Keeping an eye on government agencies is a full-time job, and that’s why we have dedicated organizations working for us—someone must guard our industry. In the early 1970s, during the Nixon administration, the government became very environmentally conscious and passed the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and they created the Environmental Protection Agency. At the time, rivers were literally on fire, smog filled the air in many cities and the oceans were dying from pollution. These laws accomplished their goals and then some.
Ever since these laws have been in place, many groups have learned how to use the courts to manipulate the agencies to recognize their agendas. It’s ironic that small, loud advocacy groups can get so much attention from the government, but as you know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
We have derailed the original intent of many environmental laws, which Congress never intended. Congress makes the general laws, and the agencies responsible for implementing these new laws get to write the fine points of the law, and it’s usually written to cater to someone’s ideological beliefs. Congress needs to do a better job of writing laws that someone else is implementing.
These are your unelected bureaucrats at work. Lobby groups work on the agencies to bend the law in their favor. And I imagine these bureaucrats receive favor for complying with special interest groups.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is working on expanding the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to increase an endangered species candidate’s habitat. They want to experiment with placing ESA candidates into habitats outside of their historical range. Specifically, USFWS proposes to revise the regulations concerning experimental populations of endangered species and threatened species under the ESA. They are proposing to remove language generally restricting the introduction of populations into habitat outside of their historical range for conservation purposes and also to provide for the conservation of certain species. They have concluded that it may be increasingly necessary and appropriate to establish experimental populations outside of the historical range if the ability of the habitat to support one or more life history stages has been reduced due to threats such as climate change or invasive species.
I must apologize for bringing this federal rule-making process to you after the comment period has closed, which occurred on Aug. 8th. I read many of the comments posted on the electronic filing site and found most comments not in support of this proposed rule change. But this is the kind of agency leadership we’re dealing with, and this is just one example of what I call mission creep—and it’s everywhere in government.
This proposal is dangerous to every landowner in America. When agencies start changing rules, it threatens landowners and their ability to manage that resource to their benefit while being responsible to the environment. Then, suddenly, your property has been designated as experimental habitat for some species. The government is now managing your property to their benefit, not yours.
An interesting sidebar is the recently passed Inflation Reduction Act: the Democrat-only bill. They needed Sen. Joe Manchin’s (D-WV) vote to get it done. The party promised him they would reform NEPA to accommodate his desire to build more infrastructure for West Virginia energy producers. My bet is that he never sees any action for his $750-billion vote for energy transformation. Now we get a much larger IRS and the ability for Medicare to negotiate drug purchases starting in 2026. And about $400 billion in Green New Deal stuff, which is generous.
We all know that the ESA and all the other environmental laws had good intentions, but 50 years of mission creep has changed the law dramatically—or perhaps sharp attorneys have learned how to bend the laws for a desired outcome.
These laws have hamstrung the country’s ability to grow and develop and serve society. There haven’t been any new oil refineries built since 1970. Wouldn’t you think that the oil industry—and new technologies—would do a better job of protecting the environment?
The agencies writing the rules for these laws have had far too much power in regulating industry, and it has become very clear that politics play a significant role in the rule-making process. This administration is all about climate change, where the last administration was all about commerce.
Our ag institutions need to keep a sharp eye on these agencies and new laws, and Congress needs to fix some of the old laws. Feeding the country needs to be taken seriously by everyone—it’s becoming fragile. Keep praying for rain. — PETE CROW
