Monday, August 10, 2009

Straight From the Horse's Mouth

Duane A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator - Webster County
August 8, 2009
It seems to me that legislation on the Federal level is coming at us fast and furious. It is hard to keep up with everything, and sometimes there is so much emphasis on the big matters on hand that some of the smaller items that effect us even more than the big legislative efforts creep up and we miss them. No matter what your views are on some of the big legislative items like the Stimulus Bill, Cap and Trade, or the Health Care Reform and the plethora of stealth bills that are attached to these and other innocuous bits of legislation, there is another act that could have far reaching effects on farmers and ranchers across Nebraska and I believe we need to look at and act upon it.
Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA): The Clean Water Restoration Act (S. 787) seeks to remove the word “navigable” from the definition of “Waters of the United States.” Under the current law, the federal government has jurisdiction over “navigable waters of the United States.” However by removing “navigable” from the definition, the legislation would expand federal regulatory control to unprecedented levels, essentially putting stock tanks, drainage ditches, any water feature found on family farms and ranches – potentially even ground water – under the regulatory arm of the federal government.
Here is the proposed new addition to Federal Statutes: “WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES- The term “waters of the United States” means all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution.”
Removing the term “NAVIGABLE” could open up ALL waters to regulation by the federal government. I join a lot of other people and members of many agricultural organizations that believe that the federal government does not need to regulate the water on your our private property. There are bits of legislation that have a tendency to get my attention and encourage me to inform the people as best I can of what is going on and this is another example. I strongly oppose this legislation and the CWRA as written. It infringes on private property rights and limits the state partnerships and flexibility that have made the current Clean Water Act so successful.
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced the CWRA in June, but there was a “hold” placed on the bill in the Senate. A hold requires 60 yes votes in order to remove the hold and allow the bill to be voted on by the full Senate. During July, the House Small Business Committee held a hearing entitled: “Regulating our Nation’s Waterways the Impacts on Small Businesses and Family Farmers.” Testimony by opponents of this change focused on the drastic expansion of federal regulation that would happen under the CWRA. It was pointed out that obtaining a 404 permit under the Clean Water Act is already extremely difficult and time-consuming, and that the increased number of permits required by the CWRA would be paralyzing. Agriculture is becoming more and more regulated each year and it is evident to me that the CWRA would have intensive negative impact on our Nebraska producers.
I understand that it is difficult for many of our producers to voice their opinions on things that ultimately will affect them. There is always that feeling that you can’t make a difference. But if many voices join, that collective voice is heard. We have to remember that our Senators and Congressmen work for us and that they need to listen. This may be the time to get beyond those restraints and voice your concerns – or ultimately pay the price. I encourage everyone that is concerned about this and other legislation that can have a huge affect on our livelihood to please call Senator Johanns (202) 224-4224 and Senator Nelson (202) 224-6551. If you are more comfortable writing you can also send your thoughts on this via the internet by going to http://www.senate.gov/. It is getting more and more evident that we need to fight for our way of life or pay the ultimate price, add your voice to those that are trying to protect our sovereignty.
While we are talking visiting with your Federal compatriots, here is something else that you may want to consider. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack announced this past week that the Natural Resources Conservation Service is seeking public comment on the new Conservation Stewardship Program, which is designed to encourage agricultural producers to maintain existing conservation practices and adopt additional ones in their operations. The public can submit comments for 60 days and must be submitted on or before Sept. 28. If you have an opinion on CSP, I suggest that you register your thoughts by going to the USDA-NRCS site at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/new_csp/ .
I have found it easier and easier to lend my voice and thoughts on the very things that could impact my counterparts in agriculture, the future of my family and grandchildren. You do get the feeling that you can’t make a difference, but you can. One thing is certain, if we do nothing about those things that could affect us – then we have only one person to blame. Believe me it is much easier to be proactive than reactive. Take that step and help make a difference! The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Using the right wing argument, here goes - If you aren't doing anything wrong on your "private property" why shouldn't the government regulate waters of the US? After all, the waters are WATER OF THE US, and not your waters. Do you think that the gov't shouldn't regulate anything on your "private property"? What difference does private property make? All property is owned by someone. Should there be no regulation anywhere? Should you be allowed to molest children on your private property? Suppose your neighbor bought up all lands on 3 sides of your land and decided to construct put a sewage plant there that discharges onto your property. Would you be so keen to say that the gov't shouldn't regulate waters of the US on private lands?

Anonymous said...

I hardly think this has anything to do with sexually molesting children or not regulating anything, anywhere. His opinion was on regulating water. Why don't you try to keep it at that?

Bill H said...

Doing anything wrong has a wide and varied interpretation. The powers that be change. Future/present powers (govt.) can determine your use of your pond is "wrong" and forbid you from using it, or simply take it. There are already numerous laws at all levels pertaining to the use of water on private land. Why is there a need or desire for this change? that is the real question we should all be asking. Who is pushing this change and why, and are these stated reasons veiling deeper desires?

Anonymous said...

What will be next, will they be regulating our rain water next? We must all install green water barrels and report our rain water as income and pay a tax on it. ? Do you think that would work, might as well give it a try?

jessephred said...

I think the first anonymous poster is using the left wing argument and not the right wing argument. The left wing is much more prone to supporting government intervention and regulation while the right wing is more apt to support free enterprise and private property rights.

I agree with Mr. Lienemann, the property owner is in a better position to determine the best use and preservation of resources than the federal government. I have never met a one year farmer. For better or worse, farmer's are usually in it for the long haul. It is in their own best interest and the interest of the community, state and nation that they act as good stewards of these resources.

When it is no longer the "farmer's" but instead the property of the government, then they have no vested interest in preserving the resources and you suffer the tragedy of the commons.

jessephred said...

Bill H .... nice questions.

Anonymous #3 ... that would be really funny if I wasn't so afraid it was true.