Regulations provide work for engineering firms like mine. So, one might assume that a firm like mine would favor such regulations. We do not, however; it is far more satisfying to advance new projects than to spend time wading through regulations. Regulations slow down progress. Complying with regulations costs time and money. The bigger the project, the more time and money it tends to take. We all pay those prices.
In this case, there are other regulations that apply to developers and mining: surface mining is already regulated under Ohio’s Mining and Reclamation Act, and any construction activity is already regulated by Ohio EPA’s Construction Activity General Permit regulations. These existing regulations are designed to manage water runoff, reduce flooding and erosion, and minimize sediment contamination of streams. When there are multiple regulations aimed at protecting the environment from the same things, as is the case here, then there are too many regulations.
And, there is one other consideration: if the benefits to the environment and the general public are so great, then why are farmers exempted from the regulations? Today’s farming is the source of most of today’s remaining stream health problems: phosphates, nitrogen, and silt. It is said that, “farmers don’t need regulations; they are the ‘stewards of the land’.” But are they all, really? Over the last 5 or 10 years in Ohio I have witnessed thousands of feet of farm ditches being denuded of trees and bushes (which were then burned in great piles). This was being done because farmers were concerned that they would be covered by these same regulations that would now be undone by HB 175. But, they needn’t have worried; once again, the farm lobbyists got them exempted from the regulations. When faced with more costly choices that serve the environment, but cost the farmer money and time, some farmers are not the best “stewards of the land.” It is possible that the farmer with the best priced crops is also the worst “steward of the land.”
All environmentally inclined farmers would benefit from some minimal regulations like these that industry has endured for the last 50 years. Without any environmental regulation, economics become one of the driving forces for the farmer’s choice of methods. Farmers are all in competition with other farmers to produce economically reasonable crops and livestock. Economics is the same driving force that caused mining and industry in the “old days” to cut corners, even when it should have been obvious that some of those cut corners were adding up to a big mess.
This current set of regulations is a good example of where the farmer should have had the stabilizing benefit of regulations to underpin farming choices at a level where the environment would not be undercut by the cheaper path.
Given that there are other regulations in place to require a developer to prevent flash flooding, provide rainwater storage, recharge groundwater, lower water temperatures downstream, filter contaminants, and provide habitat for aquatic animals, it is prudent to roll back the subject ephemeral regulations as so many other states are doing. HB 175 proposes to do just that.
A column on this topic from the Ohio Farm Bureau will run in tomorrow’s paper.
John W. Norton is the owner of Norton Engineering, LLC.
About the Author