Water Shortages: Another Unrealized Environmental Disaster?

The drought in 2012 pushed some water supplies to dangerously-low levels and reminded us all of how deeply dependent our economy, and certainly agriculture, is on an abundance of water.

The recent drought gave rise to an increased focus on water supply, including the United Nations declaring 2013 the “International Year of Water Cooperation.”  Additionally, recent articles have surfaced that discuss future forecast of water supplies and growing populations.  Looking beyond the recent wet weather (rain and snow) that has covered much of America’s heartland, what are some of the water supply prognostications? In a word; fatalistic.

According to some sources, water is becoming an endangered resource.  The United States State Department said, “The need for fresh water will exceed the supply by 40 percent by the year 2030.”

In a March 22, 2013, article in the Washington Post, author Steve Traction writes, “The indisputable fact is that water scarcity is rapidly becoming a significant factor in the way of life in the U.S…the problem will become critical in just a decade or two…the range of effects may include…long-term restrictions on home and community water usage; significant declines in agricultural outputs as well as meat and dairy produce that require huge amounts of water for irrigation and sustenance of livestock; shortages of just about every product made using water-dependant manufacturing processes…and disruptions or complete shutdown of several critical sources of hydroelectric power.”

The author also points to dwindling water levels in Lake Mead, as well as depletion of the massive Ogallala Aquifer, which (conservatively) takes thousands of years to recharge.

More bad news on the water front:  The Christian Science Monitor (referencing a report in the journal Science) reported two years ago that that the snowpack along the Rocky Mountains is as low as it has been in the past 800 years.  But the population and demands are far greater now than they were in the 1300s and 1400s…including irrigation and power generation needs.

Water demands are growing, supplies are stressed, and our way of life is in jeopardy…

This is not the first time we have heard horrific environmental predictions.  Henry Fairfield Osborn wrote “Our Plundered Planet” in 1948 in the same year William Vogt wrote “Road to Survival.”  Both of these books issued warnings of dwindling resources, famines & over population, and an evitable fall in the standard of living.

In 1980, there was a famous bet between ecologist and doomsayer Paul Ehrlich and economist Julian Simon.  Simon offered to let anyone pick any natural resources and a future date – according to Simon, the increased population would not cause scarcity and increased prices, rather prices would fall.  Paul Ehrlich, who famously wrote “The Population Bomb” in 1968 has long warned of dwindling resources and mass famine, took Simon up on the bet.  Ehrlich picked five metals (chrome, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten).  The future date was 1990.  Simon was right; Ehrlich paid, but he continued to forecast more ecological doom (see John Tierney, New York Times, 1990 “Betting on the Planet”).

While bad news certainly grabs headlines, business decisions need to have a more rational approach.

As it relates to water supply, all the news isn’t bad.  In a recent book, The Big Thirst: The Secret Life and Turbulent Future of Water, Charles Fishman looks at the global water issue.  Interestingly, Fishman explains that Americans use less water today than we did in 1980, not just in per-capita terms, but also in absolute terms.  Fishman notes water use in the United States peaked in 1980 at 440 billion gallons per day.  Twenty-five years later we are using less than 410 billion gallons a day even though our population increased by 70 million people.  (See “The Big Thirst.”)

Water conservation practices and new drought resistant crops have helped us get the most out of the planet’s fixed amount of water.

The past predictions of ecological doom were wrong, because, as with other environmental threats, it’s science, ingenuity, and creative minds that find solutions, while naysayers look for the next disaster.

So, should agriculture be concerned about water supply?  Yes, we cannot afford to ignore any environmental threat.  But focus on the facts and solutions rather than hysteria.  As Julian Simon said, “There’s nothing wrong with worrying about new problems, we need problems so we can come up with solutions that leave us better off than if they’d never come up in the first place.”

Surprise Inspections, Activists Getting Active, and Litigation – What’s a Farmer to Do?

If you are a livestock producer in the United States, it’s time to sit up and take notice.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is using very confident language in their intent to conduct “surprise” inspections, activists are getting…active, and a recent lawsuit has the potential for an ugly precedent.

Surprise Inspections:

An article in the Midwest Producer provides details about the EPA’s intent to visit livestock agriculture facilities this spring.

According to this article, Cheryl Burdett from the U.S. EPA Water Division stated, “We are going to knock on your door and you aren’t going to know we are coming…We like to go out during wet weather.  A lot of farmers say we came out during the worst conditions.  It is planned…we want to see your facility under the worst conditions.”

Which facilities will the EPA inspect?  According to Burdett, the agency will look at several factors when deciding which producers may receive a knock on the door.  The EPA will consider aerial photographs, size of the operation, and proximity of the operation to nearby waterways.  Burdett also points out that inspections may be a result of citizen complaints.  Don’t overlook that last comment – citizen complaints are key drivers in regulatory inspections, and community relations with citizens is no small part of livestock agricultures’ business.

Activists Activity:

If you recall, in our February 20^th blog, we mentioned that the EPA was seeking comments on their national enforcement initiatives.  One of the six current initiatives is discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).  The EPA posed the question in a Federal Register Notice, should these enforcement initiatives remain the same?

Some activists are providing their comments to the EPA’s Federal Register notice.   The Mississippi River Collaboration’s comments included

…Given agencies have focused on inspecting large CAFOs, there is now a great need for inspections to be done of smaller operations to determine whether they are discharging without NPDES permits (emphasis added).

We urge the EPA to maintain “Preventing Animal Waste from Contaminating Surface and Ground Water” as a national enforcement priority.  Over the last several years, our states have benefited greatly from EPA flyovers and inspections that have resulted in enforcement actions.

It is imperative that EPA turn more of its attention to regulating agricultural pollution to the full extent allowed by the federal Clean Water Act.  CAFOs are one of the most poorly regulated point source sectors in our states.

Stay tuned on the EPA’s final word on their updated environmental enforcement initiatives.

Legal Battles:

But not everyone is focused just on the Clean Water Act enforcement at livestock agriculture.  In Washington State, a dairy producer, Cow Palace LLC, is being sued by Community Association for Restoration of the Environment and Center for Food Safety, Inc.

This legal action uses The Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA aka Superfund), the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The lawsuit claims the dairy violated RCRA by “open dumping” and violated mandatory notification and reporting under EPCRA and CERCLA.

The use of RCRA is of particular interest as the federal regulations for RCRA specifically state the following exemption, “The raising of animals including animal manure” (40 CFR 261.4 (b) (2) (ii)).

The complaint seeks mandatory injunctive relief requiring Cow Palace to abate and remediate and will seek the maximum civil penalties under the law requiring the dairy to pay attorneys fees and expert witness fees.

All of this said, there are at least a few thoughts that come to mind.

First, if you are not ahead of the regulatory curve, get there now.  From these stories and all other appearances, enforcement at livestock agriculture is happening and will continue to happen, perhaps with more vigor.

Second, in the instance of the Cow Palace Dairy, the complaint is suggesting that the producer had knowledge of their requirements under CERCLA and EPCRA as they point to industry group websites that educate the producers on specific reporting requirements.

Third, in consideration of the first two thoughts, make sure you have your SPCC plan completed and implemented.  If you don’t know if your plan is complete and implemented or don’t know if you need a plan – figure it out, today.

Finally, the livestock industry absolutely needs to be about being good environmental stewards, but more than that, it’s time to have a compliance plan and/or to consider how a Best Management Practices document might assist in wide spread compliance as opposed to the alternative.   Remember, compliance isn’t just about a release or potential release – it’s administrative.

One last final comment.  It’s worth restating; we are entirely in favor of environmental protection through good environmental management.  What we are not in favor of, nor do we encourage, is complying with unreasonable orders or demands from regulators that have no basis in science or regulatory justification.

As always, if you have questions or need assistance addressing an environmental issue, big or small, contact our office at 248-932-0228.

Will the EPA Remain Focused on CAFOs?

Should the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) continue to make Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) a top priority as it relates to environmental enforcement action?  That is one of the questions posed by the EPA in their January 28, 2013 Federal Register notice.

The current national enforcement initiatives (FY 2011-2013) by the EPA include 1) Municipal Infrastructure, 2) Mineral Processing, 3) New Source Review (air emissions from specific sources), 4) Air Toxics, 5) Energy Extraction, and 6) Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, specifically, addressing animal waste discharges from large animal feeding operations.

The January 28^th notice in the Federal Register is soliciting comments on what the agency’s new enforcement initiatives (FY 2014-2016) should be.  EPA states, “The public is invited to comment on extending the current six national enforcement initiatives for the 2014-2016 cycle” (emphasis added).

For several years, the EPA has stated they are serious about enforcement at CAFOs.   On EPA’s webpage, Preventing Animal Waste from Contaminating Surface and Ground Water, the EPA provides evidence that they are more than just talk about inspection and enforcement.

Source: EPA (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011cafo.html)

As seen in the graphic provided by the EPA, cumulative inspections by the agency at CAFOs shows that large farms continued to be a priority for the agency.

Perhaps in an effort to emphasize the gravity of their focus, the EPA offers some examples of CAFO enforcement on their website.  These include a Beef Feedlot ($145,000 fine) and a racecourse classified as a CAFO for horses ($1.25 million in violations, $3 million in improvements, and $742,000 for supplemental environmental projects).

If you would like to know if there has been any enforcement action in your area, you can find this on the same webpage.  The EPA offers an interactive map of Large CAFOs and EPA CAFO Inspections and Enforcement Actions.

Do you think the EPA should continue to focus on CAFOs for enforcement?  If you would like to have your voice heard on this matter, you need to weigh in by February 27, 2013 (the end of the comment period).

Finally, as a reminder, the deadline for agriculture to comply with another environmental regulatory deadline is quickly approaching.  The deadline for development and implementation of a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan is just about 3 months away.   Not sure if the SPCC applies to you?  Use this SPCC Quick Guide, or go to the National Milk Producers Federation website and use their SPCC on line tools.

If you have any questions or require assistance on an environmental issue, contact our office at 248-932-0228.

The Drought of 2012…and Preparing for the Drought of 2013?

No one knows better than farmers how unpredictable weather can be. Weather predictions, like economic predictions, are notoriously unreliable. That said, according to several reports, the drought of 2012 seems to be overstaying its welcome into 2013.

In fact, more than 60% of the contiguous United States remains in a drought as we begin 2013. And according to Fred Gesser, senior agricultural meteorologist for Planalytics, Inc., “There is a 70% probability for last year’s drought to linger into 2013.”

The impact of the current drought is being felt now. According to a report in Drovers, a small farming town in Oklahoma (Wapanucka) lost water supply completely when the spring-fed wells in the community ran dry.

The dry weather is potentially a very serious issue as farmers look toward the growing season, and as they look to maintain water needs for livestock.

With this as a backdrop, I asked Dr. Michael Sklash, our senior hydrogeologist, a few questions relating to groundwater supply and agriculture. Mike has worked on groundwater supply issues for agriculture around the world, including crop and livestock farmers in the Midwestern United States.

Is there a way to evaluate whether my aquifer is currently stressed?

Sklash: Have any of your wells run dry at any time? Has the water level in your well fallen significantly? Have you had to lower your pump intake? Have there been any changes in water quality? These are all potential indications of a stressed aquifer.

Assuming worst case scenario (a continuing drought), are there any proactive measures I can take?

Sklash: Beyond looking at the specific crop types and depending on your needs (watering crops or water for livestock), you can consider the following:
• Horizontal wells
• Deeper wells
• Capture storm water and snow melt (in a retention pond)
• Optimize irrigation
• Focus your irrigation
• Cultivate to minimize surface runoff

How should I respond when asked if my agricultural water use is negatively impacting private wells?

Sklash: This isn’t always a simple cause-effect relationship, for example:
• The wells may be in different aquifers.
• The private wells may be shallow enough to be affected directly by less rainfall recharge. Water tables typically fluctuate by a few feet in many areas in the Midwest. A drought will only make the typical annual low levels lower.
• The wells may be too far apart to have a cause-effect relationship.
• There may be other water users causing the problem.

Finally, if you are considering siting a new agricultural operation, a water supply evaluation should be a high-priority consideration early in your decision making process.

As we write this newsletter (in late January), but for a recent unseasonable storm in the eastern half of the United States, the conditions are still very dry. While we all hope for a break in the precipitation pattern, consider some of the suggestions provided above to ease the impact of the ongoing drought.

If you have questions specific to groundwater or groundwater supply, please contact Mike Sklash (msklash@dragun.com) at 248-932-0228.

Three Agricultural-Related Predictions for 2013

Baseball icon Charles Dillon “Casey” Stengel once said, “Never make predictions, especially about the future.”  While it’s difficult to argue with such wisdom, I’m going to go out on a limb and make a few predictions as it relates to agricultural-related issues in 2013.

Prediction One: Expect that modern agriculture will continue to be judged based on emotion and sensation over rational and (established) science, at least in the public forum.  The most recent agricultural target has been Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs).  And one of the most recent and egregious examples of pandering to the emotional debate was on the popular Dr. Oz Show.

Dr. Mehmet Oz, in discussing (what is becoming) the highly emotional issue of GMOs, invited Mr. Jeffery Smith to be a guest on his program where GMO’s were discussed.  Who is Jeffery Smith?  According to a blistering letter from Dr. Bruce Chassy, Professor Emeritus, Department of Food Science & Nutrition, University of Illinois, to the Producer of the Dr. Oz Show, he is not exactly an “expert.”  Dr. Chassy states in the letter that, “Mr. Smith has no accredited or formal education in any health, nutrition, or other related science fields.  Research into Mr. Smith’s credentials reveals that his only professional experience prior to taking up his crusade against biotechnology is as a ballroom dance teacher, yogic flying instructor and political candidate for the Maharishi cult’s natural law party.”

Guests such as Mr. Smith probably make for much better ratings than say a plant geneticists such as Dr. Pamela Ronald (UC Davis) who said, “There is broad scientific consensus that genetically engineered crops currently on the market are safe to eat.”  And nutritionist Dr. Ruth Kava’s who said “The fact is that GE products have been safely consumed by just about every American for more than 16 years…”

The food production debate is very significant, though not well understood by the (well fed) general public in developed nations. Science and reason must lead the way – we can’t afford to “get this wrong.”

Nevertheless, sensationalism sells.  Look for more attacks on modern agriculture.

Prediction Two:  Drought conditions may cause a closer look at water management and conservation.  The drought of 2012 put increased pressure on farmers; some crops were a total loss.  Will we come out of this current dry pattern in the spring, or is this part of a longer-term pattern?  This is a prediction best left for meteorologists.  But we saw firsthand the impact of the drought as we assisted a crop farmer earlier this year in assessing the impact of his groundwater withdrawal on the local aquifer.  Solutions to reduced groundwater supply are not always easy, but ignoring the fact that an aquifer is stressed can lead to dire consequences.

Prediction Three:  Environmental enforcement may get aggressive.  The Environmental Protection Agency recently announced that, “In FY 2012, EPA enforcement actions required companies to pay over $200 million in civil penalties (administrative and judicial) – an all time record amount.”  The same report states that EPA criminal prosecutions resulted in $44 million in criminal fines and restitution, and EPA enforcement actions required companies to “invest” more than $9 billion in actions & equipment to control pollution.

The EPA has made it clear that enforcing environmental laws is one of their top priorities. In their FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, Goal 5 is Enforcing Environmental Laws.  The EPA states, “Vigorous enforcement supports EPA’s ambitious goals to protect human health and the environment.”

Consider this enforcement climate in light of the May 2013 deadline for Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans for agriculture.  If you are not certain of your compliance status, we would again encourage you to use the on line tool developed by National Milk Producers Federation and USDA.  Even if you are not a dairy producer, you can use this tool to evaluate the applicability of the SPCC rules to your farm.

All of this said…like economists and weather forecasters – I make no guarantees on my predictions.

I wish you a joyous Holiday Season with friends and family and a prosperous 2013.

Alan Hahn

ahahn@dragun.com

 

 

Bad for the Environment. Bad for Animals. Bad for our Health…Really?

Remember when farmers used to be respected? The very word farmer would conjure up images of Grant Wood’s American Gothic or any of a number of Norman Rockwell images depicting life on the farm.

Not anymore. According to pop culture and perhaps even a generation of consumers, “factory farms” are nothing more than cesspools of pollution that cause fish kills, abuse animals, and destroy communities. Farmers are pawns in a world run by corporate giants as they plant mutagenic GMOs that will surely advance an Armageddon like end to life as we know it. And if dairy is bad for you then meat is pure poison.

Here’s the problem. Both the Norman Rockwell image and the current pop culture image are wrong. They don’t exist. One exists in memories shaped by an image on canvas, the other exists in the minds of some consumers shaped by misinformation.

But if you hold this (misperceived) pop culture image, of course you would view the farmer as a villain. And now celebrities are on the anti-meat, anti-large farm bandwagon. Like it or not, they are influencers. Recently, Factory Farming Awareness Coalition posted a video on their website for Meatless Mondays that includes implicit and explicit endorsements from Oprah, President Clinton, and Jessica Simpson. Again, like it or not, these celebrity endorsements are credibility builders.

And of a more immediate environmental regulatory concern, is the August 30^th statement by the EPA that they will continue to use flyovers to monitor livestock farms in Iowa. For those who view farmers as environmental villains, this is welcome news.

Producers and processors of our food are not villains nor are they some static image on a canvas. They feed us, and they do so in a manner that is more efficient than in any time in history. Research substantiates this. Two examples are Dr. Jude Capper’s “Comparing the environmental impact in 1944 to 1997” and Dr. Frank Mitloehner’s “The Truth About Sustainability – Debunking “Livestock’s Long Shadow”.

Unfortunately, far too many people (in my opinion), are misinformed, don’t know how to ask critical questions, and are easily persuaded with little evidence. Nevertheless, there is a battle being waged against much of modernity including modern agriculture.

As for the Dragun Corporation, we continue to provide sound scientific input to the agricultural community on matters of environmental science, hydrogeology, geology, and engineering practices. Granted, this is not nearly as sexy as a celebrity endorsement…but a celebrity endorsement is not what you need when you are facing technical or legal challenges.

As always, your questions and comments are welcome.

Alan Hahn

ahahn@dragun.com

HLN: “Factory farms bad for the environment?”

Ask any marketing professional, and they will tell you that as it relates to non-profits, developing a public awareness campaign is a necessary part of selling your group. This awareness, as the reasoning goes, helps your stakeholders understand not only who you are and what you do…but why they should care.  This increased awareness and personal connection to you and your life is essential for achieving their cause and raising money. 

For those opposed to livestock agriculture, the battle has been uphill…but they have made significant progress.  And as it relates to public awareness and communicating “why you should care” – they have the attention of major media outlets.

For example, Jane Velez-Mitchell (HLN) recently spoke to Gene Baur, president and co-founder of Farm Sanctuary.  In the interview, Mr. Baur discusses his “findings” in his book, Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds About Animals and Food.

In speaking about livestock farming and presumably about large livestock farms in particular, Mr. Baur says, “…it’s bad for animals, it’s bad for people, it’s an industry that needs to be stopped…it’s (manure) getting into our waterways and destroying our environment.”

So, there you have it, in these brief excerpts, Mr. Baur is telling the stakeholders (i.e., consumers) why they should care; if you care about animals, if you care about people, and if you care about the environment, join our cause.

Yes – the recent environmental regulatory wins (duty to apply and the NPDES proposed rule withdrawal) are significant – but this battle for the hearts and minds of all consumers is one that continues regardless of the current regulatory rulings. 

To see the brief interview (“Factory farms bad for the environment?”) on HLN click here http://bit.ly/P3lzfW

If you have questions or need help with an environmental issue, contact Matthew Schroeder, P.E. (mschroeder@dragun.com), Christopher Paré (cpare@dragun.com), or Amy Owen, EIT (aowen@dragun.com) at 248-932-0228.

The (CAFO) NPDES Proposed Rule is withdrawn…“at this time”

It was interesting news, at least for those of us who find ag-environmental issues interesting.  The “it” in this case, was the decision by The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to withdraw the proposed rule to require reporting of specific information from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) (Signed by EPA Administrator Jackson on July 13, 2012).

This proposed reporting rule, under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), was very unpopular in the agricultural community but was lauded by environmental groups. The proposed rule would have required medium and large CAFOs to report information to the EPA such as CAFO location, owner contact information, NPDES permit information, type and number of animals, and descriptions of land available for manure application. 

As you can imagine, the withdrawal of this rule generated some comments amongst the environmental groups.  Speaking to the rule’s withdrawal, Food and Water Watch Executive Director, Wenonah Hauter said, “The Environmental Protection Agency announced last week that it is abandoning its plan to gather even the most basic information from the over 20,000 highly polluting and largely unregulated factory farms in the United States. This move by the EPA is a dereliction of duty.”

While this recent development might be good news for CAFO owners and operators, it should be considered in context and with a dose of reality.

Keep in mind that the EPA is still doing CAFO flyovers in EPA Region 7 and trying to enforce Clean Air Act discharges under the Clean Water Act (see article by attorney Gary Baise). And there is still a pending deadline for preparation of Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plans. 

The language in this most recent rule withdrawal was even a bit “fuzzy.”  For example, in this relatively short, 12-page announcement, much of it filled with standard boiler plate language, I counted three times the EPA used the phrase “at this time,” as in, “The EPA believes, at this time, it is more appropriate to obtain CAFO information by working with federal, state, and local partners instead of requiring CAFO information to be submitted pursuant to this rule” (emphasis added).  One could suppose this means there will be another time when the EPA may “believe” differently, but this is purely conjecture.

This much is not conjecture; if you are a CAFO owner/operator, you simply cannot afford to take environmental regulations lightly.  Continue to remain compliant with the environmental rules and regulations and keep a vigilant eye on developing regulations.

If you have questions or need assistance with an environmental issue, contact Matthew Schroeder, P.E. (mschroeder@dragun.com), Christopher Paré (cpare@dragun.com), or Amy Owen, P.E. (aowen@dragun.com) at 248-932-0228.

Environmental Management at Greenhouses in Ontario

The Ontario Ministry of Environment (MOE) has made clear their concerns with water quality issues, water supply issues, and discharges of wastewater…but not from what you might think of as a “typical” industry of concern for the MOE. The Ministry’s concern is with Ontario’s Greenhouse Business. In fact, according to an MOE report, “Greenhouse Wastewater Monitoring, 2010-2011” (http://bit.ly/MJkiqJ), the Sturgeon Creek and Lebo Drain watersheds have been “heavily impacted by greenhouse inputs.”

The MOE report published in January 2012, documents that there have been negative impacts to surface waters/streams/rivers from greenhouse operations in southwestern Ontario. The surface water quality in several watersheds near the greenhouses has been impacted with elevated concentrations of potassium, phosphorus, nitrates, and several metals.

Because the watersheds have been negatively impacted, the MOE stated they “cannot support further greenhouse development within (the Sturgeon Creek and Lebo Drain watersheds) without appropriate treatment technology in place.”

So, if you are a greenhouse owner and want to expand, what do you need to do?

Start with an evaluation of your operations and define all of your actual and potential stormwater, sanitary sewage, and process wastewater outputs or discharges. This will help to identify how many activities potentially need to be covered by the Environmental Compliance Approval (ECA)1. If you are not familiar with the ECA process, an ECA is required for operations that may have discharges or emissions (air, water, noise).

As you consider your ECA, one challenge you may face is how you segregate stormwater from process wastewater. A more significant challenge is how you manage and/or treat process wastewater. And, in all likelihood, your local MOE district office will want to see how you are addressing these issues.

The bottom line is if you are starting a new greenhouse or looking to expand your greenhouse operations, whether you are in the Sturgeon Creek and Lebo Drain watershed or elsewhere, it would be wise to give careful consideration to your environmental permitting requirements. Good planning, engineering, and design will play a key role in a successful development.

If you have questions or need assistance with an Environmental Compliance Approval, contact Chris Pare’, P. Geo. (cpare@dragun.com) at 519-979-7300.

1. Previously “Certificate of Approval” or “C of A”

Environmental Managers’ Insight on Enforcement at Farms

“SPCC Requirements for Farms: Enforcement Outlook.”  This headline caught my eye recently as this story showed up in Business & Legal Resources’ Publication: The Environmental Manager’s Compliance Advisor (Compliance Advisor). This is a publication geared toward the more typical “smokestack” industry, so I was interested in their take on the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) issue for agriculture.

(Note: For a more detailed discussion on the May 10, 2013 deadline for SPCC for certain farms, see our May 5, 2011 and August 5, 2011 blog entries).

In the Compliance Advisor newsletter, they pose the following question, “Should small farmers in remote rural areas expect inspectors to be knocking on their doors and writing them up while they are in the middle of their 2013 spring planting?”

To answer this, the authors of the newsletter juxtapose the federal 1998 Underground Storage Tank (UST) deadline to the approaching deadline for agriculture. Specifically, they provide that the 1998 federal enforcement for USTs considered the following:

•  Known problem facilities (e.g., abandoned sites)
• Sites that were consistently out of compliance
• Facilities near sensitive populations or sensitive resources

How might this translate to farms? The federal and state regulators might take a similar tact; for example, the regulators might consider the following approach:

•  Assess farms that should have had their SPCC plan completed and implemented prior to August 16, 2002
• Focus on farms that had previous Clean Water Act violations
• Focus on farms near sensitive watersheds or water supplies

What the enforcement action might actually look like is anyone’s guess, but as we have continued to suggest, be proactive and have your plans and permits in place well in advance of any regulatory deadline.

If you have questions or need assistance with your SPCC plan, contact Matthew Schroeder, P.E. (mschroeder@dragun.com), Christopher Paré (cpare@dragun.com), or Amy Owen, EIT (aowen@dragun.com) at 248-932-0228.