I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1993 

To permit the chief executive of a State to create an exemption from certain 

requirements of Federal environmental laws for producers of agricultural 

commodities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 23, 2015 

Mr. WALBERG introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To permit the chief executive of a State to create an exemption from certain requirements of Federal environmental 

laws for producers of agricultural commodities, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flexibility to Farm 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds the following: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1993 IH

1 (1) The agricultural community of the United 

2 States serves as the economic backbone of many 

3 communities and employs millions of Americans. 

4 (2) In recent years, one-size-fits-all policies 

5 issued by the Environmental Protection Agency have 

6 increased dramatically, requiring agricultural pro7 ducers to focus on regulation compliance rather than 

8 on growing the world’s healthiest, most abundant 

9 food supply. 

10 (3) Attempts by the Environmental Protection 

11 Agency to expand the definition of ‘‘Waters of the 

12 United States’’ under the Federal Water Pollution 

13 Control Act expand the scope of Federal jurisdiction 

14 under that Act well beyond the intent of Congress, 

15 and would eliminate a central precept of that Act, 

16 which reserves certain waters to the exclusive juris17 diction of the States. 

18 (4) The Environmental Protection Agency’s 

19 proposed revisions to the existing National Ambient 

20 Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone would 

21 impose significant costs on agriculture and rural 

22 counties. 

23 (5) An increasing number of poultry and live24 stock operations have been forced to apply for per25 mits under the National Pollutant Discharge ElimiVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:17 May 06, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1993.IH H1993

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1993 IH

1 nation System resulting from the Environmental 

2 Protection Agency’s expanding definition of what 

3 constitutes a discharge under the Federal Water 

4 Pollution Control Act. 

5 (6) Duplicative and costly permitting require6 ments under the Federal Water Pollution Control 

7 Act will require additional National Pollutant Dis8 charge Elimination System permits for pesticide ap9 plications, subjecting pesticide users to unnecessary 

10 red tape and financial burdens while exposing them 

11 to the threat of unfounded litigation. 

12 (7) The Environmental Protection Agency pro13 posed rules to limit greenhouse gas emissions under 

14 section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act threaten the re15 liability and affordability of our Nation’s electricity 

16 supply and would impose an undue burden on agri17 cultural producers. 

18 (8) The Federal Government should not impose 

19 further rules or regulations that are overly burden20 some or cause economic hardship for the agricultural 

21 community. 

22 SEC. 3. UNDULY BURDENSOME REGULATIONS EXEMPTION. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—If the chief executive of a State 

24 determines, in accordance with this section, that a require25 ment of a covered Federal environmental law, or a regulaVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:17 May 06, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1993.IH H1993

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 1993 IH

1 tion thereunder, has (or will have) a significant adverse 

2 effect on persons in the State acting in their capacity as 

3 farmers, such requirement or regulation shall not apply 

4 to persons in the State acting in that capacity. 

5 (b) PROCEDURE.—Before finalizing any determina6 tion under subsection (a), the chief executive of a State 

7 shall solicit and accept public comments regarding such 

8 determination for a period of not less than 90 days. 

9 (c) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act: 

10 (1) COVERED FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL

11 LAW.—The term ‘‘covered Federal environmental 

12 law’’ means— 

13 (A) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 

14 seq.), insofar as such Act applies to emissions 

15 of air pollutants other than emissions resulting 

16 from the combustion of any fossil fuel; and 

17 (B) the Federal Water Pollution Control 

18 Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). 

19 (2) FARMER.—The term ‘‘farmer’’ means— 

20 (A) a producer, as that term is defined 

21 in— 

22 (i) section 1111 of the Agricultural 

23 Act of 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9011); and 

24 (ii) section 212 of the Agricultural 

25 Marketing Act of 1946 (7 U.S.C. 1635a); 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
5 

•HR 1993 IH

1 (B) a dairy operation, as that term is de2 fined in section 1401 of the Agricultural Act of 

3 2014 (7 U.S.C. 9051); and 

4 (C) a producer of a specialty crop, as that 

5 term is defined in section 3 of the Specialty 

6 Crops Competitiveness Act of 2004 (7 U.S.C. 

7 1621 note; Public Law 108–465). 

8 (3) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means any of 

9 the several States of the United States, the District 

10 of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

11 United States Virgin Islands, Guam, American 

12 Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

13 Islands, and any other territory or possession of the 

14 United States. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS