Missouri Farm Bureau
|
Kevin Craig - "Liberty Under God"
|
| Aboveground
Fuel Storage Tanks |
|
| We believe the
Environmental Protection Agency’s Spill, Control and Countermeasure
Rule regulating aboveground fuel storage tanks is overly restrictive
on agricultural producers. All farmers regardless of their on-farm
fuel storage capacity should be allowed to complete and self-certify a
spill control plan for their operation in lieu of being required to
hire a certified engineer to develop a plan. |
|
| Air Quality |
Everyone wants clean air. The Free Market
provides the technology to raise our standard of living, including our
standard of hygiene and health. |
| We
oppose the federal regulations that require more than 90% emissions
reductions for off-road diesel vehicles. The cost of these regulatory
requirements will far outweigh the benefits. |
Balancing
Environmental Risks
Environmental Protection
|
| We oppose the
Environmental Protection Agency's revisions to the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter due to the
long-term ramifications these regulations will have on production
agriculture. We believe particulate matter from agricultural sources
should be excluded from the NAAQS because there is no conclusive
scientific evidence indicating that particulate matter from typical
farm and ranch operations adversely affects public health. |
Environment
and Climate -- Air Pollution |
| We encourage
entities such as the University of Missouri Extension, Farm Service
Agency or Natural Resources Conservation Service to conduct workshops
to educate landowners on proper open burning procedures. |
|
| We believe the
environmental concerns raised by the concentration of large numbers of
animals in confinement operations warrants the distinction, for the
purpose of regulating odor, that the Air Conservation Commission has
made between very large operations and smaller sized operations. We
will vigorously oppose any effort to apply the more stringent
regulations to farming operations that have less than a Class 1A
designation. |
|
| We question the
accuracy of the allegations made by the Humane Society of the United
States and other organizations regarding livestock and urge the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reject their petition calling
for the regulation of CAFOs under the federal Clean Air Act. |
|
| All-Terrain
Vehicles |
|
| We are
concerned that indiscriminate use of all-terrain vehicles increases
soil erosion and water pollution, damages stream banks, jeopardizes
fish and wildlife and threatens rights of rural property owners. |
The method of environmental protection
consistent with the constitution and the values that made America
great is private ownership of propety. |
| American
Heritage River Initiative |
|
| We are opposed
to the American Heritage River Initiative. |
|
| Climate
Change |
|
| We oppose the
regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Federal Clean
Air Act. Such action will have significant adverse economic impacts on
production agriculture and the U.S. economy, increasing fuel,
fertilizer and energy costs and ultimately the price of food for
consumers. Furthermore, many producers would be required to obtain
permits and pay fees. Livestock operations with more than 25 dairy
cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs could be subjected to an estimated
tax of $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per beef animal, or $20 per hog. |
|
| We strongly
oppose mandatory cap and trade legislation due to the higher costs
that it will impose on consumers for electricity, fuel, and goods
produced using energy. |
|
| We oppose a
mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions in Missouri. |
|
| We believe a
comprehensive study of a cap on GHG emissions and its economic impacts
on agriculture and other sectors should be conducted before any action
is taken. |
|
| Dam Safety |
|
| We believe
existing standards for agricultural dams are appropriate and oppose
increased regulation of agricultural dams. |
|
| Endangered
Species Act |
|
| We support
reform of the Endangered Species Act which will result in a more
appropriate balance between the needs of plants and animals and the
needs of people. The act must more clearly reflect a respect
for private property
and a recognition that costs to recover species must be borne by the
public not by private property owners. The Act should require an
economic analysis related to the impacts to private landowners
regardless of whether or not critical habitat is requested. |
It must be kept in mind that the core of
the "environmental movement"
hates human beings and the needs of people. |
| We oppose the
use of the ESA to influence federal policies such as climate change
and energy. |
|
| We
believe that endangered species protection can be more effectively
achieved by providing incentives to private landowners rather than by
imposing land use restrictions and penalties. |
As long as "incentives" are not
funded by federal coercion. |
| We believe that
state and local agencies should be allowed to assume the job of
assessing the environmental, social, and economic impact of the
species preservation and determine a reasonable balance. |
|
| We oppose the
listing of the Topeka Shiner or Scaleshell mussel on the federal
endangered species list. |
|
| We support the
delisting of the wolf from the endangered species list. |
|
| We support
voluntary, incentive-based programs for landowners such as the
Missouri Department of Conservation's Topeka Shiner Action Plan. |
|
| Excavation
of Sand and Gravel |
|
| We oppose
increased governmental regulation of private sand and gravel
excavation by landowners. In addition, we support allowing landowners
to sell sand and gravel excavated from streams on their property
following reasonable operational standards set by DNR without a
permit. |
|
| Many streams in
Missouri have an excessive load of gravel and vegetation growing in
the stream channel accelerating streambank erosion and reducing fish
habitat by decreasing the water pool. We favor the modification of
current agency guidelines to make it easier to remove gravel and
vegetation from streams and to use that material to repair streambank
erosion sites. |
|
| We oppose
regulations requiring a buffer area between gravel excavation sites
and the water's edge. |
|
| We are
concerned that scientific studies from other states and countries may
not accurately reflect the dynamics of Missouri streams. |
|
| We believe
studies should be conducted on Missouri streams to examine the true
impact of gravel removal as it relates to streambank erosion and the
creation of fish habitat. |
|
| We are
concerned that no economic studies on this issue have been done in
Missouri involving affected landowners and industry. |
|
| We also believe
comprehensive economic impact studies should be done on this issue
before any further guidelines or regulations are adopted. |
|
| Fish &
Wildlife Organizations |
|
| We oppose the
federal and state funding of fish and wildlife organizations that
pursue legal action against livestock producers, farmers and other
resource users. |
|
| Floodplain
Management |
|
| We are
concerned about the amount of land being acquired by state and federal
agencies in the Missouri River floodplain. |
|
| The combination
of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Missouri River
Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project, Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program (CREP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and others has targeted
an alarming amount of farmland for acquisition. |
|
| This not only
takes land out of production, impacting local economies, but where
land is acquired in a levee district the rest of the landowners are
endangered by the resistance of government agencies to allow the
repair of levees. This can create willing sellers. |
|
| We oppose
funding for additional land acquisition in the Missouri River
floodplain under the Missouri River Mitigation Project or other
federal or state programs. |
|
| We are opposed
to efforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the Big
Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge on the Missouri River. |
|
| Inland
Waterways System |
|
| We favor the
Corps of Engineers maintaining the Missouri River below flood stage
whenever possible. |
|
| We strongly
believe the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should not implement changes
in the management of the Missouri River, such as a spring rise or
split navigation season, which will have adverse economic and
environmental consequences to the citizens of the State of Missouri.
This includes reduced flood control, reduced water supplies for
municipalities and the creation of flow situations that have adverse
economic impacts on our state. Furthermore, it is reprehensible the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would
implement a man-made spring rise considering the federal crop
insurance program may not cover crop losses resulting from an event
that does not occur naturally, such as a man-made flood. |
|
| We commend the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources for their leadership in
protecting landowners' interests relative to future management of the
Missouri River. |
|
| Also, we
support efforts that enhance fish and wildlife habitat in or along the
Missouri River that are compatible with the economic uses that are now
required. |
|
| We oppose any
changes in the management of the Missouri River which would shift the
primary purpose of the upstream dams and reservoirs toward
recreational and environmental goals at the expense of flood control,
navigation and water availability for community public water supply
and power generation. We are strongly opposed to the
Congressionally-mandated Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study
designed to review the original project purposes based on the Flood
Control Act of 1944 and determine if changes are warranted. We also
oppose efforts by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service to expand their mission on the Missouri River from
endangered species recovery to ecosystem restoration. Such a shift in
priorities on the Missouri River will also have an immediate and
direct impact on the Mississippi River and will have serious
implications for agricultural, commercial and community interests on
all inland waterways. |
|
| We strongly
support port authorities and river commerce and believe funding for
river transportation and port improvements should be a component of
state and federal transportation legislation. |
|
| We believe the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should notify all landowners, farm
operators and political subdivisions (i.e. cities, drainage districts,
etc.) of changes made in river operations and identify all possible
effects due to proposed changes. |
|
| We believe the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should pay damages to landowners and farm
operators for lands lost to erosion or flooding on rivers resulting
from navigation locks and dams. |
|
| We strongly
oppose the dumping or designed erosion of soil into the Missouri River
by the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. |
|
| International
Treaties |
|
| We
are opposed to any environmental regulations or mandates put in place
by international treaty and given the force of U.S. law. |
|
| Invasive
Species |
|
| We believe
federal, state and local agencies should work more closely with
private landowners to address invasive species problems. Any invasive
species program that is proposed should not create additional
restrictions on agricultural producers and landowners similar to those
of the Endangered Species Act and other existing laws. |
|
| Invasive
species should not be defined to include agricultural products or
other beneficial non-native species. |
|
| Levee
Protection |
|
| Well maintained
levees are essential not only because they allow some of our most
productive land to be utilized in farm production, but also to prevent
the ravages of flooding from destroying roads, bridges, railroads,
homes and businesses. When levees are destroyed by extraordinary
rainfall, it can cause severe economic hardship to farmers, rural
businesses and entire rural communities. |
|
| We believe
federal and state governmental agencies should be committed to
assisting with the timely repair and maintenance of levees on the main
rivers and their tributaries. |
|
| We believe the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should develop guidelines under which
levee districts could approve contracts for levee repair and
reconstruction. |
|
| We believe
Congress should support a comprehensive plan for the Upper Mississippi
River that enhances system wide flood control without creating adverse
impacts on existing levees, levee districts, rural communities and
metropolitan areas. The comprehensive plan should be based on analyses
that quantifies the impacts of enhanced flood control measures and
acknowledges the importance of keeping agricultural land in
production. |
|
| We recommend
the following actions to ease potential flooding: |
|
| •
Non-federal, non-qualifying levees should be allowed the opportunity
to enter into the Corps of Engineers cost-share program. |
|
| • Adequate
funds should be made available to the Corps of Engineers and Natural
Resources Conservation Service to assist in the repair of levees on
the main rivers and their tributaries. |
|
| • Wetland,
endangered species and other environmental restrictions should be
modified to allow a common-sense approach to the removal of trees and
brush, the use of river dredges, and location of borrow areas to
repair damaged levees. |
|
| • Adequate
funds should be provided to assist in sand and debris removal and to
provide voluntary non-levee alternatives such as emergency wetlands
reserve program. |
|
| • Because of
the increased threat levees will be topped due largely to development
and the pouring of concrete in urban areas, urban areas should build
catch-type basins to retain water during heavy rains. |
|
| We urge the
United States Army Corps of Engineers to change the 365-day contract
between the Corps and levee repair contractors to a 100-day contract. |
|
| We support the
St. John's Bayou and New Madrid Floodway Project. |
|
| Littering |
|
| We support
legislation enacting a container deposit law. We also recommend that
laws on littering be strengthened and enforced with the help of the
county prosecuting attorneys and that the law be enforced to prevent
dumping trash on private property. |
|
| Livestock
Source Nutrient Management |
|
| Many farmers in
Missouri are experiencing lengthy delays in the planning and approval
of animal source nutrient handling facilities. We urge the Department
of Natural Resources to take the necessary steps to assure that
farmers can receive the regulatory approval for their animal source
nutrient handling facilities without unreasonable delays. In addition,
we believe the Cooperative Extension Service should maintain an
adequate number of agriculture engineer specialists to assist farmers
in the planning and layout of animal source nutrient handling
facilities. |
|
| We oppose state
regulations for animal source nutrient handling that are more
restrictive than EPA's recently revised regulations, and we urge DNR
to provide livestock producers maximum flexibility and minimum
restrictions in revised state regulations that may be necessary to
comply with the revised federal regulations. Stricter state
regulations would only serve to place Missouri livestock producers at
a competitive disadvantage with producers from other states. |
|
| Intense public
scrutiny and market pressures have prompted efforts to review the
accelerated regulation of livestock source nutrient management. We
believe livestock source nutrients are a valuable resource for farmers
and ranchers and as such should be treated as an asset. We believe
that once ownership of livestock manures has been transferred, the
responsibility for its proper handling and management must be solely
in the hands of the new owner. We advocate responsible livestock
source nutrient management, including: |
|
| 1. Design,
construction and operation of storage facilities based upon accepted
engineering standards, |
|
| 2. Land
application of manure based upon current agronomic research, |
|
| 3. Cost-share
assistance for voluntary site-specific nutrient management planning as
appropriate research is made available to landowners, and |
|
| 4. Being a
"good neighbor" by maintaining communication with nearby
residents and avoiding unnecessary interference in neighbors'
activities, and |
|
| 5. An increase in monies for the tree
screen fund for odor control on livestock operations. |
|
| Livestock
source nutrient regulations and management standards should be based
on sound science and cost-benefit analysis. We support technical
assistance, cost-share and other incentives for compliance as well as
voluntary efforts to exceed minimum requirements. We support continued
research and training by universities, colleges and research centers
to control odor, improve nutrient utilization and develop new
alternatives to handle livestock source nutrients prior to, and
during, land application. We believe this information should be used
as the basis for site-specific nutrient management planning. |
|
| We do not
support additional laws or regulations for water quality issues
associated with livestock source nutrients, including applying whole
body contact water quality standards to waterbodies that are not
conducive to swimming. We support maintaining the existing exemption
from permits for operations under 1,000 animal units. |
|
| Permits should
be based on an objective assessment of facility design, construction,
and operational plans. A public hearing on permit applications should
not be required. |
|
Before fee
increases for livestock source nutrient management general permits are
considered, we believe the following options must be explored:
1. Redirect existing funding from programs not mandated by state or
federal law to the permit program;
2. Cut permit program costs; and
3. Identify other funding sources.
We believe adequate general revenue funding must be budgeted for the
permit program.
We do not support transferring permitting authority from DNR to the
EPA. |
|
| We strongly
oppose classifying livestock source nutrients as hazardous waste and
subjecting livestock and poultry operations to liability under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
of 1980, Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) of
1986 and Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA). We
support legislation to exempt agricultural operations from CERCLA,
EPCRA and SARA. |
|
| Mining on
Public Lands |
|
| We support
mining on public lands if appropriate safeguards are required to
protect fish, forest and wildlife resources and the leases reflect
fair market value. |
|
| National
Flood Insurance |
|
| We believe the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should exempt farm
buildings from federal flood construction standards as long as no
federal flood protection is granted on such buildings or their
contents. |
|
| One-Tenth
Cent Sales Tax |
|
| We support
renewal of the one-tenth cent sales tax in 2006. We are proud of
Missouri's soil and water conservation and state parks programs, which
share equally in the revenue generated by this sales tax. |
|
| We believe the
Soil & Water Commission should focus the use of funds from the
1/10 cent sales tax on soil erosion control and develop statewide soil
and water conservation programs by working with the local elected Soil
and Water District supervisors within the seven Major Land Resource
Areas as long as such programs continue to address soil and water
conservation as originally intended. |
|
| We believe a
higher percentage of the State Soil and Water program's budget derived
from the Parks and Soils Sales Tax should be allocated to the
cost-share program. |
|
| We support
retaining the requirement that members of the state Soil and Water
District Commission and local district board members be farmers . |
|
| We support
restoring the state Soil and Water Districts Commission's budgeting
authority. |
|
| Port
Authorities |
|
| We strongly
support the efforts of the Missouri Port Authority Association to
receive administrative and legislative authorization for capital
improvement funding in the state budget in order to meet developmental
infrastructure needs. |
|
| Public Lands |
|
| We recommend
that leases for public lands (both state and federal) be offered on a
bid basis for at least five-year terms. This will allow successful
bidders the opportunity to fully utilize the productive value of the
land they rent. In addition, we believe lessees should be given
incentives in their rental contracts to preserve the fertility of the
public land they rent. |
|
| We oppose
buffer zones around state and national parks. |
|
| We believe the
Missouri Departments of Natural Resources (DNR) and Conservation (MDC)
should manage wildlife so as not to endanger the health of humans or
livestock on private property. |
|
| We are opposed
to any effort in which the control or management of land or natural
resources of the United States is relinquished or diminished in any
way by treaty or other means to the United Nations or any other
foreign body. This applies to activities such as bioreserves or others
that have been proposed by local, state, federal or international
agencies or organizations. |
|
| Prior to
agricultural land (except road rights-of-way) being purchased by
federal, state or local government public hearings must be held to
allow for taxpayer input. A cost/benefit analysis of the proposed
purchase shall be prepared by an impartial, reputable source. The cost
of the analysis shall be paid for by the proposed buyer. |
|
| Public lands
could be sold under certain circumstances and should be assessed on a
case-by-case basis. We oppose the sale of parcels of the Mark Twain
National Forest and other tracts of U.S. Forest lands to fund the
Secure Rural Schools Act that would send proceeds to other states. |
|
| Rural Water
Supply |
|
| We believe pure
clean water is a vital part of rural Missouri. We support the efforts
of rural water districts in obtaining loans and grants to serve their
areas. |
|
| Scenic
Rivers |
|
| We oppose the
designation of additional rivers as a part of the Wild and Scenic
Rivers System. |
|
| We oppose the
designation of any additional waterbodies as Outstanding State
Resource Waters. |
|
| Soil
Conservation |
|
| We believe the
NRCS should be a non-regulatory provider of education and technical
assistance and not an agricultural environmental enforcement agency. |
|
| We favor
incentives to landowners for putting fragile, erodible soil into
long-term conserving cover crops such as grass, trees, etc. by
cost-share and tax credits. |
|
| We favor
sufficient flexibility in the regulation to allow local Soil
Conservation Districts and Farm Service Agency (FSA) County
Committees, with the advice of the local Natural Resources
Conservation Service technicians, to determine the soil conservation
practice or combination of practices that best serve the needs of the
local area in achieving the optimum level of erosion reduction. |
|
| We favor strict
enforcement of maintenance requirements on all cost-share conserving
practices. |
|
| We favor a
reevaluation in order to develop more practical construction
specifications pertaining to building waterways, water improvement
structures, terraces, etc. |
|
| We favor both
state and federal income tax deductions for permanent soil
conservation practices. |
|
| Solid and
Hazardous Waste Disposal |
|
| We believe each
state should be responsible for disposing of the majority of the solid
waste generated within their borders. In addition, we support giving
state and local political subdivisions more authority to accept or
deny out-of-state solid waste. |
|
| We believe in
the principle of recycling. We also believe that present recycling law
makes individual counties ultimately financially responsible for
implementing a recycling program without providing any substantial
amount of new funding to meet the various deadlines. We believe the
state should provide this funding in accordance with Article 10,
Section 21 of the "Hancock Amendment". Because of the
increasing importance to create a market for recycled products, tax
incentives should be given to businesses for recycling their products
or for purchasing recycled material. |
Recycling as "a principle" is a
bad idea. It is another example of "junk science."
- Reason Foundation - Paper
Grocery Bags Require More Energy Than Plastic Bags
- Recycling
Is Bullsh!t [contains vulgar language, bad
numbers on farm subsidies]
- Capitalism:
A Treatise on Economics
by George Reisman
"Of course, people are
free to adopt a poverty-stricken personal lifestyle if they
choose. They may go about like old Russian grandmothers in Moscow,
with an ever present shopping bag and herring jar, if that is what
they like. They may pick through garbage pails while pretending
that they live in a spaceship — “spaceship Earth,” they call
it — rather than in the richest country of the planet Earth. But
there is absolutely no sane reason why anyone should, or needs to,
live this way, and certainly not in modern America."
|
| In order to
prevent frivolous solid or hazardous waste disposal applications, the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources should be authorized to
"bill" all applicants for the first $15,000 in expenses in
evaluating application sites and accrediting the applicant. Funds
collected should be returned to DNR's budget and not to general
revenue. |
|
| We support
legislation enacting new requirements and guidelines for the siting of
a sanitary landfill in Missouri. These new siting requirements should
afford added protection and recourse not only to the adjoining
landowners, but to nearby communities and towns with regard to such
things as economic impact and social consequences. |
|
| We further
believe that once a permit application has been declared completed, a
copy of the application and the completed plan be made available in
the local library for 30 days prior to the public hearing. |
|
| We believe that
the Department of Natural Resources should, upon the application of
any waste disposal facility, notify immediately all adjacent
landowners, county commissioners and the general public. |
|
| We believe
hazardous waste disposal sites should be located on federal property.
The individuals or companies who produce hazardous waste should be
legally and financially responsible for its disposal. |
|
| We recommend
that the definition of "habitual violator" of hazardous
waste laws be spelled out in Missouri state law. |
|
| We favor
pesticides being sold in containers that can be easily and safely
destroyed by the user. If certain pesticides cannot be placed in such
containers, manufacturers and distributors should be willing to
receive empty containers for disposal. |
|
| We favor having
at least two full-time farmers on commissions in charge of hazardous
waste disposal. |
|
| We support
voluntary disposal and recycling of unused pesticides and containers
at authorized collection and disposal sites. We encourage farmers and
commercial applicators to triple rinse or pressure rinse containers
and return them to their participating dealers for recycling. |
|
| We believe that
legislation which limits the responsibility of private property owners
for hazardous material illegally dumped on their land is urgently
needed. Legislation should exclude the property owner from any legal
responsibility to clean up the hazardous material and allow landowners
to notify the proper state or county agency to have the illegally
dumped material removed. |
|
| We encourage
the Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Economic
Development to seek ways to attract additional rendering plants in
Missouri. |
|
| We believe that
when sites are considered an environmental problem or hazardous by the
EPA or DNR under programs such as Superfund, a comprehensive
scientific assessment should be conducted by a qualified independent
research entity before any regulatory restrictions on land use
activities are imposed. |
|
| We support the
reinstated 50 cent fee for the waste tire disposal program which
sunsets in 2010, and we believe the funds should be used to transition
to a privately run program. |
|
| Steel Traps |
|
| We favor the
continued use of steel traps under present regulation. We believe any
international agreements aimed at banning furs from countries using
steel traps should be challenged by our government as non-tariff trade
barriers subject to retaliation under international trade agreements. |
|
| Vehicle
Emissions |
|
| We believe
federally mandated air pollution control devices such as catalytic
converters now installed on motor vehicles coupled with voluntary
efforts by industry are sufficient to assure safe motor vehicle
emission. We therefore oppose annual auto emission inspection. |
|
| We oppose
implementation of Clean Air Act regulations that will increase
purchase and maintenance costs for diesel engines. Adding urea to
diesel exhaust systems is prohibitively expensive. |
|
| We oppose the
75 mph limit on emergency vehicles. If implemented, it will cost lives
for a very small reduction in particulate emissions. |
|
| Air emissions
in St. Louis have been decreasing since 1984 as voluntary and
mandatory industry and vehicle emissions control measures have been
implemented. We therefore support repeal of the auto emissions
inspection program. |
|
| Water
Quality |
|
| We recognize
the need for high quality surface and groundwater in Missouri. We
support a water inventory and monitoring program to evaluate the
quality of Missouri's water. We believe such a program should be
funded from general revenues. |
|
| We urge
Congress to consider the following points: |
|
| 1. The
conservation provisions of federal farm bills since 1985 have greatly
expedited the implementation of soil and water conservation practices
and structures. We urge Congress to fully account for these positive
soil and water conservation gains as they draft non-point source
pollution legislation. These successful on-going soil and water
conservation programs should be continued as the cornerstone of any
plan to address non-point source water quality issues. |
|
| 2. We believe
USDA should be the primary federal agency in the development and
implementation of any federal groundwater policy or program affecting
agriculture. |
|
| 3. Many factors
must be considered when determining water quality goals including the
cost of pollution abatement, the needs of agriculture or other
industries and the presence of naturally occurring pollutants. Water
quality policy must also be carefully tied to a sound scientific base
and not dominated by emotional or political appeal. |
|
| 4. Educational
programs linked with cost share incentives provide a much more
effective way of achieving cooperation from farmers and other
landowners as opposed to mandatory programs such as requiring the
implementation of certain "best management practices" on all
farms. |
|
| We oppose
efforts by state and/or federal regulatory bodies to include
waterbodies on impaired waters lists, including designation for whole
body contact, or require Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), Water
Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), Watershed Restoration Action
Strategies (WRASs) or similar measures in the absence of sound
scientific data, clear standards, and the support of affected
landowners. We do not believe EPA has the authority to use TMDLs and
other provisions of the Clean Water Act to regulate nonpoint source
pollution. We oppose the inclusion of the Missouri and Mississippi
Rivers on the state TMDL list of impaired waters and listing
waterbodies based on mercury deposition. |
|
| We oppose EPA’s
new policy requiring DNR to list the entire stream length rather than
only the actual length of an impaired portion on the state TMDL list
of impaired waters. |
|
| We oppose
programs in which volunteers are used to collect technical information
on aquatic resources. |
|
| We oppose any
efforts by state agencies to place "no discharge"
regulations on any streams in Missouri unless those streams have an
undeveloped watershed and are located on or pass through state or
federally owned land. |
|
| We believe
federal and state agencies should give Missouri agriculture credit for
the improvements that have resulted from passage of the 1/10 cent
sales tax for soil and water conservation. |
|
| We support
training offered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to
qualify individuals outside their agency to develop nutrient
management programs. |
|
| We urge DNR to
complete Use Attainability Analyses (UAAs) required by the federal
Clean Water Act to de-designate waterbodies that are unsuitable for
whole body contact recreation but so designated as a result of legal
action initiated by the Coalition for the Environment. |
|
| We oppose
requiring farmers and landowners to obtain a Clean Water Act permit to
apply chemical pesticides near water when products are applied in
compliance with pesticide labeling laws. |
|
| We oppose any
efforts to expand the scope of the Federal Clean Water Act including
removing the word “navigable.” |
|
| Water Rights |
|
| We support the
establishment of regional commissions comprised of local landowners to
study, protect, and enhance our underground water supply and
administer any laws and regulations relating to this vital resource. |
|
| We recommend
that the Missouri Farm Bureau, in cooperation with other interested
groups, become actively involved in developing and securing passage of
a sound water rights law in Missouri. |
|
| We believe that
any water rights law should recognize the principle of first in time,
first in right. |
|
| We favor
adequate compensation be guaranteed to anyone who has an established
lawful right to water usage which is later prohibited or restricted by
any state agency, board, commission, etc. |
|
| Well
Drillers’ Fees |
|
| We oppose the
2009 increases in well drillers’ fees without solid justification
accounting for increased program costs and the need for additional
revenue. |
|
| Wetlands |
|
| We believe that
the governments' authority in designating wetlands and requiring
mitigation for altered wetlands should be sharply curtailed. We
further believe that denial of a wetlands dredge-and-fill permit
constitutes a taking of property for which landowners should be
provided "just compensation". |
|
| We support
using land enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) under
permanent easement to also be used toward wetland mitigation
requirements. |
|
| We oppose
dredge-and-fill regulations being applied to agricultural land. |
|
| We believe that
government agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands should be required
to weigh the benefits to wildlife and the environment created by
manmade wetlands against the effects of changing the wetland. |
|
| We believe all
federal wetlands determinations on farmland should be made by only one
federal agency, preferably the Natural Resources Conservation Service. |
|
| In light of the
confusion and complexity of federal wetlands regulations, we oppose
any state programs to further regulate wetlands in Missouri. We
believe state efforts should be limited to educational and
informational programs concerning wetlands, inventory projects to
better determine the location and condition of existing wetlands and
voluntary programs which provide incentives to landowners to preserve
or restore wetlands. |
|
| When mitigation
(replacement) acres for wetlands, or other public use, are required by
federal agencies, no more than one acre should be required to be
mitigated per acre of converted wetlands. |
|
| We oppose any
mandatory reclassification of farmland to wetlands due to flooding or
reevaluation. |
|
| We support
efforts which have improved cooperation between the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources and other state and federal agencies
in completing approved Natural Resources Conservation Service flood
control and stabilization projects. However, we oppose expanding the
definition of "aquatic habitat" to include land that does
not typically support aquatic life. |
|
| We believe that
prior to a landowner putting part or all of their farm in a government
wetland program that all adjoining landowners should be made aware of
this, especially where surrounding landowners' waterflow or natural
drainage is affected. |
|
| Wildlife
Pests |
|
| Blackbirds,
starlings and similar pests are causing serious damage to crops and
property in many areas. They are a hazard to aviation and a carrier of
diseases to humans as well as to livestock and crops. |
|
| Wildlife is
increasing over a wide geographic area. Intensive research efforts
should be carried out at the state and federal levels accompanied by
prompt implementation by the Conservation Commission and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service of
all practical recommendations and methods necessary to control these
pests. |
|