The Problem with EPA's Clean Water Act Expansion and Interpretation
Freese: “I think they need to know two things. One is that while EPA is explaining that nothing has changed. They are putting their interpretation in writing which we fundamentally disagree with. And by putting their interpretation into writing what it does is it opens the door for third-party lawsuits. A third-party can come in and say — to any land owner — ‘The actions you are doing within that channel or puddle are jurisdictional and you cannot do that. We will file suit to make sure you can no longer do that without a permit.’”
Today there is a process that EPA or any third party must go through in order to prove that a waterway is jurisdictional. That will change with the interpretation.
Freese continues with the second issue which is the agency’s redefining and narrowing what will be considered normal farming and ranching activities.
Freese: “This clarification has narrowed — at least from our understanding and from the Agency’s interpretation — has narrows what we now consider normal farming and ranching activities. And that is on top of the expansion of Clean Water Act jurisdiction will fundamental change what normal farming and ranching activities — that we consider normal — would require a permit under the Clean Water Act.”
Learn more at your state’s Farm Bureau website or google ditch the rule.