Introduction
As the face of agriculture continues to change, states
must be equipped with laws that protect the health of their
citizens and the environment, while managing the changing
dynamics of the agricultural field. Gone are the idyllic
scenes of the 1950s celebrating small-scale family farms.
Instead, the landscape has increasingly been swamped with
large-scale farms known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
(CAFOs). Farms are consolidating, decreasing the total number
of farms while raising the same number of animals comparable
to years past. This consolidation has caused a score of
environmental problems, most notably noxious and toxic odors
emanating far beyond a farm’s property lines. Agriculture
continues to receive exemptions from federal air regulations
– most notably the Clean Air Act – and the largest CAFOs
in the United States appear to have negotiated an amnesty
plan with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in June
2003. According to a document obtained by the Sierra Club,
the plan, known as the “Safe Harbor Agreement,” will allow
a study that promotes self-monitoring, exempting farms from
current violations as the study proceeds and from past violations
as well.
This comes at a time when citizens, especially those in
rural farming communities, have begun to note the effects
that CAFOs are having on their health, livelihood, and property.
Although over 160 volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
gases have been identified as coming from CAFOs, there are
a few main culprits. Concentrations of ammonia and hydrogen
sulfide in as little as 20 parts per billion (ppb) can cause
irritation to a person’s eyes and respiratory system. This
exposure can be especially dangerous to people who do not
have a robust or fully developed respiratory system, including
children, the elderly, and individuals with respiratory
ailments. In addition to VOCs and gas components of air
pollution from CAFOs, dust, dander, and pathogens are also
components, and equally dangerous. A number of personal
accounts of individuals living near CAFOs report extended
periods of time where they cannot open their windows or
perform outdoor activities, in part, because of the excessive
fumes emanating from nearby CAFOs. Finally, and most notably,
studies have demonstrated a decrease in the value of properties
located near CAFOs.
The fumes can come from a number of locations on CAFO property
including manure pits, fields where manure has been spread,
and buildings where the animals are reared. Depending on
weather conditions, odors from CAFOs can be detected as
far as 5 to 6 miles away, although more commonly the distance
is 3 miles. Although the odors are most detectable in the
early morning and early evening, the odor particles can
be trapped by surrounding structures, including individual’s
homes. Studies conducted have suggested a number of alternatives
to combat odor, including animal diet manipulation, chemical
additives to mask the odor, and various land application
techniques. Due to the complexity of issues surrounding
odor regulation, states have taken a number of approaches
to deal with offensive odors, mainly through directly regulating
odor, or by indirect methods that include setbacks and permits.(1)
Adding to the complexity of odor legislation is the existence
of “Right to Farm” laws in many states. The “Right to Farm”
laws protect agricultural operations from nuisance complaints
under normal operating conditions, including normal odors
associated with farms. However, most farms are no longer
simple family farms, but CAFOs, causing some to question
their right to protection under this law. Below is a summary
of current regulations and proposed legislation dealing
with air emissions from CAFOs.
State and Local Regulations
County Regulations
Monroe Township, Pennsylvania
Monroe
Township Noxious Agricultural Odors Ordinance establishes
a conditional use permitting system to control noxious odors
from large agricultural operations.
State Regulations
Note: Air regulations exist
in some form for all 50 states. The list below is a sample
of what states are doing to combat odor from CAFOs.(1)
Arkansas
- Setback requirements of 50 to 1320 ft.
- Training required for waste management and odor control
- Permitees encouraged to adopt “good neighbor” policy
to minimize odor
See Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology
(APC&E) Commission Regulation No. 5 and Commission Regulation
No. 18, Appendix A.
Colorado
- Odor regulations include dilution standards for swine
facilities at the property line and detection at places
beyond the property line
- Setback requirements of 100 ft. to 1 mi. for swine facilities
only
- Odor management plans must be formed and odor control
technologies must be employed to obtain permit
- Anaerobic lagoons (swine only) must be covered
See Colorado Air Quality Control Commission
Regulation No. 2.
Maine
- Large CAFOs required to use best available management
practices to control odor
See Maine Revised Statues Title 7, Chapter
747.
Minnesota
- Hydrogen Sulfide Ambient Air Standard in place, 30 ppb
or 50 ppb at the property line
- Although permits required, new feedlot rules have been
proposed
See Generic Environmental Impact Statement
on Animal Agriculture, Minnesota Rules Chapter 7009 and
7020, and Minnesota Statues Chapter 116.0713.
North Dakota
- Hydrogen Sulfide Standard of 50 ppb
- No discharge of odor in excess of two odor units outside
the property line
See North Dakota Administrative Code 33-15-16
and 33-16-03.
Oklahoma
- An odor control plan for swine and poultry facilities
is required for the permit
- Setback requirements of .25 to 3 mi. for swine and poultry
facilities
Odor emission is indirectly defied as air
pollution. See Oklahoma Administrative Code 35:17-3 and
17-5.
South Carolina
- Waste management plan needs to include an odor abatement
plan
- Lagoon restriction of no more than 4 acres
- Odor regulations require that a producer may not cause,
allow, or permit emission of an undesirable odor into
the ambient air unless preventative measures to abate/control
are utilized
See South Carolina Code of Regulations
61-43.
Proposed Legislation
Iowa
SJR
5 nullifies the administrative rules put forth by the
Department of Natural Resources relating to ammonia and
hydrogen sulfide ambient air standards.
Michigan
SB
388 amends Michigan’s Right to Farm Act to allow inspectors
to charge non-compliant farm operators for investigation
and review. This is initiated after two inspections of noncompliance
with normal agriculture procedures.
Oklahoma
HB
1643 makes revisions to Oklahoma’s Odor Abatement Plan.
Press Clips
News Articles
Links
|
