NPR "Enviro-science"

[Jim]

For those who want to wade in, here's the new rule:

 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm

 

The problem in assessing how this will work is that if you never worked with the the old rule you will not be able to figure out what this means. Or if you don't know how 401 CWA water quality certification, or NPDES permits related to agriculture work, it just sounds like a bunch of government mismash.

 

RobBob - my point was that you're totally missing the point. The main issues affecting this rule have nothing to do with hog operations and are more applicable to other livestock operations. Hog farms have their problems but the one benefit they have is that they are most often contained in buildings - for a bunch of reasons. One interesting one is that pigs like to poop where they have an outside view - so waste collection systems can be developed in regular places in the pens by providing a view point for the hogs (honest!). The primary issue with this new rule is how some states will take the flexibility and run with it regarding other livestock, such as cattle. Some states may not change much. But you can bet your boots that Texas, Iowa, Kansas, among others will loosen the apply the regulations in a looser manner.

 

The problem is that Clean Water Act implementation (of some sections) is given over to the state authority, such as Dept. of Ecology in WA. But there are Federal standards to uphold. For the sake of "flexibility" the Bush administration is allowing "flexibility" in the way the states apply the standard, or don't apply the standards. It's more often a surface water problem than a ground water problem. Agricultural chemicals is a real ground water threat that has nothing to do with this rule.

 

One other side note - while RobBob comment on the increasing use of residential water is true, it's a half truth. Agricultural water still uses 50 times the residential use. Take a look a the subsidized water used in CA in the Central Valley and the SanJouquin. And out in Nebraska, Kansas, northern Texas - pumping of geologic ground water (doesn't get replinished by rain) by farms has reduced the water table by over 100 ft and at this rate they will run out in another 50 years. No very sustainable.

[Dru]

I read a funny news piece once about some dude out walking his mutt and got mugged by someone who musta thought the little bag he was carrying in one hand was his stash or something.

 

"Man, this shit is shit!"

[freeclimb9]

I challenge anyone to point to real evidence of significant acquifer contamination from livestock operations.

RobBob, you're a trip. The fact that "livestock operations" can and do pollute is incontrovertible. Hog mega-farms in particular do this since they rely on lagoons (which are susceptible to leeching and overflow problems, not to mention evaporation) to re-mediate waste whereas cattle feedlots mainly just deal with solid waste.

Near Milford, Utah, the Circle Four Farms company admitted accidentally siphoning 80,000 gallons of pig sewage into the ground. Oops. Bacteria blooms occurred in nearby wells thereafter. Significant? Real?

There are plenty of other examples to point you towards since you're too lazy to look yourself. But arguing with you is a waste since you'll probably parse your own language and go off on a tangent of what's "real" and what's "significant".

If you really don't believe that animal waste management is a problem, how do you explain the increased level of respiratory problems in dairy and hog-farm workers? Is the spreading of raw animal waste over acres of field a safe practice? Do waste lagoons not leak, or overflow? Is the bacteria blooms found in wells near hog-farms the work of enviro-saboteurs out to discredit corporate farmers with the larger goal of ridding the world of human carnivores (PETA's influence runs deep)?

[Greg_W]

The problem is that Clean Water Act implementation (of some sections) is given over to the state authority, such as Dept. of Ecology in WA. But there are Federal standards to uphold. For the sake of "flexibility" the Bush administration is allowing "flexibility" in the way the states apply the standard, or don't apply the standards. It's more often a surface water problem than a ground water problem. Agricultural chemicals is a real ground water threat that has nothing to do with this rule.

 

Jim; It sounds like a good plan to allow states some "flexibility"; they know best the specific needs/problems/concerns or their locality. Plus this gives power to the states which they should have anyway (sorry, little states-rights rant there).

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

[Jim]

Greg,

 

Well, the states rights thing has some merit, and in some cases it has actually worked out ok. But those cases are where the Feds keep the fire to the feet of the states regarding some standards. The problem with this particular rule is that, IMO, it allows too much flexibility by tweaking the standard itself.

 

I think a good compromise would be to keep the standard rigid -with good oversight, and allow the states to meet those standards. What is likely to happen in this case is that cattle producing states will side with the big money cattle guys and water quality will suffer. Gotta go.

[RobBob]

RobBob, you're a trip. The fact that "livestock operations" can and do pollute is incontrovertible. Hog mega-farms in particular do this since they rely on lagoons (which are susceptible to leeching and overflow problems, not to mention evaporation) to re-mediate waste whereas cattle feedlots mainly just deal with solid waste.

Near Milford, Utah, the Circle Four Farms company admitted accidentally siphoning 80,000 gallons of pig sewage into the ground. Oops. Bacteria blooms occurred in nearby wells thereafter. Significant? Real?

There are plenty of other examples to point you towards since you're too lazy to look yourself. But arguing with you is a waste since you'll probably parse your own language and go off on a tangent of what's "real" and what's "significant".

If you really don't believe that animal waste management is a problem, how do you explain the increased level of respiratory problems in dairy and hog-farm workers? Is the spreading of raw animal waste over acres of field a safe practice? Do waste lagoons not leak, or overflow?

 

freeclimb, you're a trip, too. Where did I say that animal farms didn't pollute? But it's a matter of scale of the pollution, if your true primary concern is spending your energy and $ efficiently in combatting pollution. 80,000 gallons of sludge at Circle Four sounds like a big mess and is. But as you probably are aware, a good raw sewage discharge from a municipal waste treatment plant during a flood, or a primary waste discharge necessitated by excessive stormsewer water in the system, dwarfs the Circle Four discharge and happens with a lot more regularity.

 

We weren't talking about air quality issues, but you're right, there are health problems for workers associated with animals, particularly in buildings. Chicken farming is especially bad. But there are similar issues in the fiberglass industry, etc., etc. You sound like you just want to tar & feather animal agriculture.

 

Jim, while you're trying to accuse me of half-truths about aquifer water use, tell me what the main Central Valley ag water source is? Is it aquifer or surface water? Does that change your equation and make yours an ecologist's half-truth?

 

As far as parsing words, and dealing in half-truths, I don't believe that I have. My point has been simple and straightforward. We humans are point-sources of pollution and are more responsible for (water) pollution than animal farmers are. Moreover, we seek to paint others as wearing black hats and we try to control others' actions, while putting ourselves on the good-guy pedestal. And we ain't there. And we aren't doing what we could to clean up our own act.

 

[Jim]

Let me slow down for you. I was addressing two seperate issuse the first was agriculture vs residential water use in the US, which agriculture uses the greater amount by far for much lest cost and greater environmental damage.

 

The second was an example of historic use of depletion of aquifers by agriculture. While you are correct that residential and commercial growth, especially in places in the SW, have recently increased the drain, throughout the US the primary problem is agriculture.

[MtnGoat]

What's especially hilarious is the NPR/Enviro organic farming bandwagon is in direct conflict with their goals for reducing animal waste and impact. Their solution to nitrogen loss due to farming is "organic" fertilizer, which in the bulk needed means one thing, animal poop and lots of it. Tons of it. Millions of tons of it in fact.

 

If all farming was organic they'd need *more* animals to poop for them, not fewer, and the land taken up by the animals and to feed them as well.

[freeclimb9]

RobBob,

in an early post on this tedious thread, you put forth that you "challenge anyone to point to real evidence of significant acquifer contamination from livestock operations." So, I gave an example of a hog-farm siphoning 800,000gallons of hog sewage into the ground. For a response, you write that I "want to tar & feather animal agriculture". FYI, I was just responding to your "challenge".

[Jim]

FG - Now don’t go ruining an unsubstantiated tirade with facts

[RobBob]

Yep, mtngoat. But nobody here has the fortitude or interest to address my original thesis: That by using the 'not in my backyard' philosphy and forcing our animal food supply outside our borders, we'll actually be worse off for several reasons.

 

 

Jim instead has decided that he knows best what's right for American water policy:

I think a good compromise would be to keep the standard rigid -with good oversight...cattle producing states will side with the big money cattle guys and water quality will suffer.

Note the cynical attitude about "big money." Now there's an open-minded government employee who business can trust to see all sides of the picture! I don't think so. He just wants to control something in his working world. And he's being a tweaker. Read his post above with the word-games about 'historical' aquifer depletion being predominantly. The point I wade was that residential/commercial use is on a rapid rise, while agriculture has peaked due to BMPs.

 

Can anyone comment on the original issue---the effect of moving our food upply abroad?

 

 

[RobBob]

freeclimb, was it 80,000 or 800,000? And remember, you called me too lazy to research...but you're the one who shot from the hip and was only halfway correct on contrails last week.

 

gotta go!

[allthumbs]

Hey, I got the contrail one right!

[Greg_W]

I will, RobBob. This is a horrible idea; worse than being dependent on foreign oil. If memory serves, didn't we exercise some heavy leverage against the USSR because they needed our grain or something (back in the 80's)? The more dependent we become on foreign sources for our staple supplies, the more vulnerable we become to outside control. A prime example is England during the Second World War. As an island nation, it was necessary to be dependent upon shipping and imports. The German Navy reeked havoc on British and U.S. shipping with their U-boat "wolfpacks" for a long time. We don't want to be in any such position.

[mattp]

"The more dependent we become on foreign sources for our staple supplies, the more vulnerable we become to outside control."

 

Is that why you think we should not seek to coordinate any move away from the use of oil and let the market and the individual self-interest of people like you who drive a big truck that is completely empty of any cargo 90% of the time drive any move toward energy-efficiency?

[allthumbs]

Hey dudes, I said I got the contrail one right!

[freeclimb9]

was it 80,000 or 800,000?

Is was like a BILLION, and now the whole Great Salt Lake smells like shit.

[Greg_W]

I think we should be dependent on our own oil; we do have lots of it. Also, I will be interested in the advances of these Hydrogen fuel cells. Matt, I never said I was against new energy sources (hm, maybe I did). Anyway, what I may, or may not, have communicated is that these new sources have to be economically viable to the consumer in order for them to be successful. Give people a choice, don't shove it down their throats.

[Dru]

Maybe it was 10 million pounds of sludge, ever think of that?

 

there was a guy

an under water guy who controlled the sea

got killed by ten million pounds of sludge

from new york and new jersey

this monkey's gone to heaven

 

the creature in the sky

got sucked in a hole

now there's a hole in the sky

and the ground's not cold

and if the ground's not cold

everything is gonna burn

we'll all take turns

i'll get mine, too

this monkey's gone to heaven

 

rock me joe!

 

if man is 5 [3x]

then the devil is 6 [4x]

and if the devil is 6

then god is 7 [3x]

this monkey's gone to heaven

 

 

[Jim]

Just for the record, I ain't no gv'ment employee.

 

[Bronco]

hunt and fish more. shop less.

 

some of that farm raised stuff is full of wierdness.