Starting the New Year with Context

January 1, 2026
Friends,

Welcome to a new year! As we begin 2026, we want to take a step back and reflect on how research findings, particularly those involving environmental regulation and agriculture, are translated into public-facing narratives. Recently, several news stories have cited a national report examining staffing trends at state environmental agencies, including the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). The discussion that followed provides a useful case study in why careful interpretation and context matter when complex data becomes public conversation.

In a nutshell, the cited report, published by the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), a Washington, DC-based activist group, documents a decline in NCDEQ staffing between 2010 and 2024. According to the report, North Carolina experienced the largest percentage staffing reduction of any state environmental agency during that period, losing nearly one-third of its workforce which equals approximately 386 positions. Ok, we can understand and accept this information: the figures are clearly presented, sourced to state data, and not in dispute. Public discussion about agency staffing, funding, and long-term capacity is both appropriate and necessary.

Where the report and the resulting news articles fall short is in how that data is interpreted and framed. The report, and many of the news stories that reference it, move quickly from documenting staff reductions to describing potential environmental risks, often using language that suggests diminished oversight or increased vulnerability. Phrases such as agencies being “ill-positioned” to respond to environmental challenges or that further cuts “put Americans at risk” reflect concerns about what could happen, rather than documented evidence of what has happened.
 
And I’m not going to give the report and the resulting articles the respect of stating exactly what was said about our poultry and hog farmers, but agriculture features prominently in these discussions, particularly through references to “factory farming” as a growing source of environmental risk. Yet the supporting data cited in many cases reflects population or production figures rather than trend-based environmental indicators. Without accompanying evidence of increased violations or harm, this framing can imply causation where none has been demonstrated. And the NCDEQ Animal Feeding Operations Program is very clear about the strength of North Carolina’s permitting program for animal feeding operations and that we are one of the only states in the country that require annual inspections of every facility. 
 
I’d also like to highlight this critical caveat that the EIP report itself acknowledges on page 42 about the limits of using staffing and budget data as a proxy for agency performance. The authors state that it is not possible to predict environmental outcomes based on staffing levels alone, emphasizing that legal authority, policy direction, organizational design, technology, and agency culture all influence effectiveness. In some cases, modern tools such as electronic permitting, digital reporting, and remote monitoring may offset staffing reductions, at least in part.

It is also worth noting that the authors of the underlying report are academics and journalists, but not a single person on that team appears to have direct experience with farming or agricultural operations. They use this report narrative to single out agriculture as the main culprit of pollution and environmental harm without mentioning any of the numerous regulations that our farmers must adhere to or asking a farmer to contribute to the discussion.

At the same time, it is equally important to be clear about what we do not know. The absence of documented environmental harm does not prove that staffing reductions have had no effect. It simply means that the connection has not been clearly established in the available reporting. That uncertainty deserves acknowledgment—particularly when conclusions drawn from the data carry implications for regulated industries and public trust. 

This is where careful communication matters most. When potential risks are presented without sufficient context, readers may reasonably assume that negative outcomes are already occurring. Over time, that assumption can shape public perception and policy discussions in ways that are difficult to reverse.

Raising concerns, asking questions, and examining agency capacity are all valid and necessary. At the same time, distinguishing between evidence, inference, and speculation is essential—especially when agriculture is part of the conversation. As we move forward this year, our goal is to encourage discussions that are grounded in data, informed by operational realities, and inclusive of the voices most directly affected.

Best regards,
Tori Rumenik 
Executive Director, North Carolina Ag Partnership