GUEST COLUMN
EPA Water Rule Can Place Limits On Our Farmers
August 25, 2017 at 8:40 p.m.
By Jim Banks-
The WOTUS issue is critical not only to the Hoosier agriculture community but to our state’s economy as a whole.
Over the last decade, the Environmental Protection Agency has steadily inserted new regulations into federal code to expand its jurisdiction over U.S. waterways. The most egregious of these efforts came in 2014 when the EPA, under President Obama, proposed the WOTUS rule. This rule set out the agency’s interpretation of which bodies of waters are “navigable” and therefore subject to federal regulation.
This rule significantly changed EPA definitions for tributaries and regulated wetlands. The changes were worded so vaguely that any well-meaning farmer or land-owner with a drainage stream or rainstorm overflow could be accused of polluting navigable waters. It also could limit the ability of Hoosier farmers to use their private land as they see fit.
While we can all agree that reducing pollution in Indiana’s waterways is a common-sense goal, this rule goes far beyond reasonable environmental protection. The sweeping regulations in the WOTUS rule are overly broad, burdensome and unnecessary.
Despite these concerns, the Obama administration approved the ambiguous WOTUS rule and scheduled implementation to begin in August 2015. Fortunately, a federal judge in North Dakota placed a hold on the rule in 13 states a day before its implementation. Soon after, the Federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals successfully blocked implementation – 42 days after the rule was slated to go into effect. Indiana was among the group of challenging states.
While the rule was ultimately blocked by the courts, public opinion played a role. Citizen comments leading up to the court’s action showcased collective opposition, which influenced the court’s decision to block the rule.
Earlier this year, newly minted EPA administrator Scott Pruitt proposed a complete withdrawal of the WOTUS rule. I strongly support this decision, and I led a letter signed by the Republican members of Indiana’s House delegation in support of withdrawal.
Permanent withdrawal of these WOTUS regulations would create a regulatory environment that is more friendly to economic production and agriculture in Indiana and across the nation.
Whether you agree that WOTUS needs to go or you support WOTUS, you have an opportunity to make your voice heard. All Hoosiers can weigh in with their thoughts on the WOTUS rule at regulations.gov between now and Monday, when the public comment period closes.
Jim Banks represents Indiana’s 3rd District in the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.
The WOTUS issue is critical not only to the Hoosier agriculture community but to our state’s economy as a whole.
Over the last decade, the Environmental Protection Agency has steadily inserted new regulations into federal code to expand its jurisdiction over U.S. waterways. The most egregious of these efforts came in 2014 when the EPA, under President Obama, proposed the WOTUS rule. This rule set out the agency’s interpretation of which bodies of waters are “navigable” and therefore subject to federal regulation.
This rule significantly changed EPA definitions for tributaries and regulated wetlands. The changes were worded so vaguely that any well-meaning farmer or land-owner with a drainage stream or rainstorm overflow could be accused of polluting navigable waters. It also could limit the ability of Hoosier farmers to use their private land as they see fit.
While we can all agree that reducing pollution in Indiana’s waterways is a common-sense goal, this rule goes far beyond reasonable environmental protection. The sweeping regulations in the WOTUS rule are overly broad, burdensome and unnecessary.
Despite these concerns, the Obama administration approved the ambiguous WOTUS rule and scheduled implementation to begin in August 2015. Fortunately, a federal judge in North Dakota placed a hold on the rule in 13 states a day before its implementation. Soon after, the Federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals successfully blocked implementation – 42 days after the rule was slated to go into effect. Indiana was among the group of challenging states.
While the rule was ultimately blocked by the courts, public opinion played a role. Citizen comments leading up to the court’s action showcased collective opposition, which influenced the court’s decision to block the rule.
Earlier this year, newly minted EPA administrator Scott Pruitt proposed a complete withdrawal of the WOTUS rule. I strongly support this decision, and I led a letter signed by the Republican members of Indiana’s House delegation in support of withdrawal.
Permanent withdrawal of these WOTUS regulations would create a regulatory environment that is more friendly to economic production and agriculture in Indiana and across the nation.
Whether you agree that WOTUS needs to go or you support WOTUS, you have an opportunity to make your voice heard. All Hoosiers can weigh in with their thoughts on the WOTUS rule at regulations.gov between now and Monday, when the public comment period closes.
Jim Banks represents Indiana’s 3rd District in the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092