Farm Bill

• Conservation compliance being tied to any government subsidy
• Conservation title programs being maintained at current funding levels

If either of these components fall through the cracks, it could result it significant changes to the farmlands in our country, and to the waterways that permeate those farmlands.  As the situation develops further, keep tabs on our blog for information, and we’ll alert you to any action opportunities.

KWA and Partners Sue EPA

On March 14, KWA joined its Mississippi River Collaborative partners and filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency for their failure to address a critical water pollution problem that the EPA has acknowledged for decades.  

The two legal actions were targeted specifically towards nutrient pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus, which can stimulate excessive growth of algae and result in depleted oxygen levels in aquatic ecosystems, choke marine life, and cause major ecological problems like the Gulf Dead Zone.  In worst case scenarios, excessive nutrient pollution can cause toxic algae blooms and result in fish kills, death of livestock and pets, and damage to local drinking water supplies.  

For the first action, we sued the EPA for  denial of a 2008 petition to the EPA that asked them to establish quantifiable standards and clean up plans for Dead Zone-related pollution.  The second suit seeks to compel the EPA to respond to a petition submitted in 2007 that  requested that the EPA modernize its decades-old pollution standards for sewage treatment plants, to reflect the levels of nutrient pollution achievable with modern treatment technology.  The Natural Resources Defense Council represents KWA and our partners in these two suits.

Kentucky alone contributes approximately 6.1 percent of the total nitrogen and 9 percent of total phosphorus to the Mississippi River.  In addition, as of 2010, the Kentucky Division of Water reported 1,629 miles of streams impaired for nutrient-related pollutants. 

Nutrients Reductions

As noted in our lawsuits, nutrient pollution is a significant water quality issue throughout the Mississippi River Basin.  KWA has been tracking nutrient reduction programs in our state and region, so here’s a brief update on a few:

• Ohio River Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO) and Electric Power Research Institute’s (EPRI) Ohio River Basin Nutrient Trading Project.  This is currently in the final draft phases, and plans are to begin pilot trades this year.

• Kentucky Division of Water’s Nutrient Reduction Strategy, a draft of which will be released within the coming months, and which includes participation in the Ohio River Basin Trading Project, the development of the Floyd’s Fork TMDL, other regulatory and voluntary mechanisms, and plans for the 2014 DOW Triennial Review

• The 2014 Triennial Review will tentatively include enhancement of the nutrient narrative in the state’s water quality standards, including numeric nutrient limits, as well as regional or watershed specific numeric targets

404/401 Commenting

As always, KWA has continued to fight for the health of our state waterways through the 404 and 401 permit public notice and commenting process. Through the last few months, we have submitted comments on several permit applications.  This includes Corps of Engineers 404 permit applications for an outlet mall in Shelby County, a Kentucky Transportation Cabinet joint road building and coal mining project, and several other coal mining projects that proposed stream and wetland impacts as part of the mining hollow fills and sediment pond-building process.  Check our website for more details on these comments, keep tabs on our blog, or contact us directly for more information!

KDOW Recertification of NWPs

As of March 19, the Division of Water finalized their decisions on the recertification of the Nationwide Permits (404s) through the state 401 General Water Quality Certification process. KWA met with the Division of Water and conveyed our thoughts on the certification, and many of you responded to our action alert and submitted comments online.  Thanks for taking the time to advocate for sufficient protections for our waterways!

If you'll recall, back in February, good ole' boy Senator Rand Paul proposed the Defense of the Environment and Property Act.  A central theme of his proposal, it seemed, was to gut some of the fundamental parts of the Clean Water Act.  It did not have the public's interests in mind, which is why we objected to it, and so did many of you through our action alert.  Well, just yesterday, a full 73 days after I sent in my comments to his office, I finally received an email reply.  Here it is, in it's entirety:

 

Sincerely,

Rand Paul, MD
United States Senator

WOW!  Let's dissect this!

• First, he (or his staff) responded to exactly ZERO of my complaints about his Act.  In fact, let's just say it: this is a generic response email that his staff has generated for sending to anyone who responded in any way, shape, or form, to this specific issue, which apparently, is only "wetlands management." 

• Much of this is simply a restatement of the Act or restatement of his press release or other material from his website.

• Specifically, he asserts, "Thousands of property owners across America face aggressive action in the form of civil fines and criminal penalties from the EPA and the Army Corps, with no legal means to fight back"...
  • Thousands?  REALLY?  Is he serious, or is this just a fictitious large number for illustrating a narrow-minded legislative action that only serves the agenda of a very small minority?  Oh, and I am sorry, but forgive me for not throwing a pitty party for those [thousands of?] individuals that are disregarding U.S. laws intended to protect the water quality of our streams, lakes, rivers, wetlands, and more, for ALL to benefit.  We all know impacts upstream or to a specific waterbody cause subsequent impacts downstream or elsewhere, and those impacts have to be controlled!

• He continues to say, "...The EPA and the Army Corps are abusing [their] authority by asserting federal control over every pond, puddle, and mudflat in the country..."  
  • Ok, so we understand now that Rand Paul's sole agenda here is to substantialy exaggerate, create propoganda, and otherwise completely lie about the reality of the situation.  The fact-of-the-matter: the EPA and the Army Corps are attempting to abide by the rules set forth 40 YEARS AGO in the Clean Water Act, but that have not been sufficiently enforced over the years, due in no small part to individuals like Rand Paul.

• Paul then proceeds to recite to me the parts of his Act (which I've already read, and was the whole point of me sending comments to him in the first place).  In short, he proposes to politicize the protection of water resources, and the science behind the protection of water resources, all in the name of private property rights for "thousands" who have been held accountable for not adhering to the laws of the land.  He suggests specifically defining "navigable waters" as not including ephemeral streams, and other areas that temporarily are inundated with water, but that are not "navigable."  He also proposes that the government - the one he constantly expresses his disgust for because of their exhorbitant expenses - pay double market rate to compensate for these poor landowners that were held accountable by law.  
  • Again, Paul is completely ignorant of the reality of the situation.  The definition of "navigable waters" has, over time, been deemed to include wetlands and streams that connect to and have impacts to "traditionally navigable waters."  Apparently, Paul thinks that if a boat can't go up the waterway, then it shouldn't be regulated.  I'd say surface coal mining companies are lining up behind him.

Paul then refers me to his "tele-townhall" and his op-ed piece, which discuss why he proposed this in more depth.  Unfortunately, in both of those, he continues to only tell a fraction of the story, or use stories that really aren't relevant.  For instance, he suggests that in general, sure, the Clean Water Act is good in that he certainly doesn't think anyone should be discharging harmful chemicals into streams - but that it is overreaching to consider other things as pollutants, like discharging (or dumping) soils into waterways and wetlands.  Again, he ignores science that illustrates water quality pollution is not strictly about toxic chemicals, but also about turbidity, suspended solids, dissolved solids, etc.  

He continues, in his tele-conference (because that's what it is), to say that farmer's lands and property are being taken from them because farmers are draining "bottomlands" (he refuses to say wetlands) via tile drains, in order to farm those areas, and are being told not to do this.  Apparently, he is not aware that those "bottomlands," or wetlands, filter chemical pollutants, like fertilizers, from the farmlands, and that by tile-draining those areas, farmers are contributing to local waterway impairments, and to the much larger picture of the Gulf Dead Zone.  

It's no coincidence, I'm sure, that every single caller on the tele-conference was supportive of Paul's agenda.  This is the even greater concern.  E.O. Wilson pointed out recently that we need to be protesting the mess that's being made of the planet.  We have to increase our voice - or we will continue to lose ground in this current media-driven, immediate gratification, sound-byte socio-political environment in which we are currently living.  This is not only an environmental issue, but an economic and public health issue.  We have to ensure that protections to our waterways are not only maintained, but enforced further, and in some instances, increased based on emerging science.  

Let Rand Paul understand how important water quality protections are throughout Kentucky, and throughout this country. senator@paul.senate.gov

This morning, the EPA issued a news release, and it's a pretty big deal.  Why?  Well, it has to do with coal, water, and Kentucky's government.  I won't go back through it word-for-word, but the basic jist of it is this:

• the EPA is questioning the Kentucky Division of Water's authorization of 36 specific National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits
• the EPA doesn't think issuing these permits falls in line with the Clean Water Act's requirement's of protecting water quality, the environment, and human health
• the EPA is holding public hearings to allow the public to comment on the EPA's actions, one in Frankfort on June 5 from 7-11 pm, and two in Pikeville on June 7 from noon-4 pm and 7-11pm

You can read more about the hearings here, or this article by Jim Bruggers (with a quote from KWA's own Judy Petersen). 

Unfortunately, for the DOW, the devil is in the details--and the details don't sit particularly well for the DOW.  Here's where it gets a little more technical.  See, the Clean Water Act charges the EPA with reviewing a state's draft NPDES permits for compliance with CWA regulations and requirements.  The EPA can and is supposed to submit comments, objections, and/or recommendations on draft permits [Section 402(d) of the CWA, 40 CFR §123.44].  

In this instance, the EPA submitted comments, detailing their concerns.  In particular, they expressed concern that the draft permits did not contain adequate "reasonable potential analysis" for certain pollutants of concern--in other words, the potential to violate Kentucky's own water quality standards.  The EPA also expressed concern that, because of that shortcoming, these permits may not contain sufficient limits on the pollutant levels in their discharges, and therefore may contribute to violations of Kentucky's water quality standards (a requirement via the Clean Water Act and 40 CFR § 122.44(d) and 40 CFR § 122.4[(a) and (d)].  

Those are the FACTS in this situation.  And so is this.

And this.

And THIS.

The unfortunate other reality, though, is that this is an election year, and the EPA and the Clean Water Act have become a punching bag for lobbyists, politicians, and industries.  Environment vs. jobs, right?  But what about industries destroying our water quality?  What about the federal and state funds that eventually go towards cleaning up what colossal messes industry typically leaves in their path?  What about businesses and industries making people sick?  What about the healthcare expenses of individuals living near these operations?  And yes, what about the sustainability of this earth, and the next generation of Americans?

We have laws, folks, to help protect us from industries who do not properly care about their impacts on the surrounding community.  Right now, Kentucky's state laws are not adequately fulfilling their obligations under the Clean Water Act.  Do your part, and encourage the EPA to stand their ground--even with the impending political and industry pressure they'll most certainly get from those who prefer to allow business and industry to operate without restraint.  You can submit comments on this issue by going to the following webpage: http://www.epa.gov/region4/kycoalminehearings/comments.html

Hey folks, it's Earth Week! 

Judy and I are back from New Orleans, and our spring Mississippi River Collaborative meeting.  I thought it would be relevant to let you all know, for Earth Week, about the Collaborative and our collective efforts to improve our states and this region of the U.S.  For those of you that don't know much about the Collaborative, here's a quick primer (from the Collaborative's website):

"The Mississippi River Collaborative is a partnership of environmental organizations and legal centers from states bordering the Mississippi River as well as regional and national groups working on issues affecting the Mississippi River and its tributaries. The Collaborative harnesses the resources and expertise of its diverse organizations to reduce pollution entering the Mississippi River as well as the Gulf of Mexico."

The different organizations work on issues generally important to their state, and to the Mississippi River as a whole.  Our contributions to the Collaborative here at KWA focus on nutrient reductions (to reduce our impacts on local waterways, and on the Gulf Dead Zone), wetland preservation and mitigation, and advocating for better farming practices, both here and at the national level along with our partners.  We also aim to ensure protections for our streams, creeks, rivers, and lakes, as well as floodplains, which are ecologically and hydrologically critical landscapes.

The Collaborative is a great group of folks working collectively and individually to solve one of the bigger water quality problems of the current generation--extreme excess of nutrients in our waterways from outdated sewage treatment systems, and from agricultural practices.  Fortunately, there are available solutions to this issue, not the least of which include updating sewage/wastewater treatment plants, and utilizing a number of agricultural best management practices and conservation techniques.  We simply need to get folks to hop on board and adopt these solutions!  So here's to Earth Week, as a catalyst for helping folks become more aware about where our planet, and water systems are headed, and what we can do to solve some the problems!

Cheers

Tim Joice

Hey folks, hope everyone had a Happy Easter weekend.  The weather was beautiful for Easter egg hunts, and for taking a long walk to burn off all those calories from Easter lunch, afternoon snack, Easter dinner, desserts, and candy.  What's that? You didn't eat all that?  Oh yeah, me neither.

Well, I'm sure you heard about it over the weekend, it's all the hubbub around Louisville--but in case you didn't, there is a development proposed south of Simpsonville, at I-64 and KY 1848/Buck Creek Rd.  Why is this development the talk of the town?  Well, because it's The Outlet Shoppes at Louisville/Lexington--that's why!!!  Read about it here.

Fact: Americans love shopping.  Surely many Lexington, Louisville metro-area, Frankfort, Shelby County, E-Town, and other residents are currently ecstatic over this proposed outlet center (as many of my relatives were this weekend).  KWA has no interest in discussing the virtues of American spending habits.

Rather, we want to let you all know about issues with this development.  What many folks may not realize is that the property that this development is being proposed for currently has a rather large pond, wetlands, and ephemeral streams.

In the image above, I overlaid the site plan on an existing aerial, and highlighted the pond and streams in the blue, and the wetlands (around the perimeter of the pond) in cyan.

As you can see, the proposed development plan includes filling in or covering over all the wetlands, pond, and streams in order to facilitate the development of the parcel. It's not exactly a smooth-sailing straight-shot sort of project.  

The developers have applied for a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit to allow them to fill the streams, pond, and wetlands.  If you read the article from the Courier Journal, you'll notice the Corps project manager for this suggested that they didn't expect any major issues with the application.  In order for the Corps to grant this permit, they have to find that the applicant examined alternatives to not impacting these aquatic resources, and that this was the least harmful practicable alternative.  Just upon brief analysis, utilizing my background in Landscape Architecture, Land Planning and Development, there are a plethora of design alternatives to the one proposed which would have no impact at all, not the least of which is simply reducing the amount of parking spaces (which require approval through the Triple S Planning Commission (Shelbyville, Shelby County, Simpsonville=Triple S).  Or, the applicant could certainly consider other nearby properties, such as the one due south of the chosen site, which would allow for an alternative layout.  The point here is that clearly, the proposed plan DOES NOT result in the least adverse impact to aquatic resources, and that there are alternatives, especially from a site design and layout perspective.  

We are also concerned about the impacts of impervious surfaces on downstream water resources and properties.  The modification of the land cover on this site from mostly agriculture to almost entirely impervious surface (parking, roads, rooftops) will cause a significant increase in stormwater runoff.  A good portion of runoff will be captured in detention basins somewhere on the proposed site plan (I couldn't determine where), but as many folks know, these detention basins don't actually solve the problem.  Flooding still occurs, primarily because the total volume of runoff from the site increases, even though the flow rate of water off the site might still be close to predevelopment.

I'm currently working on comments for this project, in hopes that the Corps sees the issues with this plan, and the potential for some much more creative alternatives that actually protect our state's water resources for the future.

In the meantime, I hope all of you are enjoying this more normal spring weather!  

Tim Joice

Water Policy Director

$640 million big ones.  Do you have your lottery ticket yet?  I'm getting mine a little later this afternoon.  I mean, for that much money, who wouldn't at least give it a shot?  Even if it's 1 in 176 million.

Ultimately, depending on how you take the money, if you were to win, it could be slimmed down substantially, especially after taxes.  So what would you do with the money?  Buy a new Prius?  Add solar panels and a solar water heater to your house?  Build a green roof on your house?  Build a new house with a greenroof, solar panels/water heater, efficient windows, water recycling system?  Go on a world-wide vacation, Griswold-style, but for five years?  I imagine somewhere on the list are paying off debts--especially since the Great Recession has been hitting budgets and debts hard over the last couple years.  Maybe you'd donate some (or a lot) to the less fortunate or to certain efforts, through foundations and other non profits--like us! :-)  

It's a lot to imagine.  $640 million.  I honestly don't think I could spend that much money, even if I tried, unless I literally just bought everything, everywhere.  

In other more important news, U.S. Representative Paul Ryan's budget was passed in the House.  It included cuts to Farm Bill programs of $181 billion.  That includes $23 billion in cuts over 10 years to farm programs, conservation, and nutrition programs.  Those numbers sure put that $640 million into perspective, don't they?

This is important. My March 6th post discussed why this is important, especially to Kentuckians.  The most important thing to remember is that the conservation programs in the Farm Bill encourage--and in many instances, require--farmers to utilize conservation measures and implement best management practices.  These conservations efforts help protect fragile and critical ecosystems, such as wetlands, riparian buffers, marginal forest lands, and so forth.  These efforts also help to control the water quality problems related to excess nutrient runoff from nitrogen, phophorus, and other fertizilers, herbicides, and pesticides.  

Here are a few great reads on more sustainable directions for the new farm bill. 

Can reforming the farm bill help change U.S. Agriculture? 

Overhaul the Farm Bill: The Real Beneficiaries of Subsidies

Path to the 2012 Farm Bill

I'll leave you with a final image of money, which just maybe best describes what this nation depends on the most (well, and water, of course!).

Today, KWA and its partners in the Mississippi River Collaborative took actions against the EPA, in hopes of leading the EPA to develop numeric nutrient standards for phosphorus and nitrogen, which they are supposed to do by law, according to the Clean Water Act!

Read more about it on our webpage, which also has the relevant documents available for download, if you're interested! 

(And here!)

(And here!)

(And here!)

We had a great turnout for our film fest! And this year, it was all about "water" in celebration of the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act - a pivotal tool in our work. We had over 200 people attend, nearly 100 memberships, and numerous generous sponsors and volunteers. Plus, we included two films by local filmmakers for this national event. We will have more details and pictures in our upcoming newsletter and our KWA Facebook page but wanted to take this opportunity to THANK YOU for your support.

If you attended our festival, please take a moment to fill out our online survey so we can get your feedback on the event:http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/YL9CRQY

Also, congrats to KWA member Hank Levitt (pictured below on the right) who won the kayak donated by River City Canoe and Kayak! Hank is an avid paddler, so we know that kayak will be put to good use. 

Just in case you haven't checked out KWA's website recently, there's a new page under "Our Work," subheader "Mississippi River," titled "Dredges and Fills in Our Waterways."  

The new page generally explains two important permitting programs that KWA keeps an eye on (among others), those being the U.S. Army Corps of Engineer's Section 404 permitting and then Kentucky Division of Water's Section 401 permitting (also called a Water Quality Certification).  These two programs permit impacts (dredges and fills) to 'surface waters of the Commonwealth'--in other words, most streams and wetlands across the state.  

An important part of these two programs is that any Section 404 permit, including Nationwide Permits, must also go through Kentucky Division of Water’s (KDOW) Section 401 permitting process. Nationwide Permits are reissued every five years by the USACE, and were just recently reissued for 2012.  KDOW must choose whether they will certify the new permits ‘as is,’ or include additional conditions that provide further protection for Kentucky’s streams and wetlands.

I bring this up because KDOW recently released their proposed certification for the 2012 Nationwide Permits on February 17, 2012, and is accepting public comments until 12:00 AM on March 17, 2012.  More information can be found here, under the Program title “Water Quality.”

KDOW has proposed several respectable changes to the conditions of many, although not all, of the Nationwide Permits, including:

• limiting wetland impacts to 1/2 acre
• maintaining or further limiting stream impacts to 300 linear feet 
• a condition which states the activity "will not occur within surface waters of the Commonwealth identified as perpetually-protected (e.g. deed restriction, conservation easement) mitigation sites"
• language alteration from previously referring to ephemeral versus intermittent vs perennial stream impacts, to now referring simply to 

They have also added language to Nationwide Permits 29 and 39 that "realignment of streams and in-stream stormwater detention/retention basins are not authorized under this general certification."

KWA plans to submit comments to KDOW, and suggest additional changes or conditions for specific permits, as well as some additional General Conditions relevant for all permits.  Later this week, we will post our comments to the new page, and send out an Action Alert to encourage all of you Kentuckians out there to submit your own comments.  Check back later this week, and in the meantime, enjoy the nice weather that's shaping up for much of the week!

Every five years, Congress either passes a revised Federal Farm Bill, or renews the existing one.  The current Federal Farm Bill, called the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, of which much our country's agricultural production and a substantial amount of conservation practices operate under, is currently set to expire in September of this year.  

So, why should the average American care?

I know what you are thinking.  She doesn't know where the cookie jar went.

Well, there are a few important functions of the Farm Bill that Americans should care about.  First, the Farm Bill establishes a multi-year pricing mechanism to ensure some degree of financial stability from year-to-year for farmers.  This just means that farmers get paid a certain guaranteed price for their crops each year.  Just as important though, the Farm Bill provides crop insurance, in case of catastrophes that ruin a farmer's crop.  These are both important mechanisms that provide farmers with confidence to plant and supply America's food system--and we all want homegrown, especially locally-grown, food.  I don't know about you, but I sure want farmers to be confident that they can make a living, especially since most farmers are already barely making it (at least the small, family farm variety).

How does the Farm Bill relate to our waterways?

This is the more important question, in KWA's mind.  Since the inclusion of the Conservation Title in 1985, the Farm Bill has provided significant funding to implement conservation techniques on farmland throughout the country.  This has been carried out primarily through voluntary farmer participation encouraged by land rental payments, cost-sharing conservation practice impementation, technical assistance, education, and research.  

The Farm Bill Conservation programs and provisions include the following:

• The Working Lands Programs, which allows private land to remain in production, while implementing conservation practices to addres natural resource concerns specific to the area, including the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, among others
• The Land Retirement and Easement Programs, which provide federal payments to private agricultural landowners for temporary changes in land use or management to achieve environmental benefits, including Conservation Reserve Program, Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program, Wetlands Reserve Program, and others
• Compliance, which prohibits a producer from receiving most Farm Bill benefits when conservation requirements for highly erodible lands and wetlands are not met, including the Swampbuster provision
• Other Conservation Programs and Provisions, such as the Chesapeak Bay Watershed Program, Conservation Innovation Grants, Grassroots Source Water Protection Program, etc.

These conservation programs and provisions accomplish several very important things, in relation to protecting the quality of our waterways:

• They help to prevent soil erosion and sedimentation of streams
• They help to reduce the levels of nutrients that enter our waterways
• They help protect critical ecosystem features and aquatic areas, including floodplains, riparian buffers, and wetlands.  

In effect, the Conservation Title helps to reduce the impacts of what comes off of agricultural land through the combination of better agricultural practices, and the use of and conservation of landscape features that have a naturally positive impact on water quality of streams.

[Did I mention this would be a long post?  Sorry!  Here's some images related to the Conservation Title]

(download)

Click here to download:

a-2012-farm-bill-maybe-JblsbiwwvewEqFsthueG.zip (520 KB)

And...why should Kentucky residents care? 

Darius Miller, a lifelong and average Kentuckian, says we should care because according to the USDA, 55% of Kentucky's land area is used for farmland, including 28% specifically for crops.  Even though other midwestern states knock that number out of the park, that is a lot of land devoted to farming, especially for Kentucky, where we have significant lands in state forests and parks.  

The good news is that portions of the Conservation Title have been well-used in Kentucky over the past several decades.  For example, the Green River Watershed has been using the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program to target and protect environmentally sensitive land, decrease erosion, restore wildlife habitat, and safeguard ground and surface water sources.  In 2010, Kentucky put over $58 million into Conservation programs and intitiatives throughout the state. 

The bad news is that for 1997, 2002, and 2007 respectively, Kentucky went from 370,090 acres, to 403,946 acres, to 375,049 acres of land in conservation and wetland reserve programs.  For that 10 year period, Kentucky stayed flatlined, in terms of farmland dedicated to conservation practices.  This means important wetlands and riparian areas are not getting the protection they need.

The bottom line: as residents of Kentucky, you should care about the Farm Bill because of the food you are able to eat, and more than anything, we need to make sure that the new Farm Bill contains sufficient funding for conservation programs.

NOW, I get to the important part (deep breath, a la Ace Ventura).  At the end of 2011 we sent out an Action Alert for you to contact our representatives in Congress and stop the potential Farm Bill that was being pushed through the Super Committee process (which eventually failed, thank goodness), but now, Congress is starting discussions and having hearings to move towards hopefully passing a Farm Bill in the spring session of 2012, in hopes to pass a Farm Bill prior to the election rhetoric heating up too much this summer, and making it nearly impossible, which would ultimately result in the continuation of the current Farm Bill, which apparently, no one wants. (deep breath)

KWA has already signed on to several petitions with a whole bunch of other organizations, asking that funding for Conservation Title programs be maintained to the utmost possible.  Keep an eye out in the coming weeks for Action Alerts on the Farm Bill so that as citizens of Kentucky, you can advocate on behalf of your local waterways!

For more info on Farm Bill stuff and Kentucky programs, check out the following links.

--on the 2012 farm bill: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42357.pdf

--on KY farming subsidies: http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=21000

--on KY programs throug NRCS: http://www.ky.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/