Ag Policy Blog

House Likely to Block EPA's WOTUS Rule

Chris Clayton
By  Chris Clayton , DTN Ag Policy Editor
Connect with Chris:
@ChrisClaytonDTN

From DTN's Washington Insider:

House Likely to Block EPA's WOTUS Rule

It is increasingly likely that the House will take up legislation to block the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing a "waters of the United States"rule to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act, a step that could give EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers greater regulatory reach over a greater number of acres.

The proposed legislation to block the rule would prohibit EPA and the corps from "developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, applying, administering, or enforcing" the proposed rule or any associated guidance that attempts to clarify the scope of the Clean Water Act.

The joint rule by EPA and the Corps, would bring under federal jurisdiction all tributaries of streams, lakes, ponds and impoundments, as well as wetlands that affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of larger, navigable downstream waters.

The rule does not sit well with a number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and stands a fair chance of being blocked by the proposed legislation which could be taken up after Congress returns to Washington next week. EPA's Science Advisory Board has scheduled two days of meetings on the scientific underpinnings of the waters of the U.S. rule for Sept. 26 and 29. However, those meetings may take place after the House votes on the blocking measure.

Follow me on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN

© Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.

Previous Post (Clarifying Some SCO Issues)
Next Post (Base Acre Decisions Are Key to New Farm Bill )

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Bonnie Dukowitz
9/12/2014 | 5:25 PM CDT
And isn't it sad the grandparents would now need a feedlot permit? Only if you would set an example and do the same, Jay.
Jay Mcginnis
9/11/2014 | 9:17 AM CDT
Grandparents had a half dozen sows, 10 milk cows, 50 chickens, 60 acres much of which was in hay the balance was fertilized by home grown manure and a couple 200lbs of 2-6-6, no herbicides,,, Yeah they didn't need a feedlot permit, much freer then without government regs!
Bonnie Dukowitz
9/10/2014 | 5:02 PM CDT
Sorry Don, I have not denied anything. We have not accepted anything, we were taught by our Grandparents to care for the land that feeds the world. We also attempt continued education, as many producers do also. You, too often reach conclusions without reading other contributions from readers. Please read consider my previous statement. Many food producers are continually trying too improve their practices, while too much residential destruction continues without safeguards.(Foe example) In order to obtain a feedlot permit in Mn., one needs to meet the rules and regulations. Period. You deniers are a piece of work!
Don Thompson
9/10/2014 | 10:54 AM CDT
Unknown, You need to read the Supreme Court EPA opinion again. I believe you have missed the boat there - and that is the last word!
Unknown
9/10/2014 | 8:58 AM CDT
I understand you are trying to have the last word. I stand by my comments. There are rules now for pesticide and fertilizer application. The Supreme Court has ruled. Please stick to the subject.
Don Thompson
9/10/2014 | 8:26 AM CDT
I believe I understand the point entirely. There is a problem that needs attention. Fellow citizens of our country believe an effort of this scope is needed to solve it. It may come to that. Personally, I hope we address it in a cooperative manner that is brought on in a well thought out manner. Denying that we in rural USA are not a part of the problem and contending that there is a conspiracy against us because we feel superior to our urban cousins leaves us with no credibility. Property rights are like freedom of speech. When your speech or actions harm others, there may be limits. You can argue about the extent of that as you wish.
Unknown
9/10/2014 | 7:55 AM CDT
I think you are missing the point Don. EPA already has ability to regulate pesticide along with fertilizer application. This is about land use on private property in which is a right protected by the US Constitution. That is why the Supreme Court stated they are overreaching. Now the House is doing its job to try to reign them in. No government agency has the right to write law. There are other countries that allow that and certainly a person can move to one of them if you don't like the US Constitution.
Don Thompson
9/10/2014 | 7:08 AM CDT
Bonnie, You have recognized and accepted that there is a water pollution issue but you continue to deny any culpability on the part of ag. It is delusional to think that is possible. Everyone has a part in this and everyone needs to accept responsibility. Congress just passed the buck again to future generations. Please accept that not every expression of fact or opinion that you disagree with and are reluctant to hear, is somehow a left wing plot to destroy Bonnie D and all her conservative pals. In our district, the far right Congressperson is attending multiple Farm Bureau meetings using the EPA as her punching bag and getting the reds all riled up again over any form of government role. How about solving a problem that needs a solution?
Bonnie Dukowitz
9/10/2014 | 5:19 AM CDT
Jay and Don, You should actually get involved in some scientific research, rather than relying on special interest Enviro groups being promoted by the liberal press. I have not read a word anywhere stating Farm Bureau or any food producer denying any responsibility for the problem. There are several land locked lakes in Minneapolis, Mn. with hypoxic layers do to road salt, chlorine and other municipal run-offs. In our water shed, several lakes were declared impaired by the PCA due to high chlorine counts. Farmers in the Chesapeake Bay area have corrected the practices under the direction of government agencies, but yet the problem is still present while residential destruction booms. Has anyone actually identified the sources of Lake Erie issues? Not what I have read. Only finger pointing by those who deny their own contribution to the problem. A couple of you need to look in the mirror to see the deniers.
Unknown
9/9/2014 | 7:15 PM CDT
I am sorry you need someone to tell you how to run your farm. Allowing some drainage because they had it before and others are told it is bad and that they can't install it, how is that not discrimination and how is that scientific. Everyone needs to play by the same rules. That does not happen however. If we allow gov't agencies to pass law without due process, how are we any different from a socialistic or communist gov't? If we allow different people to make "case by case" rulings how is that legal? I had heard a Senator's advisor lately state "we have passed a farm bill now we are writing the rules" , that is not the intensions of our constitution and is simply an abuse of power. I am truly concerned by your lack of concern.
Don Thompson
9/9/2014 | 12:18 PM CDT
Jay, I don't believe the argument here is whether one should drink from a drainage tile or a sewer pipe. We are fortunate in this country that previous requirements even allow us to consider drinking from a drainage tile. In the majority of other countries, it would be unthinkable. That said, obviously more work is required. I don't get the minority argument. Environmental issues are prominent across the total economy, farm and non-farm. "Farmers" who do not practice environmentally sensitive standards are a dying breed since they can not survive in a world that demands they do. I suggest the ag community becomes a part of the solution as opposed to the seemingly never ending chorus of "woe me". Show a little leadership. BTW Jay, We are purchasing a solar array to power the grain setup and shop with the help of a USDA grant. Gotta love that USDA offering help to us "minorities". Got the idea from your previous posts. Thanks for the heads up.
Jay Mcginnis
9/9/2014 | 8:26 AM CDT
Don, The neocons of today are far from the old school conservatives. While I disagree with them as well they at least held on to self-responibility. The old school felt responsible for their community, their churches and to help the poor. The neocons of today feel victimized and are puppets of the corporations and hate radio hosts. They deny not only dead zones in the gulf but other scientific issues such as climate change and peak oil. The old school conservative I knew would say to take care of your own problems not "well if China can do it so can we" attitude, like they are jealous for countries that drink sewer water because there are few restrictions. First of all many 3rd world countries do have restrictions despite the neocon fantasy stereotype and secondly I don't really wish to have dead zones in the gulf, rivers that stink and unbreathable air! Yeah Cities make pollution, suburbia makes pollution but farmers do as well and that is what is being discussed here! And BTW unknown, what does it matter if Don is or isn't a farmer?
Unknown
9/8/2014 | 7:26 PM CDT
I'm glad you brought up the dead zone in the gulf. A couple of years ago I was at a drainage meeting that had 3 professors from a land grant university. They had a presentation that depicted a map of the world depicting hypoxia. Their map did show the US Gulf of Mexico one of the worst in the world. After the presentation I asked why all of the other countries and continents including South America and Russia did not have as bad of problems and they actually have more drainage and less regulation. All 3 professors were speechless for awhile until one of them answer maybe because of the "lack of current in the Gulf of Mexico". It seems it is easy to point the finger at the minority of the population that farm, because it seems simply because we are the minority. Yet at the same time every major city outlets their untreated storm sewage into a water way. I will drink anytime from a tile outlet before a city storm sewer outlet, how about you Don? Oh and by the way are you a farmer?
Don Thompson
9/8/2014 | 4:42 PM CDT
Seriously? You know what pollution comes from the city and that from other? The "dead area" in the Gulf comes from fertilizers and chemicals originating on farms and yards, which is my point, the effects are cumulative from all sources. If you are attempting to imply that rural residents do not contribute then you have lost credibility. For what its worth, all my govt. employee time was spent in the volunteer military. How about you, unknown?
Unknown
9/8/2014 | 1:41 PM CDT
I'm sorry Don, I don't think you are getting the point. We are being blamed for some things the cities are contributing to. I think before any of these gov't agencies step foot on private property they should have to have a warrant. Plain and simple, also Don are you a farmer or a gov't employee trying to justify your job.
Don Thompson
9/8/2014 | 10:25 AM CDT
It is quite obvious to me that several of the commenters on this blog need to research the reasoning behind the EPA proposal before commenting further. Start with a look at the Chesapeake Bay pollution clean up project and the recent loss of potable water for the city of Toledo. The question is not whether you are personally OK but what effects excess fertilizer, chemicals, and waste have on the environment downstream. It's a requirement to consider the impositions your choices have on others who have to live with the effects of your decisions. Maybe the EPA's actions are perceived as excessive by those who will have to change but that does not mean it is the wrong action. Maybe a slap in the face? Are we denying again what our actions cummulatively have on the earth as a whole? It is depressing when the Farm Bureau and weak congressional representatives immediately wail about the EPA without acknowledging the problem or seeking reasonable solutions. I am not excited about more regulation, but how about an intelligent discussion about the realities of this issue? Can we do that in the USA anymore?
CRAIG MOORE
9/8/2014 | 8:47 AM CDT
Welcome back Jay, where you been? Off schooling all the democrats that are about to roll on their convictions just to get votes I imagine. What, no rant on how great your farm, that your dad made into what it is, while driving your electric car all over the world? If you are coming back try coming back with more than a little politically slanted snippet.
Unknown
9/8/2014 | 8:13 AM CDT
I don't know where you live Jay, but I don't see or here of big problems on farms. What I do have problems with is when EPA issues permits for millions of gallons of the offshore drilling, oil fracking, oil barges truckloads of salt on streets entering untreated storm sewers. The key is concentration, when things are big, big problems happen. This is clearly a land grab. This is private property, the key to freedom and liberty. It is nice to see some people still stand for property rights, without will not remain what it means to be America. We don't need people that know nothing about our farms with "crackerjacks box degrees" that have been brain washed by professors that have only operated in a test tube environment, not the "real world". This is clearly a UN agenda to take away our agricultural competitiveness away.
Jay Mcginnis
9/8/2014 | 6:51 AM CDT
What would you expect from the obstructionist party of dirty air and water?
Bonnie Dukowitz
9/6/2014 | 5:28 AM CDT
Watch for the Enviro"s, flying their solar powered jets, flocking to D.C. on the way to Amsterdam, on this one. Keep up the letters, Food Producers.