Rep. Rob Hogg sent this update on the Air Quality Bill. A Setback For Clean Air. This week the House of Representatives passed an "air quality" bill (HF2523) that, if enacted, would be a major setback for clean air in the state. I believe we have a chance to stop this bill in the Senate, so I encourage you to contact Senators about it. In Senator Larson's absence, you can contact Senator Mary Lundby at [log in to unmask] and Senator Wally Horn at [log in to unmask] You should also contact Governor Vilsack and urge him to veto the bill. Although the bill's focus was livestock confinements, it also included a radical reversal of general state environmental policy, prohibiting the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from adopting any air standard which the federal Environmental Protection Agency did not have. This would jeopardize the DNR's initiatives to limit mercury emissions and all of the DNR's existing rules which have provided standards in the state's effort to achieve compliance with Iowa's state implementation plan under the federal Clean Air Act. The bill also set up a wholly unrealistic process for the DNR to adopt rules to limit hydrogen sulfide and ammonia from animal confinements. First, the bill would require the DNR to use monitors at five sites for each type of animal confinement and manure treatment facility to do a three-year study. Unfortunately, the DNR only has eight monitors and each costs $40,000 to $60,000 per year to operate - and there is no money to expand monitoring. Second, assuming that the DNR could adopt a rule in three years, it could only establish a violation if year-long monitoring showed average concentrations above levels set by statute. For hydrogen sulfide, the level was 30 parts per billion averaged over 364 days, compared to a 15 parts per billion standard not to be exceeded more than eight days per year as proposed by the joint University of Iowa-Iowa State University study two years ago. Third, even if a violation was found (which is highly unlikely given the high levels and the need for year-long averaging) each facility would have a year of additional monitoring to establish compliance before "best management practices" could be required. Under this bill, the state would have to spend $80,000 to $120,000 for monitoring before "best management practices" could be required. As I said during the debate on this bill, I would rather use our resources to help farmers adopt best management practices now, rather than monitoring to establish rules and violations that could be remedied beginning in 2009 at the earliest. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To view the Sierra Club List Terms & Conditions, see: http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/terms.asp