Cattle Feeder Says EPA Declared Hay a Pollutant | R-CALF USA

[FrankRep]

http://thenewamerican.com/images/stories2011/04aSeptember/haypollution.001.jpg



The Environmental Protection Agency labeled hay a pollutant, according to the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America.


Cattle Feeder Says EPA Declared Hay a Pollutant (http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8909-cattle-feeder-says-epa-declared-hay-a-pollutant)


Brian Koenig | The New American (http://thenewamerican.com/)
08 September 2011

[oyarde]

Time to pull the plug on the EPA , let the states govern the few things that may need it ..

[Acala]

EPA has also declared sunlight and sawdust to be toxic "substances".

[oyarde]

EPA has also declared sunlight and sawdust to be toxic "substances". and farm dust ?

[Brian4Liberty]

Corporatism: unequal enforcement of regulations in an effort to reduce competition.


Being a small to mid-sized feedlot, Callicrate is authorized to stock 12,000 cattle in his lot, which pales in comparison to JBS Brazil — the world’s largest beef packer — with its capacity of over 900,000 cattle and other mega-feedlots that reserve hundreds of thousands of cattle at a time.

Callicrate and other small to mid-sized feedlots claim that the EPA’s compliance order is a ploy for corporate beef packers to eliminate small feeders from the market, as the agency is singling out only certain feeding enterprises. "I believe the EPA’s enforcement action is a premeditated effort by EPA to partner with the beef packers to finish the job the beef packer’s couldn’t do alone," Callicrate alleged. "Along with my feedlot, the EPA has filed enforcement actions against five other smaller feedlots, including one with only 400 cattle."

Callicrate contends that while badgering small feedlots with burdensome regulations the EPA is overlooking the large corporate operations: "EPA is turning a blind eye toward the mega-feedlots that are a real risk for pollution and, instead, is antagonizing small to mid-sized family operations in an effort to help their packer-partners capture the entire live cattle supply chain away from family farm and ranch operations."

[FrankRep]

Contact Congress!
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?aid=972&issueid=26097&atid=19946&siteid=0&app=GAC&isvisited=true



Maintain Our Electricity Supply: Help REIN in the EPA (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?aid=972&issueid=26097&atid=19946&siteid=0&app=GAC&isvisited=false)


https://d3dkdvqff0zqx.cloudfront.net/groups/jbs/images/2009%20electricity%20pie%20chart_001.jpg


The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) upcoming air pollution regulation revisions are creating a bit of a stir both in the energy industry and in Congress. The emissions that would fall under more stringent limits are ozone, mercury, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide; coal ash waste; and water used to cool facilities that generate electricity.

Many see the new scheme as one that will unduly burden the power industry (http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/178299.aspx), even forcing shut downs of numerous coal-fired plants altogether. Estimated costs of compliance for utility companies are up to $129 billion, with a reduction of up to 81,000 megawatts of electricity generation. Then there’s the jobs at stake. A Commerce Department analysis (http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/178300.aspx) predicted a loss of 60,000 jobs due to the EPA’s rulings.

With 45 percent of America’s electricity being coal-fired -- a resource that is abundant and cheap with at least a 200-year supply available in the States -- these new EPA regulations seem a direct attack on not only the power companies, but on consumers. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation, which is responsible for the reliability of the electric system warns that over-regulation of fossil-fueled electricity generation will make it difficult for companies to meet electric demand.

There are at least three proposed bills that could rein in the EPA on this. One is H.R.910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, which has already been approved by the House in a 255-172 vote, and was referred to the Senate. Many claim it has no chance of passing the Democratic-controlled chamber.

Another is H.R. 2018, the Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011, “To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act” which also passed the House 239-184 and was referred to the Senate. Many claim that this one, too, will not pass the full Senate.

And then there's the REINS Act, S. 299 (http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/178301.aspx), the Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, (R-Ky.). Not specifically tailored for the EPA, this bill would rein in all unaccountable federal agencies. Cosponsored by Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.), it would require Congressional approval of any interim or final regulation from the Executive Branch bureaucracy that costs more than $100 million per year or that excessively increases costs or prices or has “significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or U.S. competitiveness.” This popular measure already has 28 sponsors and hearings completed. There is a companion bill in the House, H.R. 10 (http://www.votervoice.net/link/clickthrough/ext/178302.aspx), that has garnered 159 cosponsors.

House Republicans and Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) have vowed to bring up bills after the summer recess that would repeal or restrict federal regulations, and Cantor intends on starting with a proposal to delay the implementation of these new EPA rules. But we can do better than just delay the rules.

Contact your Senators and Representative (http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?aid=972&issueid=26097&atid=19946&siteid=0&app=GAC&isvisited=true) and get them to support and pass this common-sense legislation that would REIN in the damaging effects to our utilities, the economy and jobs by a host of unelected czars and their bureaucratic agencies. Make specific mention of the EPA as one of the most out-of-control and draconian agencies within the federal government that needs to be relieved of its regulating power. And pressure the Senate into taking action on the already-passed House bills.


Contact Congress!
http://www.votervoice.net/core.aspx?aid=972&issueid=26097&atid=19946&siteid=0&app=GAC&isvisited=true

[libertyjam]

The Environmental Protection Agency labeled hay a pollutant, according to the Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America.


Cattle Feeder Says EPA Declared Hay a Pollutant (http://thenewamerican.com/tech-mainmenu-30/environment/8909-cattle-feeder-says-epa-declared-hay-a-pollutant)


Brian Koenig | The New American (http://thenewamerican.com/)
08 September 2011

Lest you be tricked by the over-the-top headline:


After investigating the EPA-Callicate fiasco, Drovers/CattleNetwork, a news source for the beef industry, inferred that R-CALF USA’s release was somewhat "exaggerated." Reporters from the network contacted Dan Breedlove, assistant regional counsel for the EPA’s Region 7 office, who detailed the violations in the compliance order.

Breedlove noted that under the Clean Water Act, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations can be subjected to four counts of violations: failure to maintain adequate records, failure to maintain adequate storage capacity, failure to maintain nutrient management plan requirements, and failure to operate production within controlled areas to prevent pollution.

Drovers/CattleNetwork reported:


Asked specifically what types of feed were stored in the feed stock area at the Callicrate facility at the time of the inspection, Breedlove says the area contained "distillers’ grains, silage and other feeds that could leach pollutants. It was not just hay." Feed stock storage areas are part of a feedlot’s production area subject to runoff-control regulations, he says, adding however that EPA focuses on feeds such as distillers’ grains with greater potential to leach nutrients, rather than hay.

Though R-CALF USA’s spirited allegation that the EPA labeled hay a pollutant may be somewhat of a stretch, Drovers/CattleNetwork concedes that cattle feeders are undoubtedly constrained by many burdensome EPA regulations. Feeding permits are expensive and meticulous record-keeping and reporting are time-consuming for owners and managers. And with new environmental regulations streaming through the government pipeline, they ought to brace themselves for more.

[oyarde]

Yes , the intentionally wish to crush people with electric /coal costs .

[FrankRep]

Lest you be tricked by the over-the-top headline:

http://brianallmerradionetwork.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/r-calf-usa-logo.jpg?w=300&h=135

EPA Declares Hay a Pollutant in Effort to Antagonize Small and Mid-Sized U.S. Cattle Feeders (http://r-calfusa.com/news_releases/2011/110901-epa.htm)

R-CALF USA
September 1, 2011

[Acala]

On the other hand, industrial agricultural runoff is exempted from Federal stormwater regulations even though it is the largest source of water polution in the nation.