Florida is doing the right thing. In case you doubt the wisdom of Attorney General Pam Bondi's decision to join a multi-state bipartisan lawsuit against the EPA attempt to seize regulatory control over large categories of state waters, you might want to take a look at the graphic reproduced just below.
It comes from the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, whose members tweeted it out and put it on its Facebook page just after the Animas River tragedy.
Its simple message: "The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency releases 3 million gallons of toxic waste water and wants MORE control over water? No thanks."
Says it all.
The Animus River, called "the cultural soul of southwestern Colorado," is a long way from Florida. So, I think it's important to recap what happened to it on Aug. 5.
The EPA nearly killed it, is what happened to it.
At the very least, the agency grievously polluted this once crystal-clear river with toxic water spilled from one of the many abandoned mines that pockmark the region. The EPA admitted it. Their scientists said they accidentally breached a store of chemical-laced water.
Levels of metals including arsenic and lead jumped in local waterways as the contamination flowed down the Animas and into the San Juan River, angering many who use these rivers for drinking, irrigation and recreational activities. Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and the Navajo Nation declared states of emergency.
Three days after the spill, with anger mounting throughout the region, the agency announced that the amount of toxic water released was actually three times what they previously stated -- more than 3 million gallons rather than 1 million -- and that officials were still unsure if there was a health threat to humans or animals.
The New York Times reported that the day of that announcement, Colorado state Sen. Ellen Roberts, a Republican who lives near the river, "cried softly as she considered the pollution, adding that she had dropped her father’s ashes in the depths of the river, which pollutants had turned into an unnatural-looking yellow-orange ribbon."
“It is not just a scenic destination,” Roberts told the newspaper. “It is where people literally raise their children. It is where the farmers and ranchers feed their livestock, which in turn feeds the people. We’re isolated from Denver through the mountains, and we are pretty resourceful people. But if you take away our water supply, we’re left with virtually no way to move forward.”
This tragic incident terrifies farmers in particular, not just in Florida but throughout the nation. With the summer's high rain levels flooding fields, drainage systems and the streams that carry excess water away are crucial for farmers to maintain healthy crops. But they are in a fight for control over these small waterways -- battling a new rule in the Clean Water Act opponents say will be overly burdensome and costly to the agriculture industry.
Waters of the U.S. -- or WOTUS, as it's been called -- is part of Obama’s plan for expansion of executive powers to force through via EPA what he could not accomplish legislatively.
On Aug. 28, EPA gains the authority to regulate all U.S. waters, and I do mean all. “Water” is defined as anywhere it’s wet, ranging from standing rain water on private property to dry places where water might flow once in 100 years. If this looks like EPA overreach for controlling more of the nation’s private and public property, it is.
Businesses of all kinds will have to apply for a permit to operate near waterways, and the EPA will determine on a case-by-case basis whether their activities would be in compliance with the 1972 Clean Water Act, which is the basis for the new rule.
In essence, the rule would establish whether anti-pollution laws are triggered if a farmer blocks a stream to make a pond for livestock, a developer fills in part of a wetland to put up a house or an oil pipeline has to cross a creek.
The rule broadens the definition of Waters of the United States to now include bodies of water that have long been the domain of state authority pursuant to the Clean Water Act.
Florida has rightly told the court, "This expanded definition would have a unique and tremendous impact on Florida specifically, given our state’s vast amount of wetlands and agriculture."
Said Commissioner of Agriculture Adam Putnam, “I thank Attorney General Bondi and the other attorneys general for their leadership in defending states’ rights and holding the Obama administration accountable for its federal overreach. The unconstitutional expansion of the EPA’s jurisdiction over the Waters of the United States not only infringes on states’ authority, but also it threatens the sound environmental protection programs we have in place today.”
The American Farm Bureau not only agrees, it says the rule is far worse than the agency first feared, adding that it was never really about protecting water sources. In a statement released last month, Bob Stallman, president of the AFB, said the rules were intended to allow the EPA to regulate any activity on land the agency chooses to.
"Under the new rule, just about any patch of land might be found to be 'waters of the U.S.,'" Stallman said in his letter. "The rule gives EPA and the Corps the trump card."
The American Petroleum Institute said the rule creates “needless regulatory uncertainty” and adds to costs for a range of industries including farming, home building and manufacturing.
The National Association of Manufacturers said the rule fails in its stated goal of removing regulatory uncertainty. “Under the guise of providing clarity, the EPA and the Corps have expanded the federal government’s reach into manufacturers’ on-site activities,” the trade group said in a statement on its website.
I guess I'm not looking hard enough: It must be there in the Constitution somewhere -- that exclusion clause for the EPA having to respect private property rights.
Not only is this one of the EPA's biggest land grabs in history, but imagine how crippling the permit process is going to be when a farmer needs to repair ditches, waterways and drainage systems for his farm. When he has only one chance a year at the planting season, having farmland and waterways tied up in an approval process could be costly enough to drive him out of business, and put his once-productive land in the waiting arms of a developer.
The multiple legal challenges -- now 31 in all -- filed on behalf of common sense and good government are crucial in preserving states’ rights and state waters, and stopping federal overreach. Florida's lawsuit asks the court to declare the rule illegal, issue an injunction to prevent the federal government from enforcing it and order a new rule drafted that complies with the law and honors states’ rights.
Good for the Senate ag committee, reminding states again why they don't want the fate of their water in EPA's hands.
And good for Florida. I have a feeling the people of southwestern Colorado, who will smart over the state of the precious Animas River for some time, are cheering us on.
Reach Nancy Smith at nsmith@sunshinestatenews.com or at 228-282-2423. Twitter: @NancyLBSmith
