Noem dust bill redux

Congresswoman Kristi Noem’s “nuisance dust” bill got some informative comments in the previous post.

Dust storm

The bill does, as Cory Heidelberger points out, attempt to exempt an entire category of “particulate matter” from the federal Clean Air Act. Permanently, too, not just for a year it would seem.

Given that, the section about holding the EPA off on any new regulations for a year seems quite superfluous. Add to that the fact that Noem’s talking points seem to address that section of the bill, with this from last week’s call with reporters:

While we’re in the middle of tough economic times, this gives certainty to our ag producers.

And one has to wonder if the year-long moratorium is nothing more than a talking point forged into legislation.

There’s another twist, in that Noem’s bill would allow the EPA to regulate “nuisance dust” when the state, local or tribal governments don’t do so already. So in South Dakota, where the DENR’s practice is to often mimic federal law as state law for environmental regulations, how would that work?

Would Congress really cede federal authority to the states?  Well, not really. Not now, anyway, as the Democrat-controlled Senate is more likely to vote Dusty Johnson in as an honorary member than it is to pass the nuisance dust bill.

 

 

 

2 thoughts on “Noem dust bill redux

  1. Denise,

    I don’t know if you can have anyone research this or not but I had a friend who researched the legislators running for office in 2010′s primary tell me that Noem voted to raise taxes or fees 7 times while she was in the SD legislature.

    That doesn’t sound like a principled conservative to me. I think it’s worth checking out.

    • Apolitical,

      Probably a solid day and a half deep into the LRC website would tell anyone who knows what to look for whether that’s true. It doesn’t strike me as outside the realm of possibility, but at present I do not have the time resources to devote to that singular point of research. However, if Noem did vote to raise taxes or fees, I’d bet a chunk of change that it would have been part of a bigger wave of the Republican caucus. If such increases passed, she would have been in the solid majority, as those things require a two-thirds majority to pass. Wouldn’t be too difficult to defend in those cases, perhaps.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>