By Wally Kennedy
wkennedy@joplinglobe.com
By the end of the year, Missouri should have new rules governing the state’s growing number of concentrated-animal-feeding operations.
Whether those rules will be tougher than existing ones or favor the growth and operation of CAFOs remains to be seen. Right now, representatives of the agricultural industry and environmental groups are jockeying for position by participating in a state work group that is drafting new language.
It will be up to the Missouri Clean Water Commission to decide what is included and excluded.
Jan Tupper, a Joplin resident who serves on the commission, said he cannot comment on the direction the new rules might take because he has not seen them yet.
“The mission of the commission is to protect the waters of the state. That’s all I can say until we (the commission) get together and act,’’ he said. “The commission will act as majority but I have no feel for how it will act.’’
Missouri’s CAFO rule is being revised by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources in response to changes mandated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The new EPA rules could require more stringent reporting — especially for poultry operations — with regard to how and where agricultural wastes are applied to the land. The new rules also could change how CAFOs are classified in terms of the numbers of animals that can be housed under one roof.
Who is involved?
The work group is made up of representatives from more than two dozen organizations. Among them are some of Missouri’s hog and poultry companies that have operations in Southwest Missouri. Environmental groups and others that have expressed concerns about the impact of CAFOs on small family farms and the environment also are represented. Among the agricultural interests are Moark Industries, Premium Standard Farms, Tyson’s, George’s, the Missouri Pork Producers Council, the Farm Bureau, the Poultry Federation, Missouri Agribusiness Association and Smithfield/Murphy.
The inclusion of so many of those industries prompted Ken Midkiff, chairman of the Missouri Sierra Club’s Clean Water Campaign, to decline an invitation to participate.
Robert Brundage, legal counsel for Moark who is representing the Missouri Agribusiness Association on the work group, said: “The work group needs to include all of the so-called customers of the DNR and all of the groups that need permits. It is absolutely critical they be involved. You cannot exclude the interests that apply for permits. That would be patently unfair.’’
Attempts to reach representatives of the Poultry Federation, the Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Pork Producers Council were unsuccessful last week.
Kathleen Logan Smith, director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, is on the work group. She said she, too, is concerned about its makeup.
“This could be an opportunity to strengthen the rules, but it’s also an opportunity to gut them. The people who want to gut it are outnumbered by those who want to strengthen it,’’ she said. “The regulated community is being represented, but what about the children in rural Missouri who must inhale ammonia from these CAFOs?
“What about tourism, rural hospitals and rural health departments? What about canoe livery businesses and lake associations? There are a lot of stakeholders who are not at the table, but should be.’’
Darrick Steen, agricultural unit chief of the DNR’s water-protection program, said the agency has taken steps to ensure broad representation on the panel. The group is composed of eight representatives of industry; eight representatives of resident groups, and eight representatives of governmental agencies.
New rules?
Steen said the work group split rule-making into two phases. The first-phase requirements are the new EPA rules. Steen said the state has adopted those verbatim.
The new requirements will regulate phosphorous and nitrogen in the manure and how they are applied to the land.
The EPA rule includes a significant change for phosphorous in manure. Under the current rules, there is no provision for phosphorous.
“The application rates on high-risk fields will be reduced to prevent runoff into waters of the state,’’ Steen said. “High- risk areas would involve severe slopes or existing buildup of phosphorous in the soil. It will be what a crop can take in a given year.’’
Steen said the phosphorous issue will have a greater impact on the poultry industry because poultry manure contains higher phosphorous.
Smith said the new nutrient-management plans could make “a world of difference if there is compliance with those plans. The land application of manure is not always the application of manure as fertilizer. It’s waste disposal. It’s fertilizer when you only put on what you need to put on. When you stop doing that to get it out of your facility, it’s waste disposal. There should be different standards for waste disposal.’’
Enforcement?
Smith said the work group could promote the development of state regulations that are stronger than the federal regulations.
As for weakening of existing CAFO rules, Brundage, with Moark and the Missouri Agribusiness Association, said that is unlikely to happen. Those rules, he said, have been in place for nearly 15 years and “cannot be weakened. What we are doing is tailoring the procedures to apply for permits.’’
Environmentalists argue that the new regulations won’t do much good if there is little or no oversight. Midkiff, with the Sierra Club, said enforcement of CAFO rules, a responsibility of the DNR, is virtually nonexistent.
Smith, with the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, said, “It’s how this stuff hits the ground that matters. It’s the enforcement. Is anybody looking? Is anybody checking? With regard to animal units, who is checking those numbers?”
Steen said the construction permit issued by the state will be the primary mechanism for oversight of the nutrient-management plans. But who will be looking to see if those plans are followed?
“We strongly rely on the public to help keep facilities in check. We are reliant on complaint-driven inspections,’’ said Steen.
Said Smith: “The problem with that philosophy is that the public assumes that the state is doing its job to protect our natural resources. The public does not know that it is their job to protect those resources. In this case, enforcement is only activated when the public complains. I am not sure state legislators would agree its the public’s job to provide oversight of these CAFOs.’’
Neighbor battles
Darvin Bentlage, a farmer in Barton County who is concerned about the growth of hog CAFOs near Golden City, said the new rules do not apply to the smaller Class II CAFOs. He and Smith are concerned that the accumulative effect of smaller CAFOs can be just as large or larger than the big Class I CAFOs.
Smith said three Class II CAFOs with 7,000 swine each can have an impact as great as one Class I CAFO with 20,000 swine.
Smith said, “No one is looking at the accumulative impact of this stuff with Class II CAFOs. It is a problem, particularly in Barton County, where Class II CAFOs are being put right on the streams. Putting them there has nothing to do with protecting water quality. There will be a price to pay for that.”
It is a concern shared by Zach McGuire, a Barton County resident who is monitoring the growth of CAFOs in the county from his private airplane.
“There are over 60 CAFOs in Barton County. There are only six Class I CAFOs. All of the rest are Class II CAFOs. They have built five CAFOs in the county in the last year to year and a half,’’ he said.
“My primary concern is the drinking water of the municipalities in this area and the runoff from these CAFOs, which are being situated next to creeks and streams.’’
Bentlage said, “We are not going to stop them so what we need are some more regulations to make them safer. We need to include these Class II CAFOs because they are becoming more and more popular. They are becoming popular because they are not regulated.
“If we have got to live with them, we have got to make them safer. We have at least got to protect our natural resources.’’
Bentlage is meeting with the DNR over wastewater concerns involving a hog CAFO near his farm. As for relying on the public to report environmental concerns to the DNR, Bentlage said, “What that means is you’re pitting neighbor against neighbor.’’
Sept. 10 hearing
The phase-one draft of Missouri’s CAFO rule was posted in the Missouri Registry on June 15. The Missouri Clean Water Commission will conduct a public hearing of the rule at its Sept. 10 meeting.
Public comments about the new rule will be accepted until Sept. 17. Comments may be submitted to Darrick Steen, Missouri Department of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102.
Steen said citizens must keep in mind that the department lacks jurisdiction to address concerns related to non-water- quality-related items, such as zoning, location, and the impacts on tourism and property values.
