(May 22, 2024) — A new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory rule is an attack on the local food movement and domestic agriculture. It will force small meat and poultry products (MPP) producers to invest heavily in new water filtration systems or face closure.
The EPA moved quickly to implement new rules on wastewater generated by the domestic MPP industry. This effort to regulate wastewater was not without opposition though.
The Kansas Natural Resource Coalition (KNRC), American Stewards of Liberty and smaller coalitions argue this is an example of federal overreach. The rule incentivizes meat importation, which may force small businesses to close.1
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) were first defined in the Clean Water Act of 1974.2 These wastewater standards are developed by the EPA based on the current technological performance of treatment and control technologies. The goal was to prevent the discharge of harmful pollutants at levels that could adversely affect human health and the environment.
ELGs vary by industry, reflecting the unique characteristics and pollution profiles of different types of industrial activities. For the MPP industry, ELGs are designed to minimize the release of nutrients, pathogens and organic matter that could deplete oxygen levels in water bodies, harm aquatic life and compromise water quality.3
The standards for meat and poultry producers were last updated in 2004. Currently, they apply to approximately 150 of the 5,055 MPP facilities in the U.S. As the KNRC pointed out, “The history of EPA’s regulation of MPP effluent guidelines and standards has never extended beyond direct discharge facilities. The proposed rule seeks to significantly expand EPA regulatory reach.”4
EPA Rules Previously Covered Only Direct Discharge Facilities
EPA rules for the MPP did not previously cover direct discharge facilities. A direct discharge facility in this industry refers to a plant or operation that releases treated or untreated effluent directly into surface waters, such as rivers, lakes or estuaries.
This contrasts with indirect discharge facilities that release effluent into municipal sewage systems for further treatment before being released into the environment. Direct discharge facilities are subject to stringent regulatory oversight because their effluents enter the water system directly, where they can have immediate impacts on water quality and aquatic ecosystems.5
Save This Article for Later – Get the PDF Now
EPA Shifts Enforcement Priorities Away From Factory Farms
The new effluent guidelines represent a major change. The EPA’s proposed amendment establishes strict limitations on nitrogen and phosphorus, while adding E. coli bacteria limitations for direct discharge facilities. But they have also greatly expanded the reach of their regulations.
The EPA’s proposal, at a cost of an estimated $232 million annually, is designed to reduce pollutant discharges by 100 million pounds per year.6 It is just part of an aggressive plan to update effluent guidelines nationwide, applying a wave of new industry specific standards.7
Waters of the United States Expanded to Include Private Sources
Most water used in meat and poultry farming is from well sources or privately owned water sources. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA’s authority extends to the regulation of pollutants discharged into the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS), a term that encompasses the scope of waterbodies under federal jurisdiction.8
The definition of WOTUS has been subject to change and legal battles, which significantly impacts regulatory scope. These waterbodies typically include major rivers, lakes and coastal waters, along with their tributaries and adjacent wetlands. Expanding EPA rules to include private water sources represents a massive expansion of federal reach.9
Moreover, as the KNRC noted in their comment to the EPA,10 the stringent requirements under the updated Effluent Guidelines (ELGs) for the MPP industry,11 raises concerns among smaller producers about the financial and operational feasibility of meeting these enhanced environmental protections.
Read the rest here.
Comments
One response to “New EPA Rule Threatens Locally Produced Beef”
Once you realize your government is your enemy most everything they do makes sense. Suppress energy, manufacturing, small business, food production, drain the oil reserves, shut down Doe Run lead mines. Yep there is a pattern.