Some environmental groups are pushing for animal manures to be classified as hazardous wastes. To get clarification on this issue I wrote to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture asking about this. Here is their reply.
From: Jim.Leland@state.vt.us
Subject: manure and superfund
Date: September 29, 2006 9:56:44 AM EDT
To: walterj@sugarmtnfarm.comThe issue of manure as hazardous waste has been brought up as a result of 3 lawsuits in the midwest. The cases in Tulsa, OK and Waco, TX have been settled so the underlying question was never addressed. The remaining court case is a suit brought by the Oklahoma attorney general’s office against 14 chicken operations along the Illinois River. To date, no court that I am aware of has rendered a decision on this matter.
As a result of these cases there have been a number of attempts in Congress to clarify the federal law governing hazardous waste to specifically exempt manure. One side of the argument believes that manure should be considered a hazardous waste so that large spills would require reporting under the superfund law. The other side believes that manure is appropriately regulated under the Clean Water Act and other state programs. As far as I know there has been no resolution of these conflicting opinions.
At this time manure is not considered a hazardous waste.
Mr. Leland clarified a few more points in a subsequent email replying to my followup questions:
From: Jim.Leland@state.vt.us
Subject: RE: manure and superfund
Date: September 29, 2006 11:24:29 AM EDTThere is no regulatory effort underway to define manure as hazardous waste. The lawsuits I mentioned used the superfund law in an attempt to rectify specific issues at specific sites. I am not sure why they chose the superfund law as the vehicle for their lawsuits when the Clean Water Act would seem to be more appropriate. Right now I believe the provisions of the Clean Water Act and Vermont’s Accepted Ag Practices, Medium and Large Farm permitting rules address the issues of manure and water quality very well.
The exemption for manure under the federal law, I believe, was introduced in a house bill last November. More recently there was an attempt to amend the Ag Appropriations bill in congress with language exempting manure from the provisions of the superfund law. I do not know where it stands now. Your concerns would probably be best addressed to members of congress as this is all being discused relative to Federal law (CERCLA).
Later Mr. Leland wrote:
From: Jim.Leland@state.vt.us
Subject: RE: manure and superfund
Date: September 29, 2006 11:54:03 AM EDTSome more info on this issue - it seems that the reason the suits used the superfund law was due to the provisions of that law that allow cost recovery. For example, in Waco the city wanted to recover the costs of removing phosphorous from waste water. They believed that the phosphorous was coming from the ag operations above the city. CERCLA (the superfund law) allows for the recovery of costs.
The house bill introduced in congress last year regarding this issue was H.R. 4341.
In a nut shell, which is where this idea belongs, currently this is not a regulation or law but we do need to work to protect our farms from being classified like the factory ‘farms’ as hazardous waste sources.
While I strongly believe in both protecting our environment and not wasting valuable fertilizer as run-off it is insane to compare a bear shitting in the woods, a cow pooping in the field or chickens on pasture to a 10,000 hog operation dumping its sewage lagoon into the river during a storm surge.
-WashingtonPost
There is some speculation based on EPA documents which talk about wildlife and livestock load reductions that perhaps this is one reason for the Henshaw Incident - the EPA working to cut down nutrient levels in the Willis River. I hope that is not the case - that would be an egregious violation of powers - but then that whole situation in Virginia stinks worse than the wind from a factory farm.
Just as OSHA does not tell me how to operate our home wood-shop, just as the FDA does not tell us how to cook in our home kitchen, just as small businesses are except from regulations governing big business small farms and homesteads should not be grouped in with factory farms and feedlots. Small farms do not produce the concentrations of manure generated by feedlots and factory farms. We are not a threat to the environment or society. We are stewards of the land and a benefit to society. The government needs to recognize this and encourage small farms and homesteads instead of supporting big industry.
Write to your Congressional reps to help protect our traditional rights to farm. Laws and regulations need to differentiate between the small farm and the big factory ‘farms‘ which are the real threat to water quality. The USDA and other governmental agencies should have no jurisdiction over small farms, homesteads and pet owners. This issue is much like the USDA’s National Animal Identification System (NAIS) where the government is clumping everyone together in one huge pile irrespective of size and threat. I have one word for them: Triage.
Hat tips to Lisa, Dirk & Mr. Leland at the Vermont AoA.
“A man walking in the shadows hears but does not speak.”
-Woodward Kenyon
EPA and USDA partnership on TMDL
Definition: TMDL is the waste levels that enter into tributaries (streams, rivers, brooks) that enter into watersheds.
Excerpt:
2) Reducing Agricultural Impacts on Water Quality
Two general forms of agricultural runoff, “return flows from irrigated agriculture” and “agricultural stormwater discharges,” are statutorily exempt from NPDES permit requirements and treatment as point sources. However, USDA and the agricultural community had concerns that the EPA proposal moved away from traditional notions of what is a nonpoint source of pollution and strategies for reducing impacts through voluntary efforts and Best Management Practices (BMPs). EPA and USDA agree that voluntary and incentive-based approaches are the best way to address nonpoint source pollution. Water quality improvements that farmers make through Federal conservation programs, or on their own initiative, will be given due credit in the development of TMDLs. If a farmer will invest in voluntary conservation practices to improve water quality the “pollution budget” will recognize those investments in developing a strategy for future cleanup. Under the EPA proposal, States have the flexibility to allocate pollution load reductions between nonpoint and point sources as they consider appropriate and are not required to allocate pollution reductions to specific categories (e.g. agriculture) in proportion to pollution contributions.
[my observation….maybe since the Clean Water Act issued a protection of watersheds…the term ‘SuperFund’ is a play on words? Agricultural Waste is listed as a load and Superfund isn’t used under the Clean Water Act]
Comment Breederville — October 4, 2006 @ 8:35 am
EPA now has a section about permits need for people that have animal feed or waste that ‘could’ reach a tributary that connects with a watershed.
Comment Breederville — October 4, 2006 @ 8:42 am
This is a list of states that require permit authorization.
Comment Breederville — October 4, 2006 @ 8:46 am
Here, third post down, I wanted to post this chart.
This chart shows that the EPA was tracking, per animal, in the Henshaw’s county, what the EPA felt was polluting the watersheds.
In that same post is the Virginia’s DEQ ‘Proactive Approach’ that they submitted to the EPA.
Virginia is on record for stating that they will be ‘reducing’ livestock by 20% per year over a 5 year period.
Comment Breederville — October 4, 2006 @ 8:51 am
Click this!
Scroll down, see Willis River Listed. Second from the bottom.
Comment Breederville — October 4, 2006 @ 9:16 am
Yikes Walter! Triage-according to Oxford is of French origin-Trier, to pick or TO CULL. It denotes “the action of assorting according to quality.”
[I was thinking of the Triage Nurse - the determination of priorities for action in an emergency. -WJ]
From the The Cunning of History by Richard Rubenstein:
In the US, the rationalization of agriculture was greatly expediated by the New Deal and subsequent federal administrations. The federal government institued measures that favored larege scale agri-business at the expense of less efficient small farmers and sharecroppers. The motivation for the federal policies was similar that which lead to the enclosures in England and agricultural colectivization in the Soviet Union. In each case, the measures taken or encouraged by the state had as their objective the anheivement of economies of scale and enhanced productivilty. Usually, the policies have also lead to the formation of a dislocated rual surplus population whote fate varied from country to country.
With unemployment rising to its highest levels since the Great Depression in boht the US ad Europe, it is once again painfully apparent nthat few problems confronting modern civilization have been as insidiously corrupting or as destructive of the common good as the phenomenon of mass surplus population. A surplus or redundant population is one that for any reason can find no viable role in the society in which it is domiciled. Because such people can expect none of the normal rewards of society, governments tend to regard them as potential sources of disorder and have often attempted to control them or to remove them from the mainstream of society althogether.
Value-neutral, calculating rationality as the predomient mode of problem solving in practical affairs (can lead to termination as was the case during Stalin and Hitler-CB.)
If triage is used for anything it should be applied to NAIS-cull it in totality, never to see the light of day again.
If one is alive is valuable. If one farms (only 1-2% of the population, while the other 98%+ are consumers) You farm is valuable! Never let anyone friend, family, foe, politican tell you otherwise. Don’t buy into ‘producer’ mentality.
Comment Celeste — October 4, 2006 @ 10:05 am
Walter ~
Just received a response to my letter sent to Senator Kent Conrad on the Agricultural Committee about the terror threat originating from USDA in Colorado. My scanner isn’t functioning or would have sent a photo copy attachment. Here is the text of the letter from Senator Kent Conrad:
Dear Charles & Donna:
Thank you for contacting me regarding a comment posted on the website www.nonais.org on August 29. It was good to hear from you.
As you know, a news item regarding a decision about Vermont’s farm registration program was posted on www.nonais.org. A comment posted in response to the article alluded to a bio- or eco-terrorism threat. The webmaster of the site reported the comment to the authorities, and officials have traced the poster’s IP address as coming from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). I appreciate you bringing this event to my attention, and share your concern over this incident.
I have contacted the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) to share your concern over this incident. The staff at OIG informed me that they have completed an investigation into this matter. Two agents were assigned to this case and questioned the USDA employee who had posted the message. These agents then shared all the infomration from their investigation with the local USDA agency, which will have the authority to reprimand this individual.
Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope that you find this information useful. For more information on issues of importance to North Dakota, please visit my Web site at www.conrad.senate.gov.
Sincerely,
Kent Conrad
United States Senate
There you have it! I hope it is understood that my expressed concern was for the entire United States, not just North Dakota.
[Donna, can you see if you can get a copy of the report? The USDA seems to be ignoring my requests. Perhaps you Senator Conrad can get it. Thank you for this followup, -WJ]
Comment donna — October 4, 2006 @ 10:18 am
So what the Senator is saying in-between-the-lines is that there are two sets of laws in this country. One law applies to the average citizen the other law applies to those who make/enforce rules and work for the government.
With all the hype about homeland security I would suspect that if average Joe Blow would have implied a terrorist threat about our nations food supply “0″ tolerance would have been applied . The two USDA agents should have shared all the information from their investigation with the federal prosecutor/FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.
It’s and outrage that the USDA is covering up their dirt. There should be nothing less than full disclosure of this event. Walter I know you do more than your fair share fighting NAIS but some how some way we must demand the prosecution of this criminal.
After all if NAIS ever makes it threw the briar patch, Criminals like this USDA NUT will be policing US.
Comment Mike — October 4, 2006 @ 12:01 pm
I believe the current law under the Superfund do NOT impact farmers who just use fertilizer for regular purposes and only targets the big factory farms who are polluting our water.
here is an article about it from out here in MO:
link
Can someone confirm for me this part of it? If it’s true, then I would say that it’s the big corporate ag guys who want HR4341 and are hiding behind the small farmers to exempt them for their rotton behavior…
The livestock and poultry industries argue that CERCLA threatens the nation’s small family farmers with lawsuits, but opponents to the new legislation say that farmers who apply manure containing nutrients in quantities their crops can take up are protected under the law. CERCLA includes a specific exception for the “normal field application of fertilizer,” and only those factory farm operators who have so much manure that they have to dump it on the land to get rid of it, rather than use it to fertilize crops, have potential liability. In addition, any animal feeding operation whose releases are allowed by its Clean Water Act permit may be exempt.
Comment No NAIS — October 4, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
To Mike re: comment #8
At the NIAA’s ID Expo in August we, the activists and bloggers, were referred to as the “extreme opposition”, which according to the State Dept. means terrorist. Think about it. We are just folks trying to maintain our way of life, not terrorists trying to blow up anyone.
Comment Henwhisperer — October 4, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
What makes all of this truly maddening is that giant Corporate-Ag throws millions of tons of pesticides and fertilizers–sometimes 60% more than necessary in a given instance–into our ground water every year.
The EPA is aware and allows this. There is hardly an aquifer, stream, river or well in America which isn’t heavily tainted with artificial fertilizers and yet the focus is manure? Sure because $h*t stinks. It has bacteria in it and isn’t pristine like chemicals made in a lab.
At least manure, even if its in a concentrated lagoon, can go away. It is organic and will break down with time, sun and beneficial bacteria. Where are we at with synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. . .hmm…sun, nope. . .time–still here. . .bacteria. . .they die. Is it any wonder breast milk is toxic, cancer is on the rise, we have superbacteria, pesticide resistant insects (hey, lets throw more insecticide at them, that will probably work. . . .), and soil which is blowing away at prodigious rates because there is no organic, humus matter left in it?
This is but one front of the Revolution we must wage, but wage it we must. The Monopolistic, colluding, Corporate Borg own the world with the desire to enslave us all. It’s like the heads of Government and Business watched Logan’s Run, Brazil and Blade Runner, forgot the important messages and took them as the blueprint for the new world order.
If the govenment truly wants pollution cleaned up, truly wants to enforce a clean water act it needs to employ sensible parents to enforce the code. Which one of us with kids, pets and livestock wouldn’t come down hard on the real criminals while paving a better, cleaner way for the rest of the honest, goodly folk like us?
I am afraid that this is about much more sinister things than clean water and animal diseases, however.
Comment Podchef — October 4, 2006 @ 6:52 pm
We have a large creek that borders the western boundary of our property - it is a protected watershed (State and Federal). It was a year ago at this time that our oldest son went down to the creek to fish and dead fish were floating everywhere. The DNR later arrived and began an investigation determining it was a two mile fish kill as a result of a (factory farm) dairy (neighbor) who released who only knows how much manure from a holding pond into the creek. Just several weeks back, it was reported in the town paper that the City’s water treatment plant had been significantly fined for a spill in the same creek. (a spill no one bothered to knock on our door about and tell us that the creek had [human] fecal contamination……)
All this to say - the small independent family farms are not the problem.
Comment Harriette Jacobs — October 5, 2006 @ 7:25 am
Re: post 12
I agree, Harriette, the family farms are not the problem.
But, IMO, it will be the factory farmer that will be able to obtain the permits I posted about in 2 and 3.
Comment Breederville — October 5, 2006 @ 11:44 am
We live in a watershed area. We also have a friend who delivers heavy equipment. Our friend delivers heavy equipment to a major city water supply. Over the past year he has relayed the following: When going behind the locked gate, protecting our water supply, all the tall, very tall evergreen trees, are coated with brown with fecal material from the water treatment plant, top to bottom. The trees are literally brown with fecal matter. You are not talking one or two the whole area is sprayed. It rains a good deal here and the rain washes that fecal matter into our water supply. From me: Along with our water bill we get notification that the city water is not safe to drink for children, seniors and immuno-compromised people. We should filter their city water (which we pay big bucks for). This can happen to any property owner on city water. Beware! You and your animals can be nailed for a crime commmitted elsewhere. What can you do? Get your water tested from a reliable source just in case you get a knock on the door.
Comment Sara — October 5, 2006 @ 1:34 pm
>>>>Get your water tested from a reliable source just in case you get a knock on the door.
Just like the Henshaws. They got their pigs tested from an independent source.
Oh wait…..
Comment Breederville — October 5, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
NUREMBERG-STYLE TRIALS PROPOSED FOR GLOBAL WARMING SKEPTICS
Environmental Emergency Powers:
Excerpt:
the
Administrator, upon receipt of evidence that a pollution source or
combination of sources (including moving sources) is presenting an
imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or welfare, or
the environment, may bring suit on behalf of the United States in the
appropriate United States district court to immediately restrain any
person causing or contributing to the alleged pollution to stop the
emission of air pollutants causing or contributing to such pollution or
to take such other action as may be necessary.
Comment Breederville — October 12, 2006 @ 7:04 am
Nuremberg:
Follow History and Dollars
Emergency Research Rule
(21 CFR 50.24)
link after 10 years of its existence. That rule breaches the Nuremberg Code and the fundamental principles of medical research within a civilized society.
The Rule sacrifices the inalienable right of every human being NOT to be used in a medical experiment without voluntary, informed consent
for commercial expediency.
link
Comment Celeste — October 12, 2006 @ 8:01 am
This article would seem to have some bearing on this discussion…
link
It’s dated March, 2006 so it’s been out there for a little while.
Comment E'ireen and Phil — October 12, 2006 @ 1:35 pm
It is good to see that at least SOME members of congress respond to their consitituents. I wrote to all the Virginia senators and the democrat hopeful. Not one of them bothered to respond to my questions about their postitions on NAIS.
Sounds like elected Virginia officials will not take stand up and take a positions or do not give a fig about agriculture in the state.
Cheers, Charles Thurber
Comment Charles Thurber — October 14, 2006 @ 8:53 am
Regarding #18, A couple of weeks ago I watched Oprah, She and her fiend Gayle did a road show for 11 days. They come upon a factory farm, I think is was in Kansas, Anyways they were a bit out from it and noticed an odor. They kept driving and low and behold the smell was so bad they were GREEN, and ready to vomit.
Maybe another email to her and the reminder of Factory Farms and how they felt while driving past this and what it does to surrounding commuties.I mean these 2 were green, I thought they were going to die. I know the show has not responded but may this would be a foot in the door that is needed to help get the word out.
[Excellent idea. Here is a link to the contact info for Ophra. -WJ]
Comment Gisela — October 14, 2006 @ 11:46 am
A REPRIMAND??? Hello…People suspected as terrorists are subject to prison time, and with the passing of the newset torcher allowance laws, I’d say he could be in for soem serious time! A reprimand from the USDA is totally and disgustingly unacceptable! He needs to be prosecuted like any one of us would be if we made bio-terrorism threats of any kind! Why isn’t this guy arrested, etc?? If he is not held responsible for his “bio- terrorist threat” then I’d have to say the USDA is more than likely going to give him a pat on the back. Authorities need to be made aware of this and it needs to be treated in the same manner any of us would be.
Comment Sabrina — October 14, 2006 @ 5:34 pm
Michael Pollan’s article on the spinach crisis is in the NYTimes Sunday Magazine (You may have to register to read it–if you want to wait, he usually publishes them on his site a few weeks later.)
It is a good, hard hitting article, but not quite what I’d envisioned when he told me he was writing on something parallel to NAIS. I am still hoping he will turn his pen to our cause. Both he and Christopher Cook could do the anti-nais movement a great deal of good by getting the message out to a huge readership which respects their word.
I have contacted both of them recently, again, about the need to get our voice into the public forum. Be assured they are watching events with us.
Comment Podchef — October 14, 2006 @ 9:08 pm
Sorry, the link for the Pollan Times article is: link
Comment Podchef — October 14, 2006 @ 9:10 pm