ShareThis Page
Rick Ebert: Clean water, clear rules for farmers | TribLIVE.com
Featured Commentary

Rick Ebert: Clean water, clear rules for farmers

831936_web1_gtr-muchomilk02-061617
Rick Ebert, president of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, is shown with his cows on his Derry Township farm in June 2017.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers have proposed a new plan to clarify what bodies of water and areas around waterways should be regulated by the federal government in conjunction with the Clean Water Act.

The new proposal has been drafted to replace a flawed rule that was momentarily put in place in 2015. That rule was immediately challenged in the courts because of its vague, broad and confusing provisions that provided unprecedented authority for government agencies to regulate land use. After a variety of court decisions, the rule has been struck down in 28 states and has never been implemented.

Farmers want clean water and clear rules, and that is why we are encouraged by the new rule proposed by EPA and the Corps. Farmers across Pennsylvania and the United States are committed to protecting America’s waterways and drinking water. The new clean water rule should provide us with the regulatory certainty we need to farm confidently and ensure that we are implementing practices to protect our natural resources.

Additionally, there are already comprehensive state regulations in place here in Pennsylvania to protect waterways from farm runoff, but that fact was largely ignored during public comments several years ago. Furthermore, any modification to the Clean Water Act will not change or weaken the Safe Drinking Water Act, which is the primary federal law that protects all public drinking water supplies in the United States.

Pennsylvania farmers deeply care about environmental issues, such as healthy soil and water quality, and they have been taking positive actions on their farms to prevent soil erosion and runoff from farmland. In 2015, a study by Penn State for the state Department of Environment Protection verified extensive amounts of voluntary actions implemented by farmers to improve the environment in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The study focused exclusively on best management practices paid for entirely by farmers without any government assistance. In addition, results of a more recent DEP study, which was released in November, showed that 96 percent of the 2,934 farms they visited in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed met state requirements for water quality planning.

Farmers understand that some surface waters should be regulated by the federal government, while others should fall under state jurisdictions. We, however, think farmers should be able to look across their property and be able to tell what is a federally regulated area, without having to hire lawyers, environmental engineers and consultants.

During the public comment period, open through April 15, we encourage farmers and other interested parties to offer their thoughts on the proposed rule. Farmers may have suggestions on how the proposal can be improved upon or how the rule can be further clarified.

Overall, I’m enthused by the proposal, which should provide farmers with clearer guidelines for us to follow, while establishing requirements that will further improve water quality.

Rick Ebert, a Derry Township farmer, is president of the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau.

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.