DEALING WITH THE CHALLENGES OF ANIMAL WASTE REGULATION
IN THE SOUTHEAST

W. Arthur Darling
Executive Director
Sunshine State Milk Producers
Maitland, FL

If you have ever given a small child a hammer, you quickly learn that to them everything looks like a nail. The experience of Florida dairy farmers would lead them to reach the same conclusion in regard to regulators. Given a rule, it seems that everything on the farm looks like a violation. Dairy farmers in the Lake Okeechobee Watershed of Florida have had intimate experience with the command and control approach to rules. The experience has been bad for the regulators and the regulated community. Both are searching for a new way to attain the goal of environmental protection.

In general, waste management regulations are designed to address two specific areas:

1. No discharge to surface waters of contaminated storm water or processed waste water. This stems from the fact that in the past farms were actually told by authorities to locate their barn near the creek or ditch and flush the barn int o it. We have learned differently as animal densities increased along with human densities.
   
   
2. Maintain a nutrient balance within the farm to prevent contamination of groundwater. An excess of nitrates in groundwater can lead to health problems--particularly in infants under 6 months of age. The international standard is 10 parts per million nitrate for drinking water sources. The over-application of fertilizer and/or manure can lead to excess nitrates in groundwater

The problem comes when these two main regulatory areas are written into rules and enforced by a regional, state or federal agency. Research completed by the University of Florida in the farm management impact of strong environmental regulation found:

1. An elevated level of uncertainty characterized as "tyranny by ambiguity." It is difficult to gain a clear answer to any question about compliance. The regulator takes the position that it is the land owner's responsibility to fix the problem. They are not going to tell the owner how to fix the problem because then the agency w ould be liable if the fix did not work.
   
   
2. Compliance generates a "coping mentality." The farm owner slips out of his traditional innovative mode for which American farmers are famous and becomes just reactive to whatever the regulator is requiring in terms of a fix.
   
   
3. Regulatory compliance is making significant inroads into management time better needed for production and marketing. The farm owner is facing elevating costs and stagnant todeclining commodity prices. As a result, he is trying to trim his costs to the greatest extent possible. It is difficult to be rational about requirements to do things that have no positive impact on one's bottom line and indeed, will likely have a negative impact on the bottom line.

However, there are some positive aspects to environmental compliance--not the least of which is that it will make bank loans easier. Also by participating, the farm owner is documenting a willingness to help protect the environment. In most cases, farms are still seen environmentally as a better alternative to housing development. At least one of America's great cities has found that paying farmers to implement BMPs was better than trying to regulate the environmental aspects of the farm. This situation was the case with New York City which is now offering up to 80% cost share to animal agricultural facilities in the watershed for their city water supply. It is reported that New York City will be spending $34 million to assist these farmers which is a far cry from the $2 billion that they were expected to spend for water treatment without the farm-level BMPs. It is these kinds of comparison that agriculture can use as a drive to gain cost share to help comply with these new regulations or the general need for greater environmental protection.

For the individual farm, the smaller the land area compared to number of animal units, the greater the problem of compliance. Also, the more that water is used in the cleanup process, the greater the problem is going to become. The less that manure is moved to a remote location for application without regard to agronomic rate, the greater the problem will be. But, most particularly, it will depend on management s attitude toward compliance with these new environmental regulations and toward the people who come to the farm to enforce those regulations.

A final note that needs to be remembered is that the implementation of any best management practices still leaves a lengthy lag time before anything approaching compliance or even improvement is seen. This has been proven in Florida as well as in a Rural Clean Water Project in the St. Albans Bay Watershed of Vermont. Research in the Okeechobee Basin documents the time lag for the full effect of BMPs in terms of phosphorous reduction to be decades.br>

To summarize the experiences of Florida farmers with regulatory issues, the following list is worthy of study and consideration:

In General:

No off-site discharge of processed waste water or contaminated storm water.

No application of effluent or manure or fertilizer in excess of crop nutrient requirements (20 lbs/acre more nitrogen than crop needs can yield nitrate in groundwater greater than 10 ppm).

In Trouble:

Use an environmental attorney who isn't an aggravation to the regulator you face.

First, try dealing with them yourself.

Use an agricultural engineer respected by the permitting agency.

Don't ask your state legislator to intercede on your behalf.

In Particular:

Work for state control by one agency for animal environment.

Provide industry financial support for research.

A separate rule for your commodity is probably preferable to a more general animal industry "one size fits all" rule.

Environmental regulation raises costs and accelerates consolidation into larger units.

Keep records of all off-site shipment of manure.

Know the quality of your groundwater (and surface water) going off-site.

Qualities of a Good Best Management Practice:

Production enhancing (or at least neutral)

Environmentally enhancing

Energy efficient

Improves animal welfare (or at least neutral)

Economically affordable

Improves sustainability of the land for the future generations