Farm ponds don't need this heavy scrutiny

Topeka Capital-Journal, The, Jul 27, 2000 by Capital-Journal

A developing market in carbon credits could have Kansas farmers sitting atop a great added income source, as entities seek to buy up credits to offset emissions into the atmosphere. That is according to several news sources from a session earlier this summer in Manhattan.

Just as carbon sequestration is becoming a business, as well as a way to reduce carbon dioxide in the air and theoretically lessen any greenhouse effects, so should new commerce in clean water spring forth.

Yes, a pure water credits market should be developed, and the nation's farmers and ranchers should be the primary beneficiaries.

Some concurrent research on the water purification by both crops and ponds that takes place on most farms and ranches would be in order, with another federal grant to be divided among some of the land grant universities, just as is the case with carbon sequestration.

It would help to appoint a rare strong and fair individual as head of the Environmental Protection Agency; someone with a scientific background who likes people and understands the powers of nature, as well as the restorative powers inherent in farming and ranching. Then that person could do some rearranging at the entrenched levels of the agency, and maybe we could go on doing what we do well, producing food and fiber inexpensively --- still a bargain despite the subsidies --- and wholesomely.

Don't think I'm picking on the current administration for its farm and stock pond fiasco, from which the culprits have tried to appear to backpedal a bit without success. No, remember the previous administration's EPA chief --- I forget his name just now --- who wanted to eliminate small gasoline engines altogether in lawnmowers and similar equipment. As it is, the agency has damaged a lot of small engine enterprises with its injurious and curious mandates.

We will mention, too, the EPA-driven scam that caused auto repair people to buy expensive equipment to capture freon that had long since escaped from broken air conditioners.

But back to the current water quality debacle or debate, whichever you prefer.

It is unfair to level a bunch of mandates when we don't really know the full effects of pond water on the environment. Think also of the effects of growing crops and grasses on purifying water and cleaning the atmosphere.

It is eighth grade level science that tells us plants suck in carbon dioxide, use it and lock it away for a time, while giving off pure oxygen and pure moisture into the atmosphere in return. It is truly a gift to mankind, and certainly to other animals who are even more efficient at converting grass into protein matter.

It is also intuitively clear that most farm and stock ponds don't pour bad things directly into streams. Most don't drain at all, unless there is a five-inch rain. Most just act as low-grade lagoons. Most allow silt to drop out of the water, which in many cases already is filtered by acres of grasses before it reaches the ponds.

Most support aquatic life and provide water for deer, elk, coyotes, skunks, opossums, birds, field mice, pack rats, squirrels, turtles, snakes and foxes. Fish even live in most of them, and the fishermen frequently eat their catch. Children used to swim in farm and stock ponds, back when children lived on farms and ranches and were allowed to swim in ponds and play baseball in pastures.

Yes, we need a team of doctorate-level academics to examine without fear or favor the dynamics of farm ponds and stock ponds. I want to know the evaporation levels to know how much pure water is taken off the surface and lifted back into the water cycle. I want to hear about silt tonnage that never reaches the rivers. I want to know how many pesticides --- type, quantity and toxicity --- which are rendered neutral by their stay in the ponds.

I want to know what happens to any fecal material that animals might cause to be in the ponds, including that deposited by the very creatures which live in the ponds.

I would like an accompanying investigation of any possible collusion between privately funded environmental groups and bureaucrats inside the EPA. I would like to see a report on how it is even possible to seek and find judges "friendly" to environmental groups. Doesn't that, by definition, mean that some judges are prejudiced and therefore not impartial, even before a case or ruling is made? Why, yes, it does.

So, before we go another step on this water quality patrol onto private property for who knows what real reasons, let us back up and do some basic research on what we are really about here.

Some environmental spokesmen have sneered publicly at opponents, saying they are trying to turn the affair into a private property rights issue. Well, it is far more than that. It is a matter of fair process. Originally, the EPA gave only 23 days --- it ruled ironically during the July 4 Independence Day holiday period --- for the public to assemble comment. And then it gave only one meeting town. It is also about the abuse of science, perhaps, of the lack of it in this case by the government. It is about being governed by people not elected. It is quite possibly about an administration trying to play legacy catch-up.