Oct 1, 2014
Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions Sign UpLogin

Definitions in Proposed Water Rule Still Murky

July 10, 2014
By: Sara Schafer, Farm Journal Media Business and Crops Editor
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy is in the Midwest this week, to visit with farmers, ranchers and agribusinesses about the proposed changes to the Clean Water Act  

For farmers, EPA’s proposed changes to the Clean Water Act and the definitions of Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) are a double-edge sword. On one hand, the proposed rule should clarify issues of when permits are needed. Yet, it’s also seen as an overreach of EPA’s authority.

EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy has heard plenty from both sides. That’s why she’s in the Midwest this week, to visit with farmers, ranchers and agribusinesses on the issue. On July 9, she visited Bill Heffernan’s corn and soybean farm in Rocheport, Mo.

Heffernan farms a chunk of hilly central Missouri land that is dotted with ponds, and his fields have been shaped with terraces to help drain his fields. He uses no-till farming methods, cover crops and other conservation practices and also raises hogs and cattle. "This is a historic farm and we are trying to keep the legacy of it growing today," he says.

EPA Hopes to Debunk Myths

McCarthy says incorrect and ludicrous information has been surrounding this proposed rule. "The things that bother me the most are the ones that talk about us canceling 4th of July fireworks because of this rule and having to get a permit if your cows wander across a wetland area," she says. "This rule is serious business. I know this rule is important for the farming and ranching community."


Listen to McCarthy discuss the proposed rule with AgriTalk’s Mike Adams:



The rule, if passed, will redefine "waters of the United States" to include intermittent and ephemeral streams, along with other non-navigable water bodies. Currently, the Clean Water Act authorizes the federal government to regulate only "navigable" waters.

The ag community has expressed much concern on how the proposed rule will affect ditches. McCarthy says the rule doesn’t cover standing water, and the vast majority of ditches are not jurisdictional, as they are just directing runoff.

But, she says, there are some ditches that look, feel and act like streams, because many of them actually were streams. "Those may be important for water quality protection purposes," she says. "They were important under the current rule and they will be important under this one."

If farmers have these specific types of ditches, McCarthy says, they need to be careful that it stays healthy. "It doesn’t mean you need to change anything you are doing," she says. "We’re not making you get a permit. We are making sure you realize that unique ditch is a vital part of a drinking water supply and needs to be protected."

farm pond

What this proposed rule doesn’t do is just as important as what it does, McCarthy says. She says the proposed rule:

  • Does not change the definition of "navigable water."
  • Retains all of the farming exemptions and exclusions from the Clean Water Act permitting requirements that are currently in the rule.
  • Does not expanded the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.

READ MORE
Previous 1 2 3 Next

See Comments


 
Log In or Sign Up to comment

COMMENTS

No comments have been posted



Name:

Comments:

Receive the latest news, information and commentary customized for you. Sign up to receive the AgWeb Daily eNewsletter today!.

 
 
Enter Zip Code below to view live local results:
bayer
 
 
The Home Page of Agriculture
© 2014 Farm Journal, Inc. All Rights Reserved|Web site design and development by AmericanEagle.com|Site Map|Privacy Policy|Terms & Conditions