Ag Policy Blog
Chris Clayton DTN Ag Policy Editor

Tuesday 04/01/14

Farm Bureau Opposes EPA Waters Rule

The American Farm Bureau Federation added itself to the list of groups opposing the EPA/Army Corps of Engineers proposal to redefine "waters of the U.S."

Farm Bureau issued a statement Tuesday on the potential change in the Clean Water Act.

“The EPA proposal poses a serious threat to farmers, ranchers and other landowners. Under EPA’s proposed new rule, waters—even ditches—are regulated even if they are miles from the nearest ‘navigable’ waters. Indeed, so-called ‘waters’ are regulated even if they aren’t wet most of the time. EPA says its new rule will reduce uncertainty, and that much seems to be true: there isn’t much uncertainty if most every feature where water flows or stands after a rainfall is federally regulated," said Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said last week that the proposed rule keeps traditional agricultural exemptions under the Clean Water Act. The agency also specified certain conservation practices that would be exempt from possible regulation. McCarthy indicated she thought the agricultural industry would be pleasantly surprised by the proposal. That hasn't been the case.

CropLife America stated last week the proposed changes to the Clean Water Act would be "creating additional unnecessary regulatory burdens for the agricultural community and applicators of pesticide products."

The rule would broaden the number of people would have to apply for discharger permits for pesticides. It also could infringe on the rights of states, said Jay Vroom, CropLife America's president and CEO.

CropLife called for Congress to move ahead and pass HR 935, a bill that would eliminate requirements for farmers to get discharge permits for spraying federally-approved pesticides.

Farm Bureau's Stallman stated that landowners would face problems with ordinary land uses.

“This is not just about the paperwork of getting a permit to farm, or even about having farming practices regulated. The fact is there is no legal right to a Clean Water Act permit—if farming or ranching activities need a permit, EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers can deny that permit," Stallman said." That’s why Clean Water Act jurisdiction over farmlands amounts to nothing less than federal veto power over a farmer’s ability to farm.

Stallman and Farm Bureau dismissed the value of the exemptions laid out by EPA, noting the exemptions only apply to "dredge and fill" permits. "They do not protect farmers from federal veto power over pest and weed control, fertilizer application, and other essential farming activities that may result in the addition of ‘pollutants’ to ‘navigable waters,’ -- providing one views every ditch and wet spot across the landscape as ‘navigable waters,' " Stallman said.

Stallman added that EPA is refusing to accept limits on the agency's authority that have been set by Congress and the Supreme Court. The court has repeatedly ruled that "navigable waters" does not mean all waters.

The proposed rule will soon open for a 90-day public comment period.

Follow me on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN

Posted at 9:00PM CDT 04/01/14 by Chris Clayton
Comments (2)
I hope more stick up for our rights.
Posted by Unknown at 1:31PM CDT 04/02/14
This is a prime example of EPA employees trying to justify their jobs, or should I say secure their jobs even deeper. Why do we keep funding an agency that has completely lost all the respect from the ag community? Quit throwing/wasting money at the EPA and maybe, just maybe they might start focusing on REAL issues that actually matter. If or when will the general public realize that we can't afford to pay a bunch of people to do a bogus job creating bogus laws and regulations that cost us even more to be in compliance or in fines. Rediculous!! They need to focus on real issues that really matter.
Posted by RJZ Peterson at 3:27PM CDT 04/03/14
Post a Blog Comment:
Your Comment:
DTN reserves the right to delete comments posted to any of our blogs and forums, for reasons including profanity, libel, irrelevant personal attacks and advertisements.
Blog Home Pages
December  2014
S M T W T F S
   1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31         
Subscribe to Ag Policy Blog RSS
Recent Blog Posts
  • Members of Congress Want Rule on Active Engagement
  • House Passes Appropriations with Several Ag Riders
  • Appropriations Bill Would Block New Beef Checkoff
  • Senate Pushback on WOTUS Expected Next Year
  • Groups Champion Revenue for Ag Infrastructure
  • GMO Labeling Push Continues
  • ARC and the PLC Reference Price
  • RFS Decision Could Alter Biofuels, Corn, Soybean Markets
  • Is Keystone XL Back to Square One?
  • Chevrolet Buys CO2 Credits from Working Ranch Grasslands
  • Sign up for ARC or PLC Next Week? Surely You Jest!
  • Top Donors to House and Senate Ag Leaders
  • Farm Groups Want Tax Extender Legislation in Lame Duck
  • Republicans Sweep Key Senate Races
  • Biotech Label Battles Continue at Ballot Box
  • Cattle Industry, Land Group Presses Feds to Pull WOTUS Rule
  • USDA Moving Ahead with Beef Checkoff Plans
  • Politicos Weigh in on USDA APH Yield Exclusion
  • Views in Congress Vary on COOL
  • Vilsack Addresses Checkoff Controversy