Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Why farmers and ranchers think the EPA Clean Water Rule goes too far

Industry and agriculture groups believe the new rule defines tributaries more broadly. They see this change as unnecessary overreach that makes it difficult to know what is regulated on their lands. Western farms are laced with canals that provide critical irrigation water during the growing season. These canals and ditches divert water from streams and return the excess through a downstream return loop, which is fed by gravity. Because they are open and unlined, they also serve as water sources for wildlife, ecosystems and underground aquifers. And because they are connected to other water bodies, farmers fear they could be subject to federal regulation. The only way to surface-irrigate in western valleys without affecting local water systems would be to lay thousands of miles of pressurized pipes, like those that carry water in cities. This approach would be impractical in many situations and incredibly expensive. More generally, farmers and ranchers want to be able to make decisions about managing their land and water resources without ambiguity or time-consuming and expensive red tape. In spite of EPA assurances, they worry the Clean Water Rule could include agricultural ditches, canals and drainages in the definition of “tributary.” They fear EPA will use vague language in the rule to expand its power to regulate these features and change the way they are currently operated. They also fear becoming targets for citizen-initiated lawsuits, which are allowed under the Clean Water Act. Moreover, they are skeptical the outcomes will significantly benefit the environment...more


Anonymous said...

What the embedded eco lawyers's are doing is making their case, their scientific argument, how what they do protects mother Earth and what you do with your God given Property Rights(be damned) doesn't.
from the article:
"Scientists and ecologists agree interpreting the degree and frequency of this kind of connectivity requires site-by-site analysis." Like NAZIS micro managing your private property by decree, even though you have done no harm and committed no crime.It's "pre-crime" time.
"We now understand more clearly how isolated water bodies function on the landscape as part of a larger complex, and our knowledge can help clarify how directly water bodies are connected. But deciding where to draw the bright line of regulatory certainty may lie beyond the realm of science." Dah how stupid and arrogant can they get! Of course water goes down hill, it weighs 8 pounds per gallon, then there is gravity. So Eco NAZI scientists finally figured out what we've always known.

"If the Trump administration withdraws or weakens the Clean Water Rule, it is likely to leave regulators interpreting case by case whether tributaries and adjacent waters are covered, as they have been doing since 2006, and land and water owners guessing about what they can do with their resources. So in the end, repealing the rule won’t answer the underlying question: how far upstream federal protection extends."
No mention of Property Rights here. Americans won't have any. No mention of 4th Amendment or 9th Amendment either. Clarifying language limiting the CWA itself is the only logical answer.

Anonymous said...

These are the roadblocks we're up against folks!

The Dishonest media:

Although the headline says 'why farmers or ranchers think the clean water act went too far'...there were no farmers or ranchers quoted as saying why they think it went too far..?

And it's dumbed downed readers:

One SF chronicle reader even commented that he was glad to get "both perspectives of the agricultural & ecological"