|
Farmers face a complex set of factors when they make
decisions about farm management and conservation practices.
The vagaries of weather and markets introduce uncertainty
into farmers' operations. The use of conservation practices
may also introduce uncertainty about net returns while
producing benefits enjoyed mostly off the farm. Decisions
made by farmers on how and where to produce commodities
can be influenced by policies and programs for protecting
the environment. USDA has several major programs for providing financial and technical assistance to farmers for protecting water quality, soil quality, and wildlife habitat.
Farmers can also be influenced by other Federal environmental protection
policies and programs that may restrict or encourage certain production practices.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is chiefly responsible for administering environmental protection policies and programs. The Clean Water Act (1972) is the major law protecting water quality. Several CWA programs address "nonpoint-source" pollution, which is the most prevalent type of pollution associated with agriculture.
The Nonpoint Source Program (Section 319) requires States to develop nonpoint-source management programs. Nonpoint-source control plans can include State regulatory measures, but usually emphasize voluntary actions like those used in USDA conservation programs. Implementation grants to States and tribes ($200 million in FY2005) fund projects like installation of best management practices (BMPs) for animal waste; design and implementation of BMP systems for stream, lake, and estuary watersheds; and basinwide landowner education programs. The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF), created by Congress to fund the construction of water treatment plants, can be used by States to provide reduced-rate loans for water quality projects included in the State nonpoint-source plan. Fifteen States have used CWSRF for funding waste management systems, manure spreaders, conservation tillage equipment, irrigation equipment, filter strips, and streambank stabilization.
Water pollution from some animal
feeding operations is treated as a point source under the Clean Water
Act. Confined animal feeding operations meeting certain
size thresholds or
other conditions fall under the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). These operations, known
as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), must obtain NPDES permits
that specify standards for the production area (i.e., housing, waste storage)
and for the land where wastes are applied. CAFOs must
also implement a nutrient management plan for animal manure applied to land,
a significant change for Federal water quality laws.
As a form of nonpoint pollution, nutrient runoff from fields has traditionally been addressed with voluntary approaches. This is the first time that a nonpoint source of water pollution has been regulated at the Federal level. EPA estimates that up to 15,500 operations are covered by the CAFO regulations. These regulations may impose significant manure management costs in areas where land for spreading manure is scarce. These costs could influence location decisions for large operations and spur the development of alternative uses for manure. EPA encourages CAFOs to seek financial and technical assistance from USDA to help them meet manure management requirements.
The Total Maximum Daily Load provisions of the Clean Water Act are intended to be the second line of defense for protecting the quality of surface-water resources. When technology-based controls are inadequate to insure that water quality meets State standards, Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to develop total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for affected waters. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant that a water body can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of that amount to all the pollutant's sources. States must submit to EPA a list of impaired waters and the cause of the impairment. More than 20,000 such waters have been identified as impaired under Section 303(d).
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program
for protecting
wetlands. It regulates the discharge of dredged
and fill material into U.S. waters, including wetlands,
and is a key policy for meeting the "no net loss" goal
for wetland acreage. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
administers the program, while EPA develops and interprets
environmental criteria used in evaluating permit applications.
Ongoing farming activities are generally exempt from
Section 404, but filling wetlands to create new farmland
requires a permit.
The Coastal
Zone Management Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
of 1990 added nonpoint-source water pollution requirements
to the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The Coastal
Zone Management Act is a collaboration between Federal,
State and local governments for managing and allocating
coastal resources. All coastal States, including Great
Lakes States, can develop a coastal zone management
program and receive financial assistance from the Federal
Government (developing a program is not mandatory).
CZARA requires that each State and territory with an
approved coastal zone management program submit a plan
to implement management measures for nonpoint-source
pollution to restore and protect coastal waters. Currently,
34 coastal States and territories have developed nonpoint-source
pollution control plans.
The Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 requires the EPA to set
standards for drinking-water quality and requirements for
water treatment by public water systems. States are required
to develop Source Water Assessment Programs to assess the
areas serving as public sources of drinking water in order
to identify potential threats and to initiate protection
efforts. EPA is required to establish a list of contaminants
for consideration in future regulation. The Drinking
Water Contaminant Candidate List, released in March
1998, lists several agricultural chemicals—including
metolachlor, metribuzin, and the triazines—for consideration.
The Clean
Air Act (CAA)
of 1970 sets limits on how much of a pollutant can be
in the air anywhere in the United States. The criteria
pollutant most associated with agriculture is particulates.
Where airborne dust from fields, burning crop residues,
or other sources exceeds permissible levels, States must
take steps to reduce emissions. Airborne dust from fields
in Washington and particulates from burning rice straw
in California have led to
State Implementation Plans
(SIPs) for controlling emissions from agricultural fields.
Ammonia is a precursor for fine particulates in the atmosphere,
and confined animal operations are the source for over
50 percent of atmospheric ammonia emissions in the United
States. California has implemented State regulations
for reducing ammonia emissions from dairy operations
that were affecting air quality in heavily populated
areas downwind. EPA
recently revised the particulate matter standard to control for fine particulates.
The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) of 1947 provides direct controls over the sale and use of pesticides. Under FIFRA, all pesticides must be approved by EPA through a mandatory registration process.
In 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act amended FIFRA to eliminate inconsistencies between it and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (which regulates pesticide residues on food). The amendments allow EPA to move quickly to suspend the use of a pesticide to prevent serious risks to human health and the environment.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 conserves the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species (wildlife and plants) depend. To do so, the law regulates the modification or degradation of habitat deemed critical for species survival. All Federal agencies are required to protect endangered species and protect their habitat. Private landowners who wish to conduct activities on their land that might incidentally harm wildlife listed as endangered or threatened are required to obtain an incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Under the Act, EPA must also ensure that the use of pesticides it registers will not result in harm to any species listed as endangered and threatened, or to habitat critical to those species' survival. Labels of certain pesticides contain information to help users minimize the risk of pesticide use in critical habitat areas. At least 1 county in 24 States has pesticide use restrictions under this program.
The Endangered Species Act may have a large impact on agriculture through the supply of irrigation water from Federal irrigation projects. The Bureau of Reclamation has taken measures to protect the flow of rivers supporting endangered species, such as salmon. Sufficient flow for endangered species can reduce the irrigation water available to farmers from Federal irrigation projects, with obvious implications for crop production.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund, was enacted in 1980 to provide broad Federal authority to respond to releases of hazardous substances that might endanger public health. Originally focused on hazardous wastes from industrial plants, the increased size and consolidation of animal feeding operations has raised the possibility that the emission of substances like ammonia and hydrogen sulfide from such operations may be subject to the notification provisions of CERCLA.
Role of USDA Conservation Programs
Federal environmental laws cover many aspects of agricultural
production. Laws aimed at preserving habitat (Section
404 of the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act) or
at controlling the use of toxic agricultural inputs (FIFRA)
are the source of direct constraints on agriculture at
the Federal level. Those Federal laws directed at reducing
environmental pollution (i.e., Clean Water Act, Clean
Air Act, Coastal Zone Management Act) have generally
not constrained agriculture directly, opting instead
for voluntary approaches overseen primarily by the States.
Constraints on agricultural production to reduce pollution
emissions are more likely to arise at the State level
in response to local problems.
USDA's conservation
programs can help farmers respond to resource
issues subject to regulation. For example, being in
a 303(d) impaired watershed is a screening advantage
in applications for EQIP. EPA encourages CAFOs to seek
financial and technical assistance from USDA to help
them implement Clean Water Act provisions, and 60 percent
of EQIP's funding is earmarked for animal feeding operations.
USDA also helps farmers reduce air pollution in dust
and ozone nonattainment areas in California with a
cost-share program funded through EQIP. The Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program is being used to help landowners
protect habitat for endangered species. The Conservation
Reserve Program and Grassland Reserve Program both
consider potential benefits to endangered
species in the selection of land offered for
enrollment.
|
