Noem EPA/Dust regulation hearing

You can watch Noem’s EPA dust bill hearing here:

26 Replies to “Noem EPA/Dust regulation hearing”

  1. Anonymous

    She’s losing the battles with her home state papers. But maybe she can get it through the house?

    “So it’s disappointing to see Rep. Kristi Noem continue her fight against a made-up problem like the potential for farm dust regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency.
    With the multitude of assurances, and clearly enough legitimate issues to tend to, it’s time for Noem to let the phantom issue of dust regulation settle.”

  2. CaveMan

    Anon why don’t you go up to ND and ask them how they feel about the $750,000,000 coal dust scrubbers the EPA is demanding so they clean up the air and increase visibility? Good grief I’ve been there when the plants were burning full speed, the drag lines were ramming out coal full speed and the trucks were hauling tail; and not a glimmer of smoke could be seen.

    After they get tired of beating up the coal industry and bankrupting them and us what is to stop them from coming after your farm dust? Until we get a president or a congress with some huevo’s who will undo what WE have allowed to become acceptable government activity we are like sheep in a slaughter house.

    1. Anonymous

      I happen to believe we need coal as a big part of our energy mix until we get greener energy sources online and economical.

      But coal doesn’t pollute AT ALL? You must be friggin nuts!

  3. CaveMan

    Anon what kind of green energy do you suppose we heat homes with? When the wind does not blow what do you suppose we should fire up the generators with?

    Yes I admit I am a little nuts. I like coal, gas, both natural and man made. Nuclear too for that matter.

  4. Duh

    Pinhead /n/: One who bitches when someone advocates. One who bitches when someone doesn’t advocates.

    There is something to farm dust if it has risen to this level. What should Kristi do, wait until legislation is introduced or the EPA unilaterally acts on its own?

    1. Stace Nelson

      One of the problems are that such federal agencies usurp Congress’ authority by enacting regulations that they then enforce on the American people and businesses as if they were in fact laws. Ask some of the folks in the electricity business how things are going with coal based electricity…

    2. caheidelberger

      Wait a minute, Duh. The issue has “risen to this level” only because Noem keeps shouting about it and simply ignoring every statement direct from the EPA that the problem she wants us to believe she’s fixing does not exist. You’re basically saying that if Noem shouts a lie loud and long enough, it must be true. That’s nuts. Dust causes health problems. The EPA rightly regulates it. The ag industry should not get a pass to pollute in ways that other industries do not.

      1. duggersd

        Cory on the one hand you say it is a lie. On the other hand you seem to advocate the EPA passing a regulation. However you feel about this issue, there is no doubt the EPA can pass this regulation. I do not trust the federal government. I especially do not trust an organization that has very little oversight.

  5. 73*

    Who’s right or who’s wrong isn’t really the point if Kristi is losing the media war on this.

    The Yankton P&D and Argus have both mocked her for this issue. I’m sure if she keeps going on it she will also get mocked by other South Dakotan papers and maybe TV news.

    The point is Kristi needs to do some work in SD that isn’t just photo opps and closed door meetings if she doesn’t want to lose the public on some stuff.

    I see the importance of this issue and agree with her. I do NOT trust the EPA either but it is a really easy issue to make fun of her on if all you know is that she is trying to fight dust regualation.

    Also there are a lot of other issues much more important to me than this issue. So even I am not all that passionate about defending her to my left wing friends.

      1. Job Creator

        Kristi’s dust issue carries the same weight as Thune’s made-up cow fart emergency a couple years ago. Thune did some of his finest work at that time on that made-up issue…

  6. anonymous

    I believe Duh just said Noem is a pinhead because she is bitching when the EPA is not advocating regs. Duh – i’m not bitching about anything.

  7. anonymous

    So…Tinkerbell’s bill will open door for more pollution from mining, power sources and other soot produces. Now I get it. She cloaks it as protecting our farmers when really she’s selling this for big industry. Watch for her payback in the form of sizable donations from mining, and power co.’s., etc. I’ll give her credit for trying, but she lacks the experience to pull this one off. Coach put her in the game too early. I can just hear the lobbyist and staffers: She can sell this back home as farm protection and it will won’t cost her any votes. Rep Noem: Don’t blow snow down my shorts and tell me it’s farm dust.

    1. Job Creator

      Interesting that Pete Lien was there testifying in favor of Kristi’s farm dust bill. I did not realize that the various Lien corporations were so involved in farming.

  8. Duh

    CH you contradicted yourself. Again. You made my point.

    Anon @9:04: Learn to read. That’s not what I said.

    Anon @8:04: Read the bill. You’re wrong.

  9. anonymous

    Alright Duhnce, I’ll bite. This is how nuisance dust is defined in the bill:

    (c) Definition- In this section, the term `nuisance dust’ means particulate matter–

    `(1) generated from natural sources, unpaved roads, agricultural activities, earth moving, or other activities typically conducted in rural areas; or

    `(2) consisting primarily of soil, other natural or biological materials, windblown dust, or some combination thereof.’.

    Dust generated from ?natural sources?. Don?t ore lodes occur in nature, including coal, and the other things we dig from the ground?

    Dust generated from ?earth moving?. Doesn?t earth moving occur in many mining processes?

    Dust generated from ?other activities typically conducted in rural areas? This is so vague, not sure even where to begin.

    Then we have this little gem in sub (c)(2) dust ?consisting primarily of soil, ?OR biological materials, ? OR some combination thereof.

    Many harmful pollutants consist of dust made of up of soil with a ?biological? component. So when critics complain this bill is vaguely written, they are absolutely correct. You shouldn?t let your unwavering partisanship blind you to rational thought processes. Papa Bear would call you a pinhead and you wouldn’t like that.

  10. Anonymous

    If this bill only prohibits the regulation of farm dust, why did the Rubber Manufacturers Association and mining companies testify for the bill? This bill is a trojan horse to prohibit regulation of industrial pollution, and the industrial polluters just showed their hand.

    So why is Rep. Noem shilling for rubber companies and mining companies and passing it off as a farm dust bill? Follow the money.

  11. veldy

    If there is one thing ludicrous here, it’s that this has to be addressed at all. Ask yourself the question ” do you think they would….?” The short answer is yes, they would. If it’s a “non-issue”, why would EPA testify against the bill? It shows foresight to want to avoid seeing a filing in US District Court titled “The United States of America vs one John Deere 7720 combine”. Don’t think it couldn’t happen, because it could. And as for what the Argus-Leader and Yankton Press & Dakotan editorial people think, I’ll rely on my own judgement over their “big city wannabe” ramblings.

    1. Anonymous

      Why would the EPA testify against it? If someone was throwing around wild, false accusations claiming you were planning to do something you weren’t planning to do – you would show up rebut the accusations too. When Rep. Noem is passing off a bill allowing industrial pollution as a bill protecting farmers (from a nonexistent threat), the EPA needs to set the record straight – and they did.

      How will Noem’s bill to do away with industrial pollution play in the next election? We shall see. She hasn’t fooled anybody about the need for farm dust rules, or about the true intent of her pro-industrial pollution bill though. We’ll see the quid pro quo come in the form of campaign contributions Big Pollution.

  12. anonymous

    The reason the EPA testified against it, is because it is vaguely written, and goes well beyond “farm dust”

    The same reason mining and rubber interests testified for it.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.