Lawsuit Challenges Bush Factory Farm Rules

[Guest guest]

http://ens-news.com/ens/mar2003/2003-03-10-10.asp

 

 

Lawsuit Challenges Bush Factory Farm Rules

By J.R. Pegg

WASHINGTON, DC, March 10, 2003 (ENS) - Environmentalists have mounted a legal

challenge to the Bush administration's new rule to limit water pollution from

the nation's largest livestock operations. The administration's rule violates

the Clean Water Act, the plaintiffs contend, and gives the livestock industry

free reign to discharge animal waste into the nation's waters without fear of

penalty or accountability.

The rule " wholly fails to protect water quality, " said Barclay Rogers, Sierra

Club associate attorney.

The lawsuit was filed Friday by the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense

Council (NRDC) and the Waterkeeper Alliance in San Francisco's Ninth Circuit

Court of Appeals.

" The Bush administration missed a real opportunity to protect public health, "

Rogers said. " This rule is a step backward. "

Prior to the Bush administration's rule, Rogers explained, these large factory

farms, known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), were not

permitted to discharge any animal waste pollution. Large factory farms are the

dominant force in U.S. agriculture. (Photo courtesy Factory Farm Project)But

under the administration's rule they are " now expressly permitted to discharge

waste into the environment, " Rogers said, and can do so based on permits that

they are allowed to write themselves, without any government or public

oversight.

" Polluters can't be trusted to write their own permits, " said NRDC attorney

Melanie Shepherdson. " It is like asking high school kids to write their own

tests. They will make it too easy to comply and they will not protect public

health. "

Few would disagree that large scale factory farms, which produce some 500

million tons of manure a year, present risks to public health and the

environment.

CAFOs have emerged as the dominant force in the modern production of

agricultural livestock as the size of livestock operations has grown over the

past two decades. Some of the largest facilities have capacities exceeding one

million animals.

These large scale operations store waste onsite, some of which they apply on

farmland. This liquid waste often runs off into surface water, killing fish,

spreading disease, and contaminating drinking water supplies. Waste can leak

onto the land and into groundwater and drinking water supplies from the massive

waste storage units that often reside on the farms.

The new rule, announced in December 2002, replaced a 25 year old rule developed

after Congress identified CAFOs as point sources of water pollution that should

be regulated under the Clean Water Act's water pollution permitting program.

It applies to about 15,500 livestock operations across the country. Large CAFOs

are defined in the rule as operations raising more than 1,000 cattle, 700 dairy

cows, 2,500 swine, 10,000 sheep, 125,000 chickens, 82,000 laying hens, or 55,000

turkeys in confinement.

Waste flows from factory farms can present serious environmental and public

health problems. (Photo courtesy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)The EPA

removed initiatives many environmentalists favored from the final rule that were

put in by President Bill Clinton's administration. Under President George W.

Bush, EPA officials said the agency opted to balance environmental objectives

with measures aimed at protecting the profitability of the livestock industry.

When the rule was released, EPA Administrator Christie Whitman called it an

" historic step forward " in the effort to make nation's waters cleaner and purer

and said it would reduce the growing problem of animal waste generated by CAFOs.

But environmentalists are convinced the rule will do nothing of the sort. They

believe it shields factory farms from liability for damage caused by animal

waste pollution, bars the public from weighing in on how animal waste is

disposed, and exempts contaminated runoff from Clean Water Act standards.

Instead of tighter pollution controls, all the rule means to the industry is

" more paperwork, " said Ken Midkiff, director of Sierra Club's Factory Farm

Campaign.

The Bush administration centered the rule on the requirement that each operator

have a nutrient management plan, which outlines how much animal waste will be

sprayed on fields.

Environmentalists contend this is a license to pollute because the operator is

allowed to write the pollution plan and it is not reviewed by federal or state

officials nor available to the public.

In effect, the groups say, it shields the operator from any liability for

discharge.

In addition, the rule does not require the operators to monitor groundwater or

prevent animal waste from leaking into groundwater and contaminating drinking

water.

Poultry farms are a leading source of agricultural pollution. (Photo by Larry

Rana courtesy U.S. Department of Agriculture)If runoff does contaminate

groundwater or drinking water, it is doubtful the factory farm operator or

corporation behind the operation could be held liable because the rule exempts

contaminated runoff from the Clean Water Act's standards by calling it

" agricultural storm water. "

This exemption was intended for traditional, small farms, Midkiff explained, to

protect them from liability of runoff caused by a heavy downpour.

" In no way is a CAFO a traditional agricultural operation, " he said. " This

exemption allows large companies to dump raw sewage into streams and waterways. "

Industry groups have fought most attempts at tighter standards, arguing that the

costs of increased regulatory oversight would jeopardize the low prices

Americans are now accustomed to paying for eggs, chicken, beef and swine.

When the Bush administration released its rule, the Farm Bureau, an agricultural

industry trade group, said the restrictions were " workable " but went beyond the

reach of the federal Clean Water Act.

Critics contend that the Bush administration's rule does not aid small farmers,

but large multinational corporations that already benefit from sizeable

government subsidies.

It is environmental protection and public health, not the profitability of

industry, that should be paramount in government regulation, Shepherdson said.

" EPA's mission is to protect the environment not the industry's bottom line. "

 

 

 

advertisment

 

-->

 

 

 

Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2003.

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Web Hosting - establish your business online