Grassley News
Floor Statement on Proposed Budget Resolutions and Senate Leadership... Read More >>
Grassley: Drug Trafficking in West Africa Fuels Instability... Read More >>
Stopping the Long Reach of the EPA in Regulating Dust
In my 14 town hall meetings last week, just a mention of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought scowls and passionate pleas for the regulatory agency to live in the real world.
To try to stop one of the most egregious examples of the EPA’s overreach, I introduced legislation with Senator Mike Johanns to prevent the EPA from regulating dust in rural America while maintaining the protections of the Clean Air Act to the public’s health and welfare.
The dust rule is a perfect example of Washington, D.C., being an island surrounded by reality. It makes no sense to regulate the dust coming out of a combine harvesting soybeans or the dust off a gravel road of a pick-up truck traveling into town. If the administration were to decide to revise the “particulate” standard, farmers and livestock producers likely would be unable to attain the standard levels and the rural economy would be devastated.
I first began asking questions about the EPA’s proposed changes to existing dust rules in 2006. The new standards being considered by the EPA would set such an unattainable and illogical level that much of the country likely would be dragged into non-compliance, causing damage to the economy just when the economy can’t handle more pressure. The bill says the EPA can’t lower the level without showing there is a substantial health risk caused by farm dust, and that the lowering of the standard has more benefit than the economic harm it would cost.
I’ve stayed on the case as the rule has progressed through the regulatory process to ensure that the unique aspects of agriculture and rural America are accounted for. I even went so far as to invite the last two EPA administrators to Iowa to see for themselves the important role that farmers play in their communities. Administrator Stephen Johnson came to Iowa in 2006 and heard directly from several farmers and agriculture specialists. Current Administrator Lisa Jackson sent two staff members to Iowa in 2009 to spend the day with me touring a family farm, the Iowa State University research facility and a biodiesel plant.
The bill takes a two-pronged approach to keep the EPA from regulating farm dust. First, it prevents the EPA from revising the current dust standard for one year from date of enactment.
Second, the bill provides flexibility for states, localities, and tribes to regulate “nuisance dust.” Nuisance dust is defined in the bill to exclude the type of dust typical of rural areas (unpaved roads and dust resulting from agricultural activities) from the National Ambient Air Quality Standards regulation targeted at harmful air pollutants.
The Clean Air Act does not currently differentiate between urban and rural dust, so the bill provides the EPA with a distinction between the two for the implementation of air quality standards.
The message needs to get to Washington that the actions of agencies like the EPA have a serious and often detrimental impact on the economy of rural America. Common sense should prevail.
September 9, 2011
In my 14 town hall meetings last week, just a mention of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought scowls and passionate pleas for the regulatory agency to live in the real world.
To try to stop one of the most egregious examples of the EPA’s overreach, I introduced legislation with Senator Mike Johanns to prevent the EPA from regulating dust in rural America while maintaining the protections of the Clean Air Act to the public’s health and welfare.
The dust rule is a perfect example of Washington, D.C., being an island surrounded by reality. It makes no sense to regulate the dust coming out of a combine harvesting soybeans or the dust off a gravel road of a pick-up truck traveling into town. If the administration were to decide to revise the “particulate” standard, farmers and livestock producers likely would be unable to attain the standard levels and the rural economy would be devastated.
I first began asking questions about the EPA’s proposed changes to existing dust rules in 2006. The new standards being considered by the EPA would set such an unattainable and illogical level that much of the country likely would be dragged into non-compliance, causing damage to the economy just when the economy can’t handle more pressure. The bill says the EPA can’t lower the level without showing there is a substantial health risk caused by farm dust, and that the lowering of the standard has more benefit than the economic harm it would cost.
I’ve stayed on the case as the rule has progressed through the regulatory process to ensure that the unique aspects of agriculture and rural America are accounted for. I even went so far as to invite the last two EPA administrators to Iowa to see for themselves the important role that farmers play in their communities. Administrator Stephen Johnson came to Iowa in 2006 and heard directly from several farmers and agriculture specialists. Current Administrator Lisa Jackson sent two staff members to Iowa in 2009 to spend the day with me touring a family farm, the Iowa State University research facility and a biodiesel plant.
The bill takes a two-pronged approach to keep the EPA from regulating farm dust. First, it prevents the EPA from revising the current dust standard for one year from date of enactment.
Second, the bill provides flexibility for states, localities, and tribes to regulate “nuisance dust.” Nuisance dust is defined in the bill to exclude the type of dust typical of rural areas (unpaved roads and dust resulting from agricultural activities) from the National Ambient Air Quality Standards regulation targeted at harmful air pollutants.
The Clean Air Act does not currently differentiate between urban and rural dust, so the bill provides the EPA with a distinction between the two for the implementation of air quality standards.
The message needs to get to Washington that the actions of agencies like the EPA have a serious and often detrimental impact on the economy of rural America. Common sense should prevail.
September 9, 2011