Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee (FRRCC)

Meeting

August 25–27, 2009

Sheraton Grand Sacramento

Sacramento, CA

Draft Meeting Summary

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Call to Order and Introductions

James Moseley, Committee Chair

Mr. Jim Moseley (Jim Moseley Farms, Inc.), Chair of the FRRCC, called
the meeting to order at 8:39 a.m. and welcomed the Committee members and
other participants to the meeting. He thanked the Committee members for
their hard work and dedication and noted that their efforts are greatly
appreciated. 

Mr. Moseley noted that Mr. Rich Rominger, Former Deputy Secretary for
Agriculture at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), was
in attendance and would be speaking later in the day. 

Mr. Moseley thanked Mr. Rominger for his service, noting that he is one
of many unsung heroes in public service.   

Opening Remarks

Larry Elworth, Agricultural Counselor to the Administrator, EPA

Mr. Larry Elworth (EPA) explained that he has worked in agriculture for
30 years on areas ranging from farm management to regulation. Throughout
his career, he has had the opportunity to work closely with farmers on a
number of large-scale projects. As Agricultural Counselor to the
Administrator at EPA, he advises Administrator Lisa Jackson on issues
related to agriculture and the environment. He has spent much time
becoming familiar with EPA’s operations and works closely with USDA.
In fact, USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack and Administrator Jackson have a
good working relationship, which is crucial to resolving complex
scientific issues. He emphasized that the agricultural and environmental
communities must work together to protect the environment. 

Mr. Elworth thanked the Committee members for their service on the FRRCC
and indicated that he was eager to learn more about the Committee’s
work. He would like to obtain feedback from the Committee members on: 
the Committee’s work, the intersection of agriculture and the
environment, and how EPA can best support the FRRCC.  

Mark Joyce, Associate Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management (OCEM), EPA

Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA) explained that when the FRRCC was created, it was
intended that the Committee would occasionally meet outside of
Washington, DC, to learn about agricultural issues in other areas of the
country. He thanked Ms. Kathy Taylor (EPA) and EPA Region 9 employees
for their assistance in organizing this meeting. He also thanked the
Committee members for participating in this meeting and for all of their
hard work, noting that the accomplishments of federal advisory
committees would not be possible without the dedication and commitment
of the Committee members.  

Mr. Joyce stated that Mr. Rafael DeLeon (EPA), who was unable to attend
the meeting, sent his regards to the Committee members.

Kathy Taylor, Associate Director for Agriculture, EPA Region 9

California agriculture is a 27 billion dollar industry, with California
producing more than one-half of the Nation’s fruit and vegetables.
California has the largest concentration of dairy cows in the United
States and employs more than 25 percent of the Nation’s farmworkers.

Over the next few days, some of California’s exceptional agricultural
leaders will discuss innovations and successes, but also the challenges
faced by California agriculture. Some of these challenges include:  an
inadequate amount of water to grow crops, plummeting milk prices, and
Clean Air Act (CAA) nonattainment in some major agricultural areas.
Representatives from the California agricultural industry will discuss
their vision for achieving a sustainable, vibrant agricultural industry
in California in the next decade. The hope is that the field trip
tomorrow will help inform the FRRCC on some of the issues that it is
working to address on the national level. 

Ms. Taylor thanked the Committee members for taking time out of their
busy schedules to attend the meeting. 

Renewable Fuels and Agriculture

Paul Argyropoulos, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of Transportation and
Air Quality (OTAQ), EPA

On May 5, 2009, Administrator Jackson signed the Renewable Fuel Standard
(RFS2) proposal. This proposal interprets the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA) revisions to the original EPAct RFS Program
and details these proposed changes, including alternative options, for
public comment.

Some of the revisions that are interpreted and discussed in the proposal
include:  significantly increased volumes of renewable fuel (36 billion
gallons by 2022), separation of the volume requirements into four
different categories of renewable fuels, changes to the definition of
renewable fuels to include minimum lifecycle greenhouse gas (GHG)
reduction thresholds, restrictions on the types of feedstocks that can
be used to produce renewable fuels and on the types of land that can be
used to grow feedstocks, and the inclusion of specific types of waivers.

On May 26, 2009, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) was published
in the Federal Register with a 60-day public comment period ending July
27, 2009; the public comment period was later extended with a new
closing date of September 25, 2009. A public hearing on the proposal was
held June 9, 2009, in Washington, DC, and a 2-day lifecycle workshop was
held June 10-11, 2009, in Washington, DC. EPA intends to finalize the
rule by the end of 2009 and implement the program in 2010.

Four separate standards are proposed. For cellulosic biofuel, the
proposed standard is 16 billion gallons by 2022, with a minimum 60
percent GHG reduction. For biomass-based diesel, the proposed standard
is 1 billion gallons by 2012 and beyond, with a minimum 50 percent GHG
reduction. For advanced biofuels, the proposed standard is a minimum of
4 billion additional gallons by 2022, with a minimum 50 percent GHG
reduction. For conventional biofuels, the proposed standard is up to 15
billion gallons, with a minimum 20 percent GHG reduction. GHG-threshold
standards can be adjusted downward by 10 percent. All biofuel facilities
that began construction prior to the enactment of the EISA will be
grandfathered into the program and will not need to meet the
GHG-reduction standards.

EISA restricts the types of renewable fuel feedstocks and land that
feedstocks can come from, but EISA language does not prohibit a scenario
in which food crops are moved to new agricultural land while existing
agricultural land is used to grow fuel feedstocks. EPA is proposing that
renewable fuel producers be required to maintain records to support
their decision on whether to generate Renewable Identification Numbers
(RINs) for a given batch of renewable fuel.

Regardless of the volumes of cellulosic biofuel required in EISA, EPA is
required to determine the standard for the following year based on
projections of production. EPA is proposing annual Production Outlook
Reports for all renewable fuels through which renewable fuel producers
will provide EPA with their expansion and new construction plans. If the
projected volume is less than the EISA volume, EPA will make cellulosic
biofuel credits available up to the level of the standard set for that
year.

Formal independent expert peer reviews were conducted or currently are
underway on four areas of the lifecycle assessment (LCA) including: 
land use modeling (use of satellite data/land conversion GHG emission
factors), methods to account for variable timing of GHG emissions (time
horizon and discounting), GHG emissions from foreign crop production
(modeling and data used), and EPA’s use of models to provide overall
lifecycle estimates. 

Projected impacts from RFS2 include:  GHG emissions reductions from
transportation of 6.8 billion tons of CO2 equivalent (or approximately
160 million tons per year), which is equivalent to removing
approximately 24 million vehicles from the roads; displacement of about
15 billion gallons of petroleum-based gasoline and diesel fuel through
the use of biofuels; an estimated increase in gasoline costs of between
2.7 and 10.9 cents per gallon by 2022 and an estimated reduction in
diesel fuel costs of 0.1 cents per gallon; and energy security benefits
associated with a reduction of U.S. imported oil of approximately
$12.38/barrel, with energy security benefits associated with the
proposal totaling $3.7 billion.

The proposed rule still may change. Legislative changes already have
been proposed; the cap and trade bill may change the definition of
renewable biomass; the LCA may be revised to exclude indirect land use
and the analysis could potentially be delayed for 3 to 5 years for
compliance purposes. Also, the biomass-based diesel category may be
revised to grandfather in all previously constructed facilities.

Discussion

Mr. Dave Nelson (Global Ethanol) asked from what section of EISA EPA
determined its authority to consider international land use. Mr.
Argyropoulos said that this is not explicitly stated in EISA, but EPA is
required to determine significant impacts and these can occur both
nationally and internationally. EPA’s legal team concluded that
international impacts should be included in the analysis. Mr. Nelson
asked if EPA takes into account the fact that the political climates in
other countries are beyond the control of the United States and thus,
changes in land use in those countries are beyond the control of EPA.
Mr. Argyropoulos replied that EPA considered the policies in other
countries and their impacts on land use. 

Mr. Moseley said that it seemed that the current approach penalizes or
alters existing biofuels approaches and asked why the production of
biofuels is not being incentivized. Mr. Argyropoulos responded that EPA
works to interpret congressional intent by reviewing the Congressional
Record and discussing the subject with those involved in drafting the
bill. Through this process, EPA determined that the intent of the
legislation was that the biofuels industry increase production. As EPA
has worked on the Rule, problems have arisen in terms of the disconnect
between the advanced and cellulosic biofuels, but Congress’ intent was
good. Mr. Moseley acknowledged that EPA was handed a complex issue by
Congress. His concern was that, although Congress’ intention was good,
the reality may be that biofuels advancement ultimately will be slowed
and the Nation’s reliance on fossil fuels will continue for longer
than intended. Mr. Argyropoulos noted that Congress recognized the need
for flexibility by building in waiver provisions. EPA, however, has had
difficulty determining the waiver specifics and how to apply them.

Mr. Jim Andrew (Andrew Farms, Inc.) observed that the biofuels industry
mounted a major effort over the past year to encourage the agricultural
community to submit positive comments on ethanol. Is the
Administrator’s decision based on the number of positive versus
negative comments received? 

Mr. Argyropoulos responded that in any rulemaking EPA categorizes the
comments received, but the decision ultimately is based on the
scientific evidence.

Ms. Martha Noble (Sustainable Agriculture Coalition) asked if the
biofuel amounts are mandated or if they are linked to the tax credit
system for biofuels. Mr. Argyropoulos answered that RFS2 mandates the
production of volumes of different types of biofuels. 

Mr. Earl Garber (Louisiana Association of Conservation Districts) noted
that international actions over which the United States does not have
control seem to play a large part in the biofuel production pathways.
Mr. Argyropoulos replied that, at least in the beginning, much of the
sugar cane feedstock for biofuels will be grown in Brazil. EPA is
neutral in terms of where the feedstock originates. The pathways are
prioritized based upon expected volumes. The ultimate benefit will come
from less reliance on imported crude oil. Still, the more feedstock that
can be produced domestically, the better.

Mr. Andrew observed that with all of the legislation changes, it seemed
that some of Congress’ intent had been misinterpreted. The high number
of carryover RINs from last year were a drag on the market. Are there
plans to sunset the RINs each year? Mr. Argyropoulos responded that
currently 20 percent of RINs can be carried forward from one year to the
next. Some of the proposed changes include alternative approaches to
RINs, with some proposals increasing and others decreasing the carryover
amount. There is some flexibility in the program to ensure that the
market is not affected significantly; he expects that some semblance of
the 20 percent carryover number will continue. The bigger issue is that
there are different types of RINs. 

Mr. Andrew asked if the indirect land use change analysis would be
ongoing. Mr. Argyropoulos responded that the analysis may continue under
the cap and trade legislation that Congress is drafting now. EPA plans
to re-evaluate the LCA every 3 years, and this will include a
re-evaluation of feedstock pathways.

Climate Change and Agriculture:  Introduction to Offsets and Cap and
Trade

Reid Harvey, Chief, Climate Economics Branch, Office of Atmospheric
Programs (OAP), EPA

A cap and trade program sets a mandatory limit on the aggregate
emissions of all affected sources to achieve emissions reductions. The
government distributes emission allowances—either freely (allocation)
or by sale (auction)—that total no more than the cap. Allowances may
be traded (purchased and sold), which creates a market for allowances
and establishes the price. This creates an incentive to reduce
emissions. Control requirements are not specified under a cap and trade
program. Each affected source must surrender allowances for compliance
equal to its actual emissions. The cap ensures the achievement of the
emission reduction goal while also providing flexibility to sources and
predictability for the allowance trading market.

For example, if SO2 emissions are to be reduced by 15 tons and there are
three plants that collectively emit 30 tons of SO2, these plants can
determine the most cost-effective method to reduce their total emissions
by 15 tons. The plant with the lowest abatement costs would likely sell
its reductions to the other plants.

This approach was taken to reduce SO2 emissions from electric generators
by 8.5 million tons (50% below 1980 levels) to address the acid rain
problem. This program was both an environmental success (reduced
emissions by 50% by 2000) and an economic success (the cost of emissions
reductions was 25-55% less than it would have been under the typical
command and control approach). 

Another approach is to use offsets in sectors that are not amenable to
trading. Offsets are emissions reductions occurring at sources that are
not capped (e.g., landfills). Offsets provide incentives for reductions
in sectors that are not amenable to trading and offer potential cost
savings for capped facilities. An example would be a landfill that emits
methane and could reduce its emissions and sell those emissions
reductions to a power plant.

Potential offset sources in agriculture and forestry include
sequestration through afforestation, forest management, and agricultural
soil carbon sequestration; and emissions reductions through fossil fuel
mitigation from crop production and agricultural CH4 and N2O mitigation.

The House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill
(Waxman-Markey) on June 26, 2009. Senate committees are developing bills
by September 28, 2009. Domestic offsets in the Waxman-Markey Bill are
not explicitly designated and are to be determined by USDA (agriculture
and forestry offsets) with EPA’s input.

Major findings from EPA’s analysis of the Waxman-Markey Bill include: 


Energy consumption levels that would be reached in 2015 without the
policy are not reached until 2040 with the policy; 

The share of low- or zero-carbon primary energy (including nuclear,
renewables, and carbon capture and storage [CCS]) rises substantially
under the policy to 18 percent of primary energy by 2020, 26 percent by
2030, and 38 percent by 2050; 

The largest sources of emissions abatement will be the electricity
sector and offsets; 

Offsets lower costs significantly; and 

There will be a relatively modest impact on consumers, assuming the bulk
of the revenues from the program are returned to households ($80-$111
per household).

Models were used to determine the implications of alternative policy
decisions. Modeling assumed that the actors would make the most
economically rational decisions and that some emissions credits would be
banked initially and used later.

Implications for agriculture include:  (1) substantial potential for GHG
offsets in the agricultural and forestry industries, (2) possible
stimulation of commodity prices by potential increases in bioenergy
crops and changes in the agricultural land base, and (3) potential
increases in fuel and energy prices over the long term. After accounting
for bioenergy and offsets, USDA analysis showed a net positive impact on
farm income as a result of climate policy.

How Do We Fit in the Team Photo (and Other Questions Asked by Perennial
Crop Farmers)?

Jean-Mari Peltier, President, National Grape and Wine Initiative (NGWI)

NGWI is a nonprofit that represents U.S. grapes and grape product
research needs. NGWI focuses on research to improve the productivity and
profitability of grape production across the United States.

Grapes are America’s largest processed specialty crop by value. There
are 5,000 wineries across the United States, with at least one winery in
each of the 50 states, and grapes are cultivated in 44 states. The
health contribution of grapes is vast and grapes represent a significant
farm gate value. The grape industry pays $17 billion in federal, state,
and local taxes annually.

Sustainability is a key focus of the NGWI. In fact, the wine industry
has been at the forefront of the development of sustainable practices in
California. A Winery Water and Energy Manual was published and
distributed to NGWI Board members, with sixty manual requests received
in the first 2 weeks. A grape health workshop held in 2008 brought
health researchers together to discuss the many health benefits of
grapes. Future plans include using National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES) data to study grape consumption and cancer,
immune responses, and so on.

NGWI applied for four sustainability grants in 2009:  (1) Developing
Sustainable Solutions Water Management in Irrigated Vineyards, (2)
Vineyard Mechanization for Enhanced Economic Sustainability, (3)
Development of a Grape Community of Practice for the eXtension System,
and (4) a Climate Change Planning Grant. A grant was received for the
Development of a Grape Community of Practice for the eXtension System. 

Perennial crops may provide more sequestration potential because they
have deeper root depth distribution and because they have woody
structures including trunks, cordons, and roots for sequestering carbon.
Also, canes, leaves, and pomace can be incorporated into the soil. The
amount of carbon that can be sequestered depends on:   seasonal
environmental variation, grape variety, rootstock, and different
management systems (e.g., training and trellising, hedging, irrigation,
fertilization, cover cropping, and vine density and row orientation).

More research is needed on carbon dioxide production and carbon
sequestration, nitrous oxide production, and methane production.
Research on carbon sequestration and nitrous oxide production should
focus on above and below ground carbon storage across a range of soils
and climates. Also, more information is needed on carbon and tissue
decomposition. Technology certification is a good role for government,
as this would help growers use the most environmentally friendly
technologies. 

Discussion

Mr. Garth Boyd (Camco) asked why the graph on the impact of climate
change legislation depicted a sharp initial increase in emissions. Mr.
Reid Harvey explained that the regulations would be implemented
incrementally at first. Mr. Moseley said that it appeared that the
environmental goal was not met in the graph displayed. Mr. Harvey
explained that the graph indicated that the goal would be met, assuming
that the actors behaved in an economically rational manner. 

Ms. Jean-Mari Peltier pointed to the graph depicting domestic and
international offsets and asked if offset credits would be given for
actions such as maintaining existing rainforests. Mr. Harvey said that
the Waxman-Markey Bill includes a provision to grant credit to countries
with current agreements with the United States to preserve forests. Ms.
Peltier said that it seemed that requesting credits for maintaining
domestic orchards and vineyards was not out of line with the
international plans. She asked if the offset goal would be reached
through domestic actions alone. Mr. Harvey explained that the offset
goal would not be reached through domestic offsets alone, but could be
met with the addition of international offsets. 

Ms. Martha Guzman Aceves (California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation)
asked if there were any limitations on the purchase of offsets based on
the toxicity of co-pollutants. Mr. Harvey responded that while the CAA
includes regulations to prevent firms from exceeding co-pollutant
emissions levels, there is a concern that economically motivated
behavior under this bill may have this unintended effect. 

Mr. Tom McDonald (Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding, LLC) asked if the
cost analysis per household included only electric bill savings or if it
also included the expected impact on the cost of goods and services. Mr.
Harvey replied that the analysis included all cost impacts. 

Dr. Teferi Tsegaye (Alabama A&M University) asked how often the models
used are validated. Is there cooperation from the international
community on this work? Mr. Harvey said that peer-reviewed models that
are widely respected in the modeling community were used. There is much
interest in this type of analysis internationally and there is work
underway to determine the cost of controls in different countries.

Mr. Jay Vroom (CropLife America) observed that much of what had been
learned in the grape industry would be applicable to other crops. It may
be wise for the grape industry to join with other crop interests to have
more clout in the political process. Has the grape industry had any
success with this? Ms. Peltier said that she does not work in advocacy,
but there is a specialty crop working group that analyzed the different
production cost impacts for specialty crops versus other crops. One of
the points noted in Mr. Harvey’s presentation was that most of the
increased crop production costs would not be from transportation cost
increases. Specialty crops tend to be located on the coasts, so
transportation costs for these crops are different. Another issue is
that much of Midwestern agriculture depends on rural electric
cooperatives that disproportionately depend on coal for energy
production. Was this taken into account in the analysis? Mr. Harvey
responded that the transportation cost analysis focused on the effects
of increased fuel costs on the different sectors.

Ms. Noble noted that with acid rain, the CAA required certain emissions
reductions, so it was clearer in the beginning what types of reductions
would be achieved. The situation is different for agriculture, so what
are the margins of error for the graphs and models used? Mr. Harvey
agreed that the acid rain cap and trade program was different. For this
reason, monitoring emissions is crucial to determining the program’s
effectiveness.

Mr. Andrew asked if the economic effects of these pollution reductions
had been calculated. Mr. Harvey replied that under the bill, U.S. Gross
Domestic Product would continue to grow but at a slightly decreased
rate. He added that the United States is working to encourage other
countries to reduce their emissions. 

Mr. Ralph Grossi (American Farmland Trust) noted that there is still
much that is unknown about agriculture and environmental effects. Is
there enough scientific knowledge to implement this bill? Does the
legislation allow for adjustments as the science advances? Some
agricultural sectors have more information, so some crops and some
producers are going to be in a better position to meet these
requirements. Ms. Peltier said that there will be some winners and
losers based on the data currently available. Mr. Elworth commented that
the bill would need to address some of these key questions on research
limitations and increased costs for farmers. The success of the bill
will depend on whether or not cost increases are sufficiently mitigated.
He added that the presentations were intended to inform the Committee on
the complicated issues with which EPA is grappling; these are new issues
and EPA’s work is in the beginning stages. Ms. Noble noted that
organic systems are designed to sequester carbon. Science is just
starting to answer some of the complicated questions on carbon
sequestration. She encouraged the Committee not to focus on winners and
losers, but on how to produce the crops needed in the best system
possible. Ms. Michele Laur (USDA) noted that USDA is working to identify
data gaps and prioritize the research and will work closely with EPA on
this issue. In terms of the economic impact of the bill, she suggested
that the other Committee members visit the USDA Web Site for more
detailed information. Ms. Aceves asked what percentage of the emissions
are from agriculture. Mr. Harvey answered that almost all of the
emissions are from agriculture and promised to follow up with Ms. Aceves
with more detailed information. The offset sources will depend on the
final legislation.  

Mr. Vroom noted that 18 of the 30 Committee members were present at the
meeting and asked if the Committee could make decisions with only this
number of members present. Mr. Joyce replied that one-half of the
Committee members plus one must be present to make decisions, so there
were enough Committee members in attendance to make decisions.

Mr. Vroom asked if any representatives from the media were in
attendance. If not, is there time to ask representatives from the
California media to attend? He was concerned about a new Time Magazine
article that maligned agriculture. It would be beneficial to show the
media this Committee’s reasoned dialogue on these issues. Mr. Elworth
said that he did not know of any media representatives in attendance and
suggested that the Committee discuss the issue later. Ms. Alicia Kaiser
(EPA) added that the meeting is open to the public, so there may be
media representatives in attendance. An EPA Public Relations Office
representative was in attendance to offer Committee members assistance
with reaching out to the media.

Panel Discussion:  Developing a Strategic View for California
Agriculture

Rich Rominger, Former Deputy Secretary for Agriculture, USDA

California is the top agriculture producing state in the United States,
producing 400 different crop and livestock commodities worth $27 billion
annually. California leads the Nation in the production of 80 of those
commodities and is the sole producer of at least 12. California supplies
about 50 percent of the Nation’s fruits and vegetables. California
also is the most populous state in the country, with a current
population of 37 million, projected to rise to 49 million by 2050.

California has the climate, soil, and water to produce this bounty. The
natural resource base, however, is being threatened by urban sprawl and
much farmland is disappearing under concrete. California’s Central
Valley is the last great Mediterranean climate agricultural area in the
world and it is being threatened by urban sprawl. This great food
producing capability must be protected. Policies that protect the
environment but also help farmers to remain on the land are needed.

Land use is an ongoing issue in California. Smart growth policies that
have been enacted include incentives for infill, higher densities, and
less sprawl. The recession has slowed development pressures for now, but
they will continue in the future.

Water has been a contentious issue in the State of California since the
Gold Rush in 1849. The California climate requires irrigation to produce
crops. Three-quarters of the precipitation in the State of California
falls north of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and three-quarters of
the population and land in the State are south of the Delta, so water
must be transported. It often is stated that agriculture uses 80 percent
of California’s water. From a farmer’s perspective, 40 percent of
the this water is used for agriculture, with the balance going to
environmental uses such as water quality improvement, wildlife refuges,
and so on.  

The current situation is not sustainable. A solution that will protect
the environment, allow for the production of needed food, and provide
water in the appropriate locations is needed. There is no doubt that
more conservation, reclamation and reuse, and desalinization are needed.


The California State Legislature is considering five bills related to
agriculture and the environment on topics ranging from improving air
quality to addressing invasive species. GHG legislation is moving
forward and ultimately may put California agriculture at a disadvantage.


The next presenters will discuss the work underway to protect the
environment while also ensuring that California agriculture can still
provide the food needed to feed the Nation.

Karen Ross, President, California Association of Winegrape Growers

California is home to between 12 and 15 percent of the Nation’s
population and the largest number of threatened and endangered species
in the country. California also is home to many pioneering environmental
regulations, including a rule that will be finalized in the next 15 days
that will require the phase out of older agricultural equipment.
California is the only state with 100 percent mandatory pesticide use
reporting.

For the drafting of the most recent California Farm Bill, the Secretary
of Agriculture solicited feedback from a wide range of groups on what
should be included in the bill. Society depends on agriculture for food,
jobs, etc., so the different constituencies need to work together to
find solutions.

Two years ago, the California Department of Agriculture was asked to
provide input into the San Joaquin Valley blueprint development process.
As a result, the Department recognized the need for agricultural input
throughout the State and began work on a statewide basis to develop a
vision for California agriculture. The Secretary of Agriculture
commissioned the California State Board of Food and Agriculture to
develop an agriculture plan for the State through 2030. Seven listening
sessions were held to collect input from interested parties. Major
themes that emerged were the need for a rational regulatory process and
a reliable water supply. A subcommittee used the input gathered to
develop a draft vision for California agriculture entitled California
AgVision 2030. The Vision states that three policy priorities can result
in a sustainable agri-food system for California:  better health and
wellbeing for Californians, a healthier state and world, and thriving
communities. The American Farmland Trust was commissioned to develop
specific policy recommendations from the framework. The hope is that
there will be ongoing collaboration among the various stakeholders to
ensure that the environment is protected and agriculture can continue to
be productive. 

Ralph Grossi, Senior Advisor, American Farmland Trust

The American Farmland Trust was asked to use the California AgVision
2030 framework to develop specific policy recommendations. One major
challenge will be to convince people to move beyond the current crises
in the State and think longer term, as population growth will create
even greater demands on agriculture.

The American Farmland Trust identified more than 100 people reflecting
the cross section of interests in the State and assigned them to one of
three working groups based on the three priorities outlined in 

the Vision. 

The Better Health and Wellbeing Priority Working Group identified a
number of important issues including nutrition, food access, addressing
hunger in farming communities, animal welfare, farm labor, and
farmworker health. The Healthier State and World Priority Working Group
is working to address environmental and conservation issues, but also
land use issues to ensure that adequate land is available for farming.
The Thriving Communities Working Group is focused on ensuring the
economic and social health of communities.

The working groups identified both opportunities and challenges. One
major challenge that agriculture faces is the regulatory systems and
structures in the State of California. California farming is highly
regulated. There often are problems with regulatory inconsistencies
among the different agencies and farmers often have difficulty
understanding the regulations. There is a great desire for
simplification of the regulatory structure. The working groups
identified a need for more consumer education. In terms of
sustainability, the working groups discussed developing economic
incentives to achieve sustainability objectives. To address
California’s water challenges, the working groups focused on the
issues of water quality, transfer, and storage. Climate change will make
this challenge even greater. 

A draft document will be submitted to the California State Board of Food
and Agriculture in the fall of 2009. The Board then will solicit public
comments. The target date for release of the final report is 

March 2010.  

Discussion

Mr. Moseley noted that some people in the country believe that
Californians are living beyond their means and asked if the California
deficit was considered in these discussions. Ms. Ross responded that
many in California believe that the scope of government in the State is
not sustainable. Society wants environmental regulation, but aren’t
there smarter, more cost-efficient means of achieving this? 

Mr. Rominger explained that Proposition 13 capped property taxes in the
State, so the State relies disproportionately on income taxes, which are
lower when the economy is in a recession. Another issue is that a
two-thirds majority is required for the California legislature to
increase taxes and pass a budget. There is discussion about rewriting
the California constitution to address this issue. Another problem is
that districts in California tend to be strongly Democratic or strongly
Republican, so the State Legislators often have difficulty compromising
on issues. Recently, some areas were redistricted, so the hope is that
this issue will improve. 

Mr. Leonard Blackham (Utah Department of Agriculture and Food) asked if
the issue of maintaining agricultural land and private property rights
was being addressed. Mr. Grossi said that a structure giving landowners
a voice in decision making is under development. It is a difficult issue
that requires finding the appropriate balance between property rights
and protecting the environment. Ms. Noble commented that property rights
are not being taken away from agriculture in California. Instead,
agricultural areas are not being provided with taxpayer-funded
infrastructure. Mr. Grossi stated that this is an example of what is
politically feasible in a given state. The taking away of property
rights is a separate issue. Public policy changes will inevitably create
winners and losers.  

Mr. Tom Franklin (Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership) asked
what actions had been taken by California agriculture to enhance
wildlife habitat and biodiversity. Ms. Ross said that safe harbor
agreements have been developed for wine grapes. Also, sustainable grape
growing practices are in place at many Sonoma County wineries. Mr.
Rominger noted that the work varies by the area. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has created resource conservation districts
where local landowners are working with NRCS to protect wildlife
habitats. Mr. Grossi added that some land trusts and local farmland
preservation groups are paying farmers a bonus if they set aside a
portion of new land acquired for conservation purposes.

Mr. Vroom stated that the California AgVision 2030 message should be
shared with the rest of the states. It is important for people to
understand why domestic agriculture is so important. 

In response to a question about where to find more information on
California AgVision 2030, Ms. Ross suggested that those interested visit
www.cdfa.ca.gov or Google search “AgVision California”. 

Panel Discussion:  California Water Issues

Jason Peltier, Chief Deputy General Manager, Westlands Water District,
California 

Three-quarters of the precipitation in California occurs north of
Sacramento and three-quarters of the demand (agriculture and urban) for
water occurs south of Sacramento. Shortly after the Civil War, a survey
of the State’s natural resources identified the location and timing of
the water supply in the State as a problem. A system of reservoirs and
canals was created to store water in the winter and transport it to
where it is needed. 

The Sacramento River flows from the north into the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta, accounting for about 80 percent of the water flow in the
Delta. The San Joaquin River flows from the south. The two rivers
converge at the Delta and flow out into the San Francisco Bay. The Delta
is important for the support of agriculture, but it also is important
for other reasons, including power transmission and water storage. 

Fresh water from the Delta supports 25 million Californians, regional
ecologies, agriculture, and industry. Four million acres of farmland
receive water from the Delta; $400 billion of the State’s economy
depends on transporting water.  Any harm to the Delta impacts both the
economy and the environment. 

Until recently, the Delta was a highly reliable water supply. In recent
years, water supplied by the Delta has been reduced by increasing
amounts, with a 90 percent decrease last year. Some of the cutbacks are
the result of drought and some are the result of regulation. Risks to
the Delta include:  fishery declines, seismic activity, and flooding.   

In recent years, $30 million per year has been spent to study how to
maintain and improve the Delta’s ecosystem. There has been conflict
over how to interpret the data generated by these studies. For example,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service focuses on pumps and their effects on the
fish population, but other factors that might be adversely affecting the
fish population are ignored. Currently, fish are caught at the pumps and
relocated. A ballot proposal to build a canal off of the Delta to
separate the fish from the water supply did not pass. 

A number of different groups are working on Delta solutions, including
the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), the CALFED Bay-Delta Program,
Delta Vision, the Governor’s Office, the Public Policy Institute of
California, and the State Water Resources Control Board. 

Mike Chrisman, Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA)

CNRA works to manage natural resources in the State of California,
including water. 

California’s water distribution system was built to support 15-20
million people, but the current population is 37 million. The rejection
by the voters of a proposal to build a peripheral canal to move water
more effectively through the Delta was a major setback for water
planning in the State. Despite this, actions are being taken to address
the water supply problem, including the building of reservoirs in
Southern California. 

When the Delta system was built in the 1940s and 1950s, fish and
wildlife protection was not a primary concern. At the same time that
this was becoming a concern, an agricultural industry that would depend
on a steady flow of water was being built in the State. A plan drafted
in the 1990s to better manage water in the State fell short of its
goals. In the early 2000s, the Governor issued an Executive Order
detailing aggressive goals and objectives for the Delta, and a
stakeholder group then developed the Delta Visioning Strategic Plan that
explicitly laid out the objectives for the Delta.  These objectives
currently are being debated in the State Legislature. This Delta
Visioning Strategic Plan has two equally important goals:  (1)
protecting the Delta’s ecosystem and (2) ensuring water system
reliability. 

The hope is that a new governing structure for the Delta will be created
and Delta planning will be integral to planning efforts throughout the
State of California. With the California population expected to reach
45-50 million in the next 20 years, there is a great need for additional
storage and water conveyance around the Delta.

Richard Roos-Collins, Director of Legal Services, Natural Heritage
Institute

In 25 years, water supply will be decreased in every state in the
Nation. This is partly because of the Endangered Species Act and other
statutes, but also because of climate change. In California alone,
climate change will reduce reliable water storage by 25 percent or more.
The BDCP is a habitat conservation plan aimed at solving California’s
problems, but the lessons learned will be applicable to the entire
Nation. BDCP will identify a set of water flow and habitat restoration
actions to contribute to the recovery of endangered and sensitive
species and their habitats in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The goal
is to provide for both species/habitat protection and improved
reliability of water supplies. The plan includes the issuance of a
permit to the California Department of Water Resources and the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, which are the state and federal regulators that
supply 25 million people with drinking water and generate $400 million
of income supplying water to the Nation.

The BDCP is redesigning how government regulates. Regulatory agencies
today operate within their jurisdictions and do not coordinate very
well. BDCP includes provisions for governments to administer their laws
in a coordinated manner. The draft plan includes a dispute resolution
requirement and redesigns how permits function. Permits will cover 30 to
50 year terms and changes based on different future circumstances will
be built into the permits. The challenge is to design permits that will
function throughout a number of years and will withstand litigation. One
major challenge is the fundamental uncertainties in scientific data that
make it impossible to state with certainty that the new design of the
system will have the intended effects. The approach being taken is to
use the best available data, while also building in the ability to make
adjustments as more data become available. 

Some may wonder why California is taking on such a huge investment when
the State is nearly bankrupt. The answer is that this issue must be
addressed and will just become more expensive over time. 

Mr. Jason Peltier commented that farmers have made tremendous
investments to use less water to grow crops. He noted that some recent
court challenges to regulations have been successful; one recent ruling
required the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in the implementation of the Endangered
Species Act by providing the court with detail on how their regulations
will impact the environment. He added that next year there will be even
less water available for agriculture. This year alone, about 300,000
acres are out of production because of the lack of water.

Mr. Richard Roos-Collins said that the challenge is to make decisions in
the face of scientific uncertainty. Decisions must be made, so the best
approach is adaptive decision-making.

Discussion 

Mr. Moseley posed the question:  If water is not available, won’t the
projected population growth be addressed by people migrating out of or
not moving to California? Mr. Mike Chrisman stated that most of the
population growth is from people already living in California having
children. Mr. Peltier added that California’s urban agencies have done
an excellent job of providing a reliable water supply to the people of
the State. Mr. Grossi noted that the cost of water is so low that people
often do not think of it as a precious resource that must be conserved.
He asked Mr. Chrisman what it was about the current climate that made
him optimistic about developing a solution. Mr. Chrisman replied that
with the situation as bad as it is, the farming and environmental
communities must come together to develop a solution. Mr. Peltier
disagreed, noting that if history is the guide, the groups will not be
able to work together to develop a solution. Mr. Roos-Collins noted that
most Californians have lost faith in the State Government. He encouraged
everyone to work to restore that faith by noting when government actions
deserve praise. The current Administration deserves praise for bringing
these groups together to address the problem. 

Ms. Noble said that part of the problem is that the water appropriation
system does not provide any incentive to conserve. Will California
revisit the junior and senior appropriations system? Mr. Peltier agreed
that there are tremendous disparities in the appropriation of water in
the State. There also are more simple ways to transport water to where
it is needed. A water bank was created to address this issue, but there
were problems with the environmental restrictions on water trading. Mr.
Roos-Collins noted that the State Water Board determines water rights
and the process is too slow. One potential solution to this is to have
Administrative Law Judges make water rights determinations. Also, the
State Water Board is considering a proposal to allow water rights
holders in a particular basin to informally trade water rights as long
as the environmental impacts do not change.

Ms. Aceves said that she hoped drinking water problems would be included
in the discussion of water rights and transfers. Solutions to the
drinking water problems could be integrated with this other work and
could provide jobs and a better quality of life for many people. Mr.
Chrisman agreed, noting that groundwater also should be included in the
discussions, as this is another problem looming on California’s
horizon.  

Review and Discussion of Committee Work Products

Mr. Grossi introduced the letter on the FRRCC’s position on
nanotechnology and agriculture. The letter was approved at the last
Committee meeting. He proposed some minor language revisions, including
changing the paragraph on page 5 that refers to the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) conference in Paris,
France, on July 15-17, 2009, to the past tense and updating the date on
the cover letter. Mr. Vroom put forth a motion to approve the letter as
amended. Another Committee member seconded the motion. Mr. Moseley asked
the Committee members for additional comments on the letter. Ms. Aceves
said that she was concerned about the paragraph on page 6 of the
attachment, as it seemed to advocate omitting some of the toxicology
analysis under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA). Mr. Vroom explained that the intent was not to recommend that
FIFRA be preempted in any way; the paragraph is simply recommending a
simplified method for considering a new product that is similar to a
product already on the market. Ms. Aceves pointed to the last sentence
that reads, “FIFRA registration applicants may overcome the
presumption that a nanoscale material is a ‘new’ FIFRA active or
inert ingredient by the submission of test data demonstrating
similarities in key properties of the nanoscale ingredient when compared
to the macro-scale form of the ingredient, if there is one, for which
there are data.” Mr. Vroom clarified that this sentence indicated that
an active ingredient already in the marketplace should not be
deregistered and have to go through the FIFRA review process again. Mr.
Elworth suggested changing the wording from “overcome the
presumption” to “seek determination” and both Ms. Aceves and Mr.
Vroom agreed to this change. Ms. Noble noted that most of the regulatory
decisions in the draft letter were last minute Bush Administration
decisions and suggested that feedback be solicited from EPA on the
current status of those decisions. Mr. Joyce said that it seemed to be a
summary of the work performed by EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs
(OPP) to date, and thus, would not require review. The group agreed and
proceeded with a vote. Sixteen Committee members voted in favor of the
letter, one member was opposed, and one member abstained. The letter was
approved.

Mr. Grossi introduced the letter entitled, “Emerging Issues:  Land Use
Challenges and U.S. EPA Opportunities,” noting that the revisions
suggested in a previous conference call had been incorporated. Mr.
Grossi put forth a motion to approve the letter. Mr. Vroom seconded the
motion. Mr. Andrew asked that the misspelling of “public polices” in
the third paragraph on page 1 be corrected to “public policies.” The
change was noted. Ms. Aceves observed that many communities still lack
basic infrastructure, including septic and drinking water systems;
often, these problems are related to land conservation policies. She
suggested adding text to the letter about ensuring a proper quality of
life for these communities. Mr. Grossi agreed that this was an important
issue, but suggested that it be included in a separate letter. The
Committee voted on the letter as written. The letter was approved. 

Mr. Gary Cooper (Cooper Farms) then discussed four letters produced by
the Livestock and Poultry Workgroup. The letters were drafted with the
intent of improving the relationship between EPA and the agricultural
community by increasing positive communications. Mr. Cooper put forth a
motion to approve the first letter entitled, “Improving Communications
with the Agricultural Community.” Another Committee member seconded
the motion. Ms. Noble raised a concern about the recommendation that
this newsletter be sent to interested organizations and related
agricultural entities by the FRRCC, as the renewal of the FRRCC is
uncertain. Mr. Cooper agreed to delete the sentence, “This electronic
news update should be designed such that it would be first e-mailed to
the FRRCC, then forwarded on from that group to all interested
organizations and related agricultural entities.” The Committee
discussed changing the recommendation that the EPA Agricultural
Counselor’s Office be the main coordinator of the electronic news
update, but ultimately decided against this change. Mr. Franklin
suggested adding the words “wildlife habitat” to the last sentence
in the Background section, with the revised sentence reading, “Through
expanded and improved communications, we believe the level of perceived
negativism could be reduced and ultimately reversed, allowing a greater
level of partnering and collaboration to enhance the Nation’s air,
water, wildlife habitat, and soil quality.” He also suggested adding
“wildlife habitat” to the third bullet under Guidelines. The
Committee members agreed to these changes. Mr. Nelson suggested adding
the National Corn Growers Association and American Soybean Association
to the last line suggesting organizations that might receive the
newsletter. The Committee voted and the letter was approved. 

Mr. Blackham made a motion to approve the letter entitled,
“Cooperation with the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture.” Another Committee member seconded the motion. The
Committee voted and the letter was approved. 

Mr. McDonald introduced the letter entitled, “Producer Recognition
Program” and explained that the letter suggests that EPA recognize
producers who are making efforts to protect the environment, as this
would help to increase positive relations between EPA and the
agricultural community. He made a motion to approve the letter. Another
Committee member seconded the motion. Dr. Tsegaye suggested adding land
grant institutions to the fifth bullet under Recommendations. The group
agreed to this change. The Committee voted and the letter was approved.

Mr. Cooper introduced the letter entitled, “EPA Inspection Policy
Regarding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).” He
suggested adding some points made in a comment letter from the Delmarva
Poultry Industry, Inc. One point would suggest that EPA provide an oral
discussion of inspection results before leaving the premises and another
would suggest that the inspection report be returned to the producer
within 6 weeks. Mr. Cooper put forth a motion to approve the letter with
the bullets added. The Committee voted and the letter was approved. 

The Committee members then discussed the future of the FRRCC. Mr. Joyce
explained that Federal Advisory Committees are re-chartered every 2
years; toward the end of the 2-year charter, the Administrator reviews
the federal advisory committee and determines if the committee will
continue for another 2 years. Committee members can generally serve up
to a total of 6 years. Committee membership is determined based on the
range of expertise needed for the issues that the Committee will
address.  Committee members who do not anticipate being able to serve
another 2 years on the FRRCC should inform Ms. Kaiser, as she will begin
working on Committee membership in the next few months. 

Mr. Vroom commented that he had drafted a letter to the Administrator on
the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the National Cotton Council
versus EPA case and asked to distribute it to the Committee members. Mr.
Moseley approved the distribution of the letter and asked the Committee
members to review the letter, as it would be discussed on Thursday
morning. 

Public Comment

Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Committee

Ms. Kaiser called for public comments. 

Ms. Alegria De La Cruz, an attorney with the Center on Race, Poverty,
and the Environment (CRPE), explained that CRPE represents rural,
farmworker, and environmental justice communities in the San Joaquin
Valley. She said that she noticed that the Committee members referred to
themselves as the agricultural committee, but the FRRCC also was
intended to represent rural communities. She encouraged the addition of
Committee members representing the rural and farmworker communities.  

The meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m. 

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

Committee members engaged in fact-gathering activities.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Mr. Moseley called the meeting to order at 8:14 a.m.

Committee Feedback

Larry Elworth, Agricultural Counselor to the Administrator, EPA

Mr. Elworth asked for the Committee members’ input on their
experiences serving on the Committee, particularly what worked and did
not work well in the Committee, what the Committee can offer EPA, and
recommendations for moving forward. The points made in the discussion
will be compiled and sent to Committee members for their review. The
main points were as follows:

What Worked:

Committee members were eager to make a difference and worked well
together.

Committee members represented diverse interests, but worked together to
develop solutions. The Committee is uniquely stationed to work to
achieve both a high level of sustainability and agricultural production.

The Committee offers EPA an opportunity to hear from farmers and offers
farmers an opportunity to build relationships with EPA employees. 

With his experience working in both agriculture and the environment, Jim
Moseley was an excellent choice to chair the Committee. 

The work group chairs provided excellent direction and moved the work
forward to ensure that the Committee provided meaningful advice to
Administrator Jackson.

Field trips are valuable as they allow Committee members to experience
what is happening on the ground level in agriculture. They also allow
EPA employees to see firsthand the impact of environmental regulations.

Suggestions for Improvement:

Public health expertise, rural community representation, and minority
farmer representation are needed on the Committee. 

Additional workgroup time is needed. 

Workgroup members should commit to one work group; it became difficult
to produce products when workgroup members moved between the workgroups.

Additional staff support is needed for logistical tasks such as planning
conference calls.

Presentations could be given via webinars prior to face-to-face meetings
to allow more time for interaction and discussion at the face-to-face
meetings. 

Conference calls should be used more to accomplish the work of the
Committee, leaving more face-to-face meeting time to bring new issues to
the Committee’s attention. 

Face-to-face meetings should allow time for the Committee members to
provide EPA with their input on emerging issues. 

Recommendations for Moving Forward:

The Committee members would like more input and direction from the
Administrator in terms of the issues that the Committee should address;
it was suggested that the Administrator meet with the Committee at least
once per year. 

There are many complex emerging issues (e.g., climate change) that will
benefit from the Committee’s input.  

It was suggested that the Committee discuss enforcement issues as they
relate to small farmers.

Mr. Vroom asked Mr. Elworth to consider including some Committee members
(Chair Moseley and/or some of the Workgroup Chairs) in his dialogue with
the Administrator. Mr. Nelson suggested that 

Mr. Elworth discuss with the Administrator how President Obama’s
climate change and health initiatives will affect agriculture.

Mr. Elworth thanked the Committee members for their comments and
encouraged them to e-mail him any additional comments. EPA values the
formal and informal interactions that have been fostered by this
Committee. The Administrator is aware of the FRRCC. Mr. Elworth,
however, was not at liberty to divulge any information on her thoughts
on re-chartering the Committee.

Mr. Joyce noted that the Committee members had expressed some
frustration about the lag in receiving feedback from the Administrator.
This, however, occurs every time there is an administration change. 

Discussion of Current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permitting Issues

Allison Wiedeman, Rural Branch Chief, Water Permits Division, EPA

Mr. Vroom began the discussion on the draft letter to the Administrator
on the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the National Cotton
Council versus EPA case that had been distributed to Committee members
on Tuesday, August 25, 2009. The intent of the original letter had not
changed, but the letter was revised to put it into today’s context.
The letter is not making any policy recommendations, but is simply
discussing the possible ramifications of the ruling, pointing out the
fact that this ruling will create additional permitting burdens for EPA.


Ms. Allison Wiedeman explained that the 6th Circuit Court had ruled that
EPA’s determination of how the Clean Water Act (CWA) applied to
pesticides was incorrect. EPA now is legally bound to move forward with
issuing permits. The letter seems to be asking the Administrator to
reconsider moving forward with complying with the Court ruling. Mr.
Vroom explained that the letter expresses the Committee’s concerns
about how moving forward under the decision creates additional burdens
on EPA and other agencies and that the diversion of resources from other
activities could have unintended consequences. The letter simply alerts
the Administrator to the fact that there are ongoing concerns in the
agricultural community about the ramifications of this decision. Ms.
Wiedeman said that industry had requested a rehearing of the decision,
but it was declined by the 6th Circuit Court. The next course of action
would be to appeal to the Supreme Court. Mr. Vroom said that an appeal
of the ruling is under discussion, with a decision on how to proceed
likely to be reached in November.

Mr. Moseley asked about the ground level implications of the ruling. Is
the ruling limited to restricted use pesticides or does it cover all
chemical compounds that might be applied across the scope of
agriculture? Ms. Wiedeman explained that the court ruled on January 7,
2009, that EPA’s final rule on NPDES permits for the application of
pesticides to waters of the United States was not a reasonable
interpretation and vacated the rule. The court held that NPDES permits
are required for:  (1) all biological pesticide applications that are
made in or over, including near, waters of the United States; and (2)
chemical pesticide applications that leave a residue or excess pesticide
in water when such applications are made in or over, including near,
waters of the United States. EPA requested a 2-year stay to allow time
to develop, propose, and issue final NPDES general permits for
unauthorized NPDES states, territories, and tribes for pesticide
applications covered under the decision and to provide outreach and
education to the regulated and environmental communities. The court
ruling was clear on the need for permitting in the case of pesticide
application to, over, or near waters, but did not make clear if
permitting was required for terrestrial applications. EPA’s current
thinking is that this will not be the case, but the final decision has
not been made. 

Mr. Vroom moved that the Committee approve the letter. Another Committee
member seconded the motion. The letter was approved, with one vote
against and one abstention.

Discussion

Mr. Vroom asked if the permit coverage area had been determined. Ms.
Wiedeman said that EPA is considering a number of different
possibilities; a decision has not yet been made. 

Dr. Cliff Snyder (International Plant Nutrition Institute) asked if EPA
is considering other types of drainage beyond surface soil runoff. Ms.
Wiedeman responded that EPA currently is focused on surface soil runoff
issues, but recognizes that there are other issues that may need to be
addressed. Dr. Snyder said that there may be pathways over which farmers
have no control; his concern is that there may not be enough input from
the farming community on these types of issues. Ms. Wiedeman stated that
EPA would appreciate input from the agricultural community and
encouraged the submission of detailed comments in response to the public
notice of permit. Also, EPA is working closely with USDA on all of these
issues. 

In response to a question from Ms. Noble, Ms. Wiedeman confirmed that
EPA is reviewing California’s pesticide use reporting requirements. 

Mr. Andrew asked if farms with riparian buffer strips would be exempted.
Ms. Wiedeman clarified that a permit would likely not be required for
the terrestrial application of pesticides. She added that the process of
determining which activities would be permitted had just begun;
currently, the thinking is that terrestrial applications would not need
to be permitted. 

Mr. Blackham asked if farmers with crops near water bodies would be
required to monitor those water bodies for pesticides. Ms. Wiedeman
replied that pesticide applicators will need to report pesticides
discharged, but at the moment there is no plan to make farmers
responsible for water monitoring. 

Mr. David Brown (Past President of the Mosquito Control Association)
noted that under California’s pesticide permitting requirements,
monitoring is achieved through keeping records of the pesticides
applied. He added that while there are issues with pesticides reaching
waterways, his personal opinion is that this permitting process may not
be the best way to address the issue. 

Mr. Moseley asked if all of EPA’s work on the issue could be negated
by a Supreme Court decision. 

Ms. Wiedeman acknowledged this possibility; EPA’s work always is
performed under this type of uncertainty. Mr. Moseley noted that the
argument could be made that every human activity pollutes waters in some
way. 

Mr. Andrew pointed out that there is a concern about prescription drugs
excreted by humans reaching waterways. Is EPA working on this issue? Ms.
Wiedeman answered that EPA’s Office of Research and Development is
conducting research on this topic, but policy decisions have not yet
been made. 

Mr. Elworth added that EPA will continue to consult with interested
parties, including the FRRCC, throughout the NPDES permitting process.
He promised to keep the Committee members informed on the process.
Committee members are welcome to participate in public meetings and
provide comments. 

Mr. Blackham suggested that the Committee discuss this issue further on
a conference call and make a formal recommendation to the Administrator.


Public Comment

Alicia Kaiser, DFO for the Committee

Ms. Kaiser called for public comments.

Ms. De La Cruz stated that she thought the previous discussion
exaggerated the 6th Circuit Court decision. The lawsuit that resulted in
this decision was initiated because EPA tried to illegally exempt
certain point sources from NPDES permitting. EPA itself acknowledged
that pesticides and pesticide residues are pollutants under the CWA. The
ruling is applicable nationwide because the Cotton Council filed its
appeal across all circuit courts. 

FIFRA and CWA are two separate but complementary regulatory regimes that
address two different environmental concerns. CWA’s purpose is to
restore and maintain water quality by requiring pollutant dischargers to
obtain permits for point source discharges into the Nation’s water
supply. FIFRA is designed to protect human health and the environment
from harm caused by pesticides. To that end, FIFRA established a
national uniform labeling system. A pesticide applicator can comply with
both regulations by following the instructions on the pesticide label. 

Under the NPDES Program, EPA can issue permits on a case-by-case basis,
taking into account local environmental conditions. Many environmental
justice communities already are severely impacted by pollutants, so CRPE
applauds and supports the development of a fair permitting process that
takes into consideration local impacts.

Mr. Blackham said that everyone wants clean water and farmers are
willing to follow the rules by applying pesticides according to the
label instructions. It seems that this permitting process is just adding
another layer of bureaucracy. Also, there is concern about EPA
abdicating its responsibilities by requiring farmers to perform water
monitoring. Ms. De La Cruz responded that no determination has been made
requiring farmers to assume monitoring responsibilities.

Ms. Taylor said that despite the fact that FIFRA labels are easily
understood, pesticides are still causing water impairments, which
indicates that labeling alone is not enough. EPA still faces many
challenges in making this permitting program work. She asked that EPA be
given some space to work through the process. 

Ms. Heather Hansen (Washington Friends of Farms and Forests) stated that
her organization represents pesticide applicator groups. Washington
State issues NPDES permits for aquatic pesticide applications. One major
concern is that the NPDES permitting system was not designed for this
type of application. Ms. Hansen cautioned that even if a regulator
indicates that a program is working smoothly, this may not be the case
from the applicant’s perspective. Regulations in Washington State
require applicators to provide public notification a certain number of
hours before pesticide application, but this can be a logistical problem
if, for example, the temperature rises and the mosquito population grows
faster than anticipated. Ultimately, because of these regulations, a
farmer might miss the best window for applying pesticides, which can
result in the use of greater amounts of pesticides and less effective
control. She added that she hoped it would be possible for existing
state NPDES programs to be considered the equivalent of obtaining a new
NPDES permit. Also, EPA will soon make a decision under the Endangered
Species Act on boundary zones to protect salmon; if the decision is
based on the biological opinion issued by National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, this could have a
devastating impact on agriculture in Washington State. She asked that
EPA come to a rational decision in this case. 

Mr. Brown commented that while it is important to protect waterways from
pesticides, there are other important issues that should be considered,
including the need to control the mosquito population to protect public
health.  

Mr. Vroom said that the FRRCC has an opportunity to provide
recommendations to the Administrator about addressing conflicting and
confusing regulatory requirements. He suggested three topics for
Committee action:  (1) EPA’s decision to not hold a public hearing on
the revocation of tolerances for the pesticide carbofuran prior to
potential cancellation of the product, (2) EPA’s recent settling of a
lawsuit that will require several hundred foot buffer zones around
pesticide use areas in the Bay Area, and (3) the soil fumigant, methyl
iodide, which has yet to be considered for registration in California,
but has been recognized as safe by EPA and has even received an EPA
Ozone Layer Protection Award.  

Closing Remarks

Mr. Grossi stated that there is an urgent need for a better regulatory
structure. He suggested that the Administrator consider appointing a
task force to develop a more flexible regulatory system.

Mr. Elworth thanked the Committee members for their service. He promised
to be in touch with them about their observations on the Committee and
to keep the Committee members updated on his discussions with the
Administrator. He encouraged the Committee members to call or e-mail him
with questions or comments. 

Mr. Moseley said that he appreciated the opportunity to get to know all
of the Committee members and thanked them for their efforts. 

The meeting was adjourned at 12:35 p.m.

Action Items

Mr. Harvey will send Ms. Aceves further information on agriculture’s
contribution to GHG emissions.

Mr. Elworth will compile the points made in the Committee Feedback
discussion and distribute them to the Committee members for review.

Mr. Elworth will communicate with the Committee members on the NPDES
permitting process and on his communications with Administrator
Jackson.Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee
(FRRCC)

August 25-27, 2009 Meeting Participants



Committee Chair:

James R. Moseley

Owner

Jim Moseley Farms, Inc.

Members:

Martha Guzman Aceves

Legislative Advocate

California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation

James O. Andrew

Owner

Andrew Farms, Inc.

Leonard M. Blackham

Commissioner

Utah Department of Agriculture and Food

Marion Long Bowlan

Farmer

Long-Bowlan Farms

Garth W. Boyd, Ph.D.

Senior Vice President

Camco Global

Gary A. Cooper

Owner

Cooper Farms

Thomas M. Franklin

Senior Vice President

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

  

Earl J. Garber 

President

Louisiana Association of Conservation Districts

Ralph Grossi

Senior Advisor

American Farmland Trust

Karri M. Hammerstrom

Co-Owner

Hammertime Ranch

Michele Laur

National Atmospheric Resource Specialist

Natural Resource Conservation Service

Tom McDonald

Vice President for Environmental Affairs

Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding

Martha L. Noble

Senior Policy Associate

Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

Dawn R. Riley

Owner

Dawn Riley Consulting

Clifford S. Snyder, Ph.D., CCA

Nitrogen Program Director

International Plant Nutrition Institute

Teferi Tsegaye, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Department of Plant and Soil Science

Alabama A&M University

Jay Vroom

President

CropLife America

Designated Federal Officer:

Alicia Kaiser

Special Assistant for Agricultural Policy

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA Participants:

Karma Anderson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Paul Argyropoulos

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Pat Cimino

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Rick Colbert

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Tom Davenport

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 5

Debra Denton

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

Larry Elworth

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Damon Frizzell

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 7

Ann-Marie Gantner

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Reid Harvey

U.S. Environmental Protect Agency

Don Hodge

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

Mark Joyce

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Van Kozak

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 6

John Larmett

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Richard Mattick

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Roberta Parry

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Cara Peck

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

Bill Schrock

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Patti Tenbrook

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

Allison Wiedeman

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Amy Zimpfer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

Other Participants:

David Brown

Sutter-Yuba Mosquito Control District

Casey Walsh Cady

California Department of Food and Agriculture

Jeff Case

CropLife America

Mike Chrisman

California Natural Resources Agency

Alegria De La Cruz

Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment

Kari Fisher

California Farm Bureau Federation

Johnny Gonzales

State Water Resources Control Board

Heather Hansen

Washington Friends of Farms and Forests

Tom Jacob

Dupont

Scott Kohne

Bayer

Gabriele Ludwig

Almond Board of California

Paul Martin

Western United Dairymen

Gilbert Mohtes-Chan

Community Alliance with Family Farmers

Ian Nachreiner 

California Farm Bureau

Paula Paul

Paul Association

David Pegos

California Department of Food and Agriculture

Jean-Mari Peltier 

National Grape and Wine Initiative

Brian Phillips

Rural Community Assistance

Renee Pinel

Western Plant Health Association

Josh Rolph

California Farm Bureau

Rich Rominger

Richard Roos-Collins

Karen Ross

California Association of Winegrape Growers

Joshua Saltzman

CropLife America

Mary-Ann Warmerdam

California Department of Pesticide Regulation

Support Contractor:

Jen Hurlburt

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

These minutes are an accurate depiction of the matters discussed
during this meeting. 

Signed by James R. Moseley      October 9, 2009 

_______________________________________ 

James R. Moseley 

Chair 

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee 

The Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee is a federal advisory
committee chartered by Congress, operating under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (FACA; 5 U.S.C., App.2). The Committee provides advice to
the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on a broad
range of environmental issues. The findings and recommendations of the
Committee do not represent the views of the Agency, and this document
does not represent information approved or disseminated by EPA. 

  PAGE  22 		August 25–27, 2009 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities
Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

August 25–27, 2009 Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Advisory
Committee Meeting Summary	  PAGE  23 

