The Democratic-leaning National Farmers Union and the Republican-leaning American Farm Bureau Federation asked roughly the same questions last week about the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed Waters of the U.S. rule, but adopted different tones in their communications about the situation.

Both NFU and Farm Bureau leaders said that the rule, which is supposed to clarify protection under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands, has created more uncertainty and confusion.

Roger Johnson
NFU wrote a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy on Thursday following a telephone conversation McCarthy had with the board on Tuesday. In his letter, Farmers Union President Roger Johnson provided a list of eight questions that NFU board members felt were not adequately answered during the call.

But Johnson ended the letter by remarking that several board members said that “EPA’s reputation was severely damaged in farm country with the recent proposal to significantly undercut the Renewable Fuel Standard — and that likely led to the surliness with which the WOTUS proposed rule was received.”

EPA has proposed reducing the volumetric requirements for renewable fuels under the RFS, although McCarthy has recently said that the RFS rule is being delayed because the administration wants to make sure that it still supports renewable fuels.

Bob Stallman
Farm Bureau sent Congress a point-by-point document reacting to statements in a July 7 blog post by EPA Acting Assistant Administrator for Water Nancy Stoner entitled “Setting the Record Straight on Waters of the U.S.”

“EPA is now engaged in an intensive public relations campaign, and we believe its statements are directly contrary to the reality of the proposed rule,” Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman said in a news release.

“We have therefore decided to take our arguments to a wider audience, as well,” Stallman said.

“Farm Bureau is dedicated to communicating to farmers, their elected representatives and the public how the proposed rule will impose costly and time-intensive federal permitting regimes on commonplace and essential practices that our nation’s farmers and ranchers depend on. Agency inspectors and courts will apply the rule, not EPA’s talking points. It’s time for the agency to ditch this rule and start over.”

In its point-by-point document, Farm Bureau said the rule doesn’t clarify anything “except that almost any low spot where rainwater collects could be regulated.”

“The proposed rule defines ‘tributaries’ and ‘adjacent’ in ways that make it impossible for a typical farmer to know whether the specific ditches or low areas at his or her farm will be ‘waters of the U.S.,’ but the language is certainly broad enough to give agency field staff plenty of room to find that they are,” Farm Bureau said.

McCarthy has said some of the concerns raised are “silly” and “ludicrous,” but on a recent trip to Missouri she also acknowledged that the decisions about the jurisdiction over some bodies of water and whether permits will be needed for activities in those waters will be up to the discretion of EPA officials.

McCarthy discussed some of those issues in an interview in Kansas City with DTN/The Progressive Farmer.

▪ National Farmers Union letter to Gina McCarthy
▪ American Farm Bureau Federation — Clarifying EPA’s Muddy Water
▪ — Farm Bureau response to Nancy Stoner blog
▪ Environmental Protection Agency — Waters of the United States Proposed Rule
▪ EPA Connect — Nancy Stoner: Setting the Record Straight on Waters of the U.S.
▪ A Day in the Life of the EPA Administrator — Meeting with Farmers in Missouri to Discuss the Proposed Rule to Protect Clean Water
▪ DTN/The Progressive Farmer — McCarthy Talks CWA: EPA Administrator Addresses Ag Concerns Surrounding Proposed Rule