 Printer Friendly version  Plain text version |
Farm Bureau: DEQ shows 'apparent hostility' to production ag
Editor's note: Following is the letter sent by Michigan Farm Bureau in response to the DEQ's comments to the EPA about its proposed new CAFO rule. The DEQ comments are also copied verbatim beginning on page 14.
April 8, 2008
Richard A. Powers, Chief
Water Bureau
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Constitution Hall
525 West Allegan Street
Lansing, MI 48909
Dear Mr. Powers:
Michigan Farm Bureau is disappointed with your April 4, 2008, comments submitted to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regarding revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). We are not surprised that you oppose voluntary programs - no matter how effective - in favor of mandatory permits, nor are we surprised at the derogatory tone of your letter toward USEPA. The source of our disappointment is your apparent hostility to production agriculture and your misleading statements that reflect a lack of objectivity on the part of a Michigan agency.
Your opening comments about a proposed USEPA certification process for CAFOs states "this provision appears to have been advanced by the lobbyists for the factory farms as a self-serving means of exempting factory farms from regulation, contrary to any other sector regulated under the Clean Water Act." In Michigan Farm Bureau's July 2, 2007, letter to your director, Steve Chester, Michigan Farm Bureau called Director Chester to task for repeatedly using the term "factory farm." If you choose to continue the use of unprofessional, inflammatory terms to address a constituency and regulated community, we will continue to challenge the objectivity of DEQ and its ability to fairly regulate CAFOs.
On page 2 of your comments, you state "Michigan's experience is that virtually all CAFOs with lagoons and/or land application have discharges." Michigan Farm Bureau asks that you qualify that statement with data available at the time of the statement. We ask that you provide the number of CAFOs that have had regulated discharges, both when permitted and prior to permitting.
On page 3 of your comments, you claim "This proposal will severely undermine the efforts of those states that have implemented programs to adequately regulate CAFOs. The USEPA has encouraged states to do this in the interim time period between the Waterkeeper decision and the final promulgation of regulations consistent with that decision by the USEPA. Despite the argument that USEPA will make that the states are free to implement requirements more restrictive than the federal requirements, the reality is that the states will be under increasing pressure to change their requirements to be "consistent with" the federal requirements. This would result in not only significantly reduced effectiveness of controlling pollution from CAFOs, but also a waste of scarce resources in the effort to redo their regulations." First, we are confused with the statement "The USEPA has encouraged states to do this in the interim period between the Waterkeeper decision and the final promulgation of regulations consistent with that decision by the USEPA." The Waterkeeper decision vacated the portion of the Federal CAFO rule that required CAFOs that have not had actual discharges to apply for and obtain NPDES permits. As you know, Michigan Farm Bureau advocates that Michigan regulations should be consistent with Federal regulations. We ask that you elaborate on what "USEPA has encouraged states to do" and trust that Michigan was not encouraged to act in a manner inconsistent with Waterkeeper.
Second, you claim that consistency with federal requirements is a "waste of scarce resources in the effort to redo their regulations." Michigan Farm Bureau believes DEQ management should be using resources to effectively enforce existing environmental laws. MDEQ's focus on permits discourages expansions and start-ups of farms and agriculture-related businesses in Michigan. Michigan would be better served if DEQ focused resources on providing timely, effective and consistent enforcement of environmental laws against polluters. With all due respect, Michigan's approach of requiring permits from producers who have not had discharges and who do not propose to discharge is a waste of scarce resources in a time of funding scarcity.
On page 4 of your comments, you state "in Michigan, we have found that CNMPs similar to the NRCS CNMPs are not sufficient to prevent discharges to surface waters. Also, CAFOs with such CNMPs tend to ignore their CNMPs unless there are specific permit requirements associated with these documents." It is neither fair nor responsible to make a blanket claim that farms ignore their CNMPs unless there are permit requirements.
While we recognize the DEQ has a statutory role in regulating agriculture, your comments provide another example of why Michigan Farm Bureau has lost confidence in the ability of DEQ management to regulate agriculture fairly and objectively. Michigan Farm Bureau will continue to aggressively counter misinformation that depicts production agriculture in Michigan as abusers of the environment, regardless of its source. We have zero tolerance for harassment of farmers who are adhering to the state's pollution prevention program for agriculture. DEQ can stimulate Michigan's economic recovery or be a deterrent to the economic viability of its most productive sector.
Respectfully submitted,
Wayne H. Wood, President
Michigan Farm Bureau
Cc: Governor Jennifer Granholm
Steve Johnson, USEPA Administrator
Michigan Farm Bureau County Presidents
| Printer Friendly version Plain text version |