This document has a comment period that
ends in 46 days (07/21/2014)
ends in 46 days (07/21/2014)
- Waters of the United States Proposed Rule Clarifying protection under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation's water resources.
Summary
After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of "waters of the US" protected under all CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act has a single definition for "waters of the United States." As a result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current regulatory definition of "waters of the United States." However, the decisions established important considerations for how those regulations should be interpreted, and experience implementing the regulations has identified several areas that could benefit from additional clarification through rulemaking. U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are developing a proposed rule for determining whether a water is protected by the Clean Water Act. This rule would make clear which waterbodies are protected under the Clean Water Act.
After U.S. Supreme Court decisions in SWANCC and Rapanos, the scope of "waters of the US" protected under all CWA programs has been an issue of considerable debate and uncertainty. The Act has a single definition for "waters of the United States." As a result, these decisions affect the geographic scope of all CWA programs. SWANCC and Rapanos did not invalidate the current regulatory definition of "waters of the United States." However, the decisions established important considerations for how those regulations should be interpreted, and experience implementing the regulations has identified several areas that could benefit from additional clarification through rulemaking. U.S. EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are developing a proposed rule for determining whether a water is protected by the Clean Water Act. This rule would make clear which waterbodies are protected under the Clean Water Act.
Comment on the proposed changes from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
EPA tries land grab with water rule May 30, 2014
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers’ proposed definition of “Waters of the U.S.” has raised grave concern from cattle producers across the country. Today, Jack Field, cattle rancher and Washington Cattlemen’s Association executive vice president, testified before the House of Representatives Small Business Committee to discuss the overregulation and impeding impacts of the rule for rural America.
“First and foremost, the cattle industry prides itself on being good stewards of our country’s natural resources,” said Field, who owns and operates a cattle operation in Washington. “We maintain open spaces, healthy rangelands, preserve wildlife habitat, and provide the country with the juicy ribeyes we all love to throw on the grill. However, to provide all these important functions, cattlemen must be able to operate without excessive federal burdens.”
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association believes the proposed definition of “waters of the United States” expands the federal jurisdiction to include essentially all waters across the country, subjecting landowners to increased regulation and fines of up to $37,500 per day.
The increase in liability will chill landowner participation in conservation activities by making the Natural Resources Conservation Service a regulatory compliance agency. Field testified that the EPA and the Corps’ interpretive rule would make NRCS standards mandatory for all conservation activities, despite whether they are voluntary or cost-shared.
“This didn’t have to be the result,” said Field. “All the agencies had to do was engage stakeholders early on in the process, incorporate our suggestions and we would be much farther along in crafting a rule that actually clarifies the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. There was zero outreach to the agriculture community before the rule was proposed and before the interpretive rule went into effect. We are now left with a proposal that doesn’t work for small businesses, doesn’t work for cattle ranchers, and doesn’t work for the environment.”
NCBA strongly opposes EPA and the Corps’ definition and encourages producers and small business owners to submit comments to the EPA. The comment deadline is July 21, 2014.
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
The EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers’ proposed definition of “Waters of the U.S.” has raised grave concern from cattle producers across the country. Today, Jack Field, cattle rancher and Washington Cattlemen’s Association executive vice president, testified before the House of Representatives Small Business Committee to discuss the overregulation and impeding impacts of the rule for rural America.
“First and foremost, the cattle industry prides itself on being good stewards of our country’s natural resources,” said Field, who owns and operates a cattle operation in Washington. “We maintain open spaces, healthy rangelands, preserve wildlife habitat, and provide the country with the juicy ribeyes we all love to throw on the grill. However, to provide all these important functions, cattlemen must be able to operate without excessive federal burdens.”
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association believes the proposed definition of “waters of the United States” expands the federal jurisdiction to include essentially all waters across the country, subjecting landowners to increased regulation and fines of up to $37,500 per day.
The increase in liability will chill landowner participation in conservation activities by making the Natural Resources Conservation Service a regulatory compliance agency. Field testified that the EPA and the Corps’ interpretive rule would make NRCS standards mandatory for all conservation activities, despite whether they are voluntary or cost-shared.
“This didn’t have to be the result,” said Field. “All the agencies had to do was engage stakeholders early on in the process, incorporate our suggestions and we would be much farther along in crafting a rule that actually clarifies the scope of Clean Water Act jurisdiction. There was zero outreach to the agriculture community before the rule was proposed and before the interpretive rule went into effect. We are now left with a proposal that doesn’t work for small businesses, doesn’t work for cattle ranchers, and doesn’t work for the environment.”
NCBA strongly opposes EPA and the Corps’ definition and encourages producers and small business owners to submit comments to the EPA. The comment deadline is July 21, 2014.
Related Posts:
EPA---Public Comment on Disapproval of OR Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
SCOTUS---Did EPA Overstep on Global Warming
EPA---Public Comments on New Stricter Performance Standards for wood heaters
Federal Legislative Action Alert: Vote YES on S.890 to Protect Private Property
The Natural Resources Report---Two Stories Showing Cause and Effect
EPA---Article in the Western Mining Alliance Newsletter on Oregon Spotted Frog
EPA---Victims of Government: The Case of Steve Lathrop, Sounds Familiar
Port Orford---Government Ownership equals Poverty and hungry children
The Nature Conservancy---Contact the Oregon Leadership Team
The Nature Conservancy---Oregon Grasslands: Crucial for Wildlife Survival
The Bandon Marsh Mosquito Farm
USFWS---Public Responses to the Bandon Marsh Mosquito Invasion
Letter to Mr. Lowe of the USFWS about the Bandon Marsh Mosquitoe Problem
Department of Interior---Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations AKA The Coquilles
EPA---Public Comment on Disapproval of OR Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control
SCOTUS---Did EPA Overstep on Global Warming
EPA---Public Comments on New Stricter Performance Standards for wood heaters
Federal Legislative Action Alert: Vote YES on S.890 to Protect Private Property
The Natural Resources Report---Two Stories Showing Cause and Effect
EPA---Article in the Western Mining Alliance Newsletter on Oregon Spotted Frog
EPA---Victims of Government: The Case of Steve Lathrop, Sounds Familiar
Port Orford---Government Ownership equals Poverty and hungry children
The Nature Conservancy---Contact the Oregon Leadership Team
The Nature Conservancy---Oregon Grasslands: Crucial for Wildlife Survival
The Bandon Marsh Mosquito Farm
USFWS---Public Responses to the Bandon Marsh Mosquito Invasion
Letter to Mr. Lowe of the USFWS about the Bandon Marsh Mosquitoe Problem
Department of Interior---Land Buy-Back Program for Tribal Nations AKA The Coquilles
RSS Feed
