How the Government Got in Your Backyard

by Jeff Gillman

  So the government steps in to even out the booms and busts. It attempts to protect farmers when there is too much production and prices drop too low for farmers to earn a living. But no good deed goes unpunished; this system creates perverse incentives. By essentially guaranteeing farmers that all of their produce will be sold and that they will receive a minimum price for certain foods, farmers are encouraged to grow as much as possible. The more they produce, the more money they can get from the government, regardless of whether consumers are actually buying their products. But more production drives the price down even further, making it more difficult for the farmer to make money without government support. Because taxpayers pay the costs of overproduction, however, farmers have an incentive to keep finding ways to produce more. More production means more fertilizer and more pesticides, which then have their unintended side effects on health and the environment.

  Attempts to reign in farm subsidies have failed miserably. The Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, better known as the Freedom to Farm Act, tried to institute some freemarket principles, but the next farm bill (the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002) basically reinstated traditional subsidies, and the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 expanded those subsidies to fruits and vegetables. Farmers are well organized and have an intense interest in protecting their benefits; individual taxpayers would only save a little bit if subsidies were reduced, so they have little incentive to mobilize against them. Environmentalists essentially side with farmers on the subsidy issue. They don’t support the subsidies per se or the overproduction that results, but the subsidies give them leverage over farmers to get them to obey environmental regulations. That is, the subsidies give the government the ability to say, for example, “If you want to keep your subsidies, you must not fill in wetlands on your property.”

  The Politics of Dirty Water

  Federal water quality rules are written so that their ineffectiveness is practically guaranteed. On one hand, the Water Quality Protection Act sets the goal of decreasing nonpoint source pollution. On the other hand, the act doesn’t give the EPA direct authority to do anything to control or minimize nonpoint sources. It passes the buck to the states. Yet most state environmental agencies do not have the resources or the expertise to develop TMDLs or management plans, let alone enforce them. Even when court orders force the EPA to calculate the TMDL, it still doesn’t have the ability to do anything to decrease pollution in waters that fail to meet the standards. And a state agency without the resources or motivation to calculate the TMDLs on its own is unlikely to develop the will to crack down on nonpoint source polluters just because the EPA has identified standards. It’s a recipe for frustration on all sides.

  Despite the fact that they are largely implementing federal laws, states issue more than 90 percent of environmental permits and conduct more than 75 percent of all environment enforcement actions. If you take your car to be tested for emissions, for example, you are dealing with state officials. When a local factory gets a water discharge permit, the permit comes from the state government.

  Essentially, this matrix of policies is based on the logic of the federal structure of the United States. State governments have primary authority within their states, and Congress cannot just order them to do whatever it wants. Constitutionally, Congress is limited to addressing domestic issues that affect “interstate commerce.” Land use policy has traditionally been a core responsibility of state and local governments. The Clean Water Act’s navigable waters language was Congress’s attempt to apply federal law to waters involved in interstate commerce. Besides, from a practical standpoint, states are in a better position than politicians in Washington, D.C., to know or to find out the sources of water or air pollution, and states are in a better position to determine what strategies would be most effective in cajoling their citizens to cooperate in decreasing pollution. When the federal government sets national priorities, it must entice states to implement them by providing incentives (such as providing technical support and money) or threatening them with penalties (such as losing federal money).

  Providing carrots to get states to do what Washington wants is fine as long as the states want the same thing. Dealing with point sources of pollution is an example of how the states and the federal government can be on the same page. In point source pollution, a drainpipe from a factory or water treatment plant dumps polluted water into local streams. It’s easy to send a camera crew to film the muck and generate outrage from the public. And likewise, it’s easy to send a government inspector to the plant to make sure they’ve installed appropriate cleanup technology and to test the water coming out of a pipe or the air out of a smokestack. Since there are clear benefits to taking action, the states can take Washington’s money, clean up their water/air/toxic waste dumps, and win public approval for doing so. As hard as it is for government to take on “big business” that provides lots of jobs and tax revenue, it’s easier to take on “big polluters” than to take on the ordinary people who create nonpoint source pollution.

  Nonpoint source pollution is a different ball game from point source pollution because it comes from so many different places. Few people understand how the runoff from their yards and driveways or runoff from farms or industrial sites affects bodies of water many miles away. Such diffuse effects are hard to document and publicize, unlike the Exxon Valdez spill or garbage washing up on beaches. Nonpoint sources are also hard to regulate because inspectors can’t just check a few sites. Instead, policy must encourage a large number of people to change their behavior, which to each of those people seems inconsequential in causing water or air pollution. Farmers, for example, are having outsiders tell them to change tried-and-true methods used on their own properties in order to have a minute effect on algae growth hundreds of miles away. It’s hard to expect enthusiastic cooperation, especially when the changes can be expensive and risky. Of course some farmers in some states do implement techniques to decrease their nutrient runoff by taking government incentives, but this raises another question: will the incentives need to be made permanent to ensure that these practices continue? Would it be better to follow the model that we have for air pollution and use a whipping stick along with some carrots?

  In addressing one nonpoint source of air pollution, Congress has found ways to get around the problem of enticing thousands of individuals to cooperate. It has mandated that car manufacturers change the way cars are constructed. States and cities that do not meet air quality standards will lose their federal highway funds. Since states want to keep their federal money, they develop plans to decrease air pollution by increasing mass transit options, by working with employers to develop changes in work schedules, and so on. But as of 2010, Congress has not shaken the stick at states to get action on nonpoint sources of water pollution in the same way. States that have other priorities aren’t forced to do anything because there are no deadlines and no penalties for not complying with the law. They can live in their dirty water—until it flows downstream and becomes the next state’s dirty water.

  Policy Option One: Leave Things as They Are

  While it’s hard to argue that there aren’t currently some problems with the amount of fertilizer that we apply to our lawns and to farm fields, this problem is largely taking care of itself and doesn’t need more regulation by federal, state, or local governments. The free market system is at work reducing the amount of fertilizer that we can afford to apply. The synthetic nitrogen that most of us use in our yards is based directly on the price of natural gas and energy (since these are needed to create nitrogen fertilizers). Hence, as natural gas and coal prices increase, so will the cost of nitrogen fertilizer. Other elements in commercial fertilizers, such as phosphorus and potassium, are usually mined (or at least start their journey to becoming a fertilizer in a mine), and so their cost also increases with scarcity. It has been suggested that by around 2030 the world will reach its peak in phosphorus production and that
supplies of phosphorus will start to dwindle. (In fact, it has been suggested that we may have mined all of our mineable rock phosphate within the next fifty to one hundred years.) And so prices will rise. Because of these cost considerations, farmers continually need to find new ways to use fertilizers more efficiently. Farmers already have a number of techniques at their disposal. No-till and reduced-till farming practices avoid loosening the top layer of soil so that it is less likely to erode. Incorporating more organic matter from manure into soils allows the soil to better absorb more nutrients. And using buffer strips between the fields where fertilizers are applied and any nearby waterways prevents runoff from reaching those waterways. Incentives being offered by some states and the federal government are also encouraging these techniques.

  The rising cost of fertilizers isn’t as likely to affect their use around homes as it is on farms because homeowners aren’t balancing their fertilizer spending against proceeds, but rather against their sense of aesthetics. The lack of government control over fertilizers applied around homes isn’t an issue because there is no evidence that a healthy, properly fertilized lawn produces more runoff than a poorly fertilized one.

  Finally, dead zones caused by runoff are certainly significant, and fertilizers contribute to the problem, but the oceans are large and when these dead zones are measured against the total size of the oceans, they just aren’t that significant. Besides, nature has its own dead zones, like the Dead Sea.

  Right-Wing Rating We are all making the choices we need to make to keep ourselves in business and to keep our lawns green. There are lots of things that can affect aquatic ecosystems; picking on fertilizers is not the solution. More regulation would impose a huge cost on farmers and do very little to help the environment.

  Left-Wing Rating Science clearly shows the damage that overuse of fertilizers has on aquatic ecosystems. The problem may be difficult to solve, but government inaction is inexcusable. Action by a few states and municipalities is insufficient to combat problems that affect entire watersheds.

  Policy Option Two: The EPA Should Firmly Regulate Fertilizers

  Because nonpoint runoff is important, we need to do something about it. The laws passed by states and municipalities are going to be few and far between, and history has already shown that they’re not going to be appropriately enforced. The federal government needs to get involved, not just in an advisory role, but rather as the rule maker and the enforcer. Some of the regulations that the EPA could enforce include restricting when and how often crops and yards could be fertilized. Most fertilizer runoff occurs during storms soon after the fertilizer is applied. By restricting fertilization to times when heavy storms are less likely, nutrient runoff could be reduced. Restrictions should apply to lawn care companies and to individuals, and should also restrict the amount of fertilizer that people buy per year. Fertilizers containing phosphorus should be prohibited unless people have a soil test. Parks and forests could be required to implement strategies to use less fertilizer.

  The EPA should also require farmers to implement buffer zones wherever their land butts up against a swamp, stream, river, or lake. More extensive restrictions could be placed on lagoons in which factory farms dispose of vast quantities of animal manure, to ensure that runoff does not cause the lagoons to overflow into neighboring waterways. Farmers should be required to apply a certain percentage of their fertilizer as natural manures, composts, or other materials. This would, over time, increase the soil’s ability to hold nutrients and reduce the amount of nutrient-rich wastes that might reach a delicate water system. Farmers should also be required to use reduced tilling techniques.

  Right-Wing Rating The federal government is going to restrict me from fertilizing before it rains? Can we even predict when it will rain? Such rules are unenforceable. And we’re going to pay bureaucrats to read records of how often and when I fertilized? What a waste of time and money! Just get off my lawn!

  Left-Wing Rating Water (and air) does not respect the niceties of jurisdictional boundaries. Your dirty water becomes dirty water for everyone else downstream. Strict federal rules are the only way to ensure drinkable, swimmable water for everyone. Also, if we’re going to be concerned about the economy, we should be concerned about fishing and tourism, not just farming.

  Policy Option Three: Give States a Deadline for Developing and Executing a Plan for Reducing Nonpoint Pollution

  States can have different methods of controlling their nonpoint source pollution, but if a state does not implement a plan then they should be punished by cutting off all crop subsidies to that state. There are so many simple strategies that could help to reduce fertilizer runoff that the states could figure out which ones were most relevant for their situation and require farmers and homeowners to comply. Federal air pollution laws are already enforced this way; there is no reason that water laws should not be enforced the same way.

  Right-Wing Rating The federal government should not abuse its power by pushing the states around. States need to be trusted to know what is best for their own citizens; the farmers and homeowners need to be trusted to know what’s best for their land.

  Left-Wing Rating Having the means to get states to follow their own plans is important, but we also need to ensure that all states are as strict as possible, since the water from one state flows to its neighbors. One weak link can break the chain.

  Policy Option Four: Do Away with Crop Subsidies

  Getting rid of crop subsidies doesn’t directly affect the use of fertilizers, but if the free market were allowed to control the price of our food, an indirect result would likely be a reduction in the use of fertilizers. Without subsidies farmers wouldn’t have the incentive to plant every last inch of their land in subsidized crops (such as corn), which deliver some of the lowest dollar figures per acre and require heavy inputs of fertilizer.

  Right-Wing Rating Farmers do not want to be dependent on the government. Subsidies are a tremendous waste of taxpayer money.

  Left-Wing Rating Cut subsidies to corporate farms, but give assistance to small family farms and to poor people who need assistance buying food.

  Each to the Other: “You first!”

  The Bottom Line

  Our current system is broken. In practice, states just don’t have enough incentives to clean up our water system and the intent of our laws is being skirted. With the laws that currently exist there is very little enforcement to control runoff from farms and yards into larger areas of water. Some local and state legislation restricts the use of a few fertilizers and offers incentives to install buffer strips to catch fertilizer runoff, but these actions have not changed the big picture.

  With the laws that currently exist there is very little enforcement to control runoff from farms and yards into larger areas of water.

  We currently do not have a firm grasp on exactly how much pollution is caused by any specific nonpoint source and so we’re doing a lot of guessing when we look at options. Not that our efforts will make things worse, but it’s possible that they won’t help as much, or as quickly, as we think they will. That said, we should start with simple-to-implement techniques that would mitigate the problem, including no-till and reduced-till farming and buffer strips. We can take these steps while we continue to debate what farmers and homeowners should do of their own accord and what the federal and state governments should regulate and enforce. Meanwhile, the rising cost of fertilizers will begin to cause a reduction in their use.

  CHAPTER 5

  Alternative Energy:

  Is Ethanol Overrated?

  DURING THE 2008 presidential election, T. Boone Pickins, a billionaire from Texas who made his money running Mesa Petroleum, a large, independent oil and gas company, bought ads promoting his energy plan. Unlike most ads during campaign season, the energy plan was not a Trojan horse to promote or disparage particular candidates or political parties. Pickens’s plan would rely heavily on natural gas (intended for automobiles), nuclear power, and alternat
ive energy sources—primarily wind power—and would, theoretically, greatly reduce our country’s need for oil. Because of its reliance on wind power, this plan would increase the number of power-generating wind turbines across the midwestern United States. These commercials touched a chord with many voters worried about gas prices approaching 4 a gallon. Candidates of both parties promoted their own plans to increase energy production—including the use of alternative energies—to address the public’s anxieties.

  In 2008, more than 83 percent of the energy in the United States was supplied by fossil fuels, around 8 percent by nuclear energy, and just over 7 percent by alternative sources of energy such as wind, solar, and biomass power. We all know that we cannot continue to depend on fossil fuels indefinitely. How rapidly the supply of fossil fuels will disappear is an open question, but as long as we continue to use these resources at our current rate, the ultimate ending is a foregone conclusion.

  Various groups are convinced that wind, biofuel, tidal current, solar, hydroelectric, or nuclear power will offer the solution to our country’s energy needs. Most scientists think that it’s some combination of all of the above, as well as some as-yet-undiscovered fuel sources. Still others think that the ultimate answer will necessarily include a considerable amount of conservation. All of these ideas have their benefits and drawbacks. The government itself has focused much of its efforts on funding biofuel research, which is a very interesting decision considering that biofuels have drawbacks that put them at odds with other policies our government has implemented (see the chapters on global warming and fertilizers).