bizoo_n/istockphoto.com
A new proposal by the federal government to collect information on large factory farms is being met by nearly universal disgruntlement.
Environmental groups pushing for more data say the proposed rule [PDF] isn’t strong enough, the farming industry says the proposed rule requires information that is already available, and California state officials worry that the burden of information collection might fall on their already cash-strapped and minimally staffed offices.
“We’re concerned by the limited nature of the proposal,” said Jon Devine, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “These kinds of options have been available for many years and have not been successful in either giving us a complete picture of these farms’ environmental footprint or allowing the government to adequately regulate them.”
The new rule is being proposed in response to a 2010 settlement agreement made between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and three environmental groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council. The groups sued the government in 2008, saying not enough was being done to protect the country’s water from factory farm pollution.
Help us do more.
“Thousands of factory farm polluters threaten America’s water with animal waste, bacteria, viruses and parasites that can make people sick,” Devine said. “Many of these massive facilities are flying completely under the radar; EPA doesn’t even know where they are.”
There is currently no national or state inventory that lists these large, concentrated animal farms, and environmental groups are concerned that without this information, little can be done to protect the air and water near them.
The new ruling proposes two options for collecting and managing data. One requires that every large animal farm report directly to the EPA; the other requires reporting only from large farms in watersheds where there are concerns about water quality.
Within each of these options, the agency suggests different ways of collecting information. Options include voluntary submission from farm owners, state agencies collecting the information for the federal government and reliance on information that's already available.
“Our first impression of the proposed data collection requirements are that they are unnecessary because the information is already available to water-quality regulators,” said Ria de Grassi, spokeswoman for the California Farm Bureau Federation, a trade group for state farmers.
After the agency has heard from the public, it will decide which option to go with by next summer.
The EPA could not be reached for comment.
Environmental groups and others have been concerned for decades that waste from these large farms could threaten water quality and human health.
According to the government, more than 300 million tons of manure is produced every year at these factory farms. That is more than three times the amount people generate nationwide.
Most concerning to health officials and environmentalists is that this animal waste contains a lot of contaminants, including toxic metals, bacteria, viruses and pharmaceuticals that can all leach into waterways if not disposed of correctly.
The situation and lack of regulation of these farms caught the attention of the U.S. Government Accountability Office, which in 2008 issued a report [PDF] recommending that the EPA “develop a national inventory of permitted Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.”
But the EPA said it didn’t have the data to build such an inventory, nor did it know the amount of discharge produced at these farms.
So, through a series of proposed rulings and legal challenges, the EPA finally settled a lawsuit in May 2010, filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and Waterkeeper Alliance, to get the information needed to monitor the country’s concentrated animal feeding operations.
According to a spokesman for the State Water Resources Control Board, the number of large animal farms in the state, and their threat to waterways, is relatively small in comparison to other states.
John Menke, with the state board, says most of the large dairy farms are in the Central Valley, while others – mostly smaller farms, with fewer than 300 animals – are scattered elsewhere.
He said he’s fine with the EPA collecting information from each of the farms in California that would qualify as a large concentrated animal farm – more than 1,000 head for dairy farms – but his agency doesn’t have the manpower to do it.
He said his office gets few calls or complaints about water quality near these farms, so it hasn’t been a big concern for his office.
“That’s the problem with national regulations,” he said. “They optimize for a familiar situation … generally the Midwest, which is not the same as here.”
Comments
via Twitter