KANSAS CITY, July 10, 2014 – EPA Administrator Gina
McCarthy wrapped up a two-day tour in the nation’s heartland, visiting a farm
near Columbia, Kansas, and speaking yesterday to the Agricultural Business
Council of Kansas City where she tried to calm some of the criticism flooding
her agency over a proposed Clean
Water Act rule that attempts to further define the waters of
the U.S. (WOTUS)
“We know we have to take action. We know that we had
to propose this rule. We know we have to finish it,” explained McCarthy. “But,
while we have taken action to put a proposal out, we’re unfortunately having to
deal with misinformation that’s really becoming the story.
“Whether that’s legitimate confusion or not, we have
to address it….and that’s what today is all about,” she told the agribusiness
leaders over lunch. “We are going to try to deal with the misinformation that
none of us needs to worry about so that we can deal with the legitimate issues
and concerns and make sure that they become the front seat instead of the back
seat of our conversations.”
Her
comments came as the agency is generating a considerable amount
of controversy over the proposed rule from a wide
variety of organizations. McCarthy seemed to push back against that criticism earlier
this week in a media call, where she described some of the farm community’s
concerns about the proposed rule as legitimate, while calling others “just ludicrous.”
But
McCarthy’s tone was more contrite on Thursday. Describing farmers as
the “standard-bearers for stewardship” of our nation’s land and water, McCarthy
seemed to go out of her way to compliment the farmers in the audience, telling
them she wanted to “thank you for myself and my family and all of the work you
do.”
“We have to change the idea that the EPA and the
agricultural community can’t come to an understanding about what waters need to
be protected,” she told the group.
McCarthy made a point of differentiating criticisms
that she’s hearing in Washington over the proposed rule from what she said were
the more legitimate concerns expressed by farmers during a roundtable
discussion in Missouri.
For example, she said she’s heard in D.C. that EPA
is trying to regulate rain in puddles on driveways and playgrounds or that the
proposed rule would have shut down the Fourth of July fireworks.
“None of that is true,” emphasized McCarthy, who
took a not too subtle swipe at the American Farm Bureau Federation’s campaign
to “Ditch the Rule”
when she said, “We ditched the D.C. myths and talked about the issues that
matter to all of us.”
However, she did not mention that various farm
organizations have been meeting with EPA staff, attempting to point out what
they see as flaws and uncertainties in the proposed rule and a related “interpretative”
rule which lists 56 exempt Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
farming and ranching practices. Much of the debate centers around the
definitions of “significant nexus” and flood plain. Farmers are concerned that
the proposal will lead to an expansion of the proposed rule’s regulatory scope
under the Clean Water Act.
McCarthy did say that her agency is “beginning to
identify those concerns and those questions and we will answer each and every
one of them.”
However, she also asked her audience to “keep in
mind that up to 117 million people rely on waters that run seasonally, as
opposed to 24 hours a day, every day. So if your ditch looks and acts like a
stream, it may need protection, even if it runs only seasonally. That doesn’t
mean you need a permit, just that you should take care to ensure that it
continues to serve us all well.”
Regarding the interpretive rule, McCarthy said she
has “never proposed anything that I thought would be so well received as this,
that has fallen totally flat on its face. I need to understand from you where
we went wrong and what we need to do moving forward”.
This rule is “an effort to highlight these (exempt
practices) as being great things to do to make sure that you never had to worry
that EPA would come a knockin’ if you utilized any of those practices. So the
56 practices are really an attempt to clear the path for what we see as slam
dunk conversation practices,” McCarthy noted.
“But some folks clearly read this as a narrowing of
the scope or adding new standards. That was not the intent.
“These exemptions, we saw as always
self-implementing which means you do not need to double-check with anybody at
the federal level at any time if those practices are being considered,” said
McCarthy. “I’m sure everyone can agree that the best discussion on
jurisdictional determinations is the one that never needs to happen. That’s the
goal.”
McCarthy encouraged the group to “commit from this
day forward to focus on facts. Let’s commit to getting at the table and rolling
up our sleeves. I will commit to you that if you raise an issue of concern, I
will address it. If you want us to think differently, about how this rule is
structured, in the interpretive rule, I am not wedded to process. I only want
outcomes, just like you.”
While
emphasizing the importance of gathering comments and input about the WOTUS
proposal, McCarthy also pointed out that there would be no further extensions
of the public comment period, which ends on October 20, 2014.
“We’ve
already extended the comment period. We’re hoping to continue to have the
dialogue so we can take a look on the 20th about closing that
comment period,” she said. “We can take a look at those comments and continue
to work with the agriculture sector moving forward. That doesn’t mean the
conversations stop. It means they become more directed.”
For more information on the Waters of the U.S.
proposed rule and instructions on how to submit a comment click here.
#30
For more news, go to: www.Agri-Pulse.com
