…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.

Previously:

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

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

Senator Roy Blunt (r) spoke yesterday 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 Representatives Vicky  Hartzler (r) and Blaine Luetkemeyer (r). They also criticized regulation in general.

“…if they don’t sell it [Canadian tar sand oil slated to be transported by the Keystone pipeline] to us they’ll sell it to somebody else…”

Water is wet.

“…logic doesn’t always work if people do illogical things…”

Uh, by definition if the action is illogical the logic never worked.

“…Common sense doesn’t prevail if people pursue policies that don’t meet the common sense standard…”

Again, by definition.

“…Another one that I’m for is making members of Congress vote on every rule and regulation that has any economic impact…”

Think about that for a minute second.  Right. Because the republican majority of the House always bases their decisions on facts, science, and the benefit to all.

From the Enviromental Protection Agency:

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.

[….]

The EPA has additional information on the Waters of the United States proposed rule.

The video:

The transcript:

Senator Roy Blunt (r): Thank you.  Thank you. Thank you, Blake. And congratulations to everybody who worked on the right to farm. Uh, I was Secretary of State for eight years. My guess would be that this is, uh, this is a narrow margin, but a margin that holds up and it makes a long time difference.  Uh, none of the three of us are lawyers. We, we, as, and we, and we’d be quick to say, uh, but as a non lawyer I think putting this in the Constitution matters. It matters when something comes up on the floor of the General Assembly and others can stand up and say, wait a minute, the Constitution of the State of Missouri says that this, what we’re talking about, is something that’s uniquely protected in the Constitution. Makes a difference in court, I would think, if people have to go to court to contend that they uphold their rights. And all of the discussion of whether this benefits big farms or little farms, uh, my, my sense is that, uh, the big farms will generally take care of themselves. The family farms are much more likely to be impacted by rules that don’t make sense, than other farms.

So, let’s go to the topic that, uh, uh, Blake first brought up, the rules that don’t make sense. I just actually saw one of our people who works for the EPA next door and said, well, I’m gonna go next door and talk about what a bad job you all are doing in so many areas  [laughter],  uh, the EPA being one of them. This week I’ve been talking about a bill that I introduced in the Senate that both Vicky [Hartzler] and, uh, Blaine [Luetkemeyer] voted for in House and the House passed in a bipartisan way, called, uh, the Enforce Act.  And the Enforce Act would give members of the, members of Congress the ability we don’t currently have to go to court early and let a judge decide whether the President and the administration are properly enforcing the law or not. Under the current situation we don’t have any standing in court. We can file a friend of the court brief, but to do that the rule has to go into effect. Somebody has to be negatively impacted by the rule. They have to be willing to go to court. And that court means maybe two levels of federal court before the Supreme Court, so, couple of years later you find out, as the court ruled two or three times in the last session, [inaudible] the administration has no authority to do that. So we’d like to be able to intervene earlier and say, okay, let’s just , we’ve got a disagreement here, a majority of one of the two houses of Congress, if not both, believe that you’re not properly enforcing the law, let’s settle that right now.

And certainly the clean water proposals would fall in that criterion. Uh, when in the early nineteen seventies the Congress passed the Clean Water Act they gave authority to the EPA over navigable waters. This is a term that had been used in federal law since about eighteen ninety-nine and it meant waters that you could actually navigate on. What a shocking, what a shocking surprise that would be. That is not all the water of the United States. It is not every water, every drip, drop of water that could eventually somehow wind up in a, something that you could define as a navigable water. It’s an overreach that impacts, as Blaine said, every builder, every county commissioner, every city official, every farming family and it should not be allowed to stand.

Even if, even if the EPA was well motivated here this is more than they can ever do. They can’t regulate every ditch in Missouri that water runs down to the side of the road. Even if they wanted to and even if their desire was to do something that every one of us agree with. Which, of course, it wouldn’t be. But even if it was, they couldn’t do this job. The consequences of these actions easily rob us of our natural, uh, opportunities.  I’m gonna talk a little bit more about this when I see some of you at lunch, but our natural opportunities are pretty great.

World food needs are gonna double in the next fifty-five years. The, the, the river system becomes more important than it’s been in probably a hundred years as it tries to connect, uh, with both Asia and Europe and the opportunities there. Uh, we, we have, there are many, this is like the logic of the Keystone pipeline. That oil is coming out of the ground. We are clearly the best customer for that oil from Canada. We’re their best trading partner. They should want to sell it to us. But if they don’t sell it to us, and they’re willing to sell it to us at the Texas rate, which is about twenty percent less than they’ll sell it to anybody else, if they don’t sell it to us they’ll sell it to somebody else.  You know, logic doesn’t always work if people do illogical things. Common sense doesn’t prevail if people pursue policies that don’t meet the common sense standard. As I told our friends in Jefferson City when I had the chance to speak to them at the General Assembly last year, the closer you solve a problem where the problem is the more likely you’re gonna get a solution that meets that standard of common sense. And the further you move the, the, the solution away the less likely it’s gonna meet the solution of common sense.

And the very fact that the EPA would say that navigable waters means all the water that could ever somehow trickle into a navigable stream indicates just how far afield they are. These are regulations we shouldn’t let stand. Uh, we need to look for every way we can to get regulators under control. The Enforce Act would be one.

Another one that I’m for is making members of Congress vote on every rule and regulation that has any economic impact. Not only are the regulators out of control, they’re unaccountable.  And you and I need to be able get our hands on somebody who at the end of the day says, yes, we, we’re for that regulation. And if that happens it’s gonna make more sense.

You know, the Congress, once the House passed cap and trade, which I wasn’t for, the, people figured out what it was, the Senate would never have passed cap and trade because people figured out this was about doubling our utility bill if I live in Missouri. Uh, but regulators can do things, President says, well there’s more than one way to skin a cat and so we’ll find other ways to do cap and trade. They’re trying to do that as well. That’s the other massive economic destroying, uh, EPA proposal that’s out there right now.

But, uh, no matter what Gina McCarthy [Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] says the concerns about this are legitimate, they are not myths, they are not ludicrous. The comments of the Farm Bureau that reflected those of farm families were not hogwash. You got regulators out of control and their out of control actions will do the wrong things for our state and the wrong ways for our families and we’re gonna fight that.

Senator Claire McCaskill (D) spent the day in Ferguson, Missouri.

…because in the end, even if you carry their water for them, they’ll reward you by endorsing your opponent.

Farm Bureau rejects Skelton, endorses Republican for first time in 14 years

By: Darrell Todd Maurina

Posted: Friday, August 20, 2010 9:52 pm

SEDALIA, Mo. (Aug. 20, 2010) – For the first time since the mid-1990s, U.S. Rep. Ike Skelton has lost the endorsement of the Missouri Farm Bureau’s political action committee.

The trustees of Missouri’s 4th Congressional District FARM-PAC announced Friday morning that they’ll be endorsing Vicky Hartzler, a former state representative from Harrisonville, over Skelton…

“…He had a favorable record on voting with ag issues of importance to Farm Bureau. The questions that came up again and again in the discussion was how over the past four years Congressman Skelton has voted like 95 percent of the time with (Speaker of the House) Nancy Pelosi,” Bassett said…

[emphasis added]

Yeah, Ike Skelton voted for agriculture, but you use a right wingnut front organization’s attack ad talking point to explain your endorsement of a republican? Party hack.

Ah, for the days of hardball politics, when this kind of blatant partisanship at the expense of actual issues was rewarded with a permanent sojourn in the wilderness of irrelevance. “Congressman, Farm Bureau is on the line.” “Put ’em on hold, and leave the phone off the hook.”

A determined coalition is up against the big boys here in Missouri on the issue of factory farms.  People near Arrow Rock, Roaring River, and Battle of Athens are pitting themselves against, for starters, the Missouri Farm Bureau, a powerful organization indeed. When it tells the governor and Republican legislative leaders to jump, don’t look for them to be squatting in place.  They know which side their campaign coffers are buttered on.

The Farm Bureau basically sells insurance to 100,000 Missourians, the majority of them farmers.  It holds itself out as an advocate for family farms and claims to limit itself to agricultural issues.  Neither is true.  It speaks on many issues, and on none of them more adamantly than on CAFOs.  There, it employs the stick–fear that if we overregulate CAFOs, Missouri’s hog and chicken raising industry will “move to Brazil”–and the carrot–CAFOs bring jobs to economically depressed areas.  That jobs claim is hokum.  A few people get to be hog janitors, others get to work in a processing factory, and everything about the industry is so integrated vertically by big ag that the peons are no better off than they ever were. 

Whitney Kerr, a member of the coalition that is planning legal action to stop the CAFO near Arrow Rock, points out that the Bureau has never asked him or other ordinary members what stands it should take on any issue.  Kerr feels that the Bureau is in cahoots with the industrial/agricultural giants and is carrying water for Tyson, Cargill, Smithfield, and MoArk, among others.

He objects to the Bureau’s claim that factory farms are the future of agriculture in Missouri.  Twenty years ago, before CAFOs appeared in this state, hogs were raised in open fields and the manure was spread over a large area.  Under those conditions, the streams and water table were safe. 

But about 1994 CAFOs began appearing in Missouri.  They often brought environmental depradation.  Not only are the clean water supplies of any given area threatened by the concentrated application of feces, but those feces come from animals who have been given antibiotics all their lives.  Furthermore recent studies show that many crops grown on ground where this “fertilizer” has been spread, soak up those antibiotics.  That’s some fertilizer.  The predominance of CAFOs means that we are eating antibiotics, so city dwellers, whether they know it or not, have a stake in this issue.  As The League of Women Voters points out, “If you eat, you are involved in agriculture.”

Now if those hogs had been raised like those in the picture, with some room to breathe and move, instead of being crammed in so tight they can’t even turn, those antibiotics wouldn’t be necessary.

Furthermore, the CAFOs have put those who raised hogs in a humane, environmentally safe manner out of business.  Today, 85 percent of small hog raisers are no more.  Those few who still raise hogs on family farms are hard pressed to find buyers for their hogs because the big ag companies have contracted with CAFOs.

This sea change in Missouri agriculture has occurred in less than fifteen years.  As the evils of the new system have dawned on those living in the middle of it, some have decided to resist.  A group of resolute rural Missourians is fighting to preserve their homes as well as our state parks and historic landmarks against odor, against the threat of water pollution.  They are taking to the field on behalf of small farmers being driven out of business by invading corporations. 

The first two postings in this series were billed as part of a three-part series.  I had barely an inkling then of how many facets the CAFO topic has.  When I get to part Twenty of this three part series, that resolute band of Davids will still be contending with CAFOliath–not as if they can slay him but in the well grounded hope of exerting reasonable control.  The Davids will work for smaller CAFOs with more humane treatment and no antibiotics, and for better waste management and watershed management.  They’ll be pushing for legislation to keep CAFOs away from state parks and historic sites.  More counties will enact health ordinances to protect themselves.  CAFOliath won’t lie lifeless on the ground, but he might be tamed.