The EPC was the best show in town today as scientists from the University
of Iowa and ISU presented the results of the air quality study commissioned
by Governor Vilsak.

Jim Gulliford, the administrator for EPA Region 7, formerly of the Iowa DNR
came all the way from Kansas City for it.

The scientists presented their results in the afternoon, but public comment
at 10:30 a.m. was focused on the issue as well.  There were seven family
farmers there to express their concern that this would cause small and
medium sized operators to go out of business, and favor the concentration
of the industry.  One man said he had been told that consulting fees could
cost a small producer $25,000.  When Jim Braun asked what the source of
that figure was, he couldn't remember whether it was the Pork Producers,
EPA or the IDNR.

Some pointed out that they worked in their own facilities and were
suffering no ill effects.  Some mentioned improvements in the technology
that had reduced odors. One farmer, who had been misquoted in a local
paper, said he believed there was a media bias against corporate
farms.   He asked a reporter who came to his farm if she could smell the
odor.  She couldn't..

There were assertions that property values were not falling because of
CAFOs, that air quality was worse years ago, and concern expressed that
CAFOs might decide to leave Iowa.  The speaker thought that would be
disastrous and pointed out that tourism and recreation would not be able to
make up the difference.  The last one who spoke said, "Don't create
problems where there are none."

At the very end of the day Jim Braun of the EPC referred to the concerns
about small and mid sized operations, saying that they would come well
under the proposed standards and would not need to worry about being in
violation.  He suggested that an effort be made to educate the public about
the issue.

Three people spoke in favor of the recommendations of the study, Elizabeth
Horton Plasket of the Iowa Environmental Council, Erin Jordahl, our Sierra
Club Director, and a representative of Iowa CCI.  Erin's comments were
excellent.

The study was requested by Governor Vilsak.  Jeff Vonk, Director of the DNR
prepared five questions for the researchers, which were answered in the
report.  It was finished in January, then subjected to national and
international peer review.

The report indicated that there is evidence of disease and impairment of
workers.  These results can't be applied to the community.  Workers are
healthy, whereas communities include the elderly, children, and people with
special vulnerabilities.  Because of this, standards for community exposure
are considerably more restrictive than those for workers.

The study recommended regulating hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and
odor.  There was  consensus on hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, and a
consensus that odor should be treated as a nuisance, but there were two
opinions about how the level of odor should be determined.

There should be a continuing effort to help producers address these issues.

As to the emerging issues that should be addressed, the report listed water
contamination, occupational health, socioeconomic impacts, antibiotic
resistance microbes, greenhouse gas emissions, livestock epidemics and
carcass disposal, and recommended the formation of a sciences advisory panel.

Livestock groups were invited to share their concerns.  They were, does the
report encourage concentration of the livestock industry by making more
small producers leave the business, and what the impact of this report will
be on the state's economy.

The scientists in this study represented a broad range of scientific
disciplines in agriculture and public health.  Because there is a
difference in how these two groups do research and interpret results, these
differences were part of the discussion that went into this report..  The
two opinions on odor was a result of the difference in the way these
different disciplines think about public health issues.

The full report is available at
http://www.public-health.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm

A period for questions followed.

The first question was from Lisa Davis Cook who asked about the identity of
the livestock industry leaders. The answer included Pork Producers, Farm
Bureau.  Department employees said they have the list and will get it to her.

Darryll Hansen talked about a vacation he and his wife took in which it
rained some days and the sun shone on others.  Later his wife was talking
about the bad weather on the trip and he was talking about the good
weather.  He thinks the problems with odor and emissions are the same kind
of thing.  He is surprised that they are still using the two North Carolina
and the one Iowa study in this.

The presenter explained the studies and pointed out that the findings were
corroborated by non-CAFO studies of the effects of the individual
pollutants.  There is no doubt that there is a need for further research in
community settings using appropriate methods, but there is enough data at
this time to support the three recommended substances.

Darryll Hansen said he thought the scientific evidence was not strong
because you would need 180 households in order to get good scientific
results and the study had only 11.  He asked if there had been some
consideration to the difference between hog and beef operations.  He
remembered a study that differentiated between exposure to swine and beef
operations, indicating that the beef operations were not harmful but hog
operations were.

The answer was the study did not differentiate between them.

There was a question about a recommendation for local control.

The presenter said this was a misunderstanding.  The intent of local siting
guidelines is that whenever you site a livestock facility more attention
needs to be given to where it is being placed.  They are not talking about
local control but the actual siting.  You need to pay attention to what
kind of facility should go on a 40-80 acre farm.

One thing we might do to reduce emissions in one area might enhance
emissions in another.  He mentioned feed storage and feeding systems.  It
all needs to be looked at as a whole.

Darryll Hansen asked if this would mean when several are close together and
nothing is wrong with any one of the but because they are all together
there is a problem.

the answer was affirmative.  They haven't put anything together about what
the human response is to odors.  Other studies are relevant and should not
be ignored.

ISU is working on a siting tool that will take weather patterns,
residences, topography, the influences of emission reducing technologies
and other factors.

Lisa Davis Cook asked who was asked to contribute and who was not asked,
that might be indicative of what came out of the study.

The answer was that the group looked over the studies and came to a
consensus for these recommendations.  If there had been only the three
studies their conclusions might have been quite different.  the guidelines
for community exposure came from the Center for Disease Control.  They were
pleased that the reviewers found their first recommendations to be
reasonable.  One scientist who commented on it thought it was reasonable,
even commendable.

Next comments were accepted from the audience.

Lee Little, a Supervisor from Taylor County, who appears at the EPC
meetings frequently, called for a moratorium on new confinement
operations.  He talked about the difference between disease and health,
that the industry says if the animal is not diseased, it's health is
good.  He mentioned the precautionary principle.

Don Dupont, a member of ICCI talked about how the health of his family had
changed since a CAFO moved in 14 miles from his home.  He has migraines,
one of his children has rashes and another, asthma.  He can't let them go
outside and play when the wind is in the wrong direction.

Paul Atley? another family farmer who raises pigs said his understanding of
the constitution and the declaration of independence is that we have a
right to do anything we want as long as we don't harm others.  He thinks a
moratorium would be appropriate.  We need more study and until it is done
we need to stop building more of them.

Another family farmer from Iowa Falls said he has seen violations on the
Iowa Select sites that have built in his area.  He named four counties in
which 13 Iowa Select violations have occurred.  He mentioned the 6000
signature petition submitted by ICCI, said we need sound science, we need
your help.  He asked them to move forward on the rules and to enforce the law.

Another family farmer said these so-called livestock organizations are the
same groups that have gotten Iowa in the mess it is in today.  They don't
represent Iowa family farmers.  they have polluted the political
environment as well.  He called for a moratorium and local
control.  Factory farms, he said are not farmers.  He asked them to pay
attention to this research.  He said another 90,000 is planned in northern
Iowa and we can't handle them.

Ron Litterer (that's what I heard) spoke for Farm Bureau and Commodity
groups, agri-business, Pork Producers, cattle producers, turkey
federations, soybean producers and others. He grows corn and soybeans and
has 4700 hogs.  The regulations would impact his farm.  He said we live in
a free market system and should base solutions on science and not emotion.
He has seen improvement in the industry.  Water quality, he says,  is
better than it was 20-30 years ago.  He used to apply manure three times a
year, now he applies it only once.

He attacked the report, saying the studies used are limited in size and
scope.  The participants were not able to reach consensus on odor.  He
attacked it as based on social science and not applied science, but did not
explain why he thought social science was not capable of coming to
reasonable conclusions. He said further research is needed to determine the
impact of odor.

The EPA has called for data and embarked on a five year study.  He wants
them to wait until the five year study is completed before they make
decisions.

This study, he said, completely dehumanizes farmers.  The word farmer only
appears in the last page of the report.  Then this representative of Farm
Bureau and the usual giant commodity groups  concluded his remarks by
saying that family farmers who are located next to CAFOs should be required
to move.

The response of the audience included a good many well deserved boos.  The
EPC chair pointed out that this man had not booed any of them and chastised
them for bad behavior,  Maybe he had dozed off during that last
sentence.  For anyone who has never attended a Sierra Club excom meeting,
it was a long day.

At the end of the meeting Jeff Vonk told the commission that he would be
able to present them with a plan of action by the next meeting.  Gary
Priebe asked if thirty days would be enough, then suggested that it might
be better to take 60 or even 90 days.  Kelly Tobin also was concerned that
they not move quickly.  Director Vonk assured them that thirty days would
be enough time to draw up a plan of action to lead the DRN toward rulemaking.

Peggy Murdock

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]