Search Site   
News Stories at a Glance
Deere 4440 cab tractor racked up $18,000 at farm retirement auction
Indiana legislature passes bills for ag land purchases, broadband grants
Make spring planting safety plans early to avoid injuries
Michigan soybean grower visits Dubai to showcase U.S. products
Scientists are interested in eclipse effects on crops and livestock
U.S. retail meat demand for pork and beef both decreased in 2023
Iowa one of the few states to see farms increase in 2022 Ag Census
Trade, E15, GREET, tax credits the talk at Commodity Classic
Ohioan travels to Malta as part of US Grains Council trade mission
FFA members learn about Australian culture, agriculture during trip
Timing of Dicamba ruling may cause issues for 2024 planting
   
Archive
Search Archive  
   
NPPC: New EPA emissions rules are monumental shift

By DOUG SCHMITZ
Iowa Correspondent

CANAL WINCHESTER, Ohio – The National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) last week said the new livestock pollution regulations recently imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) represented “a monumental shift” in the federal policy and regulations governing concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

“They represent substantial improvements in water quality protection, and there is no question that as an entire sector, livestock and poultry agriculture will improve their water quality performance as a result,” said Bryan Black, NPPC president and a pork producer from Canal Winchester, Ohio.

In comments filed on April 13, the NPPC said the tough new regulations covering U.S. livestock farms represent a major step forward in environmental protection, imposing severe penalties on those who continue to pollute rivers and streams with manure runoff.

Based in Urbandale, Iowa, the NPPC added that today’s modern commercial hog farms, or CAFOs, have essentially eliminated their water pollution problems and are in general agreement with the new EPA rules, set to be issued late this summer.

The comments were filed in response to the EPA’s latest proposed changes in the CAFO water pollution regulations, which have been developing through rulemaking and a court decision since 2003.
According to the NPPC, CAFO regulations issued in 2003 imposed a policy of zero discharges from large livestock and poultry farms, covering approximately 5,000 large hog-feeding operations, which required producers to draw up detailed plans for managing manure and to obtain federal Clean Water Act (CWA) permits.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in a 2005 case that the EPA only had the authority under the CWA to require a permit for a CAFO that accidentally discharged, to operate. Since most swine CAFOs are designed, constructed, maintained and operated to meet a zero-discharge standard, few need – or would want – a CWA permit.

In its comments, the NPPC cited data showing that, in eight key pork-producing states, the average rate of hog-producing facilities discharging is less than 1 percent.

“The rarity of these discharges ... shows that a presumption that swine CAFOs are commonly discharging ... is unwarranted,” the NPPC said in a statement.

The EPA’s new rules propose that all CAFOs meet a zero-discharge standard. But CAFOs that do not discharge or are not designed to discharge would not be required to obtain CWA permits or voluntarily notify the EPA that they meet the zero-discharge standard, which will protect them from enforcement actions.
Conversely, a CAFO that fails to obtain a CWA permit or to notify the EPA that it meets the zero-discharge standard and subsequently has a discharge is subject to fines of up to $32,500 a day, according to the NPPC.

“These stiff penalties will provide a significant incentive to pork producers to protect water quality, even without a federal permit,” the statement read. “Also, most producers without federal permits will still need state water quality permits. State standards generally meet or exceed federal standards.”

The NPPC took exception to a few points in the final draft of the EPA regulation. For example, it requested several changes to reduce the administrative burden on hog farmers trying to comply with the voluntary certification process.

In addition, the NPPC joined with other livestock organizations in arguing strongly that, under the CWA, the EPA could fine a CAFO for discharging but “has no authority to levy additional fines on it for not obtaining a CWA permit in the first place.”

Dave Moody, president of the Iowa Pork Producers Assoc. (IPPA), said the Clive, Iowa-based group has long supported the protection of the environment, which was drawn out in the proposed EPA changes to CAFO water pollution regulations.

“For many years, Iowa law has required confinement livestock farms to retain all manure and not discharge manure to a water of the state,” he said. “Because of this state law, which is tougher than the Clean Water Act, Iowa confinement livestock farms have not been required to have a federal permit that regulates discharges.

“As noted by the Waterkeepers federal court decision in 2005,” he added, “a livestock farm does not need a permit to discharge if it does not – and in Iowa’s case, cannot by law – discharge manure to waters of the state.”

Like the NPPC, the IPPA submitted comments on the proposed federal CAFO rule explaining Iowa’s strict requirement for confinement livestock farms and that a federal discharge permit is not required. Moody said the IPPA supported the EPA’s effort to establish a “no discharge certification” and commented that this process should be a notification rather than a certification.

Moody added that Iowa confinement livestock farms should qualify for this designation because they have complied with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) construction permit requirements.

“Our comments noted that because of Iowa’s total retention requirement for manure from confinement livestock farms, an Iowa DNR construction permit is ample documentation to qualify for the EPA’s proposed no-discharge certification/notification,” Moody said.
“To require additional evaluation and documentation as suggested in the EPA’s proposal would be an unnecessary burden and expense for Iowa pork producers with no benefit to the environment.”

This farm news was published in the April 23, 2008 issue of the Farm World, serving Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan and Tennessee.
4/23/2008