Washington Watch:
Regulatory and legislative update affecting the cow-calf industry
Clean Water Act Advances
The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee passed S. 787, the Clean Water Restoration Act (CWRA) out of committee June 18 on a party-line vote, bringing the country one step closer to the largest federal land grab in our history, according to a news release by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA).
The bill was amended at the markup by Senators Baucus, Klobuchar and Boxer, according to NCBA. The amendment allegedly takes care of agricultural concerns by exempting prior-converted croplands from federal jurisdiction. Cattle are generally not grazed on prior-converted croplands, so this amendment does nothing to mitigate the potential damage to livestock production from this legislation, according to NCBA. The amendment is a diversion from the real issue, the organization notes, which is the removal of the word “navigable” from the definition of waters.
In doing so, the CWRA would expand federal regulatory control to unprecedented levels, essentially putting stock tanks, drainage ditches, any puddle or water feature found on family farms and ranches — potentially even groundwater — under the regulatory arm of the federal government. Read more.
EPA’s Push to Regulate Greenhouse Gas
The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) efforts to create a mandatory Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Registry could have significant detrimental effects on cattle producers, according to industry groups.
The proposal would require the mandatory reporting of methane and nitrous oxide emissions from manure management practices at cattle feeding operations.
NCBA argues that the livestock industry is a very minor source of GHG emissions, representing only 0.127% of total GHG emissions in 2007.
“This regulation would be a significant financial and administrative burden on your operations and would not provide data that is useful in addressing EPA’s long-term goal of reducing major sources of GHG emissions. Because the livestock industry is such a small source of GHG emissions, producers should be allowed to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gases by creating offsets for use by regulated industry as a way to reduce economic burdens imposed by a mandatory cap and trade program,” the organization stated in a release.
Likewise, the U.S. Cattlemen’s Association (USCA) has expressed concern regarding regulations of GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act.
The USCA warns this potential regulatory burden on the U.S. agriculture community would hurt not only small businesses nationwide, but also every American household that depends on agribusiness to provide food for their families.
Animal Welfare Regulations Would Impact Ohio’s Ag Industry
The implementation of animal welfare legislation similar to what passed in California would have a profound economic impact on Ohio’s ag industry, said an Ohio State University (OSU) ag economist. Luther Tweeten, professor emeritus of ag trade and policy in the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, said that efforts by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to push legislation in Ohio similar to California’s Proposition 2 would result in decreased production and lost jobs, specifically within Ohio’s laying hen industry, which the animal welfare legislation would specifically target.
California’s Proposition 2, passed last year, mandates that as of Jan. 1, 2015, it shall be a misdemeanor for any person to confine a pregnant pig, calf raised for veal or egg-laying hen in a manner not allowing the animal to turn around freely, stand up, lie down and fully extend its limbs.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Ohio ranks second in the nation in both laying hen and egg production, with a combined estimated value of more than $650 million in 2008. In 2007, Ohio supplied nearly 8% of the nation’s eggs.
If Proposition 2-type legislation were to pass in Ohio, Tweeten estimates that Ohio poultry producers would likely see a 20% increase in costs for larger cages, a 26% increase in costs for raising hens in barns, and a 45% increase in costs for free-range poultry production. In addition, he suggests that nearly 8,000 jobs in the poultry industry alone would be lost.
Tweeten has outlined his research in the document, “The Economics of Animal Welfare Regulations Proposed for Ohio.” To learn more, contact Luther Tweeten 614-247-8417 or tweeten.1@osu.edu.