Possible New EPA Policy Could Have Harmful Effects on Ag

Farm Bureau has come down solidly against giving increased power to EPA and Army Corps of Engineers.

Published on: Mar 28, 2012

The American Farm Bureau Federation is trying to find an administrative or legislative solution to an Environmental Protection Agency policy that it says would dramatically increase the agency's footprint in farm country.

A guidance document now pending before the White House Budget Office would let field offices of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers decide whether a geographic feature is a water of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act. The agencies have sought new guidelines after previous methods had been put into question by two Supreme Court rulings.

Don Parrish, Farm Bureau Senior Director of Regulatory Relations, says if the guidance goes into effect it's going to be really difficult to conduct farming activities without being exposed to Clean Water Act regulations.

Proposal would allow EPA and Corps to decide what is a water of the U.S.
Proposal would allow EPA and Corps to decide what is a water of the U.S.

"It's bigger than 402 the MPDS pesticide issue because it is going to impact SPCC, it's going to impact water quality standards," Parrish said. "It's going to impact virtually every program in the clean water act and the cost is going to be horrendous and the potential for farmers to run headlong into this just skyrockets out the roof."

Farm Bureau is hoping it can convince OMB and the White House the guidance is not backed by science.

"They have cut every corner they can cut to try to hand this out politically to a constituency that wants very broad government involvement in regulating land use and regulating water on the landscape," Parrish said. "They are trying to finalize this and we are going to make an appeal."

Environmental groups say it's the other way around. Jon Devine, Senior Attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, says EPA and the Corps are closing loopholes created under similar guidance issued by the Bush Administration, which he said was a policy decision that had focused very narrowly on individual segments of streams, making it harder to show any particular stream is significant to the overall watershed.

Popular Stories:

    Comments:
    Add Comment
    1. Anonymous says:

      I believe most have now heard of the Sackett case that was handled by Pacific Legal Foundation. I would like to encourage everyone to google them and send a donation or sign up to make a monthly contribution to this wonderful organization. Something to be aware of: I signed up to do pasture seeding through EQIP. They now need to come out and look for endangered plants first if any have been found within 3 miles of the area. This is new since last year.

    2. Anonymous says:

      These extremist radical federal agencies need to be stopped! When we think of the wizards of smart in the US Army Corp of engineers and the destruction wreaked by their utter incompetence on the Missouri a year ago, it makes one shudder to think they get even MORE power. The EPA, US Fish and Wildlife, Corp of Engineers and even NRCS need to be in line for minimum 50% budget cuts. How many in agriculture voted for the likes of Tom Daschle, Kent Conrad, Tim Johnson, Byron Dorgan or Stepahine Herseth? These were major enablers for the fanatical developments that have taken place over the years of this incompetence and dictatorial powers we are now seeing the fruits of. Wake up people!

    3. Anonymous says:

      If the EPA can wrap it's tentacles around this issue too,then most farmers have only one response,"Write me a check,it's yours".Most farmers are very independent and trying to make a living,without being ruled and regulated to death.As some would say,"Go ahead,make my day".FarmerMike.

    Please provide the answer to the following question:

     =