Tracy Press

In their understandable zeal to save the planet from itself, environmentalists might be guilty of overreach and overreaction — by viewing agricultural, and more specifically its management and practices, in the same regulatory light as pollution-causing industries.

It’s a sad turn of events.

For decades, a stalwart alliance existed between the agricultural and environmental communities. Each had a profound appreciation for the land and its resources; indeed, the agricultural community was viewed as a steward of the environment. But lately, these two groups have become strange bedfellows, each side tolerating the other. To paraphrase a classic Woody Allen joke (itself a paraphrase of a familiar Biblical passage), the lion did indeed layeth down with the lamb — but the lamb didn’t get much sleep.

And now, the lamb had better start running, because a continuing series of challenges has begun to cast agriculture as a polluter and resource abuser. It’s a situation that only growers and their extended business family can change — and must, in order to save their way of life, protect their legacy and continue to be the most productive and efficient farmers in the entire world.

The cases of National Resources Defense Fund v. Kempthorne, and Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman’s Associations v. Gutierrez — pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California — will likely be pivotal decisions, affecting the amount of water available to farmers in the Central Valley. Some say they could reduce water for farming by as much as 50 percent.

How can farming manage if farmers lose half of their water? And if that is what will happen, how will it happen and for how long? In the meantime, the need to provide food at a reasonable price and the impact on a huge economic engine might be ignored in deference to a perceived environmental issue.

This is troubling. Water resources are similarly at risk in such lawsuits as California Sportsfishing Protection Alliance v. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, a suit just commencing in Superior Court.

This case relates to the use of Delta water by agriculture and how it affects the Delta smelt, an undeniably threatened species. Yet it is clear that there is an entire laundry list of factors that could be contributing to the situation — not justthe amount of water (and maybe not even that).

This is not to suggest that when it comes to the environment, the agricultural industry should get a free pass. Some of its practices should be carefully examined, evaluated and changed. But a legitimate question needs to be asked as to whether the model for that examination — the creation and enforcement of environmental requirements used for manufacturing-based resolutions — fits agriculture.

Food, unlike manufactured goods, is a requirement for existence, one that needs to be available at a reasonable price. Yet agriculture is a risk-intensive business. Profit margins are often thin and subject to market and weather fluctuations, an impact other industries are not as sensitive to.

Agriculture is also a strong part of California’s economy — and, because growing plants aids in offsetting carbon emissions, it’s an increasingly “green” industry.

The agricultural community needs to be a gladiator in the regulatory arena. It needs to unite and speak up on its behalf — loudly and strongly. California regulators need to hear from the community and be made aware of the impact that a variety of environmental policies have on the farm. They need to be informed if the approaches suggested are rational and economical. They even need to be told if there is, in fact, a real problem or whether the problem is being portrayed accurately or disproportionately to its impact.

If healthy, rational debate cannot inspire reasonable solutions, the agricultural industry shouldn’t shy away from litigation. While they’re not likely to become allies in the near future, environmentalists and growers need to agree on one basic principle: Saving the planet and saving the family farm do not have to be mutually exclusive causes.

Steven Hoch is the managing partner of the Los Angeles office of the Hatch & Parent law firm. He has 20 years of legal experience, most of which has entailed taking the leading position in major and complex environmental matters and civil actions.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (0)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments