U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Seeking Information on Impact of Canada Geese on Agricultural Operations

ACTION 1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Seeking Information on Impact of Canada Geese on Agricultural Operations ACTION: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Seeking Information on Impact of Canada Geese on Agricultural Operations ISSUE: Earlier this year, the AFBF Issue Advisory Committee on Pests and Invasive Species identified resident Canada geese as a particular problem for agricultural producers. In looking into this issue, AFBF has had several discussions with staff at the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS). FWS is currently proposing to establish annual hunting regulations for certain migratory game birds for the 2016-17 hunting season and has asked AFBF to provide any relevant statistics or data on damage caused to crops or farms by Canada geese. BACKGROUND: Canada geese are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and their numbers have increased substantially in recent years. Many geese are no longer migratory, staying in one location year round. These increasing populations can cause significant damage to crops and threaten agricultural production. Under existing law, a permit must be obtained from FWS before undertaking any steps to eradicate or control problem geese. ACTION: AFBF is looking for state Farm Bureaus to forward to us any data or reports of damage that document loss of crops due to Canadian geese. We will share this information with FWS in an effort to facilitate efforts to deal with the problems of Canada geese. Contact: Paul Schlegel, 202-406-3687, pauls@fb.org; Arielle Brown, 202-406-3663, arielleb@fb.org Top of Document

USDA Invests $63 Million to Support 264 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Projects Nationwide

Release No. 0226.15 Contact: Office of Communication (202) 720-4623 USDA Invests $63 Million to Support 264 Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Projects Nationwide Funding supports solar and other renewable energy projects to create jobs and promote energy independence WASHINGTON, August 7, 2015 – Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack today announced $63 million in loans and grants for 264 renewable energy and energy efficiency projects nationwide that USDA is supporting through its Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). "This funding will have far-reaching economic and environmental impacts nationwide, particularly in rural communities," Vilsack said. "Investing in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects supports home-grown energy sources, creates jobs, reduces greenhouse gas pollution and helps usher in a more secure energy future for the nation." These REAP projects are expected to generate and/or save 207.8 million kilowatt hours (KWh) of energy – enough to power more than 13,600 homes for a year. For example, Bradley Phillips, owner of A.B. Phillips & Sons Fruit Farm, is receiving an $18,000 grant to install a photovoltaic solar system on his farm in the village of Berlin Heights, Ohio. The system will generate nearly 13,000 kilowatt hours of electricity annually. Phillips grows apples, peaches, pears, plums, raspberries, cherries and grapes on a farm that has been in his family for more than a century. Blue Sky Poultry, Inc., of Bainbridge, Ga., has been selected for a $16,094 grant to install a solar array on the roof of the poultry houses. The array is expected to generate 36,300 kWh of electricity per year. Stokes Farms, LLP, of Chatfield, Minn., is receiving a $19,750 grant to install a 10 kW wind turbine. When operational, the project is expected to generate 30,000 kWh of electricity per year. Lakeview Biodiesel, LLC will use a $3.3 million loan guarantee to help acquire a Missouri biodiesel plant and make improvements to bring it online to produce enough biodiesel to run approximately 16,500 vehicles annually. In North Carolina, South Winston Farm, LLC is receiving a $4 million loan guarantee to finance a 7 megawatt solar array system that is expected to generate enough energy to power 994 households per year. Funding for the projects announced today is contingent upon the recipients meeting the terms of the grant or loan agreement. Here are two examples of how REAP has helped rural businesses: • In 2014, Mt. Abram, a ski area in western Maine, finished installing an 803-panel solar photovoltaic system that was financed with a $235,000 REAP grant. Mt. Abram is the first solar-powered ski area in the state and the second-largest solar-powered ski area in the country. The solar array will generate 280,000 kWh in energy each year and meet about 70 percent of the resort's power needs. • Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack visited Progress Solar in North Carolina in September 2014 to highlight a $3.4 million REAP loan guarantee the company received to install a solar array. Today, the 46-acre farm produces enough solar energy to power 540 average-sized homes each year. Eligible agricultural producers and rural small businesses may use REAP funds to make energy efficiency improvements or install renewable energy systems, including solar, wind, renewable biomass (including anaerobic digesters), small hydroelectric, ocean energy, hydrogen, and geothermal. The next application deadline for REAP grants is November 2, 2015. USDA will issue a notice of available funding with more details on how to apply in the coming weeks. REAP was created by the 2008 Farm Bill and was reauthorized by the 2014 Farm Bill. Since the start of the Obama Administration, USDA has supported more than 9,600 renewable energy and energy efficiency projects nationwide through REAP. During this period, the Department has provided more than $291 million in grants and $327 million in loan guarantees to agricultural producers and rural small business owners. President Obama's plan for rural America has brought about historic investment and resulted in stronger rural communities. Under the President's leadership, these investments in housing, community facilities, businesses and infrastructure have empowered rural America to continue leading the way – strengthening America's economy, small towns and rural communities. #

New Mexico's 75 farmers markets good for economy, community

New Mexico's 75 farmers markets good for economy, community USDA picks Santa Fe to kick off National Farmers Market Week, Aug. 2-8 SANTA FE – If you need proof that farmers markets are good for the economy and community, just spend some time this week during National Farmers Market Week watching the exchanges of locally grown food, dollars, and conversation that take place at any one of New Mexico’s 75 farmers markets. USDA officials were in Santa Fe on Saturday, Aug. 1, to kick off the national event. “[The Santa Fe Farmers Market has] gone from a small, informal group of farmers organizing in the 1960s to the largest farmers market in the state with [more than 100] active vendors,” said Anne Alonzo, the administrator of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). She pointed to the fact that the Santa Fe market is often ranked as one of the top 10 farmers markets in the country. Alonzo and New Mexico Secretary of Agriculture Jeff Witte talked about the growth in the number and economic impact of farmers markets in New Mexico and across the country. According to the New Mexico Farmers Marketing Association, the combined sales at all of New Mexico’s 75 farmers markets amounts to close to $9 million a year. Farmers markets have also seen an increase in the diversity of their customers. One reason: increased support for nutrition-benefits programs as Double Up Food Bucks. That program – awarded $100 thousand in federal funds and $400 thousand in state funds this year – allows recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to double their purchasing power of fresh, local fruits and vegetables (as well as eggs, meats, cheeses, and bread) when they present their SNAP benefits card at more than 30 of the state’s 75 farmers markets. “It’s a win for low-income families in New Mexico, for New Mexico farmers and ranchers who sell at the farmers markets, and for communities in the state that will see these dollars cycled locally,” Witte said. Santa Fe Farmers Market Director Paolo Speirn told the crowd that small-scale agriculture – the kind often sustained by sales at farmers markets – is a way of life. “We can’t take our farmers markets for granted,” Speirn said. “They need you to show up on market days with rain and even on market days with snow.” NMDA has partnered with USDA on a pilot project to collect price information from farmers markets across the state so that a database can be created. That database will help both vendors know how to price their items, and customers know what items they can expect at the farmers market and what they should expect to pay for them. NMDA is still recruiting volunteers to help gather such price anonymous information. Alonzo said that USDA is currently surveying farmers market managers across the country to identify any trends that may be quietly underway. Last year’s survey – the results of which are being released this month – show that farmers markets continue to grow and serve as popular community gathering places.

New Mexico agriculture secretary tapped to help inform federal environmental policy

New Mexico agriculture secretary tapped to help inform federal environmental policy Witte to be among state voices advising Environmental Protection Administration (LAS CRUCES, N.M.) – The state’s top agricultural official has been tapped by the U.S. Environmental Protection Administration to help advise the federal agency in the regulations it oversees. New Mexico Secretary of Agriculture Jeff Witte was invited in June by EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy to serve on the Local Government Advisory Committee, specifically the Small Community Advisory Subcommittee. He was nominated for the post by the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA), of which he and his counterparts across the country are members. In her letter inviting Witte to serve on the committee, the EPA’s McCarthy wrote that Witte’s “experience and perspective would be particularly valuable to the EPA as we explore the ways in which national policy might affect state and local governments.” The EPA committee Witte will serve on is comprised of 30 officials from local, state, and tribal governments. Their job, collectively, is to: • advise EPA in its development of environmental regulations that impact small communities; • inform EPA of the potential costs of such regulation to small communities; and • inform EPA of the potential need for technical assistance in administering such regulation in small communities. In his years at New Mexico Department of Agriculture (NMDA), Witte has interacted with EPA on various topics. NMDA’s Pesticide Compliance Section enforces pesticide law enacted at both the federal and state levels. Earlier this year prior to its finalization, Witte testified before Congress on the EPA’s Waters of the U.S. rule and its potential impacts on American farmers and ranchers. Witte’s two-year term on the EPA’s Local Government Advisory Committee expires June 30, 2017. The position is unpaid; Witte’s travel expenses will be covered by EPA.

New Cooperative Extension Publications

The following CES publications have been revised and are now available online in PDF format. Guide B-222, "Cattle Vaccination and Immunity,” revised by John Wenzel http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/B222.pdf Guide B-223, "Calf Vaccination Guidelines,” revised by John Wenzel http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/B223.pdf Guide B-224, "Cow Herd Vaccination Guidelines,” revised by John Wenzel http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/B224.pdf Guide E-327, “Using Chile to Make Ristras and Chile Sauce,” by Danise Coon and Stephanie Walker http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_e/E327.pdf Circular 597, "Chemical Weed and Brush Control for New Mexico Rangelands,” revised by Keith W. Duncan and Kirk C. McDaniel http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_circulars/CR597.pdf Annual Data Report 100-2014, "Pest Control in Crops Grown in Northwestern New Mexico, 2014,” by Richard N. Arnold, Michael K. O’Neill, Daniel Smeal, Kevin Lombard, and Margaret West http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/annualdatareports/docs/ADR_100_2014.pdf Guide B-815, “Control Perennial Snakeweeds,” by Kirk McDaniel http://aces.nmsu.edu/pubs/_b/B815.pdf

Final 'Waters Of The U.S.' Rule Is More Overreach By EPA

Final 'Waters Of The U.S.' Rule Is More Overreach By EPA Guest post written by Todd Gaziano and M. Reed Hopper Mr. Gaziano is executive director of the Pacific Legal Foundation’s DC Center. Mr. Hopper is a principal attorney with the Foundation. On June 29, the Supreme Court invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation on power plant emissions, stating that the EPA’s interpretation of its authority was not even “rational,” let alone reasonable. But the decision came too late for power plants in certain states. Many spent billions of dollars complying with the illegal rule; others closed forever. But don’t expect the EPA to admit its error. The EPA is frequently wrong, but never in doubt. (Disclosure: Mr. Hopper successfully represented John Rapanos in Rapanos v. United States and is the lead counsel in the Foundation’s lawsuit on behalf of Washington Cattlemen’s Association and eight other plaintiffs to overturn the water rule.) Also on June 29, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers published their final rule in the Federal Register redefining “waters of the United States” subject to federal control under the Clean Water Act (CWA). It is as expansive and illegal as we warned last year. At least ten lawsuits, including ours, have been filed in the past few weeks to stop the rule. It’s worth explaining what’s at stake. EPA expanded its jurisdiction to a degree that would make a normal bureaucrat blush The CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants without a federal permit into “navigable waters,” defined as “waters of the United States.” But the Act expressly retains the States’ preeminent role to protect non-navigable waters: “It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution.” Despite several CWA amendments, Congress never changed the definition of “navigable waters” or the States’ responsibility to regulate most waters in America. Over the years, however, the Corps and EPA expanded their jurisdiction to a degree that would make a normal bureaucrat blush. For example, the CWA does not directly authorize federal regulation of “wetlands,” but the agencies developed a Kafkaesque, nationwide wetland regulatory regime based on the theory that the placement of clean sand or gravel in seasonally dry areas is a discharge of a pollutant into “navigable waters.” The Supreme Court approved federal regulation of wetlands that physically abut navigable-in-fact waterways where it is unclear where the land ends and the water begins, but rejected the agencies’ other efforts to regulate undefined “neighboring wetlands,” minute tributaries, man-made ditches and drains, and even isolated water bodies with no hydrological connection to navigable waters whatsoever. Repeated rebukes by the High Court have made no difference Repeated rebukes by the High Court, including the last two initiated by our Foundation, have made no difference. In 2001, the Supreme Court rejected the agencies’ regulation of isolated, non-navigable waterbodies that read the term “navigable waters” out of the Act. In 2006, the Court also rejected the agencies’ sweeping assertion that it could regulate any water with a hydrological connection to a downstream navigable-in-fact water. And, in 2012, the Supreme Court unanimously condemned the EPA practice of issuing crippling fines and threats of criminal prosecution to homeowners without providing proof the CWA was violated and without affording the homeowners a judicial hearing to dispute EPA’s jurisdiction over their property. As Justice Alito observed: the “reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear” under EPA’s expansive reading such that “any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year” may be covered by it, “putting property owners at the agency’s mercy.” Instead of accepting those pronouncements and demonstrating some restraint, the agencies’ current rule redefining “waters of the United States” greatly exceeds jurisdictional claims the High Court has already rejected. Compared to the draft we criticized last fall, the final rule made some cosmetic changes for political consumption, as well as some substantive changes, but the jurisdictional interpretations not only go well beyond any authorized by the CWA, they would be unconstitutional if Congress tried to confer such authority. For example, the final rule purports to exempt “puddles,” which is politically savvy. But even this concession is undermined since the rule expressly covers some water-filled depressions many people think of as puddles, including isolated “prairie potholes” in the Midwest, “vernal pools … located in parts of California” and various other small ponds if they meet certain conditions. Virtually nothing escapes the rapacious control of the federal government under the newly minted definition of “waters of the United States” The agencies assert categorical jurisdiction over “navigable waterways”—now more broadly defined—then add tributaries of any size that “contribute flow,” either directly or indirectly, to a navigable river, lake or sea, even if that flow is miniscule. That includes tiny creeks, streams, ditches, channels and many normally dry gullies. The agencies then add several other new and vague categories. “Adjacent waters” and various other waters, which include massive amounts of land, are either automatically covered or covered on a case by case basis (depending on factors the agencies will determine later); they include land within a 100-year floodplain or 4,000 feet of any tributary or other jurisdictional waters. Ultimately agency field offices will determine whether particular property is subject to regulation and permitting, including those with “a significant nexus to a [covered] water.” Under the “significant nexus” test, agency personnel may combine a wet spot at issue with “other similarly situated [not defined] waters in the region” to determine if together they affect “the chemical, physical, or biological integrity” of the downstream water, and any one of nine broad factors can trigger inclusion such as their combined effect on “runoff storage” or “species habitat.” The test is so expansive that it is hard to conceive of any wet area, if combined with all other supposedly similar areas in the region, which would not meet the definition. And that is the point. Virtually nothing escapes the rapacious control of the federal government under the newly minted definition of “waters of the United States.” Adding enormous uncertainty to the regulatory scheme Inclusion of the 100-year flood plain as “navigable waters” is an especially brazen land grab. And we do mean land, not waters. This necessarily includes vast amounts of land that are dry 99.9 years out of 100. Because flood plain maps are not fixed or definite, agency bureaucrats can assert sweeping authority over many new areas of the Country. With all of these categories and expansive tests, the agencies seek to control almost all the water in America and much of the land. The agencies’ propaganda campaign about the need for “clean water” is a sad ploy to justify their overreaching. The agencies cynically claim the rule will close dangerous gaps that left the source of drinking water for “117 million Americans … vulnerable to pollution.” Yet that directly contradicts other assertions that the rule only “clarifies” prior authority and doesn’t expand the agencies’ jurisdiction. Both claims can’t be true, except in Alice’s Wonderland. Moreover, the States and other federal laws regulate drinking water more directly, so no drinking water was ever “unprotected.” The Corps and EPA also repeatedly assert that their rule simplifies and makes jurisdictional determinations “more predictable,” but that claim is belied by the hundreds of pages of dense, explanatory material published with the rule. The 100-year-flood-plain gambit and the “significant nexus” test alone add enormous uncertainty to the regulatory scheme. And make no mistake, the uncertainty is not a bug but a feature to maximize bureaucratic power. The fight is over federal control, not simplicity or safety The agencies’ propaganda campaign is just lipstick on an exceptionally dangerous and aggressive hog. The regulatory doubletalk masks the real battle. This fight is over federal control, not simplicity or safety. That’s why 36 states opposed the rule; only seven supported it. The water rule threatens liberty and must be stopped, which is why we and others have filed suit to overturn it. The cases may be consolidated, but either way, several of us seek to stop enforcement of the rule until our cases are decided. Unlike the EPA emissions rule, let’s hope the courts agree to enjoin the rule until a final ruling on its validity is rendered. America doesn’t need more economic damage from an illegal rule.

Op-ed: New Mexico ag secretary on ag’s role in state economy, culture, water cycle

Op-ed: New Mexico ag secretary on ag’s role in state economy, culture, water cycle National Farmers Market Week this week got me thinking about the economic and cultural importance of not just the state’s 75 farmers markets, but of New Mexico agriculture more broadly. On the economics side, New Mexico agriculture is a $4 billion-a-year sector. But the true financial impact of agriculture in the state is much bigger. Four billion is a measure of the value of agricultural commodities at the farm or ranch: things like live cattle, raw milk, and unprocessed wheat. Turning those commodities into the products that most people no longer make for themselves – such as when milk gets turned into cheese, and when wheat gets turned into flour – adds several billion dollars more to the system. In fact, researchers at New Mexico State University recently estimated that agriculture and food pro¬cessing, combined, “accounted for $10.6 billion (roughly 12.3%) of New Mexico’s $86.5 billion gross state product (GSP) in 2012. In addition, the two industries directly created 32,578 jobs and 18,308 jobs in related support activities for a total of 50,886 jobs statewide.” (Interested readers can learn more by reading NMSU Cooperative Extension Service Circular 675, entitled “Agriculture’s Contribution to New Mexico’s Economy”.) Given the slim profit margins in agriculture, farmers and ranchers are always looking for new efficiencies. That fact bears out in some interesting ways. For instance, recent news stories about our declining chile acreage ignore the fact that New Mexico chile growers are now growing more chile per acre than they were 25 years ago. They and other growers have adopted things like laser leveling, drip irrigation, sensor technology, and satellite imaging – all of which contribute to more efficient water use by both plants and farmers. But traditional flood irrigation – watering crops by applying water to the surface of the ground in which they’re growing – has its own merits. Research conducted at NMSU (Ward, 2008) shows that as much as 58 percent of the water applied to some of New Mexico’s major crops via flood irrigation returns to the aquifer. With these “return flows”, as they’re known, water gets filtered as it percolates through the ground. Then it’s available for others, including municipalities that provide drinking water to the bulk of the people reading this…perhaps you. Even if you dwell in an urban area, chances are that agriculture exists nearby. Data released by USDA last year showed that there are nearly 25,000 farms, ranches, and other such agricultural operations across New Mexico. That figure covers a wide range of sizes – including small farms with $1,000 worth of production a year – as well as ethnic backgrounds, ages, and crops. And agricultural diversity translates into a diverse economy. While a dollars-and-cents approach is helpful when talking about agriculture and its water use, it ignores the tremendous cultural contributions farming and ranching make to New Mexico. What would this region be like without the people who have called this place home for centuries and even millennia, thanks in part to the Three Sisters of beans, corn, and squash? How different would the meaning of la comunidad be in northern New Mexico without the water-sharing approach of our acequia system? What water would sustain our state’s wildlife populations if not for the rainwater that sheep and cattle ranchers catch in dirt tanks to water their animals year-round? And what would a Saturday morning in your community feel like without the vibrancy of your local farmers market? The state’s 75 farmers markets are all the more important when you consider the high rate of food deserts (low-income communities with limited access to grocery stores) here. Many of these markets are now participating in a program called Double Up Food Bucks, which allows recipients of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to double their purchasing power of fresh, local food at the farmers market. That’s good for low-income families, farmers and ranchers who sell at the market, and communities that will see those dollars spent and re-spent locally. I often tell people that farmers and ranchers take water – a substance that begins with zero calories, zero protein, zero fiber – and make it nutritious. If you’d like to consider directing water away from agriculture, I ask you to please save that thought for the next time you sit down to eat. Would you be willing to part with the enchiladas that were made using New Mexico chile, onions, and cheese? Neither would I. New Mexico’s unique cuisine is dependent on New Mexico’s unique agricultural heritage. And while our unique cuisine is something we have access to whenever the craving hits, it’s coveted by those who live elsewhere. Eating New Mexican food is an important part of the experience tourists come here looking for. I grew up on a ranch in northern New Mexico. I know how hard agricultural work is, and how thankless it may seems on tough days – but in the end, it’s still one of the most rewarding things people can do for themselves, their families, and their communities. Thank you to all the past, present, and future farmers and ranchers across New Mexico, and thanks to everyone who stands in strong support of them. Sincerely, Jeff Witte