Farm Bureau wrong on EPA's reinstated water rules
There is much misinformation in Carl Shaffer's June 18 piece on the Environmental Protection Agency's rule to reinstate federal protection for headwater streams and wetlands.
I spent 30 years with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an aquatic biologist working in the Clean Water Act regulatory program. My career began just two years after the Clean Water Act was passed in 1972. For the next 31 years, the law provided federal protection to all the waters of the United States. However, in 2003 and 2008, the Bush administration changed the regulations (through informal guidance), which reduced federal protection for headwater streams and adjacent wetlands.
The EPA's and Corps of Engineers' proposed rule does only one thing: It restores federal protection to waters of the United States that had been taken away by the Bush administration's action.
Contrary to Shaffer's allegations, the EPA's rule does not regulate land use activity around small streams and creeks; does not regulate ditches that carry water only when it rains; does not regulate the application of fertilizer to farm fields; does not require a permit for farming activities in areas that are and have been farmed; and does not require a permit for new farms.
If you are not attempting to drain or fill a wetland in order to farm it, this rule does not change anything that had not been in place from 1972 to 2003. If you are farming an area or are beginning to farm an area and are not attempting to convert a wetland or a stream to another use, then this rule does not apply to your work.
In my career, we rarely encountered real farmers, but it wasn't uncommon to encounter developers who were dressed as farmers, attempting to convert wetlands to dry land, ostensibly to farm, when their real intent was to drain a wetland so it could be sold for development.
Shaffer asserts Congress wanted only navigable waters regulated, that is, those waters that carried interstate commerce. However, when Congress passed the Clean Water Act in 1972, it defined navigable waters broadly as “waters of the United States” and explained in the Conference Report that “the term ‘navigable waters' was to be given the broadest constitutional interpretation unencumbered by agency determinations, which have been made, or may be made, for administrative purposes.”
I was raised overlooking the steel mills in Cleveland, Ohio, about a quarter-mile from where the Cuyahoga River caught on fire in 1969. So I know something about poor water quality. When I was growing up, Lake Erie was declared dead and the nation was in an uproar because our waters were so polluted.
The public demanded action and Congress acted. Despite all the development, we have some of the highest water quality of any developed country. We learned that simply regulating pollution discharges into traditionally navigable waters was not enough because most pollution emanated from small headwater streams and was carried downstream.
But that is exactly what the 2003 and 2008 changes in the regulations have done. They have opened up millions of acres of wetlands and thousands of miles of headwater streams for development. These headwater systems are the foundation of our fish and wildlife resources and provide clean drinking water to more than one-third of Americans. So why is the Farm Bureau advocating that we go back to the bad old days?
Ed Perry is an outreach coordinator for the National Wildlife Federation in the State College area.
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.
- Starkey: Stupid Steelers
- Steelers running backs Bell, Blount will face drug charges
- It’s only exhibition, but these Steelers could solidify roster spots vs. Eagles
- 2 dead in New Kensington shooting; woman says male victim her son
- Pitt sophomore Coles leaves football team
- GOP: Wolf ‘Fresh Start’ campaign violates Pennsylvania law
- Commitment by Steelers’ Gilbert pays off
- Braves’ error, Sanchez’s sacrifice fly in 9th help Pirates snap long skid
- DEP to spend $1.45M to snuff coal fire posing threat near Pittsburgh airport
- Israeli airstrike kills 3 senior Hamas leaders
- Man admits preying on Lower Burrell neighbor, taking more than $100K in money, goods