Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
Bill in Kentucky legislature could bring Kentucky its first vet school
Ag census: U.S. lost 142,000 farms, 20 million acres in five years
Indiana farmers make trip to Indonesia to talk soybeans
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
MFB: Give farmers a water rule easily understood
MFB: Give farmers a water rule easily understood

By SHELLY STRAUTZ-SPRINGBORN
Michigan Correspondent

REED CITY, Mich. — Area farmers and landowners learned more about a rule that could change how water is managed, during a forum last week in Reed City.
Tinka Hyde, director of the U.S. EPA Region 5 Water Division, and Laura Campbell, agricultural ecologist with Michigan Farm Bureau, presented information about the Waters of the U.S. rule and potential impacts. About 35 people attended the meeting, which was hosted by Osceola County Farm Bureau and Michigan State University extension at the Osceola County Sheriff’s Posse Clubhouse.
On March 25, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule under the Clean Water Act (CWA) that redefines what can be regulated as a “water of the United States.” The rule would expand its regulatory authority under the CWA to types of land features and waters that would include manmade private agricultural drains, intermittent streams, puddles, ponds and wetlands in fields.
“This is giving the agencies the power to dictate land-use decisions and farming practices in or near them,” Campbell said. “The rule will make it more difficult to farm or change a farming operation to remain competitive and profitable.”
Previously, the CWA defined regulated waterways as those which are navigable or significantly connected to navigable waters. The proposed rule would include smaller waters and would allow the EPA to regulate farming practices on land wherever a “water of the United States” is present.
“As a result, permit requirements that apply to navigable waters would also apply to ditches, small ponds and even depressions in fields and pastures that are only wet when there is heavy rain,” Campbell said. “If we lose delegated authority, permitting will become more difficult.”
“It’s important to know that part of what we’re trying to do with this rule is be sure we are protecting upstream waters because they actually impact downstream waters,” Hyde said. “About 60 percent of the stream miles in the United States flow seasonally.
“They have a huge impact on downstream waters – the health of our nation’s lakes, rivers, streams and wetlands depend on this network of streams and wetlands. That’s where it all begins. It’s not really possible to protect our larger waters without protecting our smaller waters.”
During her presentation, Campbell pointed out a section of the rule that addresses drainage ditches refers to “ditches that only drain a dry land that didn’t need a ditch, or ditches that don’t go anywhere.” The rule specifically refers to not regulating ditches that “flow upstream.”
“We’re going to find that not many of those ditch exclusions apply to us,” Campbell said.
The discussion prompted questions from the audience. “If tile lines flow into a ditch from a field, is that regulated?” asked one person.
He was told if his agricultural practices are already exempt from regulation, they will remain exempt under the rule. “The proposed rule does not change any of the existing exemptions or how these exemptions are implemented,” Hyde said.
Another farmer asked, “How do you know if you weren’t regulated (before the rule) or if you were regulated and just got away with what you were doing?”
“If you’re doing normal farming practices, you’re probably covered,” Hyde replied.
Campbell cited the language of the rule as a primary concern for farmers. “Our challenge to the rule has a lot to do with how the rule is written, because future administrations will go by how the rule is written,” she said.
She discussed definitions in the rule of wetlands, adjacent waterways, significant connectors and other terms that leave a lot of leeway for interpretation, thus adding to confusion.
“We don’t have enough basis in scientific theories and studies that have been submitted under EPA’s connectivity report to justify what the basis is for the rule,” she said. “Intent doesn’t matter. What matters is the rule.”
Under the rule, the EPA aims to regulate pollution, specifically runoff from farms, by regulating waterways. The EPA claims the rule would offer clarity, simplify the regulatory process and improve protection of water resources.
Campbell said, “The rule is so completely and profoundly broken in the way that it’s written that it needs to be pulled back entirely and it needs to be re-proposed. We want a rule. We want to understand what this means out in the countryside. We want something that offers clarity – something that actually gives the farmers protections that they are supposed to have for activities they do in the countryside while still protecting water quality and respecting the intention of the Clean Water Act.”
More than 300,000 comments have been received by the EPA to date, according to Hyde. To allow people more time to voice their concerns, the original 90-day public comment period has been extended to Nov. 14.
Visit www.epa.gov/uswaters or www. michfb.com to submit comment.
10/23/2014