Iowa Op-Ed
Iowa has a double standard about sewage.
Inconsistent rules for waste from cities and industries, compared with regulations
for industrial agriculture, jeopardize water quality and punish our citizens.
State laws and regulations require municipal and industrial wastewater plants
to collect and treat their sewage, and to obtain permits to discharge effluent.
We closely monitor these "point source" polluters.
Technology used by industrial agriculture creates the same
potential problems as municipal/industrial wastewater treatment. Unfortunately,
industrial agriculture has adopted only part of the technology - collection
and storage - without including treatment and regulated disposal. This industrialization
of animal waste converts what would have been beneficial manure, broken down
by soil, sun and microorganisms, into toxic sewage. When manure is collected
and stored for months without treatment, it becomes a noxious soup, producing
the poison gases hydrogen sulfide and ammonia.
Yet if several hundred/thousand hogs, cattle, chickens, or turkeys are confined,
their excrement - amounting to the waste from a small city - is considered
to be agricultural and therefore exempt from most regulation. It's legal to
allow that "agricultural" sewage to ferment for months, venting
toxic gases into the atmosphere. Neighbors breathe those emissions, and their
health often suffers. Eventually, the untreated sewage is spread on the land,
where it becomes "non-point pollution" that often enters our rivers,
tile lines, and groundwater.
Iowa sets strict discharge permits for municipal/industrial wastewater facilities, and the DNR is considering further restrictions: so-called anti-degradation regulations. These rules would make today's permits a baseline, with no increase in discharge allowed. Yet the State has no studies to show that the proposed rules would significantly improve water quality.
One alternative to meet new municipal/industrial anti-degradation regulations, the DNR suggests, is to apply treated wastewater onto the land, instead of discharging it to a stream. But current DNR rules for municipal/ industrial systems make that option more expensive than discharging into a stream.
Contrast this proposed extra regulation and expense for treated municipal/industrial waste with what happens to the untreated, air polluting, waste from industrial livestock confinements. Both the liquids and solids from confinement waste - which is more polluting than raw human sewage - are simply spread on cropland. The waste can seep into Iowa's 880,000 miles of field tiles, run into streams, and enter groundwater through sinkholes or losing streams. Many of the microorganisms in the soil have been lost to erosion and agricultural chemicals, so there is minimal biological breakdown of the waste. Antibiotics and hormones used by industrial livestock producers also can enter our water without treatment.
If we hope to protect Iowa's waters, we can not ignore the agricultural component, which accounts for perhaps 90% of water pollution. It's hard to argue against cleaner water. But is it fair to impose a new regulatory and financial burden on cities and urban industries, while industrial agriculture continues to spread untreated sewage onto the land?
The agricultural community should pay its share of the sewage treatment. Livestock producers who use industrial confinements, which produce sewage instead of manure, should meet the same wastewater standards as cities and other industries. Require them to build a treatment facility, just as we do Iowa communities. If producers of livestock "sewage" can't accept this regulation, they should adopt sustainable agriculture methods that return manure to the land as fertilizer, rather than convert it to toxic waste.
Whatever the source, "sewage" pollutes our waters, kills aquatic organisms, affects the health of our citizens, and impacts the quality of life. Those who produce sewage - whether cities, or industries, or industrial confinements - should follow the same environmental rules.
|
Bob Watson |
Larry Stone lstone@alpinecom.net |
For more information regarding industrial confinements as wastewater technology, please go to http://www.oneota.net/~watsoncampaign/Stone-Watson%20CAFO%202007.htm
National Op-Ed
Iowa and the nation have a double standard about sewage.
Inconsistent rules for waste from cities and industries, compared with regulations
for industrial agriculture, jeopardize water quality and punish our citizens.
State laws and regulations require municipal and industrial wastewater plants
to collect and treat their sewage, and to obtain permits to discharge effluent.
We closely monitor these "point source" polluters.
Technology used by industrial agriculture creates the same
potential problems as municipal/industrial wastewater treatment. Unfortunately,
industrial agriculture has adopted only part of the technology - collection
and storage - without including treatment and regulated disposal. This industrialization
of animal waste converts what would have been beneficial manure, broken down
by soil, sun and microorganisms, into toxic sewage. When manure is collected
and stored for months without treatment, it becomes a noxious soup, producing
the poison gases hydrogen sulfide and ammonia.
Yet if several hundred/thousand hogs, cattle, chickens, or turkeys are confined,
their excrement - amounting to the waste from a small city - is considered
to be agricultural and therefore exempt from most regulation. It's legal to
allow that "agricultural" sewage to ferment for months, venting
toxic gases into the atmosphere. Neighbors breathe those emissions, and their
health often suffers. Eventually, the untreated sewage is spread on the land,
where it becomes "non-point pollution" that often enters our rivers,
tile lines, and groundwater.
Iowa and other states set strict discharge permits for municipal/industrial wastewater facilities, and the Iowa DNR is considering further restrictions: so-called anti-degradation regulations. These rules would make today's permits a baseline, with no increase in discharge allowed. Yet the State has no studies to show that the proposed rules would significantly improve water quality.
One alternative to meet new municipal/industrial anti-degradation regulations, the Iowa DNR suggests, is to apply treated wastewater onto the land, instead of discharging it to a stream. But current Iowa DNR rules for municipal/ industrial systems make that option more expensive than discharging into a stream.
Contrast this proposed extra regulation and expense for treated municipal/industrial waste with what happens to the untreated, air polluting, waste from industrial livestock confinements. Both the liquids and solids from confinement waste - which is more polluting than raw human sewage - are simply spread on cropland. The waste can seep into Iowa's 880,000 miles of field tiles, run into streams, and enter groundwater through sinkholes or losing streams. Many of the microorganisms in the soil have been lost to erosion and agricultural chemicals, so there is minimal biological breakdown of the waste. Antibiotics and hormones used by industrial livestock producers also can enter our water without treatment.
If we hope to protect Iowa's and the nation's waters, we can not ignore the agricultural component, which accounts for perhaps 90% of water pollution in agricultural states such as Iowa. It's hard to argue against cleaner water. But is it fair to impose a new regulatory and financial burden on cities and urban industries, while industrial agriculture continues to spread untreated sewage onto the land?
The agricultural community should pay its share of the sewage treatment. Livestock producers who use industrial confinements, which produce sewage instead of manure, should meet the same wastewater standards as cities and other industries. Require them to build a treatment facility, just as we do communities. If producers of livestock "sewage" can't accept this regulation, they should adopt sustainable agriculture methods that return manure to the land as fertilizer, rather than convert it to toxic waste.
Whatever the source, "sewage" pollutes our waters, kills aquatic organisms, affects the health of our citizens, and impacts the quality of life. Those who produce sewage - whether cities, or industries, or industrial confinements - should follow the same environmental rules.
|
Bob Watson |
Larry Stone lstone@alpinecom.net |
For more information regarding industrial confinements as wastewater technology,
please go to http://www.oneota.net/~watsoncampaign/Stone-Watson%20CAFO%202007.htm
DNR Anti-Degradation Comments
The state’s inconsistent rules for waste from cities and
industries, compared with the regulations that apply to industrial agriculture,
are jeopardizing our water quality and punishing the citizens of our communities.
State laws and agency regulations require municipal and industrial wastewater
treatment plants to collect and treat their sewage, and to obtain permits
to discharge effluent from their treatment facilities. We know who these “point
source” polluters are, and we strive to keep them in check.
We also know that municipal/industrial wastewater technology
and industrial agricultural confinement technology are the same technologies
with the same potential pollution problems. We know these technologies are
the same by description, by their inherent poison byproducts, and by Iowa
Code. Unfortunately, when this technology is used by industrial agriculture,
we turn what would have been biologically benign beneficial manure, broken
down by soil, sun and microorganisms, into a toxic sewage. To compound the
problem, industrial agriculture adopted only the first half of wastewater
technology - collection and storage - without adopting the second half –
treatment, regulation, protection, and education. Thus, agricultural waste
is collected and stored for months without treatment, meanwhile “cooking”
and turning into a toxic soup, which constantly generates the poison sewer
gasses hydrogen-sulfide and ammonia.
But, as it stands today, if several hundred/thousand hogs, cattle, chickens,
or turkeys are confined in a building, their excrement, amounting to the
waste from a small city, is considered to be agricultural and therefore exempt
from most regulation. It’s legal to allow that “agricultural”
sewage to ferment for months, all the while venting the resulting toxic gases
into the atmosphere. Neighbors breathe those emissions, and scientific studies
show that their health often suffers. Eventually, the untreated sewage is
spread on the land, where it becomes “non-point pollution” that
often enters our rivers, streams, tile lines, and groundwater.
In recent years Iowa has adopted stricter discharge permits for point source municipal/industrial wastewater facilities. The DNR is now considering further restrictions on point source dischargers: so-called anti-degradation regulations. With the adoption of anti-degradation rules, today’s permits would be a baseline and no increase in discharge limits would be allowed in the future. It is an attempt to keep the waters of the state from degrading any further due to increased pollution from dischargers. Yet the State has no documentation to show there would be a significant decrease in the ongoing degradation of Iowa waters if anti-degradation rules are adopted for point source dischargers.
To meet this new municipal/industrial anti-degradation regulation, the DNR is suggesting alternatives to discharging liquid effluent to a stream or river. One alternative would be applying the treated liquid effluent onto the land. The DNR has strict rules for land applying effluent from municipal and industrial systems, which makes land application more expensive than discharging their effluent into a stream. Small communities, with a high proportion of senior citizens and young people, would especially feel the financial pinch.
Contrast this proposed extra regulation and more expense for municipal/industrial waste with what happens to the completely untreated waste from an industrial livestock confinement. Remember, the manure from a confinement sits for months in a pit, tank or lagoon, where it becomes a toxic brew that spews poisons into the air. Eventually, both the liquids and solids from the untreated confinement waste – which is more polluting than raw human sewage – is simply spread on cropland. The waste can seep into the state’s 880,000 miles of field tiles or run into adjacent streams, then quickly enter our rivers. Worse yet, it can enter groundwater through sinkholes or losing streams. Because many of the microorganisms in the soil have been lost to erosion and heavy application of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, there is only minimal biological breakdown of the waste. Likewise, the antibiotics and hormones commonly used by industrial livestock producers can enter our water without treatment.
If state officials hope to stop the degradation of Iowa’s waters, it does not make sense to ignore the component of agriculture, which accounts for perhaps 90% of our water pollution. To be sure, it’s hard to argue against cleaner water. But is it fair to impose a new regulatory and financial burden on cities and urban industries, while continuing to allow industrial agriculture to spread untreated sewage onto the land?
It’s time to require the agricultural community to pay its share of the clean-up. If livestock producers wish to use industrial confinements, which produce sewage instead of manure, we should apply the same standards to the wastewater from those confinement operations as we do to municipal/industrial wastewater treatment facilities. We should require them to build a treatment facility, just as we impose that requirement on Iowa communities. If producers of livestock “sewage” don’t want this regulation, they should adopt sustainable models of agriculture that return manure to the land as fertilizer, rather than convert it to a toxic waste.
Whatever the source, “sewage” pollutes our waters, kills aquatic organisms, affects the health of our citizens, and impacts the quality of life. Those who produce sewage – whether cities, or industries, or industrial confinements – should follow the same environmental rules. Until this happens, it is our position to resist any further regulations being put on point source dischargers; including these anti-degradation regulations.
|
Bob Watson |
Larry Stone lstone@alpinecom.net |
For more information regarding industrial confinements as wastewater technology, please go to http://www.oneota.net/~watsoncampaign/Stone-Watson%20CAFO%202007.htm