New EPA water rule fails to halt debate about water quality and agriculture

If anyone thought the latest version of a rule to strengthen the federal Clean Water Act would clarify the scope of the law and satisfy opponents, they were mistaken.

The Waters of the United States rule initially was proposed last year by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. When a revised version was released Wednesday, reaction was swift from agricultural interests, Republican lawmakers as well as supporters of tougher environmental water quality regulations.

'The Clean Water Rule pushed out by the EPA this week is disappointing and will only serve to add confusion to the process for farmers,” the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation said in a statement issued Thursday.

'This final rule defines a tributary as any land that has a bed, a bank and an ordinary high water mark. That expansive definition means many roadside ditches or farm ponds could be included.

'This new rule also would define many grass-planted waterways as regulated tributaries, which would require a permit to improve or install new conservation practices. That's troubling at a time when Iowa farmers are expanding their conservation practices.”

Iowa's U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst in a statement said the proposed rule and the definitions laid out in it suggests expansion, not contraction or clarity.

'What is most concerning is that it appears the EPA disregarded the more than 10,000 comments they got from Iowa farmers, and the many, many more from others around the nation,” Ernst said.

'The EPA has repeatedly ignored the legitimate concerns raised throughout this process and continues to act as an unchecked federal agency of the Obama Administration.

'Every community wants clean water and to protect our nation's waterways, but we simply cannot allow mounting unnecessary environmental regulations to overwhelm the common sense voice of hardworking Americans.”

Supporters of the proposed rule, such as the Iowa Environmental Council in Des Moines, said it clarifies protections for headwater streams and wetlands under the Clean Water Act.

'The Clean Water Rule confirms protections for some of our country's most important and often overlooked waters under the Clean Water Act, one of our best tools for restoring polluted waters and preventing new pollution,” said Susan Heathcote, IEC water program director.

'As we know all too well in Iowa, many pollutants that affect the quality of our water travel down these streams to larger water bodies, in some cases crossing state borders. These standards will help ensure cleaner water that benefits Iowa's environment, economy, health and quality of life.”

The Des Moines Water Works is suing the boards of supervisors of the mostly rural Buena Vista, Sac and Calhoun counties, asserting that drainage districts within their borders violate the Clean Water Act. The suit contends the counties are not doing enough to reduce nitrates in waters that runs into the Raccoon and Des Moines rivers and their tributaries.

Bill Stowe, chief executive officer of the Des Moines Water Works, said opposition to the new rule is indicative of industrial agriculture's concern about any environmental protection measures that might impact profits.

'I saw EPA Administrator (Gina) McCarthy give a presentation on this rule when it was first introduced a year ago,” Stowe said. 'She took great pains to explain how it is not intended to set up any new permitting requirements for agriculture or set farming on its head at all.

'Clearly there is such a push back on any environmental protection and federal jurisdiction that any measure - no matter how small - is viewed as the end of the world. That's unfortunate because there's a lot of data that continues to indicate that source waters, surface waters in the United States need greater protections.

'At the same time, any step toward that is viewed as some apocalyptic struggle.”

Curt Zingula, a northern Linn County corn and soybean producer for 38 years, does not see the new water quality rule directly affecting his farming operation. But he is concerned with the agency's development of the proposed rule from an ethical standpoint.

'The EPA went on social media touting regulations and on the other hand said it would be impartial with people's responses in terms of what they wanted to see in the regulations,” Zingula said. 'They were speaking out of both sides of their mouth.

'They were saying they wanted farmers' input at the same time they were advertising for support for more regulation. I find that very concerning when you have a government agency that cannot be trusted.”

Under the law, the new rule is set to take effect 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. Bills have been introduced in the U.S. House and Senate to either gut the rule or completely revise it.