TURFGRASS INDUSTRY NEWS
EPA’s Recent “Final Rule” on WOTUS Creates Widespread Concerns On December 30, 2022, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C., established a “durable” definition of “waters of the United States,” or, WOTUS. Te background, definition, guidance documents and memoranda can all be found at
https://www.epa.gov/ waters/current-implementation-waters-united-states. On January 18, 2023, the rule was published in the Federal Register. Te EPA website states that the agencies developed this rule with consideration of the relevant provisions of the Clean Water Act and the statute as a whole, relevant Supreme Court case law, and the agencies’ technical expertise after more than 45 years of implementing the longstanding pre-2015 “waters of the United States” framework. Tis rule also considers the best available science and extensive public comment to establish a definition of “waters of the United States” that supports public health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth. More information about the final rule is available at: https://epa. gov/wotus/revising-definition-waters-united-states. Since that publication, numerous groups that could be affected by these rules have expressed many concerns. Te Irrigation Association’s newsletter, Irrigation & Lighting, January 30, stated: Te definition has industry experts concerned about the definition’s implications for the irrigation industry. For some irrigators, a federal permit might now be necessary when working with water that falls under federal jurisdiction. With the average cost of obtaining a federal permit at more than $250,000, according to the National Federation of Independent Business, the impact WOTUS has on the industry is serious. Te National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) issued the following statement in a December 30 press release: “Te EPA’s latest rule on defining “waters of the United States” is a statement of federal overreach that ignores states’ authority to regulate intrastate water quality and the Clean Water Act’s statutory mandate for cooperative federalism. In turn, although we recognize EPA’s attempt at clarifying through a roster of exemptions, its rule ignores the voices of nearly all in American agriculture who have long been seeking clarity on this issue, especially regarding the debate over what is and is not a navigable water,” NASDA CEO Ted McKinney said. “Farmers are committed to being responsible stewards of the land and water that they use to grow food, and the effectiveness of WOTUS should be taken with the same seriousness,” McKinney said.
54
As NASDA previously stated in multiple sets of comments and input throughout this regulatory process, the Clean Water Act establishes limits on federal jurisdiction and the role of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, thus recognizing the role of states in regulating non-navigable waters. Further, the release of this ruling ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Sackett v. EPA wastes tremendous federal, state, and private sector resources as the decision of SCOTUS will invariably shift water regulations across the United States yet again significantly. Tis is in stark contrast to the comments previously made by Administrator Regan to the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and the Environment that the EPA’s rule would “be in a position to respond and adjust to the Supreme Court ruling.” More information on the comments and background of the issue can be found on NASDA’s website,
nasda.org. Further concern about the EPA’s new definition became very evident when a group of 17 organizations filed a lawsuit against the EPA in mid-January. In a press release on the lawsuit, Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall says the rule is “vague” and puts farmers and ranchers in a position where they will have to hire lawyers and consults to establish the boundaries of farming, which “isn’t what clean water regulations were intended to do.” Stay tuned for more news on this important ruling. If you believe you and your properties could be affected by these rules do your research, talk to your peers, and ask for assistance.
Right to Repair Your Own John Deere Equipment Announced According to an announcement at the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) annual meeting in Puerto Rico on January 8, an agreement has been reached between AFBF and John Deere that allows farmers to repair their own John Deere equipment. Te “right to repair” issue has been a topic of debate both in and outside of agriculture for some time. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by Deere & Co and the AFBF means farmers will be able to repair their own equipment. According to both Deere and AFBF, the MOU formalizes the availability and access to parts, tools, software, and documentation to perform repair and maintenance. “Tis will enable you and your independent mechanics to identify and fix problems," Farm Bureau president Zippy Duvall said during his AFBF address. "You will have access to the diagnostic tools and information you need. And you'll get it at a fair and reasonable price.” With the MOU, farmers can either repair equipment on their own or go to an independent technician. Te full MOU can be found at
https://www.fb.org/files/AFBF_John_ Deere_MOU.pdf.
TPI Turf News March/April 2023 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
