Why can’t I access this file?
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
- Your membership has expired.
- The file is restricted to certain users.
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
We’re diving into a topic that might not always grab the headlines but is crucial for a steady food supply: the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). This legislation, along with our inland waterways, plays a key role in supporting the fertilizer industry and agriculture.
What is WRDA?
The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) is pivotal U.S. legislation that authorizes and prioritizes water resource projects, including dams, levees, ports, and inland waterways. WRDA ensures that the US Army Corps of Engineers has the appropriate direction for maintaining and improving our waterway infrastructure, preventing disruptions, and supporting the agricultural industry by facilitating efficient transportation of goods like fertilizers.
Why Inland Waterways Matter
Inland waterways are the hidden highways of our transportation network, essential for moving goods smoothly across the country. For the fertilizer industry, these waterways are vital. Fertilizers are bulky and heavy, making water transport efficient and cost-effective. Regular Congressional action on WRDA bills keeps this infrastructure in top shape, ensuring fertilizers and other essentials reach farmers efficiently.
Investing in water infrastructure through WRDA isn’t just about maintaining old systems—it’s about making them more efficient and reliable. This often includes the construction of whole new lock facilities to meet modern requirements. This means smoother transport, lower costs for producers and consumers, and a stronger, more resilient economy.
The Case for Investing in Waterway Infrastructure
Many locks and dams in the U.S. are over 90 years old, some dating back to the 1930s. This aging infrastructure urgently needs maintenance and upgrades to prevent significant delays and disruptions. Portions of the inland waterway network in poor condition act as bottlenecks due to the need for unscheduled maintenance, with each day of delay depriving crops of essential nutrients, resulting in lower yields and higher costs, which can lead to higher prices for consumers. Many of our oldest locks are only half the size needed for modern tug and barge traffic.
Investing in waterway infrastructure is crucial for efficiency, safety, and economic stability. Upgrading our lock and dam systems ensures smoother, more reliable transportation, reduces costs, and enhances economic stability. WRDA plays a critical role by prioritizing essential maintenance and upgrades, transforming old systems into efficient networks.
Key WRDA Legislative Support and Benefits
TFI supports the enactment of a final WRDA bill before the end of 2024. Thankfully, both the Senate and House have passed their versions of the legislation. TFI is especially supportive of a provision advanced by the Senate which would propose changing the cost-share for waterway projects from the current 65% general revenues/35% Inland Waterways Trust Fund (IWTF) split to 75% general revenues/25% IWTF. Bringing more general revenue dollars towards inland waterway projects accelerates funding for critical construction and rehab projects, saving taxpayers money and speeding up project completion.
Addressing the maintenance backlog, estimated at billions of dollars, is an investment in our future. Well-maintained waterways enable the fertilizer industry to transport goods quickly and reliably, ensuring farmers receive supplies on time. This leads to better crop yields and stable food prices.
Positive Consequences of WRDA Reauthorization
Recent progress in advancing the WRDA bills has been remarkable, with strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House. The Senate’s bill even received unanimous approval, showcasing a unified commitment to enhancing our water infrastructure. This legislative progress promises a brighter future for our waterways and the agricultural sector.
With the right policies in place, WRDA reauthorization ensures:
Let’s Wrap It Up
WRDA and our inland waterways are critical components of the fertilizer industry’s supply chain. Investing in this infrastructure ensures that farmers get the supplies they need, crops grow efficiently, and food prices remain stable. So, next time you enjoy a fresh salad or a hearty bowl of pasta, take a moment to appreciate the complex system that helps get that food from the farm to your table. It’s all connected, and it all starts with smart investments in our waterway infrastructure. By supporting these efforts, we can keep our food system strong, our economy stable, and our communities thriving.
Formaldehyde may not immediately spring to mind when considering agriculture, yet it plays a critical role, particularly in the production of fertilizers. Often linked with the preservation of biological specimens, formaldehyde’s agricultural importance cannot be overstated. As a naturally occurring organic compound, formaldehyde is vital for producing granular urea and slow-release urea fertilizers. However, the EPA’s newly proposed, overly conservative risk determinations on formaldehyde could drastically alter its use in agriculture, potentially leading to higher food costs and impacting crop yields.
Understanding Formaldehyde’s Agricultural Impact
Formaldehyde is crucial in producing urea and slow-release urea fertilizers. Nearly 25% of all nitrogen consumed domestically is urea. Slow-release urea fertilizers come in both solid and liquid forms and are designed to release nutrients slowly. This slow-release process reduces nitrogen runoff—limiting environmental impacts—and ensures that crops receive a steady supply of nutrients. As a result, plants are healthier and have higher yields. This method makes formaldehyde indispensable in modern agriculture, as it enhances the efficiency of plants using nitrogen and supports sustainable farming efforts.
Why Farmers Rely on Urea-Formaldehyde
The Challenge of New EPA Formaldehyde Regulations
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released its draft risk determinations for formaldehyde and a draft occupational exposure value. Industry experts have criticized these proposed limits, arguing that the restrictions are too severe, don’t align with global standards, and are not justified by the best available science. In fact, the EPA’s proposed limits are even lower than the levels of formaldehyde found in half of homes in the US. Finalization of unobtainable exposure values could disrupt the production of essential agricultural products without improving safety. This situation highlights the need for realistic regulations that balance wellness with the practical needs of agriculture.
If finalized as proposed, the EPA’s unreasonable risk determination of formaldehyde use will create a tricky situation. The subsequent risk management rule will aim to eliminate unreasonable risks by imposing unachievable workplace protections or prohibited uses that completely bring challenges for agriculture, farmers, and consumers.
Challenges from stricter regulations could impact the lives of all Americans. Potential issues include:
Formaldehyde may not be a familiar substance outside scientific and agricultural circles, but it’s essential for producing fertilizers that sustain our food supply. Although the industry is committed to working with agencies to promote the safety of the agriculture value chain, EPA’s proposed exposure limit is excessively strict and not based on the best available science. The challenge lies in balancing public health concerns with agricultural production needs. A more balanced approach to regulation would safeguard public health without disrupting the economic stability of farmers or impacting crop yields and food prices. By aligning these new regulations with practical agricultural practices and international standards, we can protect public health and support the foundation of America’s food system.
The FERT Foundation is home to 12 research projects that focus on fluid fertilizer and 4R optimization. Every week, we feature a different researcher in our publication. This week, we’re excited to introduce you to Charlie Sanchez.
Project Name: Spatial and Temporal N Management for Irrigated Vegetable Production Systems
University: University of Arizona
Years Funded: 2019-2021
4R Questions Addressed: Rate, Time and Place
This project focused on:
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
Possible reasons you cannot access this file:
If you are seeing this message in error, please contact us.
House of Representatives Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn “G.T.” Thompson (R-PA) said this week that his committee will complete its work on the Farm Bill reauthorization effort to craft a new multi-year law addressing USDA programs and other things before Memorial Day. Meanwhile, this week, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) wrote a Dear Colleague letter to senators that omits the Farm Bill entirely from a laundry list of items to address in the remainder of the year. You will note the partisan tone of Schumer’s letter that is sure not to impress Republicans — which is perfectly fine with Schumer. Nevertheless, it does lay out a broad agenda of to-do items, notably including funding Ukraine defense efforts. Thompson is a seasoned legislator who is well-respected by Republicans and Democrats alike, and he claims to have a solution that will break an impasse in the ongoing negotiations about nutrition programs. Whether he will succeed on his timeline remains to be seen. While the House and Senate each conduct business independently of each other, it is not ideal to do a bill that foreseeably cannot advance in the other chamber for an extended period of time. Much more preferable is to be able to create and rely upon momentum to move a bill through both chambers and then to the president’s desk for signing into law.