Search Site   
Current News Stories
Solar eclipse, new moon coming April 8
Mystery illness affecting dairy cattle in Texas Panhandle
Teach others to live sustainably
Gun safety begins early
Hard-cooked eggs recipes great for Easter, anytime
Michigan carrot producers to vote on program continuation
Suggestions to celebrate 50th wedding anniversary
USDA finalizes new ‘Product of the USA’ labeling rule 
U.S. weather outlooks currently favoring early planting season
Weaver Popcorn Hybrids expanding and moving to new facility
Role of women in agriculture changing Hoosier dairy farmer says
   
News Articles
Search News  
   

EPA finalizes WOTUS rule, farm groups still objecting

 

 

By TIM THORNBERRY

Kentucky Correspondent

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The issue set forth by the U.S. EPA’s proposed rule regarding Waters of United States (WOTUS) grew more heated last week as the Clean Water Rule became final.

Both houses of Congress had initiated legislation that would have halted the action, which is intended to define the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act (CWA), according to the information in the Federal Register. The rule was introduced last year by the EPA, along with the Army Corps of Engineers and has been an issue of concern in the farming community since.

Agriculture groups across the country have spoken out against the measure saying such a redefinition could essentially give the federal agency an overreaching authority on virtually any body of water. They also said there has not been enough time to analyze any revisions that had been made to the rule.

But EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said in a Web posting, along with Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy, that normal farming and ranching – including planting, harvesting and moving livestock – have long been exempt from Clean Water Act regulation, and the Clean Water Rule doesn’t change that.

They added: "What the rule does is simple: it protects clean water, and it provides clarity on which waters are covered by the Clean Water Act so they can be protected from pollution and destruction."

McCarthy and Darcy noted changes had been made to the final rule in instances where clarity was needed regarding certain issues, and that the farming community’s input was crucial during the comment process.

"Farmers and ranchers work hard every day to feed America and the world. In this final rule, we’ve provided additional certainty that they’ll retain all of their Clean Water Act exemptions and exclusions so they can continue to do their jobs, and continue to be conservation leaders."

The ag industry does not seem to be completely convinced of those sentiments, however. Organizations such as the American Soybean Assoc. (ASA) were quick to respond. Its president, Wade Cowan, said it needed time to determine the impact of such an expansive document before responding.

"It bears repeating, however, that we haven’t been given an opportunity to comment on EPA’s revision of the rule," he added. "We voiced strong opposition to the original version, and while we are encouraged by the agency’s willingness to revisit the rule and potentially address farmer concerns, we are very much in a ‘trust but verify’ mode.

"ASA needs to establish that the rule does not affect everyday soybean farming operations, and we are now in the process of making that determination. If we find that the rule does not live up to the promises made by EPA, we must have an opportunity to submit comments to the agency to that effect."

Philip Ellis, National Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc. president, was more certain in his response. He said this is a clear indication there is no intention of considering the concerns of those most impacted by the rule.

"Not only did the EPA write the proposal expanding the reach of the Clean Water Act without input from agriculture, the agency implemented their own grassroots lobbying campaign to drown out the concerns of private property owners," he said. "The taxpayer-funded campaign was promoted through social media channels and called for people to share EPA’s oversimplified and misleading talking points."

Ellis added, "The former Obama campaign officials that received political appointments at EPA are apparently putting their activist knowledge base to use. Soliciting endorsements and support is a far cry from simply educating the public, as EPA officials claim."

Several legislators of both parties were just as outspoken on the matter. House Agriculture Committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) said, "I am disappointed but not surprised that the EPA has decided to move forward with a rule that would increase confusion and red tape. Farmers, ranchers, local communities and businesses all expressed concern with the negative impacts of this rule. Despite that, EPA either wasn’t willing to listen or simply just does not get it.

"I am committed to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to explore all available options to ensure these arbitrary and subjective regulations never go into effect."

Committee Chair K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), along with House Conservation and Forestry Subcommittee Chair Glenn "GT’ Thompson (R-Pa.) said in a joint statement, "America’s farmers and ranchers deserve a government that will review and address their concerns. Instead, the process by which this rule was established ignored them.

"Even input from the states was ignored, clearly displaying the arrogant, ‘government knows best’ attitude ever-present in this administration."

To learn more about the rule, go online to www2.epa.gov/cleanwaterrule

6/3/2015