Editorial

The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency claims that her agency is misunderstood and that, gosh, if everyone only knew the purity of their motives, they would see only the best of intentions.

That, in essence, summarizes the message EPA administrator Lisa Jackson delivered to members of the North American Agricultural Journalists during a recent visit to EPA headquarters.

"We need to get past myths versus reality," she told Jerry Hagstrom, our Washington, D.C., correspondent.

Good idea. Nothing works better than the truth when it comes to understanding what a powerful government agency is up to, especially as it relates to farming.

Myth No. 1: The "cow tax," which she termed a "horrible, horrible story." OK, it wasn't a tax. It was cow flatulence regulation. But most regulations ultimately are accompanied by some sort of fine or fee, which is also known as a tax.

The regulatory proposal was real. "The EPA indeed issued an 'advanced notice of proposed rulemaking' this summer that called for public comments on the idea of regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars, as well as 'stationary sources' -- which, yes, would include cows and other livestock," Kate Galbraith, a New York Times reporter, said in a Dec. 1, 2008, online post.

Myth No. 2: Dust regulations. Every time the EPA brings up the subject of dust, farmers and ranchers get nervous. Dust is a byproduct of nearly everything that happens on a farm or ranch. Harvest, field work, moving cattle -- even driving down the road -- all produce dust. When an agency wants to regulate that, most farmers and ranchers legitimately wonder just how it will hurt them.

Myth No. 3: Chemical drift. Jackson said the agency doesn't have a "no-spray drift policy." However, exactly what that means is not clear. She said she is considering a label provision that states it is impossible to avoid drift. This is likely something any farmer could have told her long before the "myth" came along.

Myth No. 4: Working with USDA. Apparently, she and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack are new best buddies. She said that just as she was going to drop the hammer on corn-based ethanol production, USDA convinced her that it was "climate-neutral."

What she -- and USDA -- didn't say is a higher ethanol percentage in gasoline sends the prices of corn and feed through the barn roof, putting dairy, cattle and poultry producers at risk.

Myth No. 5: Cap and trade. Jackson said the EPA has no power to put in place such a system, because it isn't authorized by Congress. Why, then, did the Obama administration clearly imply that as an option during debate over that policy? That was their doing, not the so-called myth-makers.

Jackson said she has been making the rounds lately in farm country, and that she is impressed by how farmers and ranchers respect and provide stewardship for the environment. That's a good thing, and no doubt the agricultural community appreciates those thoughts.

However, a big portion of the distrust aimed at EPA -- or any other government agency -- can usually be traced to a lack of openness on the agency's part.

The closed-door meetings on dust regulations provide a perfect example. EPA folks said the meetings were held in secret so agricultural groups would not be afraid to speak up. That's nonsense.

If someone is reticent about speaking about a regulation that has the potential of putting him out of business, we'd like to see it.

Closing the meetings opened the door to the suspicion that EPA officials might tailor the comments and outcomes to suit them.

We're all for giving EPA the benefit of the doubt. But we're even more in favor of a truly transparent EPA that allows all farmers and ranchers to participate in protecting the environment.

And here's something else that's not a myth: Farmers and ranchers were taking care of the environment long before Jackson or the EPA happened on the scene.