5
SPECIAL REPORT
Help Wanted To make IFB’s campaign against proposed EPA rule effective, action from individual farmers is needed —By Kathleen M. Dutro Public Relations Team Indiana Farm Bureau, the American Farm Bureau Federation and other state Farm Bureaus, have begun their offensive against a proposed U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rule that could radically redefine what can be considered “waters of the United States” and greatly expand the EPA’s jurisdiction over farmland and other private lands. Among other things, the rule would expand federal control over land features such as ditches and areas of agricultural land that are wet only during storms. The comment period is currently set to expire on July 21. AFBF has asked that this comment period be extended another 90 days, but that extension hasn’t been granted as yet, said Kyle Cline, IFB national government relations policy advisor. “We need to proceed on the assumption that the comment period will end on July 21,” he said. An important part of that
offensive is making sure that the EPA and members of Congress know the effect that this proposed rule will have on individual farmers. This is why IFB is encouraging farmers who believe they could be affected by the rule to submit comments to EPA. A comparison of EPA’s interpretation of the law vs. actual on-farm impacts, as well as other materials, will be available on IFB’s campaign website, www.infarmbureau. org/waterule. Members are urged to visit frequently for updates and information to assist them in taking a stand against the EPA. Cline said that those who have an interest in this but need help or advice can call or email Cline, 317-6927845, kcline@infarmbureau. org, or IFB senior policy advisor and counsel Justin Schneider, 317-692-7835, jschneider@infarmbureau.org. Other useful tactics include: Submitting photos of questionable water features to Cline or Schneider. IFB, AFBF and other state Farm Bureaus are collecting such photos in order to demonstrate the
Local farmer has major concerns with EPA’s ‘Waters of the U.S.’ rule —By Kyle Cline Public Policy Team If the EPA’s proposed Clean Water Act rule is allowed to be implemented as currently written, entire farming operations could be disrupted, making it very difficult, if not impossible, to carry out many “normal” farming practices, according to Martinsville grain and cattle farmer Norman Voyles Jr. “What really concerns me about this rule is that virtually every practice associated with my cattle operation and much of my grain operation could be subject to extensive EPA regulation that could cost me money and time and – worst case – make it impossible to run my farm,” he said. Given the natural features of Voyles’ pasture, his cows must cross a stream when relocating to another area of the pasture, a common practice used to enhance animal nutrition while protecting the
www.thehoosierfarmer.com
environment. Voyles, who is the current president-elect of the Indiana Beef Cattleman’s Association, is also concerned about several small natural gullies that carry small, temporary amounts of water to the stream that divides the pasture. But the gullies do have banking and a high-water mark, two features that the EPA is using to determine if the feature can be regulated. “Will I be able to continue making the management decisions that work best for my operation and are also the best environmentally, such as rotating grazing patterns? Will I have to spend enormous resources to fence off most of the stream and keep cows from the gullies? Is a cow going to be considered a “point source” for pollution?” Voyles asked. “The scary part is that we don’t know at this point, but the EPA is trying to move forward with their one-size fits all plan without defining the details.”
Norman Voyles Jr. of Morgan County fears that seasonal creeks, such as this one that intermittently flows through one of his pastures into a semi-permanent stream, could be subject to extensive regulation under a new rule proposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “That’s the real fear that we’ve got – that it could be so broadly applied,” he said. Photos by Kathleen M. Dutro
scope of EPA’s expansion of the definition of waters of the U.S. Of particular use are before-and-after photos of ditches and swales, ponding in driveways, water flowing in gullies on hillsides (preferably with a ditch or creek in the background) and flooded lawns. Using social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and blogs, to raise the profile of this issue by posting photos and talking points. Contacting your member of Congress to ask him or her to submit comments to the EPA docket. Organize a toolshed meeting or other informal gathering so that members of Congress, or their staff, can discuss this issue face to face with farmers. “The proposed rule really impacts every type of farm
in every state,” Cline said. “EPA is making a big PR effort to get people to calm down,” Cline said. “But the agency has given us no assurance that normal farming
The proposed rule attempts to expand the current definition of “Waters of the United States” to include waters such as small, isolated wetlands, ephemeral drains and many ditches. Currently, EPA regulatory oversight only includes “navigable” waters, a legal interpretation that has been confirmed twice by the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite major reservations with the flawed EPA rule, Voyles was quick to add that he is not against all environmental regulation, but rather, supports a local approach to the regulation of water that better reflects the types of farms and land features in a given region or watershed. “Government has become way too large over time and this proposed rule represents additional growth and over-
reach of the federal government. One size does not fit all when you talk about regulation of natural resources and water because of the diversity across the U.S. IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management) is in a much better position to regulate these features than the federal government. The EPA is simply trying to overstep Congress and state regulators to achieve their ill-defined goals.” As Voyles looks into the future, he is concerned about agriculture and the challenges that threaten the special way of life that has given so much back to his family. “My multi-generational farm began as a homestead farm established here in 1828. This farm and the land have given back to us enor-
activities will be exempt, even such ordinary practices as building a fence, tillage and spraying. The proposed rule, as it’s written, is all encompassing,” he added.
Norman Voyles Jr. says that despite his concerns about the proposed rule, he wouldn’t want anybody to think he’s somehow against clean water. “My livestock needs clean water, my family needs clean water, my neighbors need clean water.” But, he added, the way to keep the water clean isn’t a one-size-fits-all federal mandate. It’s much better if individuals can work with their local and state authorities.
mously and have contributed to our way of life, one that is unlike any other opportunity. But the core values of independence, sound stewardship of resources, and pride that define farming are under fire by the EPA and other government efforts.” “I have a much better appreciation for what works best for caring for my land than someone in some office looking at a topographical map or even making a onetime survey,” Voyles said. “My family and animals live off of the land and resources. My neighbors depend on me to take care of the water, land, and produce the best beef possible. That is a charge I take very seriously, one that the EPA clearly does not understand.”
June 9, 2014