|
 Industry representatives
were included in its development, but appeared not to have been
heard. Immediately after being passed the new measure immediately
received push back from a multitude of groups and agencies for its
burdensome regulations on the entire country. The groups took it to
courts across the U.S., where the rule was temporarily halted by a
nationwide stay from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.
In the months following, developments were not pleasant. For
example, the EPA’s method for writing the rule quickly came into
question. There was speculation that comments on economic impacts
and information provided by the agricultural industry were ignored.
The emphasis of the water rule was on navigable waterways. However,
within its definitions serious questions arose about just how
“navigable” is a ditch or a pond. While ditches can be tributaries,
it was also argued that ditches go dry, so they are not consistent
tributaries, and don’t actually add a whole lot of anything going to
the larger waterways such as the Illinois River.
In January of 2016, United States Representative Darin LaHood formed
his Illinois Agriculture Advisory Committee. The group consisted of
38 members with two people from each of the 18th Congressional
District’s 19 representative counties. The first meeting was held in
Lincoln at the Logan County Extension Office and was very well
attended.
Following that meeting, Rep. LaHood made the following statement:
"At the committee meeting many farmers expressed their frustration
with overregulation from our current administration. Just this week,
President Obama vetoed a measure, which passed the House and Senate
with bipartisan support, to overturn the EPA’s rule on Waters of the
United States. WOTUS is an encroaching regulation granting the
federal government sweeping authority to regulate virtually any and
every area of wet land—even puddles. I will work to reduce barriers
to trade and roll back such regulations that prevent farmers from
doing their job.”
In June 2016, Rep. LaHood questioned EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy
during a Science, Space, and Technology Committee meeting about the
questionable science the rule is based on. This rule redefines
‘navigable waterways’ to include ditches, ponds, and puddles,
thereby giving the EPA the ability to regulate everything from farm
puddles to mostly dry creek beds.
He later said, “Administrator McCarthy’s answers in committee today
give me even more reason for skepticism that the EPA is conducting
rulemaking in a transparent light, and based on sound science. The
fact that this sweeping ‘rule’— which currently carries the weight
of law—was written by unelected bureaucrats is cause enough for
concern. But the dubiousness does not end there. Detailed,
merit-based comments from the agriculture community were given to
the EPA, but these were not taken into account when you look at the
final rule and how it has been implemented. During my line of
questioning, EPA Administrator McCarthy could not name a single
agricultural group that was supportive of the rule. The EPA’s
rulemaking process should be transparent, accountable, responsive,
and grounded in legitimate science. None of those words describe the
WOTUS rule that is in question,”
Meanwhile, in Washington a new President took office and EPA
Administrator McCarthy was replaced by Scott Pruitt.
In February of 2017, President
Trump introduced an executive order that the EPA and U.S. Corp of
Engineers revisit the Clean Water Rule "and shall review rescinding
or revising the rule, as appropriate and consistent with law." Those
charged with the task include the administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the assistant secretary of the Army for Civil
Works, and the heads of all executive departments and agencies by
executive order "shall review all orders, rules, regulations,
guidelines, or policies implementing or enforcing the final rule."
[to top of second column] |
In August of 2017, the new EPA
Director, Scott Pruitt issued a statement pertaining to WOTUS that
reflected the EPA would move forward, respecting the impact WOTUS
rules could have on the farming industry, “We recognize that the
agricultural industry and farmers and ranchers were among the first
to care about the environment,” adding, “Farmers care about the
water they drink and the air which they breathe.”
Pruitt acknowledged that over the past few years, many in
agriculture often viewed EPA as an adversary, not a partner. Pruitt
said, “Part of what we need to do going forward, is work together.”
He said, “That includes working with not only ag interests, but also
state governments and state agencies to protect the environment
while allowing farmers and ranchers to do what they know how to do
better than anyone else.”
On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court made a decision that the
courts of appeals do not have original jurisdiction to review the
2015 Rule, and, therefore, do not have original jurisdiction to
issue a nationwide stay of the 2015 Rule.
On February 6, 2018, the EPA rule was amended to include an
effective date of February 6, 2020. The document states, “This
amendment gives the agencies the time needed to reconsider the
definition of “waters of the United States.”
So, what will the end result be? At this point it may be hard to
say. A lot can happen in two years.
What is needed is a common sense approach to protecting the
environment in this process.
If you have comments and opinions contact Rep. LaHood via the
information provided here.
Congressman Darin LaHood
https://lahood.house.gov/
Springfield District Office
235 S Sixth Street
Springfield, IL 62701
Phone: (217) 670-1653
Fax: (217) 670-1806
[Nila Smith with contributions by Jan
Youngquist]
References
Final Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States” – Addition
of Applicability Date to 2015 Clean Water Rule
https://www.epa.gov/wotus-rule/final-rule-definition-waters-united-states-addition-applicability-date-2015-clean-water
|
