NEWS

Farms, EPA on shaky ground

Christopher Doering

WASHINGTON – For years, farmers and ranchers have cast a wary eye toward new laws and regulations from Washington they fear will be costly and burdensome.

Agricultural producers argue that they know the best way to take care of their land — not only to maximize production and, if they're lucky, to make a profit. Farmers say their best practices also preserve the acreage on which they depend.

Now, a rule being proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency outlining which bodies of water the agency would oversee under the Clean Water Act again is rattling the agriculture industry. The EPA says it is necessary after recent court rulings to clarify the 1972 law. Many farmers fear it amounts to a land grab that could saddle them with higher costs, more regulatory red tape and less freedom to run their farms and ranches.

Kevin Scott, a corn and soybean farmer from Valley Springs, calls the agriculture industry's relationship with the EPA tense. Farmers, he said, more than anyone else have a vested interest in taking care of their land.

"EPA seems to think we need help in understanding what is best for our land, and we really don't," Scott said.

"We're not real excited for any time when the EPA proposes new changes to clarify things. It usually classifies them in a very negative direction for agriculture."

The proposed water regulation, better known as the "Waters of the U.S." rule, is the latest measure that's symbolic of the growing fissure dividing the EPA and ag producers. Farmers and ranchers have become more skeptical and less trusting of the environmental agency despite promises by the regulator that it is balancing the best interests or farmers and the environment, and is willing to work with landowners regarding new rules and clarifications of old ones.

In the past few years, the EPA has been criticized by ag interests for a series of proposals, including one that would have regulated dust in rural areas and another in November that would reduce the amount of renewable fuels, much of it from corn, required to be blended into the country's gasoline supply this year.

The agency also was sharply criticized after it released private information on 80,000 agricultural producers to environmental groups last year through a Freedom of Information request — a decision for which the EPA since has apologized.

Ag suspicions high about protections

Despite assurances from the EPA, farm groups contend the Waters of the U.S. rule would expand the scope of so-called "navigable waters" protected by the Clean Water Act to include not only rivers and lakes but ditches, stream-beds and self-made ponds that carry water only when it rains.

Craig Hill, president of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, farms 1,750 acres of corn and soybeans with his son. He said he and other farmers fear they would have to pay for costly environmental assessments and apply for permits allowing them to till soil, apply fertilizer or engage in some conservation practices because of the effect they might have on waterways that would be newly regulated by the EPA.

Under the proposed water rule, Hill said if he wanted to build a pond or terrace for soil retention, he would have to apply for a permit, a process that can take two years and cost tens of thousands of dollars — a prohibitive price tag that probably would force farmers and ranchers to abandon such projects.

EPA tries to assuage fears on the farm

In remarks before farm trade groups and agricultural reporters, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy repeatedly has said the proposed rule does not increase regulation and would not add to or expand the scope of waters protected by the Clean Water Act. She also said it is "not a land grab" and added that current exemptions in place for the Clean Water Act that do not require permits for "normal farming, ranching and agricultural practices" such as plowing, planting seed or minor drainage would be kept in place.

"If you were not legally required to have a permit before, the rule does not change that," McCarthy told farm broadcasters in May. "Outreach for this proposal has been unprecedented. I've personally met with many ag organizations."

McCarthy, who became administrator last July, acknowledged during her confirmation hearing last year that the EPA had a "deteriorating" relationship with agriculture and said the agency has not done enough in the past to work with farmers and ranchers.

To improve their agency's relationship and better communicate its thinking to the agricultural industry, McCarthy and EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe have conductedmore meetings, holding roundtables to hear directly from local growers and giving additional speeches to farm groups. They're in the process of ramping up an outreach program across the country this summer to meet with agriculture groups to address concerns and clarify the scope of the proposed Waters of the U.S. rule.

Perciasepe, who graduated from Cornell University's college of agriculture and life sciences, said in an interview the EPA's relationship with the ag industry is "evolving," calling their relationship "one of mutual respect." They are natural allies, he said, with both of them focused on being good stewards of the land and protecting the environment.

"It's always been a dynamic kind of family relationship but I think it is definitely on the upswing," said Perciasepe. "I think they are noticing that we are trying to do things differently."

Distrust attributed to '90s consolidation

Bruce Babcock, an Iowa State University economist, said the breakdown in the relationship between agriculture and the EPA can be attributed to consolidation in the livestock industry in which some animal feeding operations raising cattle, turkeys and chickens have grown significantly in size.

Livestock operations always have released methane in the air and sent manure flowing into creeks and streams, but agriculture largely was unregulated. The growth of massive animal operations, coupled with highly publicized spills into nearby streams, prompted questions during the 1990s about why farmers essentially were allowed to pollute and didn't have to meet clean water, air and other regulations that were strictly imposed on other businesses, Babcock said.

He said it was only natural that the EPA "would bear the brunt of animosity" from farmers facing new regulations.

Babcock said the EPA often is left in a position where Congress writes the basic policy framework in the law but leaves it up to the EPA to draft the detailed rules implementing it. The EPA, then, is left to face criticism from unhappy agriculture or environmental advocates no matter its decisions.

"The EPA is not like the USDA," Babcock said. "USDA is really an advocate for agriculture. EPA is not an advocate for agriculture, they are a regulator of agriculture. There is an intrinsic tension that is going to have to exist. If not, the regulator is not doing their duty."

In May, nine U.S. Senate farm leaders, including John Thune, R-S.D., asked to sit down with McCarthy to discuss the regulatory uncertainty they contend the agency has created that "further complicates the operating environment for producers," those senators said.

Congressional leaders said their concerns ranged from regulations on pesticides and methane gas to the handling of personal information from farm operations. No such meeting has yet taken place.

Thune argued the EPA's Waters of the U.S. rule goes beyond the scope of the authority set by Congress and should be withdrawn.

"This is going to have a profound effect on the South Dakota economy, and it's all negative," Thune said. "If they have some suggestions about things they think ought to be done, work with Congress to accomplish that so that we don't get that heavy-handed."