Spring 1995
End the Regulatory Horror Stories
By Jerry Nordick, President of Minnesota Association of Wheat Growers
Library
Home
E-Mail
Back
Prairie Grains is the
official publication of
the Minnesota
Association of
Wheat Growers,
North Dakota Grain
Growers Association,
South Dakota Wheat,
Inc., and the
Minnesota Barley
Growers Association.
These "phantom wetlands," as Chuck Merja, National Association of Wheat Growers vice president calls them, scared away the buyer, who along with other prospects may not bite again unless the situation can be resolved.
My question to the realtor: how much will the Ws devalue the 320 acres in question? $250 to $300 an acre was the answer, or $80,000 to $95,000. That's serious money.
Problem is, if the present landowner appeals the wetlands designation, it will open all his land up for redetermination, and thus further possible scrutiny.
I could fill this magazine with regulatory horror stories that I've heard through the years, and I'm sure many farmers could quote their own examples.
Using a formula that computed how regulations deduct from our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), The American Farm Bureau Federation figures regulations cost agriculture an estimated $18 billion annually.
As I see it, profit is more than just the price of wheat. The array of regulations implemented in the past all too often sidestepped common sense and merely added to the expense side of the farm ledger.
The good news: There exists in Washington, D.C. right now the most receptive climate for regulatory reform in years.
Serious consideration will be given to reforming Swampbuster, which could include a change in wetlands definitions and an exemption for frequently cropped wetlands (the six years out of 10 clause).
Volunteer initiatives by farmers to manage farm run-off may be built into changes to the Clean Water Act. The importance of economic impact may finally be attached to the Endangered Species Act.
The House has passed legislation that would provide compensation for property devalued by government regulations. A final outcome on this has yet to be determined, but this is an impressive first hurdle to be cleared.
Food safety legislation reform is on the horizon, that will ensure benefits will be considered as much as risks in determining whether a crop protectant should be introduced or maintained in the marketplace.
Research on the issue will continue, but I'd like to see conservation compliance added to the list of reforms to be looked at. We are hearing more about how forced compliance and residue- regardless of weather conditions- are increasing the exposure crops have to diseases in many parts of the United States.
A caveat to targeted reforms: The clout of environmental groups has weakened on Capitol Hill with the change in political leadership. Thus, to capture attention some are turning more vocal and hysterical. We'll need to counter that if necessary.
Another caveat is that some lawmakers may try to use regulatory reform as a trade-off for cuts in commodity price supports. However, the Wheat Growers will point out that regulatory reform and commodity price supports are two different issues, and should be treated as such.
I am optimistic that we can overcome these obstacles and obtain regulatory relief on many environmental issues.
There are two simple points underlying all of these issues to bring out in making our case.
One is the need for a better cost versus benefit ratio that gives more consideration to economics.
And at the local level, land and farming situations are not all the same. Therefore, we need flexibility in laws that all too often in the past have been doled out in catch-all federal blankets.