OCR Text |
Show May, 1973 UTAH FARM BUREAU Farm Bureau Appoints Counsel Point Source Water Permits Glen E. Davies has been appointed general counsel for Utah Prepared by Leonard H. Johnson Assistant Director Natural Resources Department ' American Farm Bureau Federation Farm Bureau Federation and affiliated companies, according to Elmo W. Hamilton, President. Davies is an attorney with the law firm of Pugsley, Hays, Watkiss, Campbell and Cowley in Salt Lake City. He is a graduate of Congress has set a goal of Zero water pollution for the nation by 1985. Some say such a goal is not achievable because it would require such drastic changes in production costs that it would bankrupt the nation. Others contend that,' regardless of the severity of the economic adjustments, a Zero pollution goal is essential for human survival. By the language in the Clean Water Act" and Amendments, Congress has made it unmistakably clear that it intends that water pollution be regulated. recycling facilities. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, which were passed over the Presidents veto, requires that all point-sourc- e pollution must be authorized by a Discharge permit. On December 5, 1972 the Environmental Protection Agency published in the Federal Register a rule-maki- ng proposal. Included in the EPA announcement was a short Form B to be used by agriculture in securing a point source discharge jaermit. The fee should proposal also stipulated that a each application. accompany ten-doll- ar Pollutants Hie proposed rule defined pollutants to include: dredge spoil, solid waste, incenerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical waste, biological material, radioactive material, heat, wreck or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal and agricultural waste discharged into water. Point Source of Discharge ditch, is defined in the rule to include: channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated feeding operation, or vessel, or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged. In the original proposed rules it specifically identifies Agricultural waste discharge as a This pollutant. required the assumption that every agricultural operation in the nation would be required to secure a permit. The original rule defined a ditchor a Channel as a point source of agricultural discharge. Every ranch or farm has one or both, which would indicate all 11,800 census-definitio- n farms and ranches in New Mexico, or 6,000 in Arizona, or 8,200 in Wyoming, or 70,000 in Nebraska, or 209,000 in Texas, or 2,831,000 1973 census farms and ranches in the nation would be required to fill out a short Form B. Hie blanket-rul- e approach in the original proposal no provides recognition of variation in size or type of or the potential capabilities of pollution. It operation would have opened the floodgates requiring thousands of permit forms to go to state water pollution agencies or Envirnmental Protection Agency officers for processing. Hie potential administrative burden placed upon such regulatory staffs staggers the imagination and far outstrips the agencies processing capabilities. The paperwork of filling out the forms B and the financial burden of a $10.00 permit fee would have been equivalent to a tax increase for agriculture. When the original discharge-perm- it proposal was published in the Federal Register, fifteen days were allowed for public comment and reaction. The President of the American Farm Bureau requested a extension and registered a strong obthirty-da- y jection to the use of a permit approach until definite guidelines were established that defined agricultural extension point sources of pollution. The thirty-da- y was granted and the AFBF made four recommendations to the EPA adsministrator, William Ruckelshaus: multi-million-doll- ar The $10.00 application fee should be dropped. The Refuse Act guidelines (with a threshhold minimum of 1,000 animal units) established by EPA in 1971 for management of (feed lot) waste, should be adopted as the guideline in animal concentration regulations. 3. Surface, underground and irriagation water drainage should be excluded from regulation. 4. Water courses under conservation practices should be exempt. Numberous conferences with EPA officials were on a crash basis to give counsel that the proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System was workable. Agriculture agrees that Congress has written a most difficult law and the original time frame (180 days) allowed EPA to develop rules and regulations was totally unrealistic. Since January first, there 2. Many states, counties and municipalities have already moved ahead to implementive water quality standards. Thirteen dairy operators on the Jordan River in Salt Lake Valley, Utah were served legal water pollution abatement notices by the county health department. The notices provided sixty days in which to stop discharging agricultural waste into the river. After the sixty-da- y period, a penalty of $100.00 per day would be assessed for as long as the pollution continued. Three of the dairymen could not meet the standards and have gone out of business. Another operator is threatening to sell out. Two of the dairymen still need to develop additional abatement capacity. The others have all installed adequate pipe, In his capacity as general counsel to Farm Bureau, Davies will advise the executive officers and board of directors on corporate legal matters and will coordinate specialized legal work performed by other attorneys for companies 1. Agriculture's Concern A point source the University of Utah College of Law. have been continuous conferences between agricultural leaders and EPA officials to develop a workable proposal. It appears at this time that the Refuse Act Guidelines have generally been accepted as the basis for issuing animal concentration discharge permits. If adopted, it will mean that agricultural operations that have 1,000 animals in concentration, 700 mature dairy cows, 2,500 swine, etc., will potentially be required to secure a point source discharge permit. The major cause for continued delay in the publishing of another proposal in the Federal Register is due to the difficulties encountered in developing a discharge permit system for the regulation of irrigation return waters. Farm Bureau recommended early that irrigation return waters not be included in the point source program. One of the difficulties is to determine at what point the discharge should be regulated. Should a permit be required at the discharge point of each field, each agricultural enterprise, each water district, a total n area? drainage basin, or for a The irrigation water problems now appear to be resolved: that only irrigation organizations or individual farm operations which irrigate land areas exceeding 3,000 acres will be required to secure a point source discharge permit. The problems of water pollution control in agriculture involves not only developing new sub-basi- technology of How to Stop Pollution, but equally important is technology to remove pollutants from agricultural discharges. Although Congress has set a national goal of zero water pollution, the question of whether it is a realistically attainable goal for agriculture will require devetoping answers to questions such as What it will cost, How it will be accomplished, and Who will pay the bill. Zero water pollution is most challenging. Regardless of how desirable it may be. Whether it is attainable depends on developing many practical answers, including a workable point source identification program for agriculture. Page ,7 affiliated with Farm Bureau. The services now offered to farmers and ranchers by Farm1 Bureau have grown to the point that competent legal counsel available on a regular basis is essential, Hamilton said. He noted the Utah Farm Bureau now has affiliated companies and is directly associated with other Farm business Bureau organizations serving several state Farm Bureaus. These affiliated service-to-memb- companies er include Country Mutual Life, Utah Farm Bureau Insurance Co., Farm Bureau Finance of Utah, Utah Agricultural Marketing Assn.; Salina Marketing Service, Inc., Farm Bureau Service Co. And, through the insurance companies, Utah Farm Bureau holds interests in Western Agricultural Insurance Co. and Western Computer Services. Davies will maintain his office with the law firm and will serve Farm Bureau on a retainer basis. G!en E. Davies, legal counsel, UFBF. ItssicaM lift Iftqptoeir (Galt Excellent for raising bigger, healthier calves... pigs, lambs! IFA Milk Replacer will save you money too! COMPARE: IFA MILK REPLACER CONTAINS 24 10 Crude protein Crude fat 20,000 Units of vitamin A per pound 7,500 Units of vitamin D3 per pound 12 Units of vitamin E per pound Complete feeding instructions and guaranteed analysis on each bag. Ask about our LAMB MILK REPLACER 50 $20.60 25 $10.30 Also (From Page 1, Col. 2) for foreign military assistance, the Atomic Energy Commission Selective Service, space research and technology, water resources and power outside US DA, recreational resources, environmental protection, water and ground transportation, postal service, area and regional development, the Small Business Administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, manpower training and employment services, property general the management, and records Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, and several other areas. "We invite all groups and individuals who are interested in stable prices without a tax increase to join in a nationwide campaign to control federal spending,"; Kuhfuss said. INTERMOUNTAIN FARMERS STORES American Fork, Utah 28 N 1st West. Ogden, Utah Cadar Payson, 1375 Waf Avt 756-452- 1 N City. Utah 200 West Delta, Utah 5S5 Clark Street 467-150- 4 Logan, Utah 173 South Mam. Provo. Utah 555 .V 5m Soulh 637-065- 2 373-36- 3 Salt Lake City, Utah 1800 So West Tjmpte 467-150- 4 373-756- Spanish Fork, Utah Cannerv Roao 798-741- 8 83t-2o- Richfield, Utah 448 E 1st Soulh 752-554- Man If, Utah 597 W 2nd North 529-393- 1 St. George. Utah 698 E 400 South S52-066- 1 , Utah 240 W 1st North. Draper, Utah 1045 E 12400 South Loa. Utah SO Soulh Mam 131 E Mam 465-223- 9 Preston. Idaho 12081 864-211- 722-254- 2 Sollna, Utah Utah 57 W 1st North 586-031- 2 Roosevelt, Utah 192 North 3rd East. 394-275- 6 ! 635-420- 696-577- 1 Riverton, Utah 1824 W 12600 Sooth ! 254-350- 1 Tram onion, Utah 241 So 3rd West. 257-541- 9 ' |