My husband and I own a cattle ranch, and we own water shares (Pine River Irrigation District) that add value to our property. It’s like buying property with a lawn, and water is used to grow the grass; or you choose to live in an apartment or the desert and not have to worry about any landscaping. You make that choice when you purchase your property.
Water is the lifeblood of any agriculture operation, and we treat it with respect and value it immensely. Without water, life will cease to exist, there would be no food nor fiber; everything would perish. Yes, agriculture does use the majority of water in this country, but without farmers and ranchers in the U.S., we would be importing all of our food and clothing from other countries. Can you imagine what will happen when there are worldwide food shortages, disease outbreaks in other countries, war ... what would happen?
We now have the best and most abundant food source in the world, and our average cost is low compared to other countries. We don’t realize how blessed we are to live in the U.S.
As a landowner who must use the land to make a living and feed the world, I am disappointed by the proposed Clean Water Act rule redefining “waters of the U.S.” As a cattle rancher, I am proud to be the primary steward of the natural resources on our property. We strive to care for the air and the water because the well-being of my cattle – and my family – depend upon it. That care does not and should not require a federal permit each time my cattle walk through a damp spot, or I drive my tractor across the pasture. The net effect of such a regulation will not be an improvement to the environment but will place an enormous burden on landowners like myself.
We hope that the Environmental Protection Agency considers the following comments when evaluating the need for this rule:
First, the definition as proposed is illegal based on the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, the framework and goals of the Clean Water Act, congressional intent and Supreme Court rulings. Each places a limit on federal jurisdiction over the nation’s waters. Currently, the proposed rule has practically no limit whatsoever. As an example, the proposed rule now includes my agricultural ditches into the category of “tributaries?” This is inappropriate. The two exclusions it has provided for ditches are not adequate to alleviate the enormous burden it places on the entire agriculture community. Ditches on private land should not be waters of the U.S. Farm ponds on private land should not be waters of the U.S. Dry washes on private land, dry streambeds, and ephemeral streams should not be waters of the U.S.
Second, the proposed definition annihilates the federalist system that underpins the law. There is a line at which point the states must be allowed to take over. This proposal has obliterated that important and fundamental line. By expanding the definition of tributary, expanding the definition of “adjacent” and expanding the category of “adjacent wetlands” to “adjacent waters,” the EPA has delivered a devastating blow to my cattle ranch.
I was in Washington, D.C., in April, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy told our farmers and ranchers to “just read the proposal;” well, I have. I am not only concerned about the ability of agency regulators being able to apply vague terms and phrases to wrap every wet depression on my place into the definition of waters of the U.S., but I am left in an even more confused state than under the status quo. The EPA has failed, miserably in fact, at providing the “clarity” it purports to want to achieve.
Third, the agencies are wrong to imply that the proposal will not have an impact on a substantial number of small entities. Almost the entire cattle industry is composed of small businesses. Like mine, 98 percent are family run, and the families that run them are not made up of millionaires. We work hard every day to keep our cattle and our families in good health. Regulations, like the EPA proposal, make it hard to keep our small businesses financially viable. More red tape is the last thing my ranch needs because it gets in the way of me putting environmentally friendly practices on the ground – many of which are not included in the EPA’s list of 56. This proposal will have a negative effect on my small business and hundreds of thousands like it across the country.
In sum, I believe the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should not finalize their proposed definition for “waters of the U.S.” and should scrap the entire rule. There are too many fundamental problems with the proposal. By starting fresh, the agencies could potentially have meaningful dialogue and outreach with the cattle industry. As proposed, it violates the law, will not benefit the environment and will have a negative effect on small businesses like mine.
Patti Buck, of Ignacio, is president of American National Cattle Women. Reach her at pattibuck2943@gmail.com. The EPA is accepting comments regarding the waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) until October 20th. Comments are encouraged at www.beefusa.org
