605
any time, few dispute its importance in raising awareness about environmental justice.
In a similar fashion, any president could issue an executive order requiring consideration of food–energy–water nexus impacts, perhaps as part of NEPA.
NEPA has its limitations, chiefly because it mandates procedural steps but not
substantive outcomes. In other words, the environmental impacts of various alternative project proposals must be considered in the process, but the sponsoring federal
agency is not required to select the proposal option that is least detrimental to the
environment. However, NEPA precedent provides some latitude for the executive
branch to take a more substantive interpretation of the law. Forcing FEW
considerations into NEPA by executive order, then, could be highly instrumental in
bringing nexus analysis to the forefront of US policy.
A second means of incorporating FEW consideration into US policy would be to
reform the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act to require nonpoint source
pollution prevention. Doing so would strengthen existing voluntary initiatives to
install riparian buffers or sediment traps, or to incorporate manure into farmland
using ecologically appropriate methods.
Still another option would be to form a National Council on the FEW Nexus, like
the Council on Environmental Quality. The Council could guide key agencies regulating energy, food, and water in coordinating policies, identifying unintended consequences, and reducing inefficiencies and conflicts among FEW policy and laws.
Similar structures could also enhance the coordination of the individual FEW sectors.
At the state and local levels, laws and land use regulations designed to protect
specific economic sectors, increase energy security, or support local agriculture can
directly conflict with environmental goals. Right to Farm laws designed to protect
farmers from nuisance suits can hamper water conservation and pollution reduction.
At the same time, better financial support for county-based Soil and Water
Conservation Districts and similar institutions involved in outreach about best practices in agriculture could decrease the externalities of agriculture on water resources.
In addition, policies supporting technical approaches that make farms more energyefficient and reduce the carbon footprint of food production could help. Expanding
these policies to include explicit consideration of energy and water flows and costs
would improve the models and increase the resilience of food regulations.
Changes in political administrations can impact environmental regulations.
Regulations may be perceived as overly burdensome to industry and detrimental to
the economy. FEW regulations are no exception; in early 2018, the EPA sought public comment on whether it should clarify or revise its interpretation that discharges
to surface waters via groundwater should be subject to regulation by the CWA. This
debate strikes at the larger question about how to best incorporate changing scientific
knowledge into law and policy. We invariably assign rights based on our current
understanding of the world. When science proves that understanding to be inaccurate, significant legal, political, and practical challenges result.
One benefit of federalism is that when states fail to act, the federal government
may step in, and vice versa. When federal administrators decrease protections or
support for water, renewable energy, or climate change mitigation that would protect
FEW resources, state governments may step in to counter those moves. California’s
persistent engagement in climate discussions, even as the Trump Administration
21 Opportunities at the Nexus
any time, few dispute its importance in raising awareness about environmental justice.
In a similar fashion, any president could issue an executive order requiring consideration of food–energy–water nexus impacts, perhaps as part of NEPA.
NEPA has its limitations, chiefly because it mandates procedural steps but not
substantive outcomes. In other words, the environmental impacts of various alternative project proposals must be considered in the process, but the sponsoring federal
agency is not required to select the proposal option that is least detrimental to the
environment. However, NEPA precedent provides some latitude for the executive
branch to take a more substantive interpretation of the law. Forcing FEW
considerations into NEPA by executive order, then, could be highly instrumental in
bringing nexus analysis to the forefront of US policy.
A second means of incorporating FEW consideration into US policy would be to
reform the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act to require nonpoint source
pollution prevention. Doing so would strengthen existing voluntary initiatives to
install riparian buffers or sediment traps, or to incorporate manure into farmland
using ecologically appropriate methods.
Still another option would be to form a National Council on the FEW Nexus, like
the Council on Environmental Quality. The Council could guide key agencies regulating energy, food, and water in coordinating policies, identifying unintended consequences, and reducing inefficiencies and conflicts among FEW policy and laws.
Similar structures could also enhance the coordination of the individual FEW sectors.
At the state and local levels, laws and land use regulations designed to protect
specific economic sectors, increase energy security, or support local agriculture can
directly conflict with environmental goals. Right to Farm laws designed to protect
farmers from nuisance suits can hamper water conservation and pollution reduction.
At the same time, better financial support for county-based Soil and Water
Conservation Districts and similar institutions involved in outreach about best practices in agriculture could decrease the externalities of agriculture on water resources.
In addition, policies supporting technical approaches that make farms more energyefficient and reduce the carbon footprint of food production could help. Expanding
these policies to include explicit consideration of energy and water flows and costs
would improve the models and increase the resilience of food regulations.
Changes in political administrations can impact environmental regulations.
Regulations may be perceived as overly burdensome to industry and detrimental to
the economy. FEW regulations are no exception; in early 2018, the EPA sought public comment on whether it should clarify or revise its interpretation that discharges
to surface waters via groundwater should be subject to regulation by the CWA. This
debate strikes at the larger question about how to best incorporate changing scientific
knowledge into law and policy. We invariably assign rights based on our current
understanding of the world. When science proves that understanding to be inaccurate, significant legal, political, and practical challenges result.
One benefit of federalism is that when states fail to act, the federal government
may step in, and vice versa. When federal administrators decrease protections or
support for water, renewable energy, or climate change mitigation that would protect
FEW resources, state governments may step in to counter those moves. California’s
persistent engagement in climate discussions, even as the Trump Administration
21 Opportunities at the Nexus