Governmental Regulations

Could EPA Decision Signal The Beginning Of The End For DEF?

Thu, 31 Jul 2025 16:28:35 GMT

Mike Berdo has strong words to describe his ongoing experiences using machinery requiring DEF ( Diesel Exhaust Fluid ) on his southeast Iowa farm.

“It has been an absolute nightmare, at least for us. Mechanics make trip after trip to do little stuff that’s very expensive to fix,” said Berdo, who produces grain and beef cattle near Washington. “We had planting delays last spring … little stuff that came from it and just seemed like [an issue to deal with] day after day.”

The ongoing mechanical issues and costs are why Berdo said he is “all for” EPA rescinding the 2009 Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding. The Finding has enabled the agency to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under Section 202 of the Clean Air Act and, in recent years, and launch requirements such as the use of DEF systems in diesel-powered engines.

EPA Draws A Line In The Sand
On Tuesday, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin released a proposal to rescind the 2009 Finding.

If finalized, the proposal would remove all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines, EPA said in a follow-up press release .

The move would start with EPA’s first greenhouse gas standard set in 2010 for light-duty vehicles and those set in 2011 for medium-duty vehicles and heavy-duty vehicles and engines.

EPA said the proposal is expected to “save Americans $54 billion in costs annually through the repeal of all greenhouse gas standards, including the Biden EPA’s electric vehicle mandate, under conservative economic forecasts.”

Zeldin made the announcement to rescind the Finding in Indiana, alongside Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and called it the largest deregulatory action in U.S. history.

What The Decision Could Mean To Farmers
Specific to U.S. farmers, the proposal could potentially result in DEF systems no longer being included on new tractors and other heavy equipment using diesel-powered engines, said Chip Flory, host of AgriTalk, during a Farmer Forum discussion on Wednesday.

South Dakota farmer Ryan Wagner told Flory he has a wait-and-see perspective on how or whether the EPA proposal goes into effect. He anticipates that reversing the Finding will take considerable time and effort for EPA to implement.

“It took a long time with the interim engines and things to get into full DEF in the first place,” Wagner said. “I don’t know how long it would take to unwind all that and how quickly manufacturing will just take those systems right off, but it’ll be interesting to see what happens.”

To Wagner’s point, here’s a brief look back at some timing showing when DEF rolled out in agriculture and nonroad equipment and became mandatory . The regulations were phased in over several years based on the type of equipment and engine size:

2008: DEF became required for all new diesel engines with engine sizes over 750 horsepower.

2011: the regulations expanded to include equipment with engine sizes between 175-750 horsepower.

By 2015, all new nonroad diesel engines were required to be Tier 4 compliant and utilize DEF, regardless of equipment type or engine size.

As Wagner considers DEF, he noted its use in diesel engines has provided him with one benefit: “On the plus side, I do like that they don’t make the walls of my shop black. That’s been nice,” he said. “You can run them inside for a short time and not not feel like you’re breathing in a bunch of soot and making everything black.”

Expect Legal Challenges To EPA Decision
A number of environmental groups have already blasted the move by EPA, saying it spells the end of the road for U.S. action against climate change, according to an online article by Reuters .

Legal challenges from various environmental groups, states and lawyers are likely ahead.

That fact wasn’t lost on Flory and the Farmer Forum participants during the AgriTalk discussion on Wednesday.

“If this proposal is finalized, it’s going to start a lot of conversations … and the dominoes are going to start to fall, something that we need to keep track of, no doubt,” Flory said. You can hear the complete Farmer Forum discussion on AgriTalk here:

EPA will initiate a public comment period to solicit input. Further information on the public comment process and instructions for participation will be published in the Federal Register and on the EPA website .

Your next read: Right To Repair Granted? John Deere Launches Digital Self-Repair Tool for $195 Per Tractor

Breaking: Mexican Border Closed Again as New World Screwworm Comes Within 370 Miles of the U.S.

Thu, 10 Jul 2025 13:38:15 GMT

On July 8, Mexico’s National Service of Agro-Alimentary Health, Safety and Quality reported a new case of New World screwworm (NWS) in Ixhuatlan de Madero, Veracruz, Mexico, which is approximately 160 miles northward of the current sterile fly dispersal grid on the eastern side of the country and 370 miles south of the U.S./Mexico border.

This new northward detection comes approximately two months after northern detections were reported in Oaxaca and Veracruz, less than 700 miles away from the U.S. border, which triggered the closure of our ports to Mexican cattle, bison and horses on May 11, 2025 .

While USDA announced a risk-based phased port re-opening strategy for cattle, bison and equine from Mexico beginning as early as July 7, 2025 , this newly reported NWS case raises significant concern about the previously information shared by Mexican officials and severely compromises the outlined port reopening schedule of five ports from July 7 to Sept. 15. Therefore, in order to protect American livestock and the U.S. food supply, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins has ordered the closure of livestock trade through southern ports of entry effective immediately.

“The United States has promised to be vigilant — and after detecting this new NWS case, we are pausing the planned port reopening’s to further quarantine and target this deadly pest in Mexico. We must see additional progress combatting NWS in Veracruz and other nearby Mexican states in order to reopen livestock ports along the Southern border,” Rollins says. “Thanks to the aggressive monitoring by USDA staff in the U.S. and in Mexico, we have been able to take quick and decisive action to respond to the spread of this deadly pest.”

To ensure the protection of U.S. livestock herds, USDA is holding Mexico accountable by ensuring proactive measures are being taken to maintain a NWS free barrier. This is maintained with stringent animal movement controls, surveillance, trapping and following the proven science to push the NWS barrier south in phases as quickly as possible.

In June, Secretary Rollins launched a 5-point plan to combat NWS by protecting our border at all costs, increasing eradication efforts in Mexico, and increasing readiness. USDA also announced the groundbreaking of a sterile fly dispersal facility in South Texas. This facility will provide a critical contingency capability to disperse sterile flies should a NWS detection be made in the Southern U.S.

Simultaneously, USDA is moving forward with the design process to build a domestic sterile fly production facility to ensure it has the resources to push NWS back to the Darien Gap. USDA is working on these efforts in lockstep with border states – Arizona, New Mexico and Texas – as it will take a coordinated approach with federal, state and local partners to keep this pest at bay and out of the U.S.

USDA will continue to have personnel perform site visits throughout Mexico to ensure the Mexican government has adequate protocols and surveillance in place to combat this pest effectively and efficiently.

Click to enlarge.

(USDA)

Your Next Read: Protect Your Livestock: Signs of New World Screwworm

Breaking News: Mexican Ports to Reopen in Phases for Cattle Trade Starting July 7

Tue, 01 Jul 2025 19:28:22 GMT

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced today a risk-based phased port re-openings for cattle, bison and equine from Mexico beginning as early as July 7.

The announcement is following the extensive collaboration between USDA–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) experts and their counterparts in Mexico to increase New World screwworm (NWS) surveillance, detection and eradication efforts. The port reopening timeline is:

Douglas, Ariz. – July 7
Columbus, N.M. – July 14
Santa Teresa, N.M. – July 21
Del Rio, Texas – Aug. 18
Laredo, Texas – Sept. 15

After each reopening, USDA will evaluate to ensure no adverse effects arise.

Progress Being Made to Stop Progress of NWS

According to USDA, progress has been made in several critical areas since the ports were closed on May 11 , including:

Resolution of challenges with conducting flights in Mexico that has allowed the team to consistently conduct sterile NWS fly dispersal seven days each week
Dispersal of more than 100 million flies each week
USDA sent five APHIS teams to visit, observe and gain a deeper understanding of Mexico’s NWS response. The APHIS teams were allowed the opportunity to share feedback.

USDA says there has not been a notable increase in reported NWS cases in Mexico, nor any northward movement of NWS over the past eight weeks.

“At USDA we are focused on fighting the New World screwworm’s advancement in Mexico. We have made good progress with our counterparts in Mexico to increase vital pest surveillance efforts and have boosted sterile fly dispersal efforts. These quick actions by the Trump Administration have improved the conditions to allow the phased reopening of select ports on the Southern Border to livestock trade,” Rollins says. “We are continuing our posture of increased vigilance and will not rest until we are sure this devastating pest will not harm American ranchers.”

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) says it supports the plan to strategically reopen key ports of entry.

“NCBA and our state affiliates have spent months working with USDA to safeguard the U.S. cattle industry from the threat of New World screwworm. We strongly support USDA’s five-pronged plan to fight the screwworm, which includes bolstering sterile fly production by renovating a facility in Metapa, Mexico, and by building a new fly dispersal facility at Moore Air Base in south Texas,” says NCBA CEO Colin Woodall. “Today’s announcement to reopen key ports of entry is a measured, thoughtful approach by Secretary Rollins to allow some trade while also ensuring the American cattle industry is protected from this pest.”

While the Douglas, Ariz., port presents the lowest risk based upon the geography of Sonora and a long history of effective collaboration between APHIS and Sonora on animal health issues, USDA intends to reopen additional ports in New Mexico, and if it is proven safe to do so, in Texas, over the coming weeks. Additional port openings will be based on APHIS’ continuous reevaluation of the number of cases and potential northward movement of NWS, Mexico’s continued efforts to curb illegal animal movements, and implementation of further rigorous inspection and treatment protocols.

“We trust Secretary Rollins made this decision with the latest information from USDA staff in Mexico, and we know she will continue holding her counterparts in the Mexican government accountable for eradicating screwworm,” Woodall adds. “NCBA and our state affiliate partners will continue working with USDA and key members of Congress to protect the United States from New World screwworm.”

Continuing Efforts

USDA is working with Mexico’s National Department of Health, Food Safety and Food Quality (SENASICA) on outreach, education and training efforts to raise awareness and put producers on high alert about NWS, along with utilizing their well-functioning central laboratory for diagnosing cases. While Mexico has made great progress on animal movement controls and surveillance, additional progress will help ensure the remaining U.S. ports reopen. Enhanced animal movement controls to stem illegal animal movements from the south, along with robust surveillance and NWS risk mitigations beyond check points will be critical in pushing back NWS. APHIS technical teams continue to engage with SENASICA to improve the overall NWS posture in Mexico and implement the rigorous steps needed to keep this pest away from our border.

Mexico will also begin renovation of its sterile fruit fly facility in Metapa this week, with renovation expected to be completed by July 2026. Renovation of this facility will allow for production of between 60-100 million sterile NWS flies each week. This is a critical step towards reaching the goal of producing the estimated 400-500 million flies each week needed to re-establish the NWS barrier at the Darien Gap.

Only cattle and bison, born and raised in Sonora or Chihuahua, or that are treated according to cattle and bison NWS protocol when entering these states, will be eligible for import. See Importing Live Cattle and Bison From Mexico to the United States for more information on cattle and bison import requirements.

In addition, reopening the Del Rio (Aug. 18) and Colombia Bridge (Sept.15) ports will be contingent on Coahuila and Nuevo Leon adopting the same NWS protocols for cattle and bison as those now required of Sonora and Chihuahua for cattle or bison entering those states.

Equine may import from anywhere in Mexico. They require a seven-day quarantine at the port of entry and must import in accordance with the equine NWS protocol and other requirements detailed on USDA APHIS | Import Horses from Mexico webpage . Approved equine facilities are available at the Santa Teresa, N.M., port and will be available for entry of horses when that port is reopened.

In May 2025, USDA suspended imports of live cattle, bison, and equines from Mexico into the U.S. due to the continued and rapid northward spread of NWS. During the weeks of June 2 and June 16, teams of APHIS experts conducted robust onsite assessments of Mexico’s NWS response efforts to fully reassess the risk of NWS incursions to the U.S. posed by importation of Mexican cattle across our southern border.

Your Next Read: Open Heifers Explained: What You Need to Consider to Increase Preg Rates

Iowa Secretary of Ag Weighs In on The H5N1 Battle, Vaccine Potential And Trade Sensitivities

Wed, 29 Jan 2025 13:48:13 GMT

Eggs continue to be a hot topic in the news as supplies are down, prices are up – and expected to go even higher – and consumers are understandably concerned.

At the center of the issue, fanning the on-going problem for poultry and dairy producers as well, is the Highly pathogenic H5N1 avian influenza A virus (HPAI H5N1).

AgriTalk Host Chip Flory broached the topic with Iowa Secretary of Agriculture Mike Naig on Tuesday.

At the heart of their conversation was a two-part question – how does the U.S. address the virus and, in the process, prevent any potential negative ramifications on trade?

Naig says the federal government is taking what he described as a three-legged stool approach to addressing the problem in both industries.

He described the three legs of the stool as being USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), individual state animal health officials and industry.

“We work very closely with APHIS on this, meaning that they’re the ones that are providing the indemnity payments to producers. They are providing the disposal and cleanup assistance, but they must work in close collaboration with the states and state animal health officials,” Naig says. “And then, of course, you’ve got to have the third leg, which is industry.”

Biosecurity Measures
Naig noted that while the virus hit the poultry industry hard in 2015, it struck even harder in 2024.

“It’s not just in the Midwest or West, it’s been really all across the country now, affecting the egg laying industry, broilers and turkey production,” Naig says.

A significant positive, Naig says, is that biosecurity measures in the poultry industry appear to be preventing farm-to-farm spread. “The industry continues to get high marks for that, which wasn’t the case in 2015, which was so devastating because we didn’t have those strategies in place.”

“I believe, and our experience has been, that our USDA partners in this regard have been very strong,” he adds.

As Naig addressed the three-legged stool approach the U.S. is taking to addressing the virus in dairy, he says the three partners have more work to do.

“Frankly, there’s been a lot of criticism to share around the three legs, if you will, on how states have reacted, or how strongly USDA should have reacted, and what the industry is doing to try to contain that virus. So, I would say on the dairy side of things, it’s a different story (than in poultry). There’s a lot more work that’s yet to be done to even understand how that virus is impacting those (dairy) herds.”

What Is The Role For Vaccines?
Flory asked Sec. Nagy whether he believes a vaccine could be part of the solution to the virus or whether that would set up too many trade barriers. Flory also asked whether the virus is stable enough for a long enough period of time for a vaccine to be developed that would work effectively.

Both are questions the U.S. is grappling with as it tries to get ahead of the virus in dairy and poultry.

Earlier this month, Reuters reported the U.S. will rebuild a stockpile of avian influenza vaccines for poultry that match the strain of the virus circulating in commercial flocks and wild birds, citing the Department of Agriculture.

Naig told Flory that he believes a vaccine could be developed, with regard to poultry specifically, and its use negotiated into trade agreements.

“Those are challenges, and yet those are things that can be worked on and can be done, but it’s not easily done. I would want to put a flag there,” Naig says.

“I’m supportive of developing … we should try to figure out whether this can be an effective tool. If you’re in the broiler business or if you’re in the turkey meat business or if you’re in the egg business or maybe you’re in the genetics business, those are very different in terms of how you view that vaccine.”

Naig explains part of the different viewpoints on vaccine use have to do with the difference between poultry business segments.

“We need to recognize that those sectors are different in how they’ll view and potentially use a vaccine,” Naig says.

“Don’t treat them all the same. It’ll make way more sense for some than others.”

Naig did not weigh in on vaccine development for the dairy industry specifically.

The full conversation between Naig and Flory on AgriTalk is available below.

Your next read: Think Egg Prices Are Already Too High? USDA Says Retail Egg Prices Could Jump Another 20% in 2025

Iowa Third State to Create Legislation Regarding Lab-Grown Meat

Tue, 21 May 2024 14:15:35 GMT

In an effort to maintain trust with consumers and protect livestock producers, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds recently signed into law SF 2391 , a bill prohibiting the misbranding of certain food products, including lab-grown meat.

Beginning July 1, lab-grown meat and plant-based imitation meat and egg products will have to be labeled with words such as fake, lab-grown, meatless, imitation or vegan, if sold in Iowa stores. The labeling requirements also apply to meat alternatives made with insect protein.

Gov. Reynolds shared her response to signing SF 2391.

“This legislation prohibits companies from exploiting the trust consumers have with our livestock producers and misleading consumers into buying products they don’t want,” she says. “This is about transparency. It’s about the common-sense idea that a product labeled chicken, beef, or pork, should actually come from an animal.”

Rep. Heather Hora, R-Washington, sponsored the bill in the House. As a pork producer herself, she says the bill protects farmers’ checkoff dollars that are used to market meat and eggs.

According to an Iowa Public Radio (IPR) article, the law will require the Iowa Department of Inspections, Appeals and Licensing to inspect food processing plants or grocery stores for compliance if they receive a credible complaint about food products being mislabeled as meat. The law also provides penalties for not following labeling rules.

Furthermore, the law prohibits school districts, community colleges and public universities in Iowa from purchasing lab-grown meat and any foods misbranded as meat or egg products. In addition, the law requires the state to request a federal waiver to prohibit the use of federal food assistance to buy imitation egg products.

While many praised the legislation, some Democrats said their issue was with the purchase of egg alternatives.

IPR reported Sen. Herman Quirmbach, D-Ames, says he was proud to vote for the original version of the bill but had concerns with the final version.

“Truth in labeling is certainly something that I strongly believe in for consumer protection,” he says. “But I’m also concerned with consumer nutrition. And there are some people who can’t eat eggs because of allergies but still need the nutritive content that might be supplied by alternative products.”

That same day, Gov. Reynolds signed HF 2649 , a bill providing capital gains relief for farmers and ranchers selling certain classes of livestock. This was a bill to reinstate previous tax break exemptions that had ended in 2022.

“Our tax code should promote livestock production, which we know is often how beginning farmers get their start in agriculture,” says Rep. Derek Wulf, R-Hudson, who co-sponsored the bill. “We know that livestock production supports rural communities and drives our rural economic activity…We want to make sure that we don’t increase taxes on our livestock producers and farmers here in this state.”

Continued legislation against lab-grown meat

Iowa becomes the third state in the country to pass legislation regarding lab-grown meat. Florida and Alabama both passed laws banning the sale of the cell cultured alternative meat product in their states this month. Florida’s law was signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis on May 1, 2024, and Alabama’s Gov. Kay Ivey signed the Alabama Bill , which the prohibits “the manufacture, sale, or distribution of food products made from cultured animal cells,” on May 7.

Jack Hubbard, executive director of the Center for the Environment and Welfare, shares that consumers have several concerns in the matters of cell cultured meat.

“Policymakers nationwide are grappling with growing consumer concern regarding lab-grown meat’s use of immortalized cells, bioreactors, chemicals and the lack of long-term health studies,” Hubbard says. “I think a lot of this legislative activity is politicians and elected representatives voicing and acting on the concerns of constituents who are saying ‘what is this stuff and have we done our due diligence.’ And to be frank, there is a major yuck factor that a lot of people have when they actually learn about how this is made.”

Hubbard see additional states likely following suit in creating legislation.

“From a transparency perspective, it just seems like the right thing that consumers ought to have a right to know what they’re buying,” he says.

Read more...
North American Cattle Groups Advocates for Oversight of Lab-Grown Proteins

John Phipps: Why Water is the New Oil for Landowners

Wed, 09 Aug 2023 13:38:50 GMT

There are signs that water is the new oil.

This is a question sent in by U.S. Farm Report viewer David Marshall of Lafayette, Indiana: “You’ve covered the subject of foreign land ownership and rightly noted that it’s a very small percentage. I think the issue that we really need to address, especially in the southwestern states, is the purchasing of farmland by corporate entities that have nothing to do with farming but who solely want to obtain the water rights that the purchase of the ground includes. Their main reason for purchasing the land is to have a resource that they can sell to the highest bidder. How long before hedge funds and corporations own all the water rights and the farmer and the public are left to be the highest bidder or do without the needed resource?”

As Mark Twain said, “Whiskey is for drinking, water is for fighting”. While our arguably arcane water rights laws have provided thousands of billable hours for water lawyers in the West, I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet.

“First in time, first in line” may have seemed like a good idea centuries ago when rivers and groundwater appeared inexhaustible, the enormous use by modern agriculture - about 80% of our nation’s resources - is testing the practicality of those laws. I can’t imagine modern lawmakers reforming our laws with the needed speed, so the backup method of acquisition for water consumers is to buy the water needed from agriculture.

Bluntly put, there is a price for every gallon, and many farmers are just now realizing how extremely valuable those gallons are.

As I have argued in every land-use debate -from solar panels to suburban development - with rare exceptions due to location or unique qualities, the rights of landowners should be preeminent to allow the market to redistribute those assets.

Consider the rapidly growing cities of the Southwest, like Phoenix. Spending millions to buy water rights from nearby farmers currently growing alfalfa in the desert to feed dairy cows, when milk is being dumped in Wisconsin, looks to me like an inefficient market hampered by regulation and unable to rationally allocate assets.

Between our outdated milk pricing programs and water laws, the outcome you describe is capitalism’s way of solving a problem. Farming may always be the optimal use for our ever-scarcer water.

I think not, but I think this is a problem being solved by accountants, not lawyers.

Farmer Nightmare: Government Floods Family Twice, Kills Herd and Refuses to Pay Damages

Wed, 07 Jun 2023 17:42:01 GMT

We break, you pay?

In a repeat nightmare, the government twice flooded Richie Devillier’s 900-acre farm and home under several feet of water, killed his cattle, ran his family through emotional hell—and insisted he foot the entire bill.

When a new highway flood wall trapped Devillier’s land within a figurative bathtub and erased several generations’ worth of toil in 2017 and 2019, state officials washed their hands of the Texas farmer and refused to pay damages. In 2020, Devillier sued for compensation under the Fifth Amendment, but was told he had no legal grounds to seek compensation from the state. Undaunted, Devillier is petitioning the Supreme Court.

The case is a stunner. No one in the courts or bureaucracy calls Devillier a liar or contests the basic facts of his claims. Instead, the state, backed by the Fifth Circuit, says citizens cannot seek compensation under the Fifth Amendment unless specifically allowed to do so by Congress—in direct defiance of decades of Supreme Court precedent.

The clock is running: Devillier’s operation will flood again when the next catastrophic deluge falls and his land will turn back into water world, directly attributable to the state’s action. “The government is goliath,” he says. “The government officials are untouchable, almost, but we’re about to touch them with the Bill of Rights.”

(Farm Journal)

“I want people to listen and learn about my story,” he adds. “It’s not about me because it doesn’t matter what state you live in. They can come for your land next.”

Bay of Hell

In 2017, weary to the bone after days spent in a surreal fight to keep the last scraps of his operation afloat, Richie Devillier walked through the foul debris of his sludge-filled farm home, and entered the master bedroom, only to encounter a site suited to fiction. Standing on his bed, a whitetail doe stared out a window at water to the horizon.

(Farm Journal)

Triggered by rising water, the bizarre deer incident captures the catastrophic absurdity of Devillier’s misfortune, but is sharply contrasted by recorded family history. Since 1920, the Devillier clan has farmed their high-ground land in southeast Texas’ Chambers County, outside Winnie, roughly 60 miles east of Houston. Across 100 years of rice cultivation and cattle production, there have been no floods on the Devillier property—until now.

Devillier, 59, is the fourth generation to work the land, growing bluestem hay and raising Hereford cattle sired by Brahman bulls. Alongside his wife, Wendy, Devillier also raises horses on a small scale, and his son, McCain, 22, will one day steer the family operation.

(Farm Journal)

Dotted with isolated knobs, Devillier’s 900 acres of pancake-flat ground rubs against I-10, an east-west federal highway connecting Houston and Beaumont. Beginning in the 1990s, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) updated I-10. The section adjacent to Devillier’s property was completed in the early 2000s. The renovation raised I-10 18” and erected a 32”-high concrete barrier in the median, ensuring the eastbound lanes remained navigable during floods. Translated: TxDOT built a dam in the middle of the highway and Deviller’s land is on the receptacle side.

(Citing ongoing litigation, TxDOT declined all Farm Journal questions related to the Devillier case.)

“When TxDOT got finished with the highway project, I didn’t think the drainage would be sufficient when things got bad, but they were supposed to be experts,” Devillier says. “Before their project, the freeway bridged over the bayous. Instead, they boxed in the bayous with square box culverts. I knew the barrier dam, combined with insufficient drainage, was not going to work.”

(Farm Journal)

“I grew up here and worked beside my grandfather, father, cousins, and family, and we’d been through monsoonal rains and weather events of every kind, but we’d never seen anything but normal drainage,” Devillier continues. “There were no floods and no flood history.”

“No TxDOT representative or government official ever came and warned me that when we got major water, my land and my neighbor’s land would turn into a bay,” he adds. “I wish they had.”

Never to Return

On Aug. 25, 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas and its rains drowned a 20-mile stretch from Winnie to the Trinity River for 2 to 3 miles north of I-10. Devillier’s farm, along with the property of his neighbors, was swallowed, courtesy of the I-10 concrete barrier dam.

“Hurricanes and terrible storms are part of life here,” he describes, “but this flood was something different because the water had nowhere to go thanks to the highway barrier.”

(Farm Journal)

Devillier’s farmland went under 3’-6’ of water and his house filled with approximately 23” of water, but more pressing than his own dire circumstance, Devillier rushed a half-mile to his octogenarian parent’s home, rescuing Richard and Barbara from 3’ of water. Richard, born on the Devillier family farm, gathered a handful of mementos and exited the house and property for the final time of his life. He would never again set foot on the land of his legacy and birthplace.

Richard, along with Barbara, flew to Oregon to stay with a daughter and wait out the flood and rebuilding process. Worn and wiped out, Richard suffered a heart attack and died in Oregon, 2,000 miles distant from Winnie. Two years later, Barbara also passed away in Oregon.

Richard and Barbara returned to Chambers County—in an urn. “My dad’s heart couldn’t handle seeing our farm disappear,” Devillier says. “And none of it had to happen.”

The Sacrifice

Devillier floundered under total flood devastation. Overlooking his farm, the highway barrier dam was a line of demarcation—the edge of a vast wall of water. Days into the flood, standing at the concrete barrier on the dry, south side of I-10 and looking north, Devillier soaked in the reality of havoc stretching for miles.

(Farm Journal)

“It was incomprehensible,” he recalls. “I’d never seen or imagined anything like what was before me. We could drive down I-10 on lanes with no standing water, yet the concrete barrier had waves lapping over from water that covered my farm. You could stick your hand over the barrier into an ocean of water.”

Devillier’s family called a county judge, desperate for permission to pierce the highway dam and relieve the pressure off his acreage. “We begged him to let us knock down a portion of the barrier, but he wouldn’t make the call. Nobody wanted liability. We also knew if we knocked a hole in the dam, every person downstream would sue us.”

“The TxDOT engineers straight out said, ‘If we don’t have the barrier, then we can’t get our emergency vehicles back and forth.’ It was plainly evident: Myself and my neighbors were the sacrifice,” Devillier adds.

Water covered Devillier’s farmland over a week, either ruining his equipment and possessions or carrying them to parts unknown. One thousand hay bales bobbed in the wake, alongside the carcasses of bloated cows and horses floating across the property. His cattle, the centerpiece of the operation, fared the worst, congregating atop tiny knobs in relative shallows. Motoring in a Jon boat, Devillier and McCain tried in vain to save stranded livestock.

(Farm Journal)

“There were cattle hung up in barns and calves with their heads just above water, covered in fire ants. There were cattle standing in our garage and around the house. There were cows congregating on berms, and lost calves, and cows off by themselves. It was ghastly to watch them suffer.”

The cattle were living dead—shellshocked on their hooves. “Grabbing a cow in 4’ water from a 16’ aluminum boat powered by a 40-horsepower outboard and towing it to safety doesn’t work,” Devillier describes. “The cow is an anchor.”

Devillier watched his herd die. “After days in water, the cows slip their hair. They bloat and their skin sloughs off. It’s heartbreaking and sickening to watch. It’s a feeling of helplessness to see your cattle in such a state and to know the value of your real estate—what you’ve worked your entire life for—is crumbling.”

(Farm Journal)

After four days, the water around Devillier’s house (built on the property’s highest elevation) began receding. He entered his home to find a doe in the master bedroom. “The deer had pushed a door screen out, walked in, and found a high spot on the bed. We coaxed her out and she splayed across the floor, saw daylight coming through the door, and took off. It was just one more surreal detail in a scene I can’t adequately describe.”

The “scene” across Devillier’s home and farm was apocalyptic, his acres littered with dead cattle, lumber, personal effects, and flotsam of every stripe. For days, loading carcasses and trash with a tractor onto a gooseneck trailer, he steadily hauled everything 10 miles away and deposited the goods at the county dump—a lifetime of personal memories and rotting flesh into the same hole.

Bit by bit, step by step, despite no flood insurance, Devillier regained his bearings, rebuilding his home and agriculture operation—without a dime from the state.

Two years later—it happened again. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Lump It or Leave It

Roughly 24 months after enduring the worst losses of his life, Devillier’s land again flooded at a catastrophic level courtesy of the highway barrier—his farm submerged and his house filled with 23” of water.

Tropical Storm Imelda put Devillier’s land under water for roughly seven days in September 2019. For the second time, his operation was devastated.

“Once again, this was no natural flood,” he emphasizes. “The government made me their retention pond.”

No apologies, explanation, or compensation from the state. Lump it or leave it.

(Farm Journal)

“Words can never express the strain on my wife and family,” Devillier says. “The first flood was numbing and took me out mentally, but the second flood spurred me to clarity. I knew my task. I had to solve this for my family and neighbors. We’ve been terribly wronged. After Harvey, the state said we experienced a once-in-a-thousand-years-flood. No sir. They never get to say that again. It’s going to happen over and over. Why? They built a dam.”

“I couldn’t sue the state for being incompetent, but they’re not allowed to take my property without paying. So says the Fifth Amendment.”

Backed by local legal representation, Devillier and his neighbors sued for damages in Texas court, supported by state and federal law. However, Texas state attorneys threw a curveball and removed the case to federal court, where the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the case, claiming Congress has passed no laws allowing private citizens to sue states for takings of property.

Despite the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of “just compensation” embedded in the Constitution and decades of Supreme Court precedent affirming that guarantee, the federal court erased Devillier’s claim.

Enter the Institute for Justice (IJ), a national public-interest law firm and legal advocacy group. In 2023, IJ petitioned the Supreme Court to hear Devillier’s case.

(Farm Journal)

“Insanity,” says IJ attorney Robert McNamara. “You know it’s a crazy ruling when a court says state governments can build what they want and do to their citizens what was done to Richie Devillier. This is part of a growing refusal by courts to enforce the Constitution at all. The whole point of federal court is to protect your federal rights, but incredibly, they are often the place where the government runs to get those rights extinguished.”

Taking of private property without just compensation is an increasing concern in the U.S., McNamara insists. “Most of these cases don’t make national news, but if the state doesn’t feel like paying—it doesn’t, and often there is no accountability. That’s why Richie Devillier’s case is so important to every American. It’s a chance for the Supreme Court to step in and say, ‘No. Just compensation means just compensation.’ It’s not hard to understand or complicated: Pay people for what you take.”

Steadfast

Deviller is forced to reckon with time. Whether tomorrow, next year, or the following decade, floodwaters again will rise to the highway barrier’s lip and swallow his land.

“That’s what a dam with woefully inadequate drainage does,” he says.

The Supreme Court will reconvene in fall 2023: Devillier’s petition is on the docket, awaiting consideration.

“The public is shocked when they find out what the state was willing to do to its citizens and then pretend they are not responsible,” McNamara says. “What the state has put the Devillier family through is horrifying and their experience runs counter to the freedoms that define America.”

“Rest assured,” McNamara concludes, “if it floods again in 2023, the government will be certain the only thing Richie Devillier is entitled to is a pat on the head and no compensation.”

Devillier is steadfast.

(Farm Journal)

“We’ve been so blessed by the help of family, friends, and strangers, and we’ve got extreme confidence in our local attorneys and the Institute for Justice,” he emphasizes. “A lot of people in our area gave up, sold out, and left, but I won’t. These 900 acres are my life, the same ground worked for generations by my family in good faith that if we obeyed the law, our government would treat us accordingly. I won’t walk away and I’ll fight for every American.”

“They did this to me and they will come for you eventually,” Devillier adds. “If we can’t sue for the wrongs done by the state to our personal property, what is the point of having a Fifth Amendment or constitutional rights?”

For more from Chris Bennett (cbennett@farmjournal.com 662-592-1106) see:

Priceless Pistol Found After Decades Lost in Farmhouse Attic

Cottonmouth Farmer: The Insane Tale of a Buck-Wild Scheme to Corner the Snake Venom Market

Tractorcade: How an Epic Convoy and Legendary Farmer Army Shook Washington, D.C.

Bagging the Tomato King: The Insane Hunt for Agriculture’s Wildest Con Man

Young Farmer uses YouTube and Video Games to Buy $1.8M Land

While America Slept, China Stole the Farm

Bizarre Mystery of Mummified Coon Dog Solved After 40 Years

The Arrowhead whisperer: Stunning Indian Artifact Collection Found on Farmland

Fleecing the Farm: How a Fake Crop Fueled a Bizarre $25 Million Ag Scam

Skeleton In the Walls: Mysterious Arkansas Farmhouse Hides Civil War History

US Farming Loses the King of Combines

Ghost in the House: A Forgotten American Farming Tragedy

Rat Hunting with the Dogs of War, Farming’s Greatest Show on Legs

Evil Grain: The Wild Tale of History’s Biggest Crop Insurance Scam

FDA Looks to Consolidate its Food Policy and Regulation Divisions

Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:28:32 GMT

FDA wants to consolidate its food policy and regulation divisions in the wake of last year’s national baby-formula shortage. The agency was criticized for its slow response and other food safety concerns, as supply chain issues and a formula recall panicked parents and caregivers.

Abbott Laboratories, which makes Similac and other brands, halted production at its Sturgis, Mich., factory because of product safety concerns.

Read more: FDA Approves Lab-Grown Chicken for the First Time

“Today, I am announcing a new, transformative vision for the FDA Human Foods Program,” said Commissioner Robert Califf. “Creating a Human Foods Program under a single leader who reports directly to the Commissioner unifies and elevates the program while removing redundancies, enabling the agency to oversee human food in a more effective and efficient way.”

The revamped foods program would absorb the functions of Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the Office of Food Policy and Response, as well as some of the work of the Office of Regulatory Affairs.

How it Works

The Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) would continue as a separate office; “the relevant food safety activities will be closely coordinated” between the CVM director and the deputy commissioner for human foods, said Califf.

Read more: Conagra Recalls 2.5 Million Pounds of Canned Meat and Poultry Product

Under Califf’s proposal, the deputy commissioner for food “will have decision-making authority over policy, strategy and regulatory program activities within the Human Foods Program, as well as resource allocation and risk prioritization.”

An advisory committee of outside experts would look at “challenging and emerging issues in food safety, nutrition and innovative food technologies.”

Principal deputy commissioner Janet Woodcock said an “implementation and change” group of FDA managers already was laying the groundwork to make the reorganization a reality. “We look forward to sharing further details next month and in the future on our progress,” she said.

The deputy commissioner will be named by spring, Califf told the Associated Press.

USDA Hands Responsibility of RFID Traceability Efforts to APHIS

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 04:19:45 GMT

There are new developments in the rules and tracing of cattle via RFID tags, AgDay’s Clinton Griffiths reports. The USDA has announced it will not finalize a plan introduced by the Trump Administration to approve Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags as the official ear tag for interstate movement of cattle.

Instead, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will use the rule making process for future actions on RFID tags. APHIS has said this means all current approved ID methods can be used until further notice but adds the RFID tags provide the “best protection against the rapid spread of animal diseases,” Griffiths says.

John Phipps: Questionable Environmental Decisions On Nuclear Power Now Creates New Geopolitical Threat

Tue, 28 Jun 2022 13:02:32 GMT

All over Europe, countries are closing down operating nuclear power plants. While this has been going on for some time, it has now become clear the decision to overstate the minuscule risks and assume greener power sources would be there to replace them was wildly inaccurate.

Angela Merkle, perhaps one of the best German leaders to date has seen the afterglow of her years in office overshadowed by the truly dangerous German dependence on Russian natural gas as a result of her push to abandon nuclear power. A questionable environmental decision has emerged as a geopolitical threat.

The U.S. is on the same path, with the twilight of this dependable power source already taking place. Meanwhile, China is speeding ahead with a goal of 150 plants by 2030, as much as the U.S. and France combined, although that will still only provide a small fraction of their power needs.

(Farm Journal)

Nuclear power has trivial CO2 emissions, and yes, this chart includes mining, manufacturing, and decommissioning costs. It is also demonstrably safer compared to other power sources – all the dire predictions have proven false, even factoring the extraordinary failures like Chernobyl and Three Mile Island.

In what I can only describe as hysteria by the public surrounding nuclear technology, overblown fears have replaced years of solid results in the minds of global citizens. The link from radioactivity to bizarre impacts is the stuff of comedy – from the fish in Lake Springfield on the Simpsons to Spiderman’s origin via a radioactive spider bite. The often condescending dismissal of such nonsensical perceptions added a major blunder to a half-hearted public relations campaign by the nuclear industry.

Politicians thought we had time and expertise to replace this power source. Many of their voters made supporting nuclear power a small win-big loss type of decision. Extremism at both ends of the spectrum, from fussy progressives unclear on the concept of inescapable tradeoffs to short-sighted climate deniers on the right content with a threat seemingly too far in the future to take responsibility for, we looked gift power in the mouth and walked away.

There is foolishness enough to go around regarding this choice, but the result will cripple our efforts to control carbon emissions and even preserve democracy.

U.S. Senate Works Overtime to Protect Sunshine

Fri, 18 Mar 2022 18:14:33 GMT

Even by Washington, D.C., standards this was among the busiest of weeks.

Inflation was a hot topic, with some Washington politicians considering a temporary suspension to the federal gasoline tax. The Federal Reserve, in an attempt to walk a tight-rope between inflation and recession – announced the first interest rate hike in more than three years, with more to come.

Oh, there’s also more than a little concern that Russia’s “special military operation” in Ukraine could become a broader conflict and ignite WWIII. Indeed, even as Vladimir Putin’s military has shown the world its stunning incompetence, America and its NATO allies remain wary. The four-week-old conflict brought about a rare address from a foreign leader to a joint session of Congress.

Volodymyr Zelenskyy spoke virtually to lawmakers on Wednesday, followed by a response from President Joe Biden announcing an $800 million aide package to Ukraine. Urgent stuff.

As busy as the week started, the Senate – known for its filibusters and octogenarian foot-draggers – hurriedly passed a bill to make daylight savings time permanent. They called it the “Sunshine Protection Act,” which I guess is a misnomer if ever there was one. If you didn’t know sunshine was in peril, well, we should be thankful the Senate has found a way to fix the problem.

But the surprising part is that the measure passed UNANIMOUSLY. On a voice vote!

As we know all too well, these guys don’t agree on much. And daylight savings time would not be one of those issues one would expect consensus. Maybe it was the fact the Senators were groggy after just losing an hour of sleep over the weekend, or maybe they figured the House of Representatives would have a more prolonged (reasoned?) debate. (The House, which has held a committee hearing on the matter, must still pass the bill before it can go to the President to sign.)

An AP-NORC poll of Americans in 2019 found 72% want to stop changing their clocks twice a year.

Only 28% want to continue changing their clocks. Among the rest of Americans, 40% prefer year-round standard time and 31% prefer year-round daylight saving time.

Among Americans age 45 and older 38% support staying in daylight saving time permanently, compared to just 22% of those under 45.

(Farm Journal)

According to a poll by AgWeb/Drovers this week, roughly 60% of respondents want permanent daylight savings time. Which is interesting because I thought farmers and ranchers would much prefer standard time, and I remember the logic of one cowboy who told me, “you can’t cut the end off of a blanket and sew it onto the other end and make the blanket longer.”

America, however, has struggled with its clocks since 1918 when the first laws were passed mandating daylight saving – to save fuel, give shoppers extra light, etc. But by the end of World War II the system had become fractured. That led to Congress taking up the issue again in the early 1960s.

Naturally, “The Committee for Time Uniformity” was formed. Congressional hearings were held. Legislation proposed – bi-partisan we presume.

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed The Uniform Time Act of 1966 – designed “to promote the observance of a uniform system of time throughout the United States.” Except, well, some states refused to participate. Namely Arizona and Hawaii.

The permanent change to daylight savings time, however, has plenty of support. Since 2015, about 30 states have introduced legislation to end the twice-yearly changing of clocks, with some states proposing to do it only if neighboring states do the same. The bill would also allow Arizona and Hawaii to remain on standard time.

Nebraska lawmakers voted 39-4 to make it permanent if Congress approves and three neighboring states do, too. Wyoming passed a similar bill earlier this year, bringing to 19 the number of states now having such laws.

So now it’s up to the U.S. House of Representatives to ensure that sunshine is protected.

Take Our Poll: How Do You Feel About Daylight Saving Time?

Wed, 16 Mar 2022 20:30:34 GMT

You know the old saying: “Spring forward, fall back.” Whether daylight saving time is a good thing or an unnecessary inconvenience has long been a topic of debate , and recently, more states have considered ending the practice .

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed legislation that would end the practice of setting clocks back one hour in the fall.

What do you think? Do you support making daylight saving time permanent? Let us know in our poll below!

Quiz Maker

Democrat's Green New Deal Wants to Eliminate "Farting Cows"

Sat, 09 Feb 2019 01:12:00 GMT

A proposed set of legislative goals released by a pair of Democratic freshmen members of Congress mentions getting fewer emissions from “farting cows,” but they want to work with farmers, too. The Green New Deal was released on Feb. 7 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and aims to eliminate greenhouse gas emission while revamping the U.S. economy.

The Green New Deal has been drawing some attention because it would drastically change how many facets of the economy operate in an effort to address climate change. Components of the Green New Deal – that tries to fashion itself similar to President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal – focuses on utilizing renewable energy, cutting fossil fuels, overhauling health care and addressing the wealth divide.

The Green New Deal also contains mention of “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

The initiative aims to support family farmers, invest in sustainable agriculture practices to increase soil health and building a sustainable food system that ensures access to healthy food.

While the legislation doesn’t have much more in details about the role agriculture will play in this effort, a FAQ sheet released with the Green New Deal does paint a different picture.

In a section of the FAQ sheet asking about the difference between the goal of going “100% clean and renewable” versus “100% renewable” there is a call out about methane emissions in cattle.

“We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero,” the FAQ sheet reads.

Voices From Agriculture

The mention of “farting cows” drew concerns from groups representing agriculture and farmers on social media.

The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) has been working to address sustainability through efforts like the Global Roundtable for Sustainable Beef (GRSB) . Also, NCBA recently released a Cost/Benefit Principles that serves as a guide for decision-making on various policy proposals regarding climate change.

“Despite all the progress we’ve made on the environmental front in recent decades, some policymakers still seem to think targeting U.S. beef producers and consumers will make a huge impact on global emissions,” says Colin Woodall, NCBA senior vice president of government affairs. “That’s why we drafted our Principles – to give the folks who are proposing new public policies the opportunity to outline the specific costs and estimated benefits of their proposals.”

You may think the #GreenNewDeal is some far out but case dream. If you're involved in #agriculture you'd better view it as a threat to your entire way of life. https://t.co/Gp6Oe53HdX
— Casey Kimbrell (@CBKimbrell) February 8, 2019

Like the part where is says "work with farmers & ranchers to create sustainable, pollution and greenhouse gas free food". So basically the gov't will retrain us how they think we should farm & ranch. No thanks!
— Brandon Bell (@bjbell60) February 8, 2019

The language is very vague. Almost like those who drafted it don't know much about agriculture in the US. Farm bill supports most of what they list.
— Jeannine Otto (@AgNews_Otto) February 7, 2019

I feel like I need more details. But I’m excited we’re having this conversation and as a rancher I’d like to be part of making things better instead of worse.
— MegRaeB.bsky.social (@MegRaeB) February 8, 2019

Lots of wiggle room, kind of like now. Define ‘feasible’..🤷🏽‍♂️
— Doug Doughty (@_dpdoughty) February 7, 2019

Research and Statistics Shows Improvement on “Farting Cows”

While much of what is suggested for agriculture is already being handled through programs funded in the farm bill, the mention of “farting cows” shows a divide between rural and urban America.

According to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), direct greenhouse gas emissions that come from cattle and their manure represents 2% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, or less than 0.4% of global emissions.

Research by Virginia Tech and USDA-ARS determined that if all livestock were eliminated from production agriculture it would only reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2.6% or 0.36% globally. However, the shift would cause changes in dietary needs as people would not be able to receive enough of several different essential dietary nutrients without animal proteins. There would be deficiencies in calcium, vitamins A and B12 and some important fatty acids. Ultimately, resulting in higher caloric diets .

“A take-home message from the study was that we need to expand the way we think about food production to account for the complex consequences of changing any individual piece within the wider food system,” says Robin R. White, a professor of Animal and Poultry Science at Virginia Tech.

The announcement of the Green New Deal is something that Sara Place, NCBA’s senior director of sustainable beef production research, hopes will serve as starting off point for a conversation between the politicians supporting it and livestock producers.

“I think it highlights the large divide between people that are interacting with the environment and growing food every day, and those that are concerned about environmental issues, but ignorant,” Place says.

The U.S. has become one of the most efficient producers of both beef and dairy in the world during the past few decades, helping curtail the amount of emissions.

Since 1977, the U.S. beef cattle herd has decreased by 33% and the same amount of beef is being produced. A Journal of Animal Science study by Dr. Jude Capper showed that comparing 1977 versus 2007 to produce 1 kg of beef it took 69.9% of the animals, 81.4% of feedstuffs, 87.9% of the water, and only 67.0% of the land required. Modern beef systems produce 81.9% of the manure, 82.3% CH4, and 88.0% N2O per billion kilograms of beef compared with production systems in 1977.

Dairy has seen wide improvements as well. A study published in the Journal of Animal Science ( Capper et al., 2009 ) showed that modern dairy production has become much more efficient. Comparing 1944 versus 2007 it takes 21% fewer cows, 35% less water and 10% less land produce 1 billion kg of milk. All while emitting 37% less of a carbon footprint. Other greenhouse gas impacts included a reduction of 24% for manure, 43% for CH4, and 56% for N2O per billion kg of milk compared with equivalent milk from historical dairying.

Even with these gains in recent history to curtail greenhouse gas emissions in beef and dairy production there still appears to be a need to share that information with political leaders.