Study backs farmer in pollution battle with EPA

[Jstpssng]

There is a context to this news item that is not mentioned by FOX News. It involves efforts to improve the watersheds that supply the Chesapeake Bay. That would be a valid EPA mission I believe, and they would be criticized for not undertaking it.

Farm bureaus: EPA lawsuit could affect thousands | Maryland Daily Record

"Alt sued the EPA in U.S. District Court in June to stop it from imposing new rules as part of a multi-state effort to clean up Chesapeake Bay. She argues any waste-tainted runoff is agricultural storm water, not 菟rocess wastewater, and that means it痴 not subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act."

"Last fall, EPA determined that dust, feathers and fine particles of dander and manure from Alt痴 poultry house ventilation fans could land on the ground, come into contact with stormwater and flow into ditches, eventually reaching Chesapeake Bay tributaries.

The EPA is focused on protecting the watershed, which encompasses parts of Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, and all of the District of Columbia."

Mrs. Alt would like to have her waste run-off classified in the least expensive way to her business, fair enough. The people who are economically dependent on the Chesapeake Bay could also have file as "intervenors" in a case such as this, just as the Farm Bureau did in the interest of other agriculture interests.

An article about the "health" of the Chesapeake Bay which is important to many, just like chickens are important to Mrs. Alt:
Chesapeake Bay?s health improving slightly, report says - Washington Post

I'm sure large government agencies can be cumbersome and difficult to deal with. So can Time Warner. We should demand they do their best, use good science, etc., but overall, the EPA is between at least three competing interests in this case: farms in the watershed, the bay interests, and environmentalists.

Dave I realise that you expanded on this in later posts... yet the implications of this are rather scary. They don't quantify their statements or have any data to back their opinions... instead using scare tactics to justify them.

The EPA (as well as lots of other government agencies) has gotten out of hand. I think the main thing they are concerned with is finding new things to study and thus to impose rulings so they can enjoy job security.

That would make a GREAT signature... or campaign platform!! (Just lose the parenthesis.)

I'm not anti government by any means... yet the powers that be seem to forget that they were created to serve us, not vice versa.

 

[dave1949]

Dave I realise that you expanded on this in later posts... yet the implications of this are rather scary. They don't quantify their statements or have any data to back their opinions... instead using scare tactics to justify them.

That would make a GREAT signature... or campaign platform!! (Just lose the parenthesis.)

I'm not anti government by any means... yet the powers that be seem to forget that they were created to serve us, not vice versa.

The EPA may not get all their numbers correct, but there has been a ton of field work and studies done on the Chesapeake Bay system.

Here is an article from 2003 (42% of nitrogen entering the bay is from agricultural sources):
Chesapeake Bay Suffering Nitrogen Overload

This is a more recent article (38% from agriculture, nice pie chart of all sources BTW):
Dead Zones - Nitrogen & Phosphorus Pollution - Chesapeake Bay Foundation

"The majority of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution comes from sewage treatment plants, animal feed lots, and runoff from crop land, urban, and suburban areas. In addition, air pollution (from vehicle exhaust) and industrial sources such as power plants contribute roughly 1/3 of the nitrogen pollution. (see chart)

The largest source of pollution to the Bay comes from agricultural runoff, which contributes roughly 40 percent of the nitrogen and 50 percent of the phosphorus entering the Chesapeake Bay.

The fastest growing source of pollution to the Bay comes from stormwater runoff."

An article from Univ. of Maryland:
Agriculture and Chesapeake Bay

The reasons for efforts to reduce nitrogen pollution aren't just pulled out of a hat, they are based on studies and surveys done over many years by many different people. That FOX News doesn't provide their readers with any context or historical background is telling of their slant on the story.

People read that story and come to the conclusion that EPA bullies just decided to pick on this chicken farm, and therefore government is out of control. Mrs. Alt is a hero for standing up to the bullies. Mrs. Alt is also a pollution source, and lest we forget, the true argument is over how her pollution is to be classified.

Mrs. Alt is only one part of a very large story with a long history.

I don't think the EPA was created to serve "us" in the individual sense. The first question would be which "us" is being served, egg farmers or oystermen?

 

[3v0]

and from the same paper Agriculture and Chesapeake Bay

If regional farmers go out of business, further urbanization may increase the rates of nutrient losses. ... The only realistic solution is to improve farm management practices to increase the efficiency of nutrient utilization on farms. In fact, this strategy has been working.

 

[Ken45101]

"Chicken dander"??? How much dander is created by the wild birds in the Chesapeake watershed?

Of course people and farms create non natural pollution. The environmentalists won't be happy until people are eliminated from the earth.

 

[dave1949]

"Chicken dander"??? How much dander is created by the wild birds in the Chesapeake watershed?

Of course people and farms create non natural pollution. The environmentalists won't be happy until people are eliminated from the earth.

There are a lot fewer wild birds and water fowl in the Chesapeake watershed than there used to be, and the bay was healthy then. I don't think that is a very meaningful comparison.

I wish I could visit the places, like this chicken farm, that pop up in such stories to compare reality to what is written by reporters. Chickens produce a lot more than just dander. I would suspect that the ground in the exhaust area of a large chicken operation gets its share of nitrogen in the form of manure dust, and air with high urea fume content. It would be interesting to test that idea.

If some test chickens were given feed containing a radioisotope tracer, I wonder if that could be tracked over distance and time on the scale of a watershed? In any case, we do know that agriculture run-off contributes to the nutrient load in bodies of surface water. It would be smart to focus on the low-hanging fruit. The fact that a permit of some sort can be obtained for large run-off operations sounds like the work of lobbyists.

Dealing with environmental issues is a pain sometimes, but what are the alternatives? We know from history and some painful experiences that ignoring the environment does not work, and that approach is easily capable of eliminating people.

 

[Western]

I'll almost bet that the municipal water supplies, cause much more "pollution" than a few chicken houses, All the meds, chemicals and by products folks flush down the commode or sink. The add the auto industry and run off from that. Likely a myriad of factors, but most certainly all man made caused. Are the fish in the Chesapeake even rated for food now? IIRC, the Potomac is catch and release only.

 

[Rustyiron]

Is the Mississippi river in a similar condition? I would think that it has even more population & farms draining into it than the bay. I would assume similar "flushing" or runoff in relation to it's size/volume.

 

[3930dave]

The fact that a permit of some sort can be obtained for large run-off operations sounds like the work of lobbyists.

Some real "transparency" needs to be put in place concerning that permitting process.

I like clean air and water, but not when it is primarily used as a Trojan Horse for a corporate(/government) agenda. In the upper Ottawa Valley, small lumber-mills were getting shut down. Their offence ? "Creating large piles of sawdust" beyond what "naturally" occurs in a forest.

In situations like this, it takes a lot of real data to convince me that there is something going on other than the government clearing a market segment of (smaller and more agile) competition, at the behest of their corporate masters.

A local example: With the rising popularity/availability of Farmer's Markets here, it is only a matter of time before our government steps in to legislate consumer "protection" from these dangerous sources of food. There has been a few trial runs at this already; given that the individuals that control food distribution in Canada could probably hold a meeting in a Yukon XL, we haven't seen the last of these "protections" being announced.

I like clean air and water, and do understand and agree with Dave1949's point that setting balanced and appropriate legislation is a non-trivial task. I feel that most people would (or at least should) naturally question the outcome, when the resulting legislation perfectly aligns with large scale business interests 99% of the time.

Rgds, D.

 

[Western]

Dave, very good points and observations, makes since and is sure in the realm of possibilities.

 

[Jstpssng]

Dave I don't always agree with everything you say; but you generally express yourself well and give concrete reasons to support your viewpoints. This time though you seem to be letting your feelings cloud the facts of the article; i.e., rhe EPAis using much higher numbers to estimate the amount of nitrogen in chicken manure; and Ms Alt is a small operator who is expected to meet a higher standard than big time operations (have you ever been past Decosters in Turner... right on the Androscoggin River?)

Looking at your links I noted that the health of the bay has improved over the last 2 years despite 2major hurricanes in that time period. The article also noted that 6states contribute to the problem, and the settling pools behind the Conowingo Dam are filling up... maybe it's time to dredge those out again?

All that I know about this is what I've read in the links here; but it appears to me at least that the EPA is going after David because they are afraid of Goliath...