By Claire Carlson for The Daily Yonder.
Broadcast version by Eric Tegethoff for Washington News Service for the Public News Service/Daily Yonder Collaboration

The Lower Yakima Valley in Washington state has been home to large-scale animal agriculture for decades, but in 2008 when one dairy operation tried moving onto the Yakama Indian Reservation, the community balked at the proposition.

“The dairies at that time were very bad neighbors,” said Jean Mendoza, a resident of the Yakama Reservation. The community wanted to avoid the issues they’d heard about in Sunnyside, a small town about 50 miles east of the Yakama Reservation. “There was one [Sunnyside] family that had built an outdoor swimming pool for their grandchildren to enjoy, and one of the dairies came in and built a manure lagoon right next to the swimming pool,” she said. The smell from the lagoon made it impossible to enjoy their backyard.

The lagoons, huge pits of animal waste mixed with water, were one of the reasons Mendoza started organizing against the establishment of concentrated animal feedlots (CAFOs) near her home. She later became the executive director of the nonprofit Friends of Toppenish Creek, which advocates for improved oversight of industrial agriculture. 

Discharge from these lagoons into groundwater caused nitrate levels to skyrocket in the drinking water of small towns in the Lower Yakima Valley, where many residents get their water from private wells. Serious health effects like cancer and blue baby syndrome – a life-threatening condition that causes low oxygen levels in infants’ blood – can occur when nitrate levels exceed 10 milligrams per liter, the maximum contaminant level set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Despite the health risks, regulating this pollution isn’t easy. Loopholes within drinking water laws and the agriculture lobby’s influence in Congress have prevented substantive policy reform to address the issue, according to food safety experts. 

“That lobby has consistently asked for and gotten policies that favor the large and the higher tech and the consolidation – and therefore corporate control – of agriculture,” said Amy van Saun, a senior attorney for the Center for Food Safety. A 2024 report from the Union for Concerned Scientists showed big agribusiness and other food interest groups spent $523 million on farm bill lobbying between 2019 and 2023 – more than what the lobbies for the oil and gas industry and defense sector spent during that time. 

Agriculture has become one of the most consolidated industries in the country. Across the board, farms have been merged into just a few big companies that control most food sectors.

The dairy industry is no stranger to this: Between 2002 and 2019 the number of licensed dairy herds in the U.S. dropped by half, but milk production increased, according to USDA data. This suggests that small farms are disappearing in place of concentrated animal feedlots operated by large corporations like Land o’ Lakes and Dairy Farmers of America. 

As the number of animals stuffed onto corporate farms increases, so has the amount of waste. And that waste is kept in manure lagoons that are built to leak, according to Adam Voskuil, a staff attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates. 

“Regardless of whether a manure lagoon is earthen-lined or clay-lined or concrete-lined, there is some acceptable amount of discharge directly to the groundwater, to the aquifer,” Voskuil said. 

As dairy operations have become more consolidated in the Lower Yakima Valley, it’s made it harder for grassroots organizers like Mendoza to advocate for drinking water regulation. “It removes decision-making from the ground level and sends it up the corporate ladder and makes it harder for neighbors, makes it harder for Friends of Toppenish Creek [to demand change],” she said. 

While Mendoza’s organization successfully stopped the 2008 dairy operation from moving onto the Yakama Reservation, they’ve had their work cut out for them because of seepage from other manure lagoons. In June of 2024, the EPA sued three of the area’s dairy operations for failing to comply with a 2013 legal agreement that they reduce nitrate leakage and protect the drinking water of nearby residents.

But it’s difficult to implement effective regulation because water pollution is technically legal under two major laws: the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The Clean Water Act is the main apparatus used to protect the United States’ surface water. While its purpose is to prohibit the discharge of pollutants, the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System issues permits that allow exceptions to this rule. Most activities associated with farming, ranching, and forestry can be exempted from the Clean Water Act if the operator obtains a permit to pollute. 

The law directly regulates “point sources” of pollution, which is when there is a clear source of waste discharge like from a pipe, well, or even a manure lagoon from a concentrated animal feeding operation.

But for “nonpoint sources” of pollution, the law relies on voluntary efforts to control pollutants from various sources that accumulate through runoff. A primary cause of these nonpoint sources is runoff from nitrogen fertilizer on cropland. 

This voluntary approach means the EPA and states don’t have the authority to require that landowners reduce runoff, according to a report from the Environmental Integrity Project. This leaves the work to advocacy organizations. 

“It seems like it has fallen to environmental and clean water and agricultural advocacy organizations to raise awareness and make sure people are protected,” said Leigh Currie, the chief legal officer for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. 

The Well Issue

In eastern Oregon’s Morrow and Umatilla counties, more than 400 households have nitrate levels higher than 10 milligrams per liter, the maximum amount deemed safe by the EPA. All of these houses rely on well water, which is one of the least regulated sources of drinking water in the country. 

The counties’ pollution comes from food processing companies in the Port of Morrow. The companies produce nitrate-rich wastewater and funnel it into open-air irrigation ditches that water the area’s farmland. The water is overapplied on these farms and the excess leaches into the groundwater, which is what many local residents rely on for drinking. 

Over the 30 years the state of Oregon has known about this problem, very little has been done to address it. That’s because no one wants to “own the issue,” according to Nella Mae Parks, a farmer and organizer for the nonprofit Oregon Rural Action. 

“The state doesn’t want it, the [Port of Morrow] doesn’t want it, and the county doesn’t want it, because it’s gonna be really expensive,” she said in a 2023 interview with the Daily Yonder. 

The Clean Drinking Water Act regulates “navigable waters,” which does not include groundwater. This leaves groundwater regulation to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which guarantees protections for municipalities that are on public drinking water systems. 

But the law leaves out protections for private wells that support fewer than 25 individuals. About 15% of the U.S. population relies on well water, and the vast majority of them live in rural areas. 

This means the well owner has to take on the cost of monitoring and treating their water if they find it’s being polluted, a cost that many people can’t afford. A nitrate test costs between $35 and $60, and treating the water requires a reverse osmosis system, which is a filtration device that forces water through a membrane that removes nitrate. Depending on the system, the price can range from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand. 

Some counties will pay for these tests and filters, but this isn’t the case in every affected community. 

For example, in Wisconsin – the dairy capital of the U.S. – rural well owners often choose not to test their wells for nitrate. “That’s because if it comes back that it’s testing high for nitrates, it may not be financially feasible for them to rehabilitate or remediate or dig a new well,” said Voskuil from Midwest Environmental Advocates. 

The state’s well compensation grant program will only provide financial assistance to well owners whose water tests at or more than 40 parts per million of nitrate. That’s four times the amount the EPA says is safe to drink.

A Need for Stronger Regulation

Food safety experts say solving America’s nitrate pollution problem will require stronger regulation of the biggest players in the agriculture industry. 

“This industry has been able to externalize so much of their costs… so that it’s an artificially cheap product for the consumer,” van Saun from the Center for Food Safety said. 

The federal government provides farmers subsidies to protect them from fluctuating revenue year-by-year, but data from the nonpartisan Environmental Working Group shows that 78% of subsidies were given to the largest 10% of farm operations between 1995 and 2021. This means small and mid-size farmers received the fewest benefits, making it harder to stay afloat.

Some bills have been proposed to address the squeeze of big agriculture, but there hasn’t been substantial progress made on the issue. New Jersey Senator Cory Booker’s Farm System Reform Act of 2023 proposed a moratorium on CAFOs, expanded country-of-origin labeling, and increased competition and transparency in livestock, poultry, and meat markets. The bill was first introduced in 2019 and reintroduced in 2021 and 2023, but all three times, it languished in committee. 

Most of the current reform is coming from more local efforts, like the community organizing in the Lower Yakima Valley that led to the 2024 lawsuit against three dairy farms. 

While these local efforts are important, van Saun said they have to occur in combination with federal regulations to effectively address drinking water contamination. “It’s the people who are the least well off in rural areas, and especially communities of color in rural areas, who are the ones paying the biggest price for this [pollution],” van Saun said.


Claire Carlson wrote this article for The Daily Yonder.


get more stories like this via email

Students and professors at the University of Arkansas-Little Rock are studying farmer's reactions to drought conditions.

The university received a national grant to study how farmers' risk preferences affect water use during droughts.

Kent Kovacs, associate professor of accounting, economics and finance at the university, said they want to determine if farmers will take a more conservative approach or be influenced by economic factors.

"You can have a string of generally very dry years or you could have a string of very wet years," Kovacs pointed out. "How they respond depends upon what their preference is for taking risks in their farming business."

The three-year study will determine if risk preferences change with drought conditions and climate change. Farmers in rural Arkansas, the Lower Mississippi River Basin, Louisiana and part of Missouri are included in the research.

As part of the study, farmers are surveyed and their risk preferences entered into economic and hydrologic models. If the models show the water supply is declining quickly, policy changes could be suggested.

Kovacs noted the findings will be shared with policymakers.

"We have three meetings with stakeholders so this will be groups in government, (and) farmers as well," Kovacs explained. "But the focus will be everyone that stands to be affected through water use in this region and agriculture related to crop production."

Agriculture is one of the largest consumers of water, and droughts can severely affect crop production.


get more stories like this via email

The organization Practical Farmers of Iowa is helping urban crop growers use beneficial insects to control pests, boost soil health and increase pollination.

It is part of the group's efforts to use natural resources to create healthier farms. Farmers do not like most bugs but in some cases, they can help.

Tricia Engelbrecht, a flower farmer at Engelbrecht Farm near Waverly, introduced ground beetles, lacewings and parasitic wasps into the habitat, to stay ahead of the pests that like to feed on her flowers.

"I can never get rid of pests," Engelbrecht acknowledged. "They are just part of the ecosystem. But if I could manage them, that would be very helpful to me. Like aphids, they suck the plant. They're like eating the plants. Some bugs go after the blooms."

Engelbrecht uses native "insect strips" and "beetle banks," which allow the good bugs to integrate into the habitat and keep the pests under control.

The bugs also reduce the need for chemicals, which in the end, creates healthier flowers. She admitted things do not always go as planned when she introduces good bugs, likening it to an eighth grade science project.

"It's not always foolproof," Engelbrecht pointed out. "Last year, I put all those egg sacs out. It comes on like a strip of paper to keep them off the ground. I hung it up and something ate all of the eggs. I don't know if a rodent or something came and ate all the eggs. I came the next day and everything was gone."

It was not a complete loss. Engelbrecht gets new shipments of healthy bugs every few weeks and Practical Farmers of Iowa pays for the habitats so she is getting financial help from the program, while striking a balance with Mother Nature.


get more stories like this via email

By Nina B. Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

The “Got Milk?” campaign is one of the most infamous advertisements campaigns funded by the food industry. Though the images of people sporting milk mustaches were once practically ubiquitous, consumers may have difficulty pinpointing who exactly funded the project. The source was a unique agricultural marketing partnership of both industry and government commonly referred to as “checkoffs.” Today, checkoffs promote a wide range of foods — eggs and pork, and also watermelon and Hass avocados — but a growing number of critics, including farmers, are raising objections to the mandatory payment scheme. Some critics have even called for Elon Musk’s DOGE to curb checkoff programs, yet that kind of cut may not be popular, or legal.

Historically, checkoffs were a way for farmers to “self-tax” — paying a fee into a consolidated pool to market their product — University of Iowa agricultural resource economist Silvia Secchi tells Sentient. Once a voluntary practice, farmers could elect to pay into the checkoff to support their own commodity — agricultural products sold at a large scale, like corn, beef and hogs. The funds would go toward one big marketing pool, and the checkoff was to promote and provide information about the commodity rather than a particular brand — selling milk rather than DairyPure, for instance.

The first commodity checkoff was the formation of the Cotton Board in 1966, eventually institutionalized by Congress in 1996, when lawmakers officially sanctioned the use of “industry-funded, Government-supervised” commodity checkoff programs. More than a quarter-century later, checkoffs have ballooned into a combined pot of almost $1 billion supervised by the United States Department of Agriculture but operated by commodity boards. It is mandatory for producers selling cattle to pay $1 per head to the checkoff. Beef imported to the U.S. is “self-taxed” too. Ready to capitalize on the sweeping governmental changes, some farmers and farm groups are calling for a change.

Signs the Trump Administration Might Slash Checkoffs 

Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is moving through federal agencies slashing positions and programs, put out a call on X (formerly known as Twitter) asking for the public’s help with what to cut from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Some advocacy groups, like Farm Action, asked DOGE to investigate illegal checkoff spending on lobbying. They also penned a letter to USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins asking her to halt checkoff expenditures, which she has neither confirmed nor denied she will do.

Checkoffs were a target of Project 2025, where author Daren Bakst wrote that “Marketing orders and checkoff programs are some of the most egregious programs run by the USDA. They are, in effect, a tax — a means to compel speech — and government-blessed cartels. Instead of getting private cooperation, they are tools for industry actors to work with government to force cooperation.” Bakst called for the elimination or reduction of checkoff programs.

“That could’ve come out of the mouth of Senator Sanders or Senator Warren,” Austin Frerick, antitrust expert and author of “Barons: Money, Power, and the Corruption of America’s Food Industry,” tells Sentient. Frerick sees checkoff reform as essential. “We can’t make meaningful reforms in the American food system until we bring in the checkoffs, because they’re just too much money. They’re too much of a slush fund. They control the conversation too much.”

What Checkoff Programs Do

The goal of checkoff programs is to increase the reputation of and desire for a commodity, like beef, among consumers. Checkoffs tend to promote food made by large-scale, industrial agriculture, Secchi says; there are overwhelmingly the kinds of farms that produce most of the feed crops and meat consumed in the U.S. “If you’re the kind of farmer who is doing a lot to promote soil health on their farm, or who is really concerned about animal welfare and things like that, the checkoff doesn’t really benefit you,” she says. “The checkoff benefits the commodity, right? And the commodity, by definition, is homogeneous.”

Checkoffs also fund a hefty amount of university research. This industry-funded research is not a behind-the-scenes aspect of checkoffs, either. In fact, the USDA labels these programs under a “research & promotion” umbrella.

It’s also not an insignificant sum. According to reporting by Investigate Midwest, “between 2012 and 2022, the pork checkoff gave $17,184,763 in funding to land-grant colleges across the country. More than half went to research at Iowa State University…” In the same time period, the National Cattleman’s Beef Association gave $6.4 million and the dairy checkoff, Dairy Management Inc., gave almost $5.8 million to land-grant colleges.

How Checkoffs Can Skew Academic Research

Industry-funded research is ubiquitous in the field of agriculture. While defenders of the practice say working with conventional agriculture is a way to improve it, critics say industry-funded research ends up favoring questions of interest to industry over other research areas. And a growing body of industry-funded research is going toward messaging to defend the meat industry — like building trust in the pork industry, for instance. 

“I actually think checkoffs are the main reason why our efforts in climate change and agriculture have been largely a farce,” says Frerick. Agriculture is one of the largest contributors to climate change, responsible for around a third of all greenhouse gas emissions, most of which is driven by beef. Frerick says industry-funded research is often focused on the false solutions. “We’re getting a lot of dumb scholarship, like ethanol and airplanes and other digesters for industrial animal facilities. And as all that, to me, is being driven and led by checkoffs.”

One recent paper claims that the beef industry (via the checkoff funded National Cattlemen’s Association) “planned to obstruct efforts to shift U.S. diets to reduce emissions,” funding university research that downplayed the effects of the industry on climate change. Frerick says research is what drives hiring in academia, and some researchers may feel pressured to write favorably about the big-funders.

“If you write a bunch of articles about how you squeeze more hogs into a metal shed, you’re probably more likely to get tenure than if you are talking about the fact that Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in America,” he says. “The structures are really, really broken right now.”

Secchi is critical of the kinds of research land grant institutions are investing in. “The research that this kind of money finances is what I call small science research that perpetuates the practices of conventional agriculture,” she says. “It basically is just increasing demand for these products without any thinking about their environmental impact [or] their human health impact in a real way.”

Some Farmers Say Checkoffs Offer Them Little

On February 25, 2025, the USDA released a radio broadcast talking up the benefits of checkoffs, telling listeners that they do not know the extent to which the checkoff touches their lives, citing campaigns like “Beef, it’s what’s for dinner,” and educational programs such as “Pork Loin Roast vs Tenderloin.” The checkoff can also support events, the host said, such as the American Lamb Board’s Lamb Jam, “a tour of cities where local restaurants feature their best bites of lamb, along with games, music and giveaways to attract audiences and potential new customers of lamb.”

But not all farmers are convinced. Iowa farmer John Gilbert wrote to Sentient that, “Check off taxes are built on a faulty premise that prices can be increased by working only on the demand side.”

He wrote that the checkoff system “went to crap” when it became mandatory, causing the revenue to “invariably [shift] to the organization’s preservation, self promotion and influence peddling.”

“The checkoffs invariably led to the commodity cartel that has a stranglehold on Iowa politics and agriculture,” he wrote.

Aaron Lehman, President of the Iowa Farmers Union, wrote to Sentient that “Commodity checkoff programs must be accountable to the needs of family farmers,” noting that the term “checkoff” implies that they should also all be voluntary, “or at the very least should have built in regular farmer elections regarding the collection of funds from farmers.”

In conversations with farmers, Frerick has heard similar complaints. For decades, he says, many farmers have vocally opposed the checkoff, feeling like “their own money is being used against them.”

DOGE As Enforcer?

When the advocacy group Farm Action took to X to blast checkoffs, they highlighted the “lack of transparency and oversight.” Yet even though Project 2025 called for the elimination, or complete reform of the program, DOGE cannot (legally) single-handedly eliminate checkoffs, Secchi says.

“I have never been a fan of the checkoffs. But I think what’s really dangerous here is to concede that the process doesn’t matter,” she says. “If they get rid of the checkoffs, that’s not good, because that’s illegal. That’s not their job to get rid of the checkoffs.”

Moreover, checkoffs are not funded by the average taxpayer, they are funded by the farmer, making the DOGE goal of saving the average taxpayer money moot.

“It is not conducive to good policy to think that eliminating the subsidies in the system we have now is going to result in good outcomes,” Secchi says. “The people who are going to survive are the people who are already big.”

Project 2025 likely targeted checkoffs because, at its core, the plan calls for less government and more free market ideology, Secchi explains. But the entire agricultural market in the U.S., as Secchi explains in a recent paper, is based on government-driven extraction of the land; things like railroads to ship pigs across the country and corn yield advancements because of land grant university research.

“This tech bro idea that the market exists in a vacuum, and it’s this ideal that we have to aspire to is really not based in any reality,” she says. “The market is created by institutions like the state.”

DOGE aside, Frerick does not believe that much is likely to change at USDA with Brooke Rollins at the helm. “Her whole career is being a hack for [corporations] and the oligarch class, so I just don’t expect her to find the light all of a sudden,” he says. “But who knows?”

Based on an initial review of the DOGE website, one contract within the Agricultural Marketing Service has been terminated. It is unclear how this might affect checkoffs.

When asked if checkoffs were on the chopping block, Rollins told Farm Journal, “That is to be determined … I have not even begun to look at those. I know we’ve got a team looking at them. We’re going to get through the next few weeks and then we’ll start evaluating.”


Nina B. Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email