EPA water rule based on sound science

A July 21 Gazette article discussing the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed rule to clarify waters covered by the protection of the Clean Water Act included statements by the Farm Bureau and Senator Charles Grassley incorrectly describing what the rule would do.

Over the past 13 years the U.S. Supreme Court has issued what could be described as fractured decisions on what types of waters come within the EPA's jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. The issue is the definition of 'waters of the United States”.

There is no dispute that rivers, lakes and major streams come within the definition. The questions surround the status of wetlands, as well as intermittent and ephemeral streams. The essence of the Supreme Court decisions is that if a water has a 'significant nexus” to a river, lake or major stream, it comes within the scope of the Clean Water Act. That is why this clarifying rule is necessary.

In order to establish a scientific basis for determining a 'significant nexus” the EPA appointed an advisory committee of eminent scientists to address this question. This committee included two professors from Iowa State University. Their 300 page report is the basis for the proposed rule.

The report concluded that wetlands and other small water bodies can be connected to larger water bodies physically, chemically, and biologically in many ways. In other words, there are many ways pollution can be transferred from small water bodies to larger water bodies. In order to carry out the goal of the Clean Water Act, pollution in the small water bodies must be reduced so it will not contaminate the larger water bodies.

The EPA has specifically exempted normal agriculture, forestry, and ranching practices from regulation. This includes 56 specific Natural Resource Conservation Service practices. And it is certainly justified to ask farmers to take reasonable action to protect the 'chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” We all have to do our part in the effort for clean water.

The proposed rule provides that when the connectivity of a small water body to a larger water body is in question, the EPA and/or the Corps of Engineers will examine the issue on a case-by-case basis. This approach is entirely fair and appropriate. The EPA has gone out of its way to accommodate agriculture. We all want clean water. We all must do our part to make it happen.

' Wallace Taylor is an environmental attorney in Cedar Rapids. Comments: wtaylor784@aol.com