Off case
CP
Cant enforce it – the plan solves better
Kisiel ‘19
(Major Edwin Kisiel serves in the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps, “Using
Indirect Regulation to Reduce Environmental Damage From Farming,” Environmental Law
Reporter News and Analysis, pg nexus//um-ef)
C. Indirect Regulation Would Be the Most Effective Means to Regulate Pesticide Use
Traditional command-and-control policies could theoretically produce a more effective
result than indirect regulation. However, in practice this would be far more difficult to
achieve. 81Link to the text of the note First, the farm lobby has successfully resisted efforts
to impose regulations on farms. Second, enforcement in farm country is extremely
difficult due to the large area that farm country covers. Third, the current political
environment may make implementing changes of this magnitude difficult at the federal
level. The idea behind this proposal is to try to use a more directed, less intrusive
method of regulation before escalating to more intrusive regulation. This represents a
compromise position between continuing to let farmers choose how to best handle their crops
and providing regulatory controls over agrochemical use. Many farmers are responsible users
of agrochemicals, but there are "bad actors" who use excessive amounts of pesticides.
82Link to the text of the note This proposal would put the economic risks on farmers
whose agrochemical use is contrary to public policy goals of protecting pollinators and
promoting healthy ecosystems. This is contrasted to the status quo where the American
taxpayers potentially subsidize the economic risks of these bad actors. 83Link to the text of the
note
Farmers will fight the regs
Charles ‘17
(Dan, “Farmers Fight Environmental Regulations,” pg online @
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/03/07/518841084/farmers-fight-environmental-
regulations //um-ef)
The way environmentalist Craig Cox sees it, streams and rivers across much of the country are
suffering from the side effects of growing our food. Yet the people responsible for that pollution,
America's farmers, are fighting any hint of regulation to prevent it. "The leading problems
are driven by fertilizer and manure runoff from farm operations," says Cox, who is the
Environmental Working Group's top expert on agriculture. Across the Midwest, he says, nitrate-
filled water from farm fields is making drinking water less safe. Phosphorus runoff is feeding
toxic algae blooms in rivers and lakes, "interfering with people's vacations. [They're] taking their
kids to the beach and the beach is closed. There's stories about people getting sick." This is
preventable, Cox says. Farmers can take simple steps to reduce the problems
dramatically. They can plant "cover crops," making sure that there's always vegetation on
their fields to capture nitrates before that pollution runs into streams. They can plant wide,
grassy "filter strips" along stream banks. They can send the water from underground drainage
pipes into wetlands rather than straight into streams. Some farmers do this; many do not. And
This study source was downloaded by 100000836267798 from CourseHero.com on 04-04-2022 18:31:51 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/140270273/SA-round-2-2AC-docx/
, there's no law making it mandatory. The Clean Water Act, which has cleaned up pollution
from factories over the past 40 years, specifically exempts what it calls "normal farming
practices" like plowing or maintaining drainage ditches. In recent years, farmers have fought
any hint of stricter regulation. For instance, farm groups campaigned against the Clean
Water Rule, issued by the Obama administration. It defines what streams or wetlands are
considered waters of the U.S., and thus covered by the Clean Water Act. Don Parrish, senior
director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, says the rule's
definition is much too broad. "All of a sudden, farmers go from farming fields and land that they
have always farmed, to farming in 'waters of the U.S.,' " he says. Last week, President Trump
ordered a formal review of the Clean Water Rule, and his remarks made clear where he stood.
"It's a horrible, horrible rule," he said. "Has sort of a nice name, but everything else is bad." In
Iowa, meanwhile, the water utility for the city of Des Moines is facing a threat to its
existence because it picked a regulatory fight with the state's farmers. Two years ago, the
utility sued several nearby counties, demanding that they reduce nitrate levels in the
water that flows from farm drainage systems into the Racoon River, which supplies drinking
water to Des Moines. Bill Stowe, CEO of the Des Moines Water Works, says that "we're trying
to regulate what comes out of the underground drainage systems beneath farm fields and
empties into the waters of the state." Iowa's farm organizations have attacked the lawsuit.
Now a member of the Iowa Legislature — and full-time farmer — has introduced a bill that
would abolish the Des Moines Water Works.
Raises food prices, solves too slow, and links to politics
Foscolo and Zimmerman ‘15
(Jason Foscolo Southampton, New York Food and Agricultural Law Attorney Law Practice, LLC
Michael, Fordham University School of Law“Alternative Growth: Forsaking the False Economies
of Industrial Agriculture,” Fordham Environmental Law Review, pg online @
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1703&context=elr //um-ef)
At least in the short term, any tightening of environmental regulations on conventional
farms will almost certainly raise food prices, which have already been on the rise in recent
years.92 Lawmakers could soften this blow by pairing stricter regulations with cuts in the
federal programs that prop up food prices, such as feed crop subsidies, but are still likely to
pay a considerable political cost before consumers realize any tangible benefits. But this
calculation becomes less one-sided as conventional agriculture's environmental harms-
and the public's awareness of them-continue to build. The trends that have brought
alternative agriculture from the margins to the mainstream show no sign of abating. The market
has led the way-it is now the law's responsibility to catch up.
DA
Ag lobby will support the plan --- its money for farmers
This study source was downloaded by 100000836267798 from CourseHero.com on 04-04-2022 18:31:51 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/140270273/SA-round-2-2AC-docx/
CP
Cant enforce it – the plan solves better
Kisiel ‘19
(Major Edwin Kisiel serves in the U.S. Air Force Judge Advocate General's Corps, “Using
Indirect Regulation to Reduce Environmental Damage From Farming,” Environmental Law
Reporter News and Analysis, pg nexus//um-ef)
C. Indirect Regulation Would Be the Most Effective Means to Regulate Pesticide Use
Traditional command-and-control policies could theoretically produce a more effective
result than indirect regulation. However, in practice this would be far more difficult to
achieve. 81Link to the text of the note First, the farm lobby has successfully resisted efforts
to impose regulations on farms. Second, enforcement in farm country is extremely
difficult due to the large area that farm country covers. Third, the current political
environment may make implementing changes of this magnitude difficult at the federal
level. The idea behind this proposal is to try to use a more directed, less intrusive
method of regulation before escalating to more intrusive regulation. This represents a
compromise position between continuing to let farmers choose how to best handle their crops
and providing regulatory controls over agrochemical use. Many farmers are responsible users
of agrochemicals, but there are "bad actors" who use excessive amounts of pesticides.
82Link to the text of the note This proposal would put the economic risks on farmers
whose agrochemical use is contrary to public policy goals of protecting pollinators and
promoting healthy ecosystems. This is contrasted to the status quo where the American
taxpayers potentially subsidize the economic risks of these bad actors. 83Link to the text of the
note
Farmers will fight the regs
Charles ‘17
(Dan, “Farmers Fight Environmental Regulations,” pg online @
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/03/07/518841084/farmers-fight-environmental-
regulations //um-ef)
The way environmentalist Craig Cox sees it, streams and rivers across much of the country are
suffering from the side effects of growing our food. Yet the people responsible for that pollution,
America's farmers, are fighting any hint of regulation to prevent it. "The leading problems
are driven by fertilizer and manure runoff from farm operations," says Cox, who is the
Environmental Working Group's top expert on agriculture. Across the Midwest, he says, nitrate-
filled water from farm fields is making drinking water less safe. Phosphorus runoff is feeding
toxic algae blooms in rivers and lakes, "interfering with people's vacations. [They're] taking their
kids to the beach and the beach is closed. There's stories about people getting sick." This is
preventable, Cox says. Farmers can take simple steps to reduce the problems
dramatically. They can plant "cover crops," making sure that there's always vegetation on
their fields to capture nitrates before that pollution runs into streams. They can plant wide,
grassy "filter strips" along stream banks. They can send the water from underground drainage
pipes into wetlands rather than straight into streams. Some farmers do this; many do not. And
This study source was downloaded by 100000836267798 from CourseHero.com on 04-04-2022 18:31:51 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/140270273/SA-round-2-2AC-docx/
, there's no law making it mandatory. The Clean Water Act, which has cleaned up pollution
from factories over the past 40 years, specifically exempts what it calls "normal farming
practices" like plowing or maintaining drainage ditches. In recent years, farmers have fought
any hint of stricter regulation. For instance, farm groups campaigned against the Clean
Water Rule, issued by the Obama administration. It defines what streams or wetlands are
considered waters of the U.S., and thus covered by the Clean Water Act. Don Parrish, senior
director of congressional relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, says the rule's
definition is much too broad. "All of a sudden, farmers go from farming fields and land that they
have always farmed, to farming in 'waters of the U.S.,' " he says. Last week, President Trump
ordered a formal review of the Clean Water Rule, and his remarks made clear where he stood.
"It's a horrible, horrible rule," he said. "Has sort of a nice name, but everything else is bad." In
Iowa, meanwhile, the water utility for the city of Des Moines is facing a threat to its
existence because it picked a regulatory fight with the state's farmers. Two years ago, the
utility sued several nearby counties, demanding that they reduce nitrate levels in the
water that flows from farm drainage systems into the Racoon River, which supplies drinking
water to Des Moines. Bill Stowe, CEO of the Des Moines Water Works, says that "we're trying
to regulate what comes out of the underground drainage systems beneath farm fields and
empties into the waters of the state." Iowa's farm organizations have attacked the lawsuit.
Now a member of the Iowa Legislature — and full-time farmer — has introduced a bill that
would abolish the Des Moines Water Works.
Raises food prices, solves too slow, and links to politics
Foscolo and Zimmerman ‘15
(Jason Foscolo Southampton, New York Food and Agricultural Law Attorney Law Practice, LLC
Michael, Fordham University School of Law“Alternative Growth: Forsaking the False Economies
of Industrial Agriculture,” Fordham Environmental Law Review, pg online @
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1703&context=elr //um-ef)
At least in the short term, any tightening of environmental regulations on conventional
farms will almost certainly raise food prices, which have already been on the rise in recent
years.92 Lawmakers could soften this blow by pairing stricter regulations with cuts in the
federal programs that prop up food prices, such as feed crop subsidies, but are still likely to
pay a considerable political cost before consumers realize any tangible benefits. But this
calculation becomes less one-sided as conventional agriculture's environmental harms-
and the public's awareness of them-continue to build. The trends that have brought
alternative agriculture from the margins to the mainstream show no sign of abating. The market
has led the way-it is now the law's responsibility to catch up.
DA
Ag lobby will support the plan --- its money for farmers
This study source was downloaded by 100000836267798 from CourseHero.com on 04-04-2022 18:31:51 GMT -05:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/140270273/SA-round-2-2AC-docx/
