WOTUS Comments from Iowa Cattleman

Here’s how proposed WOTUS rules will impact one Iowa farmer: ICA is asking members to step up and make public comments about WOTUS. The rule is confusing, so we’ve asked some ICA members around the state to tell us about the comments they will be making.

Brad and Kristy Pellett are sixth generation farmers who live with their three children - Connor, Caroline, and Claire on their farm north of Atlantic in Cass County. Although they are in a crop farming partnership with family members, Brad and Kristy are solely responsible for a 100 head cow-calf operation and they feed out fewer than 300 head of cattle.

Here’s what Brad has to say about WOTUS, and the comments he plans to make: “I am a small cow/calf producer and feedlot operator from southwest Iowa. I am not in favor of the Waters of the U.S. rule as it is currently proposed because it will greatly impact both of my operations. The way the rule is currently written is confusing to understand for both myself and those

that are tasked to enforce it.

“Over the past two years, I have used NRCS personnel and expertise to implement conservation measures on my farm to help improve water quality by taking land out of crop production and establishing pasture. As written, the WOTUS rules will make NRCS personnel an enforcement arm. This will transform them from being a farmer’s partner in soil conservation and water quality to a potential adversary.

“As I understand it, the rule will add burdensome regulations that will encompass all facets of agriculture and do very little to impact water quality overall. I strongly encourage you to drop the proposed rule as it is written.”

Atlantic, IA

Tell the federal government how YOU will be impacted by the proposed rules: Comments regarding the rule are due October 20, 2014. You can submit comments by one of the following methods: • On the web at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://1.usa.gov/1qq2fbW (Case Sensitive) • Email: ow-docket@epa.gov Include EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 in the subject line of the message.

• Mail: Send the original and three copies of your comments to:

Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I oppose the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed rule regarding the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880. Here’s why: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Here’s how proposed WOTUS rules will impact cattle producers:

ICA is asking members to step up and make public comments about WOTUS. The rule is confusing, so we’ve asked some ICA members around the state to tell us about the comments they will be making.

Evan Vermeer is a Nutritionist providing feedyard consulting services, economic analysis and production expertise to cattle producers throughout western Iowa.

“The WOTUS proposed rules seem to be far over-reaching the intent of the Clean Water Act. The interpretive rules have no clear boundaries or definitions, and as a cattle nutrition consultant, I can see that the lack of definition is a real threat to my clients’ livelihood.

“The lack of clarity should not be acceptable to anyone. When the rules allow a “case by case” analysis, it gives total control and possible fines or sanctions to be inflicted at the whim of the investigator. There is no mention of science-based information in these rules, and that allows decisions to be

made by opinion rather than fact.

“The broad scope and lack of delineated standards is one of the reasons the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that the CWA applies to navigable waters, not to these proposed fuzzy definitions.

“There isn’t enough information to make good decisions. Both farm and nonfarm landowners need to know whether mud puddles that show up by their feedyard or in their backyard qualify as waters of the U.S. or not.

“The lack of clear guidelines just says that this whole move to interpretive rules

by EPA is all encompassing. It tries to reach back to defining farming practices, and that is well beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act.”

Evan Vermeer Sioux Center, IA

Tell the federal government how YOU will be impacted by the proposed rules: Comments regarding the rule are due October 20, 2014. You can submit comments by one of the following methods: • On the web at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://1.usa.gov/1qq2fbW (Case Sensitive) • Email: ow-docket@epa.gov Include EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 in the subject line of the message.

• Mail: Send the original and three copies of your comments to:

Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2822T Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20460

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I oppose the U.S. EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed rule regarding the definition of “Waters of the U.S.” under the Clean Water Act, Docket No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880. Here’s why: _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Why agriculture is opposed to proposed WOTUS rules: Congress gave the EPA authority over “navigable� waterways, or those bodies of water you can sail a steamboat or large ship through.

Now, the EPA wants to change the definition to include even more areas that will fall under its jurisdiction.

Essentially, the proposed rule would give the agency control over all bodies of water. This includes ponds, streams, creeks, ditches, puddles, man-made conveyances, wet areas on pastures, etc.

The EPA doesn’t want to pass this rule through regular order in Congress. They have tried this twice and failed.

If adopted, certain ditches would be defined as jurisdictional tributaries under Clean Water Act programs. Additionally, conservation activities not complying with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) practice standards would be required to have a 404 dredge-and-fill permit. This means you would be subject to additional permitting requirements for applying pesticides, grazing cattle, constructing conservation projects like terraces, ponds, and sediment basins, using cover crops; or contour farming, and residue and tillage management, and performing other routine maintenance on your land. These permits can cost around $30,000 and take up to a year to receive. Failure to obtain them would likely result in a penalty.

How will WOTUS impact you?

Three cattle farmers tell us their story.

Commenting on proposed federal

Brad and Kristy Pellett are sixth

regulations can be head-scratchingly

generation farmers who live with

“Over the past two years, I have

frustrating. Nonetheless, three Io-

their three children on their farm

used NRCS personnel and expertise to

wans involved in cattle production

north of Atlantic in Cass County.

implement conservation measures on

have taken the time to make com-

Although they are in a crop farming

my farm to help improve water quality

ments on the proposed rules that

partnership with family members,

would re-define Waters of the U.S.

Brad and Kristy are solely respon-

by taking land out of crop production

(WOTUS), a key definition in the

sible for a cow-calf herd and small

Clean Water Act of 1972.

feeding operation.

The Iowa Cattlemen’s Associacomments about the proposed rules

Here are Brad’s comments about WOTUS:

by Oct. 20, 2014. You can type your

“I am a small cow/calf producer and

comments directly into the federal

feedlot operator from southwest Iowa.

government’s eRulemaking Portal;

I am not in favor of the Waters of the

send them via email; or mail them

U.S. rule as it is currently proposed be-

with a stamp and envelope.

cause it will greatly impact both of my

tion is asking all members to make

What should you say? Perhaps you’ll get some ideas by looking at what these producers have written.

cattle enterprises. The way the rule is currently written is confusing to understand for both myself and those that

are tasked to enforce it.

and establishing pasture. As written, the WOTUS rules will make NRCS personnel your enforcement arm. This will transform them from being a farmer’s partner in soil conservation and water quality to a potential adversary.

“As I understand it, the rule will add burdensome regulations that will encompass all facets of agriculture and do very little to impact water quality overall. I strongly encourage you to drop the proposed rule as it is written.”

Evan Vermeer is a Consultant

eated standards is one of the reasons

edented overreach of authority and far

and Nutritionist for Midwest PMS

the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled re-

from the intent of Congress when they

LLC, where he provides feedyard

peatedly that the CWA applies to navi-

passed the Clean Water Act almost 40

consulting services, as well as eco-

gable waters, not to these proposed

years ago. This is yet another example

nomic analysis and production ex-

fuzzy definitions of U.S. waters.

of a government agency trying to by-

pertise to cattle producers throughout western Iowa.

tion to make good decisions. Both

Here’s what Evan is saying about WOTUS: “The

WOTUS

“There just isn’t enough informa-

proposed

rules

seem to be far over-reaching the intent of the Clean Water Act. The interpretive rules have no clear boundaries or definitions, and as a cattle nutrition consultant, I can see that the lack of definition is a real threat to my clients’ livelihood. If they go out of business, so do I. “The lack of clarity should not be acceptable to anyone. When the rules allow a “case by case” analysis, it allows total control and possible fines or sanctions to be inflicted at random and at the whim of the investigator. There

authority.

farm and non-farm landowners need

“Farmers and ranchers like my-

to know whether mud puddles that

self are constantly looking to be bet-

show up by their feedyard or in their

ter stewards of the land and improve

backyard qualify as waters of the U.S.

our operations for the benefit of future

or not.

generations. More paperwork, regula-

“The lack of clear guidelines just

tions, and red tape do not motivate me

says that this whole move to interpre-

to do better; it simply makes it harder

tive rules by EPA and the Corps is all

to do the things I am already doing. I

encompassing. It tries to reach back

currently use buffer strips, grass wa-

to defining farming practices, and that

terways, no-till, cover crops, settling

is well beyond the scope of the Clean

basins, berms, etc. to control and limit

Water Act.”

runoff from my farm fields and feedlots.

Ben Albright, Lytton, is in a fam-

“Generally, these practices were

ily cattle feeding partnership in Cal-

implemented at my own expense with

houn County.

little help from the government. If this

is no mention of science-based infor-

Here are Ben’s comments about WOTUS:

mation in these rules, and that allows

“I am strongly against the proposed

decisions to be made by opinion rather

rule changes regarding the Waters of

than fact.

the U.S. that will vastly expand EPA

“The broad scope and lack of delin-

pass the legislature and expand their

jurisdiction. I believe this is an unprec-

rule is implemented, it would become harder to continue these efforts, and in many cases it will require a permit to perform common conservation practices as well as the numerous other day-to-day activities on my farm.

“Ditch these new rules.”

YOU CAN COMMENT, TOO:

As a legislative leader for the state of Iowa, your comments will speak on behalf of your constituents, and all Iowans, urban and rural alike.

Comments can be emailed to: ow-docket@epa.gov and write EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 in the subject line Or online at: http://1.usa.gov/1qq2fbW

Mail your comments and three copies to:

ATTN: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 , Water Docket,

Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 2322T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.