Missouri's 7th District, U.S. House of Representatives




Congressional Issues 2010
Natural Resources

Missouri Farm Bureau

Kevin Craig - "Liberty Under God"

Aboveground Fuel Storage Tanks  
We believe the Environmental Protection Agency’s Spill, Control and Countermeasure Rule regulating aboveground fuel storage tanks is overly restrictive on agricultural producers. All farmers regardless of their on-farm fuel storage capacity should be allowed to complete and self-certify a spill control plan for their operation in lieu of being required to hire a certified engineer to develop a plan.  
Air Quality Everyone wants clean air. The Free Market provides the technology to raise our standard of living, including our standard of hygiene and health.
We oppose the federal regulations that require more than 90% emissions reductions for off-road diesel vehicles. The cost of these regulatory requirements will far outweigh the benefits. Balancing Environmental Risks

Environmental Protection

We oppose the Environmental Protection Agency's revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter due to the long-term ramifications these regulations will have on production agriculture. We believe particulate matter from agricultural sources should be excluded from the NAAQS because there is no conclusive scientific evidence indicating that particulate matter from typical farm and ranch operations adversely affects public health. Environment and Climate -- Air Pollution
We encourage entities such as the University of Missouri Extension, Farm Service Agency or Natural Resources Conservation Service to conduct workshops to educate landowners on proper open burning procedures.  
We believe the environmental concerns raised by the concentration of large numbers of animals in confinement operations warrants the distinction, for the purpose of regulating odor, that the Air Conservation Commission has made between very large operations and smaller sized operations. We will vigorously oppose any effort to apply the more stringent regulations to farming operations that have less than a Class 1A designation.  
We question the accuracy of the allegations made by the Humane Society of the United States and other organizations regarding livestock and urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reject their petition calling for the regulation of CAFOs under the federal Clean Air Act.  
All-Terrain Vehicles  
We are concerned that indiscriminate use of all-terrain vehicles increases soil erosion and water pollution, damages stream banks, jeopardizes fish and wildlife and threatens rights of rural property owners. The method of environmental protection consistent with the constitution and the values that made America great is private ownership of propety.
American Heritage River Initiative  
We are opposed to the American Heritage River Initiative.  
Climate Change  
We oppose the regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Federal Clean Air Act. Such action will have significant adverse economic impacts on production agriculture and the U.S. economy, increasing fuel, fertilizer and energy costs and ultimately the price of food for consumers. Furthermore, many producers would be required to obtain permits and pay fees. Livestock operations with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs could be subjected to an estimated tax of $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per beef animal, or $20 per hog.  
We strongly oppose mandatory cap and trade legislation due to the higher costs that it will impose on consumers for electricity, fuel, and goods produced using energy.  
We oppose a mandatory cap on greenhouse gas emissions in Missouri.  
We believe a comprehensive study of a cap on GHG emissions and its economic impacts on agriculture and other sectors should be conducted before any action is taken.  
Dam Safety  
We believe existing standards for agricultural dams are appropriate and oppose increased regulation of agricultural dams.  
Endangered Species Act  
We support reform of the Endangered Species Act which will result in a more appropriate balance between the needs of plants and animals and the needs of people. The act must more clearly reflect a respect for private property and a recognition that costs to recover species must be borne by the public not by private property owners. The Act should require an economic analysis related to the impacts to private landowners regardless of whether or not critical habitat is requested. It must be kept in mind that the core of the "environmental movement" hates human beings and the needs of people.
We oppose the use of the ESA to influence federal policies such as climate change and energy.  
We believe that endangered species protection can be more effectively achieved by providing incentives to private landowners rather than by imposing land use restrictions and penalties. As long as "incentives" are not funded by federal coercion.
We believe that state and local agencies should be allowed to assume the job of assessing the environmental, social, and economic impact of the species preservation and determine a reasonable balance.  
We oppose the listing of the Topeka Shiner or Scaleshell mussel on the federal endangered species list.  
We support the delisting of the wolf from the endangered species list.  
We support voluntary, incentive-based programs for landowners such as the Missouri Department of Conservation's Topeka Shiner Action Plan.  
Excavation of Sand and Gravel  
We oppose increased governmental regulation of private sand and gravel excavation by landowners. In addition, we support allowing landowners to sell sand and gravel excavated from streams on their property following reasonable operational standards set by DNR without a permit.  
Many streams in Missouri have an excessive load of gravel and vegetation growing in the stream channel accelerating streambank erosion and reducing fish habitat by decreasing the water pool. We favor the modification of current agency guidelines to make it easier to remove gravel and vegetation from streams and to use that material to repair streambank erosion sites.  
We oppose regulations requiring a buffer area between gravel excavation sites and the water's edge.  
We are concerned that scientific studies from other states and countries may not accurately reflect the dynamics of Missouri streams.  
We believe studies should be conducted on Missouri streams to examine the true impact of gravel removal as it relates to streambank erosion and the creation of fish habitat.  
We are concerned that no economic studies on this issue have been done in Missouri involving affected landowners and industry.  
We also believe comprehensive economic impact studies should be done on this issue before any further guidelines or regulations are adopted.  
Fish & Wildlife Organizations  
We oppose the federal and state funding of fish and wildlife organizations that pursue legal action against livestock producers, farmers and other resource users.  
Floodplain Management  
We are concerned about the amount of land being acquired by state and federal agencies in the Missouri River floodplain.  
The combination of the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Project, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and others has targeted an alarming amount of farmland for acquisition.  
This not only takes land out of production, impacting local economies, but where land is acquired in a levee district the rest of the landowners are endangered by the resistance of government agencies to allow the repair of levees. This can create willing sellers.  
We oppose funding for additional land acquisition in the Missouri River floodplain under the Missouri River Mitigation Project or other federal or state programs.  
We are opposed to efforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand the Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge on the Missouri River.  
Inland Waterways System  
We favor the Corps of Engineers maintaining the Missouri River below flood stage whenever possible.  
We strongly believe the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should not implement changes in the management of the Missouri River, such as a spring rise or split navigation season, which will have adverse economic and environmental consequences to the citizens of the State of Missouri. This includes reduced flood control, reduced water supplies for municipalities and the creation of flow situations that have adverse economic impacts on our state. Furthermore, it is reprehensible the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would implement a man-made spring rise considering the federal crop insurance program may not cover crop losses resulting from an event that does not occur naturally, such as a man-made flood.  
We commend the Missouri Department of Natural Resources for their leadership in protecting landowners' interests relative to future management of the Missouri River.  
Also, we support efforts that enhance fish and wildlife habitat in or along the Missouri River that are compatible with the economic uses that are now required.  
We oppose any changes in the management of the Missouri River which would shift the primary purpose of the upstream dams and reservoirs toward recreational and environmental goals at the expense of flood control, navigation and water availability for community public water supply and power generation. We are strongly opposed to the Congressionally-mandated Missouri River Authorized Purposes Study designed to review the original project purposes based on the Flood Control Act of 1944 and determine if changes are warranted. We also oppose efforts by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to expand their mission on the Missouri River from endangered species recovery to ecosystem restoration. Such a shift in priorities on the Missouri River will also have an immediate and direct impact on the Mississippi River and will have serious implications for agricultural, commercial and community interests on all inland waterways.  
We strongly support port authorities and river commerce and believe funding for river transportation and port improvements should be a component of state and federal transportation legislation.  
We believe the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should notify all landowners, farm operators and political subdivisions (i.e. cities, drainage districts, etc.) of changes made in river operations and identify all possible effects due to proposed changes.  
We believe the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should pay damages to landowners and farm operators for lands lost to erosion or flooding on rivers resulting from navigation locks and dams.  
We strongly oppose the dumping or designed erosion of soil into the Missouri River by the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  
International Treaties  
We are opposed to any environmental regulations or mandates put in place by international treaty and given the force of U.S. law.  
Invasive Species  
We believe federal, state and local agencies should work more closely with private landowners to address invasive species problems. Any invasive species program that is proposed should not create additional restrictions on agricultural producers and landowners similar to those of the Endangered Species Act and other existing laws.  
Invasive species should not be defined to include agricultural products or other beneficial non-native species.  
Levee Protection  
Well maintained levees are essential not only because they allow some of our most productive land to be utilized in farm production, but also to prevent the ravages of flooding from destroying roads, bridges, railroads, homes and businesses. When levees are destroyed by extraordinary rainfall, it can cause severe economic hardship to farmers, rural businesses and entire rural communities.  
We believe federal and state governmental agencies should be committed to assisting with the timely repair and maintenance of levees on the main rivers and their tributaries.  
We believe the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should develop guidelines under which levee districts could approve contracts for levee repair and reconstruction.  
We believe Congress should support a comprehensive plan for the Upper Mississippi River that enhances system wide flood control without creating adverse impacts on existing levees, levee districts, rural communities and metropolitan areas. The comprehensive plan should be based on analyses that quantifies the impacts of enhanced flood control measures and acknowledges the importance of keeping agricultural land in production.  
We recommend the following actions to ease potential flooding:  
• Non-federal, non-qualifying levees should be allowed the opportunity to enter into the Corps of Engineers cost-share program.  
• Adequate funds should be made available to the Corps of Engineers and Natural Resources Conservation Service to assist in the repair of levees on the main rivers and their tributaries.  
• Wetland, endangered species and other environmental restrictions should be modified to allow a common-sense approach to the removal of trees and brush, the use of river dredges, and location of borrow areas to repair damaged levees.  
• Adequate funds should be provided to assist in sand and debris removal and to provide voluntary non-levee alternatives such as emergency wetlands reserve program.  
• Because of the increased threat levees will be topped due largely to development and the pouring of concrete in urban areas, urban areas should build catch-type basins to retain water during heavy rains.  
We urge the United States Army Corps of Engineers to change the 365-day contract between the Corps and levee repair contractors to a 100-day contract.  
We support the St. John's Bayou and New Madrid Floodway Project.  
We support legislation enacting a container deposit law. We also recommend that laws on littering be strengthened and enforced with the help of the county prosecuting attorneys and that the law be enforced to prevent dumping trash on private property.  
Livestock Source Nutrient Management  
Many farmers in Missouri are experiencing lengthy delays in the planning and approval of animal source nutrient handling facilities. We urge the Department of Natural Resources to take the necessary steps to assure that farmers can receive the regulatory approval for their animal source nutrient handling facilities without unreasonable delays. In addition, we believe the Cooperative Extension Service should maintain an adequate number of agriculture engineer specialists to assist farmers in the planning and layout of animal source nutrient handling facilities.  
We oppose state regulations for animal source nutrient handling that are more restrictive than EPA's recently revised regulations, and we urge DNR to provide livestock producers maximum flexibility and minimum restrictions in revised state regulations that may be necessary to comply with the revised federal regulations. Stricter state regulations would only serve to place Missouri livestock producers at a competitive disadvantage with producers from other states.  
Intense public scrutiny and market pressures have prompted efforts to review the accelerated regulation of livestock source nutrient management. We believe livestock source nutrients are a valuable resource for farmers and ranchers and as such should be treated as an asset. We believe that once ownership of livestock manures has been transferred, the responsibility for its proper handling and management must be solely in the hands of the new owner. We advocate responsible livestock source nutrient management, including:  
1. Design, construction and operation of storage facilities based upon accepted engineering standards,  
2. Land application of manure based upon current agronomic research,  
3. Cost-share assistance for voluntary site-specific nutrient management planning as appropriate research is made available to landowners, and  
4. Being a "good neighbor" by maintaining communication with nearby residents and avoiding unnecessary interference in neighbors' activities, and  
5. An increase in monies for the tree screen fund for odor control on livestock operations.  
Livestock source nutrient regulations and management standards should be based on sound science and cost-benefit analysis. We support technical assistance, cost-share and other incentives for compliance as well as voluntary efforts to exceed minimum requirements. We support continued research and training by universities, colleges and research centers to control odor, improve nutrient utilization and develop new alternatives to handle livestock source nutrients prior to, and during, land application. We believe this information should be used as the basis for site-specific nutrient management planning.  
We do not support additional laws or regulations for water quality issues associated with livestock source nutrients, including applying whole body contact water quality standards to waterbodies that are not conducive to swimming. We support maintaining the existing exemption from permits for operations under 1,000 animal units.  
Permits should be based on an objective assessment of facility design, construction, and operational plans. A public hearing on permit applications should not be required.  
Before fee increases for livestock source nutrient management general permits are considered, we believe the following options must be explored:

1. Redirect existing funding from programs not mandated by state or federal law to the permit program;
2. Cut permit program costs; and
3. Identify other funding sources.
We believe adequate general revenue funding must be budgeted for the permit program.

We do not support transferring permitting authority from DNR to the EPA.
We strongly oppose classifying livestock source nutrients as hazardous waste and subjecting livestock and poultry operations to liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986 and Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act (SARA). We support legislation to exempt agricultural operations from CERCLA, EPCRA and SARA.  
Mining on Public Lands  
We support mining on public lands if appropriate safeguards are required to protect fish, forest and wildlife resources and the leases reflect fair market value.  
National Flood Insurance  
We believe the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) should exempt farm buildings from federal flood construction standards as long as no federal flood protection is granted on such buildings or their contents.  
One-Tenth Cent Sales Tax  
We support renewal of the one-tenth cent sales tax in 2006. We are proud of Missouri's soil and water conservation and state parks programs, which share equally in the revenue generated by this sales tax.  
We believe the Soil & Water Commission should focus the use of funds from the 1/10 cent sales tax on soil erosion control and develop statewide soil and water conservation programs by working with the local elected Soil and Water District supervisors within the seven Major Land Resource Areas as long as such programs continue to address soil and water conservation as originally intended.  
We believe a higher percentage of the State Soil and Water program's budget derived from the Parks and Soils Sales Tax should be allocated to the cost-share program.  
We support retaining the requirement that members of the state Soil and Water District Commission and local district board members be farmers .  
We support restoring the state Soil and Water Districts Commission's budgeting authority.  
Port Authorities  
We strongly support the efforts of the Missouri Port Authority Association to receive administrative and legislative authorization for capital improvement funding in the state budget in order to meet developmental infrastructure needs.  
Public Lands  
We recommend that leases for public lands (both state and federal) be offered on a bid basis for at least five-year terms. This will allow successful bidders the opportunity to fully utilize the productive value of the land they rent. In addition, we believe lessees should be given incentives in their rental contracts to preserve the fertility of the public land they rent.  
We oppose buffer zones around state and national parks.  
We believe the Missouri Departments of Natural Resources (DNR) and Conservation (MDC) should manage wildlife so as not to endanger the health of humans or livestock on private property.  
We are opposed to any effort in which the control or management of land or natural resources of the United States is relinquished or diminished in any way by treaty or other means to the United Nations or any other foreign body. This applies to activities such as bioreserves or others that have been proposed by local, state, federal or international agencies or organizations.  
Prior to agricultural land (except road rights-of-way) being purchased by federal, state or local government public hearings must be held to allow for taxpayer input. A cost/benefit analysis of the proposed purchase shall be prepared by an impartial, reputable source. The cost of the analysis shall be paid for by the proposed buyer.  
Public lands could be sold under certain circumstances and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We oppose the sale of parcels of the Mark Twain National Forest and other tracts of U.S. Forest lands to fund the Secure Rural Schools Act that would send proceeds to other states.  
Rural Water Supply  
We believe pure clean water is a vital part of rural Missouri. We support the efforts of rural water districts in obtaining loans and grants to serve their areas.  
Scenic Rivers  
We oppose the designation of additional rivers as a part of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.  
We oppose the designation of any additional waterbodies as Outstanding State Resource Waters.  
Soil Conservation  
We believe the NRCS should be a non-regulatory provider of education and technical assistance and not an agricultural environmental enforcement agency.  
We favor incentives to landowners for putting fragile, erodible soil into long-term conserving cover crops such as grass, trees, etc. by cost-share and tax credits.  
We favor sufficient flexibility in the regulation to allow local Soil Conservation Districts and Farm Service Agency (FSA) County Committees, with the advice of the local Natural Resources Conservation Service technicians, to determine the soil conservation practice or combination of practices that best serve the needs of the local area in achieving the optimum level of erosion reduction.  
We favor strict enforcement of maintenance requirements on all cost-share conserving practices.  
We favor a reevaluation in order to develop more practical construction specifications pertaining to building waterways, water improvement structures, terraces, etc.  
We favor both state and federal income tax deductions for permanent soil conservation practices.  
Solid and Hazardous Waste Disposal  
We believe each state should be responsible for disposing of the majority of the solid waste generated within their borders. In addition, we support giving state and local political subdivisions more authority to accept or deny out-of-state solid waste.  
We believe in the principle of recycling. We also believe that present recycling law makes individual counties ultimately financially responsible for implementing a recycling program without providing any substantial amount of new funding to meet the various deadlines. We believe the state should provide this funding in accordance with Article 10, Section 21 of the "Hancock Amendment". Because of the increasing importance to create a market for recycled products, tax incentives should be given to businesses for recycling their products or for purchasing recycled material. Recycling as "a principle" is a bad idea. It is another example of "junk science."
  • Reason Foundation - Paper Grocery Bags Require More Energy Than Plastic Bags
  • Recycling Is Bullsh!t [contains vulgar language, bad numbers on farm subsidies]
  • Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics by George Reisman
    "Of course, people are free to adopt a poverty-stricken personal lifestyle if they choose. They may go about like old Russian grandmothers in Moscow, with an ever present shopping bag and herring jar, if that is what they like. They may pick through garbage pails while pretending that they live in a spaceship — “spaceship Earth,” they call it — rather than in the richest country of the planet Earth. But there is absolutely no sane reason why anyone should, or needs to, live this way, and certainly not in modern America."
In order to prevent frivolous solid or hazardous waste disposal applications, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources should be authorized to "bill" all applicants for the first $15,000 in expenses in evaluating application sites and accrediting the applicant. Funds collected should be returned to DNR's budget and not to general revenue.  
We support legislation enacting new requirements and guidelines for the siting of a sanitary landfill in Missouri. These new siting requirements should afford added protection and recourse not only to the adjoining landowners, but to nearby communities and towns with regard to such things as economic impact and social consequences.  
We further believe that once a permit application has been declared completed, a copy of the application and the completed plan be made available in the local library for 30 days prior to the public hearing.  
We believe that the Department of Natural Resources should, upon the application of any waste disposal facility, notify immediately all adjacent landowners, county commissioners and the general public.  
We believe hazardous waste disposal sites should be located on federal property. The individuals or companies who produce hazardous waste should be legally and financially responsible for its disposal.  
We recommend that the definition of "habitual violator" of hazardous waste laws be spelled out in Missouri state law.  
We favor pesticides being sold in containers that can be easily and safely destroyed by the user. If certain pesticides cannot be placed in such containers, manufacturers and distributors should be willing to receive empty containers for disposal.  
We favor having at least two full-time farmers on commissions in charge of hazardous waste disposal.  
We support voluntary disposal and recycling of unused pesticides and containers at authorized collection and disposal sites. We encourage farmers and commercial applicators to triple rinse or pressure rinse containers and return them to their participating dealers for recycling.  
We believe that legislation which limits the responsibility of private property owners for hazardous material illegally dumped on their land is urgently needed. Legislation should exclude the property owner from any legal responsibility to clean up the hazardous material and allow landowners to notify the proper state or county agency to have the illegally dumped material removed.  
We encourage the Departments of Agriculture, Natural Resources, and Economic Development to seek ways to attract additional rendering plants in Missouri.  
We believe that when sites are considered an environmental problem or hazardous by the EPA or DNR under programs such as Superfund, a comprehensive scientific assessment should be conducted by a qualified independent research entity before any regulatory restrictions on land use activities are imposed.  
We support the reinstated 50 cent fee for the waste tire disposal program which sunsets in 2010, and we believe the funds should be used to transition to a privately run program.  
Steel Traps  
We favor the continued use of steel traps under present regulation. We believe any international agreements aimed at banning furs from countries using steel traps should be challenged by our government as non-tariff trade barriers subject to retaliation under international trade agreements.  
Vehicle Emissions  
We believe federally mandated air pollution control devices such as catalytic converters now installed on motor vehicles coupled with voluntary efforts by industry are sufficient to assure safe motor vehicle emission. We therefore oppose annual auto emission inspection.  
We oppose implementation of Clean Air Act regulations that will increase purchase and maintenance costs for diesel engines. Adding urea to diesel exhaust systems is prohibitively expensive.  
We oppose the 75 mph limit on emergency vehicles. If implemented, it will cost lives for a very small reduction in particulate emissions.  
Air emissions in St. Louis have been decreasing since 1984 as voluntary and mandatory industry and vehicle emissions control measures have been implemented. We therefore support repeal of the auto emissions inspection program.  
Water Quality  
We recognize the need for high quality surface and groundwater in Missouri. We support a water inventory and monitoring program to evaluate the quality of Missouri's water. We believe such a program should be funded from general revenues.  
We urge Congress to consider the following points:  
1. The conservation provisions of federal farm bills since 1985 have greatly expedited the implementation of soil and water conservation practices and structures. We urge Congress to fully account for these positive soil and water conservation gains as they draft non-point source pollution legislation. These successful on-going soil and water conservation programs should be continued as the cornerstone of any plan to address non-point source water quality issues.  
2. We believe USDA should be the primary federal agency in the development and implementation of any federal groundwater policy or program affecting agriculture.  
3. Many factors must be considered when determining water quality goals including the cost of pollution abatement, the needs of agriculture or other industries and the presence of naturally occurring pollutants. Water quality policy must also be carefully tied to a sound scientific base and not dominated by emotional or political appeal.  
4. Educational programs linked with cost share incentives provide a much more effective way of achieving cooperation from farmers and other landowners as opposed to mandatory programs such as requiring the implementation of certain "best management practices" on all farms.  
We oppose efforts by state and/or federal regulatory bodies to include waterbodies on impaired waters lists, including designation for whole body contact, or require Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), Water Quality Management Plans (WQMPs), Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRASs) or similar measures in the absence of sound scientific data, clear standards, and the support of affected landowners. We do not believe EPA has the authority to use TMDLs and other provisions of the Clean Water Act to regulate nonpoint source pollution. We oppose the inclusion of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers on the state TMDL list of impaired waters and listing waterbodies based on mercury deposition.  
We oppose EPA’s new policy requiring DNR to list the entire stream length rather than only the actual length of an impaired portion on the state TMDL list of impaired waters.  
We oppose programs in which volunteers are used to collect technical information on aquatic resources.  
We oppose any efforts by state agencies to place "no discharge" regulations on any streams in Missouri unless those streams have an undeveloped watershed and are located on or pass through state or federally owned land.  
We believe federal and state agencies should give Missouri agriculture credit for the improvements that have resulted from passage of the 1/10 cent sales tax for soil and water conservation.  
We support training offered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service to qualify individuals outside their agency to develop nutrient management programs.  
We urge DNR to complete Use Attainability Analyses (UAAs) required by the federal Clean Water Act to de-designate waterbodies that are unsuitable for whole body contact recreation but so designated as a result of legal action initiated by the Coalition for the Environment.  
We oppose requiring farmers and landowners to obtain a Clean Water Act permit to apply chemical pesticides near water when products are applied in compliance with pesticide labeling laws.  
We oppose any efforts to expand the scope of the Federal Clean Water Act including removing the word “navigable.”  
Water Rights  
We support the establishment of regional commissions comprised of local landowners to study, protect, and enhance our underground water supply and administer any laws and regulations relating to this vital resource.  
We recommend that the Missouri Farm Bureau, in cooperation with other interested groups, become actively involved in developing and securing passage of a sound water rights law in Missouri.  
We believe that any water rights law should recognize the principle of first in time, first in right.  
We favor adequate compensation be guaranteed to anyone who has an established lawful right to water usage which is later prohibited or restricted by any state agency, board, commission, etc.  
Well Drillers’ Fees  
We oppose the 2009 increases in well drillers’ fees without solid justification accounting for increased program costs and the need for additional revenue.  
We believe that the governments' authority in designating wetlands and requiring mitigation for altered wetlands should be sharply curtailed. We further believe that denial of a wetlands dredge-and-fill permit constitutes a taking of property for which landowners should be provided "just compensation".  
We support using land enrolled in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) under permanent easement to also be used toward wetland mitigation requirements.  
We oppose dredge-and-fill regulations being applied to agricultural land.  
We believe that government agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands should be required to weigh the benefits to wildlife and the environment created by manmade wetlands against the effects of changing the wetland.  
We believe all federal wetlands determinations on farmland should be made by only one federal agency, preferably the Natural Resources Conservation Service.  
In light of the confusion and complexity of federal wetlands regulations, we oppose any state programs to further regulate wetlands in Missouri. We believe state efforts should be limited to educational and informational programs concerning wetlands, inventory projects to better determine the location and condition of existing wetlands and voluntary programs which provide incentives to landowners to preserve or restore wetlands.  
When mitigation (replacement) acres for wetlands, or other public use, are required by federal agencies, no more than one acre should be required to be mitigated per acre of converted wetlands.  
We oppose any mandatory reclassification of farmland to wetlands due to flooding or reevaluation.  
We support efforts which have improved cooperation between the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and other state and federal agencies in completing approved Natural Resources Conservation Service flood control and stabilization projects. However, we oppose expanding the definition of "aquatic habitat" to include land that does not typically support aquatic life.  
We believe that prior to a landowner putting part or all of their farm in a government wetland program that all adjoining landowners should be made aware of this, especially where surrounding landowners' waterflow or natural drainage is affected.  
Wildlife Pests  
Blackbirds, starlings and similar pests are causing serious damage to crops and property in many areas. They are a hazard to aviation and a carrier of diseases to humans as well as to livestock and crops.  
Wildlife is increasing over a wide geographic area. Intensive research efforts should be carried out at the state and federal levels accompanied by prompt implementation by the Conservation Commission and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service of all practical recommendations and methods necessary to control these pests.  

next: Patriotism

Table of Contents