“The happiest person in this country cannot help breathing in smokers’ cigarette fumes, auto exhaust, and airborne chemical dust, nor avoid drinking the water, and eating the food. The idea that happiness can insulate us against the results of our environmental madness is a rumor circulated by our enemies to destroy us.”

Audre Lorde, The Cancer Journals^[2]

Introduction

Pesticide poisonings cause untold human suffering across generations. Uncontrolled agricultural pesticide use hurts farmworkers and their families, contaminates groundwater, and destroys wildlife. Agricultural chemical poisonings are so commonplace that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has released six editions of a manual called Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings.^[3] Pesticide poisonings have persistent health effects and acute poisonings can cause serious illness and death.^[4] Even chronic, low-level exposure to pesticides over time causes long-term illness.^[5] The effects of workplace pesticide exposure are horrifying, with life-altering, chronic health consequences for farmworkers. Neurological effects, neurodevelopmental abnormalities in children, cancer, multiple organ failure, reproductive damage, asthma, and skin disease are all associated with pesticide exposure.^[6] Limited, ineffective enforcement of existing pesticide regulation leads to these agricultural poisonings of farmworkers. Farmworking, which the book The Human Cost of Food: Farmworkers’ Lives, Labor, and Advocacy called “the single worst profession,” is rife with holes when it comes to protecting workers.^[7] Farmworkers lack both typical wage and hour labor protections and are exposed to industry-specific hazards like agricultural chemicals that can have profound negative health effects.^[8] How can legislators reduce pesticide poisonings and the human and environmental suffering they cause?

The 2023 or 2024 Farm Bill, a massive piece of renewing federal bipartisan agricultural legislation, provides a unique opportunity to update, solidify, and enforce pesticide control mechanisms. Farm Bills are a comprehensive and powerful method of regulating the enormous agricultural industry by setting farm and food policy for the subsequent five years. Congress is currently in the reauthorization phase where the new bill is being debated and written.^[9] The programs authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill expire in 2023 and 2024.^[10] As of the writing of this Note, Congress has already begun debating and drafting the 2023 Farm Bill.

The Farm Bill is typically a bipartisan effort with consistent strong support from both major political parties.^[11] It is also wide in scope, allowing for the addition of stricter environmental protection without venturing too far from recurring contents of the bill. The Farm Bill is an enormous “omnibus” bill with significant power and financial resources dedicated to its implementation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”).^[12] The Farm Bill gives Congress the avenue to choose the programs and funding for the next five years of agriculture and nutrition programs. Farm Bills in the last fifty years have evolved from only providing traditional commodity programs to adding a variety of agriculture-related initiatives, including conservation programs.^[13] Past Farm Bills had a “Conservation” Title focused on environmental protection, which should be expanded in 2023 to include tighter restrictions on the use of agricultural chemicals.^[14] Regulating pesticide use is vital for reducing nationwide pollution and conserving natural resources. The Conservation Title in the upcoming 2023 Farm Bill provides an important opportunity to do just that.

The Farm Bill is an effective avenue to drive reforms in pesticide regulation because it drives the agricultural production of the United States as the ongoing legislation “evolves to meet the needs of its modern-day constituents.”^[15] As consumers become more environmentally conscious, it is reasonable for the new Farm Bill to reflect their priorities. Additionally, because the Farm Bill is typically renewed every five years, adding pesticide control provisions is a way to have an ongoing, flexible framework for regulation of agricultural chemicals.^[16] Expanding the Conservation Title to include pesticide reforms could potentially be replicated in future Farm Bills, creating a long-term pesticide regulation and enforcement strategy. Pesticide misuse impacts more than just those directly working in agriculture, because we all breathe the air and drink the water that is polluted by excess runoff pesticides. If added to the upcoming Farm Bill, pesticide regulation would not be the lone new environmental protection provision: there is existing discussion about a climate change addition to the next iteration of the Conservation Title.^[17] The Biden administration has made climate change a federal priority, making it “likely that the new Farm Bill will focus on such efforts.”^[18] Anyone who eats food should care about the Farm Bill. It is the primary agricultural omnibus legislation in the United States, and it has a vast amount of money and resources dedicated to it.

This Note will discuss the inclusion of pesticide regulation and enforcement language in the Conservation Title of the upcoming Farm Bill. This Note begins by providing a background on the history of the Farm Bill, from its inception to its current form. It will analyze existing Conservation Titles from previous Farm Bills. Part II surveys the current enforcement of federal pesticide legislation, including existing statutory and regulatory methods. It analyzes gaps in enforcement and areas for improvement. Part III of the Note presents draft concepts to be added to the 2023 Conservation Title and speaks to their relevance to environmental protection. Finally, the Note suggests increased enforcement through existing Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”) infrastructure. This would move enforcement responsibilities away from the USDA, which could then focus its resources on implementation. By reassigning enforcement of increased pesticide standards, federal agencies will be able to develop clear areas of responsibility and enforcement priorities, furthering the government’s efficacy in reaching its goals of worker and environment protections.

 

I. Background of the Farm Bill and Past Conservation Titles

In May 2021, a study by the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future interviewed pregnant farmworkers who had been exposed to pesticides while working in the California strawberry industry.^[19] One woman interviewed told the researchers:

[They said] that we are notified when [pesticides] are sprayed, but they’ve never taken us into account. We cannot afford more cancer in our communities, we cannot afford women having abortions that they did not plan for. We cannot afford the risk of having newborn children born without hands, legs, [a] backbone [or] without [a] brain. I have seen many of those cases in my life. We don’t believe any amount of money should be bigger or more important than having safety and security in our communities and in the fields that we work.^[20]

An estimated 2.4 million farmworkers, mostly immigrant men and women from Mexico and Central America, work in substandard conditions for an average of between $20,000 and $24,499 per year.^[21] Agricultural labor is exempt from many of the regulations and protections that are mandatory in other industries, often referred to as “agricultural exceptionalism.”^[22] The Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), which provides wage and hour protections for most workers, exempts most farmworkers from overtime pay regardless of farm size.^[23] The National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), the primary federal law guaranteeing collective bargaining rights, also excludes agricultural workers, effectively eliminating their right to collective bargaining.^[24] Farmworkers commonly do not qualify for workers’ compensation if they are injured on the job, which is particularly concerning in such a dangerous industry.^[25] Farmworkers are uniquely disenfranchised laborers, who sit at the crossroads of intersecting but disorganized immigration, labor, and agricultural policies. Nowhere is this disenfranchisement clearer than in the use of pesticides and agricultural chemicals. The use of these powerful, dangerous chemicals is characterized by poor enforcement, long-term illness, and environmental degradation. Regulators and employers “fail to provide protection or address systemic problems that make workers vulnerable to sickness” while simultaneously endangering watersheds and natural areas.^[26]

A. History of the Farm Bill

The first Farm Bill was a New Deal program passed in 1933 to combat the drop in crop prices after the first World War, the Great Depression, and the destruction caused by the Dust Bowl.^[27] It included provisions to reduce surplus crops and increase crop prices, intended to achieve a fair exchange value for agricultural products.^[28] The 1973 Farm Bill added a “Nutrition” Title and is considered the first of the “omnibus” Bills.^[29] The 1973 Bill expanded the policy area of the Farm Bill beyond basic farm support and insurance to other areas important to the agricultural sector.^[30] As the Farm Bill transformed into a massive omnibus, bipartisan piece of recurring legislation, a broader range of stakeholders entered the negotiation process.^[31] Modern ideas about environmental protection have prompted environmental groups to take interest in the Farm Bill process.^[32] The Farm Bill has increasingly “brought more and more stakeholders to the discussion, including national farm groups, commodity associations, state organizations, nutrition and public health officials, and a variety of advocacy groups for conservation, recreation, rural development, local food systems, and certified organic production.”^[33]

The Farm Bill is an opportunity for Congress to choose what programmatic and financial support to provide for agriculture and nutrition programs, and how to allocate the support among competing groups and program areas across the country.^[34] As national and regional priorities changed, the Farm Bill programs had both large policy shifts and small improvements to established programs.^[35] “Price control and other forms of support for farmers” were the initial goals of the first series of Farm Bills.^[36] Early Farm Bills also had conservation-motivated programs, although they did not include separate Conservation Titles.^[37] The second Farm Bill in 1938 incorporated two existing laws designed to address soil erosion, which caused an ecological crisis during the Dust Bowl.^[38] Farmers were compensated for planting “soil-supporting” anti-erosion crops, foreshadowing future crop subsidies and conservation incentives in future Bills.^[39]

What is colloquially known as the “Farm Bill” is really “an authorization of mandatory and discretionary spending bills appropriated to provide assistance related to food and farms” with a broad reach beyond traditional crop programs.^[40] The Farm Bill is a massive law and set of programs that provide an opportunity for Congress to consistently and comprehensively set agriculture and food policy. Past Farm Bills have typically been renewed approximately every five years, although this is not compulsory.^[41] Among many other programs, the 2018 Farm Bill renewed existing conservation programs and extended congressional authority to appropriate funds for many USDA discretionary programs through the end of fiscal year 2023.^[42] As the clock ticks on the 2018 Farm Bill, environmental and human rights advocates need to find ways to increase enforcement beyond current OSHA regulations.

B. OSHA Enforcement

OSHA is a part of the Department of Labor that was created in 1970 by the passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.^[43] OSHA exists to protect the health and safety of workers “by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, education and assistance” for workers and employers.^[44] The Occupational Safety and Health Act applies to most private sector employers and workers and some public sector workers.^[45] OSHA regulates farm work and attempts to mitigate the “numerous safety, health, environmental, biological, and respiratory hazards” present in agricultural work, including pesticide exposure.^[46] OSHA acknowledges the short and long-term risks of working with pesticides for the farmworkers themselves, along with the risk of “take-home contamination” for their families.^[47]

OSHA divides workers who use pesticides into two categories: pesticide handlers and agricultural workers.^[48] Pesticide handlers are the workers who directly apply pesticide, or work with the equipment used to apply it.^[49] Agricultural workers perform the cultivation and harvesting of plants, which includes any associated tasks like repotting and watering.^[50] Notably, for the purpose of OSHA oversight, an office worker, driver, mechanic, and anyone else not engaged in handling, cultivation, or harvesting activities does not qualify as an agricultural worker.^[51] OSHA standards around pesticides are focused on hazard communication and labeling of dangerous chemicals.^[52] OSHA requires agricultural chemicals to be correctly labeled to ensure farmworkers know both the identity and hazards of the chemicals they are using in the workplace^[53] Additionally, OSHA provides information about hazard communication in the workplace and about OSHA standards that address hazard communication.^[54]

Because the health effects of pesticide poisonings are so dire, Congress must enact protections beyond the current OSHA standards. The existing regulatory scheme leaves out important groups of workers, and does not account for environmental runoff, chemical spread into the local community, or secondary exposure to farmworkers’ families.

C. Farm Bill Funding

Farm Bills authorize program funding in mandatory and discretionary spending categories, with mandatory programs typically dominating political debates around the bill.^[55] Mandatory programs generally operate as entitlements with funding based on multi-year budget estimates.^[56] In contrast, discretionary programs are not funded via the Farm Bill and their funding must be approved by a separate act of Congress.^[57] The Farm Bill is enormous, and not cheap: When the 2018 Bill was enacted in December 2018, the Congressional Budget Office (“CBO”) estimated that the total cost of the mandatory programs would be $682 billion over the bill’s five-year duration.^[58] Four Titles (Nutrition, Commodities, Crop Insurance, and Conservation) accounted for ninety-nine percent of mandatory spending in the 2018 Farm Bill.^[59] Conservation’s mandatory spending was a fraction of the Nutrition spending.^[60] CBO’s estimated budget report for the 2023 Farm Bill is scheduled for early 2023. ^[61] Until this report is released, the existing May 2022 CBO report is the best indicator of future funding availability for the 2023 Farm Bill.^[62] The May 2022 report anticipates similar proportions to the 2018 Farm Bill, with a sizeable bump to Nutrition reflecting pandemic assistance.^[63] Conservation is expected to cost roughly $59 million again, reflecting no change from the 2018 bill.^[64]

D. Conservation Titles

The Conservation Title has evolved over the history of the Farm Bill. The second Farm Bill in 1938 incentivized farmers to conserve arable land; the 1977 Act had the first Rural Development and Conservation Titles; the 1981 Act created the Resource Conservation Title; and the 1985 Act emphasized wetland preservation and preventing soil erosion.^[65] Conservation Titles have remained a fixture in Farm Bills since these developments in the 1980s.^[66] Recent Farm Bills have addressed conservation through a wide variety of program areas, including climate change, renewable energy, and forestry.^[67] For example, the Horticulture Title in the 2018 Farm Bill included provisions on chemical regulation and information collection.^[68] Additionally, the Energy Title in the 2018 Farm Bill included multiple provisions governing renewable energy production and use in agriculture.^[69]

The 2018 Farm Bill contained twelve Titles, including another Conservation Title.^[70] The 2018 Conservation Title (Title II, Conservation) encourages environmental protection of farmlands and improves land management through land retirement programs and working lands programs.^[71] The 2018 Title continued all major conservation programs from the previous Farm Bill, with some modifications.^[72] Programs are included under the Conservation Title if they represent the intersection between agriculture and environmental protection and are intended to “implement natural resource conservation efforts on working lands like pasture and cropland as well as land retirement and easement programs.”^[73] For example, the 2018 Title includes typical national environmental protection topics like wetland conservation, conservation stewardship programs, watershed protection, and earmarked funds for environmental emergencies.^[74] The 2018 Title also included more specific provisions geared towards regional problems—for example, a feral swine eradication and control pilot program, which aimed to “respond to the threat feral swine pose[s] to agriculture, native ecosystems, and human and animal health.”^[75]

The Conservation Title is subdivided by issue area into eight “subtitles” which are further split into “sections.”^[76] Subtitle D, “Other Conservation Programs,” functions as a catch-all provision for introductory, new, or nontraditional conservation initiatives like watershed and private grazing land provisions.^[77] Due to its broad nature, subtitle D is well-suited to the addition of a pesticide-control section.

The 2018 Conservation Title strengthened and expanded support for agricultural producers who adopted conservation-friendly practices and broadened environmental quality, conservation stewardship, and regional conservation programs.^[78] Additionally, the expanded programs ensure that voluntary conservation programs “balance farm productivity with conservation benefits” so the most fertile and productive lands remain in production while at-risk land is retired for conservation purposes.^[79] The 2018 Conservation Title was broad in its application and supported conservation programs that provided financial assistance for improved soil health, water quality, and air quality.^[80] The Conservation Stewardship portion of the Title includes specific support for organic and transitioning to organic production activities, which helps farmers to divest from pesticide use.^[81] For fiscal year 2020 (October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020) fifty-three percent of funds went towards working lands, thirty-nine percent towards land retirement, six percent towards easements, and two percent towards partnership and grant programs.^[82] Agricultural lands using pesticides, which function as essential working lands, are well-suited for regulation through the Conservation Title.

E. Horticulture Titles

Title X of the 2018 Farm Bill, entitled Horticulture, addresses “specialty crop and organic farming operations with provisions that provide trade promotion and risk management assistance that is comparable to those delivered in Title I for traditional staple crops.”^[83] The Horticulture Title is fairly new, first appearing in the 2008 Farm Bill.^[84] It has evolved since then, and Horticulture Title funding for pest control, disease management, and disaster prevention was increased in the 2014 Farm Bill.^[85] Support for specialty and organic crops is not limited to the Horticulture Title. It is also contained within other Farm Bill Titles, covering a range of programs administered by the USDA including USDA Organic certification.^[86] USDA Organic is a designation of agricultural products labeled as grown and processed per USDA Regulations, which is verified by a USDA-accredited certifying agent.^[87] The Horticulture Title of the 2018 Farm Bill addressed “perceived shortcomings in USDA’s organic certification” by including enhanced enforcement and funding for technology upgrades.^[88]

The Horticulture Title is divided into sixteen issue areas.^[89] The Horticulture Title has been the traditional home of programs governing agriculture, crops, organic farming, and pesticide use. The 2018 Horticulture Title includes sections on organic production and market data initiatives, organic certification, the national organic certification cost-share program, a multiple crop and pesticide use survey, and a Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”) interagency working group.^[90] The 2018 Horticultural Title included the novel new Section 10113, “Hemp production,” which allows states and tribes to submit a plan to the USDA, via the State Department of Agriculture, which would give states and tribes primary regulatory authority over the production of hemp.^[91] The hemp production programmatic framework provides a blueprint for a new vision of pesticide control, which combines the crop and pesticide focus of the Horticulture Title with the history, tradition, and priority of the Conservation Title.

The 2018 Horticulture Title Section 10109, “Multiple crop and pesticide use survey,” requires the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct a pesticide use survey of farmers to collect data used for risk assessment modeling which must be submitted to the EPA and available to the public.^[92] This survey has allocated $500,000 in mandatory funding per year from 2019–2024.^[93] While it is good for the Farm Bill to begin moving more responsibility for information gathering and monitoring of pesticide use to federal agencies besides the USDA, this solution is limited. Simply monitoring pesticide use does not protect workers from harm or enforce responsible use. There is a need for a change, including a more comprehensive enforcement mechanism in the larger Conservation Title.

II. Existing Pesticide Legislation

The 2018 Horticulture Title makes the most substantial changes to existing pesticide legislation by adding regulatory language to FIFRA (7 U.S.C. 13a(c)).^[94] FIFRA is the primary federal law governing the registration, distribution, sale, disposal, and use of pesticides in the United States.^[95] Originally established in 1947, FIFRA was managed by the USDA and focused on labeling pesticides with the goal of protecting farmers.^[96] When the EPA was formed in 1970, it became responsible for FIFRA.^[97] Today, FIFRA’s main objective according to the EPA is “to ensure that, when applied as instructed, pesticides will not generally cause unreasonable risk to human health or the environment.”^[98] FIFRA requires federal facilities to sell or distribute pesticides following strict guidelines in Section 12 of FIFRA, adhere to pesticide labeling instructions, abide by experimental use permits, and dispose of residues and waste per FIFRA procedures.^[99] In facilities where pesticides are either produced, sold or distributed, FIFRA requires producers to allow entry, inspection, copying of records, or sampling by federal inspectors.^[100]

Currently, pesticide protections for workers are governed by the EPA via the 2015 Revised Worker Protection Standard for Agricultural Pesticides (“WPS”) included in FIFRA 7 U.S.C. 136w.^[101] The EPA has two main categories of protections for agricultural workers: pesticide-specific restrictions, including label requirements, and the general WPS.^[102] The WPS is a federal regulation primarily administered by states through cooperative agreements between states and the EPA’s ten regional offices.^[103] The WPS was established in the 1970s after OSHA put forth an emergency temporary standard focused on the safety of twenty-one different pesticides in order to protect farmworkers.^[104] OSHA withdrew the standard before implementation after lawsuits from growers organizations.^[105] This led the newly-created EPA to create the first WPS and assert jurisdiction over the issue.^[106] Because FIFRA addresses farmworker safety when using agricultural chemicals, and the EPA developed the WPS, OSHA has not developed unique standards for agricultural chemical use.^[107] FIFRA prohibits registration of pesticides that “pose unreasonable risks” to workers of the environment.^[108]

The EPA is responsible for civil and criminal FIFRA enforcement as set forth in FIFRA Section 13 and Section 14.^[109] FIFRA Sections 13 and 14 give the EPA authority to inspect agricultural producers, conduct marketplace surveillance, and complete pesticide sampling and analysis.^[110] The EPA prohibits the sale or distribution of “unregistered, adulterated, or misbranded pesticides” as well as using registered pesticides in a manner inconsistent with labeling.^[111] Section 13 gives the EPA authority to stop the sale and use of a pesticide, or to issue a removal order if a pesticide violates FIFRA requirements.^[112] These are the extent of the civil actions the EPA realistically levies against private-sector FIFRA violators. Despite having authority, the EPA has not assessed civil penalties against federal agencies for violations of FIFRA and says they do not intend to pursue these federal-level punishments against other agencies in the future.^[113]

However, Section 14(b) allows a combination of civil and criminal penalties for private violations of FIFRA and its implementing regulations.^[114] A private pesticide applicator who knowingly violates FIFRA is subject to a fine of up to $1,000 and/or no more than thirty days in jail, and even federal employees can be subject to other non-FIFRA state and local criminal penalties.^[115] The strongest penalties for a FIFRA violation are located in Section 14(b)(1), which allows violators to be subject to a fine up to $50,000 and imprisonment up to a year.^[116] FIFRA preempts states and tribal governments from creating different pesticide labeling requirements, but states and tribal governments have the legal right to regulate the sale and use of federally registered pesticides and can create their own standards for workplace hazards.^[117]

A. The Current State of Pesticide Enforcement

The current system is characterized by disproportionate risk between states and ineffective enforcement. As written, the cooperative WPS agreements should enforce federal law while tailoring enforcement to local needs, ensuring consistent enforcement across the country.^[118] In practice, states task a leading regulatory agency with enforcement responsibilities that are not equally distributed, applied, or enforced, causing disproportionate risks from one state to the next.^[119] At the federal level, different agencies sharing “regulatory jurisdiction” slows enforcement efforts.^[120] The EPA is not equipped to take on the level of enforcement necessary for national pesticide oversight, and rarely conducts inspections.^[121] The EPA has continuously failed to issue standard expectations for state enforcement programs.^[122] It also lacks meaningful recourse to discipline states for poor enforcement—resources that already exist in other agencies like OSHA.^[123] Farmworkers in particular are affected by this gap because they are uniquely not covered by the Occupational Safety and Health Act and OSHA itself.^[124] Noncitizen workers have negligible political power and are some of the most exploited laborers, a problem exacerbated by “persistent realities of systemic racism and the routine dehumanization of noncitizen workers.”^[125]

Despite years of FIFRA regulations, pesticides still pose a serious risk to farmworkers, who are habitually exposed to pesticides at uniquely high rates.^[126] Working with pesticides, which is dangerous by nature, is made worse by poor training, improper handling, and poor enforcement of regulations.^[127] Another conflicting factor is the tension between ecological and economic interests. These state agencies in charge of protecting agricultural workers are often the same agencies tasked with promoting the economic interests of the agriculture industry.^[128] These opposed interests do not incentivize strict regulation of pesticides.

B. 2018 FIFRA Amendment

The 2018 Horticulture Title included an amendment to FIFRA which created an interagency working group.^[129] The group is made of representatives from the USDA, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the Environmental Protection Agency.^[130] The objective of the group is to recommend a strategy for improving a consultation process required under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) which requires pesticide registration and registration review.^[131] The amendment requires the group to:

1. Analyze relevant federal law, regions, and case law to create an outline of the legal and regulatory framework for the consultation process;
2. Define the scope of actions of the covered agencies that are subject to the amendment;
3. Identify the federal law obligations and limitations of each covered agency and provide a legal and regulatory framework for developing the recommendations;
4. Identify problem areas, areas for improvement, and best practices for conducting the consultation process between the covered agencies; and
5. Develop scientific and policy approaches to increase the accuracy and timeliness of the process.^[132]

The amendment includes several features meant to close gaps in current enforcement of the pesticide registration and review existing requirements in the ESA. In theory, the creation of the group will prevent siloed work between agencies. Having one unified group working to enforce the ESA pesticide regulations allows agencies to share and coordinate enforcement effects among the USDA, the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior, and the EPA.^[133] The amendment also included a series of reporting requirements intended to keep federal legislators aware of the group’s work.^[134] It required a progress report eighteen months after the Farm Bill was published, which the EPA released in December 2019.^[135] The 2019 Progress Report included proposals to improve the fledgling ESA consultation process, along with plans for implementing the changes.^[136] The group Administrator and the heads of the other covered agencies submitted the report to the Committee on Agriculture of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the Senate.^[137] The report was required to “reflect the perspectives of each covered agency; . . . and identify areas of new consensus and continuing topics of disagreement and debate.”^[138] The amendment further required a final report to be issued a year after the progress report, with ongoing 180-day progress reports going forward.^[139] The interagency working group also put out a more comprehensive report in April 2022, which showed progress in data and analysis around pesticide rulemaking.^[140]

C. Case Study: The Clean Water Act

One example of successful state and federal collaboration to increase enforcement of a federal environmental protection statute is recent major improvements in Clean Water Act (“CWA”) permit compliance.^[141] In November 2022, the EPA announced that CWA permit compliance increased dramatically between 2018 and 2022.^[142] The effort began in 2018 when the EPA and forty-seven states began a collaborative project “to reduce significant noncompliance among facilities permitted under the Clean Water Act” with a goal of reducing noncompliance by fifty percent in the next five years.^[143] By 2022, the goal was achieved, and the “significant non-compliance rate” dropped from 20.3 percent to 9.0 percent.^[144] This collaborative approach was an attempt to solve a decades-long problem of non-compliance affecting over twenty percent of CWA-permitted facilities.^[145] Non-compliance includes persistent violations of CWA standards such as “exceeding permitted pollutant discharge limits, not meeting enforcement order or permit requirements, and not timely reporting compliance data or sometimes at all.”^[146] The EPA and the states worked fastidiously to achieve this goal, meeting over 600 times to address non-compliance violations.^[147] The EPA attributes its success to “strong EPA-state partnerships and a close working partnership with the Association of Clean Water Administrators.”^[148] The Association is a civic and professional association whose members are state, interstate, and tribal officials who work in surface water protection programs.^[149] The successful implementation of CWA standards is an example of a successful collaborative regulation agreement, and something to aspire to for pesticide regulation.

III. A BROADER VISION FOR PESTICIDE REGULATION IN THE UPCOMING FARM BILL

Environmental advocates can use the Farm Bill as an ongoing mechanism for advancing policy objectives and furthering environmental protection. The Farm Bill enjoys a broad coalition of bipartisan support. It has introduced new programs in the past, including the new Hemp Production Program in the Horticulture Title. The upcoming Farm Bill should establish a pesticide control and reporting program based on the registration and enforcement structure put into place by the Hemp Production Program. This would allow the Farm Bill to expand its reach and address pesticide enforcement needs. The federal oversight and penalty structure of this model program provides inspiration for a new, comprehensive vision of pesticide regulation and enforcement.

A. Broad Coalition Support for the Farm Bill

The population of farm owners in the United States has decreased from 7 million to 2 million since the inception of the Farm Bill in 1933,^[150] but simultaneously the coalition stakeholders supporting the Farm Bill have broadened greatly to include various federal agencies.^[151] For example, the House Agriculture Committee held a hearing on March 16, 2022, to explore opportunities to improve USDA programs that support climate mitigation and adaptation.^[152] “The next Farm Bill provides the opportunity for this committee to climatize existing programs [and] to generate revenue for farmers while mitigating climate risk,” said Charles Conner, who leads the advocacy organization the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.^[153] While some environmental groups and agricultural economists argue that Farm Bill crop subsidies “encourage production on environmentally fragile lands and result in pollution from runoff of fertilizer and pesticides,” the Farm Bill’s increased expansion of the Horticulture Title and inclusion of organic farming provides a road map forward.^[154]

B. The 2018 Horticulture Title’s Novel Hemp Production Program

States and tribal governments wishing to participate in the novel Hemp Production program are required to submit detailed plans to the Secretary of Agriculture.^[155] The plan is required to include:

1. A detailed legal description of the land, which must be maintained for at least three years;
2. A procedure for testing tetrahydrocannabinol (“THC”) levels in the hemp;
3. A procedure for conducting annual inspections of a random sample of hemp producers to verify that hemp is not produced in violation of the law;
4. A procedure for submitting this information to the Secretary of Agriculture within thirty days of collection;
5. A certification that the state or tribe has the resources and personnel to carry out the practices and procedures described; and
6. Any other local procedures necessary.^[156]

The Secretary of Agriculture is supposed to approve or disapprove a state or tribe’s hemp production plan within sixty days of submission.^[157] The Secretary also carries out compliance procedures. If, after an audit, the state or tribe is not in compliance with their approved hemp production plan, the Secretary works with the entity to develop a corrective action plan.^[158]

If the Secretary of Agriculture finds a violation of a state’s approved hemp production plan, the Farm Bill authorizes their office to enforce penalties.^[159] The Hemp Production section divides violations into negligent, repeat, and other categories.^[160] States and tribes can commit a negligent violation of the hemp production law by negligently: (1) failing to provide a legal description of the land used to produce the hemp; (2) failing to obtain a license from the state or tribal government; or (3) producing hemp with a THC concentrate higher than allowed by law.^[161] States or tribal governments that commit these negligent violations are not subject to any criminal penalty, but three violations in a five-year period disqualify them from participating in the program for five years.^[162]

 

C. Draft Pesticide Control and Reporting Language in the 2023 Conservation Title

The programmatic foundation of the Horticulture Title’s hemp production section provides a blueprint for new planning, reporting, and enforcement requirements for state and tribal pesticide control programs. Below, the Note contains proposed language to be added to the Conservation Title in the next Farm Bill. This language is preferable to the current enforcement system because it allows states and tribes to proactively opt-in to this dialogue with federal regulators.

DRAFT LANGUAGE:

SEC. XXX. STATE & TRIBAL PLANS

‘‘(a) SUBMISSION.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A State or Tribe desiring local regulatory authority over the registration, distribution, sale, disposal, and use of pesticides in the State or territory of the tribe shall submit to the Secretary, through the State Department of Agriculture or the Tribal government, as applicable, a revised plan under which the State or tribe monitors and regulates the registration, distribution, sale, disposal, and use of pesticides.

‘‘(2) CONTENTS.—A State or Tribal plan referred to in paragraph (1) shall only be required to include—

‘‘(i) a practice to maintain relevant information regarding land on which agricultural chemicals are produced in the State or territory of the tribe, including a legal description of the land, for a period of not less than 5 calendar years;

‘‘(ii) a procedure for testing pesticide concentration levels of crops produced in the State or territory of the tribe;

‘‘(iii) a procedure for the effective disposal of pesticides and agricultural chemicals;

‘‘(iv) a procedure for conducting annual inspections of, at a minimum, a random sample of crop producers to verify that crops are not produced in violation of this subtitle;

“(v) a procedure for conducting annual inspections of, at a minimum, a random sample of crop producers to verify Federal Worker Protection Standards regulating pesticide use are not being violated;

‘‘(vi) a procedure for submitting the information gathered to the Secretary of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency not more than 30 days after the date on which the information is received.

D. Draft Language Around Violations And Enforcement

The 2018 Horticulture Title’s Hemp Production plan also includes a section outlining a plan for violations, which is also a necessary section for pesticide regulation. The following draft language outlines an enforcement mechanism for federal correction of local pesticide controls. This draft language omits the “Result of Negligent Violation” subsection which prevents criminal enforcement of the plan by the Federal Government or any State government, Tribal government, or local government. It also changes the penalty to appropriately account for mass crop production. While the Hemp Production plan takes away the state or tribe’s ability to produce hemp entirely, that would not be realistic or desirable for commercial agriculture.

DRAFT LANGUAGE:

‘‘(b) VIOLATIONS.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A violation of a State or Tribal plan approved under subsection (a) shall be subject to enforcement solely in accordance with this subsection.

(2) NEGLIGENT VIOLATION.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—An agricultural pesticide user in a State or the territory of a Tribe for which a State or Tribal enforcement plan is approved under subsection (a) shall be subject to subparagraph (B) of this paragraph if the Federal department of agriculture or Environmental Protection Agency, as applicable, determines that the crop producer has negligently violated the State or Tribal plan, including by negligently—

‘‘(i) failing to provide a legal description of land on which the pesticides are used;

‘‘(ii) failing to obtain a license or other required authorization from the State Department of Agriculture or Tribal government, as applicable.

“(B) CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN.—A crop producer described in subparagraph (A) shall comply with a plan established by the Federal Department of Agriculture or Environmental Protection Agency as applicable, to correct the negligent violation, including—

‘‘(i) a reasonable date by which the crop producer shall correct the negligent violation; and

‘‘(ii) a requirement that the crop producer shall monthly report to the Federal Department of Agriculture or Environmental Protection Agency, as applicable, on the compliance of the hemp producer with the State or Tribal plan for a period of not less than the next 5 calendar years.

‘‘(C) REPEAT VIOLATIONS.—A crop producer that negligently violates a State or Tribal plan under subparagraph (A) 3 times in a 5-year period shall be subject to annual USDA and EPA audits for a period of 5 years beginning on the date of the third violation.

E. Implications of this Draft Language

Increasing the regulatory and reporting responsibilities of state-level Departments of Agriculture raises the floor from the current basic requirements imposed by FIFRA. The existing Hemp Production program only requires reporting to the USDA, while the draft language requires reporting to both the USDA and EPA. This is an attempt to balance the competing interests of the agricultural industry, pesticide producers, workers’ rights activists, and environmental protection advocates. The draft language indicates that these requirements are for states or tribes who desire local regulatory authority over the registration, distribution, sale, disposal, and use of pesticides within their borders. This leaves states and tribes with the opportunity to opt out of the requirements and default to standard federal enforcement under FIFRA. Lackluster states can waive their right to control the registration, distribution, sale, disposal, and use of pesticides if they are also willing to waive control of pesticide enforcement and penalties. Moving pesticide enforcement from state-level departments of agriculture, which have a financial incentive to maximize crop production and minimize pesticide enforcement, provides a more powerful enforcement mechanism and gives FIFRA sharper teeth. One potential shortcoming of this draft language is that it is not binding upon state and tribal governments, and requires them to opt-in to the program. Additionally, the increased administrative workload leaves room for error and repetition.

The implications of a stronger FIFRA, backed by the broad support and institutional power of the Farm Bill, are enormous. Environmental advocates need to push for a Farm Bill that reflects their interests because pro-industry sources have already proposed a reauthorization of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (which created a new section of FIFRA that established a new system for registering pesticides) in the first quarter of 2023 that does not overlap with Farm Bill work.^[163] The agricultural industry has significant political power and can be hostile to environmental protection, which they see as a threat to their profits. The Farm Bill is a unique opportunity to advocate for environmental protection because of its broad and powerful nature. Over time, the Farm Bill has grown to include nutrition assistance, conservation, research, specialty crops, and bioenergy programs, which bring together “some of the most unlikely partners to advocate for a legislative package composed of provisions that would likely not survive the legislative bureaucracy as stand-alone measures.”^[164] It would be a mistake for environmental advocates to pass up this opportunity to expand the Farm Bill to their benefit and set an environmentally-friendly trajectory for future versions.

F. Impact of Including this Draft Language in the 2023 Farm Bill

In May 2022, the Congressional Budget Office projected the 2018 Farm Bill to spend between $120 billion and $180 billion every year between 2022 and 2032, with the vast majority of those funds going to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits in Title IV.^[165] Although the Farm Bill is traditionally bipartisan, it’s far from apolitical. The expectation that farmers protect the environment has brought new stakeholders to the Farm Bill negotiations. Environmentalists, along with those who use the land for commercial or recreational purposes, want a say in this process. This includes advocacy groups for conservation causes, the recreation industry, and local food and organic farmers.^[166] The Farm Bill remains a battleground of competing industry and environmentalist interests. The final text of the 2018 Farm Bill rejected a provision written by agricultural industry leaders that would have removed some endangered species from a protected list.^[167] A proposed version of the 2019 Farm Bill from the House would have “sanctioned virtually all harm to protected plants and animals from pesticide exposure, making it legal to kill endangered species with these powerful chemicals.“^[168]

The Farm Bill holds notable statutory power due to the sheer quantity of money attached to its broad swath of programs and its “mandatory and discretionary funding for many everyday programs and functions whose impact and influence carries across all social demographics and regions.”^[169] The long-term stability of Farm Bill programs provides a stable food supply in the United States, resources for rural areas, and guardrails for environmental protection. Agricultural practices change over time to fit modern needs, and the current need for environmentally friendly and regenerative farming practices should be reflected in the next Farm Bill. The long-term sustainability of these vital agricultural programs is reliant on environmentally friendly practices, including pesticide enforcement.

Uncontrolled pesticide use is a source of chemical pollution.^[170] Pesticides used in agricultural production can infiltrate surface water and groundwater, which degrades water quality.^[171] Pesticides can seep into underground aquifers “from applications onto crop fields, seepage of contaminated surface water, accidental spills and leaks, improper disposal, and even through injection waste material into wells.”^[172] The spread of pesticide-contaminated groundwater can take decades to become apparent.^[173]

CONCLUSION

The Farm Bill is the clear front-runner of agricultural bills in terms of bipartisan power, money, scope, and impact. It is the natural home for cutting-edge pesticide legislation. Farm Bills have often been used to introduce novel agricultural programs, as demonstrated in the Hemp Production initiative and FIFRA amendment that aimed to increase pesticide law enforcement included in the 2018 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill, borne from the Great Depression, has supported U.S. agriculture for close to 100 years. The wide variety of mandatory and discretionary funding that Farm Bills provide creates stability and security in the U.S. agricultural markets and food supply, and this long-term financial and political power is what makes the law a powerhouse and effective tool for environmentalists.

As negotiations ramp up for the proposed 2023 Farm Bill, environmental protection must be heavily prioritized. Pesticide use, the vast majority of which is used in agriculture, must be controlled to the fullest possible extent. Pesticide poisonings are devastating for farmworkers, and the human suffering caused by negligent and excessive use of pesticides must be prevented. The power and breadth of the Farm Bill offer a valuable opportunity to reinforce FIFRA protections for workers by filling in enforcement gaps and creating federal, state, and tribal partnerships that mirror the success the EPA found when enforcing CWA permits.

Including this new draft language in the upcoming 2023 Farm Bill would help to eliminate jurisdictional holes, give agencies with better enforcement resources the authority to conduct inspections, and ultimately improve working conditions for farmworkers. Stricter registration of land where pesticides are used, along with more complete testing procedures, provide a valuable step forward in unifying pesticide enforcement between states. Additionally, increasing audits and penalties for states that do not comply with FIFRA and WPS standards gives the USDA and EPA better mechanisms to enforce their regulations. These increased enforcement and audit mechanisms will increase compliance with FIFRA and OSHA rules and reduce tragic industrial accidents and pesticide poisonings.

As the dust settles from the 2018 Farm Bill, we have the opportunity to identify which additions were positive steps forward, and where gaps exist that still need to be filled. For 2023, environmental advocates must push forward and insist on not just further inclusion of environmental protection, but prioritization. The long-term health of the natural world, the agricultural industry, and the vulnerable farmworkers depend on it. As negotiations for the 2023 Farm Bill continue, environmental advocates must treat it as a given that we will not sacrifice our earth for economic prosperity. The Farm Bill should reflect our values—respect for the earth, and a deep commitment to the empowerment and protection of the workers who tend to it.

1. *J.D. Candidate, 2024, University of Colorado Law School. The author would like to thank  Ted Motz for his suggestions and assistance in writing this Note. ↑
2. Audre Lorde, The Cancer Journals 75 (2nd ed. 1980). ↑
3. Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings, Envt’l Prot. Agency (June 7, 2022), https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-worker-safety/recognition-and-management-pesticide-poisonings. ↑
4. James R. Roberts & J. Routt Reigart, Envt’l Prot. Agency, Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings 3, 212, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/ documents/rmpp_6thed_ch21_chroniceffects.pdf. ↑
5. Id. ↑
6. Id. ↑
7. Charles D. Thompson, Jr. & Melinda F. Wiggins, The Human Cost of Food: Farmworkers’ Lives, Labor, and Advocacy 139 (Univ. of Tex. Press eds., 2002). ↑
8. Roberts & Reigart, supra note 3, at 9. ↑
9. Primer for Counties: 2023 Farm Bill Reauthorization, Nat’l Ass’n of Counties (Jan. 5, 2023), https://www.naco.org/resources/2023-farm-bill-primer. ↑
10. Jim Monke, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R47659, Expiration of the Farm Bill (2023). ↑
11. Roll Call Vote 115th Congress – 2nd Session, U.S. Senate (Dec 11, 2018), https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_votes/vote1152/vote_115_2_00259.htm (showing the Senate vote for H.R. 2, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018). ↑
12. An omnibus bill is “a bill including in one act various separate and distinct matters, and particularly one joining a number of different subjects in one measure in such a way as to compel the executive authority to accept provisions which he does not approve or else defeat the whole enactment.” Omnibus, thelawdictionary.com, https://thelawdictionary.org/omnibus-bill/ (last visited Feb. 17, 2024). ↑
13. Renée Johnson & Jim Monke, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF12047, Farm Bill Primer: What Is the Farm Bill? (2023). ↑
14. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490 (codified in scattered sections of 16 U.S.C.). ↑
15. Shelby Myers, What is the (Food and) Farm Bill and Why Does It Matter?, Am. Farm Bureau Fed’n (July 20, 2022), https://www.fb.org/market-intel/what-is-the-food-and-farm-bill-and-why-does-it-matter. ↑
16. Sidonie Devarenne, History of the United States Farm Bill, Lib. of Cong., https://www.loc.gov/ghe/cascade/index.html?apid=1821e70c01de48ae899a7ff708d6ad8b (last visited Jan. 26, 2024). ↑
17. Cassidy White, The Farm Bill: What Will 2023 Bring?, The Council of State Governments (Sept. 7, 2022), https://www.csg.org/2022/09/07/the-farm-bill-what-will-2023-bring/. ↑
18. Id. ↑
19. Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Essential and in Crisis: A Review of the Public Health Threats Facing Farmworkers in the US 37 (May 2021) https://clf.jhsph.edu/sites/default/files/2021-05/essential-and-in-crisis-a-review-of-the-public-health-threats-facing-farmworkers-in-the-us.pdf [hereinafter Essential and in Crisis]. ↑
20. Id. (alterations in original). ↑
21. Id. at 10–11. ↑
22. Agricultural exceptionalism was created through heavy lobbying and “successful efforts of employers to maintain a system of labor exploitation established in times of slavery and sharecropping.” Sarah O’Conor Rodman, Agricultural Exceptionalism in U.S. Policies and Policy Debates: A Mixed Methods Analysis (Mar. 2016) (Ph.D dissertation, Johns Hopkins University), https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/handle/1774.2/39712-:~:text= Agricultural exceptionalism was originally born,vulnerable social and economic groups; see also Essential and in Crisis, supra note 18, at 12. ↑
23. Essential and in Crisis, supra note 18, at 13. ↑
24. Id. ↑
25. Id. ↑
26. Id. at 3. ↑
27. Devarenne, supra note 15. ↑
28. Id. ↑
29. Id. ↑
30. Id. ↑
31. Id. ↑
32. See generally publications from the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, https://sustainableagriculture.net/our-work/campaigns/fbcampaign/what-is-the-farm-bill/; the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, https://www.eesi.org/briefings/view/ 042623farmbill; and Beyond Pesticides, https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/category/farm-bill/. ↑
33. Myers, supra note 14. ↑
34. Jim Monke, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R45425, Budget Issues That Shaped the 2018 Farm Bill 2 (2019), https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R45425.pdf. ↑
35. White, supra note 16. ↑
36. Devarenne, supra note 15. ↑
37. Id. ↑
38. Id. ↑
39. Id. ↑
40. Myers, supra note 14. ↑
41. Id. ↑
42. Id. ↑
43. About OSHA, Occupational Safety & Health Admin., https://www.osha.gov/ aboutosha (last visited Feb. 17, 2024). ↑
44. Id. ↑
45. Id. ↑
46. Agricultural Operations, Occupational Safety & Health Admin., https://www.osha.gov/agricultural-operations/hazards (last visited Feb. 17, 2024). ↑
47. Id. ↑
48. Id. ↑
49. Id. ↑
50. Id. ↑
51. Id. ↑
52. Id. ↑
53. Id. ↑
54. Id. ↑
55. Johnson & Monke, supra note 12, at 1. ↑
56. Id. ↑
57. Id. ↑
58. Id. at 2. ↑
59. Id. ↑
60. Id. ↑
61. Id. ↑
62. Id. ↑
63. Id. ↑
64. Id. (As of the writing of this Note, the new budget report had not been published). ↑
65. Devarenne, supra note 15. ↑
66. Id. ↑
67. Id. ↑
68. Cong. Rsch. Serv., R47057, Preparing for the Next Farm Bill 23 (2022). ↑
69. Id. at 48. ↑
70. Id. at 3. ↑
71. Id. ↑
72. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018: Highlights and Implications, USDA Econ. Rsch. Serv., https://www.ers.usda.gov/agriculture-improvement-act-of-2018-highlights-and-implications/ (last updated July 12, 2022). ↑
73. What is the Farm Bill?, National Sustainable Agric. Coal., https://sustainableagriculture.net/our-work/campaigns/fbcampaign/what-is-the-farm-bill/ (last visited Feb. 17, 2024). ↑
74. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-334, tit. II, 132 Stat. 4491 (2018). ↑
75. Id. at 132 Stat. 4574. ↑
76. Id. at 132 Stat. 4491–92. ↑
77. Id. at 132 Stat. 4491. ↑
78. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., What’s New: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the 2018 Farm Bill, https://www.farmers.gov/sites/default/files/documents/NRCS-FarmBill2018_WhatsNew-19.pdf (last visited Feb. 17, 2024). ↑
79. Id. ↑
80. Id. ↑
81. Id. ↑
82. Cong. Rsch. Serv. R47057, supra note 67, at 28. ↑
83. Farm Bill: A Short History and Summary, Farm Pol’y Facts, https://www.farmpolicyfacts.org/farm-policy-history/ (last visited Feb. 17, 2024). ↑
84. Id. ↑
85. Id. ↑
86. Renée Johnson, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IF12017 (Version 5), Farm Bill Primer: Horticulture Title and Related Provisions (2022). ↑
87. Id. ↑
88. Id. ↑
89. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-334, tit. X, 132 Stat. 4498 (2018). ↑
90. Id. ↑
91. Id. at 132 Stat. 4908–09. ↑
92. Id. at 132 Stat. 4906–07. ↑
93. Id. ↑
94. Id. at 132 Stat. 4914–15. ↑
95. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and Federal Facilities, U.S. Envt’l Prot. Agency, https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/federal-insecticide-fungicide-and-rodenticide-act-fifra-and-federal-facilities (last updated Feb. 15, 2023) [hereinafter FIFRA and Federal Facilities]. ↑
96. Id. ↑
97. Id. ↑
98. Id. ↑
99. Id. ↑
100. Id. ↑
101. Farmworkers Still Inadequately Protected from Pesticides, Report Finds, Beyond Pesticides (Sept. 16, 2022), https://beyondpesticides.org/dailynewsblog/2022/ 09/farmworkers-still-inadequately-protected-from-pesticides-report-finds/; 40 C.F.R. § 170 (1992). ↑
102. FIFRA and Federal Facilities, supra note 94. ↑
103. Beyond Pesticides, supra note 100. ↑
104. Vt. L. Sch., Essentially Unprotected: A Focus on Farmworker Health Laws and Policies Addressing Pesticide Exposure and Heat-Related Illness 13 (2021), https://www.vermontlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2021-04/Essentially-Unprotected-FINAL.pdf. ↑
105. Id. ↑
106. Id. ↑
107. Id. ↑
108. FIFRA and Federal Facilities, supra note 94. ↑
109. Id. ↑
110. Id. ↑
111. Id. ↑
112. Id. ↑
113. Id. ↑
114. Id. ↑
115. Id. ↑
116. Id. ↑
117. Id. ↑
118. Beyond Pesticides, supra note 100. ↑
119. Id. ↑
120. Id. ↑
121. Id. ↑
122. Id. ↑
123. Id. ↑
124. Id. ↑
125. Olivia N. Guarna, Vt. L. Sch., Exposed and at Risk: Opportunities to Strengthen Enforcement of Pesticide Regulations for Farmworkers Safety 9 (2022), https://www.vermontlaw.edu/sites/default/files/2022-09/Exposed-and-At-Risk. ↑
126. Beyond Pesticides, supra note 100. ↑
127. Id. ↑
128. Guarna, supra note 124, at 11. ↑
129. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, 4914–17 (2018). ↑
130. Id. at 4914–15. ↑
131. Id. at 4915. ↑
132. Id. ↑
133. Id. ↑
134. Id. at 4916. ↑
135. Id. at 4916; U.S. Envt’l Prot. Agency, Report to Congress on Improving the Consultation Process Required Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for Pesticide Regulation and Registration Review (2019), https://www.epa.gov/ sites/default/files/2020-01/documents/esa-report-12.20.19.pdf. ↑
136. Id. at 1, 4. ↑
137. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, 4916 (2018). ↑
138. Id. ↑
139. Id. at 4916–17. ↑
140. U.S. Envt’l Prot. Agency, Report to Congress on Improving the Consultation Process Required Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for Pesticide Regulation and Registration Review 5 (2022), https://www.epa.gov/ system/files/documents/2022-07/EPA-IWG-Report-May2022-updated.pdf. ↑
141. EPA and State Partners Announce Major Improvement in Clean Water Act Permit Compliance, U.S. Envt’l Prot. Agency (Nov. 22, 2022), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-and-state-partners-announce-major-improvement-clean-water-act-permit-compliance. ↑
142. Id. ↑
143. Id. ↑
144. Id. ↑
145. Id. ↑
146. Id. ↑
147. Id. ↑
148. Id. ↑
149. About, Ass’n of Clean Water Adm’rs, https://www.acwa-us.org/about/. ↑
150. The number of U.S. farms continues slow decline, U.S. Dep’t Agric. (Mar. 14, 2023), https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId =58268. ↑
151. Myers, supra note 14. ↑
152. Savannah Bertrand, Congressional Hearings Leading up to the 2023 Farm Bill, Envt’l & Energy Study Inst. (Apr. 19, 2022), https://www.eesi.org/articles/view/congressional-hearings-leading-up-to-the-2023-farm-bill. ↑
153. Id. ↑
154. Cong. Rsch. Serv. R47057, supra note 67, at 24. ↑
155. Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, 4909 (2018). ↑
156. Id. at 4909–10. ↑
157. Id. at 4910. ↑
158. Id. at 4911. ↑
159. Id. ↑
160. Id. at 4911–12. ↑
161. Id. at 4911. ↑
162. Id. ↑
163. Spencer Chase, Thompson outlines timeline he’d pursue as House Ag chairman, Agri-Pulse (Aug. 31, 2022), https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/18186-thompson-offers-house-ag-timeline-he-would-pursue-if-named-chairman. ↑
164. Myers, supra note 14. ↑
165. Johnson & Monke, supra note 12, at 1–2. ↑
166. White, supra note 16. ↑
167. Lori Ann Burd, Farm Bill Rejects Provision to Exempt Pesticides From Endangered Species Act, Ctr. for Biological Diversity (Dec. 10, 2018), https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2018/farm-bill-12-10-2018.php#. ↑
168. Id. ↑
169. Myers, supra note 14. ↑
170. Water Science School, Pesticides in Groundwater, U.S. Geological Surv. (June 8, 2018), https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/science/pesticides-groundwater. ↑
171. Id. ↑
172. Id. ↑
173. Id. ↑