EPA keeping WOTUS messy - Ag interpretive rule withdrawn

Political action on the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed waters of the U.S. rule keeps flowing, with the latest action bringing a partial victory in the withdrawal of the interpretive rule criticized by agricultural groups as well as a joint hearing Wednesday on the proposed rule questioning EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for three and a half hours. When the EPA first proposed its Waters of the U.S. rule last spring, its accompanying interpretive rule was meant to be a way to bring agricultural support along. Or was it really a bait and switch, questioned Don Parrish, environmental specialist at the American Farm Bureau Federation? Maybe EPA’s desired result was creating two problematic raging rivers so as to generate the division over which to try and fight against first. Congress successfully saved the raft from going over the falls for the interpretive rule which would have detrimental impacts on farmers conservation efforts on the ground, but now it’s a race against the close of the administration’s tenure and ahead of the 2016 presidential elections to see how far this concerning regulation will get pushed. Parrish said it’s likely the regulation will try to get finalized as far ahead of the 2016 elections as possible. “I know from a political standpoint, they have to try to ram it through regardless of people’s concerns so that it doesn’t get pulled into the campaign process going into 2016.” The proposed rule comment period closed in November and EPA officials continue to say they hope to have a final rule out by this spring. Interesting that with over the million comments, EPA will try to rush out a final proposal in less than six months, but on the Renewable Fuels Standard levels the 2014 proposal has been stalled in EPA’s hands for nearly a year and a half. Nearly two thirds of the nation’s states have called on EPA to either withdraw completely or revise significantly the proposed rule. Many of the top committee leaders criticized EPA and the Corps on the lack of state involvement in writing the proposal...more