Swamp Stomp

Volume 15, Issue 15

During the National Farmers Union convention in Wichita on March 16, 2015, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy expressed regret about how the EPA handled the controversial “Waters of the U.S.” rules.

Following U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, McCarthy spent the majority of her 30-minute speech claiming that she wished her agency had done a better job of explaining how EPA defined which bodies of water were regulated under the Clean Water Act.

McCarthy asserted, “I’m really concerned that we weren’t crystal clear out of the gate, not just about what we intended to do but about what we intended not to do, because it left all kinds of room for people to wonder not just what the words said but what we are trying to accomplish.”

Despite her regret over how the effects of rule were communicated, however, McCarthy is adamant that the EPA’s end goal will be met and the final rule be issued.  She said that the rule is currently on its way to the Office of Management and Budget and is expected to be issued this spring.

After recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings, EPA is currently rewriting the rule, but McCarthy remains adamant that the need for the rule is clear. However, she did attempt to clarify what the rule would and would not intend to do. She provided the following assurances:

• In response to numerous criticisms, McCarthy assured the public that EPA would not regulate puddles, land, or Fourth of July fireworks.
• Addressing the worry that regulating “tributaries” could mean just about anything, McCarthy stated that EPA has established clearer definitions.
• The rule does not include erosional features.
• McCarthy claimed that roadside and irrigational ditches are not included, but ditches that are natural and constructed streams that can carry pollution downstream and act like tributaries are included.
• Waters initially labeled as “other waters”—a term McCarthy conceded was too ill-defined—are in the process of being more narrowly stated by officials using their “best judgment.” However, the results of clarifying vague terms with even vaguer qualifications will most likely do little to quell concerns.

The main message of McCarthy’s speech was that farming and ranching should remain unaffected by the rule. “The exclusions and exemptions for agriculture . . . this rule we will not touch,” she said.

During Vilsack’s address, farm productivity was a major talking point. Farmers today are 12 times more productive then they were in 1950. Subsequently, Americans only spend 10 percent of their income on food, 15 to 20 percent less than many of the other countries in the world.

Vilsack also raised many concerns, including how to best introduce the next generation of farmer to the profession, labeling country origin of beef and pork in supermarkets, and how to best develop tools and support conservation and local agriculture, such as farmers markets.

“This isn’t just about farming. This isn’t just about agriculture. This is about rural life and maintaining the value system alive and well in the rural communities.”

While Vilsack is not forwardly addressing the “Waters of the U.S.” rule, he is assisting McCarthy paint an image of what the rule intends to do. The ambiguity of McCarthy’s speech did little to rid farmers and ranchers of their concerns, and her acknowledgment that the rule was not communicated as well as it could have been is somewhat diminished by “clarifying” points with terms that themselves are ambiguous.