Water Rule Reversal a Blow to Agriculture

Water is a touchy subject, especially when it comes to our agriculture and environmental discussions these days. I have to admit that I was worried about this from day one. The Environmental Protection Agency announced it intends to reverse the Navigable Waters Protection Rule.

Water
Zippy Duvall, first elected president of the American Farm Bureau Federation in 2016, is very concerned about the EPA decision to reverse the Navigable Waters Protection Act. (Photo from fb.org)

American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall his organization is very concerned about the idea and its potential impact on the nation’s farmers.

“The American Farm Bureau Federation is extremely disappointed in the Environmental Protection Agency’s announcement that it intends to reverse the environmentally conscious Navigable Waters Protection Rule,” Duvall says, “which finally brought clarity and certainty to clean water efforts. Farmers and ranchers care about clean water and preserving the land, and they support the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. 

“Administrator Regan recently recognized the flaws in the 2015 ‘Waters of the U.S. Rule’ and pledged not to return to those overreaching regulations,” he added. “We are deeply concerned that the EPA plans to reverse the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, which puts the future of responsible protections at risk. We expected extensive outreach, but today’s announcement fails to recognize the concerns of farmers and ranchers.”

Duvall, a third-generation Georgia farmer, says this is an important moment for EPA Administrator Michael Regan and will be pivotal to his ability to earn the trust of farmers on this and other administration priorities. Duvall says the EPA boss must “keep his word” to recognize the efforts of agriculture and not return to flawed, overly-complicated and excessive regulations. 

Water
EPA Chief Michael Regan announced that his agency is planning to reverse the Navigable Waters Protection Rule put in place by the Trump Administration. (Photo from eenews.com)

“We call on the EPA to respect the statute, recognize the burden that overreaching regulation places on farmers and ranchers, and not write the term ‘navigable’ out of the Clean Water Act” Duvall says. “On this issue, and particularly prior converted croplands and ephemerals, we also urge Secretary Vilsack to ensure that we don’t return to the regulatory land grab that was the 2015 ‘WOTUS’ Rule.

Duvall adds that clean water and clarity are paramount, which is why farmers shouldn’t need a team of lawyers and consultants to farm.

From a personal perspective, why can’t we meet in the middle here? You do realize that farmers don’t get to stay in business and pass on the operation to their kids if they don’t take care of their environment?

Am I anti-environment by being concerned about farmers? I’m not. I’m saying there has to be a way to preserve the environment and still allow farmers to make money. After all, they do feed us, remember? Food doesn’t just show up at Safeway.

Renewable Fuels Debate Continues Unabated

Here’s the complete podcast with Scott Irwin of the University of Minnesota, talking about his solution to the squabble between ethanol and the oil industry over the Renewable Fuels Standard. You can download and listen to it later or play it here.
Renewable Fuels
Professor Scott Irwin at the University of Illinois has a potential solution to the fight in Washington D.C. surrounding the Renewable Fuels Standard

Renewable Fuels seem like such a good idea to me. After all, fossil fuels are a finite resource, right? We grow lots of corn and other biofuel feedstocks. Why can’t we use some of them to stretch our fuel supply even further into the future? That’s rhetorical, of course. Big Oil has lots of money. One University of Illinois Professor says that money has put Big Oil squarely in the driver’s seat with the Environmental Protection Agency.

The clash between the ethanol and oil industries over the Renewable Fuels Standard is continuing with no end in sight. Scott Irwin of the Agricultural and Consumer Economics Department at the University of Illinois says there may not be a “win-win” deal in a debate like this.

Irwin wrote an article on the University of Illinois’ farm doc daily website called “Clearing the Logjam on the RFS and SREs: A Simple Proposal.” His idea would divide the refiners into large and small operations, while the ethanol proponents are treated as one group.

By doing it that way, the Environmental Protection Agency won’t be waiving any future volumes of ethanol. He realizes that the large refiners won’t be happy with his proposal, which Irwin says restores what the RFS was originally designed to do.

Irwin says his solution would satisfy two-thirds of the people and groups involved in the debate, which might be the best we can do. By way of comparison, the current situation is a mess.

Again, Scott Irwin is with the University of Illinois. Follow the link here if you’d like to read his full report on the Farm Doc Daily website.

###