EPA Archives - Page 2 of 2 - California Agriculture News Today

Climate change’s impact on restaurants

By Patrick Mulvaney, chef and restaurateur; The Sacramento Bee

When I read about climate change, I learn about rising sea levels and shrinking polar ice caps – problems for 100 years in the future. But when I talk to my friends and customers about climate change, the focus is on what is happening today. It seems little things are already adding up.

As a chef, I have always believed that the completed dish will only be as good as the ingredients used. The bounty of the 12-month growing season is the main reason we decided to open our restaurant here in Sacramento. Because of our close relationships with local farmers, our “supply chain” is basically a truck and the farmer’s market. We can see how the drought has affected their crops.

Three years of drought have taken a toll on the ranchers and farmers we depend on. Lack of rain to refill the state’s reservoirs has reduced water levels to historic lows. Some water allocations have been cut entirely, and most farmers have been forced to scale back on planting. Forty-five percent of rice land went unplanted this year; farmers were forced to sell off cattle this spring. Researchers at UC Davis estimate that drought will prevent farmers from planting nearly 430,000 acres and cost the state $2.2 billion.

This isn’t just a Sacramento problem; it will affect the whole country. California grows nearly half of the nation’s fruits and vegetables, including 70 percent of the lettuce, 76 percent of the avocados, 90 percent of the grapes and virtually all of the almonds. Unfavorable conditions in California mean higher prices for restaurants across the country.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture said produce prices could increase 5 to 6 percent this year. Even though beef prices are at historically high levels, the drought has raised the prices of feed even higher, forcing ranchers to sell the majority of their herds. A few years ago, the U.S. had 102 million head of cattle. That number is now under 88 million and dropping. It’s the smallest herd since 1951, so prices keep rising.

In addition to drought, climate change is causing other kinds of severe weather swings. Last winter was unusually brutal in the Midwest, causing an almost complete failure of the cherry crop and raising doubts about harvests for the rest of the tree fruits this summer.

In some ways, we are lucky at my restaurant; our daily-changing menus have allowed us to respond to climate disruptions. And while we continue to serve the best of what’s coming out of the nearby land, some items have become harder to find at a reasonable price. During the past year, restaurants have changed their menus to reflect higher meat prices, sudden collapses in citrus yields and the lack of products as farmers are forced to let their land lie fallow.

I worry that extreme weather, like California’s drought, may become the new normal. Our agricultural partners face the greatest risks. Many businesses will experience climate change through limited supply and poor supply-chain quality.

There’s something we can do about this. California has long been a national leader on clean-energy policies. Gov. Jerry Brown is supportive of the Environmental Protection Agency’s new regulations that will reduce carbon pollution. He said, “Clean-energy policies are already working in California, generating billions of dollars in energy savings and more than a million jobs. Bold, sustained action will be required at every level, and this is a major step forward.”

Now is the time to continue California’s clean-energy leadership tradition by implementing changes that encourage business leaders to use resources more efficiently. This will help prevent more extreme weather events and make our economy more resilient.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:25-07:00September 16th, 2014|

Commentary: Proposed EPA ‘waters’ rule hangs farmers out to dry

Source: Don Parrish; Ag Alert

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposal to expand the scope of “navigable waters” subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction was drafted, according to the agency, to reduce uncertainty. It’s very clear the proposed waters of the U.S. rule is designed to allow the federal government to regulate every place water flows when it rains, including small and remote “waters” and ephemeral drains and ditches.

We all know that water flows downhill and that at some point, some of that water eventually finds its way into a creek, stream or river. Yet, based on nothing more than the flow of rainwater along a natural pathway across the land, the EPA wants to call vast areas of otherwise dry land “tributaries” and therefore “navigable waters.”

With its proposal to regulate land that is dry most of the year and miles from the nearest truly navigable water, EPA is putting farmers in a tenuous position. EPA and other supporters of the proposed rule have made much of a long-standing exemption for agriculture, and claim that it still stands; however, the proposed rule narrows that exemption and opens it up to litigation. The “normal farming and ranching” exemption only applies to a specific type of Clean Water Act permit for “dredge and fill” materials. There is also no farm or ranch exemption from Clean Water Act permit requirements for what EPA would call “pollutants.”

Ultimately, the new permitting requirements that would come with this proposal would mean that common farm activities could trigger Clean Water Act liability and the need for Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits if pollutants could incidentally be deposited into ditches, ephemerals and other features that will now fall under federal jurisdiction.

At the same time EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers are telling farmers and ranchers they’re got nothing to worry about because the exemption puts them in the clear, the agency is moving forward with a guidance document that will govern how it interprets the “normal farming” exemption contained in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.

This interpretive rule makes fundamental changes in how the exemption for normal agricultural activities at “established” farms will be applied and enforced. Contrary to assertions by proponents, this interpretive rule narrows how the exemption is applied and increases farmers’ liability by requiring that farmers comply with Natural Resources Conservation Service conservation standards, which were previously voluntary, in order to be exempt from Section 404 permitting.

Like the proposed waters of the U.S. rule, the interpretive rule conflicts with congressional intent. In 1977, Congress amended the Clean Water Act to exempt “normal” farming, ranching and silviculture from Section 404 “dredge and fill” permit requirements. However, EPA and the Corps are now asserting that farmers are exempt from Section 404 permits so long as any of 56 listed practices comply with NRCS standards, despite the fact that those practices have qualified as the “normal” farming, ranching and silviculture activities for 37 years.

The newly proposed interpretation of “normal farming and ranching” would apply only to farms and ranches that EPA determines to be “established” and “ongoing”—not newer or expanded farms and ranches. Where does this leave the children and grandchildren of farmers and ranchers who want to work the land but need to grow the operation to support an expanding family? What does this mean for the billions of people who will need to be fed in the future?

Worried about the answers to those questions and the many threats the proposed rule poses to agriculture, the American Farm Bureau Federation launched a website at ditchtherule.fb.org to help farmers, ranchers, landowners and others express the need for EPA to “Ditch the Rule.” Focused on topics and analysis related to the proposed rule, the site includes several sections: Take Action, Go Social, Find Answers and Get Resources. We encourage you to visit the site, sign up to learn more, comment on the proposed rule and send tweets using the hashtag #DitchTheRule. You should also voice your concerns to your state and local officials and your U.S. representative and senators.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:33:31-07:00August 15th, 2014|

Debate Heats up on Proposed EPA Water-Quality Rule

Source: Kate Campbell; Ag Alert

Discussion has intensified about proposed changes to the Federal Clean Water Act. As farmers and ranchers express increasing concern about enhanced permitting requirements, land-use restrictions and legal liability that the proposal could cause, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched its own campaign to defend the proposal.

Agricultural leaders want the EPA to scrap the proposed rule changes, terming them a poorly orchestrated attempt to expand agency jurisdiction. The proposed rule was published in April, and remains open to public comment until October.

County Farm Bureaus in California are joining the national push to have the proposed rule changes withdrawn, reaching out to members of the state’s congressional delegation and urging the proposal be stopped.

Meanwhile, the EPA called its proposals merely an effort to clarify regulatory jurisdiction, which was called for in two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that ruled against the agency’s attempt to expand its jurisdiction over “waters of the United States.” EPA said the proposed rule would have minimal economic impact and would not affect many acres—only about 1,300 acres nationwide.

The American Farm Bureau Federation called that assertion “laughable,” considering the amount of land nationwide that has the capacity to retain seasonal moisture, a condition covered by the proposed rule. Under the proposal, legal experts say, wet spots could be deemed “waters of the U.S.”

AFBF said the EPA effort to expand its jurisdictional authority over most types of waters and lands is regulatory overreach that has the potential to impose costly and time-consuming federal permit requirements, as well as place limits on routine farming practices, such as building a fence across a ditch or pulling weeds. Essentially, EPA has proposed regulations that fundamentally redefine “waters of the U.S.” and eliminate the term “navigable” from the law, AFBF said.

“We’re urging Congress to take a look at the proposed rules and we’re urging the agency to withdraw both of them,” California Farm Bureau Federation Federal Policy Manager Rayne Pegg said, referring to both the main EPA proposal redefining “waters of the U.S.” and an “interpretive rule” that focuses on agricultural activities.

Pegg stressed that farmers recognize the need to protect water quality, and already abide by a number of water-quality regulations.

“Adding another layer of regulation does not mean you will get better results,” she said. “Instead, the rule will create more paperwork. It’s a poorly conceived rule. EPA should meet with farmers and listen to its own Scientific Advisory Board to craft something that is practical.”

There are a number of things going on in Congress right now related to these rules, she said, and CFBF has been responding to questions from members of congressional committees—including the House Appropriations Committee, which is considering legislation to remove funding for implementation of the proposed waters of the U.S. rule.

In response to the uproar over the proposal, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy took to the road last week—touring a Missouri farm and meeting with a number of Kansas farm groups. She acknowledged during a lunch discussion with agricultural leaders the waters of the U.S. proposal has “fallen flat on its face.”

But during a speech in Kansas City, she charged that the EPA proposal has been beset by “D.C. myths.”

“Misinformation is becoming the story, while the legitimate, serious issues that we need to talk about are taking the back seat,” McCarthy said.

At the same time McCarthy visited the Midwest, the Natural Resources Defense Council—an environmental organization—took out advertisements supporting the EPA proposal.

Confusion about what the proposed rule may actually cover and conflicting interpretations of the rule changes may leave political leaders with the impression the proposal is benign and that farmers don’t need to worry, said CFBF associate counsel Kari Fisher.

“EPA would like political leaders and the public to believe that all farmers need to do is go ahead with normal farming practices and not worry about the proposed changes,” she said. “Unfortunately, that’s incorrect.”

Fisher said the interpretive rule on agriculture would require certain farming practices—such as putting in a new fence or maintaining a ditch—to comply with U.S. Department of Agriculture standards administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. She noted that the interpretive rule would apply only to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which covers dredging and infilling land that could affect wetlands.

But the proposed rule to expand the definition of “navigable waters” applies to the entire Clean Water Act, she said, and would expand EPA jurisdiction over water.

“If the proposed rule redefining waters of the U.S. is adopted, farmers with land that features a depression or low spot that’s adjacent to a tributary flowing to navigable water could be brought under the rule’s jurisdiction,” Fisher said.

Although the interpretive rule might provide a limited layer of protection for farming and ranching activities from the need to obtain Section 404 permits, she said, “it will not provide protection from other necessary Clean Water Act permits, such as those for the discharge of pollutants.”

Farm Bureau leaders continue to urge members to help prevent the proposed rule from becoming final by commenting about the impact the proposal would have on their farms and ranches.

Information from EPA on the proposed changes to the CWA can be found online at www2.epa.gov/uswaters. Background information on the issue from AFBF is online at http://ditchtherule.fb.org/.

For information on arranging local farm tours, grower roundtables and informational meetings with members and staff of California’s congressional delegation, contact county Farm Bureau offices or the CFBF Federal Policy Division at 916-561-5610.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-08-03T21:07:42-07:00July 18th, 2014|

More Evidence of Damage From Drought/ Water Restrictions

The continual trend of water restrictions in regards to the drought on the Central Valley is affecting multiple facets of the Industry, and even exterior businesses as well.

Doug Thiel is the owner and operator of Thiel Air Care, Inc. located in Chowchilla. He provides aerial application service throughout the central Valley. This season, his business is off due to the drought and environmental regulations protecting fish and ducks.

“It’s tremendously slow, with zero water allocations in many areas of Merced County and throughout the West Side of Fresno and Kings County. It is really hindering us. There’s nothing planted, there’s nothing to spray,” said Thiel.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:35:27-07:00June 6th, 2014|

Clean Water Act: Farm Bureau Takes Its Case to Head of EPA

Source: Christine Souza; Ag Alert

As momentum builds encouraging federal agencies to abandon a proposal to expand their enforcement authority under the Clean Water Act, California Farm Bureau Federation leaders met with the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, urging her to see firsthand the impact the proposal would have on family farmers and ranchers.

During an annual federal policy trip to Washington, D.C., last week, a Farm Bureau delegation met with EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy, whose agency—along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—proposed the rule changes last month.

The proposal would expand the definition of the term “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, potentially allowing EPA and the Corps to regulate virtually every area of ground that gets wet or has flow during rainfall.

The change would expand regulatory authority to many land features including puddles, ponds, ditches, temporary and small wetlands, giving the agencies the power to regulate and potentially prohibit land-use and farming practices in or near them.

During her meeting with the Farm Bureau delegation, McCarthy said she is interested in understanding the concerns of agriculture and that she would like to maintain an open dialogue with those who would be affected by the proposed rule.

CFBF President Paul Wenger suggested to McCarthy that EPA officials take time to tour California farms and ranches, perhaps tying in the visits with a planned EPA outreach meeting on the proposed rule, tentatively scheduled for mid-July in Berkeley.

“We think it’s critical that people from the EPA see for themselves how this rule could hamstring routine farming and ranching activities,” Wenger said after the meeting. “We appreciate Administrator McCarthy taking the time to visit with us in Washington to hear directly from people who would be affected by the rule, and having EPA officials visit farms and ranches would provide them with information that no amount of written or verbal comments could provide.”

Aimee Meidinger, operations manager of Brokaw Nursery in Ventura, said the expanded definition of waters of the U.S. “could affect our ability and decisions to farm on my family’s avocado orchard. The definition of navigable waters is being changed to encompass almost all areas where water settles, regardless if they are seasonally wet or not.”

Farmers in California are very proactive in working with the current Clean Water Act regulations, Meidinger said, through use of irrigated-lands groups, surface and groundwater monitoring, pesticide use reporting and continuing education.

“We are good stewards of the land,” Meidinger said. “This proposal cannot be a one-size-fits-all national policy.”

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:35:29-07:00May 31st, 2014|

EPA Scientist Receives Award for Pesticide Risk Model

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) TODAY honored Dr. Steven Thomas Purucker as a recipient of the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers (PECASE), the highest honor bestowed by the U.S. government to science and engineering professionals in the early stages of their independent research careers.

“Congratulations to Dr. Purucker for receiving this prestigious award,” said Lek Kadeli, Acting Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “EPA is honored to have dedicated scientists, like Dr. Purucker, who devote their careers to protecting human health and the environment. Dr. Purucker is not only conducting innovative research, but he is also providing the tools and information we need to turn the vision of a healthy environment into a reality for all Americans.”

Dr. Purucker is a research ecologist in EPA’s National Exposure Research Laboratory in Athens, Georgia. He received the PECASE award for his exceptional innovation and initiative in creating modeling applications that help decision-makers and scientists conduct chemical risk assessments that are important for protecting human health and the environment. His research involves updating mathematical models that are used to predict environmental exposures and effects.

These models are relied on as part of EPA’s pesticide registration process, which must be completed before a pesticide can be sold or distributed in the U.S. Dr. Purucker and his colleagues have been modernizing these models, including some that were initially developed in the 1980s. Dr. Purucker’s lab has updated many of these models, which are stored in the “cloud” and can be easily accessed and executed from a web browser.

This decision support “dashboard” accepts chemical properties, pesticide use information, ecosystem exposure data, relevant geographic information, and effects levels as input to estimate risks to water and land environments.

Dr. Purucker is also collaborating with other scientists at EPA’s lab in Athens to conduct applied research on amphibian exposures, working in the lab and field to characterize pesticide transfer rates across the dermis layer of skin and the subsequent impacts on amphibian metabolism.

Dr. Purucker has a Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and a B.A. in Zoology from the University of Tennessee. He joins 101 researchers across the federal government who are also receiving PECASE awards this year. The awards, established by President Clinton in 1996, are coordinated by the Office of Science and Technology Policy within the Executive Office of the President.

Awardees are selected for their pursuit of innovative research at the frontiers of science and technology and their commitment to community service as demonstrated through scientific leadership, public education, or community outreach.

More information can be found at EPA’s Office of Research and Development and White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:02-07:00April 14th, 2014|

EPA Announces Voluntary Process to Provide Applicators with Online Access to Pesticide Labeling

Today, EPA is launching a new voluntary process by which registrants can opt to make legally valid pesticide labeling accessible online. Until now, no version of online labeling has been legally valid for the purpose of making a pesticide application.

This Web-distributed labeling system will initially focus on agricultural and industrial pesticides and professional applicators.

Electronic or online labeling – called Web-distributed labeling – will allow pesticide applicators to download streamlined labeling, including instructions specific to the state and the use site where an application will be made.

Labels accompanying pesticide products in stores can include more than 30 pages of instruction. This new process will allow for online access to portions of the label such as directions for use, first aid and environmental statements for certain use sites.

Web-distributed labeling should provide:

• Improved compliance with the instructions on pesticide labels by making labels easier to access, read and comprehend

• Quicker implementation of measures to protect public health and the environment

• Faster access to new pesticide uses

• Lower costs for Industry and the EPA

The actual labeling on the container will not be shortened in any way with the addition of Web-distributed labeling. The Pesticide Registration Notice (PR Notice 2014-1) is effective immediately.

For more information, please see the announcement in the Federal Register or http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/labels/distribution/.

Patrick Cavanaugh2016-05-31T19:38:04-07:00April 5th, 2014|