coverage and simplify the permitting process for the majority of dischargers while protecting public health and water quality. The court decision provides needed protection for water quality.
STRONGLY OPPOSES! This disastrous bill would pollute our waters with pesticides, which will have dire consequences for public health and the environment. Contrary to claims made by H.R. 872/ S.718 proponents, existing agricultural exemptions in the Clean Water Act will remain. Irrigation return flows and agricultural stormwater runoff will not require NPDES permits, even when they contain pesticides.
This is a bill that will cause irreparable damage to our precious water resources. It will also cost significant resources to clean up the polluted waterways that will inevitably result.
Please explain exactly how the deregulation of pesticides: allowing more pesticides into waterways is going to result in "saving states and business money."
How exactly is this a GOP "jobs bill"?