The rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act has caused much debate throughout Georgia’s agricultural industry. While the goal of this revision is to clarify existing rules, I have serious concerns about the consequences it could have for Georgia.
Providing one in seven Georgians with employment and more than $77 billion in total economic impact, agriculture is the leading industry in Georgia. We lead the country in production of poultry, pecans and peanuts. Other commodities of note in Georgia’s agricultural portfolio include cotton, peaches, vegetables, blueberries and the famous Vidalia onion. Thus, Georgia has a vested interest in making sure our producers can manage their operations without unnecessary and burdensome overreach from the federal government.
I find the reach of the EPA under these revised definitions to be a serious threat. Under this proposed rule, EPA jurisdiction will be expanded to include all waters with a “significant nexus” to navigable waters and to the tributaries of these waters. More disturbing, the term “significant nexus” has not previously been defined, so the agency will have the authority to decide how the term is applied.
As the head of a regulatory agency, I believe it is our responsibility to enforce the law through rules and regulations, not to create the law through rules and regulations. This expanded authority would give the federal government the ability to dictate how people can use their personal property and farmland around these small, insignificant collections of water. It also would circumvent the will of Congress. The House has passed a bill to rein in the EPA — prohibiting the finalization, adoption and implementation of this very rule. Clearly, EPA is going beyond what Congress wants.
As a farmer who has been given the privilege to represent agriculture throughout the state, I believe this revision will have a direct impact on our farming practices and could keep farmers from using or altering parts of their property, actions that could result in substantial profit loss. This hostile directive threatens to eliminate traditional methods that have been used on our farms for decades.
For example, the expanded rules could result in a denied permit for a producer wanting to build a fence across a ditch or apply pesticides as usual. Increasing the scope of the Clean Water Act would undoubtedly leave our farms at the mercy of EPA and also open the door to environmental activists to pursue civil lawsuits under new interpretations of the rule change. While exemptions exist in the proposed rule, several questions arise as to the protocol for issuing exemptions as well as their long-term certainty.
The economics of the proposed rule are also a concern. In an economic analysis, EPA and the Corps of Engineers anticipate losses under the new rule by the government and regulated entities will be between $162 million to $279 million per year. They determined these financial costs will be associated with activities such as administering additional permits and modifying business operations to meet new standards.
The reporting agencies estimate the benefits of this rule change to be between $318 million and $514 million per year. These benefits, however, are represented by “values of ecosystem services” and “reduced uncertainty concerning where (Clean Water Act) jurisdiction applies.” While the costs will be very real, I find this assessment of benefits extremely vague and severely inflated.
Georgia farmers will tell you there is no resource more vital to farming than water. That fact is why I respectfully, but so adamantly, oppose this rule. Adding another intrusive layer of federal regulation in the path of farm families is unacceptable.
Gary W. Black is Georgia agriculture commissioner.
