Jon Scholl has been the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Counselor to the Administrator for Agricultural Policy since August of 2004. His position requires him to provide policy advice on issues that affect agriculture and serve as a liaison between the agriculture community and EPA. Partners magazine spoke with him earlier this month.
Partners Magazine: While assisting the agriculture community with environmental issues, have there been any major successes or disappointments?
Jon Scholl: Certainly, a lot of the issues tend to be controversial and aren’t easily resolved, but I have been excited by success with programs like the Air Consent Agreements for animal feeding operations (AFOs), which is on a positive course forward. The AFO agreement has progressed nicely in a way that meets the environmental challenge of quantifying air emissions from livestock operations that we need to address, and works well for agriculture. There are also a number of issues we resolved successfully on the pesticide registration front. These were significant challenges for the Agency and very important for agriculture. There are other issues such as renewable energy and the revision of the CAFO rule where progress is seen.
PM: Is the adversarial relationship between agriculture and EPA imagined or real?
JS: If you look back through the history of the Agency, there has been a lot of tension in the relationship. I’ve been in agriculture all my life, and I’ve seen a lot of those difficult issues that we’ve had to deal with. The Agency has evolved from taking primarily an enforcement approach to one of recognition that there are other tools in the tool box that can be used to make environmental progress in agriculture. While we’re still going to have difficult and contentious issues, the Agency is much better poised to look at an array of programs- voluntary, collaborative, and innovative- in addition to the enforcement programs the Agency is known for, that should work much better for the agriculture industry.
PM: What is EPA's National Strategy for Agriculture? Why is it important?
JS: The National Strategy for Agriculture responds to a point that both President Bush and my boss, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson, feel strongly about: Agriculture is a producer of solutions. We want to look at agriculture in positive ways, engaging the industry in innovative, collaborative, and voluntary programs, not just regulations. We think we can do this by creating a greater awareness within the Agency of what agriculture is all about, and the contributions it can make. We want to focus on solutions to environmental problems in a positive, proactive manner, communicate better with the farming community, and review the validity of the way we measure environmental progress.
PM: Was there any particular event, cultural shift at EPA, or catalyst for the generation of a strategy?
JS: There is a strong desire and recognition in the Agency that, especially with agriculture, we need to take a different approach. We recognize farmers and ranchers are good stewards of their environment. We want to build on the natural inclination of producers to keep their environment clean and productive. When we talk to producers, one of the things we hear often is a high level of frustration with EPA, the large number of issues that have to be addressed within the different parts of the Agency, and in many cases, the number of different federal agencies that they have to work with to address these environmental issues. All this led us to ask ourselves how we could better create a streamlined, effective program that achieves EPA's goals and those of the agricultural community.
PM: Much of the Strategy is about communication. Please provide specific examples of how EPA is tailoring its message to agriculture differently than before.
JS: EPA Administrator Johnson is being very visible with agriculture groups. He’s been busy the last several months attending meetings of the Farm Bureau, Pork Producers, Soybean Association, and others. Johnson wants to have a stronger relationship with the agriculture community, one built on collaboration, innovation and strong communications.
PM:The President’s directive to the Administrator to accelerate environmental
progress while maintaining a good economic environment is not unlike our
message at CTIC: there are profitable solutions to environmental management.
A lot of those solutions we believe come from accurate data, proper
assessment of the situation, and distribution of reliable information. Part
of the Agriculture Strategy talks about being able to identify and assess
environmental improvements. What are some of the methods that EPA is
considering to do that?
JS: I don’t know that we have a complete answer to that yet. There’s an understanding, not only in terms of measuring environmental progress, but from a public accountability standpoint, that the Agency needs to do more to make sure we are hitting the mark. Some of the means we’ve used in the past, while useful, like measuring acres in conservation tillage and miles of filter strips installed, aren’t necessarily telling us the extent to which our environment is cleaner.
PM: EPA recently announced that a nationwide monitoring study to evaluate air emissions from Animal Feeding Operations will begin this winter. What is the latest news on the study?
JS: All of the Consent Agreements that were submitted by individual operators have been approved by the Agency. We’re now focused on getting the monitoring study plans finalized and getting equipment into the field. We expect that the monitoring survey will begin this winter, at which time we’ll start to get data that will give us a better, more accurate feel for emissions coming from AFOs.
PM: Given the diversity of factors that affect emissions, how will the emissions guidelines derived from the study represent the diversity of practices/locations/species of the AFO industry?
JS: The whole process is being led by one of the foremost experts on agriculture air quality issues in the U.S., Dr. Al Heber at Purdue University. He’ll be assisted by a number of experts from across the country. They’ll be looking at different climatic conditions, different species and size of operations, and various kinds of waste handling systems, to get the kind of emissions data we need. We’re making every effort to make sure the best scientists are involved. The Agency is playing an oversight role and approving plans that will get us the top quality data we all want.
PM: The public comment period for the Air Compliance Agreement for animal feeding operations generated approximately 650 unique comments. Much of the public response was ‘too much’ and ‘not enough’ on the same issues. For example, many respondents said the civil penalty payments were too high, while several others said they were too low. How do you balance those opposing viewpoints?
JS: First, it was an unprecedented event for the Agency to open the consent agreement for public discussion. That’s something the Agency typically doesn’t do, but because this approach was affecting so many operations and looking at the industry across the board, the agency felt that providing folks the opportunity to have input was important. In terms of trying to draw the line between those opposing viewpoints, the Agency is primarily focused on what will be effective. This is a unique agreement in part because we don’t know who is in compliance and who is out of compliance, due to an overall lack of data. That really drove the decisions when it came to issues like setting fines. The Agency tried to strike a balance between not being too onerous, yet making sure we had an instrument that would be effective in meeting our objectives.
PM: By working with AFO industry leaders to study emissions and develop the regulations, do you anticipate less confrontation at the implementation stage?
JS: The advantage we’ll have at that stage is that we’ll have some good scientific data. While I’m sure there’ll be some people on all sides of this issue that will have concerns, everyone will be better off at the end of the day because we’ll have information that we didn’t have before. That information will help us define what is being emitted, where certain laws or regulations come into play, and ultimately lead us towards a discussion of what kind of control measures agriculture might have to look at, if a problem does exist.
PM: Emissions regulations are still several years away. What can producers do in the interim to improve emissions at their facilities?
JS: Continue to follow best management practices (BMPs) as they currently exist. There’s going to be a lot of progress made in the next couple of years as we continue to get this information, but I think producers generally have a sense of what practices are currently available to run a good operation. Secondly, producers should remain alert to the progress the study makes over the next two years as information and data come available. As we learn more I’m sure there will be a lot of discussion about the new techniques and technology that would be beneficial in controlling air emissions.
PM: Is there an example of EPA and the agricultural community working together like this before? Has EPA worked cooperatively with other industries in this fashion?
JS: I can’t speak to the whole history of the Agency, but if you look at it in the context of agriculture and EPA needing to address an important issue, it certainly is unprecedented. I’m not aware of any program in the past where we’ve had over 2,500 different operations involved in a very positive and proactive manner on an issue of such importance. We have over 6,200 farms involved in this process. I’m confident in saying that we wouldn’t find too many other examples of such great involvement in that kind of collaborative relationship, and that would accomplish so much data collection in such a short time.
PM: Are there any projects on the horizon where this collaborative approach could be applied?
JS: There are a number of issues out there. One example is the Gulf Hypoxia issue, which deals with the Mississippi River basin, which takes in a big chunk of a lot of the production agriculture in the United States. It is an issue that agriculture and the Agency are concerned about. There’s a lot of effort being put into how we can look down the road and figure out new ways to address various issues.
PM: Is there anything else you’d like to share with our readers?
JS: We’re excited about the Agriculture Strategy and the vision it paints for a more collaborative relationship between agriculture and EPA. We’re pleased with the progress we’re making on the consent agreement; we think it’s an innovative approach and will do an effective job of addressing an important issue. The President has charged the Agency with accelerating environmental progress while maintaining our economic competitiveness. We believe a more collaborative relationship with agriculture is an important factor in meeting that charge.
