 |
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
In this an election year, the EPA is trying to institute a new set of water quality rules that could threaten feedyard management strategies. The federal agency is trying to adopt the proposed rules by August. The proposed rules and regulations deal with runoff and non-point source pollution. Ben Weinheimer, regulatory manager at the Texas Cattle Feeders Association, said TCFA is concerned with the new proposed rules. Although feedyards, or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are now considered point sources and already must have an EPA permit to operate, the new rules could effect farmers around feedyards that use feedyard manure as natural fertilizer. Feedyard manure management plans could be disrupted and feedyard managers could face a whole new set of problems. The opposition to the EPA's proposed rule said that the rule violates provisions of the Clean Water Act which specifically authorizes the EPA to deal with point source pollution and prohibits them from dealing with non-point source pollution. Opponents also say the rules are too broad and will cost too much, both for private industry and for taxpayers. "The proposed rules would effect some 20,000 bodies of water, about 40 percent of the lakes, rivers and streams in the nation. It is estimated to cost tens of millions of dollars. For the last 30 years, since the Clean Water Act was first signed into law in 1972, the EPA has concentrated on sewage plants and industry. Under the new proposed rules, states would be required to set allowable pollution levels for indirect sources of pollution, such as farms, ranches, roads and parking lots. Many feedyards, Weinheimer said, have long standing agreements with contract manure hauling and farmers in the area surrounding their feedyards. The threat of regulating non-point sources creates the potential problem for their manure management programs. Sales of the manure could drastically decline if a farmer is going to be subject to a regulatory program by applying manure. Of course, the farmer is probably going to be subject to regulation whether he applies a natural fertilizer or a synthetic fertilizer. "From the point of view of the feedyard itself, we're already by definition in the Clean Water Act, considered a point source," Weinheimer said. "Therefore, we have permits from state and federal agencies to operate." Exactly how the new rules would effect confined animal feeding operations is still questionable. "The effects of that could be very significant," Weinheimer said. "If the EPA decides that a certain watershed has to have a less polluting load, we're already on the books as having a permit. Obviously, the first people that they're going to go to are those with permits. The second group they're going to go to, which we are challenging, is the non-point sources." There are several issues, Weinheimer said, that need to be addressed. "Probably our number one issue is their lack of authority to regulate non-point sources," Weinheimer said. The second issue is the cost associated with implementing such a program. "EPA has in our opinion drastically under estimated the costs that this is going to have on some smaller businesses, small farms, even feedyards," Weinheimer said. He said they've also underestimated the costs that is will have on states to implement the program. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
All information is copywrited by Feed Lot magazine and cannot be printed or re-printed
without the publishers express consent. Please contact
Feed Lot Magazine for reprint and copy authorization.
|
|||