DOCSLIB.ORG

Will a Beverage-Container Deposit Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Will a Beverage-Container Deposit Program March 2012 Volume 25, Number 2 The Abell Report What we think about, and what we’d like you to think about Published as a community service by The Abell Foundation Uncapping the Pros and Cons of a Bottle Deposit Program Will a beverage-container deposit program reduce litter in Maryland? And at what cost? An examination of this issue—along with potential impacts on recycling rates, employment, beverage sales, and greenhouse gas emissions. By the University of Maryland The Effect on Litter Reduction ABELL SALUTES: Environmental Finance Center, in Litter is a universal problem with partnership with the Center for negative impacts that reach far “Year-Up”: Teaching IT Integrative Environmental Research beyond the community of origin. It and ECONorthwest not only decreases the aesthetic appeal skills, opening doors, of communities, which depresses everage-container deposit pro - changing lives. business and local property values, grams currently exist in 10 but litter also travels via wind and Gary Barnes Sutton, an 18-year Bstates across the country and water to pollute critical waterways old African American and 2009 grad - are under consideration in several and ecosystems. Traditional stormwa - uate of Mergenthaler (high school) others. These programs add a refund - ter systems, which tend to result in was hustling pizzas at $3.00 an hour able deposit (generally 5 or 10 cents) high-velocity flows of rainwater, exac - plus tips and making maybe $15,000 to the purchase price of a beverage erbate the problem. As a result, local a year in the culture of the working container. When the consumer and state governments and communi - poor, when he connected with a pro - returns the beverage container for ties across the country continue to gram called Year Up; some 14 recycling, the deposit is returned. The invest in surveys, cleanups, and litter- months later he is making $15.00 an unique nature of disposable beverage reducing technologies in an attempt hour and $30,000 a year as an infor - containers provides the opportunity to reduce these negative impacts. mation technician working in the to use a market-based system to Litter also adversely affects white-collar corporate world (T. incentivize the proper handling and tourism, and it degrades the ecology Rowe Price, Domino Sugar, Morgan disposal of these items. of land and water systems. But litter is Stanley), with prospects of rising However, deposit programs costly to clean up. A 2009 Keep income and the wholly different life remain highly debated, with strong America Beautiful report estimated that accompanies. For Gary and hun - supporters and detractors. The goal of that the U.S. spends nearly $10.8 bil - dreds of other young men and the University of Maryland Environ - lion annually on litter cleanup and women struggling in an unforgiving mental Finance Center (EFC) project prevention alone, with state and local workplace where jobs of any kind are team is to provide an objective analy - governments picking up 11.5 percent hard to come by, Year Up is transfor - sis that informs the decision-making of the cost, or about $1.3 billion. mative--changing young people’s process within the state of Maryland Businesses reportedly pay the brunt of workplace skills, income, lifestyle and as it considers legislation in the litter cleanup—$9.1 billion, or about aspirations. Of his Year-Up experi - future. This executive summary sum - 80 percent of the total cost. 1 The ence, Gary says in wonderment, marizes the team’s key findings associ - City of Baltimore spends approxi - “What an eye opener!” ated with extended research. A copy mately $10 million per year on litter Year Up is a nonprofit organiza - of the full report is available from The cleanup, including litter pickup in continued on page 12 Abell Foundation at www.abell.org. business districts ($2.3 million) and continued from page 1 Estimated Lower Estimated Upper Total Material Source/Location Bound (9% Beverage Bound (24% Collected mechanical street sweeping ($3.8 mil - Containers) Beverage Containers) lion). 2 These services are critical to Maryland SHA (2010) 7 24,092 lbs of debris 2,168.2 lbs 5,782.1 lbs residents and businesses and to main - 11,162 units plastic 312.5 lbs (actual) Assateague Coast (2010) 8 taining a competitive hub for the 3,207 units glass 1,343.3 lbs (actual) 3 city’s $3 billion tourism industry. Baltimore Inner Harbor 16 tons of debris 2,880 lbs 7,680 lbs Although many attempts have (2006-2007) 9 been made to quantify the beverage- Baltimore Community 144 tons of debris 25,920 lbs 69,120 lbs container component of litter, esti - Cleanup (2011) 10 mates vary widely because the vari - Anacostia Bandalong Trap 6,000 lbs annually 540 lbs 1,440 lbs ability in methodology makes it diffi - (2010) 11 cult to ascertain a precise percentage. Potomac Spring Cleanup 228 tons of debris 41,040 lbs 109,440 lbs This report cites data from numerous (2011) 12 studies that indicate beverage contain - Patapsco Cleanup (2007) 13 71,272 lbs of debris 6,415 lbs 17,105 lbs ers make up between 4.4 percent and 21 percent of the litter stream Table 1: Litter collected at recent cleanup events in Maryland throughout the country. One of the most comprehensive bottles—and using a plastic PET bot - used, including Adopt-a-Highway surveys is from the Ocean Conservan - tle weight as a proxy, 6 we can calculate programs, paid litter pickup, compre - cy. In 2009, it reported that beverage how much of the total litter collected hensive litter-control programs, litter containers were among the top 10 of at recent cleanups can be attributed to fees or taxes, paid targeted advertising, marine debris collected, and were beverage containers alone. extended producer responsibility pro - recorded at more than 6,000 sites One of the most comprehensive grams, and, of course, beverage-con - around the world on a single day dur - and current data sets available for tainer deposit programs. ing the International Coastal Maryland comes from the 2011 In fact, a review of the available lit - Cleanup. In fact, 9 percent of the Potomac River Watershed Cleanup erature shows that beverage-container debris collected on that day were plas - sponsored by the Alice Ferguson deposit programs have proven to be tic beverage bottles (883,737 bottles), Foundation. The 23rd annual cleanup the most effective method for reduc - 4 percent were glass beverage bottles cleared 48.4 tons (193,600 individual ing litter. Beverage deposits, in (459,531 bottles), and 4 percent were containers) of recyclable aluminum, essence, create an incentive to dispose aluminum beverage cans (457,631 glass, and plastic bottles from the of a container properly instead of cans)—totaling 17 percent. 4 watershed at 613 sites located in leaving the container to pollute the Though data for Maryland are Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, environment as trash. States that have fragmented and largely incomplete, a Pennsylvania, and the District of enacted deposit programs report sig - series of litter surveys and clean-ups Columbia. 14 This tonnage represents nificant reductions in beverage con - provides insight into the scope and about 21 percent of all waste collect - tainers in the litter stream. Hawaii, for composition of litter in the state. ed, marking the upper bound of the example, saw a 60 percent reduction Using the estimate suggested in pro - national range discussed above. in beverage containers as a percentage posed House Bill 839 5—that between So how can a state address this lit - of total litter between 2005 (the year 9 percent and 24 percent of Mary - ter problem? There are a number of the beverage deposit program was land’s litter (by weight) is made up of practices and programs that may be implemented) and 2008. 15 (This The Abell Report is published quarterly by The Abell Foundation 111 S. Calvert Street, 23rd Floor, Baltimore, Maryland 21202-6174 • (410) 547-1300 • Fax (410) 539-6579 The Abell Reports on the Web: www.abell.org 2 continued from page 2 State Beverage Container Litter Reduction Total Litter Reduction trend reversed slightly in subsequent Iowa 76% 19 39% 20 years with 2010 data showing a 1.5 Maine 69-77% 21 34-64% 22 percent increase in beverage contain - Massachusetts N/A 30-35% 23 ers as a percentage of total litter.) 16 There is some literature that indicates Michigan 84% 24 41% 25 that other forms of litter are reduced New York 70-80% 26 30% 27 as a result of deposit programs as well Oregon 83% 28 47% 29 (see Table 2 below). 17 While this may be the case, the EFC’s research indi - Vermont 83% 30 35% 31 cates that litter-reduction benefits of Table 2: Litter reductions after implementation of a beverage-container deposit bill 32 deposit programs can only be quanti - fied to any degree of certainty with tively simple in concept, the revenue ated beverages sold in glass, plastic, or regard to beverage-container litter. flows and transaction costs associated aluminum containers typically with Table 2, below, shows self-reported with these programs can be complex. the exception of dairy products. 33,34 litter data to the U.S. Senate Com - Further, how these costs and revenue Figure 1, below, shows the flow of mittee on Environment and Public flows are accounted for will determine deposits (solid lines) and bottles (dot - Works in 2002 from seven states that the long-term sustainability of the ted lines) in a bottle-deposit program. have enacted bottle-deposit legisla - program and the responsibilities of First, consider a bottle that is pur - tion.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Oregon Tourism Commission
    Oregon Tourism Commission Staff Report | February 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Optimize Statewide Economic Impact............................................................................... 2 Drive business from key global markets through integrated sales/marketing plans leveraged with global partners and domestic travel trade ..................................................... 2 Guide tourism in a way that achieves the optimal balance of visitation, economic impact, natural resources conservation and livability ......................................................................... 7 Inspire overnight leisure travel through industry-leading branding, marketing and communications ........................................................................................................................ 7 Support and Empower Oregon’s Tourism Industry ...................................................... 34 Provide development and training opportunities to meet the evolving tourism industry needs ......................................................................................................................................... 34 Implement industry leading visitor information network ................................................... 43 Fully realize statewide, strategic integration of OTIS (Oregon Tourism Information System) .................................................................................................................................... 45 Deploy tourism programs (e.g. RCTP, Competitive Grants) in a powerful way
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereignty by Subtraction: the Multilateral Agreement on Investment Robert Stumberg*
    Cornell International Law Journal Volume 31 Article 5 Issue 3 Symposium 1998 Sovereignty by Subtraction: The ultM ilateral Agreement on Investment Robert Stumberg Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Stumberg, Robert (1998) "Sovereignty by Subtraction: The ultM ilateral Agreement on Investment," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 31: Iss. 3, Article 5. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol31/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Sovereignty by Subtraction: The Multilateral Agreement on Investment Robert Stumberg* Introduction ..................................................... 492 I. Overview of the MAI Sovereignty Debate .................. 496 A. Trade-Offs in the MAI Negotiations .................... 496 B. Defining Sovereignty as the Balance of Power .......... 498 C. Main Features of the MAI ............................. 501 D. Sovereignty Preservation Arguments ................... 503 1. Preemption by Federal Courts ...................... 503 2. Administrative Implementation ..................... 504 3. Legislation ........................................ 504 E. Likelihood of Conflict Arguments ..................... 506 1. Trade Is Not Investment
    [Show full text]
  • This Digital Document Is Courtesy of the Oregon State Library. Voters’ Pamphlet
    This digital document is courtesy of the Oregon State Library. Voters’ Pamphlet Oregon Primary Election May 15, 2012 Kate Brown Oregon Secretary of State This voters’ pamphlet is provided for assistance in casting your vote by mail ballot. OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE ELECTIONS DIVISION STEPHEN N. TROUT KATE BROWN DIRECTOR SECRETARY OF STATE 255 CAPITOL ST NE, SUITE 501 BARRY PACK SALEM, OREGON 97310 DEPUTY SECRETARY OF STATE (503) 986-1518 Dear Oregon Voters, We are happy to present the 2012 Voters’ Pamphlet for the May Primary Election. On a daily basis my offi ce provides many important services including business registration, auditing and the archiving of Oregon’s history. However, the most important service we perform is distributing information to the public. Technology has provided us with the ability to share information and conduct business online. Oregon’s elections website: www.oregonvotes.org offers a variety of services including voter registration, the ability to update your registration, ballot tracking and locating the nearest offi cial ballot dropsite. If you have not registered to vote, and would like to participate in the May Primary Election, you have until April 24, 2012. I urge all eligible Oregonians to vote and exercise the most essential right of our democratic system. Oregon offers the most convenient, accessible, secure and cost effective voting systems. We were the fi rst in the nation to implement an all vote by mail system and we consistently have some of the nation’s highest voter turnout rates. Let’s continue this Oregon tradition of participation. Please remember all ballots must be received by your county elections offi ce by 8 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Beverage Container Regulation: Economic Implications and Suggestions for Model Legislation
    Beverage Container Regulation: Economic Implications and Suggestions For Model Legislation Charles M. Gudger* and Kenneth D. Walters* INTRODUCTION It is a paradox of modem industrial societies that while they recently have been encountering shortages of many natural resources, more and more resources are thrown away every year. These societies face shortages of energy and at the same time experience an ever- increasing glut of solid waste residuals and litter. In the United States, production of solid waste reached the rate of 3.32 pounds per person per day in 1971.1 A prime contributor to this trend has been the growing use of throw-away consumer product packaging. Packaging is the largest com- ponent of municipal solid waste in the United States, 34 percent by weight.2 Annual U.S. consumption of packaging materials increased from 35 million tons in 1958 to 59.5 million tons in 1970, and will reach a projected 73.5 million tons in 1976, equivalent to 661 pounds of packaging per person per year.3 The use of nonreturnable beverage containers is a significant com- ponent of the solid waste problem. The growing use of nonreturnable beverage containers represents a classic success story in modern market- ing in the United States. In 1958, only two percent of the soft drink packages and 42 percent of the beer containers were nonreturnable., By 1972, 59 percent of soft drink packages and 77 percent of beer contain- ers were nonreturnable.5 In 1958, 12 billion beverage containers were * Associate Professor of Management, Oregon State University. B.S. 1948, M.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fall Clinical Meeting October 4-9, 2014
    Texas Club of Internists FALL CLINICAL MEEtiNG October 4-9, 2014 The Nines Hotel Portland, Oregon CME jointly sponsored by Oregon Health & Science University and the Texas Club of Internists TCI Fall Clinical Meeting President’s Welcome Message Leighton and I are excited that you will be joining us in Portland, Oregon this fall. We have spent a week there each of the last two summers, and have come to love this city. We know you will enjoy the trip to Mt. Hood on Sunday: we watched people skiing there in July! And we don’t think the club has ever offered a short hike as part of the Sunday outing. But that’s optional, and shops in Hood River await the more urban members. Of course we get to visit the Willamette Valley for wine tasting, and that will take place on Tuesday. Make special note of the options for wineries, as you may want to experience some others before or after the meeting. While some of the places we would have liked to visit wouldn’t take large groups during harvest season, you may be able to drop in on your own. We also hope you have an extra day or two to enjoy the amazing Oregon coastline. OHSU is excited about our group. The CME department tells us they never had such a willing group of speakers as for this meeting. If you get the chance, take the aerial tram up to the campus. It’s spectacular. We have an out-of-sight band for Wednesday night.
    [Show full text]
  • Commerce - Constitutional Law - Validity of a Bottle Bill Encouraging the Use of Standard-Size Returnable Bottles
    North Dakota Law Review Volume 51 Number 2 Article 13 1974 Commerce - Constitutional Law - Validity of a Bottle Bill Encouraging the Use of Standard-Size Returnable Bottles William L. Guy III Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Guy, William L. III (1974) "Commerce - Constitutional Law - Validity of a Bottle Bill Encouraging the Use of Standard-Size Returnable Bottles," North Dakota Law Review: Vol. 51 : No. 2 , Article 13. Available at: https://commons.und.edu/ndlr/vol51/iss2/13 This Case Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at UND Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Dakota Law Review by an authorized editor of UND Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT CASES nity-enacted growth restrictions . 4 The traditional question of wheth- er the legislatures and Congress might be better equipped to handle the problems of growth needs to be seriously considered. The right to travel may simply be too abstract to be effective in coping with all of the complexities of urban reality.45 CHARLES S. MILLER JR. COMMERCE-CONSTITUTIONAL LAW-VALIDITY OF A "BOTTLE BILL" ENCOURAGING THE USE OF STANDARD-SIZED RETURNABLE BOTTLES. On October 1, 1972,1 Oregon became the first state2 to regu- late the use of non-returnable beverage containers." The legislative purpose of the so-called "Bottle Bill" was two fold: 1) to force bev- erage packagers to use tiniform, returnable, multiple-use bottles, 44.
    [Show full text]
  • DEQ Issued a Public Notice on May 19, 2017 Requesting Public Comment on DEQ's Draft Air Quality Permit for American Petroleum Environmental Services, Inc
    American Petroleum Environmental Services Air Contaminant Discharge Permit 26-3021 Response to Comments DEQ issued a public notice on May 19, 2017 requesting public comment on DEQ's draft air quality permit for American Petroleum Environmental Services, Inc. DEQ mailed notice to property owners within at least one mile of the facility, and included additional zip codes and neighborhood associations where DEQ anticipated there would be interest. DEQ also provided public notice through publication m two local newspapers, posting of the notice on DEQ's website, and through email; subscribers ofDEQ's email notification list received a message about the proposed permit issuance and the chance to comment. The comment period closed at 5 p.m. on July 3, 2017. The following response to comments combines like topics and comments to minimize duplicates. Comments are paraphrased to address the main point and are not included verbatim. All written and oral (transcribed) comments are included as an addendum to this document. Comments relating to other facilities are not addressed by the responses below. Some of the following comments are verbatim, combined, or paraphrased with similar comments to reduce redundancy. 1. Comment The DEQ should issue American Petroleum Environmental Services (APES) an immediate Cease and Desist order (ORS 468.115(1)) requiring them to shut down until they can reduce emissions below levels that may be harmful to the residents in the area. DEQ should shut the facility down using the authority in OAR 340-216-0082 (permit revocation). DEQ should deny the permit renewal until all neighborhood concerns are met. DEQ response In order to issue a cease and desist order under Oregon Revised Stahite (ORS) 468.115, DEQ would need to determine that air pollution from APES was causing "an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons," and the Governor would need to direct DEQ to enter such an order.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact Analysis of a Beverage Container Deposit Program in Maryland
    2011 Impact Analysis of a Beverage Container Deposit Program in Maryland Photo Credit: Alan Cressier, USGS Prepared for the Waterfront Partnership of Baltimore, Inc. and the Abell Foundation Prepared by the University of Maryland Environmental Finance Center (EFC) December 15, 2011 1 This document was prepared by the following partners: Environmental Finance Center The Environmental Finance Center (EFC) is located at the National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education at the University of Maryland in College Park. The EFC is a regional center developed by the Environmental Protection Agency to assist communities and watershed organizations in identifying innovative and sustainable ways of implementing and financing their resource protection efforts throughout the Mid-Atlantic region. The EFC is nonadvocacy in nature and has assisted communities and organizations in developing effective sustainable strategies for specific watershed protection goals for a variety of clients including state and local governments, watershed organizations, and land trusts. The Center for Integrative Environmental Research The Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) at the University of Maryland addresses complex environmental challenges through research that explores the dynamic interactions among environmental, economic and social forces and stimulates active dialogue with stakeholders, researchers and decision makers. Researchers and students at CIER, working at local, regional, national and global scales, are developing strategies and tools to guide policy and investment decisions. ECONorthwest ECONorthwest is an economic consulting firm located on the west coast and provides an unbiased and thorough economic analysis to private and public sector clients throughout the United States. ECONorthwest is nationally known for its rigorous analyses in the area of environmental economics.
    [Show full text]
  • Hb 2402 Joint Interim Task Force Funding for Fish, Wildlife and Related Outdoor Recreation and Education
    HB 2402 JOINT INTERIM TASK FORCE FUNDING FOR FISH, WILDLIFE AND RELATED OUTDOOR RECREATION AND EDUCATION REPORT TO OREGON LEGISLATURE December 31, 2016 MEMBERS OF THE OREGON LEGISLATURE: On behalf of the HB 2402 Legislative Task Force, we submit the following report for your consideration. The Task Force for funding for Fish, Wildlife and Related Outdoor Recreation and Education was created by HB 2402 in the 2015 Legislative Session. We were charged with developing recommendations to strengthen the State’s ability to conserve natural resources and connect Oregonians to nature through outdoor recreation and education opportunities. The Task Force was comprised of 17 members from throughout Oregon, four non-voting legislators and two ex officio members (Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission Chair Mike Finley and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Director Curt Melcher). We met twelve times from January through November 2016, and convened two groups to develop draft recommendations for full Task Force consideration. Our report to you provides a summary of several thousand hours of hard work by very dedicated and caring Oregonians. We took our Legislative charge very seriously by: 1. Identifying and recommending potential alternative, sustainable funding sources for ODFW. 2. Recommending potential budget adjustments to ensure relevant ODFW program areas are funded in accordance with Legislative direction. 3. Recommending opportunities for ODF&W to better achieve its mission through leveraging, coordinating and budgeting funds from alternate and existing sources. We contacted and received reports from other states on how their fish and wildlife agencies are funded. We conducted a statistically valid survey of Oregonians to ask their opinion on how fish and wildlife should be funded and what their impressions were of the agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Rethinking Recycling: an Oregon Waste Reduction Curriculum. Teacher Resource Guide. INSTITUTION Oregon State Dept
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 365 554 SE 054 042 TITLE Rethinking Recycling: An Oregon Waste Reduction Curriculum. Teacher Resource Guide. INSTITUTION Oregon State Dept. of Environmental Quality, Portland. PUB DATE Oct 93 NOTE 188p. AVAILABLE FROM Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 811 S.W., Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204. PUB TYPE Guides Classroom Use Teaching Guides (For Teacher) (052) EDRS PRICE MFOI/PC08 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Annotated Bibliographies; 'Educational Resources; Elementary Secondary Education; *Environmental Education; Instructional Materials; *Recycling; Solid Wastes; State Curriculum Guides; Teaching Guides; *Waste Disposal IDENTIFIERS Environmental Problems; *Oregon ABSTRACT In 1993, the Oregon State Department of Education, in conjunction with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), developed four "Classroom Activity Packets" with waste reduction and recycling lessons for each of the following groups: Grades K-2; Grades 3-5; Grades 6-8; and Grades 9-12. This teacher resource guide is the final component of that curriculum and includes information on the content goals in waste reduction education and methods to help teacher integrate instruction to meet those goals in daily classroom lessons. The guide is presented in five sections. Section 1 provides an overview of the new materials that includes educational objectives, a cross-reference to statewide curriculum goals, and a list of materials in the activity packets. Section 2 presents a history of the problem of waste, the Oregon hierarchy of solutions, and special waste reduction concerns, Section 3 discusses the teaching methods that include making use of technology, games, simulations, and parental and community involvement. Exemplary programs are recognized. Section 4 pre ,nts programs to supplement the implementation of the curriculum thdt include an awareness week, a classroom resource center, and plays and songs.
    [Show full text]
  • Oregon State Grange
    Table of Contents AGRICULTURE POLICY .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 SUPPORT THESE BROAD AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY ACTIVITIES ........................................................................................................ 1 OPPOSE THESE BROAD AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY PROGRAMS......................................................................................................... 1 FAMILY FARMS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 2 WATERSHED POLICY ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY ...................................................................................................... 4 AGRICULTURE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 FARM LAND AND FOREST LAND ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 IRRIGATION ................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Legislative Policy Handbook
    Oregon State Grange Legislative Policies 2021 In Essentials….Unity In Non-Essentials….Liberty In All things….Charity The Grange Motto Revised 10/2020 Table of Contents AGRICULTURE ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1 POLICY STATEMENTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 1 SUPPORT THESE BROAD AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................. 1 OPPOSE THESE BROAD AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY PROGRAMS .................................................................................................. 1 FAMILY FARMS..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 WATERSHED POLICY .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION, AND NATURAL RESOURCES POLICY ................................................................................................ 4 FARM LAND AND FOREST LAND ............................................................................................................................................... 4 IRRIGATION ........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]