U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Archives - Page 2 of 2

DPR Scientists Say Most Fresh California Produce Tested Has Little/No Detectable Pesticide Residues

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) announced that once again, the majority of produce it tested annually had little or no detectable pesticide residues and posed no health risk to the public. 95 percent of all California-grown produce, sampled by DPR in 2013, was in compliance with the allowable limits.

“This is a vivid example that California fresh produce is among the safest in the world, when it comes to pesticide exposure,” said DPR Director Brian R. Leahy. “DPR’s scientifically robust monitoring program is an indication that a strong pesticide regulatory program and dedicated growers can deliver produce that consumers can have confidence in.”

DPR tested 3,483 samples of different fruits and vegetables sold in farmers markets, wholesale and retail outlets, and distribution centers statewide. More than 155 different fruits and vegetables were sampled to reflect the dietary needs of California’s diverse population.

Of all 3,483 samples collected in 2013:

43.53 percent of the samples had no pesticide residues detected.
51.51 percent of the samples had residues that were within the legal tolerance levels.
3.99 percent of the samples had illegal residues of pesticides not approved for use on the commodities tested.
0.98 percent of the samples had illegal pesticide residues in excess of established tolerances. A produce item with an illegal residue level does not necessarily indicate a health hazard.

Each piece of fruit or vegetable may legally contain trace amounts of one or more pesticides. The amount and type of pesticide (known as a tolerance), is limited by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. DPR’s Residue Monitoring Program staff carries out random inspections to verify that these limits are not exceeded.

The produce is tested in laboratories using state-of-the-art equipment operated by California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). In 2013, these scientists frequently detected illegal pesticide residues on produce including:

Cactus Pads from Mexico,
Ginger from China,
Snow Peas from Guatemala and
Spinach from the US

Most of the 2013 illegal pesticide residues were found in produce imported from other countries and contained very low levels (a fraction of a part per million). The majority of the time they did not pose a health risk.

One exception occurred in 2013 when DPR discovered Cactus pads, imported from Mexico, that were tainted with an organophosphate-based pesticide. This had the potential to sicken people. DPR worked with the CA. Dept. of Public Health to issue an alert to consumers in February 2014. DPR also worked diligently to remove the entire product it from store shelves and distribution centers. In addition, DPR asked the US Food and Drug Administration to inspect produce at the borders and points of entry to stop shipments into California.

California has been analyzing produce for pesticide residues since 1926 and has developed the most extensive pesticide residue testing program of its kind in the nation. The 2013 pesticide residue monitoring data and previous years are posted at: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/enforce/residue/rsmonmnu.htm

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:27-07:00September 4th, 2014|

Commentary: Proposed EPA ‘waters’ rule hangs farmers out to dry

Source: Don Parrish; Ag Alert

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal to expand the scope of “navigable waters” subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction was drafted, according to the agency, to reduce uncertainty. It’s very clear the proposed waters of the U.S. rule is designed to allow the federal government to regulate every place water flows when it rains, including small and remote “waters” and ephemeral drains and ditches.

We all know that water flows downhill and that at some point, some of that water eventually finds its way into a creek, stream or river. Yet, based on nothing more than the flow of rainwater along a natural pathway across the land, the EPA wants to call vast areas of otherwise dry land “tributaries” and therefore “navigable waters.”

With its proposal to regulate land that is dry most of the year and miles from the nearest truly navigable water, EPA is putting farmers in a tenuous position. EPA and other supporters of the proposed rule have made much of a long-standing exemption for agriculture, and claim that it still stands; however, the proposed rule narrows that exemption and opens it up to litigation. The “normal farming and ranching” exemption only applies to a specific type of Clean Water Act permit for “dredge and fill” materials. There is also no farm or ranch exemption from Clean Water Act permit requirements for what EPA would call “pollutants.”

Ultimately, the new permitting requirements that would come with this proposal would mean that common farm activities could trigger Clean Water Act liability and the need for Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits if pollutants could incidentally be deposited into ditches, ephemerals and other features that will now fall under federal jurisdiction.

At the same time EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are telling farmers and ranchers they’re got nothing to worry about because the exemption puts them in the clear, the agency is moving forward with a guidance document that will govern how it interprets the “normal farming” exemption contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

This interpretive rule makes fundamental changes in how the exemption for normal agricultural activities at “established” farms will be applied and enforced. Contrary to assertions by proponents, this interpretive rule narrows how the exemption is applied and increases farmers’ liability by requiring that farmers comply with Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation standards, which were previously voluntary, in order to be exempt from Section 404 permitting.

Like the proposed waters of the U.S. rule, the interpretive rule conflicts with congressional intent. In 1977, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to exempt “normal” farming, ranching and silviculture from Section 404 “dredge and fill” permit requirements. However, EPA and the Corps are now asserting that farmers are exempt from Section 404 permits so long as any of 56 listed practices comply with NRCS standards, despite the fact that those practices have qualified as the “normal” farming, ranching and silviculture activities for 37 years.

The newly proposed interpretation of “normal farming and ranching” would apply only to farms and ranches that EPA determines to be “established” and “ongoing”—not newer or expanded farms and ranches. Where does this leave the children and grandchildren of farmers and ranchers who want to work the land but need to grow the operation to support an expanding family? What does this mean for the billions of people who will need to be fed in the future?

Worried about the answers to those questions and the many threats the proposed rule poses to agriculture, the American Farm Bureau Federation launched a website at ditchtherule.fb.org to help farmers, ranchers, landowners and others express the need for EPA to “Ditch the Rule.” Focused on topics and analysis related to the proposed rule, the site includes several sections: Take Action, Go Social, Find Answers and Get Resources. We encourage you to visit the site, sign up to learn more, comment on the proposed rule and send tweets using the hashtag #DitchTheRule. You should also voice your concerns to your state and local officials and your U.S. representative and senators.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 15th, 2014|

Debate Heats up on Proposed EPA Water-Quality Rule

Source: Kate Campbell; Ag Alert

Discussion has intensified about proposed changes to the Federal Clean Water Act. As farmers and ranchers express increasing concern about enhanced permitting requirements, land-use restrictions and legal liability that the proposal could cause, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched its own campaign to defend the proposal.

Agricultural leaders want the EPA to scrap the proposed rule changes, terming them a poorly orchestrated attempt to expand agency jurisdiction. The proposed rule was published in April, and remains open to public comment until October.

County Farm Bureaus in California are joining the national push to have the proposed rule changes withdrawn, reaching out to members of the state’s congressional delegation and urging the proposal be stopped.

Meanwhile, the EPA called its proposals merely an effort to clarify regulatory jurisdiction, which was called for in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that ruled against the agency’s attempt to expand its jurisdiction over “waters of the United States.” EPA said the proposed rule would have minimal economic impact and would not affect many acres—only about 1,300 acres nationwide.

The American Farm Bureau Federation called that assertion “laughable,” considering the amount of land nationwide that has the capacity to retain seasonal moisture, a condition covered by the proposed rule. Under the proposal, legal experts say, wet spots could be deemed “waters of the U.S.”

AFBF said the EPA effort to expand its jurisdictional authority over most types of waters and lands is regulatory overreach that has the potential to impose costly and time-consuming federal permit requirements, as well as place limits on routine farming practices, such as building a fence across a ditch or pulling weeds. Essentially, EPA has proposed regulations that fundamentally redefine “waters of the U.S.” and eliminate the term “navigable” from the law, AFBF said.

“We’re urging Congress to take a look at the proposed rules and we’re urging the agency to withdraw both of them,” California Farm Bureau Federation Federal Policy Manager Rayne Pegg said, referring to both the main EPA proposal redefining “waters of the U.S.” and an “interpretive rule” that focuses on agricultural activities.

Pegg stressed that farmers recognize the need to protect water quality, and already abide by a number of water-quality regulations.

“Adding another layer of regulation does not mean you will get better results,” she said. “Instead, the rule will create more paperwork. It’s a poorly conceived rule. EPA should meet with farmers and listen to its own Scientific Advisory Board to craft something that is practical.”

There are a number of things going on in Congress right now related to these rules, she said, and CFBF has been responding to questions from members of congressional committees—including the House Appropriations Committee, which is considering legislation to remove funding for implementation of the proposed waters of the U.S. rule.

In response to the uproar over the proposal, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy took to the road last week—touring a Missouri farm and meeting with a number of Kansas farm groups. She acknowledged during a lunch discussion with agricultural leaders the waters of the U.S. proposal has “fallen flat on its face.”

But during a speech in Kansas City, she charged that the EPA proposal has been beset by “D.C. myths.”

“Misinformation is becoming the story, while the legitimate, serious issues that we need to talk about are taking the back seat,” McCarthy said.

At the same time McCarthy visited the Midwest, the Natural Resources Defense Council—an environmental organization—took out advertisements supporting the EPA proposal.

Confusion about what the proposed rule may actually cover and conflicting interpretations of the rule changes may leave political leaders with the impression the proposal is benign and that farmers don’t need to worry, said CFBF associate counsel Kari Fisher.

“EPA would like political leaders and the public to believe that all farmers need to do is go ahead with normal farming practices and not worry about the proposed changes,” she said. “Unfortunately, that’s incorrect.”

Fisher said the interpretive rule on agriculture would require certain farming practices—such as putting in a new fence or maintaining a ditch—to comply with U.S. Department of Agriculture standards administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. She noted that the interpretive rule would apply only to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which covers dredging and infilling land that could affect wetlands.

But the proposed rule to expand the definition of “navigable waters” applies to the entire Clean Water Act, she said, and would expand EPA jurisdiction over water.

“If the proposed rule redefining waters of the U.S. is adopted, farmers with land that features a depression or low spot that’s adjacent to a tributary flowing to navigable water could be brought under the rule’s jurisdiction,” Fisher said.

Although the interpretive rule might provide a limited layer of protection for farming and ranching activities from the need to obtain Section 404 permits, she said, “it will not provide protection from other necessary Clean Water Act permits, such as those for the discharge of pollutants.”

Farm Bureau leaders continue to urge members to help prevent the proposed rule from becoming final by commenting about the impact the proposal would have on their farms and ranches.

Information from EPA on the proposed changes to the CWA can be found online at www2.epa.gov/uswaters. Background information on the issue from AFBF is online at http://ditchtherule.fb.org/.

For information on arranging local farm tours, grower roundtables and informational meetings with members and staff of California’s congressional delegation, contact county Farm Bureau offices or the CFBF Federal Policy Division at 916-561-5610.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-08-03T21:07:42-07:00July 18th, 2014|

Commentary: Cutting Regulations Would Stimulate the U.S. Economy

OpEd by Stewart Truelsen; Ag Alert

Billionaires don’t always say the smartest things, but one of them has a smart idea. At the Forbes Reinventing America Summit, billionaire real estate developer Sam Zell said, “If you want to see the economy go wild, just cut all the regulations in half.”

Zell is known for his contrarian views and more often than not has been a successful investor. Cutting regulations is certainly contrary to what generally takes place in Washington. Regulations, especially environmental regulations, just keep piling up and up.

“We’re in a society where we think all risk can be regulated out,” Zell said. “There are just unending interpretations, revisions, legal fees to the sky—when you’re focused on that, you’re not focused on growing and getting new customers.”

Farmers know that feeling all too well. When they should be focused on growing this season’s crops and tending livestock, their attention is diverted by the Environmental Protection Agency “waters of the U.S.” proposed rule.

The rule broadens federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and could extend permit requirements to ditches, small ponds and even depressions in fields that are only wet during a heavy rain. Farms, ranches, businesses and new construction could be affected.

EPA claims the proposed rule is a clarification of which waters fall under its jurisdiction. But in tracing the history of major regulatory acts like the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act, the words that stand out on the EPA’s own timeline are “expanded,” “increased,” “authorized” and “established.”

The Office of Management and Budget reviews pending federal regulations, and it comes as no surprise that EPA has the most regulatory activities under review at the present time.

It is only a natural tendency for federal regulatory agencies to extend their reach by adding more and more regulations to the laws that Congress writes. The last president who really tried to stop them and tackle regulatory overkill was Ronald Reagan.

A reduction in regulations was one of the major policy objectives of his 1981 economic recovery program. Deregulation was applied primarily to regulations that restricted economic activity, like price controls on oil and natural gas.

Every administration since Reagan’s, including the Obama administration, has expressed a desire for regulatory reform, but the results have been slow to materialize. Cost-benefit analysis is done on only a fraction of new regulations.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute estimates the annual cost of regulations to be about $1.8 trillion.

On a household basis, regulations cost more than every budget item except housing; that’s more than health care, food, transportation, etc. Cutting regulations in half, as Zell suggests, would indeed cause the economy to go wild.

There are alternatives to regulations that can get the same or better results. The American Farm Bureau Federation advocates market-based solutions and incentives as preferable to government mandates. Incentives have proved successful with conservation efforts. Regulation can also be accomplished without the government through competition, reputation, contracts, insurance and other means.

Sam Zell probably won’t get his wish, but he is correct about the need to throttle back government regulations. They are stifling innovation and economic growth.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:35:23-07:00June 23rd, 2014|

Pressure Builds Against EPA Water Proposal

By: Kate Campbell; Ag Alert

Proposed changes to the federal Clean Water Act have roiled farmers across the nation and created an uproar among many other water users—including cities and counties with parks and recreation areas, golf courses and local water agencies.

If adopted, the proposed rule changes would expand the definition of “waters of the United States” to potentially allow federal agencies to regulate virtually every area of ground in the nation that gets wet or has flow during rainfall.

California Farm Bureau Federation leaders were in Washington, D.C., in mid-May to explain to lawmakers face to face the damage the proposed changes could have on food production. They called for more time to review and comment on the proposal.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said last week it will extend the comment deadline on the proposed rule, allowing farmers, ranchers and other interested stakeholders more time—until Oct. 20—to comment on its proposed redefinition of waters of the U.S. The extension adds almost three additional months to the comment period, which had been scheduled to end July 21.

Comment on a companion interpretive rule governing agricultural exemptions that accompanied the waters of the U.S. rule also will be extended—from June 5 to July 7.

The Clean Water Act was signed into law in 1972 to protect the nation’s “navigable” waters from pollution. The current proposal to amend the act would greatly expand EPA’s regulatory powers. Farm policy experts say Congress gave states, not the EPA, primary responsibility for land use oversight.

Farm Bureau, together with dozens of other business groups, is protesting the proposed changes.

Farmers and ranchers say the proposal would expand regulatory authority to many common land features including puddles, ponds, ditches, and temporary and small wetlands. The proposal would give federal agencies power to regulate and potentially prohibit many common land-use and farming practices on or near privately owned land.

Solano County hay and forage farmer Sean Favero said the proposed rule change gives him serious cause for concern. Fields where he plants alfalfa, wheat and triticale can retain seasonal moisture in low spots, which under the proposed changes could trigger additional permits and fees, including prohibitions against planting at all.

These are naturally occurring land contours that don’t connect to streams or other bodies of water, he said, adding that he’s concerned about regulations made thousands of miles away by people who don’t know what’s going on at ground level that could further complicate or prevent him from farming. Favero made those points as part of the CFBF federal policy delegation to Washington.

“Judging by the amount of interest from legislators in what we had to say about the proposed changes to the Clean Water Act, I’d like to think our office visits had something to do with the extension announced last week,” Favero said.

CFBF Federal Policy Division consultant Erin Huston said extension of the comment periods “allows us more time to flesh out our objections and explain how the proposal sits on top of the regulatory layers California already has to protect water quality.”

The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held a hearing last week on the proposed changes, and the House Agriculture Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing this week on the possibility of an agricultural exemption under the proposed rule changes, Huston said.

“That hearing will address our concerns about how the proposed rule would specifically tie in with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s voluntary conservation practices established by farmers and ranchers through the Natural Resources Conservation Service,” she said.

“We spent a lot of time talking to legislators while we were in Washington and I felt they listened closely to what we had to say,” said Kris Gutierrez, partner in a San Joaquin County vineyard management company and a participant in the CFBF Washington trip. “I believe we got our points across and appreciate the thoughtfulness of our lawmakers.”

American Farm Bureau leaders said the EPA has “misrepresented” its proposed rule changes and downplayed impacts on land use.

“If more people knew how regulators want to require permits for common activities on dry land, or penalize landowners for not getting them, they would be outraged,” AFBF President Bob Stallman said, noting that the proposal “broadly expands federal jurisdiction and threatens local land-use and zoning authority.”

Stallman described the EPA proposal as “an end-run around Congress and the Supreme Court.”

The proposal to regulate everyday farming practices isn’t just impractical, it’s illegal, Stallman told the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment last week.

The EPA has said farmers would face less regulation under its proposal. In response, Stallman said the rule would micromanage farming via newly mandated procedures for fencing, spraying, weeding and more. Obtaining permits, meanwhile, could delay time-sensitive tasks for months, potentially ruining crops in the process.

“EPA is deliberately misleading the regulated community about the impacts on land use,” Stallman said.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:35:23-07:00June 20th, 2014|

Clean Water Act: Farm Bureau Takes Its Case to Head of EPA

Source: Christine Souza; Ag Alert

As momentum builds encouraging federal agencies to abandon a proposal to expand their enforcement authority under the Clean Water Act, California Farm Bureau Federation leaders met with the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, urging her to see firsthand the impact the proposal would have on family farmers and ranchers.

During an annual federal policy trip to Washington, D.C., last week, a Farm Bureau delegation met with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, whose agency—along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—proposed the rule changes last month.

The proposal would expand the definition of the term “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, potentially allowing EPA and the Corps to regulate virtually every area of ground that gets wet or has flow during rainfall.

The change would expand regulatory authority to many land features including puddles, ponds, ditches, temporary and small wetlands, giving the agencies the power to regulate and potentially prohibit land-use and farming practices in or near them.

During her meeting with the Farm Bureau delegation, McCarthy said she is interested in understanding the concerns of agriculture and that she would like to maintain an open dialogue with those who would be affected by the proposed rule.

CFBF President Paul Wenger suggested to McCarthy that EPA officials take time to tour California farms and ranches, perhaps tying in the visits with a planned EPA outreach meeting on the proposed rule, tentatively scheduled for mid-July in Berkeley.

“We think it’s critical that people from the EPA see for themselves how this rule could hamstring routine farming and ranching activities,” Wenger said after the meeting. “We appreciate Administrator McCarthy taking the time to visit with us in Washington to hear directly from people who would be affected by the rule, and having EPA officials visit farms and ranches would provide them with information that no amount of written or verbal comments could provide.”

Aimee Meidinger, operations manager of Brokaw Nursery in Ventura, said the expanded definition of waters of the U.S. “could affect our ability and decisions to farm on my family’s avocado orchard. The definition of navigable waters is being changed to encompass almost all areas where water settles, regardless if they are seasonally wet or not.”

Farmers in California are very proactive in working with the current Clean Water Act regulations, Meidinger said, through use of irrigated-lands groups, surface and groundwater monitoring, pesticide use reporting and continuing education.

“We are good stewards of the land,” Meidinger said. “This proposal cannot be a one-size-fits-all national policy.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:35:29-07:00May 31st, 2014|

EPA Scientist Receives Award for Pesticide Risk Model

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) TODAY honored Dr. Steven Thomas Purucker as a recipient of the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government to science and engineering professionals in the early stages of their independent research careers.

“Congratulations to Dr. Purucker for receiving this prestigious award,” said Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “EPA is honored to have dedicated scientists, like Dr. Purucker, who devote their careers to protecting human health and the environment. Dr. Purucker is not only conducting innovative research, but he is also providing the tools and information we need to turn the vision of a healthy environment into a reality for all Americans.”

Dr. Purucker is a research ecologist in EPA’s National Exposure Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia. He received the PECASE award for his exceptional innovation and initiative in creating modeling applications that help decision-makers and scientists conduct chemical risk assessments that are important for protecting human health and the environment. His research involves updating mathematical models that are used to predict environmental exposures and effects.

These models are relied on as part of EPA’s pesticide registration process, which must be completed before a pesticide can be sold or distributed in the U.S. Dr. Purucker and his colleagues have been modernizing these models, including some that were initially developed in the 1980s. Dr. Purucker’s lab has updated many of these models, which are stored in the “cloud” and can be easily accessed and executed from a web browser.

This decision support “dashboard” accepts chemical properties, pesticide use information, ecosystem exposure data, relevant geographic information, and effects levels as input to estimate risks to water and land environments.

Dr. Purucker is also collaborating with other scientists at EPA’s lab in Athens to conduct applied research on amphibian exposures, working in the lab and field to characterize pesticide transfer rates across the dermis layer of skin and the subsequent impacts on amphibian metabolism.

Dr. Purucker has a Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and a B.A. in Zoology from the University of Tennessee. He joins 101 researchers across the federal government who are also receiving PECASE awards this year. The awards, established by President Clinton in 1996, are coordinated by the Office of Science and Technology Policy within the Executive Office of the President.

Awardees are selected for their pursuit of innovative research at the frontiers of science and technology and their commitment to community service as demonstrated through scientific leadership, public education, or community outreach.

More information can be found at EPA’s Office of Research and Development and White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:02-07:00April 14th, 2014|

Previous 12