The Five Top Reasons Farmers Oppose These Regulations
Farmers don't oppose regulations on principle. They recognize how valuable the Dairy Nutrient Management Act has been in protecting water quality and the environment. But they do oppose regulations that do more harm than good. This one will do no good, but immense harm.
1) They will hurt the environment, not help it.
Farmers are excellent stewards of the environment. This hasn't always been so, but these are not your grandad's family farms. Environmental protection is a major part of what every farmer does. Take this simple fact: There are about 100,000 acres of farmland in Whatcom County. When the copious rain falls on this land, the fields and crops and soil filter the rain resulting in some of the best water around. Cities and towns? Filtering rain through streets, parking lots, highways and rooftops is just not the same.
Worse, we know from water quality studies (see the section on this site on Water Quality) that water quality problems no longer are coming from dairies. We know where they are coming from. Here's a hint: it's not a good thing for the environment or water quality to have productive farmland turned into hobby farms, urban sprawl and new residential, commercial or industrial development. How will these regulations hurt the environment? By taking away the stewards of the land and turning the farmland into more urban and semi-urban development.
The choice is cows and crops or concrete and cul-de-sacs. Ecology seems to prefer the concrete and cul-de-sacs.
2) They are based on the false premise of pollution.
The entire basis of the new discharge permit and accompanying regulations is the belief of Ecology that dairy lagoons pollute. They point to federal regulations concerning CAFOs, or Confined Animal Feeding Operations. But, the EPA says an animal operation is only considered a CAFO if it is proven to be a significant polluter. So, Ecology says, all dairies are CAFOs because we think they are significant polluters. Proof? If they have it, they won't provide it even though we have asked. Instead, Ecology says the proof will come from the very extensive and expensive soil testing that the new regulations require. That strikes farmers as "guilty until proven innocent." More than that, by making farmers pay to prove their innocence it goes beyond the bounds of violating some very important principles and values. We doubt that it is legal.
Speaking of legal, Washington State law says that state agencies must avoid taking enforcement action that will result in the loss of farmland to non-farm purposes. But this is exactly what these new regulations would do.
Ecology says Washington State law requires them to require this permit. They point to a law which says commercial and industrial operations which pollute the water must get a permit to discharge. Since Ecology believes--without proof--that farmers are polluting, they need a permit.
Much hangs on this question of pollution. We invite you to look at the data and decide for yourself.
3) They make Ecology officials micro-managers of every dairy.
Farmers are frustrated and outraged over the level of inept micro-management of farms by officials ignorant of the basics of farm practices. A few examples:
- Before applying any nutrients (manure) farmers have to do a lab test of the manure and soil samples down to significant depths in the soil. Before EVERY application!
- Before touching or doing anything involving manure management infrastructure, engineering drawings are required and then Ecology given 180 days to review those drawings! No minor or emergency repairs, no preventing spills from broken or damaged equipment until Ecology has 6 months to review!
- No application of nutrients if the weather forecast three days in advance predicts rain of one half inch or more--like weather forecasters always get it right! This will result in much less time for appropriate application, requiring more land and more manure storage. Since they consider the lagoons to be the pollution problem, this requirement is certain to increase the problem they say they are trying to fix.
- Massive new buffer requirements--no flexibility, no common sense like current regulations. This represents a huge taking of valuable farmland greatly increasing cost of farming and decreasing value of farmland.
These regulations were clearly drafted by Ecology officials without consultation and without even limited exposure to what farmers actually do. This is especially frustrating given that current regulations under the Department of Agriculture have proven very effective but it is well known that Ecology has opposed regulation of farmers by any agency other than their own. Yet, the kind of regulations they created demonstrate exactly why it is important to have permit writers and enforcement officials with some familiarity of farming practices.
4) They ignore farmers' effective environmental protection.
Farmers care for the environment and they prove that every day. Their future depends on it. Regulations have proven effective. But more than that, farmers have gone far above and beyond regulations to protect water and the enviroment. Whatcom County is a leader in implementing bio-gas digesters which convert manure, and post consumer food waste, into energy and safe and valuable products. Manure-bedding separators which allow recycling of clean bedding materials are another example. There are many. Whatcom farmers have joined together in six Watershed Improvement Districts to work together to plan and implement water-related projects.
None of this proactive effort is recognized by Ecology. Instead of rewarding farmers for their outstanding efforts on the part of the environment, Ecology seeks to put them out of business and replace their efforts and their land with urban sprawl.
5) They will put an end to multi-generational family farms and harm our rural communities.
As stewards of the environment, farmers would be supportive of government efforts to improve water quality or the environment. Many of the farms at greatest risk are multi-generational. Fathers and mothers, grandparents, great grandparents struggled and persevered through many years of difficult times so they could pass the farm on to the next generation. Most farmers would gladly pass on that legacy to their children rather than realize the maximum value of their farms through selling the land for development. But, as one farmer told the Department's permit writers, this permit will prevent that legacy to continue.
It's not just farm kids, farm families, and the farmers themselves who will be hurt. Our rural communities depend on the farms they serve for the life of the community. Ecology officials may think, no great loss. The tractor dealers, feed stores, equipment suppliers, farm workers can all be replaced. We think the loss would be irreplaceable.
1) They will hurt the environment, not help it.
Farmers are excellent stewards of the environment. This hasn't always been so, but these are not your grandad's family farms. Environmental protection is a major part of what every farmer does. Take this simple fact: There are about 100,000 acres of farmland in Whatcom County. When the copious rain falls on this land, the fields and crops and soil filter the rain resulting in some of the best water around. Cities and towns? Filtering rain through streets, parking lots, highways and rooftops is just not the same.
Worse, we know from water quality studies (see the section on this site on Water Quality) that water quality problems no longer are coming from dairies. We know where they are coming from. Here's a hint: it's not a good thing for the environment or water quality to have productive farmland turned into hobby farms, urban sprawl and new residential, commercial or industrial development. How will these regulations hurt the environment? By taking away the stewards of the land and turning the farmland into more urban and semi-urban development.
The choice is cows and crops or concrete and cul-de-sacs. Ecology seems to prefer the concrete and cul-de-sacs.
2) They are based on the false premise of pollution.
The entire basis of the new discharge permit and accompanying regulations is the belief of Ecology that dairy lagoons pollute. They point to federal regulations concerning CAFOs, or Confined Animal Feeding Operations. But, the EPA says an animal operation is only considered a CAFO if it is proven to be a significant polluter. So, Ecology says, all dairies are CAFOs because we think they are significant polluters. Proof? If they have it, they won't provide it even though we have asked. Instead, Ecology says the proof will come from the very extensive and expensive soil testing that the new regulations require. That strikes farmers as "guilty until proven innocent." More than that, by making farmers pay to prove their innocence it goes beyond the bounds of violating some very important principles and values. We doubt that it is legal.
Speaking of legal, Washington State law says that state agencies must avoid taking enforcement action that will result in the loss of farmland to non-farm purposes. But this is exactly what these new regulations would do.
Ecology says Washington State law requires them to require this permit. They point to a law which says commercial and industrial operations which pollute the water must get a permit to discharge. Since Ecology believes--without proof--that farmers are polluting, they need a permit.
Much hangs on this question of pollution. We invite you to look at the data and decide for yourself.
3) They make Ecology officials micro-managers of every dairy.
Farmers are frustrated and outraged over the level of inept micro-management of farms by officials ignorant of the basics of farm practices. A few examples:
- Before applying any nutrients (manure) farmers have to do a lab test of the manure and soil samples down to significant depths in the soil. Before EVERY application!
- Before touching or doing anything involving manure management infrastructure, engineering drawings are required and then Ecology given 180 days to review those drawings! No minor or emergency repairs, no preventing spills from broken or damaged equipment until Ecology has 6 months to review!
- No application of nutrients if the weather forecast three days in advance predicts rain of one half inch or more--like weather forecasters always get it right! This will result in much less time for appropriate application, requiring more land and more manure storage. Since they consider the lagoons to be the pollution problem, this requirement is certain to increase the problem they say they are trying to fix.
- Massive new buffer requirements--no flexibility, no common sense like current regulations. This represents a huge taking of valuable farmland greatly increasing cost of farming and decreasing value of farmland.
These regulations were clearly drafted by Ecology officials without consultation and without even limited exposure to what farmers actually do. This is especially frustrating given that current regulations under the Department of Agriculture have proven very effective but it is well known that Ecology has opposed regulation of farmers by any agency other than their own. Yet, the kind of regulations they created demonstrate exactly why it is important to have permit writers and enforcement officials with some familiarity of farming practices.
4) They ignore farmers' effective environmental protection.
Farmers care for the environment and they prove that every day. Their future depends on it. Regulations have proven effective. But more than that, farmers have gone far above and beyond regulations to protect water and the enviroment. Whatcom County is a leader in implementing bio-gas digesters which convert manure, and post consumer food waste, into energy and safe and valuable products. Manure-bedding separators which allow recycling of clean bedding materials are another example. There are many. Whatcom farmers have joined together in six Watershed Improvement Districts to work together to plan and implement water-related projects.
None of this proactive effort is recognized by Ecology. Instead of rewarding farmers for their outstanding efforts on the part of the environment, Ecology seeks to put them out of business and replace their efforts and their land with urban sprawl.
5) They will put an end to multi-generational family farms and harm our rural communities.
As stewards of the environment, farmers would be supportive of government efforts to improve water quality or the environment. Many of the farms at greatest risk are multi-generational. Fathers and mothers, grandparents, great grandparents struggled and persevered through many years of difficult times so they could pass the farm on to the next generation. Most farmers would gladly pass on that legacy to their children rather than realize the maximum value of their farms through selling the land for development. But, as one farmer told the Department's permit writers, this permit will prevent that legacy to continue.
It's not just farm kids, farm families, and the farmers themselves who will be hurt. Our rural communities depend on the farms they serve for the life of the community. Ecology officials may think, no great loss. The tractor dealers, feed stores, equipment suppliers, farm workers can all be replaced. We think the loss would be irreplaceable.