Follow Kristi
Point Of View: Farmers, Ranchers Need Dust Bill
Posted: Thursday, October 27th Filed in: News
By Rep. Kristi Noem
R-South Dakota
A recent editorial in this paper (Press & Dakotan, Oct. 21) took issue with a piece of legislation that I drafted to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from further regulating farm dust. This bill is the natural response given the concerns I have heard from farmers and ranchers across South Dakota. Agriculture is a business that has plenty of uncertainties inherent in its nature. Flooding, drought, insects, and market swing are all volatile factors that a farmer or rancher must consider when doing their job every day. I know this first hand from my experience in the industry.
When word started to spread around the ag community that the EPA was considering tougher regulations on dust that could mean fines and stricter standards on our ag producers, I couldn’t idly stand by. Unsurprisingly, farmers were troubled that they would have to park their tractors or combines on a dry and windy day in order to comply with tougher standards like they already have to do in Arizona today. Some also worried that they would have to water down dusty roads or fields. This regulatory threat would add additional uncertainty to an already uncertain line of work.
I gathered over 100 bipartisan cosponsors for a bill that would stop the EPA from any further regulation of farm dust. The bill would also exclude farm dust that is regulated at the state or local level from federal standards. We obviously touched a nerve with the EPA, when the Administrator abruptly announced days before a congressional hearing on the issue that the agency had no intention to change its current regulatory standards.
This EPA announcement is a victory for South Dakota farmers and ranchers but we cannot, and should not, stop there. Today the EPA says they won’t further regulate dust, but without this bill, there is nothing stopping the agency from changing their mind and further regulating tomorrow.
Additionally, it is important to note that the agency has no ability under current law to differentiate between urban and rural dust when enforcing their standards. Without this bill, if EPA enacts tougher standards meant for urban polluters or extreme environmental groups file lawsuits, there will be nothing stopping rural dust from also being included in the tougher standards. Finally, science has not shown rural dust to be a health concern like other kinds of dust. The distinction between urban and rural dust would provide ironclad certainty to the agriculture community so they can continue to provide a reliable, safe food supply in the United States and meet the world’s food needs.
If this newspaper wants to take the word of unelected bureaucrats in Washington when they say they won’t further regulate farm dust, that is fine. Rural South Dakotans who rely on production agriculture to feed their family and pay their bills expect me to fight for greater regulatory certainty because the mere word of an agency with a track record like the EPA’s isn’t good enough for the rest of us.
When word started to spread around the ag community that the EPA was considering tougher regulations on dust that could mean fines and stricter standards on our ag producers, I couldn’t idly stand by. Unsurprisingly, farmers were troubled that they would have to park their tractors or combines on a dry and windy day in order to comply with tougher standards like they already have to do in Arizona today. Some also worried that they would have to water down dusty roads or fields. This regulatory threat would add additional uncertainty to an already uncertain line of work.
I gathered over 100 bipartisan cosponsors for a bill that would stop the EPA from any further regulation of farm dust. The bill would also exclude farm dust that is regulated at the state or local level from federal standards. We obviously touched a nerve with the EPA, when the Administrator abruptly announced days before a congressional hearing on the issue that the agency had no intention to change its current regulatory standards.
This EPA announcement is a victory for South Dakota farmers and ranchers but we cannot, and should not, stop there. Today the EPA says they won’t further regulate dust, but without this bill, there is nothing stopping the agency from changing their mind and further regulating tomorrow.
Additionally, it is important to note that the agency has no ability under current law to differentiate between urban and rural dust when enforcing their standards. Without this bill, if EPA enacts tougher standards meant for urban polluters or extreme environmental groups file lawsuits, there will be nothing stopping rural dust from also being included in the tougher standards. Finally, science has not shown rural dust to be a health concern like other kinds of dust. The distinction between urban and rural dust would provide ironclad certainty to the agriculture community so they can continue to provide a reliable, safe food supply in the United States and meet the world’s food needs.
If this newspaper wants to take the word of unelected bureaucrats in Washington when they say they won’t further regulate farm dust, that is fine. Rural South Dakotans who rely on production agriculture to feed their family and pay their bills expect me to fight for greater regulatory certainty because the mere word of an agency with a track record like the EPA’s isn’t good enough for the rest of us.
