American Farm Bureau Federation

Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in WOTUS Case

Tue, 08 Aug 2023 20:10:09 GMT

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with an Idaho couple in a significant environmental case against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over a plan to develop a small lot near Priest Lake. This decision has national implications for water quality, ag, development and the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule.

The court was unanimous in finding that the land owned by the Idaho family was not subject to the Clean Water Act. The court was split 5-4 on the court’s new “test”, which stated that only wetlands with a continuous surface connection to a body of water are covered by the law.

Related story: What’s Wrong with the Current Waters of the U.S. Rule?

The case focused on the interpretation of the 1972 Clean Water Act and asked for a clearer definition of what the law intended by giving the EPA authority to regulate WOTUS.

Michael Regan, EPA administrator, shared in an EPA press release that he’s “disappointed” by the Supreme Court’s ruling that “erodes longstanding clean water protections.”

"[The administration] worked to establish a durable definition of ‘waters of the United States’ that safeguards our nation’s waters, strengthens economic opportunity, and protects people’s health while providing the clarity and certainty that farmers, ranchers, and landowners deserve,” Regan said. “These goals will continue to guide the agency forward as we carefully review the Supreme Court decision and consider next steps.”

What Supreme Court justices have to say on the WOTUS ruling

Court Justice Samuel Alito, joined by four conservative justices, wrote the opinion stating that the federal government could regulate water that has a “continuous surface connection” to major bodies of water. This ruling overturns a previous decision by a federal appeals court that supported the EPA.

Alito said the EPA’s interpretation of its powers went “too far.”

“We hold that the Clean Water Act extends to only those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, so that they are ‘indistinguishable’ from those waters,” Alito wrote, quoting from past court opinions.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court’s liberals, comparing the ruling to last term’s decision limiting the EPA’s ability to combat climate change.

“The vice in both instances is the same: the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy,” she wrote, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote separately to object to the majority’s reading of the law. He wrote that the majority’s new test “departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this Court’s precedents” and will have “significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.” Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson joined Kavanaugh.

What the ag industry has to say on the WOTUS ruling

Rep. G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) calls the ruling a “victory” for farmers, ranchers and landowners.

“The decision reaffirms the rights of property owners and provides long-needed clarity to rural America. In light of this decision, the Biden Administration should withdraw its flawed final WOTUS rule,” Thompson said. “It is time to finally put an end to the regulatory whiplash and create a workable rule that promotes clean water while protecting the rights of rural Americans.”

Zippy Duvall, American Farm Bureau president, echoed Thompson, saying the EPA “clearly overstepped” its authority under the Clean Water Act.

“The justices respect private property rights. It’s now time for the Biden administration to do the same and rewrite the Waters of the United States Rule,” Duvall said. “Farmers and ranchers share the goal of protecting the resources they’re entrusted with, but they deserve a rule that provides clarity and doesn’t require a team of attorneys to properly care for their land.”

Background on the WOTUS case

The case began when Michael and Chantell Sackett purchased a vacant lot in a residential subdivision in Idaho in 2004. They acquired the necessary county permits to develop the site, but the EPA argued that the land was subject to its review because it contained wetlands about 300 feet from Priest Lake.

Related story: What Bodies of Water are Considered WOTUS?

This case, having returned to the Supreme Court for the second time, was closely monitored by environmentalists, developers, and farming groups due to the ongoing debate over the extent of the EPA’s jurisdiction beyond navigable lakes, rivers, and into smaller streams and wetlands.

What’s Next for WOTUS?

A court decision against the EPA, said Attorney Rafe Petersen, who represents miners, offshore wind developers and others seeking EPA permit, likely leaves the Biden administration to start all over again from scratch.

“I don’t see how they get away from that,” Petersen said. “The Biden administration is really boxed into the corner.”

The ruling trims the jurisdiction of EPA to regulate waters under the Clean Water Act to interstate and navigable waters and immediately adjacent wetlands. It is a return to the traditional understanding of what Congress passed in the early 1970s.

Ag Teachers: 4 Free Classroom Lessons Available Through Farm Bureau

Fri, 05 May 2023 15:41:01 GMT

Four free Applied Digital Skills lessons were launched by the 2023 Farm Bureau Foundation Fellows on Wednesday to help students learn about food, fuel and fiber.

According to American Farm Bureau Foundation’s press release , the 40- to 90-minute courses focus on four themes:
1. Careers
2. Celebrating local food events
3. Pollinators
4. Regenerative ag

Powered by Google, the lessons were designed with a focus on rural classrooms and will be offered free of charge, along with a stipend and Chromebooks.

“Our Foundation Fellows have done an outstanding job crafting these unique and engaging lessons,” said Daniel Meloy, executive director of the Foundation for Ag. “Whether you’re a teacher in a rural, urban or suburban classroom, these lessons can be used to teach a broad variety of technical skills while fostering understanding of ag.”

The first two lessons were released on March 21. The full suite is now available in Google’s lessons collections .

What Teachers Can Learn from the Farm Bureau Courses

Students weren’t the only ones in mind when creating the software. Meloy breaks down the vision for teachers’ learning in the program:

“Digital skills are increasingly becoming a prerequisite for jobs in today’s economy, yet students in rural areas in particular often don’t have access to the resources that will set them up for success, such as broadband access and program instruction,” he said. “We hope this program empowers teachers to introduce their students to the exciting world of agriculture, while also teaching them an array of technical skills.”

Teachers who choose to use the program will be offered 1:1 instruction from Google experts.

Ag Groups File Lawsuit to Challenge EPA's "Vague" New WOTUS Definition

Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:27:35 GMT

A group of 17 organizations are challenging the new Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) definition through a lawsuit against the EPA, filed Thursday.

“The EPA’s new rule doubles down on the significant nexus test, which is this unworkable test for jurisdiction of when the federal government regulates farms and ranches,” says Travis Cushman, Farm Bureau’s deputy general counsel. “We filed our lawsuit to stop it.”

The lawsuit comes as the EPA published its final definition of WOTUS on Dec. 30, which gives federal protection to large waterways, such as interstate rivers and streams, and adjacent wetlands.

Ag Policy Whiplash

In a press release on the lawsuit, Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall says the rule is “vague” and puts farmers and ranchers in a position where they will have to hire lawyers and consultants to establish the boundaries of farming, which “isn’t what clean water regulations were intended to do.”

Ethan Lane, NCBA’s vice president of government affairs, echoed Farm Bureau, saying the “unjust” ruling hits too close to home.

“I’m from the state of Arizona. The ‘significant nexus’ test that determines a dry stream bed from some kind of runoff area is describing my entire home state, depending on the definition you use,” he says. “We need clarity.”

Why Rule on WOTUS Now?

The new definition and lawsuit come as the Supreme Court is evaluating a decision on another WOTUS case that could significantly impact WOTUS rulemaking, which is set to be ruled on later this year.

Farm Bureau Seeks ‘Unified’ Farm Bill of Ag and Nutrition Aid

Fri, 14 Oct 2022 19:35:41 GMT

American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) released its general new farm bill recommendations on Thursday.

Farm Bureau’s Agenda

First on the AFBF’s list : “protect farm bill program spending,” followed by “maintain a unified farm bill that keeps nutrition programs and farm programs together.” They also want a robust federally subsidized crop insurance system and “adequate” staffing and funding of the USDA’s technical assistance programs for farmers and ranchers.

The AFBF suggested three minor changes to public nutrition programs, including one to allow food banks to buy fruits, vegetables, and other specialty crops directly from farmers.

“It makes perfect sense” to combine commodity supports and SNAP (food stamps) in the same piece of legislation, said president Zippy Duvall in announcing the group’s farm bill priorities on Thursday.

Farm Bureau also said more milk should be eligible for the Dairy Margin Coverage subsidy program.

Lock-in Rates

The AFBF called for higher reference rates and loan rates, at a still-to-be-determined level and cost, and more emphasis on stewardship on working lands rather than long-term idling of cropland.

“We believe that because of the higher cost of production, it justifies the increase in the reference prices for Title I commodities to ensure farmers remain economically viable,” said Duvall.

Farm Bureau knows full well not to be too specific ahead of their January annual confab.

On the Conservation Reserve Program

The enrollment cap for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) should be lowered from its current 25.5 million acres, Farm Bureau said, and landowners should be encouraged to return prime cropland now in the reserve to production.

“We believe that the right way to do it is through working land projects,” he said. Land set-asides limit the land available for new and beginning farmers and constrict crop production in a hungry world, said Duvall.

Farm Bill Math

Around 85% of all farm bill spending is on food and nutrition programs, primarily food stamps. So, there is usually a concerted battle by various groups and lawmakers over the remaining 15%. That process has begun.

Total funding beyond food and nutrition spending should be increased for adequate farm policy support. One of the ways, but by no means the only way to do that, is via a large boost in maximum spending for the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC).

More on farm bill 2023:

What’s Your Take on the 2018 Farm Bill?
5 Conservation Needs to be Met in Farm Bill 2023
New Farm Bill, but Same Debate on Food Stamps

Wayne Pacelle: Deep Dive into Flawed Wild Horse Federal Removal Plan

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 05:29:30 GMT

Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in this commentary are those of Wayne Pacelle, and do not necessarily represent the views of Drovers or Farm Journal.

Rifts in the animal protection movement are unpleasant but inevitable, given that ours is a movement grounded on ideas and populated by millions of people and thousands of organizations. Like any major social cause or political party, there are factions, sects, personality clashes, strategic differences, and other aspects of human nature that hinder perfect harmony. Amidst all of this roiling diversity, I’ve always taken comfort that our disunion is not reserved for our cause alone. The humorist Will Rogers famously remarked, regarding his political allegiances, that “I’m not a member of any organized political party.... I’m a Democrat.”

In pursuing better action for animals, there are divisions on incrementalism verses abolitionism relating to farm animal issues and animal testing and research. There are stylistic debates over confrontation and conciliation. And there are disputes over feral cats, pit bulls, deer, and a wide range of other breeds, species, families, and categories of exploitation.

To be sure, there have long been fault lines in the battle over wild horses and burros, who are living symbols of the American West and creatures deserving our mercy and agency. There are advocates who consider the horses a North American native species whose individuals have roamed the western part of the continent for thousands of years. These advocates generally oppose round-ups and removals, believing that this kind of human intervention erodes the size and genetic vitality of distinct herds with their own claims to our public lands. Other horse and burro advocates are more supportive of limited round-ups as a way to address political pressures related to competition with livestock (who number in the millions on our public lands and have a vocal ranching constituency, in an inversion of reality, caviling about “too many horses”). There have also been disputes over fertility control, but these days, most groups recognize that contraception is a humane intervention, far superior to the stress and costs associated with round-ups and removals.

Divisions over federal policy on wild horses and burros have come into sharp focus in the last two weeks after the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) announced a collaboration with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and pro-horse slaughter groups such as the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and the American Farm Bureau Federation to convince the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to add $50 million to the Bureau of Land Management’s budget for management of the equids. Specifically, the groups have called for the round-up of 15,000 – 20,000 horses and burros annually for as many as ten years and for placement of these horses in government-funded holding facilities, perhaps in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Utah (on top of the 50,000 horses already in holding facilities). They’ve called for a step-up of “growth suppression programs,” specifically targeting the individual horses and burros remaining after gathers in order to make sterilization or fertility control more practical.

While some groups favor their plan, many grassroots wild horse and burro advocacy groups oppose it, as does Animal Wellness Action .

Every reputable animal protection group – including all animal groups on both sides of this debate – opposes the slaughter of wild horses, and also pushed for federal legislation to stop the slaughter of any domesticated or wild horses or burros. And I have no doubt that the program staffers at the HSUS and the ASPCA advocating for this plan have a deep concern for horses and burros. They deserve our respect for their passion for animals. In this case, however, I think they’ve made the wrong judgment and negotiated a bad deal that puts horses and burros at risk. And the absence of a perfect plan in the alternative doesn’t make their plan any more acceptable.

I’ve been immersed in the wild horse and burro debate for years and have worked with players on all sides of it and been on the ground to see the federal government’s management actions and a number of contraception programs in the field. It’s a very challenging problem, and I’ve come to see many angles of it. Nevertheless, I was very surprised that the organizations announced this particular plan. It’s not only the wrong plan at the wrong time, but the political pathway they’ve chosen to try to effect reform is fraught with risks for horses and burros. Here’s why.

These groups are distracting our community of organizations from the larger battle to end the slaughter of American horses across North America for human consumption overseas. The Democrats took the House in the mid-term elections, and generally speaking, it’s been a core Democratic position to oppose horse slaughter. With Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Natural Resources Committee Chairman Raul Grijalva, and Appropriations Committee leaders Nita Lowey, Betty McCollum, and Sanford Bishop, we have a dream team of anti-slaughter advocates in key positions in the House. We are in the best position in years to fend off pro-slaughter maneuvers in the Interior and Agriculture spending bills and to advance the Safeguard American Food Exports (SAFE) Act, which would ban any horse slaughter operations. By advancing a divisive and controversial plan now, HSUS and the ASPCA -- which have made an alliance with the leading proponents of horse slaughter (the NCBA and the Farm Bureau) -- have split the equine community when our unity is required to secure a transformational policy gain on the broader issue of horse slaughter.
This agreement has no adequate safeguards and is open-ended, vague, and far too malleable. The Fiscal Year 2020 Appropriations language proposed by these groups requires the removal of 15,000-20,000 horses in a single year, but does not guarantee any funds for contraception or require a specific number of horses to be treated. If mass round-ups occur, it creates conditions for accelerated reproduction and survivorship. That’s why it’s considered a best practice to treat 80 percent of remaining mares with a contraceptive vaccine, If fertility control strategies are not applied, herds may rebound in short order and, in a few years, the population may bounce back to pre-gather levels. There’s no evidence that this plan contains the necessary resources and resolve to conduct a contraception plan on the scale required to achieve the stated objectives.
There’s not enough money in the plan to allow for its goals to be met. The groups are calling for an extra $50 million for BLM. But if the agency is rounding for 15,000 – 20,000 horses per year, and feeding them and growing the physical size of the holding facilities, that will cannibalize the new monies, just as the growth of the captive herds at holding facilities is already consuming upwards of 70 percent of the BLM’s current wild horse and burro budget. This wouldn’t leave funding to implement contraception. If it called for appropriations of another $100 million, it might get them there, but at this point, that kind of sum is not even on the table\
The appropriations process is among the least transparent of ways to address a complicated, multi-dimensional plan like the one proposed. There is no singular lawmaker heading the appropriations process, and the final language of whatever comes out of that process gets folded into a multi-billion-dollar, must-pass spending bill. The vast majority of lawmakers will favor or oppose the bill based on a much larger set of policy and spending priorities, and our allies may have little power to take off barnacles that got attached during the bill’s back-room formulations.
BLM and the Interior Department have a history of slow-walking and even fighting contraception. BLM has treated contraception as a “do-gooder” idea that cannot be broadly applied in the field. A small number of their field staff have been enthusiastic endorsers of contraception for a few horse and burro herds and participated on contraception programs largely driven by volunteers and animal protection groups. But many key agency personnel have warned that most herds cannot be contracepted because of the unsuitability of the terrain, the behavioral wariness of the horses in many herds, and for other reasons. This plan asks the BLM to transform its culture on this issue, and that’s a very abrupt transition to ask this agency to make. Inserting vague language on contraception – which has already been done for years – is not going to change the BLM overnight.
Swelling the captive population of horses is going to create future pressure to kill captive horses. The NCBA and the Farm Bureau have not signaled any change in their broader philosophy that it’s fine to kill horses for human consumption. They’ve long treated this as a matter of convenience and economic opportunity. When the composition of the Congress changes – and that’s what elections guarantee – and there is a stronger, pro-slaughter contingent in Congress, they may very well use the presence of 100,000 horses in holding facilities and talk about how it’s eating up $200 million a year, and argue that we must reduce the population through euthanasia or slaughter. And this will make it more difficult to maintain anti-slaughter language in subsequent years. You don’t need to think seven moves ahead to avoid walking into this trap.

The best and most rationale step forward is to use this year’s appropriations cycle to require BLM expand its contraception programs and fund that expansion. If BLM demonstrates an ability to apply the fertility control strategy in a far larger number of Herd Management Areas, then it’s time to talk about a broader plan for managing horses and burros given the presence of a more trusted and reliable government agency.

For now, though, the wild horse and burro community is right to balk at a plan to gather and remove 45,000 – 60,000 wild horses and burros in the next three years. Advocates should speak up and call their federal lawmakers (202-225-3121), urging them to oppose this dangerous plan and focus funding on the contraception as the centerpiece of any future, more comprehensive management plan.

Note: Wayne Pacelle is the founder of Animal Wellness Action in Washington, D.C., and two-time New York Times Best Selling Author of The Bond and Humane Economy. Pacelle is formerly the chief executive officer (CEO) for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

Ag Industry Leaders Congratulate Biden, Echo His Call for Unity

Wed, 20 Jan 2021 22:54:01 GMT

Following the inauguration of President Joe Biden, the 46^th President of the United States, agriculture industry leaders congratulated Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. They also echoed Biden’s call for unity and a commitment for Americans to work together toward common goals.

In a statement, American Farm Bureau president Zippy Duval said addressing the needs of America’s farmers, ranchers and rural communities is important, including strengthening the farm bill, expanding trade, finding a fair solution to the farm labor shortage and expanding rural broadband access.

“We are also looking for partners in our efforts to achieve sustainability goals while ensuring climate policies remain market-based and voluntary. We have been meeting with President Biden’s nominees to discuss priority issues and today we shift into high gear to achieve these goals,” he said. “All of this can be done if we commit ourselves to working together for a better America. Agriculture is traditionally divided more by regional differences than by political parties. We urge our elected leaders to continue that tradition of bipartisanship in the agriculture committees and throughout our government. Our country faces some big challenges. Let’s get to work on solutions.”

Similarly, the National Milk Producers Federation CEO Jim Mulhern noted what he called the dawn of a new chapter in American history.

“Inaugurations represent new beginnings and new opportunities. This is especially important today, as we begin this journey at a time of turmoil that has intensified in recent months and weeks,” he said in a statement. “We in dairy offer our own commitment to work on a bipartisan basis for progress on issues important to dairy farmers, their cooperatives and the greater good. We also look forward to engaging with the broader agricultural community to meet our common challenges and build a thriving rural America that lifts the entire nation.”

Constance Cullman president and CEO of the American Feed Industry Association noted the need to curb COVID-19 and spur the economy.

“Now more than ever, we need a strategy that will curb the spread of COVID-19 and get our economy going and growing again; an efficient regulatory system that allows U.S. manufacturers to swiftly bring innovations that can improve animal health and nutrition to the marketplace; and trade policies that foster opportunities for growth and leadership abroad to maintain our competitive edge,” she said in a statement. “We also look forward to working together on a science-based strategy for tackling climate change and improving rural infrastructure, including improving the connectivity of the rural communities responsible for keeping us fed in times of calm and crisis.”

Emily Skor CEO of Growth Energy congratulated the president and vice president while noting President Biden’s campaign promise to “usher in a new era of biofuels.”

“We look forward to working with the President and his Administration to deliver on his promise and include biofuels as a big part of the climate strategy for decarbonizing the transportation sector immediately,” she said in a statement.

The Ag Retailers Association CEO and President Daren Coppock joined the other leaders in looking forward to working on issues critical to their trade group.

“The Biden transition team worked diligently to be inclusive of ag retailers from day one, and for that we are grateful. We appreciate the engagement we have already had with the leadership of the incoming administration and look forward to continuing those relationships for a bright future for American agriculture,” Coppock said.

Chuck Conner of the National Council for Cooperatives suggested a key piece of agriculture’s success under the new administration hinges on the confirmation of Tom Vilsack, President Biden’s choice for Agriculture Secretary.

“Key to ensuring that happens will be filling out the leadership team at the U.S. Department of Agriculture,” he said in a statement. “We urge the Senate to quickly take up and confirm the nominations of Tom Vilsack for secretary of agriculture and Jewel Bronaugh for deputy secretary of agriculture.”