News
Missouri ag groups ask for rule change reconsideration
The Missouri Dairy Association and the Missouri Pork Association are among organizations that want the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to back off plans for a rule change under the Clean Water Act. Dave Drennan with the Missouri Dairy Association tells Brownfield the groups fear the agencies seek to change the definition of ‘navigable waters’ under the Clean Water Act.
“When you start considering all the ponds that we have in this state to water livestock, and also dry creek beds that most of the year are dry unless we get an overabundance of rain, which we surely could use in Southwest Missouri right now, it just seemed like this was overkill, and common sense was to pull back,” Drennan told Brownfield Ag News, “and so that’s what we’re hoping that EPA and the corps will do.”
In an earlier interview with Brownfield Ag News, the EPA’s Nancy Stoner reacted to the assertion that the rule expands regulatory reach to such land features as ditches.
“I can only say that it’s wrong,” said Stoner. “It actually, again, does not protect any new types of waters, it retains all of the existing exemptions for agriculture and for every other purpose, for that matter, and it even expands some of them.”
A total of 231 bi-partisan House members signed a letter to the EPA and Corps of Engineers asking that the rule change be abandoned. Drennan says all but two of Missouri’s House lawmakers signed the letter because of the potential expense connected with resulting regulatory changes.
“And usually farmers are the ones who bear those costs,” said Drennan, “and since agriculture is a price taker, not a price maker, we have no way of passing those costs along when there’s more regulation. So we’re very pleased with the support of our delegation.”
Stoner says the EPA is aware of the concerns and is working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and USDA to address them.
Comments on the proposal are being taken until July 21st.
AUDIO: Dave Drennan (5 min. MP3)
Tags: Environmental Issues, EPA, Hogs/Pork, Missouri
As usual, a federal agency bureaucracy has not been held accountable for a cost/benefit analysis or unexpected consequences of their rulemaking. That is a problem with most federal agencies because they have been allowed to get away with it.
This is very similar to the USDA/APHIS rulemaking this past year, where literally *thousands* (they said less than 5,000 impact and had no cost/benefit analysis that was more than figures pulled out of thin air) of home pet breeders may be required to have a USDA facility and be USDA licensed in order to sell pets unless the buyer, seller, and animal are at the breeder’s “place of business”. IOW, even if someone had been to a breeder’s house in the past, bought from them in the past, or wanted to rely on a breeder’s reputation and was willing to waive a face-to-face meeting for a pet, that was not good enough. IOW, the assumption is that sellers are dishonest if they don’t sell face-to-face and buyers are ignorant and cannot be responsible enough to waive the face-to-face meeting. That is, of course, what the anti-breeding animal rights organizations have been preaching with their BIG LIE propaganda, and we know that they have infiltrated USDA/APHIS (e.g., Sarah Conant, past H$U$ litigation attorney, is high in APHIS enforcement). There was a lengthy comment period and literally thousands of small pet breeders spoke up, with breeding experts warning of unintended consequences and home intrusion issues, but only minor changes were made–which means it was a “done deal”. There is currently a lawsuit on behalf of 15,000 dog and cat breeders (and that is less than 5% of all dog and cat breeders) to stop enforcement and require the USDA/APHIS to go back to the drawing board and do a proper cost/benefit analysis as well as clarify the many problems with the rule. Of course, the H$U$ is protesting and even tried to intervene (but USDA backed them off).