Abstract
Agricultural law and environmental law in the United States are individually vast areas of legislation, regulation, and jurisprudence involving a wide array of objects, actors, rights, and duties. There is also significant overlap between the two areas due to agriculture’s dependence on the natural environment for production of food, feed, fiber, and fuel. In relation to the concept of agroecology, this chapter explores the legal and regulatory framework to identify how it influences agricultural practice in relation to environmental protection and the design and management of agroecosystems within the US. Laws and regulations implemented by different actors at both the federal and state/local levels are explored according to various agroecosystem components and environmental media (e.g., land, water, air). In general, the US framework for agricultural law and environmental law was found to not promote a holistic agroecology approach. Instead, the system aims to ensure a basic level of environmental protection in the design and management of agroecosystems through a fractionated approach, including multiple different regulatory schemes administered by agencies at varying levels that apply differently to various types and sizes of actors.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (2006).
- 2.
Art. VI, U.S. Constitution.
- 3.
- 4.
Arts. I-III, U.S. Constitution.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
Strauss (1984), pp. 573–669.
- 8.
Rosenbloom (1983), pp. 219–227 (discussing the multifaceted role of administrative agencies in terms of “managerial,” “legal,” and “political” functions following the separation of powers divide).
- 9.
Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seqq.
- 10.
- 11.
Rehnquist (1986), pp. 345–376.
- 12.
- 13.
Horwitz (1982), pp. 1423–1428.
- 14.
Horwitz (1982).
- 15.
Agricultural Act of 2014, H.R. 2642, Pub. L. 113–79; see Dimitri et al. (2005) The 20th Century Transformation of U.S. Agriculture and Farm Policy. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Information Bulletin No. 3:i–14. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/259572/eib3_1_.pdf.
- 16.
Worster (1982).
- 17.
Worster (1982).
- 18.
For a historical look at the development of the Farm Bill, see McGranahan et al. (2013), pp. 67A–73A.
- 19.
McGranahan et al. (2013).
- 20.
McGranahan et al. (2013).
- 21.
Benschoter v. Hakes, 8 N.W.2d 481 (Iowa 1943); Pollack v. Pollack, 72 N.W.2d 483 (Iowa 1955); Denton v. Moser, 241 N.W.2d 28 (Iowa 1976); Morling v. Schmidt, 299 N.W.2d 480 (Iowa 1980); Ganzer v. Pfab, 360 N.W.2d 754 (Iowa 1985).
- 22.
Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seqq.; Meiners and Morriss (2000).
- 23.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seqq.
- 24.
See note 8.
- 25.
Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 16 U.S.C. § 1531 et seqq.
- 26.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seqq.
- 27.
Ruhl (2000), pp. 263–349.
- 28.
House (2006).
- 29.
Rumley (2014) States’ Right-To-Farm Statutes. National AgLaw Center Research Publication. http://nationalaglawcenter.org/state-compilations/right-to-farm/. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
- 30.
New York Right-To-Farm statute, N.Y. Agric. & Mkts. §§ 300–310; Bormann v. Board of Supervisors in and for Kossuth County, 584 N.W.2d 309 (Iowa 1998); Farm Foundation, Right-To-Farm Laws (2014) History & Future. https://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles/129-hipp.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
- 31.
Art. I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution.
- 32.
- 33.
Houck and Rolland (1995), pp. 1242–1314 (discussing various delegations of authority); Gutherz (2011), pp. 289–320 (presenting an interesting discussion of the recent court findings leading to uncertainty about the constitutionality of environmental statutes and how they could affect adoption of climate change legislation).
- 34.
Iowa Code § 161A.4 (“measures including but not limited to the control of floods, the control of erosion by water or by wind, the preservation of the quality of water for its optimum use for agricultural, irrigation, recreational, industrial, and domestic purposes, all of which shall be presumed to be conducive to the public health, convenience, and welfare, both present and future”).
- 35.
See Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Planning (2014). http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/cp/. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
- 36.
- 37.
Agricultural Act of 2014, H.R. 2642, Pub. L. 113–79, § 1118.
- 38.
Id. §§ 2001–2508.
- 39.
See Moore et al. (1996), pp. 319–357.
- 40.
- 41.
Bean v. Morris, 221 U.S. 485 (1911).
- 42.
Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1329.
- 43.
Id. § 1342.
- 44.
Id. § 1329(a).
- 45.
Id.
- 46.
Id. § 1329(b).
- 47.
Id. § 1362(14).
- 48.
40 C.F.R. 122.23; EPA (2003).
- 49.
Warrick (1995).
- 50.
See note 21, §1344 (“discharge” in this case refers to some of the dredged earth falling back onto the wetland as it is being excavated and/or fill material being put onto the land to alter the wetland).
- 51.
33 C.F.R. 320.4(r); 40 C.F.R. 230.
- 52.
See EPA, Mitigation Banking Factsheet (2014) Compensating for Impacts to Wetlands and Streams. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mitbanking.cfm. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
- 53.
See Silverstein (1994), pp. 129–161.
- 54.
- 55.
Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1344(f).
- 56.
Most recently, two cases were decided that caused ambiguity in terms of whether the Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction would extend to certain water bodies. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001); Rapanos v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 2208 (2006).
- 57.
Gruenhagen (2014), pp. 14–15 (on file with author).
- 58.
Gruenhagen (2014).
- 59.
However, see http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_12_3_wetlands_CWA_Jurisdiction_Following_Rapanos120208.pdf for guidance issued by EPA following Rapanos to provide clarity about the agency’s jurisdiction over waters.
- 60.
See, e.g., American Farm Bureau (2014), It’s Time to Ditch the Rule. http://ditchtherule.fb.org/ (advocating for members to submit comments to the EPA advising against approval of the proposed rule). Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
- 61.
See, e.g., Fatka (2014) (discussing the legislative act proposed in the House of Representatives aimed at blocking the EPA from adopting the Waters of the US rule); The Hagstrom Report (2014) EPA responds to SBA Advocacy office on WOTUS. http://www.hagstromreport.com/2014news_files/2014_1002_epa-responds-sba-advocacy-office-wotus.html; Traxler (2014) Proposed EPA water rules worry farmers, Prairie Business. http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/21216/.
- 62.
See note 53 (highlighting the extensive interpretation that can be drawn from the EPA’s Connectivity Study that all waters are connected and thus all waters could potentially be covered); EPA, Waters of the US. (2014). http://www2.epa.gov/uswaters. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
- 63.
See note 8, §§ 7409–7410.
- 64.
See Hoover (2013), pp. 1–29 (outlining the way in which the CAA and NAAQs in particular apply to CAFOs).
- 65.
Federal Register 74(209):56481, Friday, Oct 30, 2009, Subpart JJ, § 98.360 et seqq.
- 66.
Federal Register 57(104):22984, Friday, 29 May 1992, Section VII Guidance to Industry for Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/Biotechnology/ucm096095.htm.
- 67.
See note 23.
- 68.
7 U.S.C. § 7711.
- 69.
7 C.F.R. 340.
- 70.
7 C.F.R. 372.
- 71.
Monsanto Co. et al. v. Geertson Seed Farms et al., 130 S. Ct. 2743 (2010).
- 72.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) in 2012 found that 88 % of all corn, 94 % of cotton, and 93 % of the soybeans planted were biotechnology crops. USDA, Biotechnology Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=AGRICULTURE&contentid=BiotechnologyFAQs.xml. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
- 73.
Bowman v. Monsanto Co., 133 S. Ct. 1761 (2013).
- 74.
Reuters, Top U.S. court refuses to hear appeal of Monsanto see case, Monday, 13 Jan 2014. http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/13/usa-court-monsanto-idUSL2N0KN1CA20140113. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
- 75.
- 76.
See Hails (2000), pp. 14–18.
- 77.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1947 (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 136–136y.
- 78.
Id.
- 79.
See, e.g., 21 Iowa Code § 45.29.
- 80.
EPA, PestWise: An EPA Partnership Program (2014). http://www.epa.gov/pestwise/pesp/. Accessed 20 Oct 2014.
References
Ackerman B (2000) The new separation of powers. Harv Law Rev 113(3):633–792
American Farm Bureau (2014) It’s time to ditch the rule. http://ditchtherule.fb.org/. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
Ausness R (1982) Water rights legislation in the east: a program for reform. William Mary Law Rev 24:547–590
Beuscher JH (1960) Appropriation water law elements in Riparian doctrine States. Buffalo Law Rev 10:448–458
Calabresi SG (1995) A government of limited and enumerated powers: in defense of United States v. Lopez. Mich Law Rev 94(3):752–831
Corwin ES (1914) Marbury v. Madison and the doctrine of judicial review. Mich Law Rev 12(7):538–572
Dimitri C et al (2005) The 20th century transformation of U.S. agriculture and farm policy. Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Information Bulletin No. 3:i-14. http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/259572/eib3_1_.pdf
Entine J, Lim X (2014) Union of concerned scientists blames GMOs for ‘superweeds’ but issue more complex. Genetic Literacy Project. http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/05/06/video-union-of-concerned-scientists-blames-gmos-for-superweeds-but-issue-more-complex/
EPA, Mitigation Banking Factsheet (2014) Compensating for impacts to wetlands and streams. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/mitbanking.cfm. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
EPA, PestWise: an EPA partnership program (2014) http://www.epa.gov/pestwise/pesp/. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
EPA (2003) Producers’ compliance guide for CAFOs: Revised Clean Water Act Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), EPA 821-R-03-010. http://www.epa.gov/rfa/documents/Compliance-CAFOs.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
EPA, Waters of the US (2014) http://www2.epa.gov/uswaters. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
Farm Foundation (2014) Right-to-farm laws: history & future. https://www.farmfoundation.org/news/articlefiles/129-hipp.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
Fatka J (2014) House sends strong message against EPA’s water rule. Feedstuffs. http://feedstuffs.com/story-house-sends-strong-message-against-epas-water-rule-45-117479
Gruenhagen C (2014) Environmental law conference regulatory update. Iowa State Bar Association
Gutherz IW (2011) Comment, cap and trade meets the interstate commerce clause: are greenhouse gas regulations constitutional after Lopez and Morrison? Pace Environ Law Rev 29:289–320
Hails RS (2000) Genetically modified plants – the debate continues. TREE 15:14–18
Hamilton ND (1989) Legal issues in enforcing federal soil conservation programs: an introduction and preliminary review. U C Davis Law Rev 23:637–674
Hoover JN (2013) Can’t you smell that smell? Clean Air Act fixes for factory farm air pollution. Stanford J Anim Law Policy 6:1–29
Horwitz MJ (1982) Comment, the history of the public/private distinction. Univ Pa Law Rev 130:1423–1428
Houck OA, Rolland M (1995) Federalism in wetlands regulation: a consideration of delegation of Clean Water Act Section 404 and related programs to the States. Maryland Law Rev 54:1242–1314
House FJ (2006) Agricultural programs, terms and laws. Nova Publishers, New York
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (2006) Agriculture at a Crossroads. Global report of the international assessment of agriculture knowledge, Science and technology for development. Island Press, Washington
Levi EH (1976) Some aspects of separation of powers. Columbia Law Rev 76(3):371–391
Malone LA (1988) Swampbuster, Sodbuster, and Conservation Compliance Programs. Popular media, Agricultural law update, Paper 103. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1105&context=popular_media
Mandelker DR (1976) The role of the local comprehensive plan in land use regulation. Mich Law Rev 74:899–973
McGranahan DA et al (2013) A historical primer on the US farm bill: supply management and conservation policy. J Soil Water Conserv 68(3):67A–73A
Meiners RE, Morriss AP (eds) (2000) The common law and the environment: rethinking the statutory basis for modern environmental law. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham
Mikva AJ (1986) How should the courts treat administrative agencies? Am Univ Law Rev 36(1):1–9
Moore MR et al (1996) Water allocation in the American west: endangered fish versus irrigated agriculture. Nat Resour J 36:319–357
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Conservation Planning (2014) http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/technical/cp/. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
Nelson WE (2000) Marbury v. Madison: the origins of judicial review. University press of Kansas, Lawrence
Nolan JR (2002) In Praise of Parochialism: the advent of local environmental law. Harv Environ Law Rev 26:365–41
Pryor WH Jr (2001) Madison’s double security: in defense of federalism, the separation of powers, and the Rehnquist court. Ala Law Rev 53(4):1167–1182
Qiu J (2013) Genetically modified crops pass benefits to weeds: herbicide resistance could confer an advantage on plants in the wild. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2013.13517
Rehnquist JC (1986) The power that shall be vested in a precedent: stare decisis, the constitution and the supreme court. Boston Univ Law Rev 66:345–376
Rosenbloom DH (1983) Public administrative theory and the separation of powers. Public Adm Rev 43(3):219–227
Ruhl JB (2000) Farms, their environmental harms, and environmental law. Ecol Law Q 27(2):263–349
Rumley ER (2014) States’ right-to-farm statutes. National AgLaw Center Research Publication. http://nationalaglawcenter.org/state-compilations/right-to-farm/. Accessed 20 Oct 2014
Seidenfeld M (1999) Bending the rules: flexible regulation and constraints on agency discretion. Adm Law Rev 51(2):429–495
Shapiro M (1982) Administrative discretion: the next stage. Yale Law J 92:1487–1522
Silverstein J (1994) Taking wetlands to the bank: the role of wetland mitigation banking in a comprehensive approach to wetlands protection. Boston Coll Environ Aff Law Rev 22:129–161
Spieles DJ (2005) Vegetation development in created, restored, and enhanced mitigation wetland banks of the United States. Wetlands 25:51–63
Steinhoff G (2008) Wetlands mitigation banking and the problem of consolidation. Electron Green J 27:1–11
Strauss PL (1984) The place of agencies in government: separation of powers and the fourth branch. Columbia Law Rev 84(3):573–669
The Hagstrom Report (2014) EPA responds to SBA advocacy office on WOTUS. http://www.hagstromreport.com/2014news_files/2014_1002_epa-responds-sba-advocacy-office-wotus.html
Traxler M (2014) Proposed EPA water rules worry farmers. Prairie Business. http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/21216/
Van Alstyne WV, Marshall J (1969) A critical guide to Marbury v. Madison. Duke Law J 1969(1):1–47
Warrick J (1995) Hog-waste spill fouls land, river in Onslow. The News & Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina. http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-recent/6172
Worster D (1982) Dust bowl: the Southern Plains in the 1930s. Oxford University Press, New York
Younger I (1958) Congressional investigations and executive secrecy: a study in the separation of powers. Univ Pittsbg Law Rev 20:755–784
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank John Baker, J.D. of the Beginning Farmer Center, Iowa State University Extension for his generous assistance and advice in writing this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dooley, E. (2015). The Relationship Between Agricultural Law and Environmental Law in the United States of America. In: Monteduro, M., Buongiorno, P., Di Benedetto, S., Isoni, A. (eds) Law and Agroecology. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46617-9_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-46617-9_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-46616-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-46617-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)