The letter expresses displeasure with the rule because it would narrow exemptions provided in the Clean Water Act for “normal farming activities.” It is signed by officials from Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia and Wyoming.
By “limiting the exemption to only those conservation practices specifically identified, (the EPA has) impermissibly narrowed the scope of ‘normal farming’ activities that have historically been considered exempt,” they wrote.
The EPA announced the proposed rule earlier this year with the intent of clarifying protections under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands. The federal agency also released an “interpretive rule to ensure that 56 specific conservation practices that protect or improve water quality” would not be subject to permitting requirements for the discharge of dredged or fill material.
“These ‘normal farming’ activities are now subject to performance measures issued by the Natural Resources Conservation Services, an agency without any authorization or obligation to implement the provisions” of the law, the letter says. The attorneys say the rule should be withdrawn.
In mid-July, the AFBF released to Congress a comprehensive document that responds point by point to inaccurate and misleading comments made about the proposed rule by EPA Acting Assistant Administrator Nancy Stoner in an agency blog post. The AFBF document explains with specific citations how the rule would give the EPA broad Clean Water Act jurisdiction over dry land features and farming practices long declared off-limits by Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.
AFBF President Bob Stallman said that organization is “dedicated to communicating to farmers, their elected representatives and the public how the proposed rule will impose costly and time-intensive federal permitting regimens on commonplace and essential practices that our nation’s farmers and ranchers depend on. … It’s time for the agency to ditch this rule and start over.”
(We won’t ever try that again. Almost killed us!)
That said, it’s free to read, but it still costs us money to produce. The site is updated several times a day, every day, 365 days a year, 366 days on the leap year.
(Stuff still happens on Christmas Day, is what we’re saying there.)
AFP does well in drawing advertisers, but who couldn’t use an additional source of revenue?
From time to time, readers ask us how they can support us, and we usually say, keep reading.
Now we’re saying, you can drop us a few bucks, if you’re so inclined.