Q&A with Rod Snyder, EPA senior advisor

Rod Snyder grew up with deep agricultural roots in Jefferson County, West Virginia, where he still resides on his family farm. Rod has a deep appreciation for the heritage, legacy, and lifestyle of farming. In October 2021, he was appointed by President Biden to his current role of senior advisor for agriculture at the EPA.

SF: What inspired you to get involved in politics and public service?

RS: Growing up, I had a front row seat to public service. My father spent nearly 30 years in elected office including two decades in the West Virginia state senate. When I graduated with a political science degree, I made a conscious decision to go into agriculture policy. I felt like it was a way I could continue to contribute to my family’s agricultural background and legacy even though I wasn’t actively farming myself. That’s made this work very personal for me. 

Over the course of my entire career, I’ve commuted daily via train into Washington, D.C., from West Virginia. Spending most of my spare time in a rural community and laying my head down on the farm every night has given me a different perspective. It allows me to remain rooted and connected to the ag sector and rural communities in a different way. 

SF: In your previous role, you were focused on working on the behalf of growers and the supply chain. How has your role at EPA been similar? How has it been different? What do you find most rewarding about your role with the EPA?

RS: Across my entire career, whether I was working directly for growers through the National Corn Growers Association or Field to Market with sustainability programs, I was always looking at natural resource concerns like water quality, soil erosion, climate, and biodiversity. I’ve gotten deeply familiar with the types of practices and programs that farmers implement to help address conservation and natural resource concerns. That’s been a huge benefit to have a grasp of the subject matter from a lot of perspectives before coming to this role. 

What’s different is having those conversations inside of a large federal agency with tremendous experts on environmental policy and environmental law but may not have practical farming experience. I want to be at EPA because the subject matter expertise that I bring is even more relevant and valuable here to be able to infuse that into the conversations day in and day out. 

SF: The goal of WOTUS is to protect our water sources and ecosystems, which is a shared goal for farmers and ranchers. Yet, this remains a contentious issue between agriculture and EPA. What work is still ongoing to bridge that gap?

RS: This is always going to be a complicated question due to the complexity of hydrological systems. Farmers and landowners need certainty, where the rules are known, understood, durable, and predictable. The Biden administration and the EPA are working very hard to have a rule that is practical for farmers. The rule we put in place has very specific exclusions for prior converted croplands, certain ditches, artificially irrigated areas, things that farmers can know are not subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The Clean Water Act also has other exemptions for normal farming and ranching activity. At the same time, there are still going to be instances, particularly around wetland issues for example, where farmers might still need a wetland determination. The key is to do this in a way that is both predictable and painless as possible. 

SF: What updates are coming to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and what steps are being taken to ensure that there is a balance between the protection of endangered species and keeping valuable chemical tools in the farmers toolbox? 

RS: The EPA understands how critical crop protection tools are to food security. If we didn’t have some of these tools, there’s a real serious concern about overall productivity and yield impacts. Federal court cases in the last 10 to 20 years have challenged EPA on pesticide registration decisions for not complying with ESA and not considering impacts to species as we are registering these products. We have to find a way to meet obligations under the ESA while continuing to support and review these critical tools that farmers need. 

In the past, EPA would work on ESA review one chemical at a time and it would take four to 12 years to do the review. Courts are becoming impatient. The goal of the work plan and the draft herbicide strategy is to solve the problem in a more systematic way. Keeping the product on the field is a goal that EPA and farmers both share. We are looking for ways to integrate drift and runoff reduction measures that allow us to preserve the use of the crop protection tools in a way that will minimize impact to species. 

EPA’s herbicide strategy draft that was published in July is trying to think through that lens of how we do this in a way that is practical. We’ve been grateful for the tremendous amount of input from the agriculture community and other stakeholders to help us improve the plan. 

*Editor's note: The comment period for the Herbicide Strategy draft closed on Oct. 22, 2023, and those comments are currently being reviewed by the EPA for the final draft, which is anticipated in early 2024. 

SF: Ag is vulnerable to climate shifts and a source of greenhouse gas emissions. Farmers pride themselves on adaptability and there has been a surge of participation in mitigation efforts with cover cropping and no-till. What additional mitigation strategies would you also like to see the ag sector employ? 

RS: Farmers have such a critical role to play in the climate conversation for two reasons. First, ag is the industry that is most impacted by severe weather events. And secondly, it’s one of the only industries that can sequester carbon and provide an ecosystem benefit.

A lot of attention goes into how we reduce emissions and how we sequester carbon. That’s one half of the coin. The other side is how do we make sure our agriculture systems are resilient in the face of more extreme weather events so we can continue to feed a growing population. I think that’s one of the greatest challenges of the 21st century.

SF: What opportunities are on the horizon for agriculture regarding renewable fuels and energy?  

RS: The 2023 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is the largest in history of the program. For the first time ever, we finalized renewable volume obligations for three years (2023, 2024, 2025) giving that predictability and certainty to the ag biofuels market into the future. These are the largest volumes ever finalized by the agency for things like ethanol and biodiesel. It’s a critical piece of how we bring greenhouse gas reductions and economic viability to rural communities and domestic energy security as well. All of that is part of the RFS goals.

Additionally, The Biden administration set a short-term goal for U.S. airlines to purchase 3 billion gallons of sustainable aviation fuel by 2030, as well as a long-term goal of 35 billion gallons by 2050, to try to help grow those markets going forward. I think it’s a really exciting time.