Agriculture and the American Power Act

It has been a while since I posted something here, but then, it has been a while since anything new related to energy and agriculture has grabbed my attention. That all changed today with the release of the American Power Act, proposed by Senators John F. Kerry and Joseph I. Lieberman.

The bill has a number of agriculture-related provisions. Here, in my view, are some of the most relevant ones:

• Title II, Global Warming Pollution Reduction, section 2001 amends the Clean Air Act: Section 734 provides several opportunities for offset credit programs designed to reduce domestic carbon emissions. Possible project types (to be considered by a newly created Advisory Board) include “agricultural, grassland, and rangeland sequestration and management practices” and “changes in carbon stocks attributed to land use change and forestry activities.”

• Section 2001 also amends the Clean Air Act with section 741 requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess the amount of agricultural land removed from agricultural production as part of landowners’ participation in “afforestation projects” under any offset program created by the Act, including periodic evaluation and updating of the program.

• Title VIII of the Clean Air Act would also be amended to require an “annual accounting of sequestration and emissions of greenhouse gases from forests and forest products.”

• Section 2214 of the American Power Act, under the “Achieving Fast Mitigation” portion of the bill related to “Black Carbon,” seeks enhanced soil sequestration and, to that end, will provide “grants to up to 60 facilities to conduct research, develop, demonstrate and deploy biochar production technology for the purpose of sequestering carbon.”

• Subtitle E of the Act, which provides for regulation of greenhouse gas markets, amends the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) to regulate greenhouse gas instruments in the same manner as agricultural commodities, under section 2403 (labeled “swap transactions”).

• Clean Energy Jobs are promoted in Title IV, Subtitle B, Part III, Agriculture. This section adds a “Carbon conservation program,” which would establish “a program for investing in agriculture and forestry projects to sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions” (Section 4152). It was would also create a “Carbon conservation fund” in the Treasury to carry out this part of the bill (Section 4153).

Notwithstanding (and perhaps because of) significant and broad ranging support, my first impression is that this bill says a lot, but isn't likely to do very much. Perhaps I'm being too cynical and a little additional reflection (and deeper analysis) will change that impression.

More from EPA on Chesapeake Strategy

Today, the EPA released more details on the New Federal Strategy for restoring and protecting the fragile Chesepeake Bay watershed. See prior post on the settlement of lawsuit that helped to bring about this approach. Excerpts, focusing on the agricultural components of the strategy are as follows:

To restore clean water, EPA will implement the Chesapeake total maximum daily load (a pollution diet for the Chesapeake Bay and local waterways), expand regulation of urban and suburban stormwater and concentrated animal feeding operations and increase enforcement activities and funding for state regulatory programs.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) will provide farmers and forest owners throughout the bay watershed with the resources to prevent soil erosion and keep nitrogen and phosphorous out of local waterways. USDA will target federal funding to the places where it will have the greatest water quality impact and ensure that agricultural producers’ conservation efforts are accurately reported. USDA will also lead a federal initiative to develop a watershed-wide environmental services market that would allow producers to generate tradable water quality credits in return for installing effective conservation practices.

“A thriving, sustainable agricultural sector is critical to restoration of the Chesapeake Bay,” said USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack. “We will help the bay watershed’s farmers and forest owners put new conservation practices on 4 million acres of agricultural lands so that agriculture can build on the improvements in nutrient and sediment reductions that we have seen over the last 2 years.”

Conserving 2 million acres of natural areas, forests and farmland preserves the environmental, recreational, cultural and economic benefits these lands provide. To protect priority lands, the Department of the Interior will launch a collaborative Chesapeake Treasured Landscape Initiative and expand land conservation by coordinating federal funding and providing community assistance. Interior will also develop a plan for increasing public access to the bay and its rivers.

EPA Announces Settlement of Chesapeake Bay Lawsuit

From the EPA press release:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today that it reached settlement with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, four former Maryland, Virginia and Washington,D.C. elected officials, and organizations representing watermen and sports fishermen in resolving a lawsuit filed in January 2009 claiming that EPA had failed to take adequate measures to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. The lawsuit, Fowler v. EPA, is pending in federal district court for the District of Columbia.

The settlement agreement, negotiated with groups and individuals with a long history of advocating protection and restoration of the bay, tracks much of the comprehensive suite of strong regulatory and other actions that EPA has initiated or pledged to take under the Obama administration to restore water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. These actions include establishing the stringent Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL), putting in place an effective implementation framework, expanding its review of Chesapeake Bay watershed permits, and initiating rulemaking for new regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations and urban and suburban stormwater. The agreement also includes a commitment to establish a publicly accessible tracking and accounting system to monitor progress in reducing pollution through the TMDL and two-year milestones.

* * *

Cud

From southern Georgia, the story of White Oak Pastures.

CUD from Joe York on Vimeo.

Study: Growing More Veggies Could Profit Midwest

An AP article by Michael J. Crumb, Study: Growing More Veggies Could Profit Midwest, provides a persuasive rebuttal to the complaints of the Republican Senators who recently criticized the USDA Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food program. These complaints were discussed in a previous post, Senators Challenge Know Your Farmer Program.

An Iowa State University study considered the impact of farmers in six Midwestern states (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin) raising 28 crops in quantities large enough to meet local demand. It showed that this level of regional production would spur "$882 million in sales, more than 9,300 jobs and about $395 million in labor income." And, the equivalent of "[o]ne of Iowa's 99 counties could meet the demand for all six states," according to Rich Pirog, associate director for the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State.

It makes sense to Larry Alsum, who owns Alsum Farms and Produce Inc. in Friesland, Wis. Alsum grows five varieties of potatoes and handles wholesale distribution for farmers who grow a wide variety of produce, including cabbage, sweet corn, squash, watermelons and cucumbers.

"I think it's a win-win scenario, both in opportunities for farmers in the Midwest and reduced cost of transportation that you have in bringing in California produce," Alsum said. "We also see this as an opportunity for people to become more aware of where their food is coming from."

The article also notes, however, that significant impediments exist to bringing about this type of change to a midwestern regional food system.

David Swenson, the Iowa State economist who conducted the research, said it would be a significant shift in how the nation grows food, given that the Midwest ceded production of fruits and vegetables to other parts of the country long ago.

The advent of commodity payment programs in the 1930s, the development of refrigerated trucks and the interstate highway system, and a hodge-podge of other policies encouraged farmers to grow crops where it could be done most efficiently.

The question of efficiency should be reconsidered acknowledging today's recognition of water subsidies, transportation costs, and loss of quality. Those factors seem to point to regional food systems - as envisioned by Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food.

Food, Inc. -- A Nebraska Point of View

Food, Inc. -- A Nebraska Point of View

Related to the previous post, there was an uproar from some producer groups in Nebraska as well. So, in response, our educational television station aired a Nebraska producer's response. It can be accessed at the link above.

The producers assembled for the response panel are interesting. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the exercise for me is trying to figure out whether these producers are typical or representative of the "industry." One runs a 5,000 head feeding operation and has gotten many awards for her production practices. Another runs a diversified crop operation that includes some organic production. The last is a dairy producer marketing as a local producer in eastern Nebraska (and I personally buy lots of the products their company produces).

While some of the panelists were non-responsive on some of the questions asked, the general theme of their position was not altogether hostile to the views presented in Food, Inc. Indeed, I tend to think that there is much that producers and Pollan agree with. Intellectual property rights in seed, the enforcement thereof, immigration issues and packing houses, and producing what consumers want are all areas of common ground. Indeed, after watching the response, I was left wondering what, precisely, producers find objectionable about Pollan's work.

Food Inc. and Commentary

Many public television stations aired the documentary, Food Inc. over the course of the last few weeks. The film has spawned a variety of conversations about our food system. One particularly informative debate was broadcast on a Special Edition of An Iowa Journal. Recognizing the importance of agriculture to the state of Iowa, the episode challenged some of the criticisms of our food system expressed in Food Inc.


Although it could be argued that the host should have been more neutral rather than taking on a defense of Iowa agriculture, there was important information provided. Two agricultural experts were invited to reflect on the film. Agricultural law scholar Neil Hamilton, Dwight D. Opperman chair of law at Drake University and Director of the Drake Agricultural Law Center and Craig Lang, president of the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation offered commentary, often providing different perspectives for plotting the future of a successful and sustainable U.S. agriculture.

This special edition of Iowa Journal provides a helpful forum for a discussion of the myriad of agricultural and food law issues presented in Food Inc. It is available for online viewing on the Iowa Public Television website.

Biotech Follow-up

A couple of news items related to the previous post on genetically engineered crops:

The New York Times reported yesterday on an issue that has received a lot of attention in the farm press - U.S. Farmers Cope with Roundup-Resistant Weeds. The article reports that while "the first resistant species to pose a serious threat to agriculture was spotted in a Delaware soybean field in 2000," Ten resistant species in at least 22 states now present significant problems, particularly with respect to corn, soybeans and cotton production. “It is the single largest threat to production agriculture that we have ever seen,” said Andrew Wargo III, the president of the Arkansas Association of Conservation Districts. While chemical and seed companies are seeking to develop new biotech crops resistant to other kinds of pesticides, Roundup is referred to as "a once-in-a-century discovery."

Glyphosate “is as important for reliable global food production as penicillin is for battling disease,” Stephen B. Powles, an Australian weed expert, wrote in a commentary in January in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Farmers in Georgia and Arkansas are particularly concerned about a resistant variety of a giant pigweed.

And, the Wall Street Journal reported that Biotech Firms Seek Speedier Reviews of Seeds.

The crop-biotechnology industry, growing frustrated as it watches the approval time for new seeds almost double under the Obama administration, is pressuring Washington to clear inventions more quickly.

The logjam at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which must clear genetically modified seeds, is slowing the launch of products that could give farmers more alternatives to seeds from crop biotech giant Monsanto Co.

Also, some biotech-industry executives worry the delays signal that the Obama administration, which has painted itself as pro-biotech, is gearing up for a far tougher analysis of the potential environmental impact of these crops, which could make it harder for inventions to reach the marketplace. . . . The agency, long a cheerleader for U.S. crop biotechnology, has never turned down a genetically modified crop, although inventors have withdrawn some candidates. Caleb Weaver, USDA press secretary, said the department is "looking into both immediate and long-term solutions to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the review process." Among other things, the USDA is asking Congress to increase its annual biotechnology oversight budget by 46% to $19 million.

Living on Earth: Round-Up Ready Alfalfa

I received an email from Jessica Ilyse Smith, journalist and producer of the Public Radio International show, Living on Earth. I am pleased to report that Jessica got my email address as a result of this blog, and I pass along her compliments on Agricultural Law.

Jessica was working on a story about the case of Monsanto Co. v Geertson Seed Farms and wanted an overview of the case and its implications. I was honored to oblige, and you can listen to the program, now available on the Living on Earth website under the Judging Biotech Seeds heading.

Monsanto Co. v Geertson Seed Farms was argued before the Supreme Court this week. Copies of all of the briefs and related information is available on the SCOTUS wiki for the case.

The case concerns Round-up Ready Alfalfa (RRA). In 2004, Monsanto and Forage Genetics petitioned the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for non-regulated status of their RRA seed so they could move forward with widespread commercial production.

In 2005, APHIS prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the petition and made a finding of "no significant impact" which allowed it to move forward without preparing a complete environmental impact statement. Monsanto's petition for non-regulated status was granted.

In February 2006, Geertson Seed Farms and Trask Family Farms (along with a number of environmental and farm groups and the Center for Food Safety filed suit against the Secretary of Agriculture. They alleged that APHIS had violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS is required under NEPA whenever a federal agency undertakes a major action that will significantly affect the environment.

The district court agreed, finding that the agency’s Environmental Assessment was inadequate. The court allowed Monsanto to join the suit and turned to the question of an appropriate remedy for the NEPA violation. APHIS agreed to prepare the EIS and proposed restrictions on the planting and handling of RRA until it could be completed. However, the district court rejected APHIS' proposal and ordered a permanent nationwide injunction against the planting of RRA. The Ninth Circuit court affirmed the District Court. Monsanto appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the preliminary injunction.

Meanwhile APHIS proceeded with the preparation of its EIS. In December 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the availability of APHIS’ Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). APHIS extended the initial 60-day comment period on the Draft EIS for 15 days, and it closing on March 3, 2010. APHIS held public meetings in Las Vegas, NV, Kearny, NE, Lincoln, NE, and Riverdale, Md. Information on the process is available on the USDA APHIS Biotechnology Roundup Ready website. In the Draft EIS, APHIS still takes the position that non-regulated status is appropriate for RRA and that its use will not result in significant impacts to the environment.

Geertson Seed Farms and the other respondents have consistently argued that the use of RRA risks the genetic contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa and the proliferation of weeds that tolerate Roundup herbicide.

Living on Earth is commended for reporting on this important case.