Ag Policy Blog

MANHATTAN, Kansas, (DTN) ---Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Pat Roberts had different takes on the roll out Wednesday of the EPA-Army Corps of Engineers rule defining waters of the United States.

I spoke to both of them briefly on Wednesday following the groundbreaking ceremony for the National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility at Kansas State University.

The agriculture secretary said the rule will lead to cleaner waters across the country. Such a change in the Clean Water Act also was needed after different U.S. Supreme Court decisions blurred the understanding of what defines a "waters of the U.S."

"First of all, I think clean water is important to everybody in the country, including America's farmers and livestock producers. Clearly, when the Supreme Court created confusion with the two lawsuits, there needed to be clarity," Vilsack said.

As DTN's Todd Neeley thoroughly scrubbed with his reporting on Wednesday, the final rule more precisely defines 'tributaries' as waters that are characterized by the presence of physical indicators of flow -- bed and banks and ordinary high water mark -- and that contribute flow directly or indirectly to a traditional navigable water, an interstate water, or the territorial seas. The rule concludes that such tributaries are 'waters of the United States.'"

The final rule also addresses the question of what exactly are adjacent waters for the purpose of establishing a "significant nexus" to larger water bodies.

Contrary to the comments from some agricultural groups, the agriculture secretary said EPA "went through an unprecedented outreach effort with over 400 meetings specifically with ag-related groups." Vilsack noted McCarthy reached out to farm groups and visited farms in several states before finalizing the rule.

"As I look at this, essentially what they are doing is reaffirming the traditional and normal ag practices, which are not going to be affected by this," Vilsack said.

He also noted EPA has addressed the issue of ditches that was considered a major concern by farmers last year when the initial rule was proposed. The agency also has tried to create greater clarity on ephemeral streams, the secretary said.

"They have created for the first time specific distances, if you will, so it's going to be easier to determine what's in and what's out," Vilsack said. "So I'm hopeful, looking at the statements from some of the ag groups, that they are in the process of reviewing the rule. I hope they will see that EPA has been responsive to many of the concerns that ag groups have expressed."

At USDA, Vilsack said the department is going to continue working on partnerships in conservation with groups such as Ducks Unlimited, and soon will announce where the department is going with the Conservation Reserve Program. The secretary also noted the Regional Conservation Partnership Program also will concentrate on water quality initiatives.

"We're convinced conservation is working and we're hoping to build on the record of conservation that has already taken place," Vilsack said.

Roberts was critical of the final rule and how EPA has handled it to this point. He said his staff was working with farm groups to delve deeper than a two-page memorandum about the rule that EPA released. Roberts said the regulations go 88 pages long in the Federal Register. "I defy anybody to determine whether they come under the waters of the U.S. with some kind of regulation."

Roberts said he was more upset with EPA's push during the comment period to push environmental organizations to all comment about the importance of clean water without any detail or real explanation. "Do you want clean water? Well, of course you want clean water. So all of those comments come in and they stacked the deck and then Gina McCarthy had the temerity to come out and say 90% of the people that wrote in support the U.S. waters rule because they like clean water. Well, everybody likes clean water. What would they say? Do they think farmers and ranchers like dirty water?"

The chairman said he didn't think it's fair for the federal government to effectively lobby groups over the rule. Roberts also questioned why EPA did not make an effort for another comment period after this rewrite of the earlier proposal.

The House of Representatives passed a bill earlier this month that would block EPA from implementing the rule. Roberts said he expects the Senate to pass a similar bill that would be spearheaded by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who chairs the Environment and Public Works Committee.

"We'll be working with Jim on legislation," Roberts said of the Senate Ag Committee.

I am certain we will hear a great deal more about the rule, the reaction and the reaction to the reaction in the coming days, weeks and likely legislation and litigation to come.

Chris Clayton can be reached at Chris.Clayton@dtn.com.

Follow me on Twitter @ChrisClaytonDTN.

© Copyright 2015 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.