Conservation groups defend WOTUS as opposition continues
July 17, 2014 | 09:33 AM
Conservation groups are mounting a campaign in defense of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Waters of the U.S. rule, even as farm leaders and Republicans in the House move bills to try to stop EPA from proceeding with it.
On Tuesday, hunting, fishing and conservation organizations held a briefing on Capitol Hill to urge Congress not to interfere with the public comment process on WOTUS. They noted sportsmen generate $200 billion in total economic activity each year, support 1.5 million jobs and rely on clean water to pursue their sporting traditions.
The groups later released their comments in a joint statement.
Jimmy Hague, director of the Center for Water Resources, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, called the Clean Water Act “one of our most successful environmental statutes.”
“It has transformed rivers that once literally caught on fire into productive fisheries and vibrant aquatic ecosystems,” Hague said. “And it slowed a rate of wetland loss that exceeded a half-million acres per year when the act was passed.”
“Efforts to stop the rulemaking before the public has had a chance to review and comment on the proposal are misguided,” he said. “Now is the time to improve the proposed rule through broad public involvement, not to lock in the current confusion indefinitely.”
Bob Rees, executive director of the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, a conservation and fishing advocacy group in the Pacific Northwest, said the act is important to anglers across this country.
“Whether you fish for trout in North Carolina, bass in Missouri or salmon in Oregon, this is an issue that directly impacts us all,” Rees said.
“Right now our members of Congress are hearing a lot of spin from those who benefit from dirtying our streams and destroying our wetlands. Everyone who wants to keep our waters safe for fish, wildlife and people needs to pick up the phone, call their senator and take a stand for clean water.”
“Approximately two-thirds of the 13 million Pennsylvanians get drinking water from headwater streams that would benefit from this proposal,” said Jeff Ripple of Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited. “This is not just about fishing, the status quo is putting the economy and our way of life at risk for the benefit of a few.”
Separately, Adam Kolton, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s National Advocacy Center said, “Clean water and healthy rivers are fundamental to the American way of life.”
“Poll after poll shows that overwhelming majorities of Americans want the government to protect our drinking water supplies,” Kolton said. “In most voters’ eyes, clean water is right up there with motherhood and apple pie.”
“House Republicans need to take the time to listen to all their constituents — not just the ones who stand to benefit from destroying our wetlands or polluting our streams. Comments from the public will help improve the rule, while simply cutting off debate and leaving these waters unprotected would be irresponsible.”
“Every single American who likes to fish, swim or just get clean water from the tap needs to pick up the phone and tell their members of Congress not to play politics with our water,” Kolton said.
The National Resources Defense Council invited the American Farm Bureau Federation to participate in a debate on the issue, but the Farm Bureau declined.
In a letter last week to Farm Bureau President Robert Stallman, NRDC Senior Attorney Jon Devine said that the Farm Bureau’s repeated “inflammatory” and “outlandish” allegations, aimed at frightening farmers, have obscured debate over the new rule.
But in a response to NRDC Monday from Senior Counsel Danielle Quist, Farm Bureau declined the debate challenge, saying it would only discuss the issue with “the [federal] agencies, the public and our elected officials.”
Replying to Quist, NRDC’s Devine in a letter Tuesday accused the Farm Bureau of flooding legislators “with misleading material and then refusing opportunities to have a genuine exchange of ideas.”
“Poll after poll shows that the American public strongly supports the Clean Water Act, and the unfounded attacks by the American Farm Bureau Federation and others against the Clean Water Protection Rule have gone largely unchallenged in the press,” Devine wrote.
“Our issue is with the agency that wrote the rule, not a surrogate that cannot decide the outcome of this very serious matter,” said Will Rodger, a Farm Bureau spokesman. Rodger noted that Farm Bureau would file comprehensive comments on the rule.
The House versions of the fiscal year 2015 Interior and EPA appropriation bill and the Energy and Army Corps of Engineers bill contain riders to stop EPA and the Corps from implementing the proposal. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved legislation introduced by Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., that would block an expansion of the number of streams and wetlands regulated under the Clean Water Act.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told The Des Moines Register this week that he was not impressed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s trip to Missouri to try to counter the view of WOTUS in the countryside.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told the Red River Farm Network he hopes McCarthy “gets credit for showing up.” Vilsack said he believed that EPA’s decision to list certain conservation practices as not subject to its regulation was “a good-faith effort.”
But he said that the list has been interpreted in the countryside as “creating greater confusion” and that he hopes “EPA will rethink the approach.”
▪ Environmental Protection Agency — Waters of the United States Proposed Rule
▪ July 10, 2014 — National Resources Defense Council letter to American Farm Bureau Federation
▪ July 14, 2014 — American Farm Bureau Federation response to NRDC
▪ July 15, 2014 — NRDC letter to Farm Bureau
▪ The Des Moines Register — Grassley skeptical of EPA Waters of the U.S. rule
On Tuesday, hunting, fishing and conservation organizations held a briefing on Capitol Hill to urge Congress not to interfere with the public comment process on WOTUS. They noted sportsmen generate $200 billion in total economic activity each year, support 1.5 million jobs and rely on clean water to pursue their sporting traditions.
The groups later released their comments in a joint statement.
Jimmy Hague, director of the Center for Water Resources, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, called the Clean Water Act “one of our most successful environmental statutes.”
“It has transformed rivers that once literally caught on fire into productive fisheries and vibrant aquatic ecosystems,” Hague said. “And it slowed a rate of wetland loss that exceeded a half-million acres per year when the act was passed.”
“Efforts to stop the rulemaking before the public has had a chance to review and comment on the proposal are misguided,” he said. “Now is the time to improve the proposed rule through broad public involvement, not to lock in the current confusion indefinitely.”
Bob Rees, executive director of the Association of Northwest Steelheaders, a conservation and fishing advocacy group in the Pacific Northwest, said the act is important to anglers across this country.
“Whether you fish for trout in North Carolina, bass in Missouri or salmon in Oregon, this is an issue that directly impacts us all,” Rees said.
“Right now our members of Congress are hearing a lot of spin from those who benefit from dirtying our streams and destroying our wetlands. Everyone who wants to keep our waters safe for fish, wildlife and people needs to pick up the phone, call their senator and take a stand for clean water.”
“Approximately two-thirds of the 13 million Pennsylvanians get drinking water from headwater streams that would benefit from this proposal,” said Jeff Ripple of Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited. “This is not just about fishing, the status quo is putting the economy and our way of life at risk for the benefit of a few.”
Separately, Adam Kolton, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation’s National Advocacy Center said, “Clean water and healthy rivers are fundamental to the American way of life.”
“Poll after poll shows that overwhelming majorities of Americans want the government to protect our drinking water supplies,” Kolton said. “In most voters’ eyes, clean water is right up there with motherhood and apple pie.”
“House Republicans need to take the time to listen to all their constituents — not just the ones who stand to benefit from destroying our wetlands or polluting our streams. Comments from the public will help improve the rule, while simply cutting off debate and leaving these waters unprotected would be irresponsible.”
“Every single American who likes to fish, swim or just get clean water from the tap needs to pick up the phone and tell their members of Congress not to play politics with our water,” Kolton said.
The National Resources Defense Council invited the American Farm Bureau Federation to participate in a debate on the issue, but the Farm Bureau declined.
In a letter last week to Farm Bureau President Robert Stallman, NRDC Senior Attorney Jon Devine said that the Farm Bureau’s repeated “inflammatory” and “outlandish” allegations, aimed at frightening farmers, have obscured debate over the new rule.
But in a response to NRDC Monday from Senior Counsel Danielle Quist, Farm Bureau declined the debate challenge, saying it would only discuss the issue with “the [federal] agencies, the public and our elected officials.”
Replying to Quist, NRDC’s Devine in a letter Tuesday accused the Farm Bureau of flooding legislators “with misleading material and then refusing opportunities to have a genuine exchange of ideas.”
“Poll after poll shows that the American public strongly supports the Clean Water Act, and the unfounded attacks by the American Farm Bureau Federation and others against the Clean Water Protection Rule have gone largely unchallenged in the press,” Devine wrote.
“Our issue is with the agency that wrote the rule, not a surrogate that cannot decide the outcome of this very serious matter,” said Will Rodger, a Farm Bureau spokesman. Rodger noted that Farm Bureau would file comprehensive comments on the rule.
The House versions of the fiscal year 2015 Interior and EPA appropriation bill and the Energy and Army Corps of Engineers bill contain riders to stop EPA and the Corps from implementing the proposal. The House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has approved legislation introduced by Rep. Steve Southerland, R-Fla., that would block an expansion of the number of streams and wetlands regulated under the Clean Water Act.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told The Des Moines Register this week that he was not impressed by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy’s trip to Missouri to try to counter the view of WOTUS in the countryside.
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told the Red River Farm Network he hopes McCarthy “gets credit for showing up.” Vilsack said he believed that EPA’s decision to list certain conservation practices as not subject to its regulation was “a good-faith effort.”
But he said that the list has been interpreted in the countryside as “creating greater confusion” and that he hopes “EPA will rethink the approach.”
▪ Environmental Protection Agency — Waters of the United States Proposed Rule
▪ July 10, 2014 — National Resources Defense Council letter to American Farm Bureau Federation
▪ July 14, 2014 — American Farm Bureau Federation response to NRDC
▪ July 15, 2014 — NRDC letter to Farm Bureau
▪ The Des Moines Register — Grassley skeptical of EPA Waters of the U.S. rule
