Preserve an Ecosystem, or Preserve an EPA Rule?
The problem, so far as EPA is concerned, is the smoke from these fires can travel for hundreds of miles and cause cities as far away as St. Louis to fail clean air act standards — particularly in years where the burning season is condensed because of factors such as rain and wind. This has happened three times in this century: 2003, 2006, and again this year. Wichita, Kansas City, and St. Louis have all been affected at various times.
Moran said the EPA has threatened these cities with fines if they don’t meet the standards, which through no fault of their own they haven’t met.
According to Moran, at this point the fines have not been levied but the threat is there. Moreover, if they don’t get the impossible plan they’re asking for, the EPA may ban the burning altogether, and that’s the fear of both Moran and the ranchers who depend on the area for their livelihood.
Should the prescribed burns end, the tall-grass prairie would disappear within a generation:
“That would destroy something that is a pretty special place,” Moran said.
Mark Smith, president of the Kansas Livestock Association, agreed:
We have to have that tool to keep one of the last great natural areas in the world natural.
Enter Moran’s legislation, which would simply exempt cities from the Clean Air Act so long as they can show the violation was due to smoke from the Flint Hills. Moran said all he would like to see is a little common sense, as environmental regulations are currently in danger of … damaging the environment.
It particularly stands out because it’s the support of an environmentally sound practice that is being attacked.
Moran is hoping to attract cosponsors for his bill. Kansas Rep. Lynn Jenkins has already signed on, and he expects the rest of the Kansas delegation probably will and thinks Oklahoma will as well.
He thinks it’s possible to get the bill passed, but acknowledges it will be an uphill fight with the current administration and Congress — and if it does pass, it will probably have to be folded into larger legislation which may cause people to “holdeth aside the hem of the garment” in order to pass it:
“It’s very hard to get anything perceived as dangerous to the environment through this Congress,” he said. “One would hope common sense would prevail.”
One would hope.
Please contact your representatives and ask them to support Moran’s bill, H.R.5118. This is the last place in the world of it’s kind, and shortsighted regulations threaten the destruction of a beautiful area and unique lifestyle.
If “downwind” pollution is a problem then talk to China. Oh, and the CO2 coming from DC is killing the people in the UK. So shut up.
This situation, like the banning of controlled burns that make wildfires larger and more dangerous to firefighters in the Southwest when they occur, is ample evidence that this agency has outlived its usefulness and exists now only to throw its weight around. When the EPA starts to contradict itself, then it’s time for a full evaluation of the agency and its policies.
As for the quote that “you can’t predict the weather”, Al Gore disagrees.
Managing Eco Systems requires an understanding of complex systems. The annual burn is part of that system but like all systems if one component is removed the system breaks down. The damage from the smoke is far less than the damgage done by not burning. The EPA has rules and rules are the bane of reason. Rules remove the need to think and make a responsible decision because you followed the rule. The current mess in the Gulf was caused by following rules rather than properly grading risks.
Let us see if the EPA and the other carbon moguls will try to ban uncontrolled burning, such as wild fires. The current wild fire policy is to “let it burn” as “nature” intended. That puts the EPA and others in direct coflict with mandates from other federal departments and nature. Not burning also conflicts with practices of native Americans who managed fields and forests by setting fires. It is estimated that one wild fire season equals two years of carbon reduction initiative, so that The Green Revolution is set back every year regardless of their taxes. That volcano sets the CO2 plan back 5 years. Perhaps the fed will sue itself and implode with their crazy rule making and unintended consequences.
Patrick: Great use of the government’s own policies to show their hypocrisy. That’s my favorite method for showing how big government is actually dangerous to the People, cutting across political lines as well.
The central issue here is not permits but the environmental worldview of a single natural and static eco-system. A stasis that exists in harmony until perturbed by man.
A terrestrial ecosystem can organize as a hardwood forest or as a grassland prairie. Areas with higher rainfall have a probability of being hardwood forest while low rainfall areas will most likely be grassland. In between the “extremes” any number of hardwood forest or grassland ecosystems may develop and all can claim the title of natural. (Fire and large grazing animals have a large role in deciding the outcome). There is no single natural state.
The existence of multiple “natural” states begs the question most feared by EPA and the environmental movement. What do we want?
The problem here Pat, is that most of this unique area has long since succumbed to invasive species. The ranchers in the area want only to be allowed to do what they always have done, what the local tribes and buffalo did before them. Short-sighted, cookie-cutter solutions and blind adherence to rules that have the force of law is the issue.
Howard, thank you for your comment, I do hope we can get some national attention on this, before a uniquely American way of life is gone forever.
Patrick, You have no argument from me. I totally agree invasives are a significant problem and that fire is needed for both invasive control and other grassland requirements. My point was that to have a tall grass prairie one must choose a fire plan. Failing to choose a burn option means EPA has chosen against tall grass prairies. (EPA for a number of reasons beyond this post) avoids the environmental consequences of a disrupted fire cycle. Atlantic salmon restoration are also held hostage to the consequences of fire suppression)
My suggestion to you- simplify the message– “EPA chooses to destroy the last remnants of North America’s tall grass prairie eco-system” Or “EPA chooses path of extinction for America’s tall grass prairies”
Because by saying no– EPA has made a choice.
So far EPA has not actually said “no” they are simply requiring something which cannot be done. In EPA’s defense, I suspect the officials in Region 7 are quite aware that what they’re asking can’t be done — and that the burns are necessary. Their hands are tied as badly as the ranchers in the Flint Hills. But we must push Congress to act on this, or, as you say, the last remaining tall grass prairie in the world will be gone. I’m not normally one for Congressional action, they generally screw up everything they touch, but in this case, it’s the only thing that can be done.
They cannot even pave over the darn grass because 1) it uses petrochemicals and 2) blacktop produces fumes.
I actually traveled and visited the Federal park this month. The grass after the burn is mind boggling in vigor. I spoke with a park ranger about this. The Nature Conservancy is involved with managing many neay acres. The EPA needs to find something constructive to worry about like car wrecks in 35mpg cars. It took many years for closed minded environmentalists to be able to learn of the benefits of the annual burn. Kansas State University has a professor that is an expert on this.
With the new American Power Grab Act, it is many city slickkers that are trying to claim they know how farming can be better. Grass is burned at the most once a year. (much acreage is every other year or less often) This burn is very small compared to the 2 billion asians that use coal, wood, charcoal and trash to heat and cook 365 days a year. It reminds me of the eco weenies that are after farmers that have cattle on feed. They worry about methane but the largest source of methane is rice paddies on this planet. It is not PC to comment on polution in Asia because they are communists and superior to Americans according to the Progressives.
Richard- Your comment EPA is “simply requiring something that cannot be done” is the best description of US environmental policy I have read to date.
Your point as to the bind EPA’s air quality regs create for States and cities in is an important one.
However EPA continues to write regulations “requiring something that cannot be done”. EPA is about to release more stringent standards for urban ozone. EPAs new standards ignore the largest source of ozone precursors- isoprenes from trees and soil NOx (its how the Smoky Mountains got their name).
The nearer a city is to a coast and to a forest the greater the chance that the City will not meet the new ozone standards (due to the chemistries involved). EPA will solves this problem by not siting ozone monitoring systems in “natural areas” which will allow EPA to claim all ozone the result of man made pollution. (Custer SD and several remote Maine locations prove the point).
The Agency is broken.
Moreover, by requiring the impossible EPA doesn’t HAVE to say no, they can say “well we gave them an option, but they were unable to meet the regs and therefore we had to shut down the burns.”
Perfect for the bureaucratic mindset, they get to exercise their power to say no, while simultaneously shifting the blame to someone else.
I am wondering about a video I seen of a demonstration where hay was used to clean up oil. Oil was put into a bowl of water and the hay totally sopped it up. It was actually pretty amazing. On Wimp.com.
I live in the Flint Hills of Kansas. I burned my little patch of grass this spring – when the weather was right to keep the fire where i wanted it. i notified the local fire authorities before I lit a match, which is part of being a good neighbor. I didn’t notify the EPA, and won’t when i burn prairie in the future. It’s none of their business.
Burns.
The irrational greenie movement and their missing logic. We hear how awesome ethanol is. It is “renewable”
1 It consumes a lot of petrol to create and deliver just the nitrogen for the crops
2 Burns. The more efficient ethanol is from sugar cane. They BURN the fields before harvest. Oh my. Fires all over Brazil. Why are we not more upset?
a the end justifies the means?
b Corn is starch and takes heat plus enzymes to convert to sugar and then ethanol. Very innefficient
c sugar cane is from sugar to ethanol. Much highr yield and less energy input for a gallon output.
d It took a lot of fires to clear the forrests for cane farming.