Policy and politics with a focus on agriculture.
Welcome to Agronomy for the People by me, Zach Sutter. Former agronomist. Current retail worker.
I set up this newsletter to distribute some work I’m planning on doing around the update to agricultural nitrogen regulations in Wisconsin that is currently making its way through the WI DNR bureaucracy. This piece is an introduction to some of the issues I will be covering. If you want to get into the nitty gritty right away, check out the DNR page for the rule revision..
Much of the organizing against agricultural pollution in Wisconsin is focused around the siting of CAFO facilities. At first glance, this makes sense. A new CAFO facility in your neighborhood is a highly visible symbol of change and increased risk of ecological damage. With the start of the Walker era, siting a CAFO became much easier because of various legislation and administrative rule changes. As a result, rural residents saw a sharp increase in CAFOs across the state. This visible manifestation of right-wing policies became the central organizing issue in the fight against industrial agriculture.
This writer sees this emphasis as misguided. The CAFO permitting and siting process is very undemocratic. If a CAFO is able to show that they can meet all requirements, they are almost guaranteed to get permitted. To the extent that the anti-CAFO forces have been successful, it has primarily been through the courts.
In an era when mass politics are at or near a nadir, the courts have been the main venue for “progressive” change. These wins are inherently tenuous. The courts and the rules and laws they are deciding on are under the control of the ruling class. Any “wins” we get in the courts can easily be taken away when and if the ruling class decides they want to change who the judges are or what the rules are.
The rules that ultimately come through this process will likely look much like the proposed rules. Landowners/farmers and their agribusiness allies will whine about how they can’t make any changes because they are precious little snowflakes. Despite these protestations, other sections of the ruling class have decided that things have gotten bad enough that something must be done.
The draft revision we have now is fine. If enforced, it would likely improve water quality. The “if enforced” is key. We currently have rules regulating nitrogen that are not enforced in any meaningful way. When I was working with landowners/farmers on environmental compliance, they would just lie or refuse to give information needed to determine compliance. They knew they could do this without any consequences.
In a very real sense, this rule change is a sham, and we shouldn’t take it seriously. What working people need is a way to force landowners/farmers and their agribusiness allies to clean up their act. We won’t get this from an administrative rule change. I still think it is worthwhile to be engaged with.
Reasons this struggle is worthwhile:
It provides an opportunity for people to get educated about nitrogen issues and agricultural pollution generally. This shit is kind of complicated. The mainstream environmental groups that rely on moralism and emotion for their activism don’t do a great job of educating on the material realities.
We need to put bureaucrats, landowners/farmers, and agribusiness on notice that working people are tuning into these issues, and working people have the potential to be much more powerful than the NIMBYism of better off anti-CAFO activists. A lot of public comments around these issues tend to be in the genre of “I bought this idyllic property in the country for my retirement and now this stinky farm is ruining my summer picnic.” That isn’t a perspective that lends itself to mass politics.
Struggles over CAFO siting are local by nature. This nitrate rule change has a statewide impact that can serve to link struggles across the state and between city and country. We build power when we organize broadly.
Nitrate pollution in drinking water affects the rural and urban poor and people of color disproportionately. Much environmental activism is done by and for well off white folks. This issue has a broad appeal and organizations like the NAACP Beloit Chapter are already organizing around this.
The administrative rule revision procedure is a nominally democratic process. Though we can’t really say that it is actually democratic, it will give organizers exposure to proceduralism and navigating bureaucracy, skills and knowledge essential for understanding power.
This newsletter will be a way to learn about the process of the rule change, to learn about agricultural pollution generally, to stay up to date with what is going on with this rule change, and to find opportunities to make your voice heard.
Sign up now so you don’t miss the first issue.
In the meantime, tell your friends!