|
|
|
February 4, 2000
Testimony takenon feedlot changesNegative reactionpredominatesBy GUY PRIEL Journal Staff Writer NEW ULM -- Farmers offered their opinions Thursday on changes to a feedlot ordinance that has been in place for more than a quarter century. The testimony, which was taken at the New Ulm Country Club, indicated opposition to the proposal. Many of the people in the standing-room-only crowd viewed the new regulations as unfair and feel the outdated ordinance now in force is also unfair. The process of revising the document began about three years ago when the Feedlot and Manure Management Committee decided there needed to be a balance between protecting the environment and protecting the need to have farms, Minnesota Pollution Control spokesperson Merna Holboeck said. "We determined we were spending too much time on paperwork and not enough time in the field addressing the issues and that is when we knew we needed a change," Holbeck said. "We want to work directly with the producers and understand their needs. That is why the feedlot staff have been moved out of St. Paul and into the regional offices." Manure is applied to 3 million acres of land in Minnesota. Farmers must use methods that keep nitrate out of the water and that takes planning, which is a new component of the revised plan, MPCA Spokesman Dave Wall said. Under the changed plan, manure cannot be spread within 300 feet of a waterway; and there must be a vegetative buffer 15 feet wide between the fields and the water, with a 25-foot setback. "I went through the full list of rules last week and I know we're proud of our air quality," rural New Ulm dairy farmer Bob Griebel said. "We need to work with smaller operations before we scare them out of the business with these changes." The permit system is not flexible enough and doesn't allow an avenue for farmers to correct problems before they get fined by the state, Griebel said. The proposal offers a lot to producers, but there are several areas that are restrictive because they appear to be more social in nature, Roger Gilland said. In his opinion, the rules will cripple Minnesota agriculture. One of the components of the ordinance, cost-sharing, will create tremendous financial burdens for producers, resident Steve Hoffman said. "We need legislation saying farmers cannot be fined unless cost-sharing funding is available," Hoffman said. "The rules don't provide a deadline for agency response. The issues get dragged out and leave people hanging too long." The whole state should be standardized in order to keep farming as a viable choice for future generations of Minnesotans, Hoffman said. Jackson County Commissioner Eddie Yonker said he was concerned with the fees being proposed under the changes because all that would happen is more staff would be hired at the MPCA. "They are financed through these fees," he said. "If there are more rules, there will be more staff. Environmental issues concern everyone and everyone should pay." Resident Tim Waibel expressed concern with the way animal units will be counted if the new ordinance is approved, because there are not enough groups covering pigs, which have different weight classes. "The animal units were determined in a way that would be consistent with federal regulations," MPCA Spokesman Dave Wall said. "What we have in the proposal is comparable to those federal regulations." New Ulm resident Steve Commerford, who operates Commerford Agronomics and serves as consultant to farmers, questioned the MPCA justification in making any changes at all. He said he could not see any connection to manure application and water quality. "The rules as written work out fine, and the way things are being done actually improve water qualities over what can happen naturally," he said. "Manure application actually decreases phosphorous in the soil. These rules have a chilling impact on farmers." Environmentalist Katie Wortel of Mankato said the rules are too complicated for people to follow, and they intimidate the smaller producers. "The rules ignore sustainable principles with their lean toward toward high-tech solutions," Wortel said. "We want our environment protected, but we also want our agriculture. The rules protect the environment, but they don't go far enough. The current rules are out of date even with the changes." Wortel said the proposed rules ignore air quality issues and that the board needed to focus on the saturation and concentration of production facilities in small areas to address the air quality concerns. Republican legislators on the House Agricultural and Rural Development Policy Committee are calling for a one-year moratorium on the proposed rules. They say the new rules will push small family farms out of animal agriculture production. It is estimated that the new rules will cost each farmer an average of $30,000 to comply. Small family farms can't afford that price tag, Rep. Jim Finseth, R-Angus, said. Some estimates put the total cost of the needed upgrades statewide at $300 million. "The MPCA is not taking into account how the rules will push family farmers right out the door when the governor won't provide money to help farmers do the necessary upgrades," Finseth said. The one-year moratorium will be discussed during the current legislative session.
|