Study backs farmer in pollution battle with EPA

[dave1949]

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.

The Mississippi feeds the Gulf of Mexico "Dead Zone". Yes, they have their similar issues.


Dead zone (ecology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Currently, the Gulf of Mexico's dead zone, off the coast of Louisiana and Texas,[12] is the largest hypoxic zone in the United States.[13] The Mississippi River which is the drainage area for 41% of the continental United States, dumps high-nutrient runoff, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, into the Gulf of Mexico. According to a NOAA 2009 fact sheet, "Seventy percent of nutrient loads that cause hypoxia are a result of this vast drainage basin"[14] which includes the heart of U.S. agribusiness, the Midwest. The discharge of treated sewage from urban areas (pop. c 12 million in 2009) combined with agricultural runoff deliver c. 1.7 million tons of potassium and nitrogen into the Gulf of Mexico every year.[14]

 

[dave1949]

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...

Yep, I've been past DeCoster's, Jack DeCoster, what a character! I think he has been run out of the egg business in several states now, at least publicly.

You bring up the difference though between those couple of miles of DeCoster egg ranches and the Chesapeake. Maine is one state with 1.3 million residents, and the Androscoggin flows into Merrymeeting Bay and on to the Gulf of Maine without picking up very much industrial, residential or agricultural wastes and run-off--in comparison to the population and activities that influence the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

The opportunity for the concentration of pollutants just isn't to be found on the Androscoggin. It's still a dirty river though, but improving, as I understand it.

Maybe I misunderstand the issue, but I don't think Mrs. Alt and her Eight is Enough chicken farm are being held to a higher standard than larger operators. Her point seems to be that she shouldn't be treated the same as larger operators who are required to have a run-off permit. The study, which found lower nitrogen waste from chickens than the EPA bases it's rules on, bolsters her argument by reducing the calculated level of nitrogen her farm accounts for.

There is no doubt that the science of environmental protection is highly politicized. I guess that is to be expected. Polluters and those fighting pollution both turn to the same resources for help, politicians.

The Conowingo Dam sediment sounds like a difficult issue. I've heard that there are no good/safe ways to dredge toxic sediments from river bottoms. Some think the lesser of evils is to just leave the PCB's etc., buried. I guess it would depend on an assessment of how much toxic material is in the sediment. I guess that problem puts silt fences at construction sites into a different perspective.

 

[Jstpssng]

I tried to copy, but was unable to . If you go back and reread the article you will see that she, as a small operator, is held to a higher standard than the big conglomerates. Yet as a small operator she has less fijancial resources to meet those standards. (The last being an opinion of mine...)

 

[dave1949]

I tried to copy, but was unable to . If you go back and reread the article you will see that she, as a small operator, is held to a higher standard than the big conglomerates. Yet as a small operator she has less fijancial resources to meet those standards. (The last being an opinion of mine...)

There are two differing interpretations of this story. I can see your point from looking at the FOX News story. I have no idea which is correct--if either. I wouldn't bet on FOX News however.

Chicken fight: Study backs farmer in pollution battle with EPA | Fox News

"Alt's lawyers argue the EPA is wrong to deny small operations like hers the Clean Water Act's statutory exemption for “agricultural stormwater," which big farms get and believe the massive agency has to change its rules - and use better science."


Farm bureaus: EPA lawsuit could affect thousands | Maryland Daily Record
"In a court filing in farmer Lois Alt’s case, the [Farm] bureaus argue they need to represent their members’ interests. They say a ruling against Eight is Enough farms would effectively require all similar farms to seek water pollution permits from the EPA if they’re designated “concentrated animal feeding operations.”
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 “process wastewater,” and that means it’s not subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act.
Requiring her to seek discharge permits is an overreach of the EPA’s authority, she contends."

 

[Jstpssng]

There are two differing interpretations of this story. I can see your point from looking at the FOX News story. I have no idea which is correct--if either. I wouldn't bet on FOX News however.

Chicken fight: Study backs farmer in pollution battle with EPA | Fox News

"Alt's lawyers argue the EPA is wrong to deny small operations like hers the Clean Water Act's statutory exemption for “agricultural stormwater," which big farms get and believe the massive agency has to change its rules - and use better science."


Farm bureaus: EPA lawsuit could affect thousands | Maryland Daily Record
"In a court filing in farmer Lois Alt’s case, the [Farm] bureaus argue they need to represent their members’ interests. They say a ruling against Eight is Enough farms would effectively require all similar farms to seek water pollution permits from the EPA if they’re designated “concentrated animal feeding operations.”
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 “process wastewater,” and that means it’s not subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act.
Requiring her to seek discharge permits is an overreach of the EPA’s authority, she contends."

My bolds are what I was referring to... as I said before my only knowledge on the subject is what I've read here.

 

[dave1949]

My bolds are what I was referring to... as I said before my only knowledge on the subject is what I've read here.

It's not easy to keep up with these things unless it directly involves us in some way. Fortunately, the internet makes lots of material available.

There is a comprehensive article in Wikipedia on the issues surrounding concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO), and the fine points regarding the legal distinctions between "point source pollution" and "agricultural stormwater run-off" which bear on Mrs. Alt's case.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a long read, but Section 4: Regulation under The Clean Water Act is a pretty good overview of how the policies have been implemented and challenged in court.

I am confident, after reading some of that article, that the FOX News statement "which big farms get" is misleading in its brevity. Nobody just "gets" much of anything--surprise! :laughing: There is a permit process, and the requirements/methods of compliance are attached to the permit.

 

[3v0]

Nobody just "gets" much of anything--surprise! There is a permit process, and the requirements/methods of compliance are attached to the permit.

Yeah your chances are much better with deep pockets. Or even if you are in a class of operators with deep pockets.

 

[dave1949]

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.

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

Yeah your chances are much better with deep pockets. Or even if you are in a class of operators with deep pockets.

I don't think there is much disagreement about the undue influence money can have in politics. It has always been that way from Day One in the US, including some aspects of the Constitution, which was written/debated largely by wealthy individuals with their own interests to protect and/or promote. It is a matter of maintaining some balance between the common good and short-term corporate interests.

What I find disheartening are the concerted and largely successful efforts, beginning around 1980, to undermine and erode the faith that citizens put in government. Government was portrayed as everyone's biggest problem, then they proceeded to appoint political hacks, ignore science in favor of political philosophies, invited in more money influence, and generally hobbled the rightful functions of government.

When the rightful functioning of government is sufficiently owned and disenfranchised by global corporate entities, they become more powerful. The way FOX News framed this story as a David and Goliath struggle involving government bullies against innocent and heroic farmers, is an example of that continuing effort. It just isn't that simple, and to sell their version of reality, they resorted to lies of omission.

Making a distinction between "point source" and "field or lot storm water runoff" pollution is a case in point. Who cares? It all goes to the same place and has the same effect when it gets there. This is rule making insanity twisted into nonsense by people with too much influence IMO.

Keep the government honest, sensible and efficient by all means, but it cannot be made a parody of what it needs to be and function as designed.

Okay, rant off.

 

[3930dave]

Rant welcome '1949. You make your points well, and with obvious careful consideration behind them.

IMO, there are many things in modern farming (large and small scale) that can stand to be cleaned up, or optimized to use existing resources better. Scrapping (corn) ethanol for fuel, no-till farming, reduced fertilizer/pesticide use, to name but a few topics. It is probably too much to hope for - meaningful Government assistance that helps small farms transition to more efficient/balanced farming practices, instead of just pulling out a big stick to beat them into bankruptcy.

I'll pose yet another rhetorical question - Anybody know someone making big $$$ running a small farm ? (P.S. - talking legal crops here !).

Part of my knee-jerk personal reaction to seeing a small Ag operation targeted for fines like this is the knowledge that most small operations make little or no money. USA corn-lobby aside, much of Can/USA government policy is urban-centric, so to see the the little bit of government attention being directed to small farms highlighted this way does nothing to diminish the negative opinions of govt that '1949 detailed.

I've lived long enough to see that many forms of government "protection" tend to eradicate local domestic industries in the long term. Most of us on TBN have been around long enough to watch virtually all forms of manufacturing move outside of Can/USA. Wages are only one component of that migration. With no form of import tariffs, this slide becomes inevitable once it is initiated.

Already, we have way too many products showing up in our grocery stores here, coming from China. I'm mostly not joking when I say to my better-half "I'll eat leaves off the trees in our yard, before I'll knowingly eat food from China".

My personal fear is that more of this EPA style harassment is only going to accelerate the decline of small farms here. The 1% here can always afford the most expensive locally sourced boutique foods, if they choose so. For the rest of us peasants, losing more of the small farms means even more corporate domination of the food chain (look up XL Foods for a great example of that nightmare), and greater dependence on toxic imports.

As stated, I like clean air and water, and agree that there are many things that do need improvement in the N. American Ag business. That said, I'm willing to trade off a bit of local pollution, against the unknowns of Chinese food imports. I don't say that lightly, as I'm 10 minutes from one of the major vegetable growing areas in Canada.

I usually side with the devil I know, vs. the one I don't.

OK, my rant off, for now .

Rgds, D.

 

[Rustyiron]

:thumbsup: to both Daves.