Two California Forestry Bills Passed

Posted July 1, 2014

Both Assembly Bill 2142 and Assembly Bill 1867 passed the Senate Natural Resources and Wildlife Committee this week, according to a Sierra Sun Times article available here.

The two bills strive to expand existing exemptions in law from the requirement of Timber Harvest Plans (THP) for fire prevention-type forestry projects, which would reduce barriers to increased fuels reduction activities.

The AB 2142 would expand last year’s AB 744, which was an expansion of the existing Forest Fire Prevention Act. The AB 744 provisions expanded the THP exemption under the Act to large diameter trees as well as broadening certain other limitations in the Act for a pilot program in a couple inland California counties.

The current bill, AB 2142, extends that pilot program into additional North Coast counties.

AB 1867 would expand the existing exemption on requiring a THP to forest landowners that want to do more than 100 feet of defensible space clearance around a habitable dwelling. The exemption would allow those landowners to sell the timber produced by the fire prevention activities to help offset the costs of vegetation management work. 

In some counties, 300 feet of defensible space clearing could cost as much as $20,000, but getting a THP is normally more than $35,000. By eliminating the need for a THP and allowing the material to be sold, landowners are more likely to perform this critical fire prevention work. 

The bill was also amended to be a 3-year pilot program.

For more information on timber law, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Lawsuit over Clean Water Act Permits for Logging Roads Ongoing

Posted May 5, 2014

A federal judge denied a motion to dismiss in a lawsuit over the stormwater discharge exemption for logging roads, Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, according to an article by Capital Press available here.

Decker, consolidated with a similar case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 20, 2013.  In a 7-1 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, holding that an NPDES permit is not required for stormwater discharges from logging roads and the decision to require such permits is under EPA authority.  

Plaintiff, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC), argues that certain claims survived the Supreme Court ruling, claiming that “rock crushing, gravel washing, log sorting and log storage facilities are not exempt from the Clean Water Act.” 

The State of Oregon and timber companies, defendants, argue that the case is over and there is nothing left to litigate.  Per Ramfjord, attorney for the timber, companies said the issue was not mentioned in the plaintiff’s complaint or notice-of-intent-to-sue letter. 

In her denial of the defendant’s motion to dismiss, Judge Brown said that dismissing the case now without letting NEDC further develop its argument would open the door for its reinstatement by the 9th Circuit. 

Another oral argument is scheduled for August 14.

For more information on the Clean Water Act and Forestry, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here and here.

House Passes Water Rights Bill

Posted March 17, 2014

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Water Rights Protection Act on a mostly party-line vote of 238-174, according to an Agri-Pulse article available here.

The bill, H.R. 3189, sponsored by Rep. Scott Tipton (R-CO), would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture from “requiring the transfer of privately held water rights to the federal government as a condition of a special use permit, lease or other land use arrangement.”

“Over the past decade there have been numerous cases when the federal government has attempted to circumvent long-established state water law in order to take privately-held water rights without paying for them,” Tipton said.

“With 40 percent of the western cow herd spending some time on public lands, the ability to have secure water rights is imperative, not only to producers but to the economy,” said National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) President Bob McCan.

House Democrats argued that the bill would “strip federal land management agencies of their ability to condition water use in their permitting processes, essentially prohibiting them from enforcing protections of rivers and other water resources for fish, wildlife and recreation.”

The bill is a response to a 2011 U.S. Forest Service proposal to require ski resorts on public land to transfer their water rights to the federal government, according to an article by The Hill available here.

Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) said the U.S. Forest Service was “trying to ensure that companies operating on public land don’t sell off water rights associated with the land they’re using.”

For more information on water law, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

NACL Resource: Forestry Reading Room

Posted January 3, 2014

The National Agricultural Law Center offers a wide range of resources, one of which is the Forestry Reading Room available here.

The laws relating to forestry include commercial harvesting of timber, environmental issues, international issues, recreational use, and taxation.  The Forestry Reading Room provides information on major statutes including National Forests, 16 U.S.C. §§ 471-546a-5; the Federal Water Pollution and Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. §§ 12511-1387; the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544; and many more. 

The Reading Room also includes regulations, a link to the Forestry case law index, Center Research Publications, relevant Congressional Research Service reports, and many other resources.

These resources are provided by the National Agricultural Law Center as a free service to the public.  

Report Finds Potential Savings of $130 Billion from Agricultural Programs

Posted November 18, 2013

A report released by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that Congress could save around $130 billion over 10 years from reductions or changes to several agriculture programs, according to an Agri-Pulse article available here.  The report is available here.

The CBO report lists 103 options for decreasing federal spending or increasing federal revenue in six areas within the agricultural sector, including conservation, crop insurance, direct payments, SNAP (commonly known as “food stamps”), school lunches, and the Forest Service.

Conservation: Prohibiting new enrollment in the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) could reduce federal spending by $8 billion.  Prohibiting new and reenrollment in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) could reduce spending by $5 billion and CRP land would likely drop to 10 million acres.

Crop insurance: Lowering the federal government’s subsidy of crop insurance from 60 percent to 40 percent could save $27 billion.

Direct payments: Eliminating direct payments could reduce overall spending by $25 billion.

SNAP: Various changes could save $50 billion.

School Lunches: Eliminating subsidies for school meals served to students from households with income greater than 185 percent of the federal poverty level could reduce spending by $10 billion.

Forest Service: Eliminating the Forest Service’s program in Forest and Rangeland Research and in State and Private Forestry could save $5 billion.

These issues and other are currently being considered by the farm bill conference.  The goal of the conference is to negotiate a deal on the 2013 Farm Bill that can pass both the House and the Senate. 

For more information on farm bills, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

PA Bill to Provide Sales Tax Exemption to Timber Companies

Posted November 12, 2013

A bill, which would amend the Pennsylvania tax code to exempt timber companies from paying sales and use tax on items used directly in their operations, will be considered by the state House of Representatives on Wednesday, according to an article by the Bradford Era available here.

House Bill 1138 was introduced by Pennsylvania state Representative Matt Gabler (R-DuBois), to extend a sales tax exclusion for timber harvesters.  The tax exclusion already exists for agriculture, manufacturing, and sawmills.

Gabler explained that the intent of the legislation is to prevent compounding taxation on timber harvesters.  The legislation has been reported by the House Finance Committee and will be examined by the House Appropriations Committee for the fiscal impact of omitting that stream of tax revenue.

Examples of the current sales tax exclusion that applies to agricultural operations include tractors, combines, tools, feed, and fertilizers that go directly into the farming operation, according to Gabler.

“The irony in current law has the very same sawmill industry that works hand-in-hand with the timber industry exempt from sales and use tax…The timber industry belongs in the same category with farming, dairy, and manufacturing in being excluded from what essentially is double-taxation, since sales tax is charged at retail on the final product.”  A press release from Rep. Gabler’s office is available here.

For more information on timber law, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

North Carolina Developing New Approach to Award of Attorney Fees in Right to Farm Law

Posted:  July 19, 2013

The topic of nuisance and right to farm statutes has been red hot over the past couple of years, including a very recent legislative development in North Carolina.  In addition, several states, such as Missouri, have updated their right to farm statutes to strengthen the protection that they provide to agricultural operators.

For media requests or other inquiries on states' right to farm laws, contact Center Staff Attorney Rusty Rumley at rrumley@uark.edu.  For more information on right to farm statutes, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center 50-state compilation of states' right to farm laws here as well as the Center's Urban Encroachment Reading Room here. 

Every state has enacted a right to farm law, the provisions of which can vary widely from one state to another.  These laws are designed to provide an affirmative defense to qualified agricultural operations from certain nuisance lawsuits that may be brought against them.  One clause commonly found in many states' right to farm statutes deals with the recovery of attorney fees and other associated court costs.  

States that currently include provisions for the recovery of attorney fees address the issue differently.  In the past, there have been three basic categories that states could fall under.  The first group includes those states that do not specifically address the issue of attorney fees in nuisance suits against agricultural operations.  The second group includes those states that provide discretion for a court to award attorney fees to the farmer in certain circumstances, such as a finding that a nuisance suit was frivolous.  The final group includes states, such as Texas, that include an automatic award of attorney fees if the farmer successfully asserts the right to farm statute as an affirmative defense to a nuisance action.

Recently, the North Carolina legislature enacted a bill that, once signed by the Governor, will add a brand new wrinkle to attorney fee provisions appearing in a right to farm statute.  In North Carolina, this new bill contains the following language: 

In a nuisance action against an agricultural or forestry operation, the court shall award costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to:

 

(1) The agricultural or forestry operation when the court finds the operation was not a nuisance and the nuisance action was frivolous or malicious; or

(2) The plaintiff when the court finds the agricultural or forestry operation was a nuisance and the operation asserted an affirmative defense in the nuisance action that was frivolous and malicious.

This new approach concerning the awarding of attorney fees may prove particularly interesting since it has been reported that nearly 600 “farm nuisance disputes” were filed in North Carolina less than two weeks ago according to this news article.  

National Agricultural Law Center Partners with American Agri-Women to Host Ag & Food Law Webinar

 

On Monday, May 6, 2013 at 10 a.m. Mountain/11 Central the National Agricultural Law Center is hosting a webinar in partnership with American Agri-Women, the national coalition of farm, ranch, and agribusiness women's organizations.  There is no charge for the webinar.  To sign on to the webinar, click https://connect.extension.iastate.edu/aglaw at or before the webinar start time. 

This event is part of the ongoing effort between the National Agricultural Law Center and American Agri-Women to mutually engage in long-term collaboration in providing legal research, information, and outreach activities important to women who own and operate farms, ranches, forests, and agribusinesses as well as their allies throughout the United States. While the primary audience will be women farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses, the webinar is open to the public. 

The goal of the webinar is to discuss the National Agricultural Law Center, its research and information mission, and its resources that are available to the nation's agricultural community.  There will also be ample opportunity for question and answers.  In addition, the webinar will provide a platform for identifying future research and information activities targeted to women-owned and operated farms, ranches, forests, and agribusinesses.  

American Agri-Women officially began November 14, 1974, founded by four state women’s agriculture groups which had formed: Women for the Survival of Agriculture in Michigan; Wisconsin Women for Agriculture; Oregon Women for Agriculture; and the Washington Women for the Survival of Agriculture.  Kansas Agri-Women (then United Farm Wives of Kansas) and Illinois Agri-Women (then Illinois Women for Agriculture) joined soon thereafter.

Today, American Agri-Women has 50 state and commodity affiliate organizations as well as individual members throughout the country, representing tens of thousands of women involved in agriculture. Throughout the organization's history, its members have been actively involved and making a difference in legislative and regulatory matters at the local, state, and national levels. American Agri-Women has also been instrumental in student and consumer education about agriculture, having initiated the Agriculture in the Classroom program at the national level and are integrally involved in national and state programs still today.  For more information about American Agri-Women, click here. 

Now celebrating its 25th Anniversary, the National Agricultural Law Center at the University of Arkansas serves as the nation's leading source of agricultural and food law research and information.   The Center is the only institution of its kind in the nation, serving the nation's vast agricultural community of farmers, extension professionals, agribusinesses, academics, attorneys, state and federal policymakers, and others. Located in Fayetteville, the Center is a unit of the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture. 

For anyone with questions or seeking additional information, please feel free to contact either Harrison Pittman, Director, National Agricultural Law Center at hmpittm@uark.edu or Karen Yost, President, American Agri-Women at president@americanagriwomen.org. 

Forestry Roads and the Clean Water Act

Two cases on the stormwater discharge exemption for forestry roads, Decker, et al.v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center,et al. and Georgia-Pacific West, Inc., et al. v. Northwest Environmental Defense Fund, et al., have been consolidated and granted certiorari by U.S. Supreme Court.  In 2011 the Ninth Circuit held that logging roads are point sources of pollution and further held that they are industrial in nature so those entities building them should have applied for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. 

In the past, loggers have used Best Management Practices (BMP) to control runoff; however the Ninth Circuit’s decision has created some uncertainty.  According to Montana Farm Bureau, “the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency’s Silviculture Rule, relied on by forest landowners for 35 years.”  

The Supreme Court is expected to hear oral arguments for the case either this fall or winter and issue a final decision by next spring or early summer.

Mud Runoff Regulation Possibilities a Concern for Timber Industry

The Washington Post reports that the timber industry hopes that “the U.S. Supreme Court will maintain business as usual on controlling muddy water running off logging roads into salmon streams.”

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently ruled that federal regulators should treat stormwater on industrial timberlands the same as pollution discharge from a factory. According to the news release, the “ruling on an Oregon case would apply to logging roads on state, private and national forest lands throughout the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit, which covers much of the West.”

For more on this from the Washington Post, click here.

The article reports that, “Tom Partin, president of the American Forest ResourceCouncil, said increased regulation would cost money and offer conservation groups new opportunities for blocking logging without producing any cleaner water.”  He added that, “Over the years, we have been able to continually improve our practices as we have learned more about the environment."  Partin added, “Water flowing from our forests is high quality.”

Since the issue is now going to the high court, the president of the National Alliance of Forest Owners, Dave Tenny, questioned the need for EPA to “continue developing new regulations for logging roads.”

The article concludes that an EPA spokeswoman referred comment to the U.S. Department of Justice, which declined to comment on pending litigation, when asked whether the EPA would continue working on new regulations.

This article posted July 3, 2012. 

Upcoming Workshop on Legal Issues in Forestry

The National Agricultural Law Center, along with the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service and the LSU AgCenter are hosting a series of three workshops dealing with legal, marketing, and business issues that affect forest landowners. Topics discussed at the conference will include wildlife management, insurance, leasing contracts, landowner liability, and agritourism.

The third and final workshop will be held in Monticello, Arkansas on April 13 at the Drew County Farm Bureau Building (656 Barkada Road). The April 13 workshop qualifies for Continuing Education for Foresters and Loggers.

Workshop presenters will include:

• Dr. Tamara Walkingstick, Arkansas Forest Resources Center Associate Center Director;
• Dr. Becky McPeake, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Arkansas Cooperative Extension Service;
• Dora Ann Hatch, State-wide Coordinator for Agritourism, LSU AgCenter;
• Rusty Rumley, Staff Attorney, National Agricultural Law Center; and
• Elizabeth Rumley, Staff Attorney, National Agricultural Law Center.

The workshops will be held from 9am – 4pm, with registration beginning at 8:30am. A registration fee of $20 per person/ $30 per couple will cover lunch. Payment is not due until the morning of the workshop.

For more information on any aspect of the conference or to pre-register, contact Rusty Rumley at (479) 575-2636, or via email at rrumley@uark.edu.

The workshops are conducted pursuant to a grant titled, “Managing Legal Risk for Alternative Uses of Forestland”, awarded through the Southern Risk Management Education Center.

Upcoming March 16 Workshop for Foresters and Loggers

The National Agricultural Law Center, along with the University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service and the LSU AgCenter are hosting a series of three workshops dealing with legal, marketing, and business issues that affect forest landowners. Topics discussed at the conference will include wildlife management, insurance, leasing contracts, landowner liability, and agritourism.

The next workshop will be held in Shreveport, Louisiana on Friday, March 16, 2012. The third and final workshop will be held in Monticello, Arkansas on April 13.

The March 16 workshop qualifies for Continuing Education for Foresters and Loggers.

Workshop presenters will include:

• Dr. Tamara Walkingstick, Arkansas Forest Resources Center Associate Center
Director;
• Dr. Becky McPeake, Associate Professor and Extension Specialist, Arkansas
Cooperative Extension Service;
• Dora Ann Hatch, State-wide Coordinator for Agritourism, LSU AgCenter;
• Rusty Rumley, Staff Attorney, National Agricultural Law Center; and
• Elizabeth Rumley, Staff Attorney, National Agricultural Law Center.
The workshops will be held from 9am – 4pm, with registration beginning at 8:30am. A registration fee of $20 per person/ $30 per couple will cover lunch. Payment is not due until the morning of the
workshop.

For more information on any aspect of the conference or to pre-register, contact Rusty Rumley at (479) 575-2636, or via email at rrumley@uark.edu.

The workshops are conducted pursuant to a grant titled, “Managing Legal Risk for Alternative Uses of Forestland”, awarded through the Southern Risk Management Education Center.

Report Shows Threats to Private Forested Lands

Yesterday, Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack, "held a national conference call to highlight a USDA Forest Service report entitled Private Forests, Public Benefits" according to a USDA press release.

The report showed that privately held forests in the US "are under substantial stress from development and fragmentation and that increased housing density in forests will exacerbate other threats to forests from wildfire, insects, pathogens and pollution."  Privately held forests "make up 56 percent of all forested lands" in the US.

The report's finding include: that housing density will increase on more than 57 million acres of private forests between 2000 and 2030; private forests "play a critical role in supplying our nation with clean water resources, and the timber "needed to build communities will be threatened"; species "including the already-endangered Florida panther and the grizzly bear are also expected to be put at risk because of loss of forested land."  Additionally, "as houses encroach on forests, the risks to human life and property from fire increase as do the costs of fire management and suppression."

To read the USDA press release, click here.
For the full text of the "Private Forests, Public Benefits" report, click here.

Posted: 08/12/2010

USDA Forest Service Releases Climate Change Roadmap

Today, the USDA Forest Service announced its release of the "National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change" and a scoring system to improve performance and accountability, according to the press release.

The Forest Service Roadmap is a response to the USDA's 2010-2015 Strategic Plan, available here.

The Roadmap "identifies Forest Service priorities in responding to and implementing related direction in USDA's Strategic Plan" which describes major program policies.  These policies include ensuring that national forests and private working lands are "conserved, restored and made more resilient to climate change, while enhancing" water resources.  For the full text of the "National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change," click here.

The Forest Service has also created a scorecard rating system for use by all national forests and grasslands to "gauge the success of efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change."  All national forests and grasslands will submit annual reports on their progress toward compliance by 2015.  For the Performance Scorecard, click here.

To read the USDA press release, click here.

Posted: 07/20/2010

Secretary Vilsack Extends Directive on Roadless Logging

USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack has extended a directive that gives him sole power to approve logging or road project in National Forests while the Obama Administration decides how to handle the Clinton-era roadless rule.

"While the courts continue to wrestle with roadless policy, I will continue to work with the USDA Forest Service to ensure we protect roadless areas on our National Forests," said Secretary Vilsack. "Renewing this interim directive reflects President Obama's commitment to protecting our forests by ensuring that all projects in roadless areas receive a higher level of scrutiny.

The directive provides decision-making authority to the Secretary over proposed forest management or road construction projects in inventoried roadless areas. Because the courts are divided on the legality of the 2001 Rules, this directive ensures a consistent national review of all proposed projects.

To view the 2001 Roadless Rules, click here.

Last summer the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2001 Roadless Rule. The Rule is currently under appeal in the 10th Circuit.

For an excellent background on the National Forest System Roadless Area Initiatives, click here.

For more information on Roadless Areas, visit the Forest Service's website, available here.

To view USDA's press release in full, click here.

Posted: 06/01/2010

The relationship between biofuel growth and deforestation

John Flesher, an environmental writer for the Associated Press, reports that some are raising concerns that the use of tree matter, or woody biomass, as an alternative fuel source may lead to increased deforestation.

Flesher writes, “Forests are a treasure trove of limbs and bark that can be made into alternative fuels and some worry the increasing trend of using that logging debris will make those materials too scarce, harming the woodlands.” Additionally, forests act as a carbon sink, taking carbon out of the atmosphere, which helps combat global warming, so more logging naturally means less carbon sink productivity.

Flesher reports that University of Minnesota forest expert Dennis Becker reports, “that many would-be investors are uneasy about supplies of waste wood. They fear environmental reviews and litigation could make some public woodlands unreliable sources, particularly in the West, where most forest lands are under federal ownership and logging often raises legal tussles, the report said.” Additional problems exist in getting to and transporting woody biomass from areas that aren’t under protection.

Still, the federal government thinks woody biomass is a source of alternative fuel that is worth investing in. To that end, and based on a federal reports that estimates 386 million tons of biomass could “be removed sustainably from U.S. forests each year,” US Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack promised in August the department would spend “$57 million on 30 projects supporting development of biofuels from trees.”

Many officials on both the federal and state level see these investments as a win-win situation as it reduces dependence on foreign oil, curbs greenhouse gases and invests in a green economy. While this may be true, additional tree removal to provide the woody biomass may negatively affect the carbon equation as removing the trees reduces the amount of carbon that can be naturally removed from the atmosphere. Additionally, it takes oil to convert the material into a usable fuel source. Further, removing wood biomass can hurt forests as the decaying biomass is a source of nutrients for forest flora and fauna.

Regardless, there is a lot of enthusiasm for biomass conversion right now, so woody biomass will continue to be viewed as a possible alternative fuel source. As the technology continues to develop it is likely new regulations will have to be implemented to cut down on any adverse affects of this technology.

To read the AP story click here.

Posted: 11/23/09

Brazil hopes decline in Amazon deforestation provides leverage in Copenhagen

As this blog has reported several times before, in early December there will be an international conference involving 192 nations to negotiate global efforts to deal with climate change. To that end, Brazil is hoping that its announcement that the nation has reduced by half the amount of Amazon rainforest deforestation will prove the nation is committed to dealing with the issue, and therefore, likely give the nation bargaining leverage, as a third-world country, with regards to any treaty that results from the conference.

The Christian Science Monitor’s Andrew Downie reports online from Sao Paulo, Brazil that the South American nation wants to “go to the Copenhagen climate talks as ‘part of the solution and not part of the problem’ . . .” Brazil is hopeful the deforestation announcement bolsters that image.

This year saw 2,706 square miles of the Amazon destroyed, and while this number may seem high, it is the lowest it’s been since deforestation records started being kept in 1988. “The announcement was greeted with jubilation by a government who last week said it would offer voluntary reductions of between 38 and 42 percent in its CO2 emissions at next month’s talks in Copenhagen on curbing global warming, dubbed COP-15.”

The reduction in deforestation didn’t happen on accident. It is part of an ongoing strategy of the government’s to save the Amazon: one of the world’s largest carbon sinks. The strategy implemented by the Brazilian government involves satellite monitoring of forests to speed up reaction times of rangers to places where the forest is being logged or burned to be turned into agricultural land. Additionally there are sustainable logging initiatives and pilot programs in place that reward people financially for protecting trees.

Further, as Downie reports, “between 2004 and 2008, some 50 million hectares of the state of Amazonia were turned into reserves or national parks and another 10 million became indigenous reservations.” 43 percent of the Amazonia region is under federal protection.

Now the government’s actions aren’t necessarily altruistic acts on behalf of the rainforests. The government has come under consumer pressure that environmentalists credit with affecting the change in some policies. Negative campaigns against companies who buy products from “Amazonian-reared cattle spooked” several multi-national corporations into signing “a moratorium on certain products [.]”

Despite the downward trend, environmental organizations continue to advocate for additional efforts to combat deforestation. Paulo Adario, “the director of Amazonia campaigns at Greenpeace [stated]. ‘We are going to remain vigilant so that the trend continues and allows us to realize the dream of zero deforestation.’”

Whether or not these latest numbers put Brazil, a developing nation, in a better negotiating position, than say, the United States, a developed nation, remains to be seen. One of the biggest domestic arguments in Congress against moving on climate change legislation is a lack of commitment on the part of third world nations to do the same. Now, a third world nation can argue they’ve made that commitment.

Without a climate change bill that has at least passed out of both bodies of Congress, the administration may decide to send an envoy rather than the president himself, to Copenhagen. The administration had hoped to have legislation to point to as a sign of US commitment to combating climate change and contributing to a global effort to do the same. Without such legislation the administration remains unsure of what can receive the Senate’s approval, and therefore has a compromised negotiating position.

Meanwhile Congress doesn’t appeared to be too concerned about the situation as federal climate change legislation has been put on the back burner for the rest of the year while the Congress wrestles with healthcare and the administration wrestles with Afghanistan.

To read Downie’s story for the Christian Science Monitor, click here.
To read a recent US Agriculture & Food Law and Policy post on climate change legislation in Congress, click here.

Posted: 11/13/09

Chairman Lincoln Lays Out Agenda to Cattlemen

Yesterday, Senator Blanche Lincoln (AR), the new chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, gave an address before the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) as part of the association’s annual conference. During her remarks Senator Lincoln essentially told those in attendance the direction she would like the committee to take during her tenure as chair.

Prior to the address Senator Lincoln had already expressed her interest in having the committee take up child nutrition reauthorization, implementing the 2008 farm bill programs, commodity regulation, and international trade. The Senator reiterated those priorities on Tuesday. Noticeably left out of the list of issues is climate change. The Senator, who is also a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has previously stated that the Senate should focus on passing the renewable energy legislation that came out of that committee. It is her concern that combining renewable energy legislation with climate change legislation may prevent both bills from becoming law. As she said to the cattlemen, “Adding climate change legislation to the reforms already included in the Senate Energy Committee’s proposal is going to be a challenge in my view.”

Going further, according to her prepared remarks, the Senator told the association the following:

“I am opposed to the House passed cap-and-trade legislation, which in my view, picks winners and losers and places a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in Arkansas. It is a deeply flawed bill, and I will not support similar legislation in the Senate . . . As Chairman, I have some specific agriculture-related concerns. Under a cap-and-trade bill, crops like cotton and rice and our livestock industries could face higher energy costs without the added benefit of being able to sequester significant amounts of carbon . . . Whether it is cattle, poultry, or catfish, the potential for higher feeds prices under a cap-and-trade bill are a major concern . . . I plan to weigh in with Chairman Boxer in the next few weeks to share some ideas and ensure that the interests of producers are taken into account during any cap-and-trade process in the Senate.”

Senator Lincoln also told those in attendance that, as the daughter of a rice farmer, she appreciates the investment in time and energy it takes to build up a farming operation, and “A family farm or business should be something than (sic) can live on as long as the family has the will and ability to properly care for it.” To that end, the Senator told the association that she is in favor of reforming the estate tax before it reverts to a rate of 55 percent in 2011.

Senator Boxer may become frustrated with Senator Lincoln before too long. In addition to saying she can’t support the cap-and-trade bill in its current form, Lincoln also said she has concerns over the Clean Water Restoration Act that passed out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. This legislation would replace the phrase “navigable waters” in the land mark Clean Water Act with the new phrase “waters of the United States.” This change has concerned many farmers and property owners over what would constitute a violation, what waters are covered in “waters of the United States,” and how much authority the Environmental Protection Agency will have over private lands. As Lincoln put it, “We certainly don’t want to give EPA the broad authority that would allow them onto your farms to regulate ponds, ditches, and gutters.”

As a member of the Senate Finance Committee, Senator Lincoln is heavily involved in trade negotiations and agreements and expects to continue her involvement in working towards opening up international markets to U.S. agricultural products. Lincoln would also like to end the Cuban trade embargo.

In other news involving Senator Lincoln, the new chair has named a Staff Director for the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. According TMCnews online, Robert Holifield will take on the position. Holifield is a native of Blytheville, Arkansas and a graduate from Arkansas State University. Prior to his new post, Holifield served as Deputy Chief of Staff for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Prior to that, he served as CFTC’s Acting Director of External Affairs and Chief of Staff for Commissioner Bart Chilton. CFTC is under the jurisdiction of the Senate Agriculture Committee. Holifield was also a policy advisor for agriculture and international trade for Senator Lincoln’s personal office from 2000-2007.

To see a copy of Lincoln’s remarks to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association click here.
To read the TMC.net’s story on Holifield click here.

Posted: 09/16/09

Colorado Official to be in Charge of U.S. Forests

Matthew Daly with the Associated Press has broken a story on the new agriculture undersecretary in charge of the U.S. Forest Service. According to the Associated Press story, President Obama has chosen Harris Sherman, executive director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources, to be in charge of U.S. forests.

Though the White House has yet to make any official announcement, Daly cites unnamed congressional aides as his source that the Colorado official will indeed be nominated for the post. A little background on Sherman according to the A.P.:

Sherman is a member of Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter's cabinet and has overseen state efforts to develop a plan for so-called roadless areas in remote national forests. National and regional conservation, hunting and angling groups have denounced Colorado's plan as weaker than a 2001 rule developed by former President Bill Clinton. Critics say the Colorado plan is unnecessary after a federal appeals court decision reinstated most of the 2001 federal policy last month.

Sherman’s nomination comes after Homer Lee Wilkes, the state conservationist for Mississippi, withdrew his nomination in June.

Vice president of the environmental organization Earthjustice, Martin Hayden, believes Sherman will carry out President Obama’s commitment to the 2001 Roadless Rule despite Governor Ritter’s plan ‘“to undercut roadless protections in Colorado’s national forests [.]’” Sherman previously served on the Colorado Oil and Gas Commission where he was an advocate for including consideration of public health and the natural environment when issuing permits for building roads in national forests.

To read the AP article click here.

Posted: 09/10/09

The Future of the Carbon Market

The Congressional Budget Office has released a study that estimates that a carbon offset market could be worth $60 billion by 2012. Such a market, value-wise, would be “on a par with U.S. corn and wheat markets [.]”

However, the potential for growth could be large as ‘“it will make forestry mitigation opportunities more important,” says Chicago Climate Exchange senior economist Jeffrey O’Hara. O’Hara recently told participants of the Climate Change Legislation Workshop at Mississippi State University that, ‘“We think carbon is going to be a big market.”’ According to Hembree Brandon’s article for the Delta Farm Press, the Carbon Climate Exchange (CCX) is “the world’s first and North America’s only carbon and environmental derivatives market.” The future of carbon markets is being debated on Capitol Hill as part of climate change legislation.

Currently, CCX is trading between 3,000 to 5,000 contracts daily. According to Brandon’ story, the market is made up of “20 percent of the largest carbon dioxide-emitting utilities in the U.S. participating; 11 percent of the Fortune 500 companies; and 17 percent of the Dow Jones Industrials companies.” There are several factors that could affect whether or not a forest would be part of the market. These factors include “forest type, site productivity, timber prices, transaction costs, and the type of project undertaken.”

David Miller, chief science officer for the AgraGate Climate Credits Corporation believes that carbon prices must be $4 per metric ton at a minimum for carbon credits to be viable. Additionally, understanding the rules of the market, whatever they may be in their final form, is essential to the market’s success. Brandon writes that Emily Schultz, an associate professor with the Forestry Department at Mississippi State University believes a “tree biomass and carbon estimation system (carbon calculator)” could provide those interested in participating in the market with the information needed to make an informed decision based on a cost/benefit analysis.

Until a final product emerges from Congress, it will be tough to estimate with complete accuracy what types of forests, what types of species, and what types of planting and forestry techniques will give those participating in the market the most value.

To read the Brandon article click here.

Posted: 09/09/09