By Jessica Domel
Multimedia Reporter

Two farmers, a rancher, a plant scientist and members of Congress recently shared their concerns with how the actions, or sometimes inaction, of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) impact American agriculture during a hearing of the House Committee on Agriculture.

The hearing, “Examining the consequences of EPA’s actions on American agriculture,” was held July 10.

“American farmers and ranchers are the original conservationists. No one cares more for the environment than those whose livelihoods depend on it,” Committee Chairman Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA) said. “They work tirelessly to ensure consumers have the safest, most abundant, most affordable food and fiber supply in the world.”

Unlike those in many other industries, farmers, ranchers and dairymen are at the mercy of many uncontrollable factors, Thompson said, including extreme weather, natural disasters, pests and diseases, input costs and geopolitical unrest.

“What producers should not have to worry about is the federal government working against them,” Thompson said. “Unfortunately, the Biden administration has compounded this uncertainty with an unworkable regulatory regime that creates even greater costs and ambiguity for our farmers and ranchers.”

The chairman said when EPA Administrator Michael Regan testified in front of the committee last April, the administrator indicated his willingness to work with farmers and ranchers as EPA promulgated rules and regulations that may impact agriculture.

“While those statements appeared encouraging, since that hearing, the agency has announced an onslaught of rules and regulations that contradict those statements,” Thompson said. “Not only is the agency targeting specific crop protection tools that are important to production, it is also fundamentally changing the pesticide registration and registration review process.”

Thompson pointed to EPA publishing the draft Vulnerable Species Pilot Program and draft herbicide strategy last summer that will impact the ability of producers to use critical crop protection tools.

“Even this administration’s own U.S. Department of Agriculture expressed significant concerns with these actions,” Thompson said.

EPA’s draft herbicide strategy, released in the summer of 2023, describes whether, how much and where mitigation of agricultural herbicide use may be needed to meet Endangered Species Act (ESA) obligations.

According to the National Agricultural Law Center, the Vulnerable Species Pilot Program could add new restrictions to pesticide labels to limit exposure to species that EPA has found are highly sensitive to pesticides.

Jeff Kippley, a South Dakota farmer and vice president of the National Farmers Union, told the committee he sometimes worries the wrong federal regulations could harm his farm, but he knows it is important to have practical rules everyone must abide by.

“Reasonable environmental regulations can leave everyone better off if they are science-based, size and risk appropriate, clear and easy to follow,” Kippley said. “EPA plays an essential role in protecting our environment, but the agency should do more to limit the impacts of its regulations on family farmers and ranchers.”

He said one of the best ways EPA can limit its impacts on family farmers and ranchers is through regular engagement and partnership with farmers and communities.

Dr. Rebecca Larson, chief scientist for Western Sugar Cooperative, underscored the importance of pesticides to the nation.

“Pesticides are essential to climate-smart farming and farm resiliency,” Larson, who holds a doctorate in plant science, said. “Pesticides minimize food waste. Forty percent of food waste is due to crop losses from pests and diseases.”

Plants comprise about 80% of the foods we eat, according to Larson.

“Therefore, protecting plant health and productivity protects human health,” Larson said. “These are the reasons why actions of EPA that eliminate or fundamentally change the way pesticides can be used by American farmers causes significant concerns.”

She said better weed control allows growers to implement climate-smart tillage practices that increase soil health and function by sixfold and sugar beet yield by 25%.

EPA’s slow approval process for pesticides was also discussed at the hearing.

“For Texas’ fruit and vegetable industry, the EPA’s inability to expedite the approval process has been a big, big issue,” U.S. Rep. Monica De La Cruz (R-TX) said. “This is an approval process for new products and for chemical mixes, and it continues to be a huge program for our farmers and ranchers.”

The congresswoman said for most crops, EPA takes over six years and millions of dollars to review a new product before approving it for use.

“When it comes to using the product on fruits and vegetables, that timeline could be longer—sometimes up to 11 years and millions of dollars more,” De La Cruz said. “As a result, many companies simply avoid creating or working on products for American fruits and vegetables. This is a competitive disadvantage for American farmers who are attempting to compete in global markets.”

The slow approval process limits tools U.S. farmers have for their crops and makes producing them more expensive, De La Cruz noted.

“We need EPA to reduce these reviews to take place in fewer years and cost less money,” De La Cruz said. “Both of these things would bring products to the market faster and cheaper, which we all need right now with inflation.”

Thompson and the panel also discussed the uncertainty EPA’s embattled Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule has caused across the country.

WOTUS outlines which waters fall under federal jurisdiction. The rule and proposed versions of the rule have come under fire in the past for seeking to include areas that only sometimes hold water—placing more landowners under federal jurisdiction and requiring them to seek permits to do work on their land.

“EPA’s 2023 WOTUS rule significantly expanded the jurisdiction of the federal government over wetlands and private property,” Chris Chinn, who testified on behalf of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, said. “It’s been over a year since the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA and State Departments of Agriculture, farmers, ranchers and landowners are still waiting on the agency to implement the decision in the WOTUS rule and most importantly, recognize the critical role of states in regulating non-navigable waters.”

The updated WOTUS rule is stayed in Texas. The state remains under the pre-Obama administration version of the rule.

The EPA administrator was not at the hearing as he was testifying in front of the House Oversight Committee.

Thompson emphasized the importance of the administrator coming back to meet with the House Ag Committee and said they’d send another invitation so these issues may be discussed.

“The regulatory impact on those hardworking families to provide us food and fiber, building materials, energy and resources—it’s a tax,” Thompson said. “There’s just not doubt about it. There’s a lot that the Environmental Protection Agency, or as I have from time-to-time called them the Excessive Punishment Agency, has shouldered on their (agriculture’s) backs.”