Environmental Protection Agency

Trump Admin to Roll Out Major Fertilizer Plan This Week, Accelerate U.S. Production Push

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 16:36:34 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins says the Trump administration will unveil a sweeping set of fertilizer initiatives this week, warning that surging input costs are putting intense pressure on American farmers. Speaking at a Missouri farm on Friday, Rollins told those in attendance that fertilizer has become an issue of national security, which is why she says this week’s announcement will be broader than just USDA, also including EPA, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior.

While at GR Farms in Higginsville, Mo., on Friday to roll out an announcement on the Supplemental Disaster Relief Program (SDRP) top-up payments, Rollins described the Trump administration’s upcoming announcement on fertilizer as a large-scale investment initiative. She says while she hoped to roll out the plan while in Missouri, the administration is still finalizing the size of the funding package.

Rollins says the plan will address both immediate actions to stabilize fertilizer prices and a longer-term roadmap aimed at ensuring affordable, domestically produced supply for U.S. farmers.

Washington analyst Jim Wiesemeyer says the plan will likely need to include a mix of financial and policy tools, such as grants, tax incentives, loan guarantees outside of existing USDA programs and greater consistency in U.S. trade policy, while noting imports will still play a role, particularly for key nutrients like potash sourced from Canada.

Short-Term Fertilizer Price Pain

During her comments Friday, Rollins highlighted how quickly fertilizer prices have increased since the conflict started in Iran, outlining the additional strain it is placing on producers.

“We know that urea prices have gone up 50% over the last month. Ammonia is up 30% or more,” she said, adding that “our farmers are feeling that pinch.”

Rollins also told the crowd fertilizer has been a longer-term challenge, even before the situation in Iran caused the latest price spike.

“To be clear, this has been a problem for years. The actual numbers are lower, believe it or not, than they were even in 2022,” she says. “But nevertheless, that jump in prices overnight, we have to address.”

Framing the issue as more than just an economic challenge and one that is a matter of national security after decades of offshoring fertilizer production, Rollins says the administration views the issue as part of a broader structural problem within the fertilizer industry.

“The loss of competition in the fertilizer industry has obviously led to higher fertilizer costs over time,” she says. “When combined with what’s happening overseas with the current geopolitical issues facing our world, certainly we have come to a crossroads that requires immediate action. This is indeed a matter of national security, and we are working to tackle it head on.”

Focus on Domestic Fertilizer Production

While Rollins didn’t give details, she hinted the centerpiece of this week’s announcement will be a major push to reshore fertilizer production, backed by federal investment to accomplish that. Working with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, she says the administration is preparing to direct significant funding toward building new fertilizer plants across the country, while also supporting existing projects.

“I have asked Howard to do, and his team to do, and what we’re doing in partnership is to identify a significant number ... that we can deploy into building out fertilizer plants in America,” she says.

Rollins emphasizes cutting regulatory delays will be critical to making that plan work. She says projects are already being identified nationwide, but permitting delays remain a major obstacle — with the goal of getting that process down to months versus the current years it takes.

“We’ve already begun to identify all over the country. Some are under production. How do we move them along more quickly? Some are in the permitting bureaucracy, which sometimes takes years to get through permitting,” she says. “Our goal is to, instead of years, to get to permitting in a matter of weeks, or perhaps months, so that even in one year, two years and three years, we will have facilities up and running that we will never have had that opportunity or option before.”

United States’ Energy Advantage for Nitrogen Fertilizer

Rollins also points to domestic energy resources as a key factor in expanding fertilizer output, particularly for nitrogen production.

“We became, in a matter of just a short period of time, a net exporter of LNG versus importer, meaning we were producing our own energy in America, so much so that we no longer had to rely on other countries,” she says. “The reason that is important is, as our farmers are facing these exponential nitrogen fertilizer costs, we now have the resources in America. We just have to build the facilities, the manufacturing facilities, to turn that LNG into nitrogen. So this is going to happen quicker than you would normally expect, I think because of the pieces of the puzzle that have already been put into place.”

In the meantime, Rollins says the administration is continuing short-term efforts to improve supply availability and reduce costs.

While the longer-term strategy ramps up, she says the administration is continuing short-term interventions to ease pressure on farmers. These include:

Extending a waiver of the Jones Act
Opening new import channels
Working and meeting with industry/fertilizer companies

Highlighting cooperation with domestic producers, she pointed to CF Industries as an example.

“They have said, in order to protect our farmers, we are going to stop maintenance. We are going look at holding our prices steady,” she says.

She also points to ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice.

“Last year, we signed a joint agreement, USDA did, with the Department of Justice, ensuring that farmers have access to competitive and affordable inputs,” she says. “Looking into the activities of our fertilizer companies and what has happened over the last few years, but with a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Long-Term Goal: Reduce Foreign Dependence

Looking longer term, Rollins says the administration is focused on reversing decades of reliance on foreign suppliers.

“America has offshored for far too long, far too much of our fertilizer production, leaving us dangerously reliant on Russia and China,” she says. “Changing that long-standing industry that is reliant on global markets won’t happen overnight,” she says. “But working with our farmers and across industry and government, we will find ways to make fertilizer that we can do here in America and make sure it is a price that our great farmers can afford.”

At the same time, the administration is increasing scrutiny of fertilizer markets. Rollins noted ongoing coordination with the Department of Justice, saying officials are taking “a new eye on potential price gouging right now.”

Ultimately, she framed this week’s announcement as the beginning of a broader shift away from foreign dependence.

Rollins says additional details, including funding levels and project specifics, will be included in next week’s announcement.

“We’re at a crossroads that requires immediate action,” she says.

Watch Rollins’ full press conference here:

Trump Signals More DEF Rollbacks, Pushes Manufacturers to Lower Equipment Costs

Fri, 27 Mar 2026 20:12:45 GMT

In front of a gathering of farmers, ranchers and growers at the White House, President Trump and EPA announced new guidance that will remove the DEF sensor requirements, which the Small Business Administration (SBA) estimates will save farmers $4.4 billion a year and translate into $13.79 billion for Americans. Administrator Lee Zeldin says the move impacts farmers, truckers, motor coach operators and other diesel equipment operators.

“I have heard from truck drivers, farmers and many others complaining about DEF and pleading for a fix in all 50 states I visited during my first year as EPA administrator,” Zeldin says. “Americans are justified in being fed up with failing DEF system issues. EPA understands this is a massive issue and has been doing everything in our statutory power to address this. Today, we take another step in furthering our work by removing DEF sensors. Farmers and truckers should not be losing billions of dollars because of repair costs or days lost on the job.”

Every farmer now has the Right to Repair their own equipment thanks to President Trump. It’s crazy that our talented farmers were being prevented from doing this previously. This announcement is about common sense. Farmers will be able to spend more time in the field and less… pic.twitter.com/4hROUN45EU
— Lee Zeldin (@epaleezeldin) March 27, 2026

New Guidelines Focus on DEF Sensors

EPA says that sudden speed losses and shutdowns caused by DEF system failures compromise safety and productivity. It calls the issue unacceptable and problematic. In a release, EPA says it plans to continue to pursue all legal avenues to address Americans’ complaints. On Feb. 3, 2026, EPA demanded critical data on DEF system failures from the manufacturers that account for over 80% of all products used in DEF systems. This information will arm EPA with what it needs to permanently address DEF system failures. Thus far, the agency has received data from 11 of the 14 manufacturers, and in less than a month, EPA has turned around preliminary findings to issue today’s guidance, demonstrating Administrator Zeldin’s commitment to fixing this issue.

“Today, by eliminating DEF mandates, the Trump Administration is taking yet another step to free up hardworking Americans to focus on the vital work of feeding, clothing, building, and fueling our nation,” says SBA Administrator Kelly Loeffler. “I applaud Administrator Zeldin for his leadership on this issue, and I look forward to our continued collaboration to cut red tape for small businesses across the U.S. food supply chain.”

Several ag equipment manufacturers were highlighted during the event at the White House, including John Deere. The company weighed in EPA’s latest announcement about DEF.

“John Deere applauds the EPA’s leadership to provide as much flexibility through agency guidance as possible to limit the frequency of false DEF-quality inducements,” says Kyle Gilley, vice president for global government affairs at John Deere. “Today’s announcement builds upon EPA guidance from February 2026, requested by John Deere, to provide farmers additional tools to complete emissions-related repairs. These announcements are a win for farmers and their ability to keep modern equipment operating in the field.”

EPA says the preliminary review of the warranty data suggests that DEF sensor failures are a significant source of warranty claims and DEF-related inducements. The agency’s new guidance makes clear that under existing regulations, manufacturers can stop inaccurate DEF system failures by removing traditional emission sensors, known as Urea Quality Sensors, and switching to nitrous oxide (NOx) sensors.

EPA also affirms that approved NOx sensor-based software updates can be installed on existing engines without being treated as illegal tampering under the Clean Air Act. This is in line with EPA’s February 2026 Right to Repair clarification guidance , which removed a major barrier keeping farmers from fixing their faulty DEF systems in the field. EPA anticipates the switch will greatly curb errors that traditional sensor technologies have been prone to and reduce the issues Americans face with inaccurate DEF failures.

For more information, see EPA’s Diesel Exhaust Fluid .

Trump Calls on Manufacturers to Lower Equipment Prices If DEF Rolled Back

During Friday’s event, Trump also spoke about the rising complexity and cost of modern farm equipment.

“When you buy a tractor today, you spend 50 percent of your time fixing the environmental — I say environmental impact statement garbage that’s on the tractor,” he says.

He adds that equipment often includes computerized systems that can shut down tractors unnecessarily, increasing repair costs.

“I said to the head of John Deere, ‘Is this a good thing or a bad thing?’ He said, sir, you have no idea how bad it is. It’s made our tractors so complicated. … We want to go back to the old ways, sir. And I said, I agree with you 100 percent.”

During remarks at the event at the White House today, President Trump said EPA is working to further roll back DEF-related requirements and pushed manufacturers to cut equipment costs:

“You’re going to lower the cost of a tractor… they’re going to be able to very shortly…
— Tyne Morgan (@Tyne_Ag) March 27, 2026

The president says the administration is looking into further rolling back DEF requirements, but as he does, he is also urging manufacturers to reduce equipment prices for farmers if the added environmental regulation costs are no longer there.

“Lee (Zeldin), I think we can say, I know you’re in the process of cutting out massive amounts of nonsense that are mandated to be put on your tractors, that all of your trucks that cost your fortune…and I know that they’re going to do this. And I asked one thing, you got to promise me one thing. You’re not going to take any profits. You’re going lower the cost of a tractor. I want you to lower the costs. And if they don’t lower the course, you’ll let me know. And I’ll have to do a big number of those companies. Okay? They’re going to be able to, very shortly, produce a bigger, better tractor and substantially less money. It’s going to be better. It’s gonna be a better tractor at substantially less,” Trump says.

He adds that future tractors will be simpler, more reliable and less expensive.

“I want John Deere and Case and all of the great companies … to give it to you in the form of lower tractor and equipment costs. And I think it’s going to have a huge impact,” he says.

President Trump then directed EPA Administrator Zeldin to explore ways to require, or mandate, manufacturers to lower the cost of farm equipment.

EPA’s guidance issued on Friday is part of a broader effort to address complaints from farmers, truckers and other diesel equipment operators about DEF system failures that cause equipment shutdowns, but Trump says more action on DEF is currently underway.

Sixth Circuit Reverses Ruling, Allowing Farmers to Defend Interests in Clean Water Act Case

Tue, 17 Mar 2026 15:06:30 GMT

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a lower court ruling and agreed National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), the Ohio Pork Council, and several other agricultural associations are allowed to intervene as full parties in a case challenging Ohio’s regulation of nutrients in the Maumee River Watershed and western Lake Erie basin.

“This decision matters because it ensures agriculture can stand up and tell its own story,” says Cheryl Day, executive vice president of the Ohio Pork Council. “Our producers who raise livestock and grow crops are in the best position to defend agriculture and explain how these policies affect real farms — not federal regulators or government lawyers who don’t have any connection to agriculture.”

The Case Background

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency developed and the U.S. EPA approved a total maximum daily load (TMDL) – the amount of pollutants, including otherwise unregulated farm and agricultural storm water runoff, that can be in a water body and still meet federal water quality standards – for the river in northwest Ohio, NPPC shares in Capital Update.

The Environmental Law & Policy Center, among others, sued EPA in U.S. District Court in 2023, arguing that its approval of the Ohio EPA’s Maumee River TMDL “was arbitrary and capricious and the TMDL is not stringent enough.”

Even though the District Court allowed environmental activists, including Food & Water Watch and the Waterkeeper Alliance, to intervene in the case, the U.S. Department of Justice opposed the agricultural organizations’ request to enter the case, arguing that it would represent EPA and farm group interests.

The Right to Intervene

In granting NPPC and the other agriculture organizations the right to intervene, the Sixth Circuit unanimously found that while the EPA’s argument that “approval of the Maumee TMDL is consistent with its regulations interpreting and implementing the CWA” – a position supported by the farm groups – the agricultural associations have a different view of the regulations from EPA. NPPC explains the groups further argue that some of the regulatory requirements are inconsistent with or otherwise not required by the CWA and not applicable to farmers.

“With the case back at the U.S. District Court, the farm organizations will be able to argue that while EPA’s reasons for approving the Maumee River TMDL were adequate to support its decision, the legal threshold for such approval is lower than the environmental groups and even EPA contend,” NPPC says.

Although NPPC and the agricultural associations could have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, being intervenors allows them to raise and prosecute their own arguments, argue at trial, weigh in on possible settlements, and appeal an adverse outcome.

“Overall, NPPC will have a much stronger platform for defending agriculture from baseless attacks by activist groups, both in this case and in future challenges,” the organization says.

Trump, Zeldin Announce 'Largest Deregulatory Action in U.S. History'

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 21:45:13 GMT

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the “single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history” alongside President Trump in the White House today.

EPA is eliminating both the 2009 Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding and all subsequent federal GHG emission standards for all vehicles and engines of model years 2012 to 2027 and beyond. The action also eliminates all off-cycle credits, including for the start-stop feature.

President Trump’s Day 1 Executive Order 14154 “Unleashing American Energy” tasked EPA with submitting recommendations on the legality and continuing applicability of this finding in the first 30 days of this term. On March 12, 2025, Zeldin announced that the agency was kicking off a formal reconsideration of the finding and resulting regulations. Zeldin formally announced the agency’s proposal to reconsider these actions on July 29, 2025.

“EPA’s historic move restores consumer choice, makes more affordable vehicles available for American families, and decreases the cost of living on all products by lowering the cost of trucks,” EPA said in a release .

Former President Barack Obama commented on X that because of the endangerment finding: “we’ll be less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change — all so the fossil fuel industry can make even more money.”

Today, the Trump administration repealed the endangerment finding: the ruling that served as the basis for limits on tailpipe emissions and power plant rules. Without it, we’ll be less safe, less healthy and less able to fight climate change — all so the fossil fuel industry can…
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) February 12, 2026

Saving Taxpayer Dollars
The administration says the final rule will save American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion in regulations, by removing the regulatory requirements to measure, report, certify and comply with federal GHG emission standards for motor vehicles, and repeals associated compliance programs, credit provisions, and reporting obligations that exist solely to support the vehicle GHG regulatory regime.

“Lee is also working on cleaning up the horrible situation with regard to farm equipment,” President Trump said. “You could use John Deere as an example and other companies where tractors are unbelievably expensive and don’t work as well because of all of the environmental nonsense that was put on them. But the people are going to be a beneficiary because the equipment is going to be a lot less expensive and most importantly it’s going to work much better.”

This major deregulatory process included ‘substantial public input and robust analysis’ of the law following the Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and West Virginia v. EPA. The agency held an extended 52-day public comment period, which included four days of virtual public hearings where more than 600 individuals testified. EPA received about 572,000 public comments on the proposed rule and made substantial updates to the final rule in response to comments.

“The Endangerment Finding has been the source of 16 years of consumer choice restrictions and trillions of dollars in hidden costs for Americans,” Zeldin said in a release. “Referred to by some as the ‘Holy Grail’ of the ‘climate change religion,’ the Endangerment Finding is now eliminated. The Trump EPA is strictly following the letter of the law, returning commonsense to policy, delivering consumer choice to Americans and advancing the American Dream.”

Affordable vehicle ownership is essential to the American Dream and a primary driver of economic mobility out of poverty in the U.S., the Agency explained. This action will result in average cost savings of over $2,400 per vehicle.

“As EPA Administrator, I am proud to deliver the single largest deregulatory action in U.S. history on behalf of American taxpayers and consumers,” Zeldin said. “As an added bonus, the off-cycle credit for the almost universally despised start-stop feature on vehicles has been removed.”

What Does This Mean for the Future?
Climate scientists say the overturning of the endangerment finding undermines decades of scientific progress and damages the credibility of U.S. institutions tasked with protecting the environment, the Associated Press reports. Scientists point out that rising global temperatures — the hottest years on record have all occurred since 2009 — cause more extreme weather that endangers people and causes billions of dollars in damage from more frequent and severe heat waves, wildfires, droughts and catastrophic flooding from more-intense storms.

The EPA action repeals all GHG emissions standards for cars and trucks, but experts believe it could trigger a broader undoing of climate regulations for stationary sources such as power plants and oil and gas facilities, AP reports.

David Doniger, a climate expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told AP that this could prevent future administrations from proposing rules to address global warming because they would have to restart the scientific and legal process to establish a new endangerment finding, which could take years and face legal challenges.

More DEF Relief? EPA Takes New Action for Farmers and Truckers

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 16:14:39 GMT

On the heels of clarifying farmers’ right to repair their own equipment, EPA is escalating pressure on diesel engine manufacturers over ongoing Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system failures the administration claims continue to sideline farm machinery and trucks.

On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency is demanding detailed failure data from major diesel engine manufacturers as it considers additional rules aimed at reducing DEF-related shutdowns and derates that have plagued farmers, truckers and equipment operators for years.

The move builds directly on Monday’s EPA right-to-repair guidance announcement that clarified the Clean Air Act does not prohibit farmers from fixing their own non-road diesel equipment, which includes making temporary emissions overrides when necessary to complete repairs.

“As I traveled to all 50 states during my first year as EPA administrator, I heard from truck drivers, farmers and many others rightly complaining about DEF and pleading for a fix,” Zeldin said in a statement on Tuesday. “EPA understands this is a massive issue, which is why we have already established commonsense guidance for manufacturers to update DEF systems.

“Today, we are furthering that work and demanding detailed data to hold manufacturers accountable for the continued system failures,” he added.

While neither announcement fully rolls back DEF requirements on tractors, a step many farmers and truckers continue to push for, both signal movement in that direction.

With today’s news in the mix, here’s what farmers and truckers need to know:

1. Increased Operational Up-Time.

The most immediate benefit is the reduction of “forced downtime.” Under the clarified guidance announced on Feb. 2, farmers can now perform temporary emissions overrides to complete essential work, such as planting or harvesting, even if a DEF failure occurs. The extension of warning periods — specifically the 36-hour window for non-road equipment before a derate kicks in — provides a buffer to finish a job before seeking repairs.

2. Legal Empowerment for Repairs.

EPA has explicitly stated the Clean Air Act cannot be used by manufacturers as a shield to prevent farmers from fixing your own equipment. This clarification removes a major legal hurdle in the right-to-repair movement, potentially lowering repair costs by allowing farmers and independent mechanics to access the tools and software needed to address DEF-related faults.

3. Manufacturer Accountability.

Under Section 208(a) of the Clean Air Act, EPA is demanding warranty and failure data for Model Year 2016, 2019 and 2023 engines from 14 major on-road and non-road diesel manufacturers (covering 80% of the market). That shifts the burden of DEF reliability from the end-user to the manufacturer. EPA says the information will help determine whether persistent DEF problems are tied to specific product generations, system designs or materials, and will inform further regulatory steps in 2026. Manufacturers have 30 days to comply or face potential enforcement actions.

4. Impact on Machinery Values.

Auction data suggests farmers are already voting with their checkbooks. According to Machinery Pete , demand and values remain strongest for pre-DEF used equipment, while interest in DEF-equipped machinery has softened.

If these EPA actions lead to more reliable DEF systems or easier repairs, the high demand (and inflated prices) for older, less efficient equipment might eventually stabilize as newer models become less of a liability in the field.

5. More Changes are Coming.

When asked why EPA has not eliminated DEF requirements entirely,Zeldin said the agency said it is actively building on last summer’s guidance and actively moving toward “common-sense” adjustments that prioritize productivity alongside emissions standards.

EPA’s demand for warranty and failure data follows DEF guidance issued in August 2025 that significantly softened inducement rules. That guidance delayed severe derates, reduced sudden shutdowns and required manufacturers to update software so operators could continue safely working while addressing faults.

For heavy-duty trucks, warning periods were extended to up to 650 miles or 10 hours before derates begin, with weeks of normal operation allowed before speed is limited. Non-road equipment now sees no impact for the first 36 hours after a DEF fault.

EPA has also said that starting with Model Year 2027, new diesel trucks must be engineered to avoid sudden and severe power loss after running out of DEF.

Protect Your Freedom to Operate: Waters Advocacy Coalition Supports New WOTUS Rule

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 16:45:25 GMT

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC), as part of the Waters Advocacy Coalition (WAC), submitted comments to the U.S. EPA, voicing its support for the agency’s proposal to define what constitutes Waters of the United States (WOTUS).

“The proposed EPA regulation is a revision in the decades-long fight over defining WOTUS, which sets forth the jurisdiction of federal regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act,” NPPC explains. “These proposed revisions come following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA, which brought significant legal clarity to what is and isn’t WOTUS.”

WAC says the new rule “better aligns the regulatory definition of WOTUS with the CWA (Clean Water Act) and Supreme Court precedent - in particular, by defining critical terms such as ‘relatively permanent’ and ‘continuous surface connection.’”

In May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court limited EPA’s authority over waterways, holding that CWA waters “refers only to geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes and to adjacent wetlands that are indistinguishable from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection.”

“Despite that decision, the Biden administration wrote a WOTUS rule that had jurisdictional categories, including drains, ditches, stock ponds and low spots on farmlands, outside the high court’s definition, and included language that made the regulation overly broad,” the Waters Advocacy Coalition (WAC) said in comments submitted on that rule.

Pork Industry Applauds Definition

NPPC applauds the WOTUS rule for spelling out the limits of federal jurisdiction over waterways and wetlands under the CWA.

“For pork producers, an expansive definition of WOTUS that included farm fields and ditches would have led to significant increases in regulatory and activist pressure and taken away the freedom of farmers to operate,” NPPC says.

In the submitted comments, WAC says these new definitions provide much-needed clarity and transparency.

“They better preserve the states’ primary role in regulating water resources and land use within their boundaries, while still maintaining important protections for aquatic resources consistent with the law,” WAC says.

Uncertainty Imposes Substantial Cost, Delays Development

In its comments on the updated definition of WOTUS, WAC adds: “The Proposed Rule will provide regulatory certainty that WAC members desperately need and hopefully break the cycle of regulatory revisions with each change in administration. For decades, shifting WOTUS definitions have created a moving target for jurisdictional determinations, forcing landowners and operators to repeatedly modify plans, conduct redundant delineations and litigate disputed determinations. This uncertainty imposes substantial costs, delays development and discourages infrastructure investment.”

WAC points out that clear, stable, consistent jurisdictional rules allow for more efficient planning for projects and more effective environmental protection. At the same time, predictability benefits both the regulated community and the environment by “reducing unnecessary conflicts and enabling resources to be focused on genuine environmental protection.”

In the comments, WAC offered several recommendations to provide additional clarity, to further align the proposed definition with the CWA and Supreme Court precedent and aid implementation of the rule. Read the full comments here .

Why EPA Says Farmers and Ranchers Won't Need a Lawyer to Understand the Newly Proposed WOTUS Rule

Fri, 21 Nov 2025 16:10:31 GMT

Agricultural groups have been asking for a new WOTUS rule that eliminates red tape and clears up confusion for farmers and ranchers. As EPA unveiled its latest proposed Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule this week , Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi says the agency’s goal was simple: clarity, consistency and fewer regulatory headaches for farmers and ranchers.

Fotouhi joined “U.S. Farm Report” for an exclusive interview to break down what this new rule means and why EPA believes it hits the mark.

A Rule He Says Brings Clarity and Certainty

Fotouhi says the agency’s top priority is eliminating uncertainty farmers have faced under previous interpretations of WOTUS.

“We really emphasize the need for farmers, ranchers and all stakeholders to have clarity in terms of how broad or narrow federal regulation of waters is in this country,” he says. “From Day 1, we start working on a proposed rule to bring that clarity and certainty to landowners across the country. On Monday, we are able to announce a proposal that is consistent with the law, that provides needed clarity on the extent of federal regulation, and that recognizes the primary jurisdiction of states and localities because they know their resources best.”

He adds that the proposal strikes what he calls a good balance.

“We think we really strike a good balance between protecting our nation’s waters and making sure farmers and ranchers can do the work that feeds Americans and produces the fuel this country relies on — without adding unnecessary regulatory burden to their day-to-day life,” he says.

EPA Says Farmers “Won’t Need a Lawyer” to Understand the New Rule

Fotouhi stresses one of EPA’s biggest priorities in rewriting WOTUS was ensuring farmers no longer need legal help just to determine whether they can work their own ground. He says the agency intentionally crafted the language to be plain, practical and rooted in the realities producers face every day.

“We take a fresh look at the Supreme Court’s direction and try to apply that in language that is easily understandable. Producers should not need a lawyer to understand how this rule applies to their property. We write it in a way that lets farmers look at their land and have a clear sense of whether federal permits are required.”

Fotouhi explains past WOTUS rules often included terminology that was vague, overly technical or open to interpretation, something EPA heard repeatedly during outreach with farm groups.

He says the agency makes a conscious effort to eliminate that ambiguity.

“We listen to farmers tell us repeatedly that the rule has to be understandable,” he says. “So instead of broad definitions that leave too much room for interpretation, we focus on concrete, workable language. We take geographic differences into account, we remove subjective criteria and we make exclusions, like the groundwater exemption, explicit so there’s no second-guessing.”

Fotouhi says that level of clarity is a direct response to years of frustration in rural America.

“We know farmers need certainty,” he says. “They need to know what they can and can’t do without waiting months for an answer. That’s why we put so much effort into making this rule clear, transparent and grounded in what the Supreme Court actually tells us to do.”

EPA Pushes Back on Claims the Proposal Overpromises

Some critics argue the agency risks overpromising. Fotouhi strongly rejects that idea.

“We take a fresh look at all the critical issues the Supreme Court lays out in the Sackett decision,” he says. “We think the previous administration does not faithfully implement that decision when they revise the rule, so we come back, reassess everything and come up with a definition that fully implements what the Court tells EPA and the Army Corps to do.”

He notes the agency made readability a priority.

“We try to apply the Court’s direction in language that is easily understandable, that takes geographic differences into account, and that doesn’t impose unnecessary burdens on farmers when they’re trying to decide if they need a permit,” he says.

Groundwater Exclusion: “We Want It Crystal Clear”

One standout change is the explicit exclusion of groundwater — language EPA says is included to eliminate confusion.

“Groundwater has never been part of the Waters of the United States, but we think it is absolutely necessary to make that exemption clear as day so there is no confusion about whether someone would need a permit for a discharge that may impact groundwater,” Fotouhi says.

He says repeated questions from stakeholders and newer case law convinced the agency to spell it out directly.

“Based on the case law that’s come out in the last few years and the general confusion we hear from stakeholders, we think it is incumbent on us to clarify this as clearly as we can,” he adds.

Final Rule Expected in Early 2026

EPA filed the proposal with the Federal Register , which means the rule’s comment period is officially underway.

“We publish the rule today, and it will be out for public comment for 45 days,” he says. “We know there is an absolute need for certainty and clarity and one nationwide standard, so we move quickly. We are hopeful that in the first few months of 2026, we can have a final rule out for the public.”

RFS: EPA Reviewing Comments, Aims for Certainty

Fotouhi also discusses EPA’s proposed Renewable Fuel Standard volumes, including record-setting biomass-based diesel levels.

“We understand how important it is to get this exactly right. From day one, Administrator Zeldin is laser-focused on ensuring the RFS strikes the right balance,” he says. “We know farmers and all stakeholders implicated by this program need certainty. We are working as quickly as we can to take final action.”

EPA’s Deregulatory Push: More Actions to Come

Fotouhi says the agency’s deregulatory actions announced earlier this year will have significant impact on agriculture.

“Reducing the cost of energy is one of our biggest focuses,” he says. “Many of the actions we identify are aimed at reducing energy prices for farmers, ranchers and manufacturers so we can reduce input costs and ultimately reduce the cost of the products they produce.”

This is evident through their efforts on WOTUS.

“The WOTUS proposal is a prime example; it’s designed to reduce unnecessary and illegal regulatory burden, and we are undertaking a score of additional actions across offices, working with USDA, the Department of Energy and the Interior Department, to identify ways to reduce input costs for agriculture,” Fotouhi says. “A thriving agricultural sector is a priority for the president, and lowering consumer prices is something we have to achieve.”

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:43 GMT

Farmers and ranchers could soon face fewer regulatory hurdles when working near waterways, as EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released a new proposal on Nov. 17 to redefine “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The agencies say the proposed rule is designed to bring long-requested clarity to what features fall under federal jurisdiction potentially reducing permitting uncertainty for agriculture, landowners and rural businesses.

The proposed rule can be found on the Federal Register . The public can submit comments online there or via Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. During the announcement event on Nov. 17, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin urged the public to submit comments.

The definition of WOTUS determines when producers must secure permits for projects that could affect surface water quality, including common activities such as building terraces, installing drainage or expanding livestock operations. EPA officials say the new proposal aims to align fully with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision and prevent farmers from needing lawyers or consultants simply to determine whether a water feature on their land is federally regulated.

The proposal follows Zeldin’s promise in March to launch the biggest deregulatory action in history and a series of listening sessions in April and May that asked states, tribes, industry and agriculture to weigh in on WOTUS needs.

Clearer Definition After Years of Confusion

Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle emphasize the rule is designed to be clear, durable and commonsense.

Key elements include:

Defined terms such as relatively permanent, continuous surface connection, and tributary to outline which waters qualify under the Clean Water Act.
A requirement that jurisdictional tributaries must have predictable, consistent flow to traditional navigable waters.
Wetlands protections are limited to wetlands that physically touch and are indistinguishable from regulated waters for a consistent duration each year.
Reaffirmed exclusions important to agriculture, including prior converted cropland, certain ditches and waste treatment systems.
A new exclusion for groundwater.
Locally-familiar terminology, such as “wet season,” to help determine whether water features meet regulatory thresholds.

EPA says these changes are intended to reduce uncertainty that has stemmed from years of shifting definitions across administrations.

Impact of WOTUS Proposal on Agriculture

For producers, the proposal could simplify compliance by narrowing which water features fall under federal oversight and confirming exclusions that many farm groups have long advocated.

Zeldin says the aim is “protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution” while preventing unnecessary burdens on farmers and ranchers. He criticizes past Democratic administrations for broad interpretations that, in his view, extended federal reach to features that did not warrant regulation.

Farm groups have argued for years that unclear or overly broad definitions can lead to significant costs, delays and legal risks when planning conservation work, drainage projects or infrastructure improvements. A more consistent rule could reduce project backlogs and limit case-by-case determinations that often slow progress during planting, construction or livestock expansion.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” said Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, during the May 1 EPA listening session for agriculture . He adds: “farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

Several of those who gave testimony and public comment during the ag listening session argued that farmers and ranchers, who already struggle with unpredictable markets and tight margins, shouldn’t have to hire experts to identify elements of their own land.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” says Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who also gave testimony in May.

Alignment With the Sackett Decision

After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA ruling , which restricted federal authority over many wetlands, the agencies say the previous WOTUS definition no longer aligned with the law. EPA already issued a memo earlier this year clarifying limits on jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands. The newly proposed rule is the next step in that process.

The proposed rule focuses on relatively permanent bodies of water — streams, rivers, lakes and oceans — and wetlands that are physically connected to those waters. Seasonal and regional variations are incorporated, including waters that flow consistently during the wetter months.

The current situation is a regulatory patchwork. Due to litigation that followed the January 2023 WOTUS rule, which was considered in the Sackett decision, different states are following different rules. Currently, 24 states, mostly the coastal and Great Lakes states, are operating on the 2023 rule, while the other 26 states, mostly those in center and in the Southeast, are operating on pre-2015 WOTUS rule.

Oversight Rests With State and Tribes

A major theme of the proposal is cooperative federalism, giving more authority to states and tribes to manage local land and water resources. EPA says the rule preserves necessary federal protections while recognizing states and tribal governments are best positioned to oversee many smaller or isolated water features.

Sections 101b and 510 of the CWA are key structural examples of the concept of cooperative federalism. The sections give states and tribes the right to set standards and issue permits for federal activities that could discharge pollutants into a water of the U.S. within the state or territory. The most common example of this are 404 dredge and fill permits.

This focus on cooperative federalism was the main chorus of the EPA’s listening session for states , held April 29, especially as it concerns wetlands.

“If more wetlands are excluded from WOTUS, then certain federal projects would not require a section 401 water quality certification by the states,” noted Jennifer Congdon, director of federal affairs for New York Department of Environmental Conservation, during the states’ listening session. She argues that such a situation could impair water quality within a state, thus violating states’ rights under the CWA.

What Happens Next

The proposed rule is available online for public comment on the Federal Register and Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will hold two hybrid public meetings, and details for submitting comments or registering to speak will be available on EPA’s website .

After the comment period, the agencies plan to move quickly toward a final rule.

“Once the rule is finalized, it typically takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to Congressional Review Act requirements,” the EPA press office told The Packer earlier this summer .

Based on these potential timelines, a new — potentially final — WOTUS rule could take effect as early as early March.

EPA Updates A/C Rules: What Farmers Need to Know

Tue, 30 Sep 2025 13:53:51 GMT

EPA has again revised standards for refrigerant used in vehicles.

R-12 refrigerant (aka “Freon”) was the go-to coolant for more than 50 years. Then it was discovered that chlorine atoms in escaped R-12 molecules accumulated in the atmosphere and damaged the ozone layer.

A new refrigerant, R-134a, came out in 1991 and replaced R-12’s miscreant chlorine atom with a fluorine atom — which breaks down in 10 to 12 years.

To further minimize damage to the environment, another new refrigerant, R-1234yf, was developed and replaced R-134a’s fluorine atom with a propylene atom — which breaks down in one day.

A transition to R-1234yf is underway. Professional mechanics who use refrigerant recovery and recycling (R&R) machines must have special training and EPA Section 609 certification to buy more than 2 lb. of R-1234yf.

Necessary Adjustments
Cans of R-1234yf are at auto parts stores and have Schrader-type valves, which need a matching fitting on R&R machines or sets of pressure gauges.

Older R-134a refrigerant and new R-1234yf refrigerant are not interchangeable. The propylene atoms in R-1234yf make it mildly flammable. For that reason, newer systems are designed with spark-free compressors and other components.

If farmers have on-farm R&R machines, they can be carefully flushed between exposures to R-134a and R-1234yf, but the newer refrigerant is slightly caustic. Long-term exposure to R-1234yf can damage internal components in machines designed for R-134a.

Farmers who own a set of air conditioning gauges have a similar situation.

“You can buy adapters to hook up an R-134a set of gauges to a R-1234yf system,” says Jeff Weidecke, trainer for MasterCool refrigerant handling systems. “If a guy has an R-134a set of gauges and uses adapter fittings, he’s going to start the vehicle up, disconnect from whatever keg or 1 lb. can they’re using and turn on the machine’s air conditioning system so the clutch and compressor engage. Any R-134a refrigerant left in the hoses will be boiled off and pulled into the vehicle’s R-134a system. Then you can run R-1234yf through those gauges to check or fill a system.”

Weidecke notes that because R-1234yf is a more efficient than R-134a, compressors and other air conditioning system components are smaller, and less refrigerant is used.

“The factory-fill for a lot of new cars is only 12 to 14 ounces,” he says.

Breaking News: EPA Backs Existing Wastewater Regulations, Prevents Catastrophe for Processors and Producers

Sat, 30 Aug 2025 20:37:08 GMT

The longstanding Meat and Poultry (MPP) Effluent Guidelines and Standards will stand, announced Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin on Aug. 30. He says the proposed changes to the regulation are unnecessary.

EPA determined existing federal wastewater regulations under the Clean Water Act are effective and the burdens proposed changes would inflict on meat and poultry processors are unwarranted.

“The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) applauds the Trump administration and EPA Administrator Zeldin for taking a common sense approach on the Meat & Poultry Processing Rule,” says Duane Stateler, NPPC president and pork producer from McComb, Ohio. “As proposed by the previous administration, this rule—which provides no environmental benefits—would have been devastating to small- and medium-sized meat processors across the country and the livestock farmers who rely on them as markets for their animals.”

EPA’s action will save not only the nearly 100 local meat processors that EPA itself identified would have to close down but also the thousands of family farmers who rely on them to stay in livestock production, Stateler points out.

“It will help ensure affordable, nutritious American-grown pork can continue to be served on dinner tables across the country,” Stateler says.

Moving Forward
The decision closes the book on a nearly two-year comment and consideration process in which NPPC and other stakeholders have worked with EPA to better inform the agency’s decision and preempt unnecessary harm.

“Under the prior proposal, if it were finalized, major pork processors would have faced significant costs to install new waste water management systems,” explains Michael Formica, NPPC chief legal strategist. “During that period of construction, some plants would likely have needed to temporarily shut down. Others might have had to cut back on how many shifts they run.”

EPA’s internal analysis showed that dozens of facilities, likely small and medium-sized, would be forced to shut down because they would be unable to afford the cost of the technology required to comply, Formica says. Overall, the industry would have realized additional costs estimated at greater than $1 billion a year.

“Producers who rely on those processors would have then been without a market for their livestock,” Formica adds.

Unnecessary Expansions
The Meat and Poultry Products Effluent Guidelines and Standards was enacted in 1974 by the EPA and amended in 2004 to cover wastewater directly discharged by processing facilities. NPPC says the proposed amendment would have established more stringent technological requirements for controlling discharges from processors and significantly increased the scope of plants that were covered by the rules.

While the agricultural industry and the meat and poultry processing sectors support clean water efforts, EPA found these expansions were unnecessary.

NPPC says it appreciates EPA taking no action on the proposal, which would have disrupted packing capacity and livestock markets, in turn inflicting additional financial harm on producers and leading to further industry concentration and the loss of independent farmers.

The Meat Institute says the proposed rule would have also harmed the relationship between meat and poultry processing (MPP) facilities and publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs).

“Indirect discharging MPP facilities often make significant financial investments in maintaining and upgrading the POTW or shouldering major surcharges for the POTW’s continued operation and maintenance, which reduce public treatment costs for residential ratepayers and improve the quality of local and downstream waters,” the Meat Institute wrote in a statement.

Equipment Malfunction Causes Manure Spill in Ohio, Sparks Vital Lessons for Farmers

Tue, 19 Aug 2025 20:06:09 GMT

A farming equipment malfunction is the cause of a manure spill that turned a creek red in Wyandot County, Ohio, reports the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA).

According to Glen Arnold, field specialist and manure nutrient management systems professor at Ohio State University Extension, a part broke on the irrigation system that allowed the manure to flow into nearby Carey Creek, also known as Poverty Run. An alarm system should have indicated a problem did not work properly. Ohio EPA reports that the red color stemmed from a discharge of liquid manure that was pulled from an anaerobic manure lagoon on a nearby hog farm.

“As soon as it was discovered, the farmers shut the manure source off and took steps to pump the manure-contaminated water back out of the creek,” Arnold explains. “This time of the year in Ohio, we are at a minimum flow time. We haven’t had much rain, so the creeks wouldn’t have much water to carry manure downstream.”

An example of equipment being positioned to remove manure from a ditch.

(Glen Arnold)

This means the manure-contaminated water wouldn’t travel very far, he says.

Carey Creek is not a drinking water source, Ohio EPA reports. It flows into Tymochtee Creek then the Sandusky River.

Fortunately, no impacts to wildlife have been reported, Ohio EPA says. Cleanup is underway by a contractor hired by the farm. The farm is working closely with Ohio EPA, Ohio Department of Agriculture, Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife, and the Local Soil and Water District. Ohio EPA will continue to oversee cleanup until the issue is resolved.

Why Did the Water Turn Red?
Reports said the creek turned a light red to a pink color. Although this may seem odd to most people, for those who understand anerobic lagoons, this is anything but weird.

“That would be pretty standard for a manure lagoon,” Arnold says. “In lagoon situations, you’re hoping the bacteria will break down the solids that are in that manure pond or lagoon. You don’t generally pump it all the way out, you basically pump liquids off the top on a regular basis. Because of the bacteria that are working together to make that lagoon work as it should, the liquids generally have a red tint.”

For the most part, liquids are being pumped off the top of the manure pond or lagoon, he explains.

“It’s low-nutrient water – most of the high nutrients are down in the bottom,” Arnold says. “In that situation, that red tint that was in the manure pond then gets transferred into the creek. It’s not more toxic or more dangerous in any way, but that was the color of the original liquid manure.”

Ohio EPA reports this red tinted color is caused by purple sulfur bacteria commonly found in anaerobic manure lagoons. This color means the lagoon is working properly.

How Should You Handle a Manure Spill?
If a spill occurs, Arnold says the first thing producers should do is contact the local authorities. In Ohio, it’s generally the Soil and Water Conservation Service District, but some larger permitted farms can call the Ohio Department of Agriculture directly.

“Malfunctions happen,” Arnold points out. “Anytime a problem like this occurs, quick action is the best way to go. Get the situation mitigated as quickly as possible. Get the source stopped, get the creek or river dammed up, contain the spill, and then we can pump it back out.”

A manure tanker sucking up liquid manure from a emergency sump hole dug in a corn field.

(Glen Arnold)

He says it’s important to remember that you can’t rely 100% on technology at all times.

“You have to put eyes on the manure application process,” Arnold says. “You have to put eyes on the field tile. You’ve got to put eyes on surface ditches and be sure they’re not allowing the manure to escape from a field. It’s important producers give thought to their first line of defense and second line of defense to prevent these things from happening.”

After everything has been done to pump the water out, Arnold says the next step is to mitigate or improve the quality of the water through aerification.

“Aerification is where we shoot the water up in the air to let ammonia get out of the water, and to add oxygen to the water,” he says. “We can put bubblers in the water to bubble air into it to improve the water quality or add some additional water from a source like a fire truck or water tanker to get fresh water into the creek or ditch.”

He says this is important because manure contains ammonia, and ammonia will bind with the oxygen in the water, making it unavailable for fish, crawdads and other aquatic life.

“It’s always difficult once a manure spill has occurred to think clearly and follow a plan,” he says. “I would encourage producers to think through the steps they would take if a spill occurred. Who would you need to contact? Do you have their cell phones handy? What equipment would you need to get your hands on?”

Respect Authorities When a Manure Spill Occurs
It probably goes without saying, but it’s important to cooperate with the authorities when a spill occurs, Arnold adds.

“The agency people have a job to do,” he says. “I know how it feels – you are partly embarrassed because you’re the center of attention, and farmers rarely want to be the center of attention. You’re partly mad at the equipment that broke, or the unexpected clay tile that allowed the manure off the field that you didn’t know about in advance, or the fact that the neighbors are going to be watching you now.”

Manure being sucked from a ditch after a spill.

(Glen Arnold)

If you’ve got a solid track record and are upfront about what happened, the authorities will generally work with you to resolve it, Arnold says.

“But if someone shows a bad attitude or has a history of repeated manure escapes or spills, that’s a very different situation. The best thing you can do is demonstrate that you’re taking responsibility and making every effort to do the right thing.”

Tips for Smooth Manure Application
The old adage that ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ is true, especially when it comes to manure management.

“We don’t want to make mistakes when handling manure,” he says.

Although manure is an organic product that breaks down rapidly and does not last long in the environment, having a manure spill is disruptive, troublesome and costly.

Remember to look closely at fields this time of year before you apply manure, Arnold says.

A temporary dam built in a corn field to stop swine from manure escaping after an equipment pumping failure.

(Glen Arnold)

“Because of our clay content in our soil, we’re going to have a lot of cracks,” he says. “We use tillage to disrupt those preferential flows, the worm holes, the cracks in the soil, crawdad holes, and those types of things.”

He also urges producers to understand the tile structure in the field where manure is being applied. Check the weather forecast before applying manure, and of course, apply manure at the proper rate.

“Farmers live as close to their hog buildings as anyone in the community,” Arnold says. “The same groundwater and surface water that their families drink is the water we all depend on. Pork producers want to do right because they hope their children and grandchildren will remain on the land and be part of the farm’s future. Protecting water is not only about farming responsibly — it’s about safeguarding our own families and neighbors.”

Cheryl Day, Ohio Pork Council executive vice president, says producers are already doing a responsible job managing nutrients, but no one can afford complacency.

“Every decision we make on manure handling and application matters,” Day says. “One mistake can set back the progress our industry has made and risk both water quality and community trust. Stewardship isn’t optional — it’s our responsibility, and it must remain our highest priority.”

No one plans for a spill, but planning for the unexpected makes all the difference. Farmers who know their tile maps, watch the forecast, and have response plans ready are protecting more than their farms — they’re protecting their communities.

District Court Upholds Air Reporting Exemptions

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 19:09:43 GMT

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) secured a significant victory in its long-running efforts to stop activists from forcing farmers to report routine emissions to state and local emergency response authorities. Ruling for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the NPPC coalition of farm and livestock intervenors, the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the challenge of activists to an earlier EPA rulemaking that exempted livestock farms from having to treat routine air emissions as emergency releases and report them to local first responders.

Why it Matters
NPPC and other livestock groups have been fighting activists over this issue since January 2009 when the Bush administration required livestock farms to file reports to emergency authorities over the routine emissions from livestock farms. The debate over these emissions dates back far earlier – to the late 1990s – when activist groups such as the Waterkeeper Alliance made them a centerpiece of its campaign against the U.S. pork industry.

Since the federal government lacked any science that would justify enforcement against livestock farms, the Clinton administration proposed an agreement to better understand air emissions. That resulted in the Air Consent Agreements that the industry signed with EPA and the start of the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study to help policymakers better understand what types of emissions came from livestock farms. Those efforts continue to this day, with comments on EPA’s latest air emission models due to the agency later this month.

In 2017, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ultimately found that reporting of routine farm emissions was required to be made to the U.S. Coast Guard under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA, or the Superfund law). Congress quickly passed the FARM Act with a strong bipartisan majority, which exempted livestock farms from CERCLA reporting. In implementing the statute, EPA exempted reporting to state and local first responders under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), reasoning that reporting is only required under EPCRA when it is also required under CERCLA.

Activists, led by then-Humane Society of the United States and Food and Water Watch, filed suit, claiming EPA failed to follow EPCRA’s requirements and comply with the National Environmental Policy Act – and that Environmental Justice concerns demanded that farmers be obligated to report the information.

The District Court disagreed – agreeing with NPPC and EPA that since Congress passed the Farm Act, no reporting was necessary, making this a huge win for U.S. pork producers.

Avoid Confusion: Clear the Air on CAFOs

Mon, 05 May 2025 20:23:38 GMT

Concentrated animal feeding operations have continued to sustain meat and dairy industries since their implementation many decades ago by providing a steady flow of livestock for food chains for home and consumers abroad.

Contrary to popular belief, Kansas State University extension livestock specialist Joel DeRouchey says CAFOs present a more efficient opportunity to raise livestock with less stress on the environment.

“While CAFOs can get a bad rap due to their ability to house many animals in one location, they face some of the most stringent regulations for environmental protection, which is good for surrounding land and water quality,” he points out on Agriculture Today with the K-State Radio Network .

After considering what’s regulated, how CAFOs handle manure, how it’s applied and the regulations and inspections involved from both the state and potentially the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DeRouchey says these operations are in business for a reason.

“They’re doing a very good stewardship for both for the land and water quality,” he adds.

Feedlot

(Shelby Chesnut)

But Josh McCann, associate professor of animal science at the University of Illinois, says it’s understandable people may have questions about CAFOs.

“I think it’s easy to get nervous or ask questions about things that we’re not exposed to, that we aren’t very familiar with,” McCann says.

CAFOs are highly professional environments led by teams of experts who help those animals remain healthy, grow in a productive way and provide an extremely affordable protein for Americans and people around the world, he adds.

“We have some of the very best nutritionists, the very best veterinarians, the very best management experts working at these facilities to help those animals actually grow and prosper,” McCann says. “I don’t think people truly appreciate the amount of effort, investment of time and people and science that goes into this.”

Is Your Operation a CAFO?
CAFOs include cattle and small ruminant feedlots, confined large indoor and outdoor swine and poultry operations and dairy facilities that meet the criteria as a CAFO. Once a CAFO is designated for a site, it has both state and federal requirements under which it must operate.

The challenge is every state is different when it comes to its respective state regulations, he says.

“Permitting of different livestock species could be different within a state and certainly is across states,” DeRouchey says. “But the bigger pictures items are the same.”

To be a CAFO, EPA explains that farms must first be an Animal Feeding Operation (AFO). If a farm does not meet the definition of an AFO, the EPA rules do not apply to it.

The AFO definition has two parts: Part 1 - A lot or facility where animals have been, are, or will be confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month period. Part 2 - Where vegetation (crops, forage, post-harvest residues) is not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility.

“There are many factors to consider when determining if your farm is a CAFO. Bottom line: Manage your farm in a way that ensures no discharges to WOTUS,” the Illinois Pork Producers Association says on its website .

For example, in Kansas, any facility with an animal unit capacity of 300 or greater must register with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). Additionally – regardless of size – any facility that presents a significant water pollution potential must obtain a permit as determined by KDHE.

“Feedlot cattle over 700 pounds would be considered a single animal unit, 700 lb. and less is a half and cattle such as a lactating dairy cow would be considered 1.4,” DeRouchey says. “These figures relate to their feed intakes and the amount of manure produced per body weight.”

Another factor to consider when determining the size of your CAFO is if a farmer has multiple sites where animals are confined, they must determine if those sites are separate AFOs or should be combined. In Illinois, under the IL EPA Livestock Rules, two or more AFOs under common ownership would be a single AFO if the AFOs are adjacent to each other or the AFOs utilize a common area or system for handling or disposing of manure.

“Most situations in which pigs are raised will likely be defined as an AFO,” IPPA says. “If your farm is an AFO, then you must determine if you are a small, medium or large CAFO, which factors in the number of animals that are confined on the farm and whether pollutants are being discharged into Waters of the U.S (WOTUS).”

When determining if the operation has any discharges, a farmer must look at the entire production area including manure storage, feed storage and dead animal composting to determine if there is a discharge.

“CAFOs are strictly permitted to have full containment of all rainwater and runoff that reaches a pen surface, and the same goes for cleaning pen surfaces,” DeRouchey explains. “Manure must be stored in a contained area until it’s moved out to fields for spreading.”

Compliance is Key
Many regulations like these are in place to help keep the environment, water and land safe for multiple generations, McCann says.

Dairy

(Jim Dickrell)

To ensure compliance with these regulations, CAFOs undergo periodic on-site state inspections and a permit renewal where producers update their paperwork and nutrient management plan with any changes to the operation. An essential part of that process is developing a new nutrient management plan that says what’s going to occur with the application of manure to the agronomic crop ground surrounding the facility, DeRouchey says.

“With soil tests and manure samples taken, new projections are completed to ensure that the manure produced on those operations fits all the acreage,” DeRouchey says.

The challenge is those nutrient management plans are pretty region-specific, McCann says.

“Rainfall here in central Illinois is extremely different from rainfall in western Kansas,” he adds. “The appropriate ways you need to manage the nutrients in your animal waste is accordingly also very different. I think that’s one of the reasons why we have a lot of state-by-state regulation within this area.”

Compliance starts before the CAFO is constructed. Assessments, based on the species housed in the CAFO, look at criteria like geography. For example, in feedlots, rainwater drainage containment, manure storage areas, and agronomic manure application plans rank as some of the most crucial considerations.

Be a Good Neighbor
The one thing that’s not regulated directly is odors, DeRouchey says. Owners routinely clean pen surfaces as well on the outdoor facilities because the top layer of manure can turn into dust if it’s there too long, and that can carry odor from the CAFO to surrounding areas.

“We know that large or small operations have odor from livestock,” he adds. “And that doesn’t matter if you only have a couple animals or a lot of animals. What owners often do is look at, where can they potentially put up windbreaks? Where is the prevailing wind coming off of those facilities? How does that impact the surrounding area? How do they minimize potential dust? Because odor really travels a lot on dust.”

Being a good steward and making sure we’re minimizing any potential impact that our livestock farms would have on the surrounding area involves being aware of how it affects our neighbors, DeRouchey says.

“USDA scientists have confirmed that U.S. pork producers’ rigorous biosecurity efforts to keep pigs healthy are working,” says NPPC President Lori Stevermer.

(National Pork Board and the Pork Checkoff)

Eldon McAfee , attorney with Brick Gentry P.C. in West Des Moines, Iowa, says operational environmental management extends to neighbor awareness, communication and good relations.

“Don’t ignore neighbors who aren’t happy with your operation. Keep those lines of communication open,” McAfee says. “For example, when you apply manure, try to let everyone know. Attend educational seminars and obtain certifications to show you are being a good neighbor. Make sure employees are up to date on best practices when it comes to being a good neighbor, too.”

Can We Feed the World Without CAFOs?
CAFOs exist for a reason, McCann says. Some of those reasons are economic-related, and some of those are people-related.

“I would make the case that there are not enough people who want to work in the livestock industry and meet our animal protein needs without CAFOs now,” he says. “It’s pretty hard to imagine feeding a world that really craves lean, healthy, wholesome protein from livestock today without CAFOs. That’s difficult to do in my mind.”

Your Next Read: Don’t Let Your Guard Down: How to Avoid an Ag Nuisance Lawsuit

Top Takeaways from Zeldin’s Confirmation Hearing for EPA Lead and the Impact On Ag

Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:36:45 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin, underwent hours of testimony Thursday, commenting on everything from year-round E15, the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) and the controversial WOTUS rule. When pressed about climate and environmental policies, Zeldin stated he believes climate change is real.

During the hearing, Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.) asked Zeldin to ensure access to year-round E15, but he did not make a definitive commitment, responding cautiously. Zeldin stated that while he couldn’t prejudge the outcomes of any processes, he acknowledged the importance of the issue to Sen. Ricketts and President Trump.

His exact words were: “Senator, while I can’t prejudge outcome of processes to follow across the board, I know how important this issue is to you and I know how important this is to President Trump.”

Despite this non-committal response, leaders of ethanol industry groups, including the American Coalition for Ethanol and Growth Energy, expressed appreciation for Zeldin’s commitment to doing his part to ensure nationwide availability of year-round E15.

Zeldin’s Stance on Ethanol
Zeldin’s stance on ethanol has been a point of interest, given his previous opposition to ethanol usage mandates during his time in Congress. Zeldin was asked about upholding legal deadlines for new Renewable Volume Obligations (RVO) standards, which are part of the RFS program.

Ricketts criticized the Biden administration for setting RVOs below industry production levels and not meeting the law’s deadlines. Zeldin expressed his commitment to implementing the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) as written by Congress.

He stated, “If confirmed, I commit to you that I will faithfully execute the law as written by Congress.” This statement was seen as an attempt to reassure senators from agricultural states who are concerned about the EPA’s implementation of biofuel policies.

Zeldin addressed his past opposition to ethanol usage mandates. He acknowledged that his views on the issue have evolved since his time in Congress.

Zeldin stated, “My position has evolved. I’m not in the same place I was years ago.”

He explained that his perspective has changed due to conversations he’s had with farmers, producers, and others in the industry. Zeldin emphasized that he now has a better understanding of the importance of ethanol to rural economies and energy security.

To further illustrate his evolving stance, Zeldin mentioned that he has visited ethanol plants and spoken with industry stakeholders.

He said, “I’ve learned a lot more about ethanol. I’ve visited plants. I’ve talked to a lot of people in the industry.”

WOTUS Rule Opposition
The EPA nominee has been vocal about his opposition to the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. He expressed strong criticism of the Biden administration’s decision to reinstate and expand the WOTUS rule. Zeldin argued that the WOTUS rule represents federal overreach and places an undue burden on farmers, landowners, and local governments.

He stated that the rule would negatively impact agriculture, construction, and other industries by expanding federal authority over water bodies and wetlands. The congressman emphasized that the expanded definition of WOTUS would lead to increased regulations and permitting requirements for activities on private property. He contended that this expansion of federal control would hinder economic growth and development in rural areas.

In his statement, Zeldin called for the repeal of the WOTUS rule, advocating for a more limited interpretation of federal jurisdiction over water bodies. He supported efforts to restrict the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority in implementing the rule, arguing that states should have more control over their water resources.

Zeldin’s position on WOTUS aligns with many Republican lawmakers who view the rule as an example of government overreach and excessive environmental regulation. His statements reflect a broader debate about the balance between environmental protection and economic development in water resource management.

Zeldin’s Criticism of EPA Staff
Zeldin made notable comments regarding EPA staff. He criticized EPA employees for what he described as their attempts to undermine the Trump administration’s policies.

Specifically, Zeldin accused some EPA staff members of leaking information to the media and actively working against the administration’s agenda. He expressed concern that these actions were hindering the implementation of policies and creating unnecessary obstacles for the agency’s leadership. The congressman’s remarks were part of a broader discussion on government accountability and the role of career civil servants in executing administration directives.

Zeldin emphasized the importance of loyalty to the current administration’s goals, regardless of personal political beliefs.

Climate Change and Climate Policies
As for his position on climate change, the hearing showed the political dynamics and implications surrounding the issue considering President-elect Donald Trump’s stance, particularly as seen through an exchange involving Zeldin with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.). Sanders emphasized the existential threat of climate change, framing it as a matter transcending politics. Whitehouse voiced concern about Zeldin’s ability to resist fossil fuel industry influence.

Zeldin stated, “I believe that climate change is real,” marking a departure from previous EPA leaders during the first Trump administration and from President-elect Trump, who has previously labeled climate change a “hoax.”

Regarding EPA’s role in regulating carbon dioxide emissions, Zeldin referenced a 2007 Supreme Court decision, noting that while the ruling grants the EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, it does not mandate such action. He emphasized that the agency is “authorized, not required” to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.

When pressed on specific climate policies, such as reducing reliance on fossil fuels, Zeldin refrained from committing to particular actions. He expressed a desire to collaborate with scientists and policymakers, stating, “I don’t sit before you as a scientist.”

In response to inquiries about campaign donations from fossil fuel companies, Zeldin asserted that financial contributions would not influence his decisions, emphasizing his commitment to impartiality in his role as EPA Administrator.

Of note:
Throughout the hearing, Zeldin underscored the importance of protecting the environment without hindering economic development. He stated, “We can, and we must, protect our precious environment without suffocating the economy.”

Economists React to Zeldin’s Nomination

December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor

(Lindsey Pound )

In the December Ag Economists’ Monthly Monitor and prior to this week’s hearing, Farm Journal asked economists about what Zeldin’s past stance on ag issues could mean if he’s approved as the next EPA adminstrator.

Based on Zeldin’s track record, 60% of economists said they don’t think Zeldin’s policies will be positive for agriculture. 40% said they do think his policies will be good for agriculture.

In the survey, economists said:

“I expect there to be fewer new regulations in the Trump Administration. This is positive for agriculture.”
“I imagine many of the tax credits for new demand (either low carbon fuels or carbon programs) will be on the table to be cut.”
“He generally is not a fan of the RFS. My guess is that he will impact the RFS only marginally.”
“A deregulatory agenda could be positive for many farmers, but Zeldin has a record that is not favorable toward biofuels. How he (and the President) will address biofuel issues is unclear--in the first Trump administration, there were many large disputes between pro-biofuel and pro-fossil fuel interests.”
“His track record is negative toward liquid biofuels, which is a big part of our domestic demand.”

Related News:

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

Fighting Back: The Ongoing Battle Against the Activist Playbook

Tue, 19 Nov 2024 16:49:41 GMT

The activist playbook is predictable: file a frivolous lawsuit, challenge an effective agricultural rule or regulation, flood the case with money and cast farmers as villains. This strategy, designed to stifle American ag, threatens not only farmers but also our entire food supply. It’s up to those of us in the industry to push back. Producers know what’s best for their animals, their farms and the communities they serve.

Recently, pork producers won a crucial battle when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit rejected an activist lawsuit that could have upended livestock regulations nationwide. The lawsuit, led by extremists at Food & Water Watch, the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, and the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network, sought to force the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require all concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to obtain federal Clean Water Act (CWA) permits or prove they weren’t discharging pollutants into waterways. If successful, this case would have imposed crippling fines, permitting and regulatory chaos, as activists across the country would have the right to comment on every farm’s business plan and open up the industry to attacks from nationwide class action law firms.

Thankfully, the 9th Circuit saw through the activists’ demands. The court ruled that EPA’s decision to gather more data, from all sides, before making any major regulatory changes was both reasonable and aligned with the CWA. This decision reinforces the need for informed, evidence-based rulemaking rather than reactionary litigation.

In its ruling, the 9th Circuit said EPA denying the activists’ demands was not arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with the law. The court found the agency “deemed it prudent to first seek information about how best to tackle” challenges associated with raising livestock “before directing resources toward a new rulemaking. Those justifications are reasonable and hardly at odds with the CWA’s requirements.”

Unwavering Commitment
The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) led a coalition ensuring agriculture’s voice was heard before the court and defending EPA’s decision, as well as the long-established regulations that have supported modern livestock and poultry farming.

Activists ignore the tremendous progress made in environmental sustainability over the past several decades. Pork producers have long been leaders in maximizing the efficient use of manure and improving on-farm performance and sustainability. We are feeding more people, and more efficiently, than ever. And we’ve addressed environmental challenges, including through adoption of the 2003 CAFO Rule which set a zero-discharge standard, which the industry meets, for livestock and poultry operations.

The activist playbook might be repetitive, but so is our commitment to defending the future of American agriculture.

Your Next Read: Don’t Back Down From the Hard Stuff in the Pork Industry

Trump Taps Lee Zeldin to Lead EPA; What Does It Signal for Agriculture?

Tue, 12 Nov 2024 15:36:34 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump has selected former New York congressman Lee Zeldin to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in his upcoming administration. This appointment signals a potential shift in environmental policy and regulatory approach. Here are the key points about this nomination:

• Zeldin is a former Republican congressman who represented New York’s 1st congressional district from 2015 to 2023.
• He lacks extensive experience in environmental policy, having not served on committees with direct oversight of environmental issues during his time in Congress.
• Zeldin has a lifetime score of only 14% from the League of Conservation Voters, indicating a record of frequently voting against environmental legislation.

Trump stated that Zeldin would “ensure fair and swift deregulatory decisions” to “unleash the power of American businesses.” The administration aims to maintain “the highest environmental standards, including the cleanest air and water on the planet” while pursuing deregulation.

Zeldin is expected to focus on restoring “U.S. energy dominance” and revitalizing the auto industry.

He may be tasked with rolling back several Biden administration environmental regulations, particularly those targeting power plant pollution and vehicle emissions. There are plans to end the pause on constructing new natural gas export terminals and potentially withdraw the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

Zeldin joined Trump and Sen.-elect Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania for a roundtable on agriculture during Trump’s campaign in September. Zeldin praised Trump for addressing the “threat” of foreign entities buying U.S. agricultural land and highlighted Trump’s trade policies, including the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, which prioritized American farmers and strengthened supply chain resiliency.

Of note to the biofuels sector, In November 2015, Zeldin and several other members of Congress sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy expressing concerns about the proposed 2016 Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) under the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. The lawmakers worried that the proposed 2016 RVOs would require blending more ethanol than could be absorbed by the E10 gasoline market, effectively “breaking through” the blend wall. There were concerns that exceeding the blend wall could drive up the price of E10 gasoline for consumers. Ultimately, the EPA did finalize 2016 RVOs that were lower than originally proposed in the RFS statute, but still represented an increase over previous years. The agency attempted to balance the competing interests and technical constraints in the fuel market.

Meanwhile, discussions are underway about possibly relocating the EPA headquarters outside of Washington, D.C.

Environmental advocates criticized the nomination, viewing it as a potential regression in environmental policy. Zeldin’s record includes opposition to several climate-related bills and support for increased fossil fuel production.

Zeldin’s appointment as EPA Administrator will require Senate confirmation.

What Impact Does Pork Farming Have on the Environment?

Thu, 24 Oct 2024 14:29:49 GMT

Agricultural producers face many pressures and challenges. With a growing population that will demand more food, and a strained climate that requires attention and adjustment of practices, it is difficult to know right from wrong and fact from fiction.

“The pork industry has taken this topic by the horns,” says Frank Mitloehner, CLEAR Center Director. “They’ve been ahead of the curve on what needs to be done. Their focus on sustainability was not just on animal welfare or animal housing, but issues like environmental sustainability. They looked at sustainability and identified it as containing many things, which became the We Care Principles. This work was all done in the early 2000s, laying a strong foundation.”

The National Pork Board’s (NPB) We Care® Ethical Principles offer a roadmap for the industry. These principles acknowledge pork producers’ responsibility to build and maintain the trust of customers through ethical practices and high-quality products. This includes safeguarding natural resources in all pork production practices.

Agriculture products, such as pork, provide affordable, nutrient-rich and sustainable food options for consumers. Pork is one of the most economical meat options and is one of the most consumed meat products on the market. Producers, researchers and industry professionals are working together to create efficiencies and minimize emissions to continue providing safe, healthy and responsibly produced food for generations to come.

What are greenhouse gases?
To understand pork production’s impact on the environment begins with an understanding of greenhouse gases — the chemicals causing environmental warming and changes, according to the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency.

Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere. The sun radiates solar beams to the surface of the earth. In an emissions-free world, these gases are reflected back into space. Greenhouse gases create a blanket that hovers in the atmosphere. The thicker this layer becomes, the more heat is retained in the atmosphere, contributing to climate change. The most well-known of these gases are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

Methane is a greenhouse gas that is more than 28 times as potent and heat-wrapping than carbon dioxide per molecule. It is produced in agriculture from animal waste, fossil fuel production, biomass burning and natural sources such as wetlands. Methane is notably short-lived compared to carbon dioxide; methane stays in the atmosphere for about 10 years, compared to carbon dioxide’s 1,000. Mitloehner emphasizes that because of its lifespan, reducing methane emissions in livestock operations is paramount to reducing overall greenhouse gas emissions.

“If we can reduce methane enough, we can reduce warming,” says Mitloehner. “This is why there is so much attention on animal agriculture, because it has an opportunity to be a climate solution. And while swine production is small part of livestock emissions, we’ve seen the sector strive to make improvements where possible.”

Total emissions from the agriculture sector
According to the EPA , the agriculture sector — which includes crop and livestock production —accounts for 11% of the total direct greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture soil management, cattle enteric emissions and manure management make up the industry’s footprint. Soil management accounts for just over half of the greenhouse gases in industry.

Livestock emissions differ between ruminant and monogastric animals. Ruminants are animals with multiple-chambered stomachs, such as cattle, goats and sheep. Swine and poultry are monogastric animals and have one, simple stomach. The difference in these animals’ physiological makeups has varying effects on the industry’s footprint. As ruminants digest food, they are prone to enteric emissions, meaning they belch methane.

Mitloehner sees the swine industry as the envy of many around the world — swine are naturally less problematic than other livestock because they do not produce enteric emissions.

How are greenhouse gases emitted in pork production?
Carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are all produced in the swine life cycle. Fossil fuels and livestock production emit carbon differently. Animals produce carbon through a biogenic carbon cycle. This means that atmospheric carbon dioxide, produced during photosynthesis, is taken out of the air and absorbed into plants and the soil. As animals eat and process plants in their feed or organically, they emit carbon back into the cycle through manure or belches. When there is a surplus of carbon in the cycle, it is emitted into the atmosphere instead of being pulled back into the cycle.

Alternatively, fossil fuels access carbon from animals and plants that have died, decayed and fossilized underground. Carbon is pulled from underground and burned for fuel. As carbon burns, it’s added directly into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

Pigs consume and excrete compounds through manure. In pig feed, carbon is primarily found in carbohydrates, while nitrogen is found in proteins, often sourced from grains and other feed ingredients. When animals digest the feed, they convert these compounds to animal proteins digestible by humans.

Land application of manure helps continue the nitrogen cycle and the carbon cycle, both of which circulate elements in the natural forms they are found.

Improved manure management cannot be undervalued
As carbon in manure is broken down, it becomes methane. Manure that is uncovered, for example in lagoons or open pits, leeks methane into the atmosphere. Conversely, covered manure storage systems, such as anaerobic digesters, trap methane and process it into an energy source.

Mitloehner says there are many valid ways to manage manure on swine farms, but believes in anaerobic digesters’ potential to reduce emissions through manure storage and processing.

“Anaerobic digesters are good options to manage manure because they optimize the production of methane,” Mitloehner says . “The methane doesn’t go into the air; it’s trapped and processed. It’s used to power vehicles or converted to power homes. If you want to reduce methane, you need to reduce volatile solids. Digesters are the best way to do that.”

Traditionally, manure is stored in open lagoons or uncovered pits. Capping manure in digesters traps the methane gas and converts it to a usable source of power. Because manure is a volatile solid, meaning it is converted to carbon dioxide and methane, separating and processing manure is crucial. Additionally, the organic materials that are left after digesting are land-applied as fertilizer with a much lower odor than untreated manure while emitting fewer greenhouse gases.

Mitloehner brings attention to the “Pathways towards lower emissions report,” published in 2023, and centers the conversation on reducing emissions on the report’s researched predictions. The biggest opportunity to reduce the environmental impacts in pork production lies in improved manure management, although manure management is the least-effective total emission reduction strategy in livestock overall, according to the report. Notably, the report also highlights that decreasing the volume of meat consumed in human diets is one of the least effective in combatting greenhouse gas emissions.

Looking to the future
Progress has been made across the industry’s environmental footprint. According to We Care’s 2021 Sustainability Report, producers have reduced their environmental impact in the past 50 years by using 75.9% less land, 25.1% less water and 7% less energy. Overall, the carbon emissions per pound of pork are 7.7% lower than they were 50 years ago.

There is more work to be done, and scientists around the world are working and connecting tirelessly to address these issues. Mitloehner is confident the industry will continue to develop to address these issues to meet the challenge of creating more food while being stewards of the environment.

“Over the last few decades, we’ve learned to breed more efficient animals that are directly related to the environmental footprint of livestock,” Mitloehner says. “We’ve seen great progress in breeding efficiencies in dairy cows to reduce methane, now we have to figure out breeding parameters for pigs. I believe research will lead to efficiencies to predict potential methane emission in pigs.”

The CLEAR Center receives support from the Pork Checkoff, through the National Pork Board.

Your Next Read: Supreme Court Hears NPPC’s Arguments in Clean Water Act Case

Supreme Court Hears NPPC’s Arguments in Clean Water Act Case

Mon, 21 Oct 2024 15:26:00 GMT

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) argued before the U.S. Supreme Court as part of a broad coalition of mining companies, small businesses, manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, defending the city of San Francisco in a Clean Water Act (CWA) case that could have major ramifications for livestock and other agricultural interests, NPPC explained in Capital Update.

The concern surrounds language in a wastewater discharge permit for San Francisco’s combined sewer system that handles both sewage that they can control (human waste), as well as street waste that flows into the system during and after a rainfall.

“Traditionally, a permit (in this case, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permit) would provide clear direction on what can and can’t be ‘discharged’ into a Water of the United States (for example, the San Francisco Bay),” NPPC said.

EPA’s permit told San Francisco the specific types and levels of pollutants it could discharge when the system was overwhelmed, but it also included “impossible-to-meet language” that prohibited the city from impacting ‘water quality’ generally, NPPC said.

“Of course, any discharge would impact water quality, even within the general limits of the permit, placing San Francisco in a situation where compliance was impossible,” NPPC wrote.

In NPPC’s brief , the organization pointed out the problems in EPA’s approach and the difficulty it could cause nationwide for farmers and other businesses, who would be unable to comply and be subject to both EPA enforcement as well as “citizen suits” filed by well-funded activist groups and trial lawyers.

NPPC, along with the city of San Francisco, is asking the Supreme Court to reverse the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruling, which upheld EPA’s preposterous and impossible to meet standards.

“NPDES permits are the backbone of the CWA’s operation,” NPPC said. “Hundreds of thousands of businesses obtain these permits and must comply with their onerous reporting requirements. Under the CWA, Congress long ago decided that agricultural stormwater — nutrients applied to a field to fertilize crops that might inadvertently run off after it rains — wouldn’t be subject to permitting because of the importance of growing crops, the difficulty of controlling what runs off a field, and the minimal impact it posed to water quality overall. Nevertheless, activists continue to try to employ creative ways to force livestock producers to obtain a permit — not to protect water quality but to harass farmers though litigation and other attacks.”

NPPC’s track record is strong. The organization has successfully fought, including winning an important 9th Circuit victory earlier this month, to stop these efforts to impose requirements that livestock producers obtain NPDES permits that are otherwise unnecessary.

“However, if a producer does need to obtain a permit under the CWA or any other statute, the express terms of the permit should not conflict with itself and be impossible for the farmer to comply with,” NPPC said. “Under the CWA, this could result in legal obligations for producers that carry the risk of significant fines (over $60,000 per day, per violation) and potential criminal charges for their violation.”

Read more here.

NPPC Seeks Dismissal of Activist Challenge on Farm Emissions Reporting

Mon, 14 Oct 2024 15:51:19 GMT

The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) and a coalition of livestock and farm groups filed a Motion for Summary Judgment asking a federal judge to reject activist challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulations exempting livestock farms from filing reports on routine air emissions associated with manure storage and handling. This comes a week after NPPC successfully defended the pork industry against activist attempts in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to force permitting requirements on livestock farms under the Clean Water Act.

In a nearly 16-year battle over air emissions reporting, the latest development stems from a challenge to EPA rules established after Congress passed the Fair Agricultural Reporting Method (FARM) Act in 2018. The law, which had strong bipartisan support, exempted concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from reporting routine manure emissions to the Coast Guard’s National Response Center under the Superfund Act (CERCLA).

Congress acted after a 2017 federal court ruling that required farmers to calculate, document, and report their farm emissions. The EPA then issued a rule under the FARM Act, exempting these emissions from mandatory reporting to local emergency response authorities, as the requirement under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) only applies if reports are required under CERCLA.

Activist groups challenged this EPA rule during the Trump Administration. After President Biden’s election, the litigation paused while the EPA reconsidered its stance. Activists resumed their legal challenge when the Biden Administration ultimately supported livestock farmers and upheld the previous EPA rule.

NPPC and its coalition partners asked the court to reject the arguments of the activist groups and uphold EPA’s exemption from reporting routine air emissions to local emergency response authorities.

NPPC’s take:
Mandating unnecessary reporting of routine manure emissions places an undue burden on farmers, who are still awaiting the EPA’s completion of Emission Estimating Factors under the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study. It also overwhelms emergency responders with irrelevant data, hindering their ability to respond effectively to emergencies.

Why it matters:
Pig farmers are committed environmental stewards, and active community members are known for their volunteerism and leadership. Many emergency response teams in farming communities are comprised of farmers who understand the locations and operations of local livestock farms.

NPPC Works on Behalf of Producers to Present Arguments in CAFO Case

Thu, 19 Sep 2024 17:40:03 GMT

Attorneys for the National Pork Producers Council represented the interests of livestock and agriculture groups at oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco in a case involving how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), according to a statement by the NPPC.

The lawsuit was brought against the EPA earlier in the year by activist groups led by Food & Water Watch, the Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, and the North Carolina Environmental Justice Network. These groups filed the suit against the EPA over its denial of a petition demanding EPA to modify its regulations to require CAFOs to obtain federal permits to operate.

NPPC, along with the American Farm Bureau Federation, the U.S. Poultry and Egg Federation, and the United Egg Producers, intervened in the litigation in defense of EPA and the long-standing regulations that have shaped modern livestock and poultry farming.

According to the lawsuit, the groups want the CAFO Rule to presume pigs and other livestock and poultry farmers are discharging into Waters of the United States (WOTUS) in violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). They asked the California-based Ninth Circuit to remove application of the long-established and congressionally developed exclusion for agricultural storm water from animal feeding operations and instead require all CAFOs to either obtain CWA discharge permits or provide evidence they are not discharging into a WOTUS, the NPPC statement reads.

The NPPC explains such a ruling would be at odds with decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Those courts in 2005 and 2010, respectively, found that CAFOs do not have a duty to apply for a discharge permit because the CWA covers only actual discharges, not potential discharges.

The U.S. pork industry has long been the progressive leader in environmental protection and sustainability of protein production. In addition to continuing a close working relationship with federal, state, and local regulators, producers have been the leaders in developing successful practices and technologies to maximizing the efficient use of valuable manure resources to continuously improve on-farm performance and sustainability. At the same time, NPPC has successfully defended against the continued attacks by eco-activists to undermine food production in this country, says NPPC.

NPPC is concerned if the activists’ lawsuit is successful, it would upend livestock environmental regulations around the country, causing millions of dollars of litigation, fines, and challenges to individual hog farmers and setting the industry back decades.

Your Next Read:
Ag Industry Leaders Explore Consumer Demand for U.S. Red Meat Quality in Japan

EPA’s New WOTUS Rules: What Producers Need to Know About

Tue, 29 Aug 2023 19:25:51 GMT

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rules on Tuesday, following a May Supreme Court ruling in Sackett v. EPA , that required EPA to revise the WOTUS definition.

“We have worked with EPA to expeditiously develop a rule to incorporate changes required as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision,” said Michael L. Connor, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. “With this final rule, the Corps can resume issuing approved jurisdictional determinations that were paused in light of the decision.”

Under the new rule, two primary changes were made, including:
• Clarification that wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act must have a continuous surface connection to navigable waterways
• Removal of the highly debated “significant nexus” test, which was used to determine whether there was a connection between small and large bodies of water

What do these policy changes mean? Private property is better protected from being taken by the government, according to Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.). But this isn’t the first time WOTUS rules have been modified.

Is the new WOTUS definition good for ag?

WOTUS rules have evolved many times in the past 50 years, with each administration crafting their own version of the rules.

In December 2022, EPA revised WOTUS—ahead of the Supreme Court’s ruling—to give federal protection to large waterways, like interstate rivers and streams and wetlands that are adjacent to them. Many ag groups did not support these changes and shared their concerns in discussions, and in court. Some, including Ted McKinney of the National Association of State Departments of Ag (NASDA), don’t think EPA got the message.

“The ruling in Sackett v. EPA was a chance for EPA and the Army Corps to correct a deeply flawed, prematurely released rule and work to truly improve water quality outcomes. It is baffling that the revised rule does not accurately address all the issues and questions raised by the Supreme Court, nor does it address many of the questions stakeholder groups raised about the WOTUS rule EPA released at the end of last year,” McKinney said.

Zippy Duvall, Farm Bureau president, mirrored McKinney, saying the new WOTUS definition is another round of whiplash on growers.

“We’re pleased the vague and confusing ‘significant nexus’ test has been eliminated as the Supreme Court dictated. But EPA has ignored other clear concerns raised by the Justices, 26 states, and farmers across the country about the rule’s failure to respect private property rights and the Clean Water Act,” Duvall said.

Related story: WOTUS Ruling Causing Confusion in Key Ag States

Mary-Thomas Hart, chief counsel at National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), took a different stance on EPA’s announcement. While she applauded the EPA’s swift transition to a new rule, Hart says the association will monitor changes to ensure cattle producers are protected.

Moving forward, EPA says it plans to host events to communicate WOTUS changes. To kickstart the conversation, the agency scheduled a public webinar on Sept. 12, when it will outline the latest WOTUS revisions. Those interested in attending can register here .

WOTUS Meetings on the Calendar with New Recommendations in Tow

Tue, 25 Jul 2023 19:51:42 GMT

In a letter sent on Tuesday by the Waters Advocacy Coalition, demands are made for the Biden administration to exclude ditches from the definition of federal waters, include wetlands only when they can’t be distinguished from navigable waters, and erase the independent interstate waters and wetlands category.

The Coalition represents many sectors including energy, forestry, real estate, and transportation. Their affiliations range from the American Gas Association to the National Association of Home Builders and Chamber of Commerce. Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers were communicated this request.

WOTUS Timeline

EPA and the Corps have announced their intention to release a final rule consistent with the Supreme Court’s Sackett v. EPA ruling from May 25 by Sept. 1. In the mentioned ruling, it constricted the scope of waters included in the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) definition, marking a setback for the Biden administration.

The Coalition’s letter petitioned the agencies to not merely strike the “significant nexus” language or the definition of “adjacent waters” in the final rule. The Coalition believes such an approach would neither be a defendable response to the Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA nor would it be a suitable course for this particular rulemaking process.

New WOTUS Meeting on the Schedule

The letter comes as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is preparing for meetings to discuss amendments to the WOTUS rule, proposed by the EPA. So far, eight meetings have been arranged to review the final rule.

The schedule includes sessions commencing on July 27 with the Waters Advocacy Coalition and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. Additional meetings are planned for July 31 with RISE (Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment) and the National Mining Association.

In the following week, Aug. 1 is earmarked for consultations with the Edison Electric Institute, National Association of Homebuilders, and the National Stone and Gravel Association. The series of meetings will conclude on Aug. 4 with the American Farm Bureau Federation.

EPA has committed to finalizing and releasing their definitive rule by Sept. 1, 2023.

The Countdown is on for EPA to Revise WOTUS

Tue, 18 Jul 2023 18:56:03 GMT

EPA is facing a regulatory countdown for amendments to the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” (WOTUS) rule.

EPA has now submitted a package of amendments to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for their review, although the specifics of these changes have not been disclosed. This action follows a restriction placed on EPA’s power to regulate wetlands by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Additionally, the EPA has won a reprieve to postpone its appeal against an injunction that stopped the enforcement of the WOTUS rule in 24 states, as guided by a verdict from the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals. The rule’s enforcement has also been halted in Texas and Idaho.

Through a court filing, the EPA has proposed that their amended rule could focus the issues of the case more effectively, enabling those involved in the lawsuit to respond to the revised rule without engaging in unwarranted litigation.

EPA is expected to release the new rule by Sept. 1, with a deadline from the court to offer a progress report on the matter by Sept. 15.

Ag Climate Data Collection to be Improved with $300 Million Investment

Wed, 12 Jul 2023 21:24:05 GMT

Ag accounts for 11.2 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, according to a USDA’s 2020 estimates . While these estimates are two years old, USDA intends to improve the future measure, monitoring, reporting and verification of ag climate emissions via a $300 million investment announced on Wednesday.

“We have to improve the scientific backbone of our programs. This new investment by USDA in improving data and measurement of greenhouse gas emissions…is unmatched in its scope and potential to increase accuracy, reduce uncertainty and enhance overall confidence in these estimates,” says Tom Vilsack, USDA secretary. “We’re data driven, and we seek continuous improvement in our climate-smart agriculture and forestry efforts.”

With the funds and stakeholder recommendations in tow, USDA says it will:

• Create a soil carbon monitoring and research network
• Establish a GHG network
• Expand data management, infrastructure and capacity
• Improve models and tools for assessing GHG outcomes at state, regional and national levels
• Improve NRCS conservation standards and use data to reflect GHG capture opportunities
• Revamp coverage of conservation activity data
• Strengthen GHG inventory and assessment programs at the USDA

The investment follows the ethanol industry calling out the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for using obsolete data to measure ethanol’s GHG contributions.

“EPA is using outdated analysis from more than a decade ago to measure the carbon intensity of ethanol and other biofuels, despite the Department of Energy having updated data,” says Chris Bliley, Growth Energy’s senior vice president. “This practice limits ethanol markets.”

Related story: Fuels Parity Act Could Open a New Market Door for Ethanol

New legislation, titled the Fuels Parity Act , was introduced in the U.S. House to address the EPA GHG data and market limitations. While this act could help open market doors, the Food and Ag Climate Alliance (FACA)—an 80+ member ag coalition that includes committee members from groups such as Farm Bureau and NASDA—is confident this USDA funding will help pry open market doors as well.

“FACA supports science-based evaluation mechanisms for GHG quantification that account for the diversity and breadth of ag and forestry production systems. This work is critical to enhancing trust and confidence in the measurement of emissions outcomes that will allow new markets to flourish,” said FACA in a press release .

The $300 million will be tapped from the $20 billion Inflation Reduction Act that was signed into law in August 2022.

EPA to Release More WOTUS Rule Information

Sat, 01 Jul 2023 19:27:54 GMT

Earlier this week we reported that EPA plans to revise the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) regulation by Sept. 1. This move follows a Supreme Court ruling that limits federal protection of wetlands. EPA has not yet released a statement about the matter.

In its May 25 decision , SCOTUS said the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) only applies to marsh-like areas with a direct connection to bodies of water such as streams, oceans, rivers, or lakes. This deviates from the previous standard set by a 2006 ruling, which talked about a “significant nexus” between a land tract and a waterway.

EPA’s Response

“EPA (and) the Army Corps of Engineers remain fully committed to ensuring that all people have access to clean, safe water. We will never waver from that responsibility,” said the EPA statement about the upcoming revisions. “The agencies are interpreting ‘waters of the United States’ consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.”

Both the EPA and the Corps of Engineers have regulatory duties for federal waterways.

Kentucky Joins Band of States Blocking WOTUS

Tue, 25 Apr 2023 12:49:16 GMT

Kentucky joined the band of states blocking the Biden administration’s Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) definition on Thursday after an appeals court issued a freeze on the rule until May 10—when the court will decide whether it will issue a formal injunction.

Kentucky is the 27th state to put a wall up against the legislation. If the state moves to file an injunction, it will mirror the latest North Dakota ruling issued two weeks ago .

Why are so many state courts allowing a block of the rule?

The Problem with WOTUS

The latest WOTUS definition—put into motion by the Biden administration on March 20—has been met with a wave of backlash from the ag industry for its “overreaching” jurisdiction.

Under the current rule, the following bodies of water are considered WOTUS and therefore subject to federal regulation:

• Traditional navigable waters
• Tributaries that contribute perennial or intermittent flow to such waters
• Certain ditches that meet specific criteria related to flow and function
• Certain lakes and ponds
• Impoundments of otherwise jurisdictional waters
• Wetlands that are adjacent to jurisdictional waters

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

According to stakeholders and legislative officials, like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the policy will force farmers to navigate a “costly and time-consuming” permit process or bring government penalties. He shared his contempt for the “radical” WOTUS rule in a statement following Kentucky’s block.

“EPA’s expanded definition would classify nearly all wetlands as ‘navigable’ waters and thus subject to federal government interference,” McConnell said. “This would give federal bureaucrats in Washington sweeping control over just about every piece of land that touches a pothole, ditch, or puddle in Kentucky.”

What’s Next?

EPA countered Kentucky’s move, asking the court to make clear that the latest rule does not apply nationwide.

The ongoing WOTUS matter will ultimately be settled in the Supreme Court, with a ruling expected by June.

4 Items EPA Discussed this Week that Will Impact Producers

Thu, 20 Apr 2023 18:36:19 GMT

Michael Regan, EPA administrator, appeared before the House Ag Committee on Wednesday to discuss everything from WOTUS to the farm bill. Here are the highlights that will directly impact producers:

1. Year-Round E15

EPA is not yet ready to issue an emergency declaration to allow E15 fuel to be sold during the summer months as they did in 2022. While Regan said that many of the conditions are still in place that prompted the 2022 emergency waiver, he said EPA staff has not yet brought him enough evidence to issue an emergency waiver.

He cautioned that administrative moves by the Trump administration to allow year-round E15 sales did not survive court challenges. But he said no options are off the table as of yet and that EPA was continuing to work with the Department of Energy and others on the situation.

2. Biodiesel Blending Levels

Proposed 2023, 2024 and 2025 Renewable Fuel Standard volumes for biomass-based diesel and advanced volumes do not match the industry’s current production. Regan explained:

“Let me just say that in 2022 we set the highest volumes ever in EPA’s history. So we’re proud of that and what we plan to do is continue that trajectory. As you know we proposed a rule and we’re in that proposal phase and there aren’t too many things that I can comment during this time of comment but what I can say is that 2023, 2024, and 2025 will continue that positive trajectory.”

According to Regan, his team is taking comments from industry stakeholders and have been offered “a lot” of data that Regan believes will be “reflected in the final rule.”

3. The Future of Biofuels

Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), asked Regan the role he sees biofuels playing in the future. Last week, EPA announced emission standards for new cars. That announcement led to concerns from the biofuels industry and farmers in regard to the administration’s view on the role biofuels have been playing and can continue to play in reducing emissions and powering our cars and trucks.

Regan was asked what he would you say to our farmers and our domestic biofuels industry – the role he sees biofuels playing in the future. His response:

“Well, I think we see a significant role. It’s called walking and chewing gum at the same time. I think that when you look at the policies of this EPA, and the investments that we’re making in biofuels and advanced biofuels, just by the last RVO volumes we set and the ones we’re anticipating setting, and then the partnership that I have with Secretary Vilsack and Secretary Buttigieg as we look at the role of biofuels with aviation fuels, we see a tremendous market for biofuels that is complimentary to the EV fuels future. And so we think that we can do both – we see a balance here. And in both cases, we’re trying to follow the markets, follow technology, and follow the science as well.”

As for the recent EPA proposal which would tighten tailpipe emissions and force more electric vehicles (EVs) to be used, Regan said the plans do not work against biofuels. EPA is working to implement complimentary policies on that front. “We see a tremendous market for biofuels that is complementary to the EV fuels future,” he said.

4. Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS)

Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.) said the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule on wetlands protections and declared, “Any goodwill the administration has built with farmers and ranchers is gone.”

House Ag Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) mirrored Bacon’s comments.

“Historically, EPA has over-regulated the agriculture industry,” criticizing agency actions on pesticides, electric vehicles, and WOTUS.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon on an Idaho case that would restrict federally recognized wetlands to territory with a direct surface connection to a waterway.

Regan said the EPA issued its WOTUS rule last December in the face of “looming litigation” over not having a regulation. Courts have put on hold the recent Biden/EPA rule in 26 states.

Despite “enduring” 4.5 hours in the committee hearing, Regan shows promise in working more in favor of rural America, according to Thompson. He says Regan called him following the meeting to “emphasize how much he wants to do a better job” of working with the House Ag Committee.