N
Ohio’s Country Journal July 2009 5
EWS
Ag groups call Clean Water Act reform a federal land grab
The Senate Environment and Public the removal of the word ‘navigable’ from waters are cleaner and functioning enforcement of state and local environ-
Works (EPW) Committee passed S. 787, the definition of waters,” the NCBA appropriately thanks to the strong part- mental protection laws. Yet, they share
the Clean Water Restoration Act release said. nership that exists between the federal other groups’ concerns over removal of
(CWRA), out of committee June 18 on a NCBA and the Public Lands Council and state levels of government which the word “navigable” from the defini-
party-line vote. (PLC) strongly oppose the legislation, allows states essential flexibility to do tion of “Waters of the United States” as
Under current law, the federal gov- not only because it infringes on private their own land- and water-use planning proposed in the CWRA. 
ernment has jurisdiction over “naviga- property rights, but also because it lim- in a way that makes sense. We cannot “The legislation would drastically
ble waters of the United States.” its the state partnerships and flexibility allow Congress to take this flexibility expand federal clean water jurisdiction
However, by removing the word “navi- that have made the current Clean Water away from the states. and create significant bureaucratic
gable” from the definition, the CWRA Act successful. “All waters are not the same in terms of obstacles and lead to increased costs to
would expand federal regulatory con- Cattle producers across the country their environmental function and value, counties without necessarily enhancing
trol to unprecedented levels — essen- are asking the Senate to stop the legisla- and they should not be regulated in the environmental protections of water-
tially putting stock tanks, drainage tion should it come up for a full Senate same way. It makes no sense to require a ways and wetlands,” said NACo
ditches, any puddle or water feature vote. Sen. Mike Crapo (Idaho) has placed family farmer or rancher to get a permit President Don Stapley.
found on family farms and ranches — a hold on the legislation resulting in the from the Environmental Protection Agency Stapley said counties have similar
potentially even ground water — under bill needing 60 votes in favor of its pas- (EPA) or U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concerns. The bill would require that
the regulatory jurisdiction of the feder- sage to be considered by the full Senate. before they can utilize their property or counties obtain a federal permit before
al government, according to agricultur- In a letter to members of the EPW water their cattle. This is especially true any project of any size could move for-
al groups that oppose the measure. Committee, NCBA and PLC wrote:  given the fact the federal government is ward if it affects any wet area.
The bill was amended at the markup “This bill amounts to nothing less already struggling to handle a backlog of AFBF President Bob Stallman called
by Senators Baucus, Klobuchar and than a giant federal land grab and 15,000 to 20,000 existing permit requests.” the bill “regulatory overkill” that large-
Boxer. The amendment is a smoke screen would be disastrous to U.S. agriculture. The National Association of ly disregards the positive conservation
that allegedly takes care of agricultural No compromise or exemption will Counties’ (NACo) and the American role farmers and ranchers are playing.
concerns by exempting prior-converted cover all of the farms and ranches in Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) also are “By replacing ‘navigable waters’
croplands from federal jurisdiction, said the U.S. To fully protect agriculture, the concerned that the CWRA would need- with ‘all intrastate waters,’ the federal
a National Cattlemen’s Beef Association term ‘navigable’ must remain in the lessly expand the federal reach of the government would have control of
(NCBA) release. Clean Water Act. Clean Water Act and result in significant structures such as drainage ditches,
“Cattle are generally not grazed on “The current Clean Water Act has negative impacts on farmers, ranchers, which are only wet during rain
prior-converted croplands, so the amend- been tremendously successful. In fact, local governments and local economies events,” Stallman said. “Rather than
ment does nothing to mitigate the poten- it is arguably the most successful envi- without improving protections of the restore the Clean Water Act, it just
tial damage to livestock production from ronmental law on the books. Millions nation’s critical water resources. brings a new truckload of restrictions
this legislation. The amendment is a of miles of rivers, lakes, streams, wet- Both organizations stressed that they for the people who do most to protect
diversion from the real issue, which is lands, estuaries, ponds and other support current CWA provisions and our water.”
Animal welfare regulations would impact Ohio’s agriculture industry
The implementation of animal welfare and passes substantial requirements for If Proposition 2-type legislation were When we measure all of the factors that
legislation, similar to what was passed in larger cages, barn raising or free-range, to pass in Ohio, Tweeten estimates that go into stress, researchers can’t seem to
California, would have a profound eco- and other neighboring states do not fol- Ohio poultry producers would likely see find that confinement has a big effect on
nomic impact on Ohio’s agriculture low suit, what would happen is that a 20% increase in costs for larger cages, a the performance of the animal,” Tweeten
industry, negatively rippling through Ohio producers would likely go out of 26% increase in costs for raising hens in said. “So the arguments have gone from
segments of livestock and field crop pro- business because they can’t compete. The barns, and a 45% increase in costs for a scientific objective standpoint to an eth-
duction, said an Ohio State University end result is that we’d lose much of our free-range poultry production. In addi- ical viewpoint. From that perspective,
agricultural economist. poultry production and other states tion, he suggests that nearly 8,000 jobs in however, you have to be aware of the
Luther Tweeten, professor emeritus of would gain from it,” Tweeten said. the poultry industry alone would be lost. tradeoffs between ethics and objectivity.”
agricultural trade and policy in the Consumers would likely see little In addition, other segments of the For example, the implementation of
Department of Agricultural, change in prices at the grocery store, agriculture industry, such as field crop national animal welfare legislation
Environmental, and Development Tweeten said, but animal welfare prac- production, would be impacted. would open the doors to more interna-
Economics, said that efforts by the tices would likely remain unaffected. “Diminished animal agriculture means tional imports of eggs from countries
Humane Society of the United States “Our consumers wouldn’t experience diminished crop production in Ohio. Less whose animal welfare practices may be
(HSUS) to push legislation in Ohio simi- a lot of loss because they could buy eggs demand for livestock means less demand below United States standards.
lar to California’s Proposition 2 would as cheaply from other states as they cur- for corn and soybeans,” Tweeten said. “It’s interesting that the economics are
result in decreased production and lost rently can from Ohio, and there would “The poultry industry consumes more more clear than the animal welfare impli-
jobs, specifically within Ohio’s laying be no change in animal welfare because corn and soybean meal than any other live- cations. It’s an effort that is poorly
hen industry, which the animal welfare the eggs would be produced under the stock enterprise. It’s big business.” thought through and if voters are not
legislation would specifically target. current practices elsewhere,” Tweeten Tweeten stresses that consumer educa- informed, they could make a serious mis-
California’s Proposition 2, passed last said. “It just makes Ohio worse off from tion is important to understanding the take,” Tweeten said. “Ohio would be
year, mandates that as of Jan. 1, 2015, it an economic standpoint.” tradeoffs between animal welfare regula- shooting itself in the foot if such regula-
shall be a misdemeanor for any person to According to the U.S. Department of tions and the impacts such regulations tions were to be implemented.”
confine a pregnant pig, calf raised for Agriculture, Ohio ranks second in the would have on Ohio’s agriculture industry Tweeten has outlined his research in
veal or egg-laying hen in a manner not nation in both laying hen and egg pro- and overall economic situation. the document, “The Economics of
allowing the animal to turn around duction, with a combined estimated “Anybody would like more freedom Animal Welfare Regulations Proposed
freely, stand up, lie down and fully value of more than $650 million in 2008. and more room, but you have to under- for Ohio.” To learn more, contact Luther
extend its limbs. In 2007, Ohio supplied nearly 8% of the stand that the animal welfare issues from Tweeten 614-247-8417 or
“If Ohio regulates its laying hen cages nation’s eggs. a scientific standpoint aren’t really clear. tweeten.1@osu.edu.
Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44