Tag: EPA Rule

Why You Need to Get Involved

Getting Involved Ag Menu

How many times have you heard someone say they just don’t want to get involved, or that they belong to a farm organization so “they” will speak up for them? Maybe they feel like it’s no use…they are just one person, and their vote or opinion won’t count anyway, so they give up. Frustrating, isn’t it?

This past week, I attended the first ever Governor’s Pheasant Summit. Our area in Minnesota is pretty popular for pheasant hunting, so they met at the college that is a few miles from my place. Even though I live close to the venue, I hadn’t heard about the Summit until our Farm Bureau Director of Public Policy mentioned that he would be there. I was starting to feel as if I was being prepped for the menu.

I went online to check out the Summit details, and to go through the background information. It was clearly spelled out that this was supposed to be a discussion between hunters, farmers, policy makers, conservationists, DNR, and other stakeholders and government officials. What I saw when I walked in the door was very different. There were many state agency people – DNR, SWCD, MN DOT, BWSR, NRCS – but very few farmers. Besides the few farmers that I saw, there was a small group of cattlemen, a small group of bee keepers. With the format of the event, it was evident that the small number of farmers, ranchers, and bee keepers wouldn’t have a lot of clout…even though we represented the largest private landowners, and would be the most affected by whatever decisions came out of the Summit.

There are some lessons here.

1. We need to show up. When there is an open call for stakeholders, we need to respond. We cannot wait for “them” to represent us. “They” may represent you, but when it comes to events like the Summit, I have the same amount of votes as everyone else in the room. Every voice counts. Let me repeat that…Every voice counts.

2. We need to engage. Don’t like how things are going? We cannot afford to just walk away and hope someone else speaks up for us. In any of the areas mentioned in the graphic above, there are or have been opportunities to engage. Not sure how? Join a farm organization. It could be Farm Bureau, State Cattlemen, Farm Bureau, Corn Growers, Farm Bureau, Soybean Growers, Farm Bureau, Pork Producers, Farm Bureau, Bee Keepers, Farm Bureau…  Jonathan and I are members of more than one group, giving us opportunities to engage through those different groups.  Many of these groups also arrange group trips to the State Capitol and Washington DC giving you the ability to engage with your elected officials, while helping you to speak effectively to them.

3. We need to be persistent. After the Pheasant Summit concluded, I approached the Commissioner of the DNR to ask if a farmer would be a member of the group that hammers out the action plan that came out of the Summit. In our private conversation, he agreed that we need to be at the table, and we need to be able to work together. The 5 areas outlined are too broad to let the government agencies decide on the action plan without agriculture at the table. We need to be persistent and willing to be the squeaky wheel every once in a while to ensure that agriculture has a voice. We can’t take one private conversation and be satisfied that we will be heard.

4. We need to work together. There are times when every farmer and rancher needs to work together, regardless of size, methods, or farm type. A good example is the issue with the Environmental Protection Agency and their Waters of the United States rule that would essentially give them jurisdiction over all the water in the United States. Through an organized effort, and the participation of farmers and ranchers all over the United States, we are getting the attention of our elected officials, and they are responding. The Pheasant Summit is a state wide issue that affects every farmer and rancher, regardless of size or method. We need to be willing to set aside our differences for the good of the whole, there is strength in numbers.

Where do we go from here?

Get involved. It’s okay to start small. Join your county Farm Bureau. You don’t have to sit on the county board to take advantage of the opportunities for members.  If you are not comfortable in front of people, at least respond to the Action Alerts when they are sent out. Participate in your Day on the Hill. Your county Farm Bureau and commodity organizations make it very easy to show up, and be effective. Head to Washington DC with Farm Bureau. You will learn a ton about Farm Bureau, the legislative process, and you will be making a difference by your very presence. Attend events like the Pheasant Summit. We need the agriculture voices to show up and help shape the recommendations that will affect us. You don’t have to stand up and address the crowds, or give a speech, or be on TV to make a difference. Just get involved at the level you are comfortable with. Help agriculture be at the table, and not on the menu.

Why Minnesotans Should Be Wary of the EPA’s Rule

I live in Minnesota, land of 10,000 lakes. Or, more precisely, 11,842 lakes that are 10 acres or larger, 6564 natural streams and rivers, and 10.6 million acres of wetlands. (source: MN DNR) Water is a big deal in Minnesota, not only for the impact on agriculture, but also as a major source of recreation and revenue from those activities. Our outdoor industry is so important, that we have a state law in effect that schools cannot start until after Labor Day so that families can enjoy one more weekend at their favorite resort or lake. There are a few exceptions, but the residents of those districts are split on whether or not it’s a good thing to start school before the last long weekend of the summer.
When I first heard about the proposed rule that the Environmental Protection Agency filed earlier this year, I was undecided as to whether or not it was a good or bad thing. The more I read, the more I became concerned. The rule is supposed to provide clarification to what some of the terminology of the Clean Water Act (CWA) means. The rule doesn’t change the fact that waters will be assessed, monitored, or cleaned up. There is no language in the rule that changes the basic CWA. What does change is who is in charge of enforcing the assessing, monitoring, and cleaning up. I have a problem with that.
It is important to know what the definition is of paragraph (s)(1) through (4) says, since it is referenced in many parts of the rule.
“(s) For purposes of all sections of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. and its implementing
regulations, subject to the exclusions in paragraph (t) of this section, the term “waters of the United
States” means:
(1) All waters which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate
or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(2) All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands;
(3) The territorial seas;
(4) All impoundments of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (3) and (5) of this section”

The rule says that ditches are exempt if they meet these criteria:
“(3) Ditches that are excavated wholly in uplands, drain only uplands, and have less than perennial flow.
(4) Ditches that do not contribute flow, either directly or through another water, to a water identified in
paragraphs (s)(1) through (4) of this section.” According to this definition, the exempted ditches as listed are not really exempted…because all ditches in Minnesota run “either directly or through another water, to a water identified in paragraph(s)(1) through (4) of this section.” This means that the EPA will basically have control of every single ditch in Minnesota….agricultural, municipal, wherever. We have so many lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands, that it is pretty much impossible for any ditch to qualify for this exemption.

The rule goes on to try to define what “significant nexus” means. This is where I think it really gets worrisome for Minnesotans.
“The term significant nexus means that a water, including wetlands, either alone or in combination with other similarly situated waters in the region (i.e., the watershed that drains to the nearest water identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (3) of this section), significantly affects the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of a water identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (3) of this section. For an effect to be significant, it must be more than speculative or insubstantial. Other waters, including wetlands, are similarly situated when they perform similar functions and are located sufficiently close together or sufficiently close to a “water of the United States” so that they can be evaluated as a single landscape unit with regard to their effect on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of a water identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (3) of this section.”

Remembering back to Mr. Emmon’s Earth Science class at Jackson Junior High in Champlin, and the lessons on how water moves makes this definition of significant nexus pretty inclusive of all water in Minnesota. When you look at a watershed map from your county Soil and Water Conservation District, or the Natural Resources Conservation Service you will see that all of the waters in Minnesota flow to the Red River of the North, the Rainy River, Great Lakes basin, Mississippi River, or Missouri River. All of those basins are interstate waters. This would mean that the EPA would have control of all water in Minnesota.

So, why do I have a problem with that? Minnesota has done a great job of implementing the parts of the Clean Water Act that the states were given the authority over. The Clean Water Council is made up of stakeholders representing all areas affected by the rules of the CWA, and those interested in the environment. Who better to help oversee waters in Minnesota, than those who are directly affected by, and care about, the waters in Minnesota? If the EPA’s Rule doesn’t change the fact that the waters are going to be cleaned up where necessary, what is the point of the Rule? It looks more like a control issue than a clarification issue to me. This is why I think we need to #DitchtheRule.

Join me in contacting the EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers asking them to withdraw the proposed rule. A rule that won’t change which waters are regulated, but one that shifts authority away from Minnesotans and into the hands of Washington D.C. bureaucrats.

(Click here to read the EPA’s proposed rule)
(Click here for more information about Farm Bureau’s Ditch the Rule)
(Click here for the Minnesota Farm Bureau Clean Water Act links)

CarolynCares Flooding
A large puddle in our farm yard

.

Same location, 22 hours later. This could be under EPA jurisdiction, due to the watershed this puddle was in.
Same location, 22 hours later. This water went into the Redwood River Watershed, which ultimately leads to the Mississippi River.