American Farm Bureau Federation

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

Fri, 20 Jan 2023 22:27:35 GMT

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

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

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

Ag Policy Whiplash

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

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

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

Why Rule on WOTUS Now?

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

Can You Now Repair Your Own John Deere Equipment?

Tue, 10 Jan 2023 15:28:13 GMT

The “right to repair” issue has been a topic of debate both in and outside of agriculture. A memorandum of understanding signed by Deere & Co and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) means farmers will be able to repair their own equipment.

The MOU was announced during AFBF’s annual meeting in Puerto Rico on Sunday. According to both Deere and AFBF, the MOU formalizes the availability and access to parts, tool, software and documentation to perform repair and maintenance.

“This will enable you and your independent mechanics to identify and fix problems,” Farm Bureau president Zippy Duvall said during his AFBF address. “You will have access to the diagnostic tools and information you need. And you’ll get it at a fair and reasonable price.”

“The says the agreement with the American Farm Bureau Federation formalizes the longstanding commitment Deere has made to ensure our customers have the diagnostic tools and information they need to repair their machines,” Deere stated. “We look forward to working alongside the American Farm Bureau and our customers in the months and years ahead to ensure farmers continue to have the tools and resources they need to diagnose, maintain and repair their equipment.”

With the MOU, farmers can either repair equipment on their own or go to an independent technician. It also helps dodge legislation around the issue. Several states had introduced their own “right to repair” legislation, but as stated in the MOU released this week, the agreement will happen “through a voluntary private sector commitment to outcomes rather than legislative or regulatory measures.”

The Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) represents agriculture equipment manufacturers. The association says it welcomes the MOU between Deere and AFBF and supports their goal of having issues like “right to repair” resolved without legislation.

“The Association of Equipment Manufacturers and its member companies have always supported a farmer’s right to safely maintain, diagnose, and repair equipment,” says Curt Blades, senior vice president of AEM. “We remain committed to helping farmers reduce downtime and maximize productivity through solutions that keep them safe and protect our environment. The success of the agriculture industry is also the success of the equipment manufacturing industry, and we welcome every opportunity to work together to secure the future of American agriculture. The agreement between Deere & Co. and the American Farm Bureau Federation is a positive step in resolving a long-standing issue and reinforces our belief that successful resolution does not require onerous legislative action.”

The Complicated Issue of “Right to Repair”

The issue of “right to repair” is one the entire industry has faced, but John Deere is the equipment manufacturer who is typically the target of both news coverage and policies introduced. As one equipment industry source stated, John Deere is the company with the most to lose.

“Right to repair” is a complicated issue with no easy solution. The latest models of equipment come with sophisticated and high-tech combinations of hardware and software. While the technology allows farmers to be even more precise, one of the downsides is it can be more prone to breakdowns or issues than older models without technology. This can cause more downtime during critical times of the year, such as planting and harvest.

At the same time, protecting the software and intellectual property is of high importance, especially with the r ise in cyberattacks in agriculture. If an agricultural company hasn’t built the proper cloud-based or offline systems, then it puts farmers- and the entire agriculture industry- at risk.

The MOU is aimed to protect the software, while also aiding farmers’ efforts to repair their own equipment as quickly - and efficiently - as possible.

MOU Protects Safety or Protocols

The MOU states equipment owners and independent technicians cannot compromise any safety measures and protocols on the equipment, which includes Deere’s intellectual property, including its software, are protected from infringement; and no federal and state emissions control requirements can be compromised because of modifications made to the machinery.

The MOU also states this access will not be allowed for the purpose of overriding safety features or emissions criteria.

“This MOU shall not be interpreted or construed to require a Manufacturer to: a) divulge trade secrets, proprietary or confidential information; b) allow owners or Independent Repair Facilities to override safety features or emissions controls or to adjust Agricultural Equipment power levels; or, c) violate any federal, state, or local laws or regulations,” states the MOU.

Will More Equipment Manufacturers Sign On?

While the initial MOU is just with John Deere, Duvall invited other equipment manufacturers to also sign on. He also said Farm Bureau officials will meet at least semi-annually with John Deere to discuss the “right to repair.”

“This is a positive step in the right direction. NAEDA will be working to learn more about how the MOU will affect dealers and state legislation going forward and will continue to keep dealers informed,” says Kim Rominger, CEO of the North American Equipment Dealers Association (NAEDA).

Read the complete MOU here .

Many Farmers Support “Right to Repair” Laws

John Phipps: In Right to Repair, Farmers May Be Watching the Wrong Battle

CA Growers, Organizations Share Ag Labor Struggles and Solutions

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 06:04:50 GMT

Produce growers are searching for long-term solutions not just a short-term fix when it comes to agricultural labor.

However, lawmakers and the farming community are mixed when it comes to those different solutions.
The Ag Guest worker Act, introduced by Chairman Bob Goodlatte cleared the House Judiciary Committee in late October. It’s designed to replace the H-2A Program.

That’s not the only piece of legislation floating around Congress.

Lawmaker Lamar Smith introduced legislation called the Legal Workforce Act, which could mandate employers to use the e-verify system to check legal status of agricultural employees.

It’s a tug-of-war battle to see which piece of legislation proposed at roughly the same time will work for farmers.

AgDay national reporter Betsy Jibben talked with West Coast produce growers Neil Nagata with Nagata Bros. Farms in Oceanside, Ca., and Al Stehly with Rockwood Ranch in Escondido, Ca., about their challenges and thoughts on potential legislation. Betsy also talked with Tom Nassif, president and CEO of Western Growers as well.
Listen to the full AgDay segment above.

The House passes BBB Act — Do the costs outweigh the benefits?

Mon, 22 Nov 2021 20:11:35 GMT

On Friday, Nov. 19, 2021 The U.S. House of Representatives passed President Joe Biden’s ‘Build Back Better’ plan, also known as the reconciliation package. This vote came after months of debate and countless rewrites to the plan.

“ The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal is now law and we will reap its benefits of new job and economic growth and the ability to compete around the world. The American Rescue Plan continues to get our economy back on track as we recover from the pandemic. Together with the Build Back Better bill, we have a truly transformational opportunity to rebuild the physical, natural, and human infrastructure of our nation,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a release.

The $1.7 trillion plan invests more than $90 billion in climate-smart agriculture, forestry, research, rural development, child nutrition and debt relief, according to the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry .

Climate-Smart Agriculture: $27 billion to give farmers and ranchers the tools they’ve asked for to keep leading on climate. It’s the biggest investment in conservation since the Dust Bowl —reaching as many as 240,000 farms and 130 million acres of cropland per year;
Forestry: $27 billion to restore forests, fight wildfires and sequester carbon in trees – the biggest ever investment in forest restoration, wildfire prevention, and climate-smart forestry;
Research: $2 billion for agricultural climate research and agricultural research facilities;
Rural Development and Energy: $18.3 billion to invest in rural prosperity and help rural communities transition to cleaner energy;
Child Nutrition: $10 billion to invest in child nutrition programs to feed millions of additional kids during the school year and over the summer; and,
Debt Relief: $6 billion in additional funding to expand support to economically distressed borrowers and underserved farmers, ranchers and forest landowners in high-poverty areas.

“The Build Back Better initiative is a historic step forward. It’s going to enable us, once passed and signed by the President, to remain competitive and resilient in a global economy into the future. While at the same time helping American families cut costs in areas of health care, education, housing, and increase their ability to cope with any increased costs,” Vilsack said in a press briefing on Nov. 19 following the house approval vote.

Vilsack said in the briefing that the plan won’t prevent obstacles to farmers who want to pass on their operation to the next generation, noting that the estate tax code stepped up-basis would not be eliminated. He said corporations and rich individuals would pay more.

“Our corporations have made more than a billion dollars and didn’t pay any tax and individuals who make more than $25 million a year; they are going to pay a little extra tax, and I think they probably can afford a little extra.” Continue reading.

However, some organizations stand opposed to the legislation. The American Farm Bureau Federation sent a letter to the U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday, Nov. 16 stating, “After watching months of contentious, partisan debate surrounding the Build Back Better Act, AFBF stands in opposition to the legislation. While some elements of the reconciliation package would benefit agriculture, the massive amount of spending and tax increases required to pay for the plan outweigh the gains we would see in rural America.”

In the Nov. 19 press conference Vilsack replied, “with respect to the Farm Bureau… I just don’t think that’s that aligns with the terms and conditions of this bill. The initial proposal contained an elimination of stepped-up basis. And notwithstanding the fact that there was a provision in the initial proposal that would have exempted 98% of the farms in the country today from having to be concerned about this. There was still I think a level of concern that folks had. That provision is not in this bill.”

“I don’t see anything in this bill that necessarily compromises the ability of family farms to stay in business,” Vilsack said.

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.