I’m writing this letter at your invitation, Tom, because I have some serious concerns about two recent “IPF Says” opinion pieces you wrote, entitled “How new law impacts Indiana wetland rules” in July 2021 [read online: Wetland compromise works in ag’s favor], and “Drainage rights fight continues” in August 2021 [read online: Fight continues over ag drainage, government intervention]. I strongly disagree with some of the opinions you expressed, which I believe were not fair and balanced.

First, I want to say that I consider you a friend, and that Indiana agriculture is deeply indebted to you for your monumental support of conservation. For that, all of us who dedicate ourselves to conservation will forever be appreciative. But that is part of why I was particularly disappointed in these two articles.

I am a lifelong conservationist who is passionate about protecting our natural resources, including what little is left, only 14%, of Indiana’s millions of acres of natural wetlands. If destroying 86% isn’t enough, when will it ever be? For some, it will never be enough. Over the past 40 years, there has been some excellent legislation passed, both national and state, which protects these vital natural resources. “Swampbuster,” which was part of the 1985 Farm Bill, came as the result of the late Sen. Richard Lugar, a farmer and conservationist, visiting China and seeing firsthand the irreversible devastation to topsoil in vast regions of that nation.

But in today’s political climate, there is an anti-regulation mindset, which played out in the 2021 session of the Indiana General Assembly, specifically in Senate Bill 389. In its initial version, it sought to dismantle all wetland protections in the state. When I witnessed attempts to utterly destroy these principles and reverse Indiana’s role as a national leader in conservation, it broke my heart. I fear for the future of the wonderful natural resources of our state, for which I and others have given so many years of our lives to protect.

Here are my specific concerns:

The whole process of Senate Bill 389 has been extremely biased and unfair. In March, when state Sen. Mark Mesmer’s Environmental Affairs Committee held hearings on S.B. 389, the whole hour allotted to hearing those opposed to the bill was instead spent with committee members berating representatives of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the Department of Natural Resources. Not one of the multitude of people who supported wetlands protections, including myself, were allowed to speak.

Those supporting the bill to do away with all wetland protections — including Indiana Farm Bureau, the homebuilders association and others — were allowed to have their say. However, there was a huge public outcry against this bill, with even the Indiana Chamber of Commerce opposing every version. One hundred three groups signed a letter of opposition, but no one from Gov. Holcomb’s office would even come out to accept it. Eventually the governor signed the bill in a watered-down form that continued some wetland protections, while eliminating others.

Wetlands matter. Wetlands and streams are a vital component of our natural ecosystem. Wetlands function as filters, much like human kidneys, and filter out pollutants from entering our groundwater, rivers and streams. Back when the Clean Water Act was enacted under the Nixon administration, we had rivers catching on fire because they were so polluted. Clean water is ultimately about the health of humans and our ecosystems. Wetlands are vitally important and deserve protection. And there’s no such thing as a wetland that “has less or no value.” They all have a purpose.

Partly due to loss of wetlands, I, and many of my neighboring farmers downstream in southern Indiana, are losing tremendous amounts of money every year, due to flooding in the river bottoms. If you eliminate a wetland near Fishers to build a housing development, rather than the water sinking slowly into the ground, it rapidly runs directly into the river. If a farmer drains a wetland, he or she doesn’t build retention ponds to hold the runoff. It goes straight into the White River. Due to this, intense rainfall from climate change, deforestation and other factors, data shows that the White River is going up higher, faster and more frequently than ever. And still, farmers want to drain more wetlands, and clear more streams. Speeding up water flow does lots of damage. But nobody upstream seems to care about what such policies are doing to people like me downstream. Where do my property rights come in?

Fair and balanced discussion needed. Admittedly, regulations governing protection of wetlands and streams are complex, and I understand why farmers can get frustrated with that complexity. But in the two articles, there were a number of statements which I believe were either confusing, and/or serve to unfairly bias the discussion. Here are examples.

Protecting streams and protecting wetlands are two different issues, covered by the same laws. This was not clear in the articles.

The title of the August article itself, “Drainage rights fight continues,” was biased. Those farmer rights and responsibilities have already been long established. Every year when you sign up for government benefits, you sign paperwork saying you understand the law and agree to comply with it. This “fight” isn’t about what are farmer rights. Rather, it’s about some farmers wanting to do whatever they want, regardless of the law or how it impacts others.

Why was there no mention that there was fierce and widespread opposition to S.B. 389? Or that knowledgeable people and reputable organizations that opposed to it weren’t even allowed to testify?

It appeared to me that much of what was expressed as fact was straight out of Indiana Farm Bureau’s playbook on this issue. I also believe it’s worth noting that Farm Bureau’s position regarding S.B. 389 directly contradicts previous very positive efforts they made to support clean water legislation. Farm Bureau’s support of S.B. 389 incentivizes home builders to build on prime farmland, while increasing flooding downstream.

Farmers really do pay attention to what you say, Tom, and I believe we have headed down the wrong path. In the future, please give us a fair and balanced perspective.

In conclusion. I mentioned the current anti-regulation mindset. During the past year’s General Assembly, one state senator said, “What we really need to do here is just do away with IDEM. Period.”

Really? An old adage goes, “If you throw Mother Nature out the window, she will come back kicking in the door.”

Various ag and commodity organizations spend much money and effort “telling our story,” part of which is that “Farmers are good stewards, the original environmentalists.” But are we only “good environmentalists” when ethanol boosts the price of corn? As farmers, we need to be “walking the talk.” Research consistently shows that farmers enjoy a high level of trust from the public, and today that trust is more vital than ever. But if by our actions we show that our messaging is nothing more than empty lip service, while we race headlong in our attempts to dismantle environmental protections, we will lose that trust. And once lost … it ain’t coming back.

Thanks Tom, for letting me have my say.

McCormick farms near Vincennes, Ind.