Revised Clean Water Rule Released
By John Crabtree
(June 2015) On May 27 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers finalized their proposed Clean Water Rule to protect the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of the nation’s water resources from pollution and degradation.
The EPA and Army Corps did as promised, they considered more than one million comments they received on the rule, they addressed concerns, and they refined and ultimately improved the rule. At the Center for Rural Affairs we are encouraged by the refinements and clarifications undertaken in this process, and encouraged to see better Clean Water Act enforcement poised to move forward.
Water is life – for people, crops, livestock, and wildlife as well as farms, ranches, business and industry. The revised rule is grounded in both law and science. Nearly one in three Americans get drinking water from streams that lacked clear protection before the Clean Water Rule. And healthy ecosystems provide more than drinking water, they provided wildlife habitat and places for fishing, swimming and paddling. Clean water is an economic driver for manufacturing, farming, ranching, tourism, recreation, and energy production.
Perhaps most importantly, this rule was shaped, and improved, by public input, which will allow the rule to clear the regulatory waters, overcome the shrill hyperbole from organizations more interested in shilling for industry and industrial agriculture than in clean water, and protect the quality of America’s surface waters.
It’s Time to Reform Crop Insurance
By Traci Bruckner
At the Center for Rural Affairs, we’ve heard from farmers across the Midwest and Great Plains about negative impacts of federally subsidized crop insurance for over a decade. A farm safety net is important to help family farmers mitigate risks, but there are real concerns with the current crop insurance program.
The federal government subsidizes crop insurance, paying 62% of premiums, on average, in 2012. Insurance policies are sold and completely serviced through 19 approved private insurance companies. Not only does the federal government pay the majority of producers’ premiums on every single acre, regardless of how large they are or how much money they make, insurance companies’ losses are also reinsured by USDA. In addition, the federal government reimburses the insurance company’s administrative and operating costs. In total, these insurance companies have lobbied and negotiated for guaranteed profits approaching a 14 percent return on their investment.
However, the current government subsidized crop insurance program is working against the very farmers we all believe deserve a safety net. The program is not transparent, props up private insurance company profits, and puts our natural resources at risk. Moreover, unlimited crop insurance subsidies result in mega-farms driving up land costs, driving their smaller neighbors out of business, and barring the next generation of family farmers from even getting a start.
The time has come for crop insurance reforms that emphasize conserving soil and water, put real limits on subsidies to the nation’s largest farms, and ensures these subsidies are transparent to taxpayers.
USDA Farming Rule Creates New Loopholes
By John Crabtree
A draft rule issued by USDA aims to define what it means to be ‘actively engaged’ in farming. The proposed rule makes some important changes, but those improvements are immediately undermined by two new loopholes introduced in the rule.
The draft rule, somewhat unabashedly, only applies to farms that are large enough to “require” quadruple the statutory limit. You can abuse the rules, as long as you only abuse them up to $500,000 ($1 million if you’re married) each year.
Moreover, as drafted, farms made up solely of family members are excluded from the requirement that partners be actively engaged in the farm. The proposed rule allows a large operator to skirt payment limits by adding extended family members to the books. For each relative they add, the farm can get another payment up to the limit.
This means a large operation can add their cousin in New York or their grandchild in San Francisco. If you have 16 cousins scattered around the country, you can pull down 16 times the limit. In Washington, this passes for reform.
We are disappointed, but not surprised. This has always been a fight for the ages between big business interests on one hand and everyday farmers and taxpayers on the other hand.
The public is on record supporting policy reform that directs farm program payments to family-scale operators. Multiple polls, including one commissioned by the Center for Rural Affairs, show that farmers and rural people overwhelming support closing farm program loopholes.
Established in 1973, the Center for Rural Affairs is a private, non-profit organization working to strengthen small businesses, family farms and ranches, and rural communities through action oriented programs addressing social, economic, and environmental issues.