 Printer Friendly version  Plain text version |
A history of anti-farming statements?
Environmental practices, including nutrient management plans that provide guidelines to prevent pollution, help farmers achieve 'no potential to discharge.'
In 2005, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Waterkeeper Alliance both challenged a rule about concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
A point of contention was "potential" discharges, because before a ruling from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York on March 1, 2005, the 2003 federal CAFO rule said farmers were required to apply for a Clean Water Act discharge permit (the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit or NPDES) based on "actual" or "potential" discharges of manure, silage leachate or other materials into surface waters of the United States. The permit, at least as it applies to Michigan, allows no discharges. So like the former rule, under Michigan's zero discharge policy, the discharge permit virtually permits no discharges.
The court ruled, in essence, that the federal rule cannot require farms to apply for the NPDES permit if there had not been an actual discharge from the farm. The court also ruled, in essence, that farmers are exempt from liability when they comply with the farm's nutrient management plan (NMP).
The court also held that CAFOs should be defined as agriculture, not industry, and therefore could not be regulated as industry.
However, the court also ruled that detailed nutrient management plans must be part of the NPDES permit system, and those plans must be made available to the public. Both sides claimed victory.
Since the court ruling, and a subsequent lawsuit filed by Michigan Farm Bureau, other farm organizations and individual farmers against the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) to prevent it from going beyond federal law to demand permits from farms that have not discharged, the Environmental Protection Agency issued a proposed rule March 7 which, in essence, allows a CAFO to self-certify that it has never had a discharge and never intends to discharge. That is similar to Michigan's DEQ policy of certifying some CAFOs as having "no potential to discharge," although it has not issued any such certificate.
While Farm Bureau and the DEQ often are at odds about how environmental goals are to be reached, the comments from DEQ about the proposed rule struck a nerve with Farm Bureau leadership, and President Wayne H. Wood sent a letter to the DEQ, noting it was "disappointed" with the DEQ's statements against the EPA's proposal, (See Farm Bureau's letter of response on page 16) citing it as further evidence that the DEQ has, in the words of policy passed at the 2007 Annual Meeting, "ignored law that prohibits use of funds on efforts that exceed federal requirements," and that DEQ management has "made derogatory comments in the media regarding animal agriculture, misquoting facts and demeaning MAEAP (Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program."
Policy also notes that "MFB has lost confidence in the ability of DEQ management to objectively address agriculture," and called on Governor Jennifer Granholm to make changes within the DEQ and to "evaluate the impact of DEQ decisions on all of Michigan's economy."
| Printer Friendly version Plain text version |
