Governmental Regulations

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.

Wisconsin Ag Regulators Propose Massive Livestock Fee Increases

Thu, 11 Sep 2025 19:16:40 GMT

The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) is proposing changes to rules, ATCP 10 and 12 , regulating animal disease and movement and animal markets, dealers and truckers.

According to the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation (WFBF) , these changes include massive fee increases that will be a substantial financial burden to markets, dealers and truckers that will unavoidably be passed down to farmers.

The license fee for what the DATCP calls “Animal Market Class A” would change from $420 to $7,430. A late fee for those markets would also increase by nearly 1,700% by shifting from the current price of $84 to $1,486. The registration fee paid by about 1,000 truckers transporting livestock in the state would increase 517%, from the current price of $60 to $370.

(Wisconsin Farm Bureau)

WFBF Government Relations Director Jason Mugnaini says it is important to clarify that Wisconsin’s program had historically received state funding support through DATCP, but this proposal shifts that onto industry fees.

The WFBF also reports the inspections and public health activity costs of these programs have previously been partially funded by state funding in Wisconsin, as they are in neighboring states. DATCP’s proposal shifts the full cost of these programs onto industry fees.

DATCP Secretary Randy Romanski explains the fees have not been adjusted since 2009 and the increases are needed to maintain critical animal health and transportation services.

“This program is currently in deficit because these have not been adjusted for so long,” Romanski explains. “Costs have increased during that time.”

He is transparent about the financial realities driving these increases. While the percentage increase might seem large, it reflects 17 years of accumulated cost pressures. He summarizes the goal is not to burden the industry, but to ensure the continued provision of critical animal health and movement services.

According to Sam GO, DATCP communications director, the DATCP Division of Animal Health receives federal funding through cooperative agreements for specific goals and objectives, such as animal disease surveillance and animal traceability. The cooperative agreements are separate from the programs in the proposed fee rules and do not fund the programs in the proposed fee rules.

She explains as federal funding for the cooperative agreements has decreased, those activities that are partially federally funded (such as animal disease surveillance and animal traceability) need to have a larger portion of their costs covered by the state animal health general program revenue. That means there is less state GPR remaining to cover the deficit in program revenue for the ATCP 10 and ATCP 12 programs.

The ATCP 10 fees support the following animal health programs: Certificate of Veterinary Inspection (CVI) Forms, Intermediate Handling Facilities, Disease Certifications (Brucellosis, Tuberculosis, Pseudorabies), Equine Infectious Anemia Retests, Equine Quarantine Stations, Feed Lots, Medical Separation, National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), Farm-Raised Deer, and Fish Farms.

The Process

Romanski explains the administrative rule process is collaborative and takes about two and a half years. He says the process is designed to be collaborative with multiple opportunities for public input and engagement. He encourages stakeholders to not just critique the increases, but to offer constructive feedback and potential alternative solutions.

The current stage is specifically about public comment and engagement. He says the department wants to hear from industry members, producers and other stakeholders. They are actively seeking input that can help shape the final rule package.

The public can participate and provide feedback that can be considered by the department’s staff through several channels:

Attending public hearings
Submitting written comments by Oct. 15

The remaining hearings will be hosted virtually and at the Prairie Oaks State Office Building, Room 106, 2811 Agriculture Dr., Madison, WI 53708. For more information, dial-in instructions and to register for online access click on the ATCP 10 or 12.

ATCP 10:
• Monday, Sept. 15 – 1 p.m.
• Wednesday, Sept. 17 – 9 a.m.

ATCP 12 :
• Tuesday, Sept. 16 – 1 p.m.
• Wednesday, Sept. 17 – 1 p.m.

Individuals can submit written comments by Oct. 15 to: Angela.fisher1@wisconsin.gov or Angela Fisher, DATCP, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708

Romanski explains after the public comment period, DATCP staff will review all submissions, consider suggested changes, and then present any revisions to their policy-making board. This ensures multiple layers of review and public involvement.

Neighboring State Comparisons

According to the proposal document , programs in adjacent states (Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois) are similar to Wisconsin, as all are based on federal standards. Neighboring states primarily fund these types of programs through general program revenue; therefore, they have lower fees than Wisconsin’s current fees. While Wisconsin’s program fees are collected from a small number of licensees, these critical programs have impacts and benefits across animal health, animal industries and public health.

In Iowa, a livestock market permit is $50 per year. The livestock dealer and livestock market agent permits are $10 per year. A bull breeder license is $20 every two years. A livestock dealer or order buyer permit is $50 per year. A feeder pig dealer agent permit is $6 every two years. A pig dealer’s agent permit is $3 per year.

In Michigan, an action Class I is $400 per year. A buying station (Class II) is $250 per year. The remaining fees are waived for veterans: A dealer (Class III) is $50 per year. An agent broker (Class III) is $50 per year. A collection point (Class III) is $50 per year. A trucker (Class IV) is $25 per year.

In Minnesota, a livestock market agency and public stockyard is $300 per year. A livestock dealer is $100 per year. A livestock dealer agent is $50 per year.

In Illinois, a livestock auction market license is $200 per year. The livestock dealer license is $25 for a new license, $10 for the annual renewal, as well as $10 for each location in addition to the first location, and $5 for each employee. A feeder swine dealer license is $25, the renewal is $10, and there is a fee of $5 for each employee. There is no fee for a slaughter livestock buyer’s license, just a requirement to submit an annual report.

Industry Feedback

Both the Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association (WCA) and WFBF have come out opposed to the fee increases.

Tressa Lacy, WCA president from Rio, Wis., voiced her concern at the first hearing on Sept. 11.

“The Wisconsin Cattlemen’s Association is in opposition to the proposed fee increases inspections and registrations related to a variety of activities by Wisconsin animal dealers, truckers and markets in ATCP 10 and 12,” she says. “I raise beef cattle with my husband and our 8-month-old in Columbia County. We both work off the farm in agriculture to financially afford our beef and hay farm operation, and I know the cost of these fees will be passed directly on to producers like us.

“The result of such significant increases will be fewer livestock marketing options, the potential for reduced disease traceability and fewer opportunities to sell livestock in the state of Wisconsin. Fewer options inevitably mean lower prices and thinner margins in an industry that is already being pushed on thin profit lines.”

She explains the inspections and animal health protections funded by these programs serve a broad public purpose — protecting animal health and consumer confidence in the meat raised in Wisconsin.

“It is fundamentally unfair to shift the entire cost onto the users as this is certainly a public food safety conversation,” Lacy adds. “I share the industry concern that these initial proposals are just the start of all programs in Wisconsin shifting to being user funded. Other states fund these programs with state support as the benefits are shared by everyone. DATCP should restore and continue the approach for these outlined programs.”

She concluded her comments saying: “WCA respectfully ask that DATCP reconsider these unreasonable fee increases and maintain a funding structure with state support that is fair, practical and supportive of both public health and Wisconsin agriculture.”

Mitch Giebel a WFBF member from Lyndon Station, Wis., also shared his thoughts on the proposed fee increases.

“I’m very concerned about the massive increases of fees being proposed,” he says. “As a young farmer, every dollar really does matter on our operation. We work hard to raise our livestock, and we already face high input costs, tight margins and unpredictability when it comes to marketing. Adding thousands of dollars in new fees, especially increases as massive as what is proposed doesn’t seem realistic. It’ll undoubtedly make it harder and tighter for the sale barns and livestock markets to survive, and unavoidably, it is probably going to be passed to us as the producers and farmers.”

He also explains programs such as animal health, disease control and traceability benefit everybody in the state, not just farmers.

“Healthy animals and safe food are the best interest for our state; other states recognize that and utilize state funding to maintain these programs and cover these costs,” he says. “Wisconsin needs to restore and maintain its state funding that has historically existed for these programs, rather than shifting a substantial burden on a small number of farmers and marketers. I am asking you to please reject these fee increases as they are written. They are too steep, too fast and out of line with our neighboring states.”

WFBF is calling on producers to share their concerns: “These unprecedented fee increases cannot move forward without your voice being heard. Share how these proposals would impact your farm, your business and Wisconsin agriculture.”

MAHA Policy Announcement Delayed, Agriculture Waits For Any Implications From Earlier Report

Tue, 12 Aug 2025 14:57:58 GMT

In late May, farmers and the agricultural industry were bracing for the release of the Make America Healthy Again report, which was to focus on children’s health and chronic diseases. Then came the 68-page report, which was responded to by farmers and  more than 300 agriculture organizations  sharing their concerns. Per the President’s executive order establishing the timeline for the MAHA report, policy recommendations were to be given to the president by Aug. 12.

Today, the White House said to not expect MAHA policy recommendations to be announced tomorrow. The Commission will deliver its recommendations by the deadline, per the executive order, however, per White House spokesman Kush Desai schedules of the President and cabinet members need to be coordinated for the public announcement.

Particularly in focus for the agricultural groups in their response to the MAHA movement has been any references to three crop protection active ingredients: glyphosate, atrazine and chloripyrifos. These three were included in the MAHA report as a list of products that can contribute to chronic disease in children.

In its response to the MAHA report, National Corn Growers Association said its findings show that if the three pesticides were to disappear completely, crop yields could decrease by more than 70% due to pests, weeds and disease.

Politico reported on unnamed sources saying the White House has been meeting with stakeholder groups leading up to the policy announcements.

Could EPA Decision Signal The Beginning Of The End For DEF?

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:26:25 GMT

Mike Berdo has strong words to describe his ongoing experiences using machinery requiring DEF ( Diesel Exhaust Fluid ) on his southeast Iowa farm.

“It has been an absolute nightmare, at least for us. Mechanics make trip after trip to do little stuff that’s very expensive to fix,” said Berdo, who produces grain and beef cattle near Washington. “We had planting delays last spring … little stuff that came from it and just seemed like [an issue to deal with] day after day.”

The ongoing mechanical issues and costs are why Berdo said he is “all for” EPA rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The Finding has enabled the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and, in recent years, and launch requirements such as the use of DEF systems in diesel-powered engines.

EPA Draws A Line In The Sand
On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a proposal to rescind the 2009 Finding.

If finalized, the proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, EPA said in a follow-up press release .

The move would start with EPA’s first greenhouse gas standard set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines.

EPA said the proposal is expected to “save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.”

Zeldin made the announcement to rescind the Finding in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

What The Decision Could Mean To Farmers
Specific to U.S. farmers, the proposal could potentially result in DEF systems no longer being included on new tractors and other heavy equipment using diesel-powered engines, said Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk, during a Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday.

South Dakota farmer Ryan Wagner told Flory he has a wait-and-see perspective on how or whether the EPA proposal goes into effect. He anticipates that reversing the Finding will take considerable time and effort for EPA to implement.

“It took a long time with the interim engines and things to get into full DEF in the first place,” Wagner said. “I don’t know how long it would take to unwind all that and how quickly manufacturing will just take those systems right off, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens.”

To Wagner’s point, here’s a brief look back at some timing showing when DEF rolled out in agriculture and nonroad equipment and became mandatory . The regulations were phased in over several years based on the type of equipment and engine size:

2008: DEF became required for all new diesel engines with engine sizes over 750 horsepower.

2011: the regulations expanded to include equipment with engine sizes between 175-750 horsepower.

By 2015, all new nonroad diesel engines were required to be Tier 4 compliant and utilize DEF, regardless of equipment type or engine size.

As Wagner considers DEF, he noted its use in diesel engines has provided him with one benefit: “On the plus side, I do like that they don’t make the walls of my shop black. That’s been nice,” he said. “You can run them inside for a short time and not not feel like you’re breathing in a bunch of soot and making everything black.”

Expect Legal Challenges To EPA Decision
A number of environmental groups have already blasted the move by EPA, saying it spells the end of the road for U.S. action against climate change, according to an online article by Reuters .

Legal challenges from various environmental groups, states and lawyers are likely ahead.

That fact wasn’t lost on Flory and the Farmer Forum participants during the AgriTalk discussion on Wednesday.

“If this proposal is finalized, it’s going to start a lot of conversations … and the dominoes are going to start to fall, something that we need to keep track of, no doubt,” Flory said. You can hear the complete Farmer Forum discussion on AgriTalk here:

EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input. Further information on the public comment process and instructions for participation will be published in the Federal Register and on the EPA website .

Your next read: Right To Repair Granted? John Deere Launches Digital Self-Repair Tool for $195 Per Tractor

USDA Set To Downsize With Reorganization Plan

Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:10:23 GMT

Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins announced July 24 that the USDA would reorganize, representing consolidation and elimination of programs and personnel.

Dubbed the “ USDA Department Reorganization Plan ,” the move will include moving more than half of the agency’s Washington, D.C.-area staff to five different hubs across the country, “refocusing its core operations” on USDA’s founding mission, and reducing overall staff. According to the announcement and plan document, the move is intended to “improve the internal management” of the department.

“Here at USDA, we are refocusing our core operations to better align with President Lincoln’s founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry, as well as serving American taxpayers,” Rollins wrote Thursday morning on social platform X.

Here @USDA, we are refocusing our core operations to better align with President Lincoln’s founding mission of supporting American farming, ranching, and forestry, as well as serving American taxpayers.
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) July 24, 2025

The reorganization is built around what the agency calls four pillars:

Ensure the size of USDA’s workforce aligns with financial resources and priorities.
Bring USDA closer to its customers by relocated resources outside of the national capital region.
Eliminate management layers and bureaucracy.
Consolidate support functions.

USDA Workforce Costs and Location Changes

Highlighting the high cost of living in the nation’s capital — where average monthly rent in January 2024 was $2,475, according to real estate and rental search site RedFin — USDA’s reorg seeks to move roughly 2,600 of its current 4,600 D.C.-area personnel to five “hub locations” across the country.

According to the plan document, these locations were selected considering cost of living and “existing concentrations of USDA employees.”

These hubs (and their January 2024 average rent levels) are:

Salt Lake City, Utah ($1,627)
Fort Collins, Colo. ($1,607)
Raleigh, N.C. ($1,371)
Indianapolis, Ind. ($1,265)
Kansas City, Mo. ($1,140)

“In addition to these five hubs, USDA will maintain two additional core administrative support locations: Albuquerque, New Mexico and Minneapolis, Minnesota,” the reorg plan reads. “USDA will continue to maintain critical service centers and laboratories including agency service centers in St. Louis, Missouri; Lincoln, Nebraska; and Missoula, Montana.”

The department says it aims to have no more than 2,000 staff members remain in the National Capital Region.

“The details are still to be determined,” adds Callie Eideberg, a Principal with The Vogel Group. “It will be helpful when we know the pace and cadence of these changes, as that will determine how smooth or chaotic this move will be.”

She agrees that the reorganization could benefit those employees looking for a lower cost of living, but the distance between hubs will make for its own workforce management issues.

“Different administrations have tried, in smaller ways, to move the federal workforce to other regions and they’ve been met with these management obstacles,” adds Eideberg. “Stakeholders, as well, will now need to travel to five different locations around the country to have their conversations with USDA instead of ‘one stop shopping’ in Washington.”

The location changes are not limited to personnel only, however. The physical buildings USDA will be occupying in the capital area will also change. The reorg plan cited costs associated with maintaining and repairing some of the overly large buildings as part of the motivation.

Announced building changes include:

The South Building and Braddock Place facilities will be vacated.
Beltsville Agricultural Research Center will be vacated over several years “to avoid disruption of critical USDA research activities.”
George Washington Carver Center, currently being used for area USDA personnel during the reorg, will be sold or transferred eventually.

The department said the Whitten Building will remain the USDA headquarters, and both the Yates Building and the National Agricultural Library “will be retained for use.”

Consolidation and Elimination

Though the reorg document stressed that “USDA is not conducting a large-scale workforce reduction” as part of the change, it also highlighted that the move is part of its ongoing process of reducing its workforce.

“Much of this reduction was through voluntary retirements and the Deferred Retirement Program (DRP), a completely voluntary tool. As of today, 15,364 individuals voluntarily elected deferred resignation,” the reorg document read.

According to the agency’s own site — both currently and during the previous administration — the USDA has “nearly 100,000 employees.” This makes the stated number of USDA employees who have taken deferred resignation slightly more than 15% of the agency’s overall staff.

Programs within USDA will also be consolidated or eliminated. Those programs and efforts highlighted include:

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will eliminate its area offices, with “residual functions” to be preformed by its Office of National Programs.
The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) will consolidate its current 12 regions into five “over a multi-year period.”
The Food and Nutrition Service will reduce its current seven regions into five, aligned with the five hubs, in the next two years.
The Forest Service will “phase out” its nine regional offices in the coming year. It will maintain a reduced state office in Juneau, Alaska, and consolidate its stand-alone research stations into one in Fort Collins, Colo. It will keep its Fire Sciences Lab and Forest Products Lab.
Most “support functions” previously done within the USDA — such as civil rights functions, Freedom of Information Act responses, IT and HR, legislative and tribal relations, and others — will be moved into other agencies of the federal government in an effort “to reduce duplication” within the department.

The reorg document also notes that it will consolidate grants and financial assistance: “This consolidation will include, where feasible, the transfer of grant making and administration functions from USDA offices and agencies that currently have limited capacity to perform such duties to other offices and agencies.”

Most extension personnel in hub-area institutions whom The Packer reached out to about the potential impacts of the reorg either had not responded as of press time or reported that it is too early to provide any meaningful insight.

The News Service from Colorado State University in Fort Collins said, “CSU is continually tracking changes at the federal level and assessing impact to our work.”

Rollins: Impact in Her Own Words

Midday July 24, Rollins spoke to AgriTalk ‘s Chip Flory to talk about the announcement.

“This is just another step in the implementation of getting the government out of Washington, D.C., and getting it to the people,” she says, adding that the move “will save a lot of money.”

When asked if the existing D.C. staff will make the move to the five hubs or if new personnel will need to be hired in those areas, Rollins says she thinks it will be “half and half.”

“For those that do want to continue leading in the Forest Service or working hard on food stamps or, of course, our key work supporting farmers and ranchers, they’re going to have an amazing opportunity to move to, frankly, a better part of the country,” she says. “Out of Washington, D.C., better quality of life, better cost of living and continue to serve the great people of our country. I think that’s a win-win.”

For those who don’t want to move, she says “there are plenty of opportunities in the private sector.”

Rollins adds that the transition is not going to be easy, but the department is ready to do hard work that will streamline its operations and bring services closer to the communities being served. She gave the example of the Forest Service.

“A lot of people don’t know that the USDA manages all of our national forests. We’ve got 11,000 full-time firefighters on the USDA payroll that are constantly battling our fires and are the frontliners,” she says. “The fact that that leadership is in Washington, D.C., but most of the fires are in the West — that doesn’t make any sense. Why don’t we have the leadership of the Forest Service closer to the fires and the firefighters that they serve?”

Breaking: Mexican Border Closed Again as New World Screwworm Comes Within 370 Miles of the U.S.

Thu, 10 Jul 2025 02:18:05 GMT

On July 8, Mexico’s National Service of Agro-Alimentary Health, Safety and Quality reported a new case of New World screwworm (NWS) in Ixhuatlan de Madero, Veracruz, Mexico, which is approximately 160 miles northward of the current sterile fly dispersal grid on the eastern side of the country and 370 miles south of the U.S./Mexico border.

This new northward detection comes approximately two months after northern detections were reported in Oaxaca and Veracruz, less than 700 miles away from the U.S. border, which triggered the closure of our ports to Mexican cattle, bison and horses on May 11, 2025 .

While USDA announced a risk-based phased port re-opening strategy for cattle, bison and equine from Mexico beginning as early as July 7, 2025 , this newly reported NWS case raises significant concern about the previously information shared by Mexican officials and severely compromises the outlined port reopening schedule of five ports from July 7 to Sept. 15. Therefore, in order to protect American livestock and the U.S. food supply, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has ordered the closure of livestock trade through southern ports of entry effective immediately.

“The United States has promised to be vigilant — and after detecting this new NWS case, we are pausing the planned port reopening’s to further quarantine and target this deadly pest in Mexico. We must see additional progress combatting NWS in Veracruz and other nearby Mexican states in order to reopen livestock ports along the Southern border,” Rollins says. “Thanks to the aggressive monitoring by USDA staff in the U.S. and in Mexico, we have been able to take quick and decisive action to respond to the spread of this deadly pest.”

To ensure the protection of U.S. livestock herds, USDA is holding Mexico accountable by ensuring proactive measures are being taken to maintain a NWS free barrier. This is maintained with stringent animal movement controls, surveillance, trapping and following the proven science to push the NWS barrier south in phases as quickly as possible.

In June, Secretary Rollins launched a 5-point plan to combat NWS by protecting our border at all costs, increasing eradication efforts in Mexico, and increasing readiness. USDA also announced the groundbreaking of a sterile fly dispersal facility in South Texas. This facility will provide a critical contingency capability to disperse sterile flies should a NWS detection be made in the Southern U.S.

Simultaneously, USDA is moving forward with the design process to build a domestic sterile fly production facility to ensure it has the resources to push NWS back to the Darien Gap. USDA is working on these efforts in lockstep with border states – Arizona, New Mexico and Texas – as it will take a coordinated approach with federal, state and local partners to keep this pest at bay and out of the U.S.

USDA will continue to have personnel perform site visits throughout Mexico to ensure the Mexican government has adequate protocols and surveillance in place to combat this pest effectively and efficiently.

Click to enlarge.

(USDA)

Your Next Read: Protect Your Livestock: Signs of New World Screwworm

EPA To Address ‘Government Overreach’ on Defining WOTUS

Thu, 13 Mar 2025 20:49:01 GMT

EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced on Wednesday the agency will undertake 31 historic actions “to advance President Trump’s day one executive orders and power the great American comeback.”

Among the announcements, Zeldin said EPA will work with the United States Army Corps of Engineers to deliver on President Donald Trump’s promise to review the definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS).

“The agencies will move quickly to ensure that a revised definition follows the law, reduces red tape, cuts overall permitting costs, and lowers the cost of doing business in communities across the country while protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution,” Zeldin said in a prepared statement.

“Given the U.S. Supreme Court’s watershed decision in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, it is time for EPA to finally address this issue once and for all in a way that provides American farmers, landowners, businesses, and states with clear and simplified direction,” he added.

Zeldin’s announcement was an important step forward in correcting what the Supreme Court had ruled in 2023 as EPA’s overreach in defining WOTUS. At the time, the agency had charged ahead ignoring concerns raised by the Supreme Court, 26 states, and farmers and ranchers across the country, according to American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) President Zippy Duvall.

“The Supreme Court clearly ruled, almost two years ago, that the government overreached in its interpretation of what waters fell under federal jurisdiction, but inaction and vague implementation guidelines by EPA led to permitting delays, litigation and uncertainty,” Duvall said in a prepared statement on Wednesday.

Listening Sessions Are Being Scheduled By EPA
Mary-Thomas Hart, chief counsel for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory on Thursday the Supreme Court had ruled EPA’s overreach on WOTUS in 2023 amounted to a violation of a landowners’ constitutional rights.

“Because there are criminal liabilities that attach to violation of the Clean Water Act, a landowner has to be able to know when they look at their land or when they look at a water feature, what is or isn’t WOTUS,” Hart said.

A priority for the Trump Administration moving forward will be working cooperatively with state partners, empowering them and local officials to protect water bodies while accelerating economic opportunity. As a result, “decisions will be made efficiently and effectively while benefiting from local knowledge and expertise,” EPA’s Zeldin said.

To inform those decisions, EPA has issued a request for information from stakeholders about how they’re impacted by WOTUS and will host a series of listening sessions from late March through April 2025, according to information on the agency’s website.

EPA will hold at least six listening sessions, with two open to all stakeholders, one open to States, one open to Tribes, one open to industry and agricultural stakeholders, and one open to environmental and conservational stakeholders.

The agency said registration instructions and dates will be forthcoming at the following website: https://www.epa.gov/wotus/public-outreach-and-stakeholder-engagement-activities.

Persons or organizations wishing to provide verbal recommendations during the listening sessions will be selected on a first-come, first-serve basis. Due to the expected number of participants, EPA said individuals will be asked to limit their spoken presentation to three minutes. Once the speaking slots are filled, participants may be placed on a standby list to speak or continue to register to listen to the recommendations.

Listen to the AgriTalk discussion on WOTUS with NCBA’s Mary-Thomas Hart here:

RFK Jr. and Zeldin Comment on How They Would Implement Trump Policy

Thu, 30 Jan 2025 22:46:07 GMT

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s confirmation hearing for Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Wednesday (Jan. 29) before the Senate Finance Committee lasted over three hours, revealing key points:

Vaccine stance: Kennedy attempted to soften his past anti-vaccine rhetoric, stating support for vaccines but struggling to explain previous controversial statements.
Health policy priorities: He emphasized addressing chronic diseases, promoting safe food, removing conflicts of interest in health agencies, and using “gold-standard science.” Kennedy said that federal dollars spent on SNAP and school lunch programs could be one place to start, “helping kids” avoid obesity and chronic illness by cutting out sugary drinks and “ultra-processed foods.” He would also fund federal research into the link between food additives and chronic illnesses, though he didn’t specify which ingredients sparked the most concern. “I don’t want to take food away from anybody,” Kennedy said.
Kennedy emphasized his support for American farmers, stating:
- “American farms are the bedrock of our culture, of our politics, [and] of our national security.”
- He was a “4-H kid” and spent summers working on ranches.
- He wants to work with farmers and food producers to remove burdensome regulations and unleash American ingenuity.
Agricultural practices and health. Kennedy expressed concerns about current agricultural practices:
- He criticized the use of certain chemicals in farming, stating they destroy soil microbiomes and cause erosion.
- He linked chemical-intensive agriculture to health problems, mentioning clusters of cancers, autoimmune diseases, and obesity in farming communities.
- He called for incentivizing transitions to regenerative agriculture and less chemically intensive practices.Kennedy told Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) that farmers are affected by cancers and autoimmune illnesses that he believes are caused by ingredients like food dyes. “We need to fix our food supply,” Kennedy said, noting that “seeds and chemicals” used by U.S. farmers are “destroying our soil” in the long term. When asked about Kennedy’s “seeds and chemicals” comment, Grassley told Politico: “I’ll have someone from Iowa State University talk to him.”
Collaboration with USDA. Kennedy emphasized his intention to work closely with the Department of Agriculture:
- He stated that MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) “simply cannot succeed without a partnership a full Partnership of American farmers.”
- He committed to working collaboratively with USDA and other federal agencies before implementing policies affecting food supplies.
- Kennedy mentioned that President Trump instructed him to work with Brooke Rollins at USDA to ensure policies support farmers. Rollins told reporters last week that she was supportive of Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” movement. “But what is important and, if confirmed, what my role will be, will be to strike a balance between defending our farmers and our ranchers but also working with Bobby Kennedy, who I adore, to effectuate the president’s vision on all of the above,” Rollins said
Regulatory approach. Kennedy outlined his approach to agricultural regulations:
- He promised to work with farmers to remove burdensome regulations.
- Kennedy acknowledged the “very thin margins” farmers operate on and stated he doesn’t want any farmer to leave their farm for economic or regulatory reasons.
- He agreed that agricultural practice regulations should primarily be left to USDA and EPA.
- “I expect you to leave agricultural practice and regulation to the proper agencies,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told Kennedy. That means, for the most part, leaving policies that impact farmers to USDA and EPA, Grassley clarified.
Future of agriculture. Kennedy shared his vision for the future of American agriculture:
- He called for fixing the food supply as a top priority. Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told Kennedy that he was happy the nominee addressed the “social media rumors” about agriculture.
- “You made it very very clear you’re not going to tell Americans what to eat, but you do want Americans to know what they’re eating,” Lankford said, calling that a “pretty fair perspective” on food policy.
- Kennedy advocated for supporting the transition to regenerative and sustainable farming practices.
- He mentioned plans to rewrite regulations to give smaller operators “a break.”
- Throughout the hearing, Kennedy attempted to position himself as an ally to farmers while also advocating for changes in agricultural practices to address health and environmental concerns.
Controversial past: Democrats challenged his history of health misinformation and grasp of Medicare and Medicaid.
Republican support: Some GOP senators backed Kennedy, with Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) calling him “awesome,” though the final vote remains uncertain.
Financial concerns: His financial ties to lawsuits against Merck raised conflict-of-interest questions.
Abortion stance: Kennedy sidestepped direct answers but aligned with Trump’s anti-abortion policies, shifting from his previous pro-choice stance.

Bottom line: With strong opposition and divided support, Kennedy’s confirmation vote is expected to be closely contested. Today he attends another confirmation hearing before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. The Senate Finance Committee expects to hold its RFK Jr. vote next week.

Zeldin Confirmed as EPA Administrator

On Wednesday (Jan. 29), the Republican-led Senate confirmed former Congressman Lee Zeldin as the new administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a 56-42 vote. A staunch Trump ally, Zeldin is expected to steer the agency in alignment with the former president’s environmental policies.

Vote breakdown: All 53 Republicans backed Zeldin, joined by three Democrats — Sens. Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), and John Fetterman (Pa.).
Policy direction: Zeldin is expected to roll back environmental regulations, emphasizing economic growth and private-sector collaboration.
Biofuel policy. Zeldin has raised concerns among ethanol and biofuel advocates due to his past opposition to the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) and ethanol. However, during his confirmation process, Zeldin made some commitments that suggest a potential shift in his stance. As a congressman, Zeldin had a history of opposing biofuels and the RFS. He signed letters expressing concern about proposed RFS volume increases, citing issues with the “E10 blend wall.” In 2017, Zeldin cosponsored an unsuccessful bill to repeal the RFS. He raised concerns about the validity and practicality of higher ethanol blends like E15 and E85. But during his confirmation process, Zeldin made several statements that indicate a potential change in his approach:
- He committed to giving producers and the industry certainty in the marketplace regarding Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs).
- Zeldin acknowledged the importance of the RFS issue to President Trump and certain senators.
- He stated that no person or industry has any special influence over his decision-making, addressing concerns about his past connections to the oil industry.
Biofuel industry representatives have expressed cautious optimism:
- The Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) looks forward to working with Zeldin on keeping the RFS on track and addressing other priorities like E15 availability.
- The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (IRFA) encouraged Zeldin to pursue the role biofuels can play in U.S. energy dominance.
- The American Coalition for Ethanol (ACE) appreciated Zeldin’s commitments to follow the law regarding RVO rulemakings and supporting year-round E15 nationwide.

Of note: While Zeldin’s past positions raised initial concerns, his recent statements during the confirmation process suggest he may be open to working with the biofuels industry in his new role as EPA Administrator.

Climate stance: Critics warn his leadership could weaken climate initiatives, favoring fossil fuel interests.
Reactions: Republicans praise his “common-sense regulation” approach, while environmental groups call his confirmation a serious setback for public health and environmental justice.

Bottom line. As Zeldin assumes leadership, his tenure is likely to reshape the EPA’s role in U.S. environmental policy for years to come.

Cassidy Casts Doubt on RFK Jr.’s HHS Nomination

Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-La.) delivered a blunt message to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. during Thursday’s hearing, signaling serious concerns about his nomination for Health and Human Services (HHS) secretary.

“I’ve been struggling with your nomination,” Cassidy stated in his closing remarks, a potential roadblock for Kennedy, given Cassidy’s influential position on the Senate Finance Committee. If Cassidy votes against Kennedy in the panel’s decision, the nomination may not advance.

The Louisiana senator expressed deep skepticism about Kennedy’s stance on vaccines, questioning whether he could be trusted to uphold sound public health policy. Cassidy specifically criticized Kennedy’s history of vaccine skepticism, warning that such views could erode trust in essential immunizations.

“A worthy movement, called MAHA, to improve the health of Americans?” Cassidy asked. “Or will it undermine it, always asking for more evidence and never accepting the evidence that is there?”

He also recounted a recent case of two children dying in a Baton Rouge ICU from vaccine-preventable diseases. “My concern is that if there’s any false note, any undermining of a mama’s trust in vaccines, another person will die from a vaccine-preventable disease,” Cassidy warned.

Beyond his own reservations, Cassidy’s remarks signal broader challenges for Kennedy’s nomination. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a childhood polio survivor, is unlikely to back a nominee with anti-vaccine ties. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also remain key votes to watch, with both urging Kennedy to support vaccinations.

Cassidy, up for re-election in 2026, has already drawn a Trump-aligned challenger, State Treasurer John Fleming. Though Cassidy emphasized his desire for Trump’s policies to succeed, he warned that anti-vaccine rhetoric could tarnish Trump’s legacy.

“I want President Trump’s policies to succeed,” Cassidy said. “But if there’s someone that is not vaccinated because of policies, of attitudes we bring to the department, and there’s another 18-year-old who dies of a vaccine-preventable disease… The greatest tragedy will be her death. I can also tell you an associated tragedy will be that it will cast a shadow over President Trump’s legacy, which I want to be the absolute best legacy.”

Bottom line: With Cassidy’s support in doubt and broader Senate skepticism, Kennedy’s path to confirmation remains steep.

Iowa Secretary of Ag Weighs In on The H5N1 Battle, Vaccine Potential And Trade Sensitivities

Wed, 29 Jan 2025 13:53:38 GMT

Eggs continue to be a hot topic in the news as supplies are down, prices are up – and expected to go even higher – and consumers are understandably concerned.

At the center of the issue, fanning the on-going problem for poultry and dairy producers as well, is the Highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza A virus (HPAI H5N1).

AgriTalk Host Chip Flory broached the topic with Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig on Tuesday.

At the heart of their conversation was a two-part question – how does the U.S. address the virus and, in the process, prevent any potential negative ramifications on trade?

Naig says the federal government is taking what he described as a three-legged stool approach to addressing the problem in both industries.

He described the three legs of the stool as being USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), individual state animal health officials and industry.

“We work very closely with APHIS on this, meaning that they’re the ones that are providing the indemnity payments to producers. They are providing the disposal and cleanup assistance, but they must work in close collaboration with the states and state animal health officials,” Naig says. “And then, of course, you’ve got to have the third leg, which is industry.”

Biosecurity Measures
Naig noted that while the virus hit the poultry industry hard in 2015, it struck even harder in 2024.

“It’s not just in the Midwest or West, it’s been really all across the country now, affecting the egg laying industry, broilers and turkey production,” Naig says.

A significant positive, Naig says, is that biosecurity measures in the poultry industry appear to be preventing farm-to-farm spread. “The industry continues to get high marks for that, which wasn’t the case in 2015, which was so devastating because we didn’t have those strategies in place.”

“I believe, and our experience has been, that our USDA partners in this regard have been very strong,” he adds.

As Naig addressed the three-legged stool approach the U.S. is taking to addressing the virus in dairy, he says the three partners have more work to do.

“Frankly, there’s been a lot of criticism to share around the three legs, if you will, on how states have reacted, or how strongly USDA should have reacted, and what the industry is doing to try to contain that virus. So, I would say on the dairy side of things, it’s a different story (than in poultry). There’s a lot more work that’s yet to be done to even understand how that virus is impacting those (dairy) herds.”

What Is The Role For Vaccines?
Flory asked Sec. Nagy whether he believes a vaccine could be part of the solution to the virus or whether that would set up too many trade barriers. Flory also asked whether the virus is stable enough for a long enough period of time for a vaccine to be developed that would work effectively.

Both are questions the U.S. is grappling with as it tries to get ahead of the virus in dairy and poultry.

Earlier this month, Reuters reported the U.S. will rebuild a stockpile of avian influenza vaccines for poultry that match the strain of the virus circulating in commercial flocks and wild birds, citing the Department of Agriculture.

Naig told Flory that he believes a vaccine could be developed, with regard to poultry specifically, and its use negotiated into trade agreements.

“Those are challenges, and yet those are things that can be worked on and can be done, but it’s not easily done. I would want to put a flag there,” Naig says.

“I’m supportive of developing … we should try to figure out whether this can be an effective tool. If you’re in the broiler business or if you’re in the turkey meat business or if you’re in the egg business or maybe you’re in the genetics business, those are very different in terms of how you view that vaccine.”

Naig explains part of the different viewpoints on vaccine use have to do with the difference between poultry business segments.

“We need to recognize that those sectors are different in how they’ll view and potentially use a vaccine,” Naig says.

“Don’t treat them all the same. It’ll make way more sense for some than others.”

Naig did not weigh in on vaccine development for the dairy industry specifically.

The full conversation between Naig and Flory on AgriTalk is available below.

Your next read: Think Egg Prices Are Already Too High? USDA Says Retail Egg Prices Could Jump Another 20% in 2025

FDA Proposes New Front-of-Package Food Labeling to Help Consumers Make Healthier Food Choices

Tue, 14 Jan 2025 18:17:48 GMT

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed a new front-of-package (FOP) labeling rule aimed at helping consumers make healthier food choices quickly and easily. This “Nutrition Info box,” a black-and-white design, will display levels of saturated fat, sodium, and added sugars, categorized as “Low,” “Med,” or “High,” along with the percent Daily Value for each nutrient.

Based on extensive research involving nearly 10,000 U.S. adults, this initiative seeks to complement the existing Nutrition Facts label and simplify decision-making for shoppers. If finalized, large manufacturers would have three years to comply, while smaller businesses (less than $10 million in annual food sales) would have four.

Example of Proposed Info Box

(FDA )

The FDA anticipates this measure will empower consumers, encourage healthier product formulations, and contribute to reducing chronic diseases like heart disease, diabetes, and obesity.

“For example, when comparing yogurt, the Nutrition Info box could help them identify a yogurt that is lower in added sugars,” said FDA in a statement.

Public comments on the proposal are open until May 16, 2025.

This new label is designed to complement the existing Nutrition Facts label found on the back of food packages, providing a more accessible and quick-reference guide for consumers.

FDA Commissioner Robert M. Califf, M.D., emphasized the importance of this proposal, stating, “It is time we make it easier for consumers to glance, grab and go. Adding front-of-package nutrition labeling to most packaged foods would do that.”

FDA also says that by displaying simplified, at-a-glance, nutrition information that details and interprets the saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar content of a food as “Low,” “Med,” or “High” on the front of food packages would provide consumers with an accessible description of the numerical information found in the Nutrition Facts label.

What are other examples of what the nutrition info boxes could look like? FDA provided the examples below.

Examples of nutrition box info.

(FDA)

President-elect Trump Names Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Head Of Department of Health and Human Services

Fri, 15 Nov 2024 14:40:21 GMT

President-elect Donald Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Politico was the first to report the development ( link ).

On X, Trump posted:

I am thrilled to announce Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as The United States Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS). For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it…
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 14, 2024

Kennedy, a former presidential candidate and well-known anti-vaccine activist, dropped his own presidential bid to endorse Trump. During his victory speech, Trump promised to let Kennedy “go wild” with health and food policy in his administration, stating, “He’s going to help make America healthy again... He wants to do some things, and we’re going to let him get to it.”

Kennedy will likely face a tough confirmation battle as he would take over a department with an annual budget that tops $1.7 trillion, more than 80,000 employees and 13 operating divisions, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration. Most of its spending goes to Medicare and Medicaid.

This nomination may face significant challenges:

Public health concerns: Kennedy’s appointment would likely roil many public health experts due to his history of promoting debunked claims about vaccines, particularly the discredited notion that vaccines cause autism.
Senate confirmation: If nominated, Kennedy would need to go through Senate confirmation hearings, which could prove challenging. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would likely scrutinize his stance on vaccines and other controversial health-related views.
Political divide: Some Republican senators, including moderates like Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), may be hesitant to support Kennedy’s nomination. However, others, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), have expressed strong support for Kennedy playing a key role in the Trump administration.

In a social media post, Trump said: “For too long, Americans have been crushed by the industrial food complex and drug companies who have engaged in deception, misinformation, and disinformation when it comes to Public Health.”

This development marks a significant move for Donald Trump, indicating a willingness to appoint controversial figures to high-ranking positions in his administration. Kennedy’s nomination suggests a potential upheaval in public health policy, with sweeping proposed changes that reflect his long-standing criticisms of the medical and regulatory establishment. As a vocal skeptic of vaccines and an advocate for revisiting food and drug regulations, Kennedy’s policies could reshape key areas within the health sector, from nutrition oversight to vaccine safety and approval processes.

Kennedy has argued that unhealthy food, medicines and water have fueled the rise of chronic disease in America, and that government regulators have been corrupted by corporate influence.

His previous environmental activism and complex relationship with both Trump and the political establishment present a dynamic narrative, with his past criticisms of U.S. public health responses coming under intense scrutiny. His track record and vocal stances, including doubts on vaccine safety and opposition to fluoride use, have drawn strong reactions from public health experts, many of whom view his potential influence with concern.

Kennedy has outlined several controversial positions on agricultural topics. He’s been strongly critical of modern industrial agriculture, arguing that current practices are damaging to human health, soil, and water resources. He claims that existing farm policies have led to:

Overuse of chemicals, pesticides, and herbicides
Concentrated monocropping and feedlots
Production of “commodities” rather than healthy food
Destruction of soil health

Kennedy advocates for a major shift towards regenerative and organic farming practices. Key aspects include:

Encouraging sustainable farming methods that build soil health
Replenishing aquifers and improving water management
Moving away from chemical-intensive agriculture
Supporting smaller family farms over large industrial operations

Kennedy has stated he wants to “reverse 80 years of farm policy” in the U.S. This includes:

Shifting agricultural subsidies away from commodity crops
Providing incentives for regenerative and organic practices
Giving farmers an “off-ramp” from the current system
Stricter Regulation of Agricultural Chemicals

A major focus for Kennedy is reducing or eliminating the use of certain pesticides, herbicides, and other agricultural chemicals. He has proposed:

Banning agricultural chemicals prohibited in other countries
Conducting more research on health impacts of farm chemicals
Using federal agencies to “squeeze” pesticides and herbicides out of farming

Changes to dietary guidelines and food programs. Kennedy argues that corporate interests have too much influence over U.S. dietary guidelines and food programs. He wants to:

Remove “conflicts of interest” from dietary guideline panels
Reduce ultra-processed foods in federal nutrition programs
Get processed foods out of school lunch programs
Promote “clean foods” and natural unprocessed options

Some of Kennedy’s positions on food and health issues are considered fringe or not scientifically supported. These include:

Claims that certain common food ingredients are “poison”
Advocacy for raw milk despite safety concerns
Support for psychedelic treatments and dietary supplements
Belief that seed oils are responsible for rising obesity rates

Of note: Sources wonder if RFK Jr.’s selection will impact Trump’s choice for USDA secretary

USDA Aims to Boost Fair Competition and Lower Food Prices, Targeting Seed and Meat Industries

Tue, 08 Oct 2024 15:08:36 GMT

USDA announced several initiatives to promote fair competition in American agriculture and reduce food prices for consumers Tuesday morning, in line with President Biden’s Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American economy.

Seed competition framework. USDA introduced a three-part strategy to enhance seed system diversity, competition, and resilience:
• Improving patent-related disclosure for seeds to clarify research opportunities.
• Providing guidance to USDA researchers on using protected germplasm.
• Encouraging the sharing of federally funded germplasm for research and plant breeding.

Meat Retail Industry Report

USDA published an interim report assessing competitive conditions in the meat retail industry, focusing on beef markets as a case study. The report identifies:
• Increasing market concentration among top packers, distributors, and retailers.
• Concerns from farmers and small to midsize processors about problematic practices by intermediaries.

Cattle Price Discovery Initiative

USDA announced steps to enhance price discovery and fairness in cattle markets through an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR). This initiative aims to:
• Improve the base prices in fed cattle purchasing agreements.
• Address concerns about the negative effects of Alternative Marketing Agreements (AMAs) on the spot market.

Impact and Next Steps

These actions are part of the Biden/Harris administration’s efforts to:
• Open new markets for farmers
• Provide more competitive choices
• Lower food costs for consumers
• Support small businesses and family farms

USDA said it will continue its investigative study, including through subpoenas, and seek public input on potential next steps to ensure fair competition in the agricultural sector. Additionally, in the upcoming months, USDA will issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) seeking public input around how best to address practices used in meat merchandising that may violate the Packers and Stockyards Act.

How the Supreme Court's Big Decision to Overturn the Chevron Doctrine Could Impact Agriculture

Mon, 01 Jul 2024 17:11:47 GMT

On Friday, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling along ideological lines, overturned Chevron and handed authority back to Congress and the courts. Overturning the doctrine is a significant ruling that limits federal regulatory power.

The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, had directed courts to defer to federal agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous laws.

The decision was split along ideological lines, with the conservative majority voting to overturn Chevron. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, called the Chevron framework “unworkable” and said the court was ending “our 40-year misadventure with Chevron deference.”

The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine is expected to have far-reaching implications for federal regulations across various sectors, including environmental protection, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections. It impacts the power of federal agencies, such as EPA, to issue regulations. The Chevron doctrine previously allowed agencies to interpret vague laws. This change provides opponents a clearer legal path to challenge regulations, potentially forcing agencies to be more cautious in drafting rules.

Environmental regulators, such as EPA, will face tougher judicial challenges. The decision is expected to slow down the regulatory process, requiring more time to craft, weigh comments and finalize rules. Many environmental rules stem from old laws with few modern amendments, adding to the uncertainty.

Mixed Reaction After Decision

Proponents of overturning Chevron argue it will reduce the power of unelected bureaucrats and increase accountability.

Critics warn the decision could lead to legal and administrative chaos, making it harder for agencies to respond to new challenges and implement regulations.

The ag and energy sectors are already asking how this ruling could impact energy and environmental regulations — both existing and new. Biofuel interests are wondering if this will impact the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) program. Given that EPA has more leeway to set RFS levels without the mandates in law, it could. But the RFS levels have been challenged before and the resolution takes a long time, so it really doesn’t affect the mandates, i.e., the 2023 standards included 250 million gallons to meet a court remand of the 2016 standards.

Possible Impact on Agriculture Regulations and Farm Bill

USDA and EPA will no longer have the broad authority to interpret ambiguous statutes. This change is expected to limit their ability to create and enforce regulations without explicit congressional authorization. For instance, regulations related to farm subsidies, crop insurance, and environmental practices, including the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, will now face closer judicial scrutiny.

Farm subsidies and crop insurance: Agencies will need clear statutory authority to implement or modify programs related to farm subsidies and crop insurance ... could lead to fewer regulatory changes ... unless explicitly directed by Congress.

Environmental practices: Regulations under the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws will be more challenging to enforce if they rely on ambiguous statutory language. This could affect rules aimed at protecting wetlands and managing agricultural runoff.

Animal welfare standards: The ruling could impact regulations like those via the Packers & Stockyards Act, which aim to ensure fair competition and treatment in livestock markets.

Support from agricultural groups. They argue that it restores a balance of power by ensuring that unelected bureaucrats cannot impose regulations beyond what Congress has explicitly authorized.

Impact on the farm bill. The ruling puts pressure on Congress to draft more precise and detailed legislation. This is particularly relevant for the new farm bill, as lawmakers will need to ensure that the statutory language is clear to avoid judicial challenges and ensure effective implementation by federal agencies.

The decision is expected to increase accountability within the legislative and executive branches. Congress will need to be more explicit in its directives, and federal agencies will be limited to implementing laws as written, without broad interpretative leeway.

Potential for legal challenges. With the Chevron deference overturned, there may be an increase in legal challenges to existing and new regulations. Courts will now play a more significant role in interpreting agricultural laws, which could lead to a more stable regulatory environment but also more litigation as stakeholders seek judicial clarification on ambiguous statutes.

Opportunity to review prior cases? The conservative Republican Study Committee (RSC) said House committees “have an opportunity to review any regulatory action that was justified by Chevron deference toward agency interpretation.” The RSC views the overturning of Chevron as a way to “reclaim congressional authority” and roll back what they see as executive overreach. The committee’s memo encouraged its members to “scour Biden-era regulatory actions and highlight any that should be considered for judicial review post-Chevron.” This indicates a specific focus on reviewing and potentially challenging regulations implemented during the Biden administration.

Bottom line: This ruling represents a significant shift in administrative law and is likely to have broad impacts on how federal agencies interpret and implement laws passed by Congress. It may lead to more challenges of agency regulations in court and could potentially slow down or complicate the regulatory process across various sectors of government.

NPPC Asks Court: Lift Gag Order In N.C. Nuisance Suits

Thu, 13 Jun 2024 00:12:08 GMT

The National Pork Producers Council and the North Carolina Pork Council Monday evening filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of lifting a judge’s gag order on communications related to nuisance lawsuits filed against more than two dozen North Carolina hog farms.

Judge Earl Britt, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, in late June imposed the gag order on the parties, lawyers and potential witnesses in lawsuits brought against Murphy-Brown, the hog production subsidiary of Smithfield Foods. The judge said a “significant increase in trial publicity” and the “volume and scope of prejudicial publicity” about the first two cases – one decided in early May and the other two days after the gag order was implemented – could taint future jurors.

NPPC and NCPC filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., asking that it grant Murphy-Brown’s petition to vacate the District Court’s prior restraint on speech, noting that “All but the most carefully crafted, narrow gag orders are unconstitutional.”

The pork organizations argued that there is no compelling need for the gag order, the District Court did not consider alternatives to the order – including the jury selection process or jury instructions – the order is overbroad and vague, and it won’t be effective. On the latter point, they said it’s “not reasonable to think that any gag order will reduce coverage of these cases or blunt the public’s interest” in them.

In fact, there has been extensive coverage of the lawsuits from media outlets in the state and around the country and from advocacy groups and people outside the scope of the gag order.

“The greatest risk of [jury] prejudice,” NPPC and NCPC argued, “isn’t the existence of publicity; it is the existence of one-sided publicity that has resulted from the gag order. …”

“As we pointed out in our friend-of-the-court brief, this gag order has had a chilling effect on all hog farmers in North Carolina,” said NPPC President Jim Heimerl, a pork producer from Ohio. “As potential witnesses, they’re prohibited from saying anything about or defending their operations, while those opposed to hog farming are free to attack those farmers in the press.”

In three of the nuisance cases decided over the past three months, including one last week, juries have levied a combined $99 million in compensatory and punitive damages against family farmers over noise and odors from their hog farms. A total of 26 lawsuits have been filed.

Iowa Third State to Create Legislation Regarding Lab-Grown Meat

Tue, 21 May 2024 14:15:35 GMT

In an effort to maintain trust with consumers and protect livestock producers, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds recently signed into law SF 2391 , a bill prohibiting the misbranding of certain food products, including lab-grown meat.

Beginning July 1, lab-grown meat and plant-based imitation meat and egg products will have to be labeled with words such as fake, lab-grown, meatless, imitation or vegan, if sold in Iowa stores. The labeling requirements also apply to meat alternatives made with insect protein.

Gov. Reynolds shared her response to signing SF 2391.

“This legislation prohibits companies from exploiting the trust consumers have with our livestock producers and misleading consumers into buying products they don’t want,” she says. “This is about transparency. It’s about the common-sense idea that a product labeled chicken, beef, or pork, should actually come from an animal.”

Rep. Heather Hora, R-Washington, sponsored the bill in the House. As a pork producer herself, she says the bill protects farmers’ checkoff dollars that are used to market meat and eggs.

According to an Iowa Public Radio (IPR) article, the law will require the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals and Licensing to inspect food processing plants or grocery stores for compliance if they receive a credible complaint about food products being mislabeled as meat. The law also provides penalties for not following labeling rules.

Furthermore, the law prohibits school districts, community colleges and public universities in Iowa from purchasing lab-grown meat and any foods misbranded as meat or egg products. In addition, the law requires the state to request a federal waiver to prohibit the use of federal food assistance to buy imitation egg products.

While many praised the legislation, some Democrats said their issue was with the purchase of egg alternatives.

IPR reported Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, says he was proud to vote for the original version of the bill but had concerns with the final version.

“Truth in labeling is certainly something that I strongly believe in for consumer protection,” he says. “But I’m also concerned with consumer nutrition. And there are some people who can’t eat eggs because of allergies but still need the nutritive content that might be supplied by alternative products.”

That same day, Gov. Reynolds signed HF 2649 , a bill providing capital gains relief for farmers and ranchers selling certain classes of livestock. This was a bill to reinstate previous tax break exemptions that had ended in 2022.

“Our tax code should promote livestock production, which we know is often how beginning farmers get their start in agriculture,” says Rep. Derek Wulf, R-Hudson, who co-sponsored the bill. “We know that livestock production supports rural communities and drives our rural economic activity…We want to make sure that we don’t increase taxes on our livestock producers and farmers here in this state.”

Continued legislation against lab-grown meat

Iowa becomes the third state in the country to pass legislation regarding lab-grown meat. Florida and Alabama both passed laws banning the sale of the cell cultured alternative meat product in their states this month. Florida’s law was signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis on May 1, 2024, and Alabama’s Gov. Kay Ivey signed the Alabama Bill , which the prohibits “the manufacture, sale, or distribution of food products made from cultured animal cells,” on May 7.

Jack Hubbard, executive director of the Center for the Environment and Welfare, shares that consumers have several concerns in the matters of cell cultured meat.

“Policymakers nationwide are grappling with growing consumer concern regarding lab-grown meat’s use of immortalized cells, bioreactors, chemicals and the lack of long-term health studies,” Hubbard says. “I think a lot of this legislative activity is politicians and elected representatives voicing and acting on the concerns of constituents who are saying ‘what is this stuff and have we done our due diligence.’ And to be frank, there is a major yuck factor that a lot of people have when they actually learn about how this is made.”

Hubbard see additional states likely following suit in creating legislation.

“From a transparency perspective, it just seems like the right thing that consumers ought to have a right to know what they’re buying,” he says.

Read more...
North American Cattle Groups Advocates for Oversight of Lab-Grown Proteins

Exclusive: Presidential Candidate Nikki Haley Shares Her Vision For The U.S., Agriculture

Tue, 09 Jan 2024 19:26:13 GMT

Nikki Haley, a candidate for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, joined AgriTalk on Tuesday to share her plans for the U.S. and U.S. agriculture if successful in her run for president.

Haley is a former ambassador to the United Nations and former governor of South Carolina.

AgriTalk has extended an invitation to all presidential candidates to join Host Chip Flory and answer five standard questions about what they would do if elected. That information follows below. You can also listen to the full conversation between Haley and Flory here:

Q1: What’s your motivation to be President? Why do you want the job?

A: The long answer to that is that my parents came here 50 years ago to an America that was strong and proud and full of opportunity. I want them to know that country again. I’m doing this for my husband, who is a combat veteran and who’s currently deployed. I’m doing it for him and his military brothers and sisters, because they need to know their sacrifice matters. They need to know that we love our country.

I’m also doing this for my daughter who just got married. I saw how hard it was for her and her husband to own a home. The average homebuyer right now is 49 years old. And I’m doing this for my son who’s a senior in college. I’m tired of watching him write papers and things he doesn’t believe in just to get an A. That’s not us.

Right now, 81% of Americans don’t think their kids are going to have as good of a life as we did. We can’t be OK with that. I’m not OK with that. I think we have a country to save, and I’m determined to do it.

Q2: What’s the No. 1 issue or challenge for America? How and when will you address it as President?

A: I think the first thing we have to do is end this national self-loathing that’s taken over our country – the idea that they say America is bad or rotten or racist. Our kids need to know to love America, they need to be saying the Pledge of Allegiance when they start school every day. And once we get that national self-loathing out of the way, we can start focusing on the economy and getting inflation back on track. We can start focusing on getting our kids reading again and going back to the basics with education. We can start focusing on securing our border with no more excuses. We can start focusing on law and order in our country, and we can start focusing on a strong America that we can all be proud of.

Q3: Let’s talk rural America, agriculture, farming and ranching. What issues will you address as President?

A: Well, you know, I grew up in an agricultural state, and I was governor of an agricultural state. So, I know the challenges. The first thing would be to get the EPA out of the way. Right now, they care more about sagebrush lizards than they do about whether we can afford our utility bill. Then, we need to start seeing producers as the partners that they are. Food security is national security; that’s always been the case, and we can’t ever be OK with getting our food from overseas. We have to make sure not only do we have enough food produced here in America, but that we have more than enough that we can export overseas so we can make it the powerhouse that we know it can be.

That’s the same with energy. You’ve got biofuels here in Iowa, and it’s hugely important that we see that for the opportunity that it is. So the biggest thing is, get the EPA out of the way, and let producers know that we’re partners and support them through the process. The one thing I saw in South Carolina is farmers are the ultimate survivors. They can’t control the weather, they can’t control pricing. So, the last thing they need is to … have government go and put other mandates on them, whether it’s water, whether it’s anything else. We’ve got to stop all that.

Q4: Describe your energy and renewable energy policy plans.

A: First of all, things that Russia, China and Iran never wanted us to have are a strong military, and they didn’t want us to be energy independent. I don’t want to be energy independent. I want to be energy dominant. We need to make sure that we do that by getting the EPA out of the way. We should roll back Washington’s old rules dictating when we can sell E15 fuel. The rules don’t make sense anymore, and we should get rid of them.

As president, I’ll roll back all of the Biden administration’s green mandates, especially the ones on electric cars that he’s trying to force on us. And when we start to focus on that, then we can see what economic incentives we have to make sure that we grow biofuels and biodiesel in a way we can export it. Let consumers decide which fuels they prefer. I think that’s the biggest thing. I’ll be completely supportive of Iowans and completely supportive of biofuels, and that includes supporting the Renewable Fuel Standard.

Q5: How will businesses small and large view the fiscal policies of a Haley administration?

A: If you put an accountant in the White House magic happens (Haley has a bachelor of science degree in accounting and finance from Clemson University). I will tell you that we are $34 trillion in debt, and we’re having to borrow money just to make our interest payments. China owns some of that debt. What we need to do is we need to stop the wasteful spending. We’re seeing that in both Republicans and Democrats.

The first thing that we’ll do is we’ll stop the spending, we’ll stop the borrowing. I’ll eliminate all these pet projects, and I’ll veto any spending bill that doesn’t take us back to pre-Covid levels. Secondly, we’ll move as many federal programs as we can to the state level. That way, you’re reducing the size of the federal government, but you’re empowering people on the ground and moving more of those resources to let the people decide how best to use them. Then, we want to let the middle class breathe, and the way we’ll let the middle class breathe is we will eliminate the federal gas and diesel tax in this country.

Then, we’ll cut taxes on the middle class and simplify the brackets, and then we’ll make sure that we make the small business tax cuts permanent. They made corporate tax cuts permanent, but they made small business tax cuts temporary. We’ll stop double-taxing farmers the way they are right now, which is keeping them from having generational farms taking place. When you do those types of things that’s when you really get spending back on track. You get inflation under control, and you help those that really need it. I know small businesses are the heartbeat of our economy. We need to start acting like it.

Q: On trade policy, former President Trump says he’s going to invoke at least a 10% tariff on all imports into the U.S. Is that something you would consider?

A: No, because you can’t. When you do that you’re costing Americans more money. The time you want to apply tariffs is when you’re dealing with an adversary, when you’re dealing with a situation where you need to go and make sure that you’re making things harder for them. We need to do more trade with more friends, and we need to do it in a way that we’re exporting as much as we possibly can. As governor, I focused on how to (help) businesses export as much as they could. As president, it should be no different. I would be the No. 1 salesperson of American products, of American produce, of American things.

If you just start doing tariffs on everybody, guess what? They do it right back to you, and then everybody suffers the consequences. So, you have to be strategic. You have to be smart. That’s when you can make sure that it’s more of an advantage and you use it as leverage. You don’t just use it as an across-the-board plan.

To date, along with Ambassador Haley, AgriTalk has also talked with presidential hopeful Ron DeSantis. That conversation is available here:

Exclusive Q&A With Presidential Hopeful Ron DeSantis

John Phipps: Trying to Explain the Unexplainable in China

Fri, 08 Sep 2023 21:08:40 GMT

To my amazement, the increasingly authoritarian leader of China could go down as the greatest rally-killer in the history of modern global government.

To be sure, buried in the astonishing growth record of this century were the seeds of its own destruction, but Xi’s ham-handed political and economic management, powered by an overweening ego have bungled a vibrant economy into a surprising turnaround.

GDP growth could just possibly drop lower than the U.S. this year. In fact, fewer and fewer sectors are healthy, and then only by direct government intervention. The looming, but long forecast downturn is centered on the over leveraged housing and real estate sectors. Builders, developers, real estate speculators and home buyers are running into the harsh reality than prices can drop. The ripple effects are enormous, since the real estate sector may account for almost 30 percent of GDP, far above other developed nations.

The draconian Covid lockdowns reawakened harsh memories of brutal repression under Mao, undermining consumer confidence and spending. The touted Belt and Road initiative has run into its own predictable flaws. How do you repossess a bridge in Africa, for example?

There are bright spots in their economy – like EVs, hi-tech, and export consumer goods. The rest of their manufacturing behemoth is running out of stuff to copy cheaply and are unprepared for a shrinking and increasingly expensive labor force and fiercer global competition. When local governments rely on selling land to fund basic services, it is an obvious one-trick pony.

Another alarming development has been the Chinese government’s drastic reduction in economic data publication, like youth unemployment. After all, you don’t stop putting out good numbers.

Xi seems determined to achieve economic recovery with minimum government stimulus and maximum government control, so if nothing else we will test the economic theory that strong man policies can drive an economy. To be sure settling for a 2023 GDP growth rate of 4.5% (and dropping) is a problem only because of past growth rates and expectations.

The growing discontent of Chinese citizens has many economists and government leaders openly predicting not only has the Chinese population peaked, but China itself.

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 .

How is the U.S. Supreme Court Impacting the Way You Farm?

Tue, 08 Aug 2023 21:49:05 GMT

New data on the total number of farms in the U.S. is out, and the overall numbers continue to dwindle. According to USDA, there were 2 million farms in the U.S. in 2022.

These 2 million farms are required to abide by numerous laws enacted on state and federal levels each year. More recently, those laws, including the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) and Proposition 12, have been challenged in the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS).

Ray Starling, general counsel at the North Carolina Chamber of Commerce, details what the recent rulings mean for growers and the ag industry as a whole.

WOTUS

EPA published its final definition of WOTUS on Dec. 30, 2022, which gave federal protection to large waterways, such as interstate rivers and streams, and adjacent wetlands starting in March 2023.

The definition was challenged by numerous organizations at the state level, with U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Hovland effectively blocking the rule in April, until SCOTUS officially ruled against the EPA’s definition in May.

How does the ruling impact growers?

SCOTUS’s ruling quickly caused confusion in various states, as many properties are in low-lying areas by rivers, streams and other waters that the federal government could deem a wetland. While the ruling might have disrupted operations, the EPA’s “jurisdictional arm” on-farm is much shorter now, than it was a few weeks ago, according to Starling.

“Growers in the past would say, ‘I have this piece of land that may be wet several weeks of the year. Is that subject to being deemed a wetland by the federal government?’ The new ruling says growers should only have that concern if the water, or very wet spot, has a surface water connection, or is clearly connected to navigable water. Only then can EPA interfere,” he says.

SCOTUS says the EPA’s definition of WOTUS is too broad and needs tweaked. EPA announced it plans to rectify the definition—a move Starling anticipates will come this fall.

“Once EPA shares what their new rule is, there will then be another round of litigation. Time will tell, but for the big picture, it will give ag more certainty,” says Starling.

Proposition 12

California enacted prop 12 in 2018, effectively banning the sale of pork within the state unless pregnant pigs are allowed at least 24 square feet of space and the ability to stand up and turn around in their pens.

Ag organizations quickly pushed a lawsuit to California’s side of the table, which then moved over to SCOTUS. In May, SCOTUS ruled prop 12 is constitutional , detonating a major blow to pork and the ag sector, according to Jim Wiesemeyer, policy analyst for Pro Farmer/Farm Journal.

Starling fears interstate commerce could take a foothold in the ag industry as a result of prop 12, and he’s not alone.

“There’s nothing stopping California from saying, for example, you can only sell corn in California if it’s harvested with an electric combine,” says John Dillard, principal at OFW law.

Those fears have only amplified and revealed themselves at the state level, according to Starling.

“I’ve been asked, ‘What can we ban from California,’ and that’s not exactly what we want to hear at the Chamber of Commerce in North Carolina. But it does create that race to the bottom instinct,” says Starling.

What can growers do to create change in the cases of WOTUS and prop 12?

These legislative measures didn’t develop overnight; they were crafted over many years, according to Starling. In order for these laws to be undone, or future laws to be blocked, he says it will take equally as many years of advocacy.

Here are Starling’s suggestions for growers:

1. Educate yourself

“The gateway of media is very fluid now compared to 20 or 30 years ago. Using blog posts and clearly unvetted information to defend ag is not the way to win,” says Starling. “We have to do better on the academic front. Find reputable sources and learn how to properly cite them.”

2. Band together

“In many cases, like in prop 12, it’s a threat to all sectors of ag. We have to figure out how to horizontally work together instead of in verticals. Crop farmers need to learn to work alongside livestock growers to create change. Ask questions and fight for each other.”

Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in WOTUS Case

Tue, 08 Aug 2023 20:10:09 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Supreme Court justices have to say on the WOTUS ruling

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the ag industry has to say on the WOTUS ruling

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

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

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

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

Background on the WOTUS case

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

Related story: What Bodies of Water are Considered WOTUS?

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

What’s Next for WOTUS?

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

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

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

Broadband Bill Would Push Internet to Every “Last Acre” in Rural America

Thu, 27 Jul 2023 20:53:15 GMT

USDA’s Farm Computer Usage and Ownership report revealed that in 2022, roughly 18% of U.S. farms don’t have access to the internet. While efforts to link the broadband gaps have been put in motion, no piece of legislation addresses every corner of the U.S.

Current rural development programs focus on connecting networks to rural households and businesses—a “last mile” approach. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) rolled out the LAST ACRE Act on the Senate floor this week, with the hopes of pushing connectivity to every U.S. farm in a “last acre” approach.

“Producers looking to adopt precision ag technologies need network connectivity that extends far past their residences. They need to be able to make real-time decisions that increase yields and employ resources more efficiently. Our LAST ACRE Act will ensure USDA has the strategy and resources needed to support last acre connectivity,” said Fischer.

If passed, the LAST ACRE Act would:
• Establish an initial bid application for internet access across farms and ranches
• Create a system for connectivity devices to be placed on farm sites, structures and machinery
• Generate a competitive bidding process for service providers
• Direct USDA to include Census of Ag questions about broadband

Kip Eideberg, Ag Equipment Manufacturer’s senior vice president of government and industry relations, echoed Fischer’s comments, saying the act would ensure all aspects of rural America are connected, “from the hospital to the school and from the farmhouse to the field.”

A comprehensive breakdown of the LAST ACRE Act can be found here .

Senate Votes to Limit Foreign Land Ownership

Wed, 26 Jul 2023 20:24:53 GMT

Roughly 37.6 million acres of U.S. ag land is foreign owned, according to USDA. The majority of these deeds are held by Canada, Netherlands, Italy, United Kingdom, Germany and China. However, select purchases of U.S. land could come to an end following a Senate vote this week.

The U.S. Senate on Tuesday voted 91-7 in favor of an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2024 that, if made law, would prohibit China, Russia, North Korea and Iran from purchasing U.S. land.

Also included in the amendment is a requirement for the president to submit a report to Congress on any waiver granted to a prohibited country.

Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), who helped push the legislative changes, says the time for foreign landownership action is now.

“These four adversaries view America as their top competitor and only wish to gain advantage and opportunities to surveil our nation’s capabilities and resources,” says Rounds. “This commonsense provision will make our homeland more secure.”

The amendments will now make their way to the House floor. If the House majority votes in favor of the provisions, they will become law.

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.

New Farmland Bill Would Create a Public Database for Foreign Land Ownership

Sat, 22 Jul 2023 03:07:00 GMT

Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) introduced a new bipartisan bill , the Farmland Security Act of 2023 , seeking to further boost transparency in foreign ownership of U.S. farmland.

The legislation builds upon measures introduced by the same senators in the Farmland Security Act of 2022 and amendments to the 1978 Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act. This bill would require greater transparency for foreign purchases of U.S. ag land, impose stronger penalties for reporting non-compliance, and mandate USDA to audit a minimum of 10% of foreign ag land ownership reports annually.

The issue of foreign ownership is increasingly important as nearly half of U.S. ag land is owned by individuals aged 65 and over, and approximately 100 million acres are expected to change hands over the next decade due to retirement.

What’s included in the Farmland Security Act of 2023?

The measure necessitates a transition to a digital filing system and a public database on foreign ownership for researching ownership trends. It also requires the USDA to report on foreign investment impacts. The bill further emphasizes transparency, complete and accurate data collection, and greater understanding of foreign ownership.

The new legislation introduces stricter penalties for non-compliant foreign owners or “shell companies” by removing the current fee cap of 25% of land valuation, imposing a 100% land valuation fee for non-reporting shell companies unless corrected within 60 days of notification. It authorizes $2 million annually for administration as amended in the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act.

Other stipulations include USDA research into foreign ownership of agricultural production capacity and foreign participation in U.S. ag, along with investigations into the use of “shell companies”. State and county-level staff would also be trained to identify non-reporting foreign-owned farmland.

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.

Congress Returns: Ag Appropriations Bill Takes Priority

Mon, 17 Jul 2023 21:32:53 GMT

The U.S. House of Representatives is bracing for another party-based clash over the funding of the government for the fiscal year (FY) 2024.

Legislators have until Wednesday to propose amendments to the fiscal 2024 Ag appropriations bill, which could lead to test votes on farm bill matters. The measure could begin debate next week.

The House Appropriations Committee is set to debate the FY 2024 Interior-Environment spending bill this week. It proposes significant funding cuts to the EPA and restrictions concerning regulatory changes on pesticides and motor vehicles. The measure has riders that would repeal the Biden administration’s Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule and prevent EPA from approving pesticide labels that differ from conclusions made under a specific review.

Related story: USDA Could Use the Farm Bill’s Conservation Title for Climate Change

The House will also debate a Federal Aviation Administration authorization bill this week, which may result in votes concerning the future of sustainable aviation fuel.