Ditch the new federal water rules
Farmers across Pennsylvania and the nation are opposing new rules proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Although the rules are characterized as regulating water, they would expand the federal regulation of virtually every acre of land under what the government agencies call “waters of the United States.”
EPA has stated that the rules will not affect agriculture, and representatives of the agency are traveling across Pennsylvania and the U.S. over the next few weeks, peddling stories that farmers have nothing to worry about.
Unfortunately, what EPA is saying publicly and what is actually written in the proposed rules are quite different. The proposal calls for expanded federal authority to regulate land use activities around small creeks and streams, and even pathways and ditches that carry water only during rain events.
The real impact will be restricting what farmers and even homeowners can do with their land. Farmers do have something to worry about under these plans.
EPA also claims it will honor agricultural exemptions currently provided under the federal Clean Water Act, but many of those exemptions are limited to plowing and earth-moving activities, and do not apply to the use of fertilizers or similar farm inputs on farm fields.
Some of the exemptions cited by EPA would apply only to longstanding farms, not new or expanded farms. Many practices in fields could require government approval through a complex process of federal permitting if the proposed rule becomes final. And if a farm family doesn't interpret the new rule correctly, it could be fined $37,500 per day.
Congress placed a clear limit on where federal authority over water begins and ends. Federal authority under the Clean Water Act extends to “navigable waters,” meaning rivers and lakes. Congress never intended federal permits to be required for ordinary farming and ranching, and two U.S. Supreme Court rulings have already upheld the scope of the act.
For example, a 2006 Supreme Court decision made it clear that “waters of the United States” are permanent, continuously flowing bodies of water that form a natural geographic feature. The Supreme Court twice rejected EPA claims that any body of water becomes federally regulated by its mere existence.
EPA and others would have you believe that unless the federal government regulates it, a body of water is not regulated at all. But in reality, small and local streams are regulated by state governments. In Pennsylvania, the state Department of Environmental Protection is actively inspecting farms and other activities along our 83,000 miles of rivers and streams.
Ultimately, the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau is calling on EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to voluntarily withdraw their proposed rule. In absence of voluntary withdrawal, Farm Bureau is calling on Congress to take political and legislative action to require EPA and the Corps to “ditch the rule.”
Carl T. Shaffer, a Columbia County farmer, is president of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Steelers notebook: Polamalu, Taylor unlikely to play, Harrison ‘ready’
- Penguins missing Martin, Ehrhoff, Adams; prized prospect Pouliot called up
- Pittsburgh police break up customer fights over Air Jordan 11 shoes
- Undersized Beachum quietly excels at 1 of game’s pivotal positions
- EPA says it won’t regulate coal ash as hazardous waste
- As smokers seek Cuban cigars, retailers point to trade embargo
- Michigan State defensive coordinator a Pitt coaching candidate
- Madonna releases 6 songs after leak
- Penguins’ defensive depth proves valuable
- Pitt: Football coach hire comes 1st, athletic director 2nd
- Pitt’s acting athletic director is deft facilitator