Farmers and ranchers are tired of EPA doubletalk

Drovers Cattle Network ^ | April 15, 2015 | Bob Stallman

[thackney]

EPA claims that it’s simplifying regulations and making them easier to follow, but the fine print tells another story.

Business owners around the country have joined with farmers and ranchers in speaking out on the Waters of the U.S. rule. More than 30 states also oppose the rule. Yet, even in the face of mounting opposition, the EPA still isn’t listening.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has unveiled her latest, campaign-style WOTUS spin, calling the effort the “Clean Water Rule” – as though a bumper-sticker approach to a complex regulation would change anything for people so profoundly affected by her agency’s actions.

Slogans may matter more than facts at the EPA, but the details still matter to farmers and ranchers who know full well the importance of clean water. We depend on it for our livelihoods, after all. Our biggest objection, in fact, is not about clean water. It’s about land.

McCarthy insists that the rule will allow business as usual for agriculture. She has said farmers and ranchers won’t need special permits “to go about their business.” But what she’s saying just doesn’t match up with the language of the rule. Anyone who’s been out on farmland knows that water collects in spots that aren’t regular water sources for anything else, let alone major streams and rivers.

Prairie potholes are a good example of the “waters” the EPA is targeting. These isolated wetlands are sprinkled across the Upper Midwest and Northern Plains. By pooling these isolated features together, the Waters of the U.S. rule would let the agencies treat them as a “significant nexus” to streams and rivers – an idea that’s simply not supported by law or common sense. Together, the prairie potholes in a region could be treated just like a large body of water, even though the end result would be more control over land, not water – something that Congress never intended.

Rather than recognizing the careful stewardship that farmers and ranchers practice, EPA keeps forcing farmers and ranchers back on the defensive. McCarthy said farmers shouldn’t worry about the rule at all “unless you want to pollute or destroy jurisdictional water.” Statements like this hint that the agency is looking to broaden the rule by making it more ambiguous, not less.

Farmers and ranchers can’t afford the steep fines that regulators could impose for normal farming practices. And farmers aren’t looking to sidestep regulations: We have the most to lose if one of our most valuable resources is compromised.

EPA claims that it’s simplifying regulations and making them easier to follow, but the fine print tells another story. No matter what name the agency gives its rule, it can only lead to needless pain for agriculture and businesses across the country.

If EPA won’t listen, perhaps Congress will. Please let your senators and representative know that farmers, small business owners and state and local governments are looking to them to stop the Waters of the U.S. rule.

[knarf]

Unfortunately, because of modern technology, one man or family does SO much ... there's no longer a huge constituency that could make a difference

The EPA looks at us and thinks, "Ya, so ?"

[griswold3]

This is serious. It’s all about power and money.
and something tells me that the “Progressives” are envious of the Povolzhye Famine that helped ‘control’ Russia’s population.

[Ben Ficklin]

"It's all about power and money"

Its about run-off pollution aka non-point pollution.

It's not just EPA, but the states are grappling with this also.

On particular example is the algae blooms in the Great Lakes. It has been a chronic problem for years, but last summer, it got so bad, they had to shut down some public water supply systems. So, over the winter, some state legislatures and agencies implemented some regs to try to prevent it from being as bad a problem, this coming summer.

[griswold3]

Farming practices are changing rapidly to decrease use of chemicals. Decrease use of phosphorous, buffer zones, cover crops, etc. And yet the problem is increasing.
They are still searching for the substances that could have played a role in increasing the toxic levels of the cyanobacterial blooms.
I say they should look at the sewage treatment plants near such waterways. (hydrogen peroxide presence) But then that would cost a lot to fix.

[bestintxas]

It is a state issue

Let’s see if Lorraine weighs in it being a local issue

[Carry_Okie]

They were tired of it thirty years ago. Remember the Sagebrush Rebellion?

[Carry_Okie]

I say they should look at the sewage treatment plants near such waterways. (hydrogen peroxide presence) But then that would cost a lot to fix.

THM is bad stuff.

[lavaroise]

When science becomes anti science, ie. like trying to tell someone to find more water by taking it from icebergs or the sea using inefficient immature technologies instead of right here at home from where it can be used to develop the technologies for their future viabilities.

As a result the funding goes for inefficient projects instead of true science.

Why is it so easy for them to cancel defense programs because they are based on unprovable inadequate technology, but the same argument cannot be applied on EPA rules?

So they cancel the F22 and the ABL cuz deemed impractical until technology improves, but they do not deem the EPA impractical and waste resources that would fo for fundamental sciences, and waste them into political feel good classroom experiment projects.

[lavaroise]

I agree with that. When the Federal pushes programs...

Reminds me of the French-British Concorde airplane that was roo ahead of its time. Federative projects shoves this expensive and inefficient crap in people’s throat like a cult, not waiting for the technologies to mature. It mostly is opium stuff.

[CedarDave]

A "water of the US" is taken by the Feds as any water used in interstate commerce, whether it's connected to a river or stream which is "navigable." It's a comprehensive term meant for EPA to have jurisdiction over any body of surface water or marsh or wetland anywhere in the US. It's an example of government bureaucracy overreach pushed by both the environmentalist wackos and the bureaucrats themselves. Congress could rein this in if they choose to do so.

An example from 25 years ago is that the EPA shut down discharges of oil field brine water to salt playa lakes in SE NM using the argument that migratory wildlife using the lakes for resting were interstate commerce.

40 CFR 122.2(c) all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds that the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; (2) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce; (d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition; (e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition; (f) The territorial sea; and (g) “Wetlands” adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this definition.

[HereInTheHeartland]

Urban residents want more regulation (and control) over rural areas.
The urbanites blindly ignore all the lawn fertilizer and such that I see on the bike trails and sidewalks as I go running.

The also blindly ignore the fact that mother nature naturally kicks out a bunch on nitrogen into the waters in the spring through natural processes as the environment comes to life.