House lawmakers are using the farm bill as the latest vehicle to target regulations that farmers, ranchers and agribusinesses say are impeding production.

Tucked into the horticulture title of the sweeping legislation are several provisions that target environmental regulations, including new pesticide permits that have taken a large share of farmer criticism over the past year. The provisions, according to a summary of the bill provided by House Agriculture Committee leaders, "provide relief from some of the most onerous regulatory pressures plaguing" farmers and ranchers.

But the provisions are just another attempt to leverage political support by targeting U.S. EPA, said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity.

"I think that there is a big-picture perspective here, which is why the House is embarking upon this anti-environmental rider bonanza when the Senate has already passed a clean farm bill," he said. "This is not about passing a farm bill. This is about taking whacks at political enemies."

Among the provisions included in the House farm bill draft released yesterday by Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.) and ranking member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) is H.R. 872, legislation that passed the House last year by a bipartisan vote of 292-130. The provision would reverse a 2009 court ruling that forced the agency to require new permits from pesticide users who spray over water.

A bipartisan group of senators attempted to add a similar measure to the Senate farm bill, but leaders there did not allow a vote on the language.

According to House agriculture leaders, the measure "eliminates a costly and duplicative permitting requirement for pesticide applications." Critics of the new permits say the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) is the appropriate place to regulate pesticides, not the Clean Water Act.

But environmentalists have supported the new permitting system, which went into effect in November 2011.

The House draft also targets pesticide decisions made by EPA based on biological opinions by the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service. EPA would be prohibited from changing or canceling a pesticide registration based on those opinions until an independent party conducts a scientific study on their validity.

The opinions have recently been at the center of litigation over the effects of pesticide use on salmon in California.

The provision is the result of "extensive bipartisan oversight" that was carried out by House lawmakers, agriculture leaders said. Farm groups have argued that the opinions EPA uses to make its pesticide-registration decisions are not scientifically sound.

The House draft would also reauthorize the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act in an attempt to provide regulatory certainty for pesticide registrants.

Aside from pesticide regulations, the draft horticulture title also attempts to address several lawsuits that have delayed biotechnology crop reviews. A provision in the bill would affirm that the secretary of the Agriculture Department has the authority to evaluate plant pest risks from biotech crops and authorize environmental reviews of new breed introductions.

The provision is an attempt to shorten a regulatory process that can take up to several years. In their summary of the legislation, House agriculture leaders blame lawsuits based on "frivolous claims" for delays in approving new biotech crops, saying they have strained USDA's resources and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

The measure in the bill would ensure biotech crop decisions are made in a transparent and timely manner, according to the agriculture leaders.