Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Commentary: Clean Water Act threatens private property rights

by Josh Rolph

As farmers and ranchers, we are stewards of the land and depend on it along with clean water. Now imagine if both of these resources are severely regulated by the federal government to the point where farming is not economically viable. Unfortunately, this is now a reality with the recent redefinition of "waters of the U.S." under the Clean Water Act.

One of our members, a farmer on the east side of the San Joaquin Valley, recently went through a full assessment of an 80-acre parcel of agricultural property to see how it might be regulated under changes to the Clean Water Act.

What he found was downright scary: Under the jurisdiction of an overly restrictive Clean Water Act final rule, he would have to fallow 64 of 80 acres, or 80 percent of his farm, and would therefore be left with only oddly shaped and disjointed areas of his property to farm. In other words, sustainable farming as he knows it—meaning the kind of farming that has supported his family and way of life for generations—would be over. He is not alone. This could be anyone's farmland in the state or nation.

A lot of ink has been spilled in the news media for more than a decade about efforts by Congress, the courts and the Bush and Obama administrations to redefine the Clean Water Act's "waters of the United States" regulation, or WOTUS for short. The overarching final rule will greatly expand the federal government's jurisdiction by radically expanding what it means to be a navigable water.

For years, Farm Bureau and many others concerned about what this would do to the future of farming tried everything to keep this redefinition from happening. Now, however, it's no longer an idea or a proposal. In late May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released the final version of its rule redefining and expanding WOTUS.

If only the rule was about clean water. Instead, it's about regulating land use, creating a permitting nightmare, greatly limiting land-use options, requiring mitigation, negatively affecting land values, and making it more difficult to obtain financing. At the end of the day, and as the above real-life example shows, this rule makes it significantly more difficult to farm.

No comments: