HARRISBURG, Pa. - A version of the Farm Bill now under consideration in the U.S. Senate brings with it a loophole that could have damaging effects across the nation - but especially in agriculture-heavy states such as Pennsylvania.

The bill would replace direct cash payments from the federal government to farmers, with federally subsidized crop insurance that would guarantee farmers' income whether or not they suffer crop failure.

What the new version lacks, says Aviva Glaser, legislative representative for agriculture programs at the National Wildlife Federation, is a requirement that landowners who receive those payments farm responsibly through a practice known as "conservation compliance."

"In return for receiving taxpayer dollars, farmers should have to take basic soil and water conservation measures. They should refrain from draining wetlands, and they should use a conservation plan when they're farming highly erodable land."

Glaser says eroding soil can wash away in a hard rain and clog streams and rivers, and adds that the toll taken by farmers being allowed to drain wetlands is substantial.

"Wetlands store water naturally. The more we drain wetlands, the more there's going to be downstream flooding; that water has to go somewhere."

Glaser says a move to close the loophole and require conservation compliance is the Wetlands Conservation Amendment, sponsored by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

"The amendment would actually save money while protecting valuable natural resources - and. really, it ensures the best use of our taxpayer dollars."

Supporters say the Senate version of the bill cuts spending over the next decade by roughly $24 billion by eliminating direct payments to farmers. But Glasser counters that failing to close the loophole could result in what amounts to taxpayer-funded destruction of wetlands and massive soil erosion.


get more stories like this via email

New maps show the extent of New York State's lead pipe replacement program.

They demonstrate progress in replacing lead service lines, although the state still has an estimated 494,000 of them. The Environmental Protection Agency awarded the state of New York more than $300 million over the last three years for the work but only $104 million has been awarded to municipalities.

Josh Klainberg, senior vice president of the New York League of Conservation Voters, said additional state funds can replace more lines.

"There are 24 projects that were funded from that $104 million that went out, which is great," Klainberg acknowledged. "But as I mentioned, though, there were an additional 85 other projects requesting money as well, totaling $211 million that went unfunded because there's no additional money."

The Rensselaer County Legislature passed a resolution urging New York State to allocate more funding to lead pipe replacement.

The EPA's new Lead and Copper rule expected this October will give municipalities nationwide a decade to replace all existing lead pipes. Klainberg pointed out when it happens, competition for labor and materials will be fierce. The rule's 10-year clock could start in 2027.

State dollars for the work are in the Clean Water Infrastructure Act and the Environmental Bond Act but do not match federal funds. A major challenge to replacing lead service lines is having an accurate inventory. Cities such as Troy are working with homeowners to get the information.

Klainberg emphasized replacing lead pipes benefits a municipality's water infrastructure.

"We spend a tremendous amount of money on that infrastructure," Klainberg noted. "For that last bit, to not consider that part of the overall infrastructure which is the most critical point, this is what I think the rethinking of this inventory project is about."

Beyond national maps, New York's Lead Pipe Right to Know Act requires information about where lead pipes are located to be easily accessible online for New Yorkers to access.


get more stories like this via email

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has a month to respond in court to a new lawsuit concerning a factory farm in the central part of the state.

Those leading the legal fight said the case speaks to how worried some communities are about concentrated animal feeding operations. The group Midwest Environmental Advocates represents Portage County residents in a lawsuit claiming the Department of Natural Resources reached an illegal settlement with a large livestock facility for a wastewater permit. At issue is whether the state should have allowed public input.

Adam Voskuil, staff attorney for the group, said as concentrated animal feeding operations gain a bigger footprint, data is becoming clear about the harm to local resources.

"We're seeing concerns over CAFOs in western Wisconsin, too, where there have been significant spills and fish kills," Voskuil reported.

He is referring to a 2019 incident where a settlement was reached with a large dairy operation over a manure discharge. For his clients, Voskuil pointed to 2018 county data showing elevated nitrate levels in private wells, saying it rises above the traditional "not-in-my-backyard" opposition.

The DNR would not comment on the lawsuit but some farm groups say large ag facilities have to adhere to strict regulations as they help feed the world.

Voskuil noted people who live near the sites are not regulators. They are individuals asking for responses to what they feel is a growing crisis.

"I really think that we need to stop just accepting that CAFOs can externalize the cost of environmental contamination onto the communities that live downstream or downwind," Voskuil stressed.

Wisconsin currently has nearly 340 concentrated animal feeding operations as consolidation in agriculture outmuscles smaller, independent farms. Even though the DNR is targeted in the new lawsuit, the agency was being defended by the state in a separate case for maintaining the permitting process for the projects. The suit was brought by industry groups who said they are being overregulated.


get more stories like this via email

A new film documents the 2018 battle between Colorado environmentalists and the oil and gas industry over proposed fracking regulations.

The film also documents a grassroots effort by Colorado Rising to pass a ballot initiative which would create a 2,500-foot setback for all hydraulic fracturing wells in the state, particularly in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Sarah Schulte, organizing committee member of GreenFaith Boulder County, which recently previewed the film for about 100 members, said the film has a strong message.

"What probably makes the film pretty dramatic and kind of shocking is the length to which oil and natural gas industries in Colorado set out to thwart them," Schulte pointed out. "Not only with some of the tactics you might expect, but also some kind of more nefarious tactics sabotaging their signature gathering, for example."

In the end, the petroleum industry defeated the measure after a $50 million campaign opposing it. Schulte acknowledged Colorado Rising raised only $1 million for its campaign. After the election, the state adopted a 1,000-foot drilling setback from schools and residential property lines.

Hydraulic fracturing, commonly called fracking, involves drillers injecting a mixture of chemicals underground to break up the shale and free the oil. The chemicals used in the process, which are sometimes toxic, can pollute groundwater and make the surrounding land unstable.

Schulte emphasized the movie had a powerful effect on the group's members.

"I think most people were pretty angry and maybe even a little sad after seeing how these kinds of politics play out in Colorado," Schulte observed. "They asked questions like what can we do next? How do you keep going when it's so difficult to fight such a big and powerful industry?"

The film, Fracking the System: Colorado's Oil and Gas Wars, is currently being previewed by select audiences. It has won the "Spirit of Activism" award at the Colorado Environmental Film Festival
and the "Environmental Award" at the 2024 DOCUTAH International Film Festival.