LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Farm Bureau is on a grassroots mission to halt a rule that could cause the state to lose its ability to manage its own waters.

Agricultural Ecologist Laura Campbell spoke to a group of about 50 Montcalm County Farm Bureau members during an Aug. 27 membership appreciation gathering at Anderson & Girls Orchard in Stanton, and explained how the rule could impact their operations.

"This rule is a massive overreach that will impact agriculture nationwide," Campbell said. "We need to pull this rule back. We don’t want it. We don’t need it."

On March 25, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers proposed a rule under the Clean Act (CWA) that redefines what can be regulated as a "water of the United States." The rule would expand its regulatory authority under the CWA to types of land features and waters that would include man-made private agricultural drains, intermittent streams, puddles, ponds and wetlands in fields.

"This is giving the agencies the power to dictate land-use decisions and farming practices in or near them," Campbell said. "The rule will make it more difficult to farm or change a farming operation to remain competitive and profitable."

According to Campbell, the proposed rule redefines what can be regulated as a "water of the United States." Previously, the CWA defined it as those waters which are navigable or are significantly connected to navigable waters. The proposed rule would include smaller waters and would allow the EPA to regulate farming practices on land wherever a "water of the United States" is present.

"As a result, permit requirements that apply to navigable waters would also apply to ditches, small ponds and even depressions in fields and pastures that are only wet when there is heavy rain," Campbell said. "If we lose delegated authority, permitting will become more difficult."

Under the rule, the EPA aims to regulate pollution, specifically runoff from farms, by regulating these waterways. The EPA claims the rule would offer clarity, simplify the regulatory process and improve protection of water recourses.

In addition, permits would be required for leveling or earth moving, nutrient or pest management, and any farming land not already being farmed. Campbell said the rule would have devastating consequences for farmers. "If we lose delegated authority, permitting will become more difficult," Campbell said.

"This is going to have a huge impact for farmers and anyone who owns land," she added. "This rule will hurt the agriculture industry, as well as many other businesses. It will damage the American economy that depends on the services agriculture and other industries provide."

Campbell encouraged the Farm Bureau members to oppose the EPA’s implementation of the rule.

On Aug. 7, U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who serves as chairwoman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, along with 12 other senators, signed a letter recognizing the concern stakeholder groups across the nation have raised with the proposed "water of the United States" rule. The letter asked the EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the USDA to provide certainty that the rule will not have unintended effects on agriculture.

"Voluntary conservation practices supported by USDA and expanded in the 2014 Farm Bill are the federal government’s largest investment in the conservation of private working lands and critical to maintaining clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat and other benefits," the letter stated. "The proposed ‘water of the U.S.’ rule and the interpretive rule could undermine progress made in the 2014 Farm Bill if they create an atmosphere of uncertainty that results in fewer conservation practices or significant new burdens for our nation’s farmers and ranchers."

Since the Aug. 27 Farm Bureau meeting, the House of Representatives on Sept. 9 passed H.R. 5078 Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014 in an attempt to halt the proposed "Waters of the United States" rule.

During Montcalm County Farm Bureau’s county annual meeting on Sept. 11, Sarah Black, Director of MFB’s Public Policy and Commodity Division, said the House action does not mean that the rule will be halted, and she urged members to continue to submit comments to the EPA by the Oct. 20 public comment deadline.

"We heard from the president on Tuesday that if the bill reaches his desk, he will veto it," Black said of the H.R. 5078. "We need to keep the pressure on."