EPA Comment Period on Farm Emissions Ends in April

WASHINGTON - Mar 18/05 - MFB -- Farmers across the nation now have until the end of April to provide comments to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on a proposed consent agreement which would allow interested farmers to pay a "minimal penalty" and then be enrolled into a two-year, on-farm study of air emissions from their operations.

In making the announcement to members of Michigan Farm Bureau's Legislative Committee attending the organization's annual Washington Legislative Seminar in Washington, D.C., Jon Scholl, counselor to the administrator for agricultural policy at EPA, called the proposal the biggest agricultural issue that EPA is dealing with right now.

"It's basically an effort to work with agriculture to put together better scientific data that we can then use to determine to what extent of problems there might be, and then look into the future to determine what kind of regulatory structure might be needed, as well as any control measures that would work in the agricultural community," Scholl said.

And while the proposed air quality consent agreement is not necessarily being readily accepted by all segments of the livestock industry, Scholl said many segments, most notably pork and poultry, have taken a very active role in drafting the proposal as a way to take control of a very uncertain regulatory future.

"From an industry perspective, there are court challenges being filed against individual farmers right now, and there have been court cases that have been decided that raised issues of significant concern to agriculture," Scholl explained.

"The choice is: Do you want to let the issue be driven by those court cases with an inadequate level of information, (which is the case now)? Or do you want to try and get out in front of it and have an industry-led solution and make sure that you at least have a future that's going to be driven by good information - something that's based on science and developed by experts out in the field?"

That uncertain future, however, is a two-edged sword in the eyes of many livestock producers, acknowledged Scholl. Producer concerns over liability, confidentiality and -- ultimately - costs are giving producers a reason to pause. Paying a "penalty" for something producers may or may not be in violation of is also a major point of contention.

"Nobody likes to be put in a position where they feel like they have to pay a penalty," Scholl said. "This is something that frankly the agricultural industry more or less asked for in setting up this whole program to provide some level of protection from legal liability."

Terming the penalties as "minimal," Scholl said the actual cost for the two-year scientific assessment would be covered through various commodity check-off programs. Livestock producers would have until July 1 to voluntarily sign up to participate in the consent agreement.

Paying for any management or facility modifications as a result of the scientific study's recommendation is also a big unknown, according to Scholl, who refused to speculate on whether cost-share funds would be available from the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).

"It's difficult to tell at this point what kind of control measures are going to be out there," he said. "NRCS is obviously involved in watching this issue very carefully, and I think they understand that air quality issues are going to continue to be a growing area of concern for agriculture."

Scholl also acknowledged the value of Michigan's voluntary Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program (MAEAP) in dealing with air and water quality issues, saying it's the kind of proactive, progressive approach that agriculture can be proud of and use in the future.

"MAEAP helps to make it as easy as we can for producers to know what the realm of requirements are and the measures they have at their disposal so that they can address those requirements in a very practical manner that's focused on the real problem - protecting the environment," Scholl said.

"The choice we have is do we continue trying to let others define our industry and drive the industry through lawsuits, or do we want to participate in a proactive program like MAEAP and show the general public that we mean what we say when we tell them we're the original environmentalist and we want to do the right thing."

Copyright (c) 2005 Michigan Farm Bureau