|
News
EPA’s new livestock, poultry operation rule
Category: News
The Environmental Protection Agency’s new rule for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) “sets new environmental standards for America’s livestock farms and represents a significant policy shift,” according to American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman. Despite the challenges it may present, Stallman said agricultural producers are “encouraged that the rule includes a number of incentives for livestock farms to operate at high levels of environmental compliance. A positive aspect is that livestock farmers will have flexibility to evaluate their farm and determine whether or not to secure a [discharge] permit.” Although the rule was 10 years in the making and is laid out over hundreds of pages, it is fairly simple: all CAFOs must be no-discharge facilities or have national pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) permits under the Clean Water Act (CWA), said Don Parrish, AFBF water quality expert. “Under the rule, livestock and poultry producers must meet the highest water quality rotection standards possible,” Parrish explained. “They must have a utrient management plan and maintain records showing theyhave implemented the plan.” The new rule does not require livestock and poultry operations to have NPDES permits as long as they do not discharge or propose to discharge. The no-discharge claim must be supported by a third-party assessment of their production area. Although CAFOs with permits may have discharges under very limited circumstances, they must use the same sound management practices as non-permitted operations to avoid all discharges. The rule fully regulates all aspects of nutrient application under the CWA and, if the appropriate practices are not used, livestock farms will be subject to penalties. In addition, the regulation requires that a producer applying for a discharge permit include a nutrient management plan in the application. “This means the public will have the opportunity to comment on the plan before it is finalized by EPA or state authorities,” Parrish said. The rule revises a 2003 CAFO regulation. Both environmentaland agricultural groups, including AFBF, challenged the 2003 CAFO rule in court. As a result, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2005 that EPA had the authority to regulate only actual discharges, not the potential to discharge. However, the threat of further litigation has not been eliminated with publication of the new rule. “This regulation is partly the result of lawsuits filed by environmental groups that target agriculture, and it’s unlikely such groups will back off now,” Parrish explained.Waterkeeper Alliance, the lead environmental group challenging the 2003 rule, said it was not happy with EPA’s revisions. Jeffrey Odefey, an attorney for the organization, said the rule was “an unworkable muddle” that failed to offer “meaningful protection of our nation’s waters and communities.” Issuing a more tempered response, the National Pork Producers Council called it a “tough but fair rule.” NPPC, like Farm Bureau, emphasized how sweeping the policy changes are. For more information, contact your local Farm Bureau office
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
