Farmers Urged to Comment on WOTUS as Process Continues in Clean Water Act's ReconsiderationThu, 28 Mar 2019 11:16:21 CDT
Farmers need to stay on point when it comes to submitting comments on a proposed replacement to the Obama Administration’s ill-conceived 2015 Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule, according to Don Parrish, senior director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation.
“This proposed replacement rule is such a critical and significant step in the right direction,” Parrish told Michigan farmers attending the Michigan Farm Bureau’s annual Washington Legislative Seminar.
Ultimately, if the Trump Administration’s proposed replacement to the 2015 WOTUS rule is approved, expected by May 2020, it will provide clarity to farmers as to where the Clean Water Act jurisdiction starts and stops.
“This administration is doing a line-drawing exercise - on one side of the line is federal jurisdiction, on the other side of the line is state jurisdiction,” Parrish explained. “What that means is that all waters are regulated. Some are regulated by virtue of the federal statute that is related to navigable waters while other waters are regulated at the state level.
“It will balance out protection of water-use and land-use the way Congress intended,” he continued. “We think that this administration has done a pretty good job of providing clarity more so than the last administration where they pushed the limits of what the Clean Water Act statute allowed as well as the limits that the Constitution allows.”
According to Parrish, the 2015 WOTUS rule has been effectively stopped in 28 states through court challenges. However, it continues to be implemented in the remaining 22 states. The distinction and financial impacts are significant.
Parrish has been working with a member doing business in both categories to expand an existing farm operation in both states. The producer’s environmental mitigation costs in the state with WOTUS enforcement is more than $5 million, contrasted with costs of $800,000 in the state without WOTUS enforcement.
Calling the recent decision by Michigan’s Attorney General Dana Nessel to withdraw Michigan from the WOTUS Lawsuit unfortunate, Parrish said the decision makes the WOTUS debate a partisan issue.
“We don't think it's a partisan issue - we think it’s an issue of clear statutory interpretation and a clear interpretation of the Constitution,” Parrish said. “This rule infringes on state sovereignty and should be something that concerns every person in Michigan. We're all for clean water, but we also want clear rules. This administration is about providing those clear rules, while the last administration’s proposal was an overreach.
“It’s something that is critical to your way of life and what you do in terms of economic development. It’s critical in terms of where you build your roads and what kind of permits you require to start a business.”
Parrish also had high praise for the new mentality and cooperation between EPA, USDA and their desire to work with agriculture to address environmental issues.
“It’s obvious in this administration that agriculture is not viewed just as a problem but as part of the solution,” he said.
“We have a farm bill that provides for incentive-based approaches like EQIP for cost share or CSP for conservation incentive payments all of that kind of work hand in glove with farmers to help them afford and be able to internalize the cost of providing higher value environmental outcomes.”
Lake Erie Bill of Rights - a trial lawyer’s dream
Calling it a “trial lawyer’s dream,” Parrish expressed concerns over the Lake Erie Bill of Rights, saying it circumvents not only the policy process but also the three branches of government - legislative, administrative and the judicial branch.
“The Lake Erie Bill of Rights tries inserts judges that are unelected into the forefront of circumventing those other two branches of government that's out there that are elected that are accountable that are there to try to balance the social environmental and economic interest of local communities,” Parrish said. “That's why we go to the polls - to elect people to work on issues that are important to us and balance those concerns across all those constituencies.”
Parrish advised that farmers take the threat seriously as an issue that “could clearly bite them in the future.”
To make comments, Michigan Farm Bureau members should visit here.
Source - Michigan Farm Bureau
WebReadyTM Powered by WireReady® NSI
Top Agricultural News