CAFO Hearing Follow-up Questions & Answers

  • Speaker: Commissioner Leonard Blackham, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
  • Subject: Confined Animal Feeding Operations
  • Venue: Senate Environment & Public Works Committee
  • Date of Speech: September 06, 2007

 

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Hearing
September 6, 2007
Follow-Up Questions for Written Submission
Leonard Blackham, Commissioner, Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
Chairman, NASDA Natural Resource & Pesticide Mangement Committee
 
 
Response to Question 1 regarding regulation of CAFOs. Animal feeding operations are being regulated as never before. I agree that most of the CAFOs are being regulated. Those that have not been regulated are due to program failures in the government agencies, both federal and state, that have the oversight responsibilities. The current proposed new CAFO definition is the result of a court ruling. This rule allows EPA to regulate all CAFOs that can pollute the waters of the United States. Those that can not pollute the waters of United States have no need of federal government water pollution regulation. This does not prevent any state oversight if desired. It should always be the policy of this country to not over regulate the private sector when not necessary. Regulated CAFO’s are frequently victims of often changing federal CAFO definitions and rules. They become compliant, only to have a rule change that puts them out of compliance. Thus, there may be some CAFOs that are not presently regulated, because they are waiting to see what the “final” rule will entail.
 
 
Response to Question 2 regarding “factory farms.” This term “factory farm” is a great disservice to America Agriculture. Generally, the term means farms that include buildings that house poultry and swine. In years past, poultry and swine were grown in fields and yards. Agriculture is a changing enterprise just like all aspects of life in this country. Economy of size and technology advances in machinery, genetics and other tools of production have moved American agriculture to much bigger farms. The result is more food on less land and at cheaper prices to the benefit of all citizens. With all the reduction in agriculture land from population growth, can you image the lack of food we would have without increased efficiency? The percentage of disposable income required for food has continually declined allowing families and individuals more money for recreational and other consumption choices. Has it changed rural communities? Yes, but what has not changed dramatically? Likewise animal production in this country has changed substantially. Similar advances in science, technology, and management has developed new and improved farms for animal agriculture. This is especially true in the swine and poultry sectors. The health and productivity of these farms is much greater than the past. Uniformity, product safety, and traceability are also much improved in this type of farming. One must remember the purpose of these animals existing is for the production of protein onto the tables of our citizens. It is important to recognize that farmers individually own most of the production houses for poultry and hogs. They simply contract with a processor to produce the animals. Most of these farmers are families with joint farming enterprises. The poultry or hog houses provide a consistent flow of income to the family, often keeping the spouse on the farm and not at a non-farm job. These buildings also provide the farmer with a rich supply of organic fertilizer for their grass and crops and help them be successful in the other agriculture activities. Even when the processor owns the farms, many of the employees will be local farmers, working their other job on a processor owned farm. Being a “processor” is not a bad word. What would we be doing without processors? How many people would like to go back to the days when the work of the processors was done at home? Today’s processors improve convenience, safety, variety, and costs.    
 
 
Response to Question 3 regarding agronomic standards for manure application. Yes, the prevailing agronomic standards for manure application have been recognized in the conservation and regulatory community for many years. The SCS (the prior NRCS of USDA) and State Conservation Districts have had standards for many years. The best science of the time developed these standards. Applying the manure based on the nitrogen needs of the crops has been the council of the conservation community in the past. Today the Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMP) evaluates both N & P in the soil and manure. Both are accounted for. Phosphorous being bound to the soil and largely immobile may have been the belief in the past but today’s science and the standards related to P has greatly improved. Today P is considered an indicator of the pollution that is occurring in water runoff. Proper crop rotation also helps to maintain the proper balance in the soils. It is important to remember that nutrients need to be added back to the soil to replace the nutrients removed by the crops. 
 
Response to Question 4 regarding poultry litter.  Poultry litter users that comply with the agronomic, nitrogen need based standards should not have a significant surplus P in the soil. Crop rotation programs are also important in maintaining the proper N & P levels in the soil. The agronomic standards of the past have served us well and those in place today will do even a better job. The question about litter application meeting the test for compliance in CERCLA is not really relevant. CERCLA is a reporting requirement. The Clean Water Act is the oversight law. CERCLA is neither needed nor appropriate and will simply waste important dollars for doing good conservation on the land and water.    
 
Response to Question 5 regarding phosphorus standards. Yes, the new CAFO rule does reflect the new understanding of the potential mobility of phosphorus in the soil and use of phosphorus standards relative to crop needs. The CNMP requires the evaluation of P in both the soil and the manure. Proper application rates in the CNMPs reflect these proper levels. This simply shows that as improved knowledge and science is known the agriculture community and agency oversight respond properly.
 
 
 
Response to Question 6 regarding CERCLA penalties. Attorney General Edmondson may be right about operators that apply agriculture manure at agronomical rates would not be subject to penalties under CERCLA and EPCRA. But often the problem is much more complicated than possible penalties. Even if an operator is applying manure at the agronomic rate, they still bear the high cost of measuring their output and the higher cost of maintaining their reported numbers, so that if they are ever questioned, and a lawsuit is brought against a farmer, they can defend their actions. However, the authority to apply penalties for improper manure application handling already exists in the Clean Water Act under the authority and rules of the EPA. The new rule does not change that authority when waters of the United States are involved. There is no reason to think that P levels would be any higher in the soil without CERCLA and EPCRA. Mr. Edmondson and others like to point to the big production operations. In fact, the large producers almost always have the resources in money and management to get the job done right. The biggest challenge we see at the state level are smaller producers that have limited resources and time to address the issues. It may take several smaller producers to equal one large producer, but if they are located next a waterway the results can be substantial.    Most states are working with producers of all sizes to reduce these impacts and help our farmers be even better stewards of the environment.
 
 The largest result of CERCLA and EPCRA being applied to agriculture will be large costs forced onto farmers and processors to create the reporting information; defending their information and the costs of producing our food will increase. EPA has sufficient authority without this additional regulation. States have sufficient authority to act if desired and needed. The sad fact is that many in this country are doing all they can to destroy animal agriculture and will use all means possible to force their beliefs onto society. The greatest conservationists in this country are the farmers. They love and depend on productive soil and clean water. As new and improved knowledge comes forward they have proven their stewardship to the environment. The best ways to make even more improvements is with more support to the NRCS and Conservation Districts as partners with state departments of agriculture and farmers, both small and large. EPA and states have full authority to catch any bad players and force compliance when necessary.