Bragging Rights

Which state has the toughest environmental regulations?

Strike up a conversation with dairy producers from different states at any national meeting and each will claim their state’s environmental regulations and bureaucracies are the toughest in the country.

So Dairy Today editors decided to find out which of the top 10 dairy states is the bestâ€"or, in other words, worstâ€"in regulating dairies. Here’s our report.

California: Costly compliance

California dairies arguably operate under the nation’s most stringent air- and water-quality regulations. New or expanding dairies operate under even tougher rules and undergo full California Environmental Quality Act Review.

The state’s toughest laws have appeared in the last 18 months:

• Water-quality regulations took front seat in May when the California Regional Water Quality Control Board handed down new waste discharge requirements (WDR) to all 1,600 dairies in the Central Valley.

“This is the big, expensive one,” says Paul Martin, environmental services director with Western United Dairymen.

Designed to protect the valley’s ground and surface waters, the new WDR require each dairy to provide an Existing Conditions Report, a Waste Management Plan, a Nutrient Man-agement Plan (NMP), and regular monitoring and reporting. Estimated costs for the average 1,000-cow dairy range from $12,000 to $56,000 upfront, and can run $30,000 to $36,000 annually.

• During mid-2006, Central Valley dairies took on what was perhaps the nation’s most comprehensive air-quality regulations for livestock facilities under the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District’s Rule 4570.

The rule was enacted in mid-2006 to reduce smog-forming emissions from dairies. Dairy producers choose from a flexible menu of practices to control sources of air pollutants.

Beyond those rules, California dairies also:

• Are held to a nitrogen (N) standard of 1.65 times the nutrient uptake in crops grown;

• Must meet setbacks generally determined by county authority and totaling one-quarter to one-half mile from neighbors;

• Must get permits for any size expansion, either from local government or the regional water quality or air quality board.

• For more information, go to: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/adoptedorders/GeneralOrders/R5-2007-0035.pdf.

â€"Catherine Merlo

Wisconsin: Siting consistency

Wisconsin’s new livestock facility siting law, effective July 1, 2006, was designed to offer uniformity and consistency across the state, and base environmental restrictions on science, not whim.

That law is now being tested. The Magnolia Town Board, in southern Wisconsin, tried to impose more restrictive conditions than state requirements on a heifer facility. The heifer operation, Larson Acres, appealed the case to the seven-member State Appeals Board created by the new siting law and won. Magnolia Township is appealing the appeal.

Siting permits are only required if a dairy operation is expanding more than 20% or has more than 500 animal units (equal to about 360 cows). Other Wisconsin environmental requirements to consider:

• All dairies must have a completed NMP by Jan. 1, 2008.

• NMPs are determined by soil phosphorus (P). If a farm’s soil P value is less than 50 parts per million (ppm), the NMP is determined by the nitrogen (N) needs of the crops grown. If the farm’s soil P is 50 ppm or greater, the NMP is based on P needs. Above 100 ppm, P applications are limited to 80% of crop removal rates.

• Winter spreading of manure is allowed for herds with less than 1,000 animal units, but discouraged. Herds with 1,000 animal units or more must have at least six months of manure storage, and spreading is not allowed in February or March.

• Odor rules apply to herds with 1,000 or more animal units that are located within 2,500' of neighbors.

• For more information, go to: www.datcp.state.wi.us/arm/agriculture/land-water/livestock_siting/siting.jsp.

â€"Jim Dickrell

New York: Tougher than the feds

In a state that’s better known for its metropolitan centers than for its vast, productive farming regions, New York dairy managers operate with environmental regulations that can sometimes supersede federal law.

One such example is that New York NMPs must be certified by professionals who must meet rigorous experience and training requirements, says Karl Czymmek, senior extension associate in field crops and nutrient management for Cornell University’s PRO-DAIRY program.

Furthermore, New York NMPs for confined animal feeding operations (CAFO) will evaluate soil erosion potential using special software from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The results will be able to recommend specific practices to producers to limit soil erosion to a tolerable level that is prescribed for each different soil type.

The state of New York’s NMPs always balance for soil N needs, and P planning is based on the New York P index.

With site-specific attributes of each CAFO plan in mind, dairy producers and their planners apply NRCS standards to crop nutrient requirements, setbacks, manure storage and many other elements of a plan to meet the CAFO requirements. Czymmek stresses, “Above and beyond federal CAFO rules, basic New York law states clearly that farms are not allowed to cause any water quality violations, regardless of size.”

Other highlights:

• CAFOs are permitted at the state level within the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and those dairies holding permits must have plans in place to deal with expansion growth before any of the animals are added.

• Each field is evaluated for winter spreading suitability. Producers must manage winter spreading to avoid runoff problemsâ€"neighbors are increasingly vigilant and DEC does take action.

• The CAFO permit does not specifically address odor control, but individual plans address on-farm odor management.

• New York provides the opportunity for medium-sized dairies to obtain CAFO permits, encouraging a greater percentage of operations to engage in environmental planning and execution.

• For more information, log on to Cornell University’s Web site at http://nmsp.css.cornell.edu, the DEC site at www.dec.ny.gov/permits/6285.html or the state’s soil and water conservation committee Web site at www.agmkt.state.ny.us/SoilWater/aem/index.html.

â€"Meg Gaige

Idaho: Air emissions focus

Idaho’s rapid rise in milk productionâ€"from sixth place nationally to fourth in just the last few yearsâ€"suggests that environmental regulations aren’t holding back dairy expansions.

Yet Bob Naerbout, executive director of the Idaho Dairymen’s Association, can’t catch a break. “I spend 80% to 85% of my time on environmental issues,” he says.
Air pollution concerns, notably ammonia emissions from larger dairies, have been front and center the past few years. More than 50 Idaho dairies are now operating under ammonia emission rules.

Dairy herds with more than 4,500 animals in open lots, 2,600 animals in freestalls or 1,670 animals in freestalls with flush systems fall under the rule. To operate, dairies must use management practices that mitigate emissions. More than 40 practices are listed, each with a point value.

An operation must score at least 27 points. For example, an aerated lagoon garners 12 points. Lagoon covers range from 13 to 20 points; incorporating manure within 24 hours of application is 10 points. Managing dietary nitrogen equals two points, and so on.

Other environmental requirements:

• All dairies must have NMPs, which are based primarily on P levels.

• Winter hauling of manure solids is allowed, but runoff must be contained.

• Dairies must have 180 days of manure storage.

• Siting is governed by counties.

• Setbacks are set by the state: 1,350' for manure storage and 800' for corrals. For herds with more than 1,000 cows, setbacks increase 1% for every additional 100 cows up to 11,000 cows.

• For more information on Idaho’s odor rules, log on to: /files/0416.pdf.

â€"Jim Dickrell

Pennsylvania: Hauling headaches

One of the more unique aspects of Pennsylvania’s recently revised environmental law is a tug-of-war over exported manure.

“Originally there were very few strings attached to moving manure off livestock farmsâ€"something we want to encourage,” says Doug Beegle, professor of agronomy at Penn State. “But environmental groups tagged it the ‘export loophole’ and wanted a lot more accountability.”

Certifying haulers and increasing paperwork for the importing farms will satisfy the grumblers, but may be viewed as too onerous to dairy producers. Time (and fertilizer prices) will tell.

Another notable aspect of this state’s nutrient management law is that it is administered by the State Conservation Commission, which delegates plan approval to local conservation district boards. Further-more, the state’s attorney general gets involved on the producer’s behalf now when local townships pass ultra-restrictive ordinances, Beegle explains.

The localities have the authority to pass ordinances, but only if they are exactly the same as the state nutrient management law. This happens when the localities feel enforcement action is lacking.

Daily spreading is allowed in Pennsylvaniaâ€"even during winterâ€"but with a list of restrictions that includes certain calendar dates, crop residue percentages, and cover crops to name a few. Producers are also required to develop a written plan for winter nutrient management.

Other environmental highlights:

• Regulation of P and N.

• Setbacks for new manure storages that can be waived only by adjacent property owners.

• No required minimum days of manure storage.

• Farms expanding beyond a two-animal unit/acre limit must have an approved plan.

For fact sheets with additional specifications, go to: http://panutrientmgmt.cas.psu.edu.

â€"Meg Gaige

Minnesota: Local control ad nauseum

Minnesota is the land of 10,000 lakes, a hundred thousand sink holes and far too many lawyers.

All of that water means the state’s 5,500 dairies must comply with environmental rules, whether a permit is required or not. Complicating matters is local units of government haveâ€"or can establishâ€"their own zoning regulations for livestock operations.

“We are not able to get uniformity and consistency of zoning at the local level,” says Bob Lefebvre, executive director of the Minnesota Milk Producers Association. That has caused some expanding producers fits, and given the state a “livestock-unfriendly” reputation.

But a new state law is beginning to help. Counties and townships must notify the state if they want to enact local zoning, with the state funding one full-time person to help local governments through the process.

Of late, cow numbers in Minnesota are rebounding (up 13,000 cows, +2.9%). The state now has 74 dairies with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, required when facilities house more than 1,000 animal units (700 cows). Some empty facilities have been re-populated. And a few large, green field facilities have been quietly built in western Minnesota.

For compliance, dairies must:

• Not apply manure in excess of N uptake by crops.

• Soil test for P once every four years if land is receiving manure from operations with more than 300 animal units.

• Have a minimum of nine months’ worth of manure storage for herds with 1,000 animal units or more.

• Not exceed air quality standards: 50 parts per billion (ppb) for a 30-minute average more than two days per year, or 30 ppb for 30-minute average over any two days in five consecutive days. Exemptions apply for manure removal and spreading, depending on herd size.

•For more details, go to Minnesota Pollution Control: www.pca.state.mn.us/hot/feedlot-publications.html#techrequirements.

â€"Jim Dickrell

New Mexico: Groundwater focused

Protecting groundwater resources is the main focal point of environmental regulation in New Mexico. “Things are a lot different here than they are in eastern states,” explains Sharon Lombardi, executive director of Dairy Producers of New Mexico. “We don’t have much surface water to protect.”

All of the state’s 170 dairy operations are required to obtain a five-year groundwater discharge permit from the New Mexico Environment Department.

CAFOs with “a hydrological connection to the surface waters of the U.S.” must also obtain an NPDES permit from the Environmental Protection Agency. “On a line-item-by-line-item basis, the provisions of the state groundwater permit are more stringent than those of the federal NPDES permit,” Lombardi says.

Under a typical groundwater discharge permit, dairies are required to develop a NMP (N-based since much of the state is P deficient), conduct soil testing to a depth of 3' at least once a year if land applying manure, have storage capacity for 60 days of green (process) water plus volume from a 25-year/24-hour storm and maintain groundwater monitoring wells.

While current regulations call for process water lagoons to be either clay- or synthetically lined, the trend in recent years has been for the state to require synthetic liners be in place before permits are issued or renewed. “Dairies are already monitoring groundwater,” Lombardi says. “If there’s no evidence of contamination, why make them go through all the hassle and expense of synthetically lining a lagoon?”

The state oversees siting of new dairies and expansions (if the land is zoned for agriculture). A public notice and comment period is also part of the process. For more information, log on to the Dairy Producers of New Mexico Web site at: www.nmdairy.org/permitting.htm or New Mexico’s Environment Department at: www.nmenv.state.nm.us/gwb/gwqbhome.html.

â€"Rick Mooney

Texas: Regional differences

In Texas, getting permitted for a new dairy follows the real estate axiom: location, location, location.

In the booming High Plains region around Amarillo, the approval of general permits is taking about 60 days, says John Cowan, executive director of the Texas Association of Dairymen.

To date, about 230 such permits have been approved. However, only 70 of those permits are actually in milk production. “Many of the 160 remaining are ‘spec’ permits, meaning land owners have applied for the permits to improve the marketability for their parcels of properties,” Cowan says. “It’s very unlikely all of these will become production CAFOs.”

In other regions of the state, individual CAFO permits are required. The permit process for these permits is much more complicated with more public participation and public hearings, slowing the process to a stop in many cases.

Eight counties east and southwest of Dallas require dairy operators to complete eight hours of waste management training. Eight-hour refresher courses are required for operators and must be re-taken every two years.

• The Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TCEQ) does all the permitting in the state, but there are public notice and hearing requirements.

• Once a permit has been granted, the TCEQ will defend the application at a hearing conducted at the site.

• Only those who live within one mile of a facility have legal standing.

• Setbacks from neighbors are generally at one-quarter mile.

• NMPs use P as their base.

• Record-keeping require- ments for dairy operations are extensive and must be filed annually.

• For more information about CAFOs and water-quality permits, log on to the TCEQ web site at: www.tceq.state.tx.us/permitting/water_quality/wastewater/cafo/cafo_steps.html.

â€"Jim Dickrell

Michigan: Skyrocketing fees

Uncertainty over water-quality protection regulations continues for Michigan’s largest dairy producers. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) contends all of the state’s 200 CAFOs, including dairies with 700 or more mature cows, must have NPDES permits in hand by July 1, 2008.

While a majority of dairy CAFOs have already complied, several leading farm groups are challenging DEQ’s authority, claiming only those operations with a history of discharge need the permit.

Whoever is eventually required to obtain the permit will find themselves dealing with a stringent set of standards. Consider:

• Permit holders are required to have a minimum of six months storage for all manure and contaminated water (including washwater and silage leachate).

• A manifest is required for all manure transported off site. The process requires getting a nutrient analysis prior to transport and keeping records for five years.

• For manure land application, setbacks of 100' are required from waterways (including ditches). In areas where manure is either land applied or incorporated/injected, there’s a setback requirement of 35' from vegetative buffer strips.

A bill introduced in the state legislature has proposed a permit fee of $5,500â€"up from current fees of $150 (general permit) and $600 (individual permit).

“The permits are for five years, so you’re talking about a cost of more than $30,000,” says Scott Piggott, environmental specialist with Michigan Farm Bureau. “It’s excessive.”

Also worth noting: A state Right to Farm law protects CAFOs and other livestock operations from nuisance complaints and prohibits townships from overriding state regulations for siting new or expanding facilities if the land is zoned for agriculture.

For more information, log on to : www.mighigan.gov/deq. Go to “search” and enter “CAFO guidebook” or “Complying as a CAFO-Part II”.

â€"Rick Mooney

Washington: Zero tolerance

With 233,000 dairy cows, abundant rainfall and thousands of creeks and rivers draining into Puget Sound, the state of Washington holds its dairies accountable for helping keep waterways clean.

For dairy producers, the most pressing regulation is the Dairy Nutrient Management Act of 1998, also known as RCW 90.64. The state statute mandates zero discharge to surface and ground waters. That means every dairy is required to create and implement its own NMP, and is inspected for compliance.

“It’s more stringent than the federal Clean Water Act,” says George Boggs of the Whatcom Conservation District.

Another state environmental regulation, the Growth Management Act, or RCW 36.70A, requires counties to adopt ordinances that protect “critical” areas like rivers, streams and creeks. Its agricultural requirements are “a source of enormous controversy,” Boggs says.

Science indicates a 100' to 300' barrier may be necessary if no other protection is implemented; however, Whatcom County farmers have successfully reduced buffers and activity setbacks to as little as 10' when they adopt best management practices through a conservation plan.

“Not all counties have been this sensitive to farmers’ needs,” Boggs says. Agricultural proponents believe that the ordinances with wider-space demands are threatening to farms’ economic viability.

While Washington hasn’t yet enacted air-quality laws, “we’re watching what happens in California and Idaho,” says Jay Gordon of the Washington State Dairy Federation. “It’s just a matter of time for us.”

Setback rules are county based, and vary from no limit to 500'. The state has no formal odor regulations or minimum for the number of days that manure may be stored.

For more information, log on to the state’s nutrient management Web site: http://agr.wa.gov/foodanimal/livestock-nutrient/nutrientmgmtplans.htm.

â€"Catherine Merlo

Not in the Big 10?

If you dairy in a state that is not in the top 10, or simply wish to compare environmental standards in other states, log on to: www.cnmpwatch.com.

Click on the map on the home page, which will bring up a second map of links to individual states.

Though the information is a bit dated (2005), it offers some state-to-state comparisons.

â€"Dairy Today editors