Did you know that agriculture is the leading source of water pollution across the country? ¹

Or that every spring, farm fertilizer and manure runoff kills marine life in an 8,000 square mile area of the Gulf of Mexico? ²

Bet you didn't know that despite the seriousness and scale of the problem, there are few and limited federal policy controls on water pollution from farms.

To solve these longstanding challenges, the federal government still relies on a voluntary policy approach that centers on paying farmers to do the right thing.

A federal Farm Bill program called EQIP ³ sends about $1 billion every year to farmers nationwide, paying up to 75 percent of the cost of practices that protect the environment and are good for the farmer's bottom line.

However, in our new report on EQIP in the 10 states that border the Mississippi River, EWG found that EQIP funds are not being channeled to projects that hold the most promise for alleviating local water pollution and shrinking the Gulf's so-called "Dead Zone."

The reality is, there's never going to be enough taxpayer money to help all farmers reduce their environmental impact. Year after year, Congress strips money from agricultural conservation programs.

Congress and the President's Agriculture Department can accomplish much more with limited taxpayer funds by first fully funding EQIP, then targeting funds toward projects designed to clean up specific streams, rivers and lakes.

The voluntary approach to farm pollution has a shot at working if the U.S. Department of Agriculture:

1. Sets environmental goals for the EQIP program
2. Figures out which polluted water bodies are the priorities for cleanup 
3. Designs watershed-scale water quality projects to achieve those goals

But if USDA continues to delay effective action on the rising toll of agricultural water pollution, we have to start talking about regulations.

The Hill newspaper published its annual list of Washington DC's top lobbyists. EWG's president and co-founder Ken Cook made the top lobbyist list for grassroots:

The support of their own grassroots networks combined with their own legislative acumen give the following people an edge as they fight for their causes on Capitol Hill.

Ken Cook, Environmental Working Group. Cook has challenged the orthodoxy that biofuels are by definition good for the environment.

The New York Times editorial board weighed in over the weekend on the current debate over corn ethanol's total life cycle greenhouse gas emissions:

Representative Collin Peterson is furious that the Environmental Protection Agency is doing its job. The Minnesota Democrat says the agency is trying to kill off the biofuels industry -- to the dismay of the corn farmers and ethanol producers he represents. He has vowed to vote against any bill, including climate change legislation, that might require the involvement of the E.P.A.

What inspired this tirade was an E.P.A. draft proposal showing how it intended to measure the greenhouse gas emissions from corn ethanol and other renewable fuels. The agency said it will not make any final rules until it completes further research, but its preliminary findings were not flattering to corn ethanol.

Read it all here.

EWG Midwest VP Craig Cox penned an op-ed in the morning's Minneapolis Star Tribune on Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota's threats to hold climate legislation hostage.

The tirade that House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota recently delivered accusing the Environmental Protection Agency of sinking the corn-ethanol industry has many of us in the environmental community scratching our heads. Peterson accused federal officials of being "in bed with the oil companies" because their science-based analysis found that corn ethanol doesn't reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as much as the industry claims.

On Friday, Peterson's anger turned to threats in comments to Agriculture.com that included: "... If they don't fix this, I'm going to bring this climate bill down," a reference to legislation he introduced the day before to strip the science-based analysis of biofuels from the Renewable Fuel Standard. Apparently, the chairman intends to hold critical climate-change legislation hostage unless corn ethanol receives yet another free pass.

Go here to read the whole piece.

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The corn ethanol industry is misrepresenting scientific facts in efforts to dupe the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) into waiving critical public health protections for the sake of boosting ethanol sales.

In a letter delivered today, Environmental Working Group (EWG) urged EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to reject a petition by leading ethanol industry group Growth Energy to waive restrictions under the federal Clean Air Act so that fuel blenders can add up to 50 percent more ethanol to gasoline, raising engine fuel's maximum ethanol content from 10 percent (E10) to 15 percent (E15).

If Administrator Jackson bends to industry's pressure, the results could be expensive and dangerous for the great majority of Americans: increased air pollution could aggravate children's health problems, and hundreds of millions of engines, especially small motors and older vehicle engines, could be damaged. Last Friday, EPA extended its public comment period by 60 days. EPA's decision on Growth Energy's petition is now expected in late July.

In the letter to Administrator Jackson, EWG summarizes a detailed review of scientific research on the health, safety and environmental consequences of so-called intermediate ethanol fuel blends, which the U.S. Department of Energy defines as blends with more than 10 percent ethanol. EWG's analysis concludes that scientists have found many reasons to be wary of blends with higher ethanol content and no scientific rationale to favor them.

EWG's research highlights Growth Energy's numerous fundamental errors of fact and interpretation of numerous scientific reports. Strikingly, contrary to Growth Energy's assertions, every study the industry group cites to support its petition contains evidence that undermines the case for E15 and above. When examined closely, these studies lead to the conclusion that intermediate fuel blends are incompatible with cars and trucks currently on American roads and with hundreds of millions of non-road engines, like power tools and marine engines.

As well, the EWG letter and supporting white paper lay out evidence that fuel blends above E10 could generate significantly more air-polluting emissions, with serious and lasting impact on human health and the environment.

"With consensus building that ethanol is at a dead end financially and environmentally, the ethanol industry is misrepresenting facts, inaccurately citing science and providing EPA with an error-ridden petition for new and potentially dangerous fuel blends," said Craig Cox, Environmental Working Group Midwest vice-president. "Increasing corn ethanol production will exacerbate the long list of problems ethanol poses to our society, from engines to air, water, wildlife habitat and human health," Cox said.

"Growth Energy is lobbying for an industry that cannot survive on its own, even after lavish taxpayer-funded subsidies. This push to promote E15 is a desperate move to expand the market for corn-ethanol and to shore up ethanol producers who over-built their capacity in a rush to profit from misguided federal mandates that force refiners to blend corn-ethanol into gasoline, at the expense of the rest of us. The Growth Energy petition is yet another plea for a handout to an industry totally dependent of government support and a serious distraction from what we should be doing: putting more fuel efficient vehicles on the road and working hard to find real solutions for a clean, secure energy future," Cox concluded.

EWG's key findings:

· Contrary to Growth Energy's claims, available data do not demonstrate that cars, other vehicles, and small engines burning ethanol in any amount over 10 percent would meet emission standards over their useful life, as is required under the Clean Air Act waiver provisions. Data cited in the petition not only fail to support the corn lobby's claims but demonstrate that a waiver would compromise the bedrock air quality protection principles of the Clean Air Act.

· Currently available scientific studies indicate that intermediate ethanol blends pose significant risks to human health and the environment. They do not support a decision to approve blends above E10.

· A comprehensive assessment of ethanol fuel impacts on air quality should consider air emissions from all stages of fuel production, transportation, and combustion, and, as well as fuel compatibility with the current vehicle fleet, including catalyst durability, materials compatibility and drivability.

· Older vehicles and small engines operating on ethanol fuel blends would likely experience performance and safety problems. Unlike modern cars, small engines lack an oxygen sensor feedback control and cannot compensate for higher oxygen content in ethanol-containing fuels. As a result, engines operate under "lean" or oxygen-rich conditions and can quickly overheat.

Go here for the full letter http://www.ewg.org/letter/Factual-Analysis-Debunks-Corn-Ethanol-Industrys-Call-to-Waive-Clean-Air-Act-Fuel-Standards

Go here for the white paper http://www.ewg.org/reports/Ethanol-Gasoline-Fuel-Blends-Human-Health-Risks-and-Engine-Performance-Issues

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) takes the biggest hit, falling $250 million short of the funding promised in the 2008 farm bill. (see Table). The unkindest cut of all is the proposal to permanently cut the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) by over 138,000 acres⎯equivalent to a $350 million cut in funding for restoring wetlands, prime concentrated fauna for sequestering carbon emissions.

Decades of broken funding promises are a big reason why agriculture is a leading cause of pollution in U.S. lakes, rivers, and streams. Little progress has been made in reducing soil erosion since 1997; advanced soil, nutrient, livestock, and organic practices remain the exception rather than the rule in the United States; and wild lands are being plowed under to produce crops to meet increased demand for food and fuel. Agriculture has the potential to be carbon neutral, yet the Congressional Research Service reported that agriculture is currently sequestering only enough carbon to offset less than 5 percent of agriculture's greenhouse gas emissions each year.

"These cuts to conservation undermine the Administration's goals of reducing global warming, cleaning up waterways, and restoring balance and integrity to environmental programs," said Craig Cox, Environmental Working Group Midwest Vice-President. "We still have a long way to go to reduce soil erosion, water pollution, and declining wildlife habitat on agricultural land and global warming will make these long-standing problems much harder to solve. EQIP and WRP should be front and center in President Obama's environmental program, not on the cutting room floor," Cox said.

Now is not the time for backsliding on conservation promises.

Two important conservation programs do escape the budget knife. The Conservation Stewardship Program and the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program are left intact. The Conservation Reserve Program is spared, but is already slated to shrink because of action taken by Congress in the 2008 farm bill, and acres have been expiring by the thousands. EQIP funding is increased to $1.2 billion; the annual funding level it was supposed to reach in 2005.

"Despite a few bright spots, this budget doesn't even get us back to where we were supposed to be last year, let alone make up for the cuts conservation has taken every year since the 2008 farm bill became law," Cox said. "If this budget stands, conservation will be short over $1.3 billion dollars after one more year of broken promises."

Click here for the full release with the table.

From today's EWG news release:

WASHINGTON, May 7, 2009 - Making good on his promise to find savings in the federal budget, president Obama announced several proposed cuts today that could help reform a broken farm subsidy system. The most promising proposal centers on a total payment limit of $250,000 per person, down from the current $750,000 per person and $1.5 million per farm couple limit set in the 2008 farm bill.

Current farm programs represent gross inequity in payment distribution. Nearly 90% of all federal farm payments go to only five favored crops that include corn, wheat, cotton, soybeans, and rice, while fresh fruits, vegetables and organic agriculture receive little.

Worse yet, the vast majority of taxpayer support directed at the biggest operations and wealthiest landowners. EWG data shows that the largest 10% of farms receive almost 70% of total farm payments. Often, the large plantation scale operations use the increased capitol to outbid smaller family farmers for land.

"We're encouraged that bluster from the agribusiness as usual subsidy lobby has not deterred the president in his efforts to find meaningful savings and cut waste and abuse. Millionaires, wealthy landowners and large profitable farm operations do not need taxpayer funded support, while thousands of struggling family farmers do," said Craig Cox, Environmental Working Group Midwest Vice-President.

There is also broad public sentiment that these programs are rife with waste and abuse and in desperate need of reform. A new poll conducted by the World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that 61% of polled Americans oppose farm subsidies to large operations while 77% support subsidies to small farmers of under 500 acres. In the last farm bill debate, nearly 500 editorials from almost every daily newspaper in the country advocated for reform.

President Obama also included several positive proposals that relate to agriculture programs, including fully funding a nutrition program for Women Infants and Children (WIC), and $1 billion annually for childhood nutrition re-authorization. Additionally, the president is making resolving the longstanding issue of discrimination against black farmers by the US Department of Agriculture a priority.

"President Obama realizes that American families are getting hit hard by the current economic recession, and often our nutrition and food stamp programs are the last lines of defense for hungry children. We applaud his efforts to increase nutrition funding," Cox added.

"President Obama's budget proposal is an important step in the process of redressing decades of discrimination against black farmers on the part of USDA. EWG will be closely monitoring the implementation of this proposal by the administration and Congress to ensure that discrimination claims with merit will be dealt with fairly--and immediately," Cox said.


# # #

It's been a hectic, heady week in Washington DC for proponents and opponents of federal support for ethanol. First you have the EPA moving toward a science based analysis of ethanol production's total contribution to green house gas emissions, and then Agriculture Committee Chairman Colin Peterson's rant and pouting position on climate change legislation.

Today sees the release of a new Friends of the Earth report, Boon to Bad Biofuels, that estimates subsidies to ethanol and biodiesel totaled $9.5 billion in 2008. These subsidies will climb to $60 billion by 2022 if current, flawed policy stays in place.

In January, the Environmental Working Group issued a related analysis detailing how corn-based ethanol has accounted for fully three-quarters of the tax benefits and two-thirds of all federal subsidies allotted for renewable energy sources in 2007. Meanwhile, solar, wind and other renewable energy sources have struggled to gain significant market share with modest federal support.

"The much touted new investment--$14.5 billion over ten years--in renewable energy in the recently passed stimulus package pales in comparison to the amount of subsidies the FOE report reveals are still going to ethanol. In two years we will spend more on corn-ethanol than we will invest over the next decade on solar, wind, and other renewable energy option. It is clear that current policy is taking America in the opposite direction of a true renewable energy policy," said Craig Cox, EWG Midwest Vice President from Ames, IA about the FOE report.

Two new pieces of information buttress the notion endorsed by over 470 editorials that taxpayer funded farm program payments to millionaires, wealthy landowners and large profitable farm businesses needs critical reform.

The first, a poll conducted by World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, found that:

Eighty percent of US subsidies go to large farming businesses, however only 36 percent of Americans favor such subsidies while 61 percent oppose them. Opposition to subsidies for large farms was not substantively or statistically different among Republicans (62%), Democrats (60%), and independents (59%).

Seventy-seven percent of Americans do, however, favor providing subsidies to small farms (i.e. farms under 500 acres). Support is highest among Democrats (82%), followed by Republicans (73%) and then Independents (69%). Most small farms do not receive subsidies.

Read the whole poll on farm subsidies here.

--

The Sioux Falls, SD Argus Leader's editorial board recently weighed in on the issue:

At some point, federal farm subsidies are going to have to end. That's a bitter pill to swallow for those of us in South Dakota.

and

The reason the subsidies were created in the first place was to help farmers prepare to compete someday in a free-market system. That system, though, never arrived. Now, the subsidies are just too costly to continue to justify.

It seems the only folks that don't want reform, are the wealthy farmers and operations that receive taxpayer funds, and the members of the agriculture committees who control the purse strings.