 |
| Duane A. Lienemann UNL Extension Educator |
As I understand it Congress also voted to continue prohibiting funding to the EPA to require the mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from feedlots and other confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and restricts CAFOs from being defined as Title V sources under the federal Clean Air Act. That has been an ongoing struggle and I think this is good news concerning our confined livestock producers. You might remember the “dust rule” and of course the continued attack on the animal agriculture industry concerning global warming (climate change) and greenhouse gas emissions, mostly pushed by extreme environmentalists and animal rights groups blaming the ills of the world on farm animals.
Another stipulation of the Congressional omnibus bill is that it requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers to rescind a regulation known as the Interpretative Rule which is the first step in promulgating new regulations to govern waters of the United States (WOTUS). I thought first that we had some good news with this announcement, but in looking through the verbiage, I am not so sure. Here is the rest of the story on that…
Both houses of Congress did pass language regarding the Clean Water Act, which on the surface appears to bring EPA under some control regarding certain agricultural practices. In particular Section 111 says "None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to require a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill material under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act…for the activities identified in subparagraphs (A) - normal farming practices- and (C) - building and maintaining farm ponds of Section 404 (f)(1) of the Act." Now that sounds pretty impressive but I have read some critiques of this action and it does give one pause for thought concerning one omission.
Of concern to individuals, who are a lot smarter than me, is that they think that EPA will no doubt say that the bill does not override paragraph (2) if Section 111, which says a permit is needed if you build a pond in a wetland. Now wait a minute…isn’t that one of the problems that most of us were suspicious of with the EPA proposal of April 21, 2014, Definition of "Waters of the United States" under the CWA? That EPA proposal now defines such terms as adjacent, neighboring, flood plain, tributary, and of course defines "Significant Nexus," which could give EPA jurisdiction over virtually all waters in the U.S. This proposed rule is not mentioned! I think we need to keep vigilant on this and keep in touch with your Senator and Congressman and keep pressure on the EPA as this saga continues.
Court Calls Cow Manure a Pollutant: Just so we have something else to worry about, I took interest in a court decision that could eventually work its way across the country and could have unbelievable consequences to our livestock producers down the road. Are you ready for this???? Manure is now considered a ‘pollutant’ under farm insurance policies in Wisconsin, the state’s Supreme Court ruled. Accordingly, if pollutants are excluded from general liability insurance policies, farmers could be held liable for any damages that occur from manure runoff. Specifically, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that cow manure is a pollutant when it enters a well. But the justices were not simply stating the obvious in an opinion written by one of the Justices for the majority, he stated that “Because manure applied to farm fields is no longer a crop fertilizer when it seeps into private wells and contaminates the water supply, therefore the general farm liability policy for the farmers excluded coverage for damage to their neighbor's water supplies.
The ruling arises from a Washington County, Wisconsin case, in which the state Department of Natural Resources alleged that manure from a farm contaminated an aquifer and neighboring wells. The farmer’s insurance company refused to pay damages because it had a “pollutant” exclusion in its policy. Attorneys note that none of the parties to the suit raised the issue of whether the cow manure spread on the farmer’s land actually contaminated the aquifer or the wells. As you can probably assume from the content of this lawsuit, how many people who do not like animal agriculture or especially the practice of spreading manure or injecting manure into farm fields, could use this law suit to their advantage? Don’t think for a minute that this suit has not been watched and scrutinized towards that means.
Interesting enough the Wisconsin Supreme Court actually decided two cases in which the central issue was whether the substance responsible for the alleged property damage constitutes a "pollutant" sufficient to invoke pollution exclusions in relevant insurance policies. The Court held that both seepage and cow manure, respectively, are "pollutants," as defined in commercial general liability policies and that, accordingly, property damage resulting from those substances is excluded from coverage. So at least human waste is in the same category as animal waste. There was a caveat in that the problem was actually nitrates which came from the decomposition of the waste. Somehow that doesn’t make me feel any better.
The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu/home
No comments:
Post a Comment