The DC Mind, Part 166,550

The Iowa farmer who pleaded with Obozo to 'let us do what we like to do without bureaucratic interference' has *cough* raised a bit of dust.

First, Obama mis-answered the question, referring the farmer to the Federal Dep't of Agriculture.  Politico followed up for two days to a dead-end.  It is EPA which is doing the deeds, not D of Ag.  (And it was the Fed Dep't of Transport which 'asked for comments' on forcing farmers to obtain CDL's to drive a friggin' farm-tractor...)

And, of course, Lisa Jackson lied about EPA's involvement.

...EPA is dissatisfied with Maricopa County’s Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control dust emissions from tillage, harvest, and transportation from non-cropland and cropland. EPA claims Maricopa County has insufficient specificity to control agricultural practices creating dust.

An example – the county, in its regulation, would require “modifying agricultural equipment to prevent or reduce particulate matter (dust) generation from crop land”.

EPA says equipment modification is not specific enough. The county had proposed using shields to redirect fan exhaust from the tractors and also using water spray bars that would emit a mist to reduce the dust on the tillage equipment. EPA wants the county to be more specific, as it says “…using appropriately designed spray bars would be far more effective at reducing PM-10 than redirecting a machine’s fan exhaust.” --G. Baise (attorney) quoted at JunkScience

So?

According to a February Federal Register notice, EPA is taking final action to find that Arizona failed to make a State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal…for the Maricopa County non-attainment area for particulate matter (farm dust). This dust standard is called PM-10. EPA claims the Maricopa area, which includes Phoenix, has a serious air quality standard violation.

This is the very same EPA of "DOOM!!!" air-pollution lies propaganda.

(Not-really-an-aside:  How much money has been spent by EPA and Maricopa County on this twiddle-twaddle?  Do you think that that money could have been spent more productively--like, e.g., on food-banks?)