Reading the St. Louis Post-Dispatch today, I learned that the new EPA rules meant to block run-off pollution in our streams, rivers and wetlands would not take effect in Missouri because a coalition of powerful folks in the state think agricultural run-off is just fine. As long as the bottom line of interests like Smithfield’s hog farms is healthy, to hell with a healthy water supply. Several of the usual suspects in Missouri and 12 other states, in this case joined by our pet Republican in Democratic disguise, Attorney General Chris Koster, filed suit against the regulations and a federal court has now blocked the rules in those states.

Koster seemed especially upbeat in his comments on the judgement:

“In issuing the preliminary injunction the federal court sent an unmistakable message to the EPA: You have gone too far,” Koster, who is running for Missouri Governor, said in a statement Thursday evening. “Missouri’s land and water resources should be regulated by officials accountable to the people of the state, not by arbitrary standards dictated from Washington D.C.”

So now, Missouri’s officials will be free to carry out the will of the folks to whom, in the words of our esteemed Attorney General, they seem to be most accountable: the aforementioned Smithfield Farms, Montsanto, Cargil, Archer-Daniels-Midlands, Tyson Foods and other similar agriculturaly-related big campaign donors. Missouri is, after all, one of the freeest of the big-dollar, money-is-speech, free-speech zones – and don’t forget that Koster hopes, as the Post-Dispatch indicated, to become governor in the near future.

It can’t hurt Koster in Missouri that the Farm Bureau has bestowed their blessing on his EPA endeavors, noting that “Attorney General Chris Koster and the state of Missouri were leaders in securing the injunction.” This is the same Farm Bureau that has a financial interest in many of the agricultural corporations listed above and which fights passionately for their mutual prosperity:

In addition to the American Farm Bureau Federation’s twenty-two lobbyists, no fewer than 20 of the state Farm Bureaus, including Missouri, have registered lobbyists in Washington, leading the field of agribusiness lobbyists. Over the past decade, the nation’s ten largest agribusiness interests gave $35 million to Congressional candidates-led by the Farm Bureau, which gave $16 million, or 45 percent of the total. Farm Bureau PACS donated another $16 million to state candidates, according to election records.

The Farm Bureau also has a financial interest in agribusiness corporations. In recent years, its insurance affiliates have bought stock in companies like Cargill, ConAgra, Dow Chemical, DuPont, Tyson and Archer Daniels Midland, all major food industry players. The Southern Farm Bureau Annuity Insurance Co. once owned more than 18,000 shares of Premium Standard stock.

So what will it take to wake Missourians up and help them realize that the EPA doesn’t make rules just to gum up the works, and that imposing some restrictions on corporate farmers might pinch Smithfield’s or Montsanto’s shareholders very slightly, but the rest of us probably won’t feel it at all – except when we begin to enjoy the benefits of a clean streams, healthy wetlands, and safe drinking water. And maybe  they’ll wise up at the same time to the fact that the Missouri Farm Bureau doesn’t give a damn about the “family farms” its representatives can’t stop jawing about, and that most of the horror stories they keep trying to sell – about the new rules regulating  backyard mud-puddles, for instance – are made up out of pure airy-fairy dust.

“…About 60 percent of stream miles in the U.S. only flow seasonally or after rain, but have a considerable impact on the downstream waters. And approximately 117 million people – one in three Americans – get drinking water from public systems that rely in part on these streams…”

…Throw out your breakfast garbage, and I’ve  got a hunch, that the folks downstream will drink it for lunch…

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) waiting to speak at a press conference in the Farm Bureau building

at the Missouri State Fair – August 14, 2014 [file photo].

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) via Twitter this past week:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

Time for the #Senate to Act on #WOTUS bill. The federal land grab must stop: Obama asserts power over small waterways [….] 9:21 AM – 27 May 2015

The responses:

Terry Fillow ‏@Fillows4

@RepHartzler How about we promote protection of waterways! No pollution allowed! Clean Water! 9:52 AM – 27 May 2015

Iceblue52 ‏@Iceblue52Roth

@RepHartzler Remember when the Cuyahoga river caught on fire before there was an EPA? Industry didn’t give a crap until held accountable. 3:22 PM – 29 May 2015

Now, now, that was just creative corporate reallocation of byproduct overages to the public watershed.

From the Environmental Protection Agency over a year ago:

EPA and Army Corps of Engineers Clarify Protection for Nation’s Streams and Wetlands: Agriculture’s Exemptions and Exclusions from Clean Water Act Expanded by Proposal

Release Date: 03/25/2014

[….]

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) today jointly released a proposed rule to clarify protection under the Clean Water Act for streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation’s water resources. The proposed rule will benefit businesses by increasing efficiency in determining coverage of the Clean Water Act. The agencies are launching a robust outreach effort over the next 90 days, holding discussions around the country and gathering input needed to shape a final rule.

Determining Clean Water Act protection for streams and wetlands became confusing and complex following Supreme Court decisions in 2001 and 2006. For nearly a decade, members of Congress, state and local officials, industry, agriculture, environmental groups, and the public asked for a rulemaking to provide clarity.

The proposed rule clarifies protection for streams and wetlands. The proposed definitions of waters will apply to all Clean Water Act programs. It does not protect any new types of waters that have not historically been covered under the Clean Water Act and is consistent with the Supreme Court’s more narrow reading of Clean Water Act jurisdiction.

[….]

The health of rivers, lakes, bays, and coastal waters depend on the streams and wetlands where they begin. Streams and wetlands provide many benefits to communities – they trap floodwaters, recharge groundwater supplies, remove pollution, and provide habitat for fish and wildlife. They are also economic drivers because of their role in fishing, hunting, agriculture, recreation, energy, and manufacturing.

About 60 percent of stream miles in the U.S. only flow seasonally or after rain, but have a considerable impact on the downstream waters. And approximately 117 million people – one in three Americans – get drinking water from public systems that rely in part on these streams. These are important waterways for which EPA and the Army Corps is clarifying protection.

[….]

The proposed rule preserves the Clean Water Act exemptions and exclusions for agriculture. Additionally, EPA and the Army Corps have coordinated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to develop an interpretive rule to ensure that 56 specific conservation practices that protect or improve water quality will not be subject to Section 404 dredged or fill permitting requirements. The agencies will work together to implement these new exemptions and periodically review, and update USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation practice standards and activities that would qualify under the exemption. Any agriculture activity that does not result in the discharge of a pollutant to waters of the U.S. still does not require a permit.

[….]

The proposed rule is supported by the latest peer-reviewed science, including a draft scientific assessment by EPA, which presents a review and synthesis of more than 1,000 pieces of scientific literature. The rule will not be finalized until the final version of this scientific assessment is complete.

Forty years ago, two-thirds of America’s lakes, rivers and coastal waters were unsafe for fishing and swimming. Because of the Clean Water Act, that number has been cut in half. However, one-third of the nation’s waters still do not meet standards.

[….]

Previously:

Vicky Hartzler talking about water and pesky regulations at the Missouri State Fair (August 14, 2014)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r): bad, bad EPA, bad (August 15, 2014)

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (r): …don’t drink the water, and don’t breathe the air… (August 17, 2014)

Yesterday, doubling down via Twitter:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

House just passed the Secret Science Reform Act to require EPA to disclose the science used to justify regulations so it can be verified. 2:19 PM – 19 Nov 2014

The responses are the usual priceless:

James McIninch ‏@james_mcininch

@RepHartzler The joke’s on them because if there’s anything Congress can’t stand and consistently ignores, it’s science. #readtheliterature 2:36 PM – 19 Nov 2014

James McIninch ‏@james_mcininch

@RepHartzler Holy crap! Just read the bill! It replaces scientists at the EPA with non-scientist industry “experts”. Morons or traitors? 3:57 PM – 19 Nov 2014

Good question.

Dan Arel ‏@danarel

.@RepHartzler verified by who? You? You dont even know the difference between weather and climate. You’re simply a functioning idiot. 5:37 PM – 19 Nov 2014

Clueless Troll ‏@CluelessTroll

@RepHartzler you don’t believe in or respect science, so what’s the difference… 5:50 PM – 19 Nov 2014

Varuka Salt ‏@Varuka

.@RepHartzler And now you just passed a bill demanding the EPA’s science? Why? You deny science already, how would more help you? 6:45 PM – 19 Nov 2014

Jayelle ‏@GreenEyedLilo

.@RepHartzler How about disclosing which corporations funded the few scientific studies you like, understand, and approve of? 6:50 PM – 19 Nov 2014

We’d be speechless if we were surprised.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Sesame Street is too complicated (November 18, 2014)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): cold warrior in the climate conflict  (November 18, 2014)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): just can’t catch a social media break (November 19, 2014)

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) is having an epic week on social media:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler ‏@RepHartzler

House just passed a bill I co-sponsor to reform the EPA Science Board to strengthen public participation & expand transparency. Smart plan. 2:57 PM – 18 Nov 2014

That does beg the question.

The replies:

personman ‏@personman

@RepHartzler If you really want an “all of the above” energy policy, why do you always promote fossil fuels and never renewables? 3:16 PM – 18 Nov 2014

Windier E. Megatons ‏@windiermegatons

@RepHartzler Shouldn’t you be required to understand anything about environmental science before you can reform the EPA Science Board? 5:39 PM – 18 Nov 2014

Good questions.

KryptonianAtheist ‏@KalSonofJorEl

Help me understand why we want people who don’t understand science to participate on a science board. Makes no sense. @RepHartzler 7:46 PM – 18 Nov 2014

Another good question. With right wingnut republicans logic is not an option.

0_okay ‏@calypsoh13

@KalSonofJorEl @RepHartzler We can only hope for reps who just don’t understand science. Normally it’s people who despise science. 7:51 PM – 18 Nov 2014

Heh. Right wingnuts have difficulty understanding irony and sarcasm, too.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Sesame Street is too complicated (November 18, 2014)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): cold warrior in the climate conflict  (November 18, 2014)

When I last looked, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill was still very carefully trying to say nothing at all about the EPA’s proposed new emission standards which are designed to reduce carbon emissions in the United States 30% by 2030. Which is actually pretty much in line with her past behavior; McCaskill has long been a disappointment to her constituents when it comes to showing leadership on the issue of climate change. She has been very careful to avoid even the appearance of pulling out the rug from under dirty coal, the producers and consumers of which are a powerful force in Missouri which currently gets 80% of its energy from fossil fuels.

McCaskill’s past arguments for rejecting stronger regulation of carbon emissions from coal-fired energy plants have revolved around: (1) the supposed potential for economic hardship for “Missouri’s families,” and, (2) the assertion that the costs would be born disproportionately by the U.S. She has noted that “it’s not going to do us any good to clean up our act as it relates to the atmosphere. It’s the same atmosphere that China shares and Japan shares and India shares. Some very big industrial countries.”

The first argument, which McCaskill shares with most Republican apologists for fossil fuels, should, by now, occasion the great hilarity that is due arguments that pit relatively minor, short-term concerns against long-term, global survival. After all, while it’s questionable that efforts to reduce carbon emissions will seriously harm those Missouri families she is so fond of citing, doing nothing about climate change is going to really hurt Missourians over the next thirty years, particularly those dependent on agriculture. A recent report stipulates that “higher temperatures will reduce Midwest crop yields by 19 percent by midcentury and by 63 percent by the year 2100.” McCaskill’s position also ignores the hidden costs of fossil fuel dependence, such as the personal and economic aspects of its effect on public health.  

A new report, the 2014 Low Carbon Economy Index (LCEI), demonstrates the emptiness of McCaskill’s international rationale for delaying action on carbon emisions. According to the LCEI:

… . China could be viewed as the poster child for developing countries, with a 2013 national decarbonisation rate of 4%. China improved its energy intensity by 3% in 2013, the third highest amongst the G20, and has a flourishing renewable energy sector 2. China also launched seven regional emissions trading schemes over the last year, although these are unlikely to have a dramatic impact on emissions in the short term. …

And:

While coal use in China rose by 3.7% in 2013, it is at a much slower rate than in previous years. China has made public efforts to curb coal use to manage its air pollution problems, for example a limit on coal use to 65% of its energy mix, and more recently a proposed ban on coal-fired power in Beijing by 2020. …  

China lowered its carbon emissions by 3.5%, a full percentage point more than the US where:

A revival of coal […], driven by a combination of falling coal prices and rising gas prices, has also been a major factor in the low US position in the G20 decarbonisation league table. Coal in the US has regained some market share from natural gas in the generation mix  ince its low in April 2012, causing an increase in emissions, and dispelling the myth that a shale gas revolution will necessarily result in emissions reductions. …

Don’t these numbers make it clear that we can no longer allow our politicans to point to the other guy in order to excuse inaction on carbon emissions? Certainly we should not allow Senator McCaskill to do so when the time comes when she will have to make her position on the new EPA regulations known. While the reduction in carbon emissions that these regulations would achieve is still not enough to stop potentially catastrophic global warming, they would still move us significantly forward in that direction:

If the rule goes forward as it is currently conceived, this proposal, combined with the reductions to date and those that will be driven by prior executive actions addressing the transportation sector, would, in approximate terms, put the US on a path to achieve Obama’s 17% by 2020 pledge. However, putting the proposed rule in context of the global de-carbonization challenge, it will achieve a small portion of the reductions required to stay within 2°C carbon budget. The EPA estimates it will result in reductions from the business as usual case of 545 MM tonnes of CO2 in 2030*. This plan would contribute a cumulative 5.9% reduction in US carbon intensity or an average annual additional intensity reduction of 0.39%

.

Isn’t it time for the US to start to play the leadership role when it comes to climate change that those advocates of “American exceptionalism” expect us to play when the question involves military action? Let’s ask Senator McCaskill why China should have to do all the heavy lifting – particularly since it’s clear that no nation can do it alone. And while we’re at it, let’s ask the Senator why she can’t manage to play more of a leadership role when it comes to helping our state make the transition from dirty energy sources – surely she can manage to stop concentrating on keeping her balance on the center line that runs down that rightward veering highway she’s been traveling in order to help determine the outcome of what will probably be the defining issue of our time.

Update:  Via Washington Monthly’s Ed Kilgore, Paul Krugman writes today on false economic arguments of the fossil fuel advocates:

I’ve just been reading two new reports on the economics of fighting climate change: a big study by a blue-ribbon international group, the New Climate Economy Project, and a working paper from the International Monetary Fund. Both claim that strong measures to limit carbon emissions would have hardly any negative effect on economic growth, and might actually lead to faster growth. This may sound too good to be true, but it isn’t. These are serious, careful analyses.

But you know that such assessments will be met with claims that it’s impossible to break the link between economic growth and ever-rising emissions of greenhouse gases, a position I think of as “climate despair.” The most dangerous proponents of climate despair are on the anti-environmentalist right. But they receive aid and comfort from other groups, including some on the left, who have their own reasons for getting it wrong.

Their own reasons …. hmmm. Locally, could that be Peabody Coal? Along with all the voting Missourians who get all their information from Fox News? How do you balance them beans against climate apocalypse?

…Throw out your breakfast garbage, and I’ve  got a hunch, that the folks downstream will drink it for lunch…

Previously:

Sen. Roy Blunt (r): bad, bad EPA, bad (August 15, 2014)

Vicky Hartzler talking about water and pesky regulations at the Missouri State Fair (August 14, 2014)

What if you had a ham breakfast and the Governor couldn’t be there? (August 14, 2014)

Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (r) spoke Thursday morning at a republican press conference in the Farm Bureau building on the grounds of the Missouri State Fair in Sedalia shortly after the Governor’s Ham Breakfast. He was joined at the press conference taking issue with proposed EPA rules on water by Senator Roy Blunt (r) and Representative Vicky  Hartzler (r). They also criticized regulation in general.

hy•drol•o•gy  noun  hī-ˈdrä-lə-jē</a>

a science dealing with the properties, distribution, and circulation of water on and below the earth’s surface and in the atmosphere

– hy•dro•log•ic or hy•dro•log•i•cal adjective

The video:

“…the way this rule reads as soon as one drop of water falls out of the sky EPA is on it. And that is a scary thought. Stop and think about that. As soon as one drop of water falls from the sky. It’s hydrologically connected to all the rest. Now the can technically get to it…”

Uh, why is that scary, is it because pollutants and contamination are stopped at an imaginary right wingnut miniature environmental border fence?

“…got a number of amendments in there to try and rein in the [Army] Corp [of Engineers] as well as empower the Corps to do a better job at what they’re doing…”

Apparently to right wingnuts those two actions are synonymous.

“…Uh, but EPA is not our friend, generally…”

Tell that to the people of Toledo, Ohio. Or South Tucson, Arizona. Or Times Beach, Missouri.

“…If we don’t push back they’ll push us…”

That, friends, is the right wingnut view of what America should be. In a nutshell.

The transcript:

Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer: ….I, too, want to extend my congratulations to all of you for all the hard work that you did in trying to support and get, uh, Amendment 1  [“right to farm”] across the finish line. Now, before I got up here a while ago somebody said keep my remarks crisp. So, that’s a new word, I hadn’t heard that before, it’s like, sure, I can be crisp. So we’ll keep, so we’ll keep it crisp here. But, uh, I did, I did want to congratulate you. I know it was a tough, tough, uh, uh, issue. There was a lot of concern about it. Uh, my office got a lot of calls on it, in fact, the last few weeks. And I tell people the best thing that happens is people call. They were concerned enough because of confusion out there that they took the time to call. And we could explain to them that this was an important issue because while it, it doesn’t necessarily do everything in the end to stop this, it puts a hurdle in the way. It put one more barrier for HSUS [The Humane Society] to come in and negatively impact our way of life, our agricultural industry as a whole, and or food supply in general. And so I think, uh, it was a great, great, uh, victory the other night. Uh, and we’re gonna continue to work with you and support you whatever, if they do a recount on it. So, let us know how we can help. Uh, but, again, thank you for all you do for agriculture.

With regards to the, uh, Waters of the U.S. proposed rule the other day we in the Small Business Committee which Sam Graves is the chairman of, and I’m vice chair of, he called a hearing. We had the number two person from EPA at the hearing. And boy did that gut get an earful. I mean, we have people from all over the country who, who are on our, on our committee that Democrats and Republicans both went after this guy, saying this was the most ridiculous thing you could imagine. And there’s, there’s a word in the law really is, is the sleeper in this whole thing. And it’s hydrological. All the water that’s hydrologically connected, so, in other words, every piece of, of, molecule of water that is connected to another one they can tech, technically regulate that. And so it was interesting because the EPA director was sitting, or number two person sitting there said, ah, no, we’re not gonna do anything about this. This is all about, you know, the waters that we can navigate. And the ones that we can oversee and blah, blah, blah. You know, it was interesting, because the real people in the real world who are on the panel who also testified said, you know what, the way this rule reads as soon as one drop of water falls out of the sky EPA is on it. And that is a scary thought. Stop and think about that. As soon as one drop of water falls from the sky. It’s hydrologically connected to all the rest. Now the can technically get to it. So, I think the, uh, you know, we fought this issue a couple years ago and beat it back. We have to stay united and work together, all of the different groups, all the industries, ag should take the lead, but there’s a lot of other issues out there that we’re working with as well that we have a direct in this and we need to work those as well.

Um, when it comes to, uh, other water issues there are things that are, I am directly im, im, impactful on and really like to work on from from the standpoint of the Missouri River and Mississippi River issues. Uh, we had, uh, a bill recently, a water bill that went through, got a number of amendments in there to try and rein in the [Army] Corp [of Engineers] as well as empower the Corps to do a better job at what they’re doing along the Mississippi and Missouri River. We stopped some unnecessary duplicative studies that are wasting money, also helping to empower EPA to do more regulation, and so we were able to cut some of that out. Uh, but EPA is not our friend, generally.  And as a result we have to be very careful to whenever they say they’re here to help us ’cause quite frankly they’re, generally they’re not. But, uh, all you know that.

Continue working with us. We’re excited about the opportunity to represent you in Washington and fight these battles. Together we can win, together we can push back. And I always tell people, I say, you know, when you don’t agree with what’s going on you gotta get to us, get us information, and we gotta push back. If we don’t push back they’ll push us. We have to stay united, you have to push back, don’t give in, don’t give up, and we’ll win.

Thank you very much.

“…Corporations are people, my friend….human beings, my friend…” Someone else said that somewhere a while back.

Video by Jerry Schmidt.

Same planet, different worlds.

A news item today, in the Cleveland Plain Dealer:

Toledo water still unsafe: Gov. Kasich visits as city waits for EPA water test results

By Mary Kilpatrick, Northeast Ohio Media Group

on August 03, 2014 at 2:49 PM, updated August 03, 2014 at 2:55 PM

TOLEDO, Ohio — It’s too soon to tell if the water is safe in Toledo, Gov. John Kasich said Sunday.

The toxin microcystin, found in Lake Erie, polluted the water supply early Saturday morning. Residents have been without running water for more than 24 hours…

…Water samples rushed to Environmental Protection Agency laboratories showed low levels of the pollutant on Sunday, but scientists need more time to determine if the water OK to drink, Kasich said…

…The contaminant forms in algae blooms, when excessive fertilizer and manure runs off into the water. The EPA mandates a 24-hour period of clean water before the city can give an all-clear, City of Toledo spokeswoman Lisa Ward said. Most of the results will come back Sunday afternoon, but officials must review the findings before making a final decision on water safety…

That darn federal EPA.

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r), via Twitter this past week:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler

ICYMI: I joined @McConnellPress yesterday to speak about the devastating effects of EPA regs. [….} 9:40 AM – 31 Jul 2014

Just don’t drink the water and don’t breathe the air.

A reply to Representative Hartzler (r), via Twitter:

Cody Welton ‏@acoupstick

@RepHartzler @McConnellPress your corporate overlords approve. #bought 9:49 AM – 31 Jul 2014

Rep. Sam Graves (R-6) has always struck me as a typical 21st century Missouri GOP pol: for limited government except when he isn’t, opposes government handouts except for his friends, willing to toe the accepted rightwing rhetorical line no matter how absurd, and rarely if ever challenges party leadership. The archetypical “Fox” Republican, as he has been dubbed, he chairs the House Small Business Committee where he’s a predictable quantity, opposing what he terms “handouts,” taxes, and business regulation. As you might guess, he’s approved of by conservative groups like the Chamber of Commerce although spokesmen for more pragmatic business organizations have suggested that he “often puts ideology over the practical needs of small businesses,” as when he opposed the $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund (SBLF).

My impression of Graves has been that in general while there’s lots to dislike, there’s little of real substance in the tired boiler-plate he dishes out – although he did hint at a proclivity toward the more exotic forms of GOP ideology back in 2002 when he took on some teenagers in Blue Springs, Missouri, gifting the city with a a $273,000 grant to fight “Goth culture.” Not surprisingly, at least half the amount was later returned “because of a lack of interest — and the absence of a real problem.”

All of which left me a little flummoxed when I read today that Graves has taken on the role of a GOP David and aimed his slingshot at the rightwing’s favorite Goliath, the EPA:

Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO) introduced a bill on Wednesday that would halt all EPA rules that are currently in the works and prompt a review of all previous EPA regulations. H.R. 5034, titled the Stop the EPA Act, would also require Congress to approve all previous and new regulations that cost $50 million or more. Under the bill, any that aren’t approved by Congress won’t become law.

“My legislation will give the American people a voice in the regulator’s room when the President and the EPA try and go around Congress,” Graves said in a statement. “EPA aggression has reached an all-time high, and now it must be stopped.”

Graves’ legislation was prompted by the EPA’s “Waters of the United States” proposal, which aims to clarify what streams and rivers are under the jurisdiction of the federal government, under the Clean Water Act. It’s also aimed at the EPA’s new rule on carbon emissions from power plants, a proposal that multiple other lawmakers have attempted to undermine or overturn in recent months. House Republicans introduced an EPA funding bill this week that would block the agency’s new power plant rule, and nine states have signed on to coal company Murray Energy’s lawsuit against the agency, claiming that the new rule constitutes EPA overreach.    

The claims Graves and comperes put forward about EPA overreach have been well refuted elsewhere – they’re patently false (see also here (pdf)). Worse, we’ve heard the same story over and over before. For example, as Think Progress points out, almost the same rhetoric was used in the GOP-led struggle to undo regulation of the lethally dangerous asbestos industry.

One commentator pointed out that Graves timed his new legislation to coincide with a Missouri visit by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, which he noted with lots of heroic chest-thumping and territorial gibbering on his Website. Which leads me to ask: does this new, aggressive Sam Graves have anything to do with the upcoming August Primary? Not only has Graves’ district grown considerably in the wake of redistricting, incorporating new voters – it now takes in the entire Northern section of the state, including the Northeastern areas previously represented by Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-3) – he also has three primary challengers, at least two of whom, Brian Tharp and Christopher Ryan, seem to  coming after his right flank, which, no matter how haltingly they may be limping toward it, has to resonate somewhat in these days after the fall of Eric Cantor. How better to show up your GOP opponents than to launch a few stones, no matter how feeble, at the heart of the GOP’s favorite regulatory beast.

AFTERTHOUGHT:  It occurs to me that Blaine Luetkemeyer actually established himself in his erstwhile Northeast district through lots of shrill anti-EPA rhetoric and climate change denialism. Seems to have gone over big with the Farm Bureau types up there. Think Sam wants the big-ag folks to know he’s a real Luektemeyer soul brother?