Trying to clear the air

Since the last issue of Ag Nutrient Management, there has been a series of rules come into effect concerning livestock facilities and their need to report air emissions. There has been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding regarding this ruling and some state regulatory agencies have been caught off guard as much as producers. The information we have been able to gather can be found in our article on page 16. I am hoping to shed some light as to how this came about or the ‘why’ behind it all.

For the past few years, several activist groups have tried to use the reporting requirements under CERCLA and EPCRA to force larger CAFOs to comply with the ruling to show they were a danger to the community and environment. Most of these court battles were confusing at best because no one really knew if the claims of air emissions were actually true.

This basic lack of information and understanding led to the creation of the National Air Emissions Monitoring Study (NAEMS). That study is ongoing and will conclude later this year. It was thought the information gained from this study would lead to a clarification, but that has been preempted by the ruling on December 18th. The rules may still change in light of the findings, but for now, those operations who qualify as large CAFOs have a reporting obligation.

Over the last few weeks, I have heard from several people wondering why we didn’t have any warning about this rule and what it means for their operation. The truth of the matter is these compliance rules have been on the books for several years, it has just been clarified as to who has to file reports.

No one knows for sure why the ruling came down as it did. Some feel it was done to protect smaller operations from unwarranted paperwork and headaches when they really had nothing to worry about to begin with. Some feel it was done to help reduce the legal complications that have accompanied this issue in the past. Yet others feel large CAFOs were not completely exempted to placate those who would attack agriculture in general for a total exemption.

Irregardless of the reasons for the ruling, it is something to be taken seriously by those who qualify as a large CAFO. I personally find it to be an aggravation at best. As far as I am concerned, it is one more stumbling block to professional agriculture and that is something agriculture doesn’t need right at the moment.

I am sure once everyone understands the requirements and is able to work them into their operations it won’t be anymore a burden than any other part of large-scale animal production. My problem with it is it has to be added to the ever-growing list of things that need to be addressed. All-in-all, it could have been worse for agriculture in general, and we may look back at it and find we dodged a regulation and reporting nightmare. Until then, I would suggest everyone, no matter the size of their CAFO, become familiar with the reporting that needs to happen. With better knowledge comes better understanding, and that can help clear the air of confusion that has caught so many off-guard. ANM