Farm Bureau's Water Pollution: A Quest For Destruction?

The Farm Bureau, the largest farm lobbying group in the US, has been accused of attacking the Clean Water Act, a federal rule aimed at protecting the nation's water resources. The Bureau's aggressive campaign has brought attention to the value of clean water resources and the potential dangers of pollution. While the Bureau claims to represent small family farms, critics argue that they prioritize the interests of giant industrial agricultural companies, disregarding the potential environmental and health consequences of their actions. The Clean Water Act, established in 1972, plays a crucial role in regulating pollutants in US waters and preventing contamination from industries such as factory farms and mineral mining. However, the Farm Bureau's influence on policy changes threatens to increase pollution and risk to public health, disproportionately affecting vulnerable communities, including Black and Hispanic individuals.

The Farm Bureau's support for the EPA's reversal of environmental policies

The Farm Bureau has been accused of supporting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) reversal of environmental policies. The EPA, led by Lee Zeldin, has been accused of spearheading an institutional reversal of long-standing US environmental policies. Zeldin refers to these as "31 historic actions", which include questioning the established finding that greenhouse gases are harmful and eradicating Clean Water Act provisions. The Clean Water Act was established in 1972 to regulate pollutants in US waters and prevent contamination from industries such as factory farms and mineral mining.

The Farm Bureau, a powerful lobbying organization, has been accused of championing efforts to weaken the Clean Water Act. Stacy Woods, research director for the Food and Environment Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), has criticized the Farm Bureau for pretending to represent small family farms while actually working for giant industrial agricultural companies. Woods argues that the EPA's latest announcement will make matters worse and could lead to increased pollution and risk to public health.

The EPA's reversal of environmental policies includes exempting major pollutant sources like subsurface agricultural drainage. This has raised concerns among environmental groups, who warn that the deregulation blitz could have negative consequences for water quality and public health. In response to these concerns, Zeldin has credited the concerns of farmers and ranchers as a factor in the policy change, with American Farm Bureau President Zippy Duvall expressing support for the decision. Duvall argues that the policy change provides clarity for farmers and will help them protect the environment while ensuring they can grow their crops.

The Farm Bureau has disputed findings that suggest a link between nitrate levels in drinking water and cancer risk. They have criticized the quality of reports presented by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), stating that there is inadequate evidence of carcinogenicity in drinking water. However, peer-reviewed studies have established a clear link between increased cancer risk and nitrate levels in tap water, even at levels lower than the EPA's legal limit.

The EPA's reversal of environmental policies has been met with criticism and concerns from environmental groups, who argue that it could lead to increased pollution and pose risks to public health. The closure of climate justice offices across the country, which aim to help those most affected by pollution and climate change, has further added to the concerns surrounding the EPA's latest policy moves.

The Clean Water Act and the Farm Bureau's efforts to weaken it

The Clean Water Act (CWA) was established in 1972 to regulate pollutants in US waters and prevent contamination from industries like factory farms and mineral mining. Under the CWA, it is unlawful to discharge dredged or fill material into "waters of the United States" without authorization from the US Army Corps of Engineers or an approved state, unless covered under an exemption specified in Section 404(f). The CWA also includes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), which requires Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) to obtain permits that limit what can be discharged and set acceptable levels for pollutants.

Despite the protections offered by the CWA, some groups, including the Farm Bureau, have worked to weaken it. In 2024, the US House of Representatives was expected to vote on H.R. 7023, The Creating Confidence in Clean Water Permitting Act, which would have actively undermined the ability of federal agencies to protect water resources and made it easier for industries to pollute without permits. Environmental groups warned that this proposed legislation, supported by the Farm Bureau, could lead to increased pollution and risk to public health.

The Farm Bureau, while claiming to represent small family farms, has been accused of working for giant industrial agricultural companies. By supporting the rollback of environmental regulations, the Farm Bureau enables the pollution of water sources by industrial agriculture, which threatens both the environment and public health. For example, the EPA's reversal of longstanding policies, including the CWA, could result in increased pollution from factory farms and the discharge of heavy metals and toxic chemicals into waterways, endangering aquatic life and contaminating drinking water supplies.

In addition to the CWA, other environmental protections that have been targeted for weakening include oil and gas regulations, clean air standards, and the "Good Neighbor" rule, which requires states to manage their own pollution that can affect nearby states. These rollbacks disproportionately impact vulnerable communities, including those with low socioeconomic status and Black and Hispanic communities, who are already more likely to live near hazardous pollution sources due to historical practices like redlining.

The impact of industrial agriculture on water pollution

Industrial agriculture is one of the leading causes of water pollution, particularly in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 2017 National Water Quality Inventory found that 46% of the US's rivers and streams are in a "poor biological condition", and 21% of lakes are "hypereutrophic", meaning high levels of nutrients and algae are degrading water quality.

The byproducts of conventional farming, such as nitrogen-rich fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and animal waste, threaten watersheds and pollute drinking water. When it rains, these substances run off fields into nearby creeks and streams, causing eutrophication and hypoxia. This process, also known as "'dead zones', results in the loss of aquatic life and their habitats, shellfish contamination, and seasonal dead zones. For example, the nitrogen and phosphorus found in agricultural fertilizers cause algae to grow faster than aquatic ecosystems can handle, decreasing the oxygen that fish and marine life need to survive.

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), or factory farms, are a significant contributor to water pollution. These farms generate millions, if not billions, of gallons of animal waste per year, which can contaminate water supplies with heavy metals like copper, zinc, cadmium, lead, mercury, and arsenic. In humans, copper toxicity can cause gastrointestinal and liver disorders, while zinc pollution can cause fish kills and damage to algae, crustaceans, and salmon.

The EPA has attempted to regulate CAFO waste under the Clean Water Act, but these regulations have been criticized as ineffective and subject to influence from industrial agricultural interest groups like the Farm Bureau. The latest policy moves by the EPA, including the reversal of the Clean Water Act, are expected to lead to increased pollution and risks to public health, particularly in vulnerable communities with high numbers of low-socioeconomic status residents, such as Black and Hispanic communities.

To address water pollution from industrial agriculture, farmers can adopt best practices for fertilizer use and regenerative agriculture strategies, such as improving soil health through cover crops and streamside buffer crops. Additionally, financial incentives and policies can encourage more sustainable and healthy diets, reducing the demand for industrial agricultural products.

The role of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in water pollution

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), also known as factory farms, house thousands of animals, generating millions, if not billions, of gallons of animal waste per year. The large amounts of animal waste produced by CAFOs present a significant risk to water quality and aquatic ecosystems.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has specified maximum allowable amounts of pollution that can be discharged by CAFOs, termed "effluent limitations guidelines" (ELGs). These guidelines include numeric discharge limits, best management practices, and technology-based standards. Despite these regulations, states with high concentrations of CAFOs experience, on average, 20 to 30 serious water quality issues per year due to inadequate manure management.

One of the main concerns with CAFO waste is nutrient pollution, particularly from nitrogen and phosphorus found in agricultural fertilizers. When it rains, these nutrients can run off fields into nearby creeks and streams, causing excessive algae growth that decreases the oxygen available for fish and other marine life, leading to "dead zones". High levels of nutrients in waterways can also impact shellfish safety, beach accessibility, and fishing activities.

In addition to nutrients, CAFO waste often contains heavy metals such as copper and zinc, which are fed to pigs and chickens as growth promoters and disease preventatives. Other metals present in animal waste include cadmium, lead, mercury, and arsenic. These metals can accumulate in the soil when animal waste is sprayed on farm fields and eventually contaminate water supplies. Copper toxicity, for example, can cause gastrointestinal and liver disorders in humans, as well as negatively impact soil microbial activity and plant growth, which in turn affects aquatic life.

The recent growth of CAFOs has led to an increased volume of waste and the presence of additional contaminants, such as antibiotics and other veterinary drugs. The impact of these contaminants on aquatic ecosystems and human health is not yet fully understood, but there are concerns about long-term inadvertent exposure to water contaminated with pharmaceuticals and other compounds.

The effects of water pollution on vulnerable communities

Water pollution has a significant impact on vulnerable communities, and the actions of the Farm Bureau, in conjunction with the EPA, have been seen as an attack on clean water initiatives and a threat to public health. The Farm Bureau, a powerful agricultural lobbying group, has been accused of misleading farmers and ranchers by prioritising the interests of large industrial agricultural companies over the protection of water resources. This has direct and indirect effects on vulnerable communities.

The EPA's reversal of long-standing environmental policies, with the support of the Farm Bureau, has led to increased risks for communities, particularly those with a high proportion of low socioeconomic status residents. The deregulation of environmental protections disproportionately impacts Black and Hispanic communities, due to historical practices such as redlining, which has resulted in the concentration of these vulnerable communities near hazardous pollution sources. The health consequences are significant, with higher rates of asthma and poor mental health in these areas.

The Clean Water Act, established in 1972, was intended to regulate pollutants in water and prevent contamination from industries such as factory farms and mineral mining. By questioning and weakening this legislation, the EPA and the Farm Bureau are endangering public health, especially in vulnerable communities. The proposed changes fail to adequately address non-point source pollution, exempting major pollutant sources like subsurface agricultural drainage. This has already led to impaired water quality in states like Iowa, endangering drinking water supplies and limiting recreational water access.

Vulnerable communities are also at risk from the specific pollutants associated with agricultural practices. High levels of nutrients, such as phosphorus and nitrogen, from synthetic fertilisers and animal waste, threaten the health and biodiversity of waterways. This can result in the loss of aquatic life, shellfish contamination, and seasonal dead zones due to decreased oxygen levels. These pollutants can also contaminate drinking water supplies, causing severe health problems such as gastrointestinal and liver disorders, as well as neurological issues in infants ("blue-baby syndrome"). Additionally, pesticides, herbicides, and veterinary medicines used in farming can enter water sources, posing further risks to vulnerable communities.

Frequently asked questions