The American Farm Bureau Federation is warning farmers and ranchers that a proposed EPA rule could mean that “ordinary fieldwork, fence construction or even planting could require a federal permit.”
Further, the updated scope of the federal control over waterways “ultimately could lead to the unlawful expansion of federal regulation to cover routine farming and ranching practices, as well as other common private land uses, such as building homes.”
Senator Pat Toomey and fourteen others, including Senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Rand Paul, sent a letter to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy earlier this month referring to the EPA’s “reckless disregard for the science.” Toomey’s website refers to the rule as a “terrifying power grab.” Sen. David Vitter referred to the proposal as potentially “one of the most significant private property grabs in U.S. history…”
Michael Bastasch of the Daily Caller reported today that McCarthy shot back,
“Those critics conjure up claims of EPA secret science — but it’s not really about EPA science or secrets,” she said. “It’s about challenging the credibility of world renowned scientists and institutions like Harvard University and the American Cancer Society.”
But even if the science is legitimate, it is evidently still a “secret,” as the EPA has yet to “publicly [make] available the scientific data behind its clean air regulations.” The lack of transparency (i.e., honesty) in producing such data is bizarre. The question is, why wouldn’t the EPA share any and all data justifying rules in which they propose?
It reeks of a political agenda.
As previously reported at Liberty Unyielding, Greater Sage Grouse rules also seem to have cherry-picked studies to support listing the bird as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. The proposed rules, which the Nevada Cattleman’s Association (NCA) said would “most likely result in the financial demise of a significant percentage of family ranch operations,” are also still open for comment.