Session 5 Journal

Environmental Issues

Johanna teVelde
 

Footprints, every individual leaves a footprint of some sort on this earth. As dairy people it is important that we strive to leave a positive footprint on this earth that we inhabit. Education on environmental issues is one way to gain the knowledge that will help the dairy industry leave that positive footprint.

Session 5 of the Dairy Leadership Program was held Nov. 29-30, 2004 at the office of Western United Dairymen in Modesto, California. Our session was to cover environmental issues with guest speakers from universities, state agencies, private industry, and environmental advocate groups.
 

 Our morning began with Bill Jennings, an environmentalist who works with DeltaKeepers, an organization in alliance with 126 other Keepers groups across America that have volunteered to monitor the national waterways. DeltaKeepers samples and analyzes water from the San Francisco Bay, the Delta, and Petaluma; their mission is to bring water issues to public scrutiny. Their definition of environment is the air we breathe and the water we drink. DeltaKeepers hold the belief that growth is ultimately limited by the amount of waste that is produced, and that there needs to be a process for letting “stuff” out into waterways. Some of the claims made by Mr. Jennings were that “More people die from the water they drink than from terrorist attacks;” “Eight out of 1,000 people will suffer and/or die from a gastro-intestinal sickness brought on by drinking water or swimming in it;” “Our bodies now contain hundreds of inorganic organisms that have been introduce by the environment we live in;” and “An average size dairy produces the same amount of ‘waste’ per day as a city of 28,000 people.” Bill Jennings emphasized that the dairy industry did not have the economic basis to properly take care of its “waste”. To help solve this problem, DeltaKeepers believe that there should be environmental taxes to subsidize the farmer. Over all, Mr. Jennings and DeltaKeepers do not see equality in the quality of life and the growth projections for our state.
 

The next speaker was Allen Dusault, senior project manager of Sustainable Conservation, a nonprofit group that strives to bridge the gap between state and federal agencies, the environmentalist interests, and the agricultural industry. Mr. Dusault’s view of an environmentalist is an urbanite that has little to no understanding of the workings of agriculture. In Allen’s experience, he has found that most environmentalists do want to see land continue to be in agricultural production rather than covered with houses. He sees this view as a common ground between what seems to be a widening gap between the farmers and the environmentalists. Sustainable Conservation understands that to be environmentally sustainable means that agriculture also has to be economically sustainable. So, Sustainable Conservation works to provide information through projects, promotion, and education. Some of the projects they work with are nutrient management, manure exportation, conservation tillage, and purple bacteria. One of the major challenges they come up against is how to introduce environmentally friendly change into normal practice.
 

Charles Krauter, Ph.D., professor of soils and waters for California State University, Fresno, is studying what changes should be put into normal practice. Mr. Krauter is currently involved in an air quality research project to study O₃, the fine particle pollutants PM₁₀ and PM_2.5. PM (particulate matter) is particles that are small enough to stay suspended in the air. They consist of mineral material (dust), and soot or smoke material (carbon). These affect air quality, which is of major concern for us in the Central Valley. As Dr. Krauter explained, the air in the Central Valley is in its worst state in the winter when the winter inversion traps the fine particles in the fog. The particles stay suspended low to the ground until they are dispersed by winds or a winter storm. (PM can and does cause health problems, mostly respiratory). Dr. Krauter went on to explain that ozone (O₃) is found in bleach. When O₃ is in the upper atmosphere, it is good because it absorbs the UV light; but when it is low, it is bad because of the photochemical reaction that causes smog. In his research, Dr. Krauter is studying the ammonia levels on a dairy facility. Ammonia attaches to particulate matter, creating PM_2.5. He measures what is in the air upwind from a dairy facility, on the dairy facility, at the lagoon site, and off or downwind from the dairy facility. Through this research Dr. Krauter is hoping to better understand the dairy industry contribution to air quality, or lack of it, in the Central Valley. This will enable the dairy industry to better manage our contribution to air quality.
 

As director of environmental health of Merced County, Jeff Palsgaard takes a unique view of regulating the environmental issues that the dairy industry faces. Merced County is the most proactive county in the state in regulating its own dairies (350). They have proposed a unique local regulatory program consisting of a county use permit, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements, and air district requirements. Merced County believes that the regulatory program ought to be enforced at the local level and not at a federal or state level. Merced County was the first county to perform a countywide Environmental Impact Report to help county dairies in the permitting process. Mr. Palsgaard believes that it is much more efficient having one local inspector to review water and air issues for dairy permits.
 

Ending our day of speakers at the WUD office, Tom Terpstra from the law offices of Herum Crabtree Brown, led us through the process of building a new dairy facility and the regulations that affect dairies. At the local level, the dairyman must follow the local land use regulations, which usually consist of: the general plan, zoning classifications, and conditional use permits. At the state level, the dairyman needs to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Porter-Cologne (clean water), Subdivision Map Act, Williamson Act (lower property taxes for keeping land in agricultural use), California Endangered Species Act (requiring a biological assessment of the property), and the California Clean Air Act. Moving up to the federal level, again the dairyman needs to comply with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Endangered Species Act (as defined by our federal government), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As if this list were not daunting enough, the dairyman also needs to be concerned with the ethical considerations of building a new site, dealing with such Acts as the Brown Act (all decisions made affecting public business must be made public). This leaves the dairyman exposed to environmentalists imposing their concerns over a new dairy being built in the community.
 

The second day of Session 5 began with Martha Guzman, a legislative advocate from California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA). Ms. Guzman appeared to have a negative view of WUD, due in part to the questions WUD raised concerning CRLA funding and support of organizations involved in political activities, which is proscribed by Congress. The questions raised by WUD lead to an investigation of CRLA as a recipient of federal grants. In her comments to Michael Marsh, Ms. Guzman opened the door for him to explain and clarify the findings of the investigation. Through Mr. Marsh’s explanation it became apparent that she was not as familiar with the findings as she thought. In the ensuing discussion, we did find some common ground in labor issues, and the desire to have the employees that work for us that are legal and properly papered. Ms. Guzman definitely demonstrated to us the importance of being prepared on the topics we choose to cover, and to be familiar with the target audience.
 

Jonathan Kaplan, M.E.M., director of the Sustainable Agriculture project Health and Environment Program with Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), spoke to us on behalf of the environmentalist concerns about the dairy industry’s impact on the environment. His main points were manure in the waters of the state, breakdown of water quality, algae buildup, and breakdown and depletion of Ozone. He claimed that there were 192 water bodies labeled as impaired. Mr. Kaplan explained that these are some of the main concerns of the environmentalists he represents, and he stressed the importance of working together to make the environment better. He felt that it was important that a common ground be found, and that somehow, each side needed to back up and look at the big picture.
 

A concern we all face is air quality. Patrick Gaffney, an air pollution specialist from the Air Resources Board spoke on dairy air emissions and its effect on air quality. There are three basic agencies that monitor air quality: at the federal level it is the Environmental Protection Agency; the Air Resources Board is at the state level; and the state’s 35 Air Pollution Control Districts regulate on the local level. All of these agencies scrutinize the concerns of the atmosphere and ozone. Of particular interest in California are the toxins in air coming from vehicles, industry, gas stations, and livestock operations. Dairy emissions are seen to be the largest single source of reactive organic gases (ROGs), and also a source of ammonia, methane and particulate matter. It is important to note that the United States is the only country in the world that measures ROG, and that the numbers used to estimate the amount of ROG produced by dairies is from a limited study done in the 1930s. Regulators, academia, environmentalists, and the dairy industry need to work closely together to evaluate and validate dairy emissions, and to that end, there is a large effort underway to understand dairy emissions. Yet, it seems that in the meantime, regulatory decisions will be made with incomplete and/or inadequate science.
 

Changing our focus a bit, Carolina Simunovic from Fresno Metro Ministry spoke to us about environmental justice. Environmental justice is also known as social justice or human rights. As Ms. Simunovic stated, “It is not about the bunnies, fairy shrimp or hugging trees,” it is about keeping everyone safe and helping implement laws to do so. Fresno Metro Ministry is an organization that works mostly with low-income citizens to educate them in the services available, and if warranted, to fight “big industry” moving in to their back yard. One current case of interest to Fresno Metro Ministry is the dairy growth in Wasco, located in Kern County. Wasco expects an influx of 150,000 cows into the area around a town of 22,000 inhabitants. Fresno Metro Ministry’s concern is the connection of quality of life to the need for business.
 

Bringing our attention back to air and water, John Menke from the State Water Resources Control Board gave us some history on environmental protection issues in California and an overview of the water board’s regulatory program. For regulators, there are two classifications of water pollution, point source and nonpoint source. Point source pollution is from an identifiable entity that discharges waste. Confined animal facilities (CAFs) are considered a point source. Nonpoint source pollution related to agriculture activities would be the diffused nature of the pollutant, with a source that is hard to identify or coming from no specific point. Most dairies fall under the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) which is an animal feeding operation (AFO) that meets the criteria contained in federal regulations. These regulations are set to monitor the Constituents of Concern (COC), which is any material that can adversely affect the quality of the waters of the state. For CAFOs, these are ammonia, nitrates, and salts. CAFOs can affect the surfaces waters by improper discharge of manure and lagoon waters, and they can affect the ground water by the improper storage and/or application of effluent to farmed land. Regulatory programs are being put in place to regulate CAFOs. Under federal law, CAFOs must be regulated with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and/or by a regional board general waste discharge requirement (WDR). The fees for such permits range annually from $200 to nearly $4,000 based on the discharger’s threat to water quality. Methods to prevent water degradation include installing backflow devices and becoming educated in water quality issues. The more one knows, the easier it is to stay in compliance. The California dairy industry has developed the California Dairy Quality Assurance Program (CDQAP) to assist dairy operators who want to comply with state and federal environmental regulations and implement best management practices (BMPs).
 

Holly King, agricultural programs manager for the Great Valley Center, works to promote an awareness of the issues that face agriculture in the Valley. They are working to raise the awareness of the unique nature of the San Joaquin Valley for urbanites that live, work and visit the region, and to understand how the Valley affects the rest of the world. Great Valley Center’s concern is the social and economic well being of the Central Valley, and it serves as a resource for information on land in agricultural use, farmland lost to urbanization, and strategies to keep land in farm use. Ms. King, through a series of slides, showed us the change that the Central Valley is going through and helped to make us aware of the urban growth that may happen if the agricultural industry fails to make some changes.
 

Ending our day and the last class for the California Dairy Leaders Class III, we heard from Bill Mattos, president of the California Poultry Federation. Mr. Mattos spoke about what he sees as key issues for the livestock and farming industry over the next year in the area of animal welfare, food safety, environment, and bio-security. Mr. Mattos encouraged us as an industry to be proactive, to become educated prior to problems developing, and to be involved in coalitions, politics and education. To quote Mr. Mattos’ words to his poultry producers, “If you are a bad producer, we must soon put you out of business rather than allow you to continue to be a bad producer.” As hard-nosed as this seems, it also is becoming increasingly necessary. As the world around us becomes more educated and environmentally concerned, we as a dairy industry need to become more conscious of the affects that a bad footprint by a bad producer can incite, and the daunting task of trying to regain confidence in our markets and the communities around us.
 

As a class, it seems these couple days of environmental awareness pointed out a few important issues. It is important to become educated from both sides and be willing to do a lot of listening. We can better handle environmentalist concerns if we truly understand where they are coming from and what, if any, common ground we can build from. As an industry, we have a lot of research yet to do to become truly aware of our impact on our environment. Not only our environment of air and water, but the environment that consists of the businesses, communities and people that surround us. To go forward as a respected industry in this state, and the rest of the world, we need to be conscientious of impact our footprint will leave on our earth.