Kristi Noem on Environment

EPA should allow state & local regulation of farm dust

Stop considering manure as pollutant or hazardous.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) to exclude manure from the definition of `hazardous substance` and `pollutant or contaminant` for purposes of such Act. Defines `manure` to mean:

1. digestive emissions, feces, urine, urea and other excrement from livestock;
2. any associated bedding, compost, raw materials or other materials commingled with such excrement from livestock;
3. any process water associated with such items; and
4. any byproducts, constituents, or substances contained in, or originating from, such items or any emissions relating to such items.

Opponent`s Comments (Jim Ruen on AgProfessional.com, Oct. 3, 2011): Since when can a fertilizer dealer operate without concern for environmental regulation and impact? Let`s face it, we aren`t talking about Ma and Pa Kettle with their six milk cows and three sows here spreading a load of manure on the back 40. We are talking about CAFO units with thousands of animals and tens of thousands or more tons/gallons of manure. While a few maybe spreading on their own land, most are selling it to area farmers. At a time when fertilizer dealers and companies have to be conspicuously careful with how they handle product, why shouldn`t mega-livestock operators be equally regulated as they sell their `waste` product for its nutrient and soil building value. Since when do commercial N, P and K producers or handlers get a free ride from the EPA...or Congress?

Member of House Natural Resources Committee.

The U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources, or Natural Resources Committee, has jurisdiction over issues of:

• Fisheries and wildlife, including research, restoration, refuges, and conservation.
• Forfeiture of land grants and alien ownership, including alien ownership of mineral lands.
• United States Geological Survey.
• International fishing agreements.
• Interstate compacts relating to apportionment of waters for irrigation purposes.
• Irrigation and reclamation, including water supply for reclamation projects and easements of public lands for irrigation projects; and acquisition of private lands when necessary to complete irrigation projects.
• Native Americans generally, including the care and allotment of Native American lands and general and special measures relating to claims that are paid out of Native American funds.
• Insular possessions of the United States generally (except those affecting the revenue and appropriations).
• Military parks and battlefields, national cemeteries administered by the Secretary of the Interior, parks within the District of Columbia, and the erection of monuments to the memory of individuals.
• Mineral land laws and claims and entries thereunder.
• Mineral resources of public lands, including the Outer Continental Shelf.
• Mining interests generally.
• Mining schools and experimental stations.
• Marine affairs, including coastal zone management (except for measures relating to oil and other pollution of navigable waters).
• Oceanography.
• Petroleum conservation on public lands and conservation of the radium supply in the United States.
• Preservation of prehistoric ruins and objects of interest on the public domain.
• Public lands generally, including entry, easements, and grazing thereon.
• Relations of the United States with Native Americans and Native American tribes.
• Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline (except ratemaking).

Rated 0% by HSLF, indicating an anti-animal welfare voting record.

112th Mid-Term Humane Scorecard: The Humane Society Legislative Fund has posted the final version of the 2011 Humane Scorecard, where you can track the performance of your federal lawmakers on key animal protection issues during last year. We rated legislators based on their voting behavior on measures such as agribusiness subsidies, lethal predator control, and the Endangered Species Act; their cosponsorship of priority bills on puppy mills, horse slaughter, animal fighting, and chimps in research; their support for funding the enforcement of animal welfare laws; and their leadership on animal protection. All of the priority bills whose cosponsorships we`re counting enjoy strong bipartisan support; in the House, each of the four now has more than 150 cosponsors.

The Humane Scorecard is not a perfect measuring tool, but creating some reasonable yardstick and allowing citizens to hold lawmakers accountable is central to our work. When the Humane Scorecard comes out each year, it helps clarify how the animal protection movement is doing geographically, by party affiliation, and in other categories. It helps us chart our course for animals by seeing where we have been effective, and where we need to improve.

No EPA expansion of regulated waters.

Congressional Summary:

A BILL to preserve existing rights and responsibilities with respect to waters of the United States.
• The EPA Administrator are prohibited from developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, applying, administering, or enforcing the proposed Definition of `Waters of the United States` Under the Clean Water Act (April 21, 2014); or any substantially similar proposed rule.
• FEDERALISM CONSULTATION: The EPA Administrator shall jointly consult with relevant State and local officials to develop recommendations for a regulatory proposal, taking into consideration differences in State and local geography, hydrology, climate, legal frameworks, economies, priorities, and needs.

Argument in opposition: (by Rep. Bishop, D-NY-1)

The enactment of H.R. 5078 would, unfortunately, lock in place the interpretive guidance of the Bush administration: traditional Clean Water Act protections over a significant percentage of waters has been called into question or have simply been lost. These are protections that existed for over 30 years prior to the issuance of the first Bush-era guidance in 2003 and are now all but lost, making it harder and more costly for individual States to protect their own waters should their upstream neighbors be unwilling or unable to fill in the gap in protecting water quality.

Pollution needs to go somewhere, and since pollution does not respect State boundaries when it travels downstream, it will have an adverse impact on the quality of life and the quality of the environment of those downstream States. Under H.R. 5078, the EPA would be prohibited from ensuring that polluters in Connecticut continue to reduce excessive amounts of nitrogen in the Sound, leaving my constituents in the State of New York without any recourse to stop them.

Voted YES to require GMO labeling.

A BILL to require the Secretary of Agriculture to establish a national disclosure standard for bioengineered foods.

Cato Institute recommendation on voting YES: President Obama quietly signed legislation requiring special labeling for commercial foods containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs)--plants and animals with desirable genetic traits that were directly implanted in a laboratory. Most of the foods that humans & animals have consumed for millennia have been genetically modified, by cross-fertilization. Yet the new law targets only the highly precise gene manipulations done in laboratories. Anti-GMO activists oppose the new law because it preempts more rigorous regulation. And that`s exactly the goal of this bill, to the frustration of the anti-GMO crowd.

JustLabelit.org recommendation on voting NO (because not restrictive enough): Senators Roberts (R-KS) and Stabenow (D-MI) introduced a compromise bill that would create a mandatory, national labeling standard for GMO foods. This bill falls short of what consumers expect--a simple at-a-glance disclosure on the package. As written, this compromise might not even apply to ingredients derived from GMO soybeans and GMO sugar beets. We in the consumer rights community have dubbed this the `Deny Americans the Right-to-Know` Act (DARK Act). We need to continue pressing for mandatory GMO labeling on the package.

Heritage Foundation recommendation on voting NO (because too restrictive): The House should allow [states, at their choice,] to impose [a more] restrictive labeling mandate, but prohibit the state from regulating out-of-state food manufacturers engaged in interstate commerce. Instituting a new, sweeping, federal mandate that isn`t based on proven science shouldn`t even be an option.

Legislative outcome: Passed by the Senate on July 7th, passed by the House on July 14th; signed by the President on July 29th

Loosen restrictions on predator control in Alaska.

Library of Congress Summary: This joint resolution nullifies the rule finalized by the Department of the Interior on Aug. 5, 2016, relating to non-subsistence takings of wildlife and public participation and closure procedures on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.

Case for voting YES by House Republican Policy Committee: The Fish and Wildlife Service rule--which lays claim to more than 20% of Alaska--violates ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act) and the Alaska Statehood Compact. Not only does [the existing 2016 rule] undermine Alaska`s ability to manage fish and wildlife upon refuge lands, it fundamentally destroys a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the federal government.

Case for voting NO by the Sierra Club (April 6, 2017):

• President Trump signed H.J. Res. 69, overturning the rule that banned `predator control` on federal wildlife refuges in Alaska unless `based on sound science in response to a conservation concern.`
• Any rule mentioning `sound science` is in trouble under a Trump administration.
• So what kinds of practices will the Trump administration now allow on our federal wildlife refuges? Activities that include shooting or trapping wolves while in their dens with pups, or hunting for grizzly bears from airplanes.
• It`s all about ensuring a maximum yield of prey species like elk, moose, and caribou for the real apex predator: humans. So if having more elk requires killing wolf pups in their dens, then so be it.
• The Obama administration`s rule (which Trump revoked) never tried to stop all hunting. Subsistence hunting was still allowed. What`s changed is that the predators on federal wildlife refuges are now under the control of the state of Alaska. And that makes them prey.

Click here for definitions & background information on Environment. Click here for a summary of all issue stances of Kristi Noem. Click here for a Wikipedia profile of Kristi Noem. Click here for a Ballotpedia profile of Kristi Noem. Click here for VoteMatch responses by Kristi Noem. Click here for issue positions of other SD politicians. Click here for SD primary archives. Click here for SD secondary archives.
Other governors on Environment:			Kristi Noem on other issues:
SD Gubernatorial: Billie Sutton Jamie R. Smith Steven Haugaard SD Senatorial: Brian Bengs Daniel Ahlers Mike Rounds Scyller Borglum	Gubernatorial Debates 2023: KY: Incumbent Andy Beshear(D) vs.State A.G. Daniel Cameron(R) vs.Ambassador Kelly Craft(R) vs.State Auditor Mike Harmon(R) LA: Incumbent John Bel Edwards(D,term-limited) vs.Jeff Landry(R) vs.Shawn Wilson(D) vs.John Schroder(R) vs.Sharon Hewitt(R) MS: Incumbent Tate Reeves(R) vs.Bill Waller(R,withdrew) vs.Brandon Presley(D) Gubernatorial Debates 2024: DE: Gov. John Carney (D, term-limited); vs. Lt. Gov. Bethany Hall-Long (D) vs. County Exec. Matt Meyer (D) vs. State Rep.Mike Ramone (R) IN: Gov. Eric Holcomb (R, term-limited); vs. Sen. Mike Braun (R) vs. Suzanne Crouch (R, lost May 7 primary) vs. Eric Doden (R, lost May 7 primary) vs. Attorney General Curtis Hill (R, lost May 7 primary) vs. Jennifer McCormick (D) MO: Gov. Mike Parson (R, term-limited): vs. Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft (R) vs. State Senator Bill Eigel (R) vs. Lt.Gov. Mike Kehoe (R) vs. House Minority Leader Crystal Quade (D) MT: Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) vs. Ryan Busse (D) vs. State Rep. Tanner Smith (R, lost June 4 primary)	Gubernatorial Debates 2024 (continued): NC: Gov. Roy Cooper (D, term-limited); vs. Lt.Gov. Mark Robinson (R) vs. Attorney General Josh Stein (D) vs. Treasurer Dale Folwell (R, lost March 5 primary) vs. Justice Michael Morgan (D, lost March 5 primary) vs. State Senator Andy Wells (R,withdrew) ND: Gov. Doug Burgum (R, retiring) vs. State Rep. Rick Becker (R) vs. U.S.Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R) vs. State Sen.Merrill Piepkorn (D) NH: Gov. Chris Sununu (R, retiring) vs. U.S.Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R) vs. Mayor Joyce Craig (D) vs. Acting Gov.Chuck Morse (R) vs. Exec.Councilor Cinde Warmington (D) UT: Gov. Spencer Cox (R) vs. State Rep. Phil Lyman (R) vs. Minority Leader Brian King (D) VT: Gov. Phil Scott (R) vs. Lt.Gov.David Zuckerman (D, withdrew) vs. Selectman Peter Duval (D) vs. Commissioner Esther Charlestin (D) WA: Gov. Jay Inslee (D, retiring); vs. Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) vs. U.S.Rep.Dave Reichert (R) vs. State Sen. Mark Mullet (D) vs. County Chair Semi Bird (R) vs. Hilary Franz (D, withdrew to run for U.S.Rep.) WV: Gov. Jim Justice (R, term-limited) vs. WV Attorney General Patrick Morrisey (R) vs. Huntington Mayor Steve Williams (D) vs. WV State Auditor JB McCuskey (R, withdrew) vs. WV Secretary of State Mac Warner (R, lost May 14 primary) vs. State Del. Moore Capito (R, lost May 14 primary)	Abortion Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Local Issues Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty [Title9]