Quantcast EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action

Sponsors



Author Topic: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action  (Read 7464 times)

Offline Shorthorns4us

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 321
  • Karma 15
    • View Profile
    • Ford Family Shorthorns
EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« on: June 05, 2014, 10:50:28 AM »
I received my June copy of the Iowa Cattleman's Association magazine yesterday and they had an article in the government and legislative section to update about where the proposal is on WOTUS.  The described that possible if the proposal is accepted that there would be a permit process to all farmers for any water on their land.  Exception was swimming pools and Koi ponds.  They summed it up by saying the farmer that owns his land with a pond, ditch or some kind of creek could not use it.  I'm not sure that having the permit would allow you to use it as you need either??
This really makes me nervous.-- the magazine summed this up with "the largest land grab deal by the Federal government in history".

If this goes through-- how are they (govt) going to police this????????  I'm not saying I want this anywhere near passing or being accepted, but I thought how crazy-- how are they going to watch every farm pond or ditch after a rain, etc. 
Anyone else have more info or an opinion on this?
Thought it would be a good discussion.
EF

Offline jaredkcattle

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
  • Karma 0
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #1 on: June 05, 2014, 11:01:06 AM »
I can't see it passing, but I am glad this is being brought to the attention.  The EPA can really put the screws on a person if they so feel inclined.  They can operate under the veil of government with very little accountability. 





Offline knabe

  • National Champion Poster
  • **********
  • Posts: 13482
  • Karma 4
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #2 on: June 05, 2014, 11:21:45 AM »
Plumbing should be outlawed.
"The generation that told us to question authority, has now become the Authority we cannot question!"

Offline GoWyo

  • County Champion Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
  • Karma 45
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #3 on: June 05, 2014, 11:32:49 AM »
The WOTUS "clarification" basically goes beyond the U.S. Supreme Court opinions that require that a water over which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA have jurisdiction over must be a tributary of a traditionally navigable water (tributary rule) or have a "substantial nexus" to a traditionally navigable water.  The analysis can be very complicated, especially with respect to streams that do not run year round, where there is diffuse overland flow, or any other number of situations.  So, EPA has spent 300+ pages with a "scientific analysis" to support claiming jurisdiction to virtually every depression in the earth that is capable of conveying water (and some areas that aren't on the ground such as your barn roof and gutters). 

At the same time, there is an interpretive rule under public comment regarding the "normal farming exemptions" to the Clean Water Act section 404 prohibition on dredge and fill activities without a permit.  What the EPA is attempting to do here is say that the only approved exemptions to having to obtain a section 404 permit are the 56 practices listed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).  If you do not do your farming practice under the supervision of the NRCS or in accordance with what NRCS requires, then you have to obtain a 404 permit.  If you have ever tried to obtain a 404 permit, you will find that the Army Corps of Engineers puts so many conditions on the permit, it is cost prohibitive for most farming practices.  So, the end result is that all farming is brought to heel under NRCS government supervision.  The next step that I anticipate is that EPA would eventually start telling NRCS what is normal farming activities and make NRCS do EPA's dirty work rather than NRCS being the arbiter of what is a normal farming practice.

Basically, if you have a meadow or want to fence a creek, it might be a wetland.  Your post that you want to hold up your fence with is a "pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.  If you have NRCS hold your hand and give you some EQIP funding and implement the project as required by NRCS, then you fence would be exempt as a normal farming practice.  However, if you need a fence in the next couple of weeks and NRCS can't get to your project for a year, you have to be sure to build a NRCS fence in order to be exempt.  If you construct a fence that deviates from NRCS specifications, you will have introduced a pollutant to a water of the U.S. without a 404 permit and will be in violation of the CWA.  EPA, left wing law professors and environmental groups have dreamed for 40 years about how to regulate the stuffing out of ag.  This is the tip of the iceberg.
May you always have cows around . . . ~ Corb Lund

Stop the violins -- visualize whirled peas

Offline ferkj

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 194
  • Karma 4
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #4 on: June 05, 2014, 01:01:09 PM »
And this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. 

"You can trust us, we're from the Government" Peter Minuit, Manhattan Island, May 24, 1626

Offline chambero

  • State Champion Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3207
  • Karma 207
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #5 on: June 05, 2014, 01:31:51 PM »
Most of this rule isn't just aimed at agriculture.  It affects any kind of activity that occurs in a jurisdictional water. 

Offline GoWyo

  • County Champion Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1690
  • Karma 45
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #6 on: June 05, 2014, 01:43:42 PM »
There are two rulemaking activities going on.  The WOTUS jurisdictional rulemaking is aimed at allowing the EPA to claim the maximum area under its jurisdiction for all the different elements of the Clean Water Act. 

The other action is the interpretative rule which purpose is to basically start constricting the traditional agriculture activities that are exempt from having to obtain a Section 404 permit under the dredge and fill statute.  Many ag activities on what appears to be dry land are actually construed as dredging and filling of navigable waters or wetlands.
May you always have cows around . . . ~ Corb Lund

Stop the violins -- visualize whirled peas

Offline -XBAR-

  • State Champion Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Karma 170
  • SASKVALLEY ALAMO 8A
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2014, 02:21:09 PM »
"Override the effects of private self-seeking behavior; override the profit motive"


Offline knabe

  • National Champion Poster
  • **********
  • Posts: 13482
  • Karma 4
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2014, 10:38:14 PM »
"Override the effects of private self-seeking behavior; override the profit motive"


you first.


pretty much means the end of sex.
« Last Edit: June 05, 2014, 10:38:49 PM by knabe »
"The generation that told us to question authority, has now become the Authority we cannot question!"

Offline beebe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Karma 9
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2014, 10:40:37 PM »
The WOTUS "clarification" basically goes beyond the U.S. Supreme Court opinions that require that a water over which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA have jurisdiction over must be a tributary of a traditionally navigable water (tributary rule) or have a "substantial nexus" to a traditionally navigable water.  The analysis can be very complicated, especially with respect to streams that do not run year round, where there is diffuse overland flow, or any other number of situations.  So, EPA has spent 300+ pages with a "scientific analysis" to support claiming jurisdiction to virtually every depression in the earth that is capable of conveying water (and some areas that aren't on the ground such as your barn roof and gutters). 

At the same time, there is an interpretive rule under public comment regarding the "normal farming exemptions" to the Clean Water Act section 404 prohibition on dredge and fill activities without a permit.  What the EPA is attempting to do here is say that the only approved exemptions to having to obtain a section 404 permit are the 56 practices listed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).  If you do not do your farming practice under the supervision of the NRCS or in accordance with what NRCS requires, then you have to obtain a 404 permit.  If you have ever tried to obtain a 404 permit, you will find that the Army Corps of Engineers puts so many conditions on the permit, it is cost prohibitive for most farming practices.  So, the end result is that all farming is brought to heel under NRCS government supervision.  The next step that I anticipate is that EPA would eventually start telling NRCS what is normal farming activities and make NRCS do EPA's dirty work rather than NRCS being the arbiter of what is a normal farming practice.

Basically, if you have a meadow or want to fence a creek, it might be a wetland.  Your post that you want to hold up your fence with is a "pollutant" under the Clean Water Act.  If you have NRCS hold your hand and give you some EQIP funding and implement the project as required by NRCS, then you fence would be exempt as a normal farming practice.  However, if you need a fence in the next couple of weeks and NRCS can't get to your project for a year, you have to be sure to build a NRCS fence in order to be exempt.  If you construct a fence that deviates from NRCS specifications, you will have introduced a pollutant to a water of the U.S. without a 404 permit and will be in violation of the CWA.  EPA, left wing law professors and environmental groups have dreamed for 40 years about how to regulate the stuffing out of ag.  This is the tip of the iceberg.
You have explained it well.  Last wednesday I was at a meeting in ST. Paul with the EPA they talked about it being a clarification not an expansion.  I told them that I did not believe it would work out that way.  I was then told that by statute ag land and local ditches are exempt.  I said that was great but by staute we are supposed to stop illegal immigration but that is not happening.  The lady that told me that just hung her head and said " I know".
Administrator McCarthy was there and gave a little talk and said that she was a great listener.  Then she told us that she and a couple of Mayors were going to leave and do some "fun stuff".  She left before anyone had a chance to say anything.  I don't beilieve anything the Federal government says these days.

Offline -XBAR-

  • State Champion Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Karma 170
  • SASKVALLEY ALAMO 8A
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #10 on: June 06, 2014, 06:52:57 AM »
"Override the effects of private self-seeking behavior; override the profit motive"



pretty much means the end of sex.

Unless of course you include everyone  ;)

Offline knabe

  • National Champion Poster
  • **********
  • Posts: 13482
  • Karma 4
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #11 on: June 06, 2014, 07:07:36 AM »
Shared misery is your game, except for yourself.

Well at least you aren't as lazy as Marx.
"The generation that told us to question authority, has now become the Authority we cannot question!"

Offline Gargan

  • State Champion Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3050
  • Karma 38
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #12 on: June 06, 2014, 07:36:27 AM »
If this goes through, would digging a post hole be in violation without a permit?
Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.  -Ronald reagan

Offline BTDT

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 443
  • Karma 38
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #13 on: June 06, 2014, 08:03:28 AM »
The "head" of the water supply in Des Moines also blames all their water issues on agriculture. Even put in a "flyer" in the water bills stating that the increased cost were directly related to agriculture contamination.
Think it is time for him to lose his job. If he is that narrow sighted and biased, he has NO place in a public job or decision making position.

Offline -XBAR-

  • State Champion Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3457
  • Karma 170
  • SASKVALLEY ALAMO 8A
    • View Profile
Re: EPA/Army Corps-- Clean Water Act-- WOTUS action
« Reply #14 on: June 06, 2014, 08:05:28 AM »
What verifiable facts do you have to dispute his claims?

 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
6 Replies
4904 Views
Last post January 21, 2009, 11:14:03 AM
by vc
3 Replies
2126 Views
Last post July 19, 2009, 09:57:08 AM
by knabe
23 Replies
11265 Views
Last post August 05, 2010, 04:55:19 PM
by siggyl67
3 Replies
3041 Views
Last post March 22, 2012, 04:25:06 PM
by ECC
3 Replies
3420 Views
Last post November 10, 2012, 04:23:34 PM
by SEA

Powered by EzPortal

SteerPlanet Designed Websites

SteerPlanet Designed Websites

Steer Planet Classifieds & Auctions

Breeder Directory