Ag subcommittee members criticize ‘interpretive rule,’ call for withdrawal
June 19, 2014 | 12:52 PM
By ALEX GANGITANO
and JERRY HAGSTROM
Agriculture Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment Robert Bonnie came under intense bipartisan fire today at a House Agriculture subcommittee hearing on a rule that interprets the applicability of the Clean Water Act (CWA) on agricultural practices.
Robert Bonnie
The Environment Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers released the rule relating to the existing exemption for normal farming and ranching practices regarding discharges of material into the country’s waters under section 404 of the CWA at the same time EPA released its Waters of the U.S. rule.
USDA’s Resources Conservation Service was consulted on the interpretive rule, which covers 56 exempt farming and ranching practices, and the idea was to help farmers and to add to the list of exempt practices in the future, he added.
Bonnie maintained that conservation practices under the interpretative rule are still voluntary but members of the subcommittee said they did not consider the standards that farmers are expected to meet to be voluntary.
“We’ve gone from voluntary to compulsory,” said House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy and Forestry Chairman Glenn Thompson, R- Pa.
“If [farmers and ranchers] don’t want to face the consequences of the Clean Water Act, the fees, interruptions, it is really then compulsory.”
Thompson also noted that he is usually “a fan of the NRCS” but that the rule had gone into effect immediately, with a comment period to follow, rather than consultation with stakeholders before hand.
House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said that landowners in his district have been bringing up a number of issues.
“My experience out there is that the Corps of Engineers has gone off the reservation,” Peterson said.
There was a meeting in which Army Corps officials said that they are going to “restore” prairie potholes, Peterson added. In another case, a dairy farmer has gotten approval for his farming practices from NRCS, but the Army Corps “is standing in his way,” Peterson added.
“The Corps in Omaha has a whole different perspective from the Corps in St. Paul,” Peterson said.
Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, said “I’m concerned about how [the interpretive rule] may discourage producers due to mandatory and expensive permit process, and lack of clarity. I don’t think it’s helpful.”
Rep. Timothy Walz, D-Minn., the subcommittee ranking member, questioned the amount of input stakeholders were given in the formation of the interpretive rule.
Bonnie said, “On the one hand, I would say it’s obviously clear this issue of the Waters of the U.S. has been a deep concern for agriculture. We do think that what we’ve done is increased the number of exemptions through a voluntary basis, so we hope this will be something accepted as the opportunity it is.”
“I would hope that you would think about withdrawing the interpretative rule if it’s not adding anything of additional quality,” said Rep Mike McIntyre, D-N.C. “It is adding another layer that has to be considered.”
Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Mich., asked the audience if any groups present were consulted before the interpretive rule was released. No hands were raised. Benishek continued to question Bonnie on the nature of the interpretative rule, calling it a legislative rule rather than an interpretative rule.
“My understanding is that your rule defines the law. I don’t understand why the comment section wouldn’t take place after the rule,” Benishek said.
On several occasions Bonnie said he did not know the answers to questions and that members should ask EPA or Army Corps officials for answers.
Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., criticized Bonnie for his deflection of questions, and questioned the necessity of further regulations for the agriculture community.
“What we’re seeing is not creating certainty but more confusion and more frustration coming out of the federal government,” Tipton said.
On a second panel of stakeholders, Andy Fabin, a cattle producer and farmer from Indiana, Pa., representing the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, called on the government to withdraw the interpretive rule.
“As a farmer, my willingness to implement voluntary conservation practices has been greatly diminished, despite my desire to improve and protect the waters on my farm,” said Fabin, who raises cattle and farms 3,500 acres of corn, soybeans, wheat and rye.
“If the interpretive rule remains in place, farmers and ranchers across the country will slow their adoption of conservation practices,” Fabin said.
“EPA, the Corps and now even the NRCS would have me believe that, despite the expanded definition, all the activities that take place on my farm are exempted,” he said.
“This is, at a minimum, a negligent mischaracterization, and more likely, an intentionally deceptive tactic being used to pacify the agricultural community. Not all agricultural activities are exempted under the Clean Water Act, and this proposal would expand the number of farming activities that need permits, requiring many farmers like myself to seek 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits or 404 Dredge and Fill permits.”
▪ Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Army Interpretive Rule Regarding Applicability of Clean Water Section 404(f)(1)(A)
▪ Clean Water Act Exclusions and Exemptions Continue for Agriculture
and JERRY HAGSTROM
Agriculture Undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment Robert Bonnie came under intense bipartisan fire today at a House Agriculture subcommittee hearing on a rule that interprets the applicability of the Clean Water Act (CWA) on agricultural practices.
The Environment Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers released the rule relating to the existing exemption for normal farming and ranching practices regarding discharges of material into the country’s waters under section 404 of the CWA at the same time EPA released its Waters of the U.S. rule.
USDA’s Resources Conservation Service was consulted on the interpretive rule, which covers 56 exempt farming and ranching practices, and the idea was to help farmers and to add to the list of exempt practices in the future, he added.
Bonnie maintained that conservation practices under the interpretative rule are still voluntary but members of the subcommittee said they did not consider the standards that farmers are expected to meet to be voluntary.
“We’ve gone from voluntary to compulsory,” said House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy and Forestry Chairman Glenn Thompson, R- Pa.
“If [farmers and ranchers] don’t want to face the consequences of the Clean Water Act, the fees, interruptions, it is really then compulsory.”
Thompson also noted that he is usually “a fan of the NRCS” but that the rule had gone into effect immediately, with a comment period to follow, rather than consultation with stakeholders before hand.
House Agriculture Committee ranking member Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said that landowners in his district have been bringing up a number of issues.
“My experience out there is that the Corps of Engineers has gone off the reservation,” Peterson said.
There was a meeting in which Army Corps officials said that they are going to “restore” prairie potholes, Peterson added. In another case, a dairy farmer has gotten approval for his farming practices from NRCS, but the Army Corps “is standing in his way,” Peterson added.
“The Corps in Omaha has a whole different perspective from the Corps in St. Paul,” Peterson said.
Rep. Bob Gibbs, R-Ohio, said “I’m concerned about how [the interpretive rule] may discourage producers due to mandatory and expensive permit process, and lack of clarity. I don’t think it’s helpful.”
Rep. Timothy Walz, D-Minn., the subcommittee ranking member, questioned the amount of input stakeholders were given in the formation of the interpretive rule.
Bonnie said, “On the one hand, I would say it’s obviously clear this issue of the Waters of the U.S. has been a deep concern for agriculture. We do think that what we’ve done is increased the number of exemptions through a voluntary basis, so we hope this will be something accepted as the opportunity it is.”
“I would hope that you would think about withdrawing the interpretative rule if it’s not adding anything of additional quality,” said Rep Mike McIntyre, D-N.C. “It is adding another layer that has to be considered.”
Rep. Dan Benishek, R-Mich., asked the audience if any groups present were consulted before the interpretive rule was released. No hands were raised. Benishek continued to question Bonnie on the nature of the interpretative rule, calling it a legislative rule rather than an interpretative rule.
“My understanding is that your rule defines the law. I don’t understand why the comment section wouldn’t take place after the rule,” Benishek said.
On several occasions Bonnie said he did not know the answers to questions and that members should ask EPA or Army Corps officials for answers.
Rep. Scott Tipton, R-Colo., criticized Bonnie for his deflection of questions, and questioned the necessity of further regulations for the agriculture community.
“What we’re seeing is not creating certainty but more confusion and more frustration coming out of the federal government,” Tipton said.
On a second panel of stakeholders, Andy Fabin, a cattle producer and farmer from Indiana, Pa., representing the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, called on the government to withdraw the interpretive rule.
“As a farmer, my willingness to implement voluntary conservation practices has been greatly diminished, despite my desire to improve and protect the waters on my farm,” said Fabin, who raises cattle and farms 3,500 acres of corn, soybeans, wheat and rye.
“If the interpretive rule remains in place, farmers and ranchers across the country will slow their adoption of conservation practices,” Fabin said.
“EPA, the Corps and now even the NRCS would have me believe that, despite the expanded definition, all the activities that take place on my farm are exempted,” he said.
“This is, at a minimum, a negligent mischaracterization, and more likely, an intentionally deceptive tactic being used to pacify the agricultural community. Not all agricultural activities are exempted under the Clean Water Act, and this proposal would expand the number of farming activities that need permits, requiring many farmers like myself to seek 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits or 404 Dredge and Fill permits.”
▪ Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Army Interpretive Rule Regarding Applicability of Clean Water Section 404(f)(1)(A)
▪ Clean Water Act Exclusions and Exemptions Continue for Agriculture
