USDA's Snooping Machine

The U.S. Department of Agriculture is looking more and more like the Big Brother government that has infected Washington in recent years. The "2006 Agricultural Identification Survey," recently mailed to thousands of private landowners, is a good example.

The instructions for the questionnaire say "Response to this survey is legally required by Title 7, U.S. Code." Title 7 of the U.S. Code is an enormous document, containing 105 chapters, each of which is a lengthy book unto itself. To find the specific requirement, a person would have to read all the way to Chapter 55, Section 2204g, to discover that a person who falsifies an answer to the questions asked may be fined $500; a person who fails or refuses to answer may be fined $100.

The questionnaire asks 22 multi-part questions. The USDA wants to know what is on the privately owned land, how it is used, if there are animals on the land, and the variety and quantity of each. The agency wants to know if the owner has any contracts that affect the land or produce revenue, and how much total revenue the land produces.

Does the collection of this information – under penalty of law – by the U.S. government violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which clearly says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects ... shall not be violated ..." without a warrant? This USDA survey is an infringement on the Fourth Amendment right of private landowners to be secure in their "persons, houses, papers and effects." Why does the government need this information?

Actually, this Agriculture Survey was authorized by a 1997 law that was enacted to relieve the U.S. Census Bureau from collecting farm data, which had been an expanding part of its mission for several years. The Census Bureau is authorized by the Constitution to simply count the citizens every 10 years in order to maintain balanced congressional representation. Like all bureaucracies, however, mission-creep has transformed the Census Bureau into a national snooping machine.

According to the 1997 law, the Agriculture Survey was supposed to be taken in 1998 and every five years thereafter. If a survey was taken in 1998, or 2003, it certainly missed thousands of landowners who received this 2006 survey, which should not be taken until 2008.

It may be purely coincidental that the "Premises Registration" required by the National Animal Identification System, or NAIS, is precisely the same information that is solicited on the 2006 Agriculture Survey form. Until 2006, the NAIS was intended, and expected, to be mandatory, beginning with premises registration by 2007. Affected landowners and small farmers raised such a ruckus, that the USDA had to back down and promise that the NAIS would be voluntary.

Organizations such as the Liberty Ark Coalition, nonais.org, stopanimalid.org and dozens of Internet groups have sprung up across the country in opposition the NAIS and to similar programs being developed at the state level using funds provided by the USDA.

The NAIS was developed by large meatpackers and technology manufacturers to enhance export markets. It was sold to the public as a public-safety program to track and trace-back the source of any animal sickness. The program fell apart when analyzed by the people who would be forced to comply with it, and the USDA has been forced to publicly abandon its plan to make the program mandatory.

Privately, however, the USDA is using all the tools it can muster to impose this animal identification program. The agency has provided funding to states that develop a mandatory program and has endorsed certain types of electronic technology – produced by the companies that helped develop the original program. Now, coincidentally, comes this 2006 Agriculture Survey, two years ahead of schedule, which requires – under penalty of law – the same information that the NAIS program cannot compel, since it is now voluntary, rather than mandatory.

Some landowners will simply ignore the questionnaire, pay the $100 fine and consider it to be an expense of keeping the government out of their business. Some folks may try to avoid the fine and maintain their Fourth Amendment rights by responding to each and every question with, "It's none of your damn business," and mailing the form to the USDA by the Jan. 29 deadline.

It is a sad state of affairs when Congress has so little concern for the U.S. Constitution that it allows this kind of abuse by federal agencies. This 2006 Agriculture Survey and the NAIS are but small examples of disrespect for the constitutional rights of all Americans. Congress will change its collective attitude, however, only when required to do so by the voters.

Tidbits.

The USDA partnered with the EPA

Definitions to help understand the following posts

TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load (Poop levels)

BMP - Best Management Practice

Nonpoint Source Also seen as NPS - leading source of water quality impacts to surveyed rivers and lakes, the third largest source of impairments to surveyed estuaries, and also a major contributor to ground water contamination and wetlands degradation.

Agriculture is listed as the leading source of watershed impairment.

Agriculture is listed as a nonpoint source polluter.

Reduction - eradication of

CERCLA (the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act) - was created in 1980 to
provide for cleanup of the worst industrial toxic waste sites.

EPCRA (The Community Right to Know law) - was adopted
in 1986 after the 1984 Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal,
India, to force reporting when hazardous chemicals are
released and to enable government emergency response.

RE: CERCLA and EPCRA -

State and local authorities are seeking to extend CERCLA
and EPCRA liability to our nation's livestock operations for
emissions or discharges from manure. However, such an
interpretation is not supported either by the science or legislative history. Animal rights and environmental activist groups are in favor of the action, which would create more publicity for their campaigns against modern agriculture and ultimately make it harder for livestock producers to stay in business.

Clean Water Act - Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation
Rule, producers are required to document who uses the
manure they produce and how.

Superfund - Livestock Manure and Superfund Legislation - livestock manure a "hazardous" substance under the nation's "Superfund" law.

This make farms on which manure is applied subject to Superfund liability.

AUM = animal unit month An AUM is the amount of forage needed to sustain one cow and her calf, one horse, or five sheep or goats for a month.

CMR - Contaminant Monitoring and Research

Nonpoint source vs. Point Source -

Causes of Water Quality Problems

Most watersheds encompass many land uses (farms, homes, industries, forests, mines). Each land use has an impact on water quality. Even in uninhabited watersheds, natural sources of pollution exist. These include sediment from stream-bank erosion, bacteria and nutrients from wildlife, and chemicals deposited by rainfall.

Water pollution caused by human activities results from either point sources or nonpoint sources. These terms indicate how pollutants are released to surface water or ground water.

A point source is a single, identifiable source of pollution, such as a pipe through which factories or treatment plants release water and pollutants into a river. Point source pollution is often controlled through water-quality standards and permitting programs, which establish limits on the kind or amount of pollutants each point source may discharge into a body of water.

A nonpoint source is an activity that takes place over a broad area and results in the release of pollutants from many different locations. Agriculture, forestry, residential, and urban development are examples of nonpoint sources of pollutants. Common pollutants from these activities include:

* sediment from cropland, lawns and gardens, forestry activities, roadways, construction sites, and stream-bank erosion;

* nutrients from cropland, lawns and gardens, livestock
operations, wildlife, septic systems, and land receiving waste application;

* bacteria from livestock, wildlife, septic systems, land
receiving waste application, and urban runoff; and

* man-made chemicals, including pesticides, from roadways, mining operations, cropland, lawns and gardens, and forestry.

EPA - TMDL and BMP - USDA Joint Statement

Joint Statement of the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency Addressing Agricultural and Silvicultural Issues Within EPA Revisions to TMDL and NPDES Rules

May 1, 2000

ABSTRACT: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed revisions to existing regulations for administering the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Department of Agriculture (USDA) identified a range of issues with respect to the proposed TMDL rule. EPA and USDA convened a process to review and discuss these issues with the goal of resolving the issues prior to final issuance of the regulations. This paper, which has been prepared jointly by EPA and USDA, describes the agreement between the two agencies concerning development of final TMDL regulations.

Introduction Under the TMDL program, States provide a comprehensive listing of all the Nation's polluted waters. The States then develop "pollution budgets," or TMDLs, for waters impaired by nonpoint and point sources of pollution. Pollution reductions called for by a TMDL budget are designed to meet certain safe levels of pollutants that allow beneficial uses, such as swimming or fishing, established in water quality standards adopted by States.

Congress established the TMDL program in the CWA of 1972. EPA's early work to implement the Act focused on establishing effluent limitations through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for point sources like factories and wastewater treatment plants. Lawsuits filed against the EPA in the late 1980's and 1990's, however, have compelled the development of TMDLs on specific schedules and for all impaired waters, including waters impaired by nonpoint sources of pollution (e.g. agriculture and forestry).

To improve implementation of the TMDL program, EPA convened a Federal Advisory Committee and proposed amendments to existing TMDL and NPDES regulations in the Federal Register on August 23, 1999.

EPA/USDA Areas of Agreement

In response to concerns with the proposed TMDL rules at USDA, Under Secretary Jim Lyons of USDA and EPA Assistant Administrator Chuck Fox decided to form an interagency workgroup to review key issues. Working through the winter, this group reached agreement on the issues of interest to USDA and EPA has agreed to reflect these agreements in its final TMDL rule.

1) State and Local Governments Should Have the Lead

The EPA and USDA agree that State governments and local citizens should take the lead in developing pollution budgets for impaired waterways. To enhance flexibility in State programs, the following revisions are expected to be included in the final TMDL rule:

(1) eliminate the requirement that States give top priority to development of TMDLs for certain types of impaired waters;

(2) eliminate the requirement that States identify "threatened" waters;

(3) lengthen the time period for States to develop periodic
lists of impaired waters from two years to four years;

(4) grant States up to 15 years to develop TMDLs for their
impaired waters;

(5) do not impose a deadline for attainment of water quality
goals; and

(6) drop the proposal to require new discharges to polluted
waters to obtain "offsets" for new pollution.

2) Reducing Agricultural Impacts on Water Quality

Two general forms of agricultural runoff, "return flows from irrigated agriculture" and "agricultural stormwater discharges," are statutorily exempt from NPDES permit requirements and treatment as point sources.

However, USDA and the agricultural community had concerns that the EPA proposal moved away from traditional notions of what is a nonpoint source of pollution and strategies for reducing impacts through voluntary efforts and Best Management Practices (BMPs). EPA and USDA agree that voluntary and incentive-based approaches are the best way to address nonpoint source pollution. Water quality improvements that farmers make through Federal conservation programs, or on their own initiative, will be given due credit in the development of TMDLs. If a farmer will invest in voluntary conservation practices to improve water quality the "pollution budget" will recognize those investments in developing a strategy for future cleanup. Under the EPA proposal, States have the flexibility to allocate pollution load reductions between nonpoint and point sources as they consider appropriate and are not required to allocate pollution reductions to specific categories (e.g. agriculture) in proportion to pollution contributions.

3) Controlling Water Quality Impacts of Forestry Operations

USDA raised concerns with EPA's proposal to allow States, and in some cases EPA, to issue a Clean Water Act permit where needed to correct a water pollution problem caused by discharge of stormwater from forestry operations.

USDA and EPA have developed a modified approach that grants States flexibility in designing their TMDL program. Under this approach, no NPDES permits will be required for point sources of polluted stormwater from forestry operations for five years from publication of the final rule. During that time, EPA will work with the USDA and the public to develop guidance for States to follow in designing and adopting forestry BMP programs for the protection of water quality.

In States that develop and maintain forestry BMP programs that are recognized by EPA as adequate (i.e. generally consistent with this guidance) forest operations will have no exposure to NPDES permit requirements. States will be encouraged to grant forest operators that are implementing BMPs in good faith an exemption from any directly enforceable State water quality standards. Since existing Federal law requires forest operations on National Forest System lands to be conducted consistent with water quality requirements, operations conducted on these lands will be exempt from NPDES authority.

The idea is that forest operators in States with approved programs will know what is expected of them, what BMPs are effective in reducing pollution and need to be implemented. If for some reason the implementation of the core set of BMPs results in a pollution problem then the State must commit to refining or better tailoring the BMPs as necessary to attain water quality goals.

Only if a State does not have an approved forestry BMP program after five years, will the State or EPA have the discretion to issue NPDES permits in limited cases where the operation results in a discharge that causes water pollution problems. Any NPDES permits that are issued by EPA will call for implementation of BMPs, as opposed to attainment of numerical effluent limitations; EPA expects that State NPDES permit authorities will follow this approach. States will not be required to issue NPDES permits to forest operations discharging polluted stormwater; it will be a matter of their discretion.

Dischargers that are not required to get a permit will not be subject to citizen or government enforcement action under the Clean Water Act.

4) TMDL Program Funding

States have identified a need for increased funding to support more complete assessment of the condition of waters and development of TMDLs for polluted waters. Adequate funding of the TMDL program is key to its implementation. The EPA is currently developing estimates of the overall cost of the TMDL program and the analysis will be available when the final rule is published. The President's FY 2001 budget increases funding for state administration of the TMDL program by $45 million. The budget also increases funding for State programs to reduce polluted runoff by $50 million. USDA agricultural conservation programs are dramatically enhanced by the FY 2001 budget.

The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) would be increased from $200 million to $325 million. Continuous sign up provisions of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) would be funded with $125 million in both FY 2001 and FY 2002. Finally, under the President's budget the acreage included in the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) is increased by over 200,000 acres in the next several years. This kind of Federal budget response is necessary to provide State and local partners the tools to successfully build their TMDL programs.

Conclusion

The final TMDL regulations will provide an improved framework for restoring our polluted waters. Much work remains to be done to meet clean water goals. The EPA and USDA will continue to work with State and private partners in improving the communication and outreach essential for successfully implementing the TMDL program.

Important point of interest.....

Does Manure Make a Farm a Superfund Site?
Thursday, June 01, 2006
By Steven Milloy

Environmental activists are teaming up with state attorneys general and trial lawyers to bankrupt the nation's livestock farmers – in the name of saving the environment.

If the situation wasn't so serious, it would be hilarious.

The activists – including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists – are trying to convince Congress that the nation's farms should be treated as industrial waste sites and therefore subject to severe penalties under the federal Superfund law. Some state attorneys general, supported by trial lawyers, have filed lawsuits toward the same end.

Why? Because, they argue, animal manure is a hazardous substance.

They are now demanding that Congress refuse to clarify that the Superfund law was never intended to apply to natural animal waste.

They are claiming – falsely – that without Superfund, animal waste would be unregulated.

The fact is that manure already is heavily regulated under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act and other federal and state regulations. They are claiming – falsely – that small family farms won't be affected.

The reality is that under Superfund, huge penalties can be levied against small operations and even individuals. Tens of thousands of small family farmers could be affected.

Congress never intended the Superfund law to apply to the nation's farms – it was designed to clean up industrial waste sites like Love Canal. But because it did not specifically exempt animal waste, activists are now seizing on this lack of clarity to haul farmers before the courts and apply the draconian penalties permissible under Superfund.

If the activists are successful, farmers could face penalties of many millions of dollars and thousands of small farmers could be forced off their land.

"The domestic livestock industry would be driven from this country, the grain industry would be crippled, and farm families and communities would be devastated," Oklahoma Farm Bureau chief Steve Kouplen warned Congress last November.

"If animal manure is found to be a hazardous substance under
Superfund, then virtually every farm or ranch in the United States could be written off as a toxic Superfund site," says Missouri cattleman Mike John, who is also president of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

The activists' efforts are a deliberate distortion of the law, devised by some local authorities and a small army of trial lawyers seeking large settlements in which they – and the activist groups – would be the chief beneficiaries.

"It's simply a shake-down," one dairy farmer told Congress.

"It would be a mockery of congressional intent," commented Bob Stallman, head of the American Farm Bureau Federation. He notes that farms and ranches that raise livestock are already among the most regulated business sectors for environmental quality, subject to extensive federal and state laws and regulations.

Farmers are by their nature pro-environment. Healthy crops and livestock depend on a healthy environment. None of this apparently matters to the activists, who may also see manure as a means to gain political sway over farmers.

Given that federal and state environmental regulators are often sympathetic to, if not in outright league with, environmental activists, and that the Superfund law provides regulators with much discretion as to how to identify and manage sites to be cleaned up, treating farms as Superfund sites would essentially provide activists a powerful political weapon to be used against farmers at the activists' discretion. Farmers who don't toe the environmentalist line may find their farms declared as Superfund sites.

Congress inadvertently caused this problem in the first place by not exempting animal manure from the original Superfund law. But who could imagine that such an exemption would be necessary?

The good news is that Congress can quickly solve the problem by passing a simple amendment to the Superfund law, clarifying that farm manure is not considered a hazardous substance under the Act. A bipartisan bill to this effect has already been introduced in the House with nearly 160 co-sponsors. A companion bill with bipartisan support is about to be introduced in the Senate.

Congress needs to get this done soon for the sake of this country's farmers, consumers – who would face escalating food prices and shortages – and just plain common sense. Cattleman Mike John says, "It's just plain insulting to suggest naturally occurring manure on our family farm deems us a Superfund site."

Manure, it seems, is the appropriate word for this latest activist initiative.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com, CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute .

> Livestock manure was declared a TOXIC WASTE.

MANURE MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY DANGEROUS THAN CARS, FAO REPORT
deutsche presse | 11/29/6

Rome (dpa) - Farm animal manure produces more greenhouse gas emissions than cars.

The surprise finding is the result of a report published Wednesday by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

According to the UN agency's Livestock's Long Shadow -Environmental Issues and Options report, the global livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent 18 per cent than transport. It is also a major source of land and water degradation.

``Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation,'' said Henning Steinfeld, head of FAO's Livestock Information and Policy Branch and senior author of the report.

The animals' digestive system also produces dangerously high
quantities of methane and ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain.

The world's livestock sector is growing fast and now uses up nearly a third of the earth's entire land surface as increased prosperity induces people to consume more meat and dairy products.

According to the report, global meat production is projected to more than double from 229 million tonnes in the 1999-2001 period to 465 million tonnes in 2050. Milk output is set to climb from 580 to 1043 million tonnes over the same period, FAO said.

Potential remedies identified by the report include controlling access and removing obstacles to mobility on common pastures; payment schemes for environmental services in livestock-based land use; and improving animals' diets to reduce intestinal fermentation and consequent methane emissions.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.