Give states flexibility over farm air pollution
7:29 PM 6/16/03

Wisconsin, nicknamed America's Dairyland, has an interest in ensuring that its farmers have the ability to compete in a global market. That means the state has an interest in welcoming large-scale livestock farms. But the state also ought to protect its natural resources and the health of its residents. So the state and local governments have an interest in making sure large-scale livestock farms are limited to appropriate sites and are well regulated.

That's why the federal Environmental Protection Agency should change course in its negotiations with the livestock industry over new regulations for air pollution from large-scale farms. So far, the EPA appears to be going along with an industry proposal for weak federal regulations that would pre-empt state regulations. The EPA is even considering a generous amnesty program for farms that violate clean air standards.

Frankly, this deal stinks.

Large-scale livestock farms, called confined animal feeding operations, often house thousands of hogs, chickens, cows or other animals. The large amounts of manure produced on these farms yield hydrogen sulfide, ammonia and other chemicals, and the farm operation produces dust and other substances that get in the air. Some studies have suggested that the air emissions, where found in high concentrations, pose health hazards. The National Academy of Sciences began studying the issue last year.

Health concerns about air pollution from farms have prompted more and more states to consider tougher regulation of air quality for farms. To head off that trend, the industry wants the EPA to pre-empt the states with federal regulation favorable to farms. For example, the industry proposes that emissions from manure lagoons be placed in a regulatory category that escapes the Clean Air Act's controls for major pollution sources. The industry also proposes that it be permitted to monitor its own air pollution for study purposes and that violators of state and federal clean air regulations be granted amnesty for two years after the study is finished and for the two-year period before the study is finished.

Further study of air quality on large-scale farms is important. Regulations should not be based on unsubstantiated concerns. But wholesale exemptions, amnesty and pre-emption of states are all bad ideas that have received well-deserved criticism from the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators, headed by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' Lloyd Eagan.

The EPA ought to develop standards for air quality on large-scale farms, when adequate research results are available. But any EPA regulation should allow states flexibility in application and the ability to impose stricter regulation if they see fit. The regulation of air quality on large-scale farms should not be a one-size-fits-all proposition.

Wisconsin so far does not have the number of large-scale farms that neighboring states like Iowa and Illinois have, nor have Wisconsin's large-scale farms been as controversial, with some exceptions. No Wisconsin farm has been found to exceed air pollution limits enforced by the state Department of Natural Resources, and no enforcement actions under odor regulations have been taken, though the DNR has worked with farms to mitigate smells.

The number of large-scale farms in Wisconsin is on the increase, however.