<DATE >
Mail - Send original & 3 copies to:
Water Docket, USEPA
Mail Code 2822T
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20460
Attention: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880
Or
Email - Include EPA-HQ-OW-2011-0880 in the subject line of the message:
ow-docket@epa.gov.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing to offer you my comments on the “waters of the US” (WOTUS) proposed
rulemaking that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2014. I am seriously
concerned about the scope of jurisdiction that the federal agencies are claiming under
the Clean Water Act.
Most of the areas that are being categorically claimed as WOTUS are far too remote to
merit that treatment. Moreover, many of these features are dry most of the time, and
comparable numbers of these features have water in them at most only for short
periods. It is inappropriate for the federal agencies to do this, and unnecessary. Dry
drainage features will never be fishable and swimmable and do not need to be made
jurisdictional in order for us to work together to protect the quality of waterways that are
clearly jurisdictional.
These policies are also likely illegal and will lead to litigation against farmers and
ranchers, creating risks and costly liabilities and further bad policy. Clean Water Act
citizen suits have led to the terrible policy of certain classes pesticides needing a federal
Clean Water Act permit to be applied according to their already of federally approved
label. Suits like that using the same logic will be brought against farmers’ use of
pesticides and fertilizers when they are used on farms with dry drainage features that
are now jurisdictional. You must not create policies that set the stage for this to happen.
The agencies have said that the purpose of this proposed rule is to bring clarity to the
public about what is jurisdictional. I can tell you that for myself and the farmers and
ranchers I know, this rule has only made them more confused. That is because the
broad and poorly defined categories of features that are WOTUS will easily bring into
question large numbers of features on or near farms everywhere. None of us will know
for sure whether or not these features are formally jurisdictional without a determination
by a federal official, a process that will be inherently subjective. This confusion and
concern will only persist once the rule is finalized and we are left wondering just how
much of our farms or ranches are directly subject to the Clean Water Act.
<<<Describe your farm or ranch and your attitudes towards protecting water
quality as you operate your business. If you think you may have dry drainage
features that might be jurisdictional, describe them and why you are worried.
Take photos of them and include them with your comments. Things like streams
that only have water in them when it rains, or former streams that you have
improved for drainage, or ditches at the edge of your property that might drain an
ephemeral or intermittent stream that runs through your property, or a wet area in
a field that is next to an ephemeral stream. If you are worried about that feature
being subject to federal control under this rule, describe it, photograph it, and
include that in your comments here.>>>
I urge you not to finalize this rule and instead develop new proposals for the public to
consider. If high value yet remote waters need federal protections, there must be ways
for the agencies to develop policies that do so without sweeping into federal control
essentially every location in the country that has drainage features and wet areas or
wetland associated with it. I urge you to work with agriculture and other interests in
finding these alternative policies and to propose a rule that reflects them.
Sincerely,