As Groundwork For More Control,
EPA Brands Ag "Worst Polluter"

WASHINGTON — Ranchers and farmers should brace themselves for another assault on their rights and livelihoods; federal regulators have launched the latest in a string of crusades to vilify production agriculture and expand their own power.

Earlier this month, EPA pronounced agriculture the "biggest polluter of America's rivers and streams," claiming the industry fouls more than 173,000 miles of waterways with chemicals, erosion and animal waste runoff.

Farming is responsible for 70 percent of waterway pollution, the agency maintains, more than sewage treatment plants, urban storm sewers and pollution deposited from the air. The problems blamed on farming include those that harm aquatic life or restrict human use of rivers and streams.

"You can see there is a significant problem out there," EPA wastewater management director Michael Cook told the House Agriculture Committee in the agency’s opening volley. "Serious water quality problems persist throughout the country."

Cook's comments were meant to justify EPA's proposed new regulations on large livestock feeding operations, the first of several targets as the agency expands its regulatory grasp under the Clean Water Act.

Current federal rules, Cook claimed, "are not adequate to deal with the modern industry" in which the average number of animals per farm has doubled and sometimes tripled in cattle, hogs, chickens and turkeys since 1978.

About 20 percent of waterway pollution was traced to livestock waste in 22 states that looked at specific sectors of agriculture, he said. Although waste spills sometimes occur, most of the problem stems from its use as fertilizer on crops.

Although the largest livestock operations are subject to EPA rules, most of the estimated 450,000 answer to state regulators, some tougher than others. EPA insists one national standard is needed — under its control, of course — to prevent companies from seeking out lax states and to keep areas equal economically.

Some in Congress are skeptical. Rep. Larry Combest, R-Texas, said the proposal "runs counter" to a longtime federal effort to have farmers comply voluntarily with environmental guidelines and allow states to enforce their own rules.

"If compliance with current regulations is inadequate, then that is what needs to be focused on before any new regulatory schemes are pursued," said Combest, chairman of the Agriculture Committee's livestock subcommittee.

Opponents of large, confined livestock farms, Combest said, could also use the EPA rules to appeal to the "emotional and economic issues" that have arisen as smaller operations dwindle across the country.

"I fear an ill-conceived and misguided regulatory attempt targeted at large factory-type operations will wrongly hit many medium-sized family livestock operations," he said.

Cook assured Agriculture Committee members that EPA intends to focus only on the largest farms and those with bad track records. Working with the Agriculture Department, the thrust will be on voluntary compliance, technical and financial assistance and research, he claimed.

But Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said farmers must be held accountable for problems caused by livestock waste downstream such as unnatural growth of algae and other organisms, fish kills and nondrinkable water.

"We need to protect privacy and preserve a cooperative relationship with farmers as much as possible, but cooperation is a two-way street," he said.

Miller is a longtime foe of production agriculture and a darling of left-leaning "Greens."