By Anita Weier
Environmentalists
and farmers battled Thursday at the State Capitol about regulations for
manure application on fields by large livestock feeding operations.
The farmers won.
The
Senate Agriculture Committee voted 3-2 after an eight-hour hearing to
send the proposed regulation back to the Department of Natural
Resources for revision on the grounds that it was "arbitrary and
capricious." The vote was on party lines, with Republicans voting to
send the measure back.
Sen. Dan Kapanke, R-La Crosse, the
committee chairman, said several issues were brought up during the
hearing that needed to be resolved.
The
Assembly Agriculture Committee will decide next week whether to ask for
specific changes. Assembly Chairman Rep. Al Ott, R-Forest Junction, and
Kapanke both said they wanted to protect the state's agriculture
industry as well as the environment.
Sen. Mark Miller, D-Monona,
argued unsuccessfully that the rule was created with much public input
over a four-year period, was balanced and should be approved.
The
rule was developed to address the trend toward larger farms with
thousands of head of livestock. Russ Rasmussen, director of the Bureau
of Water Management for the DNR, said the rule would protect public
health and water quality endangered by tainted runoff and also maintain
compliance with federal regulations.
Manure runoff has contaminated wells and caused fishkills in several areas of Wisconsin in recent years.
The
rule would prohibit "concentrated animal feeding operations" - those
that have 1,000 animal units of livestock (the equivalent of 700 milk
cows, 1,000 beef cattle, 2,500 pigs or 55,000 turkeys) - from spreading
liquid manure in winter. There are 150 such farms in Wisconsin, and the
DNR predicts that 13 more would fall under the new rules.
The
large operations, sometimes called factory farms, also wouldn't be
allowed to apply solid manure to the surface in February or March. The
rule would also require that large farms construct storage facilities
sufficient to hold a six-month accumulation of manure. The farms also
would be prohibited from spreading manure when weather forecasts call
for a 70 percent or better chance of precipitation within 24 hours.
Several people ridiculed the weather forecast provision, noting that predictions are often wrong.
Some
speakers argued that a federal Environmental Protection Agency
regulation requires only that farmers keep track of the weather
predictions, but that the DNR turned it into a regulation. Rasmussen
countered that the EPA actually suggested that the DNR prohibit
spreading if there were a 50 percent chance of rain, but that the DNR
weakened the restriction by changing it to 70 percent.
But he conceded that the proposal was inexact. "We would work with folks to try to come up with an alternative," Rasmussen said.
Rep.
John Ainsworth, R-Shawano, noted that the state has fewer milk cows now
than it did from 1930 to 1950 when cows were pasturing in streams.
"Where did this perceived need to go beyond federal requirements come
from," if fewer cows are producing less manure, he asked?
"In the 1930s, the cows were spread out - not thousands of animals in a small confined area," Rasmussen responded.
"We
know that spreading liquid manure on frozen ground is high risk. That
is why we have it in the rule. If we said, do what you want, the
problem is once water has been contaminated, it's too late. Somebody
gets sick or fish are killed," Rasmussen said.
Steve Hoffmann,
who works for the 2-million chicken S&R Egg Farm in the Whitewater
and Palmyra area, said stored manure also causes serious problems
"Manure
as it comes out of a barn is inert. If it is in a confined area, it
will ferment. It goes from solid to liquid and the odors are extreme,"
Hoffmann added. "I wouldn't have upset neighbors; I would have upset
neighborhoods. If the DNR forces me to have a storage structure, they
need to stand next to me at every town and zoning meeting saying they
are the ones who said this has to be."
Kathy Pielsticker, a
division administrator for the Department of Agriculture, said the
proposed DNR rule conflicts to some extent with an Agriculture
Department rule that was created so farmers would have predictability
about locating or expanding livestock operations.
The DNR rule
would completely halt manure spreading in February and March, whereas
Agriculture Department rules depend on whether the area to be spread is
flat and how far it is from water courses. "We need clear standards,"
Pielsticker said.
Richard Gorder, a dairy farmer from Mineral
Point who is vice president of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation,
added that the DNR rule differs from Agriculture Department regulations
by prohibiting the application of manure over bedrock from 20 to 24
inches and reducing incorporation time for manure from 72 hours to 48
hours under certain circumstances.
"The Farm Bureau, myself
included, do not want to see runoff events," Gorder said. "All that we
ask is that farmers in this state are subject to one consistent set of
nutrient management provisions."
But
Greg Coulthurst, a conservationist for the Door County Soil and Water
Conservation Department, said Door County supports the rule - including
barring manure spreading when significant rainfall is predicted - as a
small step toward protecting Wisconsin's water resources.
"This is simply good planning to prevent manure runoff-related events," Coulthurst said.
"Door
County supports the requirement to have a minimum liquid storage
capacity of 180 days, however, it should be required much sooner than
2010 for existing CAFOS," he said. "The conservation department
believes the rules have not gone far enough toward providing the
necessary tools to protect Wisconsin's unique and precious water
resources."
George Meyer, executive director of the Wisconsin
Wildlife Federation, agreed. "Beyond the impact on our streams and
lakes, we do not want to see our neighbors' wells contaminated, their
families getting sick and their savings accounts drained because of the
failure of large farm operations to take the necessary precautions to
keep their liquid manure on their own property," he said.
However,
Ken Heiman, a dairy farm owner who is a member of the board of
Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association, said Wisconsin's regulations
should not be stricter than federal requirements for competitive
reasons.
"Wisconsin's dairy industry is turning a corner. Milk
cow numbers are rising, rather than falling, and milk production is
rising as well. Our state must maintain forward momentum to remain a
strong dairy state," Heiman said.
"We must not saddle our dairy producers with unique regulatory requirements more stringent than other states'."
E-mail: aweier@madison.com
Published: August 4, 2006
