Inside D.C.
Senate Ag Panel Spanks EPA
Commentary.
It wasn’t fun being EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson this week. She was summoned to the Senate Agriculture Committee for a hearing on the “impact of EPA regulation on agriculture,” and what she got was a very loud and very clear bipartisan tongue lashing that began and ended with a simple message: Your agency doesn’t get it when it comes to farming and food production.
In fairness to Jackson and the Obama EPA, getting that independent agency to look at the risk/benefit and cost/benefit of its regulatory zeal has always been difficult, no matter who’s sitting in the White House. When it comes to agriculture, it was recognized several years ago the agency didn’t have the internal expertise or understanding of production agriculture necessary to ensure it didn’t put farmers and ranchers out of business with one stroke of its regulatory pen. To remedy that, an “ag counselor” to the EPA administrator was named, a position created to ensure mistakes were not made, as well as someone to whom ag could turn when problems arose. Over time, a food and ag advisory committee was also named to further ensure the impact of rulemakings didn’t whack ag unnecessarily or unknowingly.
My own personal experience with EPA is admittedly limited, but when I have had to enter the hallowed halls of clean air, water and chemical exposure control, it’s been frustrating. Recently, I met with a number of EPA scientists to discuss a pending risk evaluation on an airborne “contaminant,” an evaluation that if handled clumsily or in isolation from other parts of the federal government could have truly nasty consequences for not only farmers, but feed companies, food processors and food retailers, as well as our friends in the organic and natural worlds.
At one point in the discussion, I asked if the draft risk evaluation would be presented to the EPA food and agriculture advisory committee. The response from the lead scientist was: “I didn’t know there was one.”
This speaks volumes. At EPA, it’s as though the folks who toil in the inner sanctum of enviro science and rulemaking forget their efforts to achieve environmental nirvana must be balanced against the overall health of the economy and the folks who are trying to make a living, especially those who’s living is feeding the rest of us.
At this week’s hearing in Senate Ag, Chair Blanche Lincoln (D, AR) said, “Farmers need certainty and stability, not additional burdensome and costly regulation.” She said so many of EPA’s initiatives are based on “dubious rationales and…they will be of questionable benefit.”
Senators from both sides of the aisle laid out at least two significant frustrations with Jackson and her EPA. Ranking committee member Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R, GA) laid out more than 20! The pending rulemakings cited by the various members ranged from Clean Water Act permitting, to atrazine, to CAFOs, to dioxin, to the ever-popular greenhouse gas regulations, to the agency’s move to regulate the dust in the air. In Chambliss’ words, “the agency’s plans will hinder growth in agriculture and rural America.”
After getting verbally spanked by Senator after Senator, Jackson tried to convince the panel her agency didn’t have it in for agriculture. She said she was actually working to make some of the rulemakings — most notably her air particulate endeavor to regulate dust — more “ag-centric” in their approach. But unfortunately, the agency’s record and plans for the future didn’t buy any supporters. Sen. Mike Johanns (R, NE) said EPA only pays “lip service” to agriculture, and is “actually hammering the little guy.”
Lincoln and Chambliss got Jackson to promise she’d consult with not only the House and Senate ag committees over pending regulation, but with the food and ag community, as well. But her promise came only after her initial “I’ll consider that” didn’t satisfy her critics.
Chambliss said it best: ““No one disputes the need or desire for clean air and water, bountiful habitat and healthy landscapes. But at some point, which I believe we are getting dangerously close to, regulatory burdens on farmers and ranchers will hinder rather than help them become better stewards of the land and more bountiful producers of food, fiber and fuel.”
Administrator Lisa Jackson, are you listening? White House enviro czar Carol Browner, are you listening? Let’s hope so.
-
-
EPA is correct in fighting Ag pollution. When does it say that farming is a license to pollute the soil, air and water?
The Ag committee is beholden to their financial constituents: http://www.opensecrets.org/cmteprofiles/overview.php?cmte=SAGR&cmteid=S02&cycle=2010
Time for non-organic Ag to become good citizens by ending Ag pollution.
This is one of the best overall pieces I have read looking at the crucial threat the EPA has become to the nation. As someone who has visited several of the many EPA buildings in DC with farmers it is amazing the reaction you get because most have never met one before. How did this agency (it’s not even a Department of government) get so much power and get so out of control. It is time for the President and Congress to put these people on a leash and remind them of their place.