Utah's leaders are taking steps to protect the state's shrinking agricultural land by issuing conservation easements. The move will limit non-agricultural uses on protected lands and ensure they remain dedicated to farming and ranching.

Jeremy Christensen, land conservation program manager for the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, said the easements are necessary so that Utahns in the future can consume locally grown food. Because of the expected population growth in the Beehive State, farm land is being targeted by developers for housing and industrial projects.

Since the 1960s, Christensen said, the state has already lost a quarter of its farm land. He said that figure could likely rise if more isn't done.

"We are really struggling to produce enough food to feed the number of people that are coming into and are growing in our state," he said, "so a lot of the food that we eat comes from elsewhere."

Christensen said he is confident the answer may lie within conservation easements. The latest round of awards from the LeRay McAllister Working Farm and Ranch Fund is set to protect more than 5,500 acres throughout the state and award six privately-owned farms and ranches a total of about $1.7 million.

Christensen said landowners will receive funds for the developmental rights they're willing to giving up.

Christensen said farmers have welcomed the conservation easements, and added that there is a "huge demand," especially among multi-generational farming operations that are concerned with their longevity and vitality. But Christensen added that they're aiming to dispel misconceptions, "whether or not the land owner remains the owner of the property at the end of the day, which they do, or whether there is some mechanism by which they could lose control of the property through doing this easement, which they really can't."

Christensen contended the benefits of protecting these private properties extend "far beyond the boundaries of the properties themselves." He added that it is a benefit to not only landowners, but for all in the state who'll be able to consume local food and learn to value open lands.


get more stories like this via email

By Nina Elkadi for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Mike Moen for Wisconsin News Connection reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

When Nancy Utesch first moved to Kewaunee County, Wisconsin, a family in her community was poisoned after drinking water contaminated with E. coli, which has been tied to manure spread on nearby farms. The entire family went to the hospital, Utesch tells Sentient, and the eight-month old daughter spent time in intensive care.

"We were really stunned by the outpouring of support for the farmer and not the family," she says. "Upon arriving here, we began to learn the inner workings of this very dysfunctional dynamic that [concentrated animal feeding operations] bring to a community, which really pits neighbors against neighbors."

It was quite the first impression of her county, where she and her husband Lynn have now lived for the last 20 years. Utesch's advocacy group, Kewaunee CARES, is one of 13 groups who sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over their lack of enforcement of CAFOs under the Clean Water Act. On Oct. 2 the court denied the petition in full.

Fewer Than 30 Percent of CAFOs Have Clean Water Act Permits

Utesch estimates that there were approximately two concentrated feeding operations, or CAFOs, in Kewaunee County when she moved there. Now, according to new data compiled by Food & Water Watch, Kewaunee County has 36 factory farms which produced over 2 billion pounds of waste in 2022. The manure from CAFOs is often kept in open-air lagoons, where it is stored until it is sprayed to fertilize agricultural fields. Any excess manure not soaked up by crops or grasses ends up in aquifers and waterways, contaminating wells with nitrate and causing health issues ranging from acute poisoning to cancer. In some states, like Iowa, animals in CAFOs produce 25 times as much waste as its human population.

The 13 groups were represented by Food & Water Watch staff attorney Emily Miller, who in September argued in front of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. EPA itself has admitted that fewer than 30 percent of CAFOs have Clean Water Act permits. In the petition denial EPA sent Food & Water Watch six years after the initial petition was filed in 2017, they wrote, "EPA shares your concern that CAFOs can be a significant source of pollutants into waters of the United States. The Agency recognizes that there may be opportunities to do more to address these pollutants." EPA's solution was to form a committee to determine next steps - a decision which the petitioners felt was too little, too late.

"EPA needs to really step up in their actions so that they can actually protect people and not just be saying, 'Oh, we're going to have more stakeholder meetings,'" Utesch says. "During all these years, all that's happened is further expansion."

In their denial, the judges wrote that though the agency acknowledged "the serious problem of CAFO-based waste discharges into U.S. waterways," its promise to "further study" its own manure pollution guidelines and "commission a stakeholders' subcommittee" was not an unreasonable response.

"The EPA has never demonstrated an urgency to the outright widespread devastation and impoverishment CAFOs leave in their wake," Utesch wrote in a text. "The well of 'hope' people echo we must keep is contaminated, and will continue to grow in its contamination, as long as EPA is beholden to corporate interests above the people their agency was designed to protect."

The "Special Sector That Gets a Pass"

The Clean Water Act was officially born in 1972, or in an era when cattle and pig CAFOs were coming to be the norm. Within the Clean Water Act, CAFOs are classified as "point sources" of pollution, requiring them to have National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. But according to petitioners in Food & Water Watch et al. v. EPA, "Half a century later, the United States Environmental Protection Agency's regulation of CAFOs has become one of the Clean Water Act's greatest unmet promises."

Food & Water Watch first submitted a petition on behalf of 32 environmental organizations in 2017, "urging the agency to fix its failed factory farm program under the Clean Water Act," Miller tells Sentient.

The case outlines two main issues with the current EPA regulatory structure for CAFOs - one being that most factory farms discharge pollution but lack the required federal permits to control these discharges, and the second being that the permits themselves are insufficient to protect waterways and communities from pollution.

"The reason why these things are happening is because of agricultural exceptionalism," says Silvia Secchi, a professor of geographical and sustainability sciences at the University of Iowa. "EPA is treating agriculture as this kind of special sector that gets a pass, and then gets a second pass and a third pass."

The biggest "pass" in question in this lawsuit is the agricultural stormwater discharge exemption. Under the current EPA rule, Miller says, as long as factory farms are applying waste in accordance with a nutrient management plan, any discharges that are precipitation-related from its land application areas are exempt from regulation.

"What has happened is that this has essentially allowed thousands of operations to completely evade permitting requirements altogether for their nonexempt discharges, because it provides them an easy out to explain away any evidence of discharges coming from their facilities," she says. "It requires almost no oversight from EPA or any other state agency to confirm that the operation is actually meeting the exemption."

This limited oversight is causing destruction to communities who live closest to the polluters. There are downstream effects, too, as pollution from agricultural states is the largest contributor to the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico.

The issue of CAFO pollution is a problem of scale, Chris Jones, water quality expert and president of Driftless Water Defenders recently said at an event on animal agriculture held in Des Moines. The solution does not exist in technological fixes or manure-treatment initiatives.

Instead, Jones says, "We need laws. We need laws that are going to help us get our arms around this and give us the environmental condition in this state that we deserve as citizens."

Secchi agrees.

"We need to see litigation as the way civil society responds to a captured agency," she tells Sentient. "Ideally we would have a more responsive Congress that does things to address new challenges...But because Congress cannot tie their shoelaces, what we have are these laws that have some good bones."

Ninth Circuit Sides With EPA Despite Persistent Pollution

In 2023, the EPA acknowledged that there was a significant problem with CAFO permitting and that their current regulations are failing to address it. But instead of addressing it head-on, Miller says, they decided to study it further.

"EPA is on record in a 2022 report stating that not only have its regulations failed to address the problem, but they are actually impeding effective enforcement of the Clean Water Act," she says. "In other words, the problem is persisting, not just in spite of EPA regulations, but because of them. What else does the EPA need to know?"

In court in September, Judge Salvador Mendoza asked EPA counsel in the Ninth Circuit of Appeals, "Why isn't now the time?" He added, "You don't need additional studies to understand the fact that you need to enforce the permitting process."

On Oct. 2, 2024, the judges released their final decision: "Because we find that EPA did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or contrary to law, we deny the petition."

The decision comes as CAFO waste reaches untenable levels nationwide. According to Food & Water Watch, approximately 1.7 billion animals live in confinement on factory farms, producing 941 billion pounds of manure each year. And when it comes to pollution, Des Moines Water Works, which has the world's largest nitrate removal facility, must run their sometimes $10,000 per-day facility to keep drinking water safe for its residents when nitrate levels are high.

"We need judges who understand the reality of current agricultural production systems, the immediacy of the problems we face and the extensive evidence we already have," Secchi wrote in a text upon hearing the decision. "This panel [of judges] gave EPA leeway to keep kicking the can down the road. That's not a tenable situation."

Upon hearing the decision, Miller wrote in an email to Sentient: "We are of course disappointed by the decision. It's shocking that the court gave such short shrift to a critical issue. We'll keep working to hold EPA accountable for its decades of failure."

For Utesch, the entire process of petitioning and suing the EPA has instilled in her a belief that the agency is not serious about enforcing CAFO pollution, especially as it relates to human health.

"The CAFO issue is directly tied to human rights: the right one has to protecting personal health, home, air and water quality and quality of life, all which are severely compromised by industrial agribusiness," Utesch wrote. "EPA must remember and fulfill its mission, which is to protect."


Nina Elkadi wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

By Kari Lydersen for Energy News Network.
Broadcast version by Terri Dee for Illinois News Connection reporting for the Energy News Network-Public News Service Collaboration

When farmer Trent Gerlach found out a solar farm would be built on the land he had long worked in northwestern Illinois, he was disappointed.

"As a farmer, seeing that land taken out of production is difficult, when you farmed it for many years, you've been stewards to that land, fertilized that land, taken care of it as if it was your own," he said.

Gerlach's family had been raising corn, soybeans and livestock since 1968, and like many farmers, they leased farmland in addition to working their own land. And when the owner of one of those leased parcels decided to work with Acciona Energia to help site its High Point wind and solar farm, Gerlach initially was not enthusiastic.

"The thought of taking productive farm ground out of production with solar panels was not, in my personal opinion, ideal," he said.

But Gerlach was determined to make the best of the situation.

Ultimately, that meant a win-win arrangement, where Acciona pays him to manage vegetation around the 100 MW array of solar panels that went online in early 2024. Gerlach does that with a herd of 500 sheep.

"We don't own the land, we don't get a say - that's landowners' rights, and I'm very pro that," Gerlach recounted. "In U.S. agriculture, the biggest thing that gets farmers in trouble is saying, 'that's how we've always done it so that's what we're going to do.' Renewable energy is probably not going anywhere, whether you're for or against it, it's coming, it's what's happening. As an agriculture producer, we're going to adapt with it."

A promising arrangement

Researchers around the country are exploring agrivoltaics, or co-locating solar generation with agriculture in a mutually beneficial way. Projects range from growing tomatoes in California to wild blueberries in Maine, with varying levels of success.

Acciona regional manager Kyle Charpie said that sheep grazing appears an especially promising form of agrivoltaics, and one that the company is likely to continue exploring globally. Solar operators need to keep vegetation controlled, and sheep are a more effective and ecological way to do it than mechanized mowing. Acciona has long had a sheep agrivoltaic operation in Portugal, Charpie noted, and two projects in Texas are underway.

"It's incredibly cost-effective - sheep don't break down like a tractor; if a tractor blows a belt, you've lost a whole day of cutting," he said. "These grasses grow wickedly fast, it's that constant presence of the sheep that's been super super effective. It aligns with our sustainability goals."

"It's tough to say we're the greatest renewable company in the world [if] we have a bunch of tractors running up and down our fields belching out CO2," he continued.

Another advantage, Charpie said, is that at the end of the solar array's lifespan, the land beneath it will be restored and refreshed.

"We have all these sheep now who will spend 30-plus years breathing, living, using their hooves to churn up ground, even dying; it's the circle of life," he said. "When these farms get turned back to the families, that soil condition will be wonderful."

'He saw an opportunity here'

Gerlach's family had about 50 ewes when the idea for grazing around the solar panels struck. He "hounded" Acciona, in Charpie's words, to bring an agrivoltaic deal to fruition.

"He saw an opportunity here, and he has been his own best advocate, banging down the door, checking how close are we, when will we get our sheep here," Charpie said.

Gerlach ultimately bought about 500 sheep of two types: Dorper and Katahdin, small breeds that can fit easily under solar panels.

"The panels create lots of shade - during the heat of the day, they'll all be underneath the panels for shade," Gerlach said. "In early mornings, late evenings they're out grazing aggressively. They don't bother the panels one bit."

Gerlach said his family "used to raise livestock like everybody did back in the day," and his farm has won awards for its cattle, but raising livestock has become less profitable in recent years. Agrivoltaics offer an opportunity to delve back into raising sheep, something Gerlach loves. A commercial sheep operation would only be possible with the payments for vegetation management, he said.

"Raising sheep in the United States is challenging because the market for sheep is not very high," he said. There's not much of a domestic wool market, and "the meat side of sheep and lamb never really caught on in the U.S. - we're a beef, pork, poultry-consuming country."

Gerlach sells the bulk of his lambs around the Easter season, and largely for kosher and halal consumption. Since that market is so limited, the ewes largely earn their keep being paid to graze.

"We love providing stewardship to the animals. That's what U.S. agriculture was built on hundreds of years ago," Gerlach said. "It marries really well with our crop production" on nearby land. "In agriculture you need diversification. By bringing sheep and livestock production in, we can afford to hire more full-time employees."

Sheep are the livestock best suited to agrivoltaics, stakeholders agree.

"You can't use cattle because they're too large, they would rub on the panels and break them," Gerlach said. "You can't use goats because goats would climb on the panels, and they're natural chewers, they would chew on the wires."

The High Point solar array is divided up into separate plots with fences, "like perfect little pens for the sheep," added Charpie.

In a bigger uninterrupted plot, a farmer would likely need to move water sources for sheep strategically around the area to make sure the animals cover the entire plot. Gerlach's flock only grazes about a fifth of the Acciona solar array. He's hoping to expand, though feeding and sheltering sheep during the winter when they can't graze is costly.

"I've got three young kids. Hopefully we raise them in agriculture. It's such a good practice for our young people to learn responsibility and stewardship," Gerlach said.

"[The animals] come first, they get fed and watered and taken care of before us. Sometimes agriculture gets portrayed in a poor light, especially larger production agriculture. I try to really push that that's not everybody. Talk to a local farmer, a local person - you generally see that we're stewards of the land, we want healthy ground and livestock. That can marry in fine with clean energy."


Kari Lydersen wrote this article for Energy News Network.


get more stories like this via email

By Dawn Attride for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Suzanne Potter for California News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

Last Friday, Congress heard from several speakers on the urgency of clamping down on methane, an extremely potent greenhouse gas that primarily comes from agriculture. Atmospheric methane levels have jumped 30 percent since the Industrial Revolution, largely due to human activities. The main solution proposed at the Congressional briefing was anaerobic digesters, otherwise known as dairy digesters, which convert organic or animal waste into natural gas and are increasingly gaining interest from both the agricultural and energy industry.

California Congressman, Jim Costa, among others, hailed the technology as economically sound and a “win” for reducing methane. While these digesters somewhat address the problem of emissions from animal manure specifically, they don’t address the largest issue of enteric methane –– a natural byproduct of cow digestion which is responsible for over 70 percent of agricultural methane emissions.

Researchers at World Resources Institute say the average American can cut their environmental footprint in half by reducing their dairy and meat consumption, thus reducing their diet-related land use and greenhouse gas emissions.

What Is a Dairy Digester and How Does It Combat Methane Emissions?

Dairy digesters work by breaking down animal waste and manure into biogas to be used for energy. In a sealed environment free of oxygen, bacteria degrade organic matter in the manure, producing various compounds and gasses that can be converted to natural gas. Livestock manure is responsible for roughly 14 percent of agriculture’s total greenhouse emissions in the U.S.

“Reducing methane is the single fastest way to slow down [global] warming,” Ilissa Ocko, Senior Advisor for the United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, told the audience at the briefing. Ocko called the methane problem “largely solvable” with the use of various emission-cutting technologies such as dairy digesters, but added that agriculture is a “large” and “very complicated piece of the puzzle.”

The Global Methane Pledge launched in 2021 by the U.S. and European Union — which now has 158 participating countries — plans to cut methane 30 percent by 2030 globally, relative to 2020. To do this, Ocko and other speakers urged for timely investment and implementation of policy and technology into methane abatement solutions.

Energy Vision, a New York-based environmental research group, hosted the briefing and spoke about the large-scale financial investment needed to curb methane emissions. Based on data from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture, the group found “opportunity to deploy close to 5000 new digester systems across the country” which would “get us about 14 percent of the way to the 30 percent of the 2030 goal,” said Matt Tomich, President of Energy Vision. That would require close to $75 billion in capital, which Tomich says the private sector is “lining up to deploy.”

A Focus on California

California is the leading dairy producer in the United States with approximately 1.7 million cows and over 1,300 dairy farms that contribute up to $10.4 billion to the state’s economy. This production is responsible for over half of California’s methane emissions.

At the hearing, Jim Costa, Congressman for California’s 21st district, hailed dairy digesters as a solution, with 238 digester facilities planned, and 129 facilities currently in operation in California. “[Many] dairies now in California have some form of digesters and sometimes dairies that are adjacent to one another partner in digester facilities because it makes sense. And it’s good economics and it helps reduce your waste stream, besides controlling the methane. So it’s a win, win, win,” Costa said.

He also mentioned a bipartisan bill introduced in 2023 called the Converting our Waste Sustainability Act (COWS), which will grant funding to alternative manure management systems for dairy and livestock producers to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air and water quality.” By investing federal tax credits, Costa said “methane digesters” can be adopted around the country to convert animal waste into natural gas and support the conversion of biogas into energy, adding that digesters can be linked up to gas fuel cells for further “efficiency.”

However, in California, CalBio, a biodigester company, has linked up with Bloom Energy, a fuel cell company that has had significant financial trouble in the past, such as blowing through billions for technology that has been challenged over the efficacy of their “clean” fuel cells.

The energy harnessed from cow manure is already used in a very real way, Kevin Abernathy, general manager of the Milk Producers Council, said. He spoke about his involvement in California’s first hydrogen fueling station from “cow power,” or manure, and his plans for developing a “cow powered hydrogen highway.” Abernathy added that so far, 2.4 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent had been collected from California dairy farms, powering 15,000 vehicles a day.

Why Dairy Digesters Ignore the Industry’s Biggest Methane Problem

While dairy digesters and manure management appear to be an effective methane reduction pathway, they contribute nothing to dairy’s biggest methane problem: cow belches, otherwise known as enteric methane.

When asked by Sentient, Ocko agreed these technologies do little to prevent the bulk of livestock methane emissions coming from enteric fermentation. She noted that more research is needed, citing “exciting” solutions such as selective breeding and adding supplements to cows’ diet to reduce their methane output.

Other concerns with dairy digesters that were briefly mentioned at the hearing were pipeline transport and accessibility. Ocko noted that this natural gas is still methane which can escape into the atmosphere if pipeline transport and scaling isn’t carefully planned. “[With pipelines] it’s always better to use it close to where you’ve made it because that limits the opportunity for it to escape into the atmosphere,” she said.

Production and transport of this natural gas can be expensive and dangerous, as dairy digesters can explode or leak. A recent case study in Wisconsin found all five Kewaunee County Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) with digesters had at least one spill since digester installation, including one farm that had 23 spills since installation in 2009. Further, Kewaunee County does not have a pipeline injection site, so these dairies truck the methane gas instead, which can create air pollution.

Dairy digesters are not the only solution to combat agriculture’s methane problem. Research says that decreasing herd sizes, and creating financial incentives for farmers to do so, can significantly reduce methane emissions in comparison with dairy digesters. This move could be supplemented with a larger conversation about transitioning our diets to eat less meat and dairy and opting for plant-based foods to reduce dependency on the high-emitting animal industry. And while there are beneficial uses to utilizing organic waste to power our cars or our homes, it’s clear that the larger chunk of agricultural methane –– specifically enteric methane from cow burps –– needs to be addressed if we’re serious about meeting the 2030 goal.


Dawn Attride wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email