EPA to California Farmer: Don’t Plow
California farmer John Duarte faces millions of dollars in penalties for refusing the Environmental Protection Agency’s order not to plow his own land.
Duarte, a fourth-generation Central California tree, vine, and wheat farmer, has been at odds with the EPA since 2011 when his farm was ordered closed after he planted his field despite regulators’ orders. Now, in part due to the EPA’s expanded authority over its interpretation of the Waters of the United States (WOTUS), Duarte and the EPA have filed dueling lawsuits over the land.
Brought forth with the libertarian Pacific Legal Institute and with the support of the American Farm Bureau Federation, Duarte’s lawsuit claims he was denied due process when the Army Corps of Engineers (the enforcer of the EPA’s water regulations) demanded Duarte stop farming. At issue is the clay table beneath the top soil which keeps wetlands from draining; the EPA claims the 18 inches between plow furrows constitutes the creation of new uplands, while Duarte points out that the wetland vegetation has not been affected.
WOTUS expands territory the EPA would regulate under the Clean Water Act somewhere between 2.8 to 4.65%. The new interpretation includes enumerated waterways (“prairie potholes”, “Carolina bays”, etc) and any waters that are in the floodplains of previously regulated waters at least once ever 100 years.
The expansion has been controversial, drawing a vote to repeal from House Republicans last week. (Speaker Ryan’s op-ed in the Omaha World News Herald includes the classic zinger “this rule, which has left so many Nebraskans out to dry.) The bill, expected to be vetoed, may be unnecessary as the 6th District Court of Appeals has suspended WOTUS nationwide.
Senators Isakson and Perdue have co-sponsored legislation to overturn the rule. From Senator Isakson: “Today’s decision is good news for Georgia farmers and landowners… Under President Obama, we have seen the growth of a fourth branch of government—the regulators—and I will keep fighting to rein in intrusive regulations like this ‘Waters of the United States’ rule.”
About Author
Chet Martin
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It is very serious business to invest in and protect the water rich ag lands in southern Georgia and north Florida. As debt and grabbing farm land with ample water squeeze this nation, food sources like we have will be a battle ground and fertile investment.
They don’t need taxpayer subsidies, they need protection.
This will be an argument to be continued in Central/South Georgia well into the future depending upon a couple of busloads of lawyers, courts, the Corps of Engineers, EPA, e i e i oh… Buford Dam and Metro Atlanta have become the primary focus due to Georgia and Atlanta in particular not participating in paying directly for Lanier along with Florida and Alabama wanting to curb Atlanta economically. But during drought times the lack of fresh water getting to Apalachicola oysters is also greatly impacted by the farms and agribusiness draining the aquifers feeding the Flint River. The well-fed “circle farms” that have become so popular are cranked up to 11 during drought periods to the point that Lanier cannot hold enough water to supply the bottom of the ACF basin regardless of Atlanta’s use.
I have a 1904 geological survey report showing the abundance of water in South Georgia including hundreds of artesian wells. Not many of those still exist and the majority are brackish ones near the ocean. The Corps and state have tried to horn in on the drilling for agriculture and it is a real dilemma for libertarian minded folks like myself. California is proving that when people get desperate they will go to extreme measures. Imagine having an almond orchard that takes years to develop a worthwhile crop and no water to keep the trees alive. Many of their farmers received no allotments of surface water this past summer and then got in a race with their neighbors on who could build the deepest well with some of the wells requiring six figures to drill.
Duarte might well have a case. He’s not the first or 101st farmer I’ve heard complain about the Corps of Engineers. I know others too, non-farmers, especially those who object to their compulsion to direct the flow of rivers, who think the Corps is a bunch of self-righteous stiff-backed out-of-touch functionaries.
But whether you see Duarte as standing up against intrusive regs or just another big agribusiness operator intent on doing things his way, he is far removed from crazies who want to graze their stock for free on government land–excuse me, their land.