Motions On DMWW Nitrate Case
The ISU CALT site and University of Illiinois farmdoc.com have information on the status of the case. The defendants have asked for a summary judgment of dismissal, claiming it has no basis in law, and the DMWW disagrees with the interpretation.
The water districts say agricultural water has long been clearly excluded.
DMWW says surface water may be but groundwater, such as that from tiles, is not excluded. Further, DMWW says the water districts are not farmers and thus not agriculatural.
Here's one discussion.
I am not looking forward to having my tile outlets defined as a point source of pollution. I've been taking nitrate samples and they are not high, but it is not in my interest to have EPA, COE, DNR and every other alphabet driving over my fields to pull water samples when there is nothing wrong.
My greatest fear in this whole business is if DMWW wins the case, forces a bunch of actions and the action turn out to not be adequate. Then we find that we put the wrong fix on a problem but will the fix go away? No way. Once the government has their hooks into you the "fix" will stay while they search for another fix.
Re: Motions On DMWW Nitrate Case
I have heard a radio spot - commercial where certain parties said you need to apply '' extra N '' due to early rain leaching @ 60 lbs down - wonder where it went ?