As EPA tries to regulate water, ranchers, counties push back

In the eyes of rural Minnesota, the trouble with a proposed Environmental Protection Agency rule could be summed up by some ditches on 32-year-old Miles Kuschel’s cattle ranch in Cass County. Most of Kuschel’s ditches were created in the 1930s and they don’t flow anywhere. They’re just pools of standing water in low-level lands where his cattle linger while grazing and take an occasional sip. Kuschel, who stays atop local regulations, says he has no idea whether federal officials would consider these various pools “waters of the United States” — a battle of definitions that has blossomed into a full-blown war on Capitol Hill between environmentalists, Midwestern rural Democrats and counties and ranchers. In writing the rule the EPA was attempting to clarify questions sparked after two Supreme Court decisions in the 2000s about federal water regulations. The agency’s proposal asserts regulatory authority over wetlands, streams, tributaries and other waters that could affect protected waters “downstream.” Kuschel worries the rule may require him to obtain a bevy of permits for maintaining cattle on his property. “We don’t know if a permit would be required for them [cows] to drink out of it, to cross the stream, to graze near the stream, to graze within 100 feet of the stream,” Kuschel said. “We are the ones who have to live and work and abide by these rules. We need clarity.” So many people are up in arms about the proposal — including DFLers Rep. Collin Peterson and Sen. Amy Klobuchar — that EPA officials say they will issue a final rule in coming weeks that attempts to straighten out what they put out before. Environmentalists are pushing back, including camping out in Klobuchar’s office this month to urge her to support the rule. The Natural Resources Defense Council says one in five Minnesotans get their drinking water from sources that rely on small streams that could be vulnerable to pollution...more

EPA officials say they were attempting to clear up confusion caused in 2006, when nine Supreme Court justices issued five different opinions about the federal government’s responsibility for water.

It's time to fire up the B.S. detector.  This wasn't an attempt to "clear up" anything.  It is an unvarnished, blatant move to increase EPA's authority over water.  They tried to get legislation passed to do this and failed, so now they are making the grab through regulations.

“I think a critical component to this is to remember this just applies to water,” said Ken Kopocis, who heads the water office at the EPA. “For most activities, whether it’s a farmer or a rancher or even a developer, unless they’re planning to pollute it or destroy it, the Clean Water Act doesn’t affect them.”

Can you believe he said that?  It "just applies to water".  Don't worry, raise crops and livestock and let EPA control your water.  I guess its hard for Mr. Kopocis to get the big picture when he's operating with such a small screen.   This guy heads the water office at EPA and should serve as exhibit #1 why EPA control of more water would be an unmitigated disaster.