Archives

There has been a lot of good things that have come about as the result of some right thinking people at the EPA. It is a true shame that the good things get overshadowed when some bureaucrat throws good sense (actually common sense) out the window to flex their muscles. All nonsense like this does is give fuel to the anti EPA segment. Why do they shoot themselves in the foot like this??? SO frustrating.
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/02/25/25greenwire-federal-court-upholds-epas-rural-dust-rule-9867.html
A federal appeals court yesterday denied an industry request to order U.S. EPA to reconsider its decision to regulate dust in rural areas, a move that agricultural groups say could stifle farmers unnecessarily.



In its response (pdf) to a host of legal challenges brought against the Bush administration's 2006 standards for airborne soot and dust, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia refused to exempt the regulation of farm dust.

The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council challenged EPA in 2006 over its decision to regulate coarse particulate matter -- or dust -- in rural areas, arguing that the agency had failed to show any negative health effects associated with the dust (Greenwire, Dec. 15, 2006).

EPA had considered exempting farming and mining operations, but the agency ultimately decided it could not exclude particular industries.

Farming and agriculture groups said the regulations would hurt their industries, affecting everything from combine dust to feedlot dust and even the dust from gravel roads. But environmentalists argued against the exemption for some industrial sources, saying there was compelling evidence that agricultural dust negatively affected public health and the environment.

In its opinion yesterday, the court upheld EPA's rule for farm dust, saying that the industry petitioners "mistakenly equated an absence of certainty about dangerousness with the existence of certainty about safety."

While the judges acknowledged that evidence about the dangers of rural dust is "inconclusive," they said that the agency was not required to wait for conclusive results before regulating a pollutant believed to pose a significant risk to public health.

"All of EPA's focus, all their studies and research was looking at coarse [particulate matter] from combustion sources," said Michael Formica, chief environmental counsel at the National Pork Producers Council. "They haven't proved that there's any health risk; they really don't know what we're emitting."

The pork producers group had hoped that the court would send the rule back to EPA until further studies were completed, Formica said.

"We don't mind regulation if it's efficient and it makes sense," Formica said. But he called yesterday's ruling "a bad decision that will have a profound and long-lasting impact on the struggling American economy."

But environmentalists said EPA was right to err on the side of caution.

S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, said that coarse airborne particles in rural areas were often coated with pesticides, herbicides, toxics or metals, and could pose risks similar to those in urban areas.

"It's better to protect public health with a bit of uncertainty than to ignore these health effects that we will regret later on," Becker said.

Now anyone who has ever lived in a rural area(i do) knows that you have about as much chance of stopping dust as you have nailing jello to a tree. Farming produces some dust, and absent PROOF that it causes any harm(since i know a lot of very healthy old farmers, i doubt it), they should actually use a little common sense here. How in the world are you going to stop dust form a dirt road??
Now, those of us who are actually concerned about the REAL pollution that gets generated have to defend THIS? Thanks a lot EPA, nice job!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Now anyone who has ever lived in a rural area(i do) knows that you have about as much chance of stopping dust as you have nailing jello to a tree.

Nailing jello to a tree... something about that phrase makes me laugh.

They used to have a method of keeping dust down on those old dirt roads though.

However, the EPA put a stop to it.

Used oil was sprayed on the roads. It kept the dust down and kept plants from growing in roads that weren't used often. Not a really good solution.

That same "dust" problem is one reason farmers would get up very early in the day to do the plowing. With less wind in the early mornings, the dust (topsoil) would settle back down in the field instead of being blown off somewhere else.

Wow. I guess we'll have to import all of our food now. And lose all the income from exporting food.

Nice work. :p

I don't understand the problem here. We'll thrive on hydroponic veggies grown within 50 feet of each individual. Green jobs for all. Who needs protein or bread.

So, what do the rules require of farmers? Mist with each implement to stop dust? That will help Calif drought issues.

Most likely this will end up as another "on the books" rule with no implementation or enforcement. Kind of like speed limits... :rolleyes:

:biglol:
Most likely this will end up as another "on the books" rule with no implementation or enforcement. Kind of like speed limits... :rolleyes:

I remember a similar fuss brought up by EPA regulations on bakers.

I do miss smelling baking bread. But a VOC is a VOC is a VOC, and smog (we call it "haze" around here) doesn't care if the emitted Ethanol smells delicious or not.


Before my knees jerk on this "story," I'll consider the oddest coalition of industrial farming and mining and trucking industry suspect - they've already delayed these rules over a decade. The trucking industry finally lost in recent times, it follows that industrial farming and mining ought to follow suit.

I take the "clean" seriously.

-mr. bill

I know some old farmers too - the years of working with all kinds of dust (dirt,grain,hay,etc.) and working in some "odor rich" environments (dairy barns, stables...) sure doesn't seem to have had any kind of effect on their health or longevity... might even be argued that it helped them live LONGER and HEALTHIER.

Lets not forget that the Dust Bowl era that contributed greatly to the Great Depression was due to the same farming practices that are being practiced again today. After the Dust Bowl era, farmers planted windbreaks and hedgerows that blocked the dust from blowing, and provided habitat for rabbits and pheasants.

The emergence of factory farms and agribusiness led to the return of plowing every inch for profit, the demise of hedgerows, and a degradation of habitat - including more dust. I say the EPA should be involved in regulating blowing dust.

after having lived in a rural area, even on a farm and among working farms, for the past 10 years, i never saw a problem. too much time on someone's hands if you ask me.

Lets not forget that the Dust Bowl era that contributed greatly to the Great Depression was due to the same farming practices that are being practiced again today. After the Dust Bowl era, farmers planted windbreaks and hedgerows that blocked the dust from blowing, and provided habitat for rabbits and pheasants.

The emergence of factory farms and agribusiness led to the return of plowing every inch for profit, the demise of hedgerows, and a degradation of habitat - including more dust. I say the EPA should be involved in regulating blowing dust.
Exactly, all that 'dust' is topsoil being lost which means the farmer will have to use more fertilizer to get anything to grow and, of course, most fertilizers are made from petroleum. Its easy to try and trivialize somethig which isn't. Such as, 'what does it matter if I get a couple more miles per gallon?' etc...

My guess is the farmers didn't call in the EPA on themselves or each other....I suspect this goes back to people moving out around farms without knowing what they are getting into. When the farmer suddenly puts a layer of dust on everything during the winter till, or reeks it up with the early spring naturual fertilizer applicaiton, or put "god knows what" when they spray their crops in the mouths and noses of everyone downwind, these people get all upset.
I have even heard of these "city folk" complaining about the smell and the sounds of the country side, when the farmer was there first. People just forget the obvious. I know people who bought houses and only looked at them on nice sunny days....which is great for comfortable viewing, but terrible for realizing the yard is natural pool or that the roof leaks.

Maybe part of it is the commercial nature. While Farmer Ted isn't going to spray anything on the farm (which surrounds his home) with things that are bad for him, his wife, his children, or even his neighbor who he sees at church every weekend; FarmCorp probably isn't going to car so much, as long at they can financially justify the legal risk.

All right...a little off topic from pure dust problems, but it does raise the question...who is upset by the dust and under what conditions do they bring the complaint?

Seems appropriate:

A husband and wife were driving down a country lane on their way to visit some friends. They came to a muddy patch in the road and the car became bogged. After a few minutes of trying to get the car out by themselves, they saw a young farmer coming down the lane, driving some oxen before him.

The farmer stopped when he saw the couple in trouble and offered to pull the car out of the mud for $50. The husband accepted and minutes later the car was free. The farmer turned to the husband and said, "You know, you're the tenth car I've helped out of the mud today."

The husband looks around at the fields incredulously and asks the farmer, "When do you have time to plough your land? At night?"

"No," the young farmer replied seriously, "Night is when I put the water in the hole."

:eek: LOL!!!!!!

Here's another. City slicker gets his Cadillac stuck in the mud on a dirt road.

Farmer comes along in his tractor, stops, and gets out with a tow chain in his hand.

Cadillac driver protests, "Surely you aren't going to hook that dirty old tractor up to my $50,000 Cadillac, are you?

Farmer starts walking back to his tractor. "No, mister, I ain't gonna hook my $300,000 tractor up to your $50,000 Cadillac."

Farmer starts walking back to his tractor. "No, mister, I ain't gonna hook my $300,000 tractor up to your $50,000 Cadillac."

That's a bit old. Many of those tractors are over 1/2 a million now.

boy a joke that's too old and I haven't heard of it...am I that young?? lol.

I know some old farmers too - the years of working with all kinds of dust (dirt,grain,hay,etc.) and working in some "odor rich" environments (dairy barns, stables...) sure doesn't seem to have had any kind of effect on their health or longevity... might even be argued that it helped them live LONGER and HEALTHIER.

As someone who grew up on a farm/ranch, and spent a good chunk of last year helping an old farmer named Dad (step-dad, actually), my view is health benefits there have more to do with constant exercise, and relatively clean air during the bulk of the year when the dust and fumes are not flying. When the dust is flying, it gets really bad, and I've snorted mud out my nose many times. Other forms of airborne particulates are already known to raise mortality rates, and I know of no reason why agricultural dust is different.

The movement towards low-til and no-til agriculture should greatly reduce dust, but this is being driven more by efforts to control water erosion topsoil losses than to control dust. But tradition, economics, and nature will place practical limits on what can be achieved.

If they are going to start regulating the dust produced from gravel roads, does this mean they will start charging each county for every mile of "dirt" road existing in the county? If so, this will disproportionally hurt the poorer counties, since these are the ones that have the bulk of the nation's dirt roads. And are they going to charge more for gravel roads in dry climate counties than they will for gravel roads in regions with rainy climates where the wet dirt roads would produce less dust?

my view is health benefits there have more to do with constant exercise, and relatively clean air during the bulk of the year when the dust and fumes are not flying...

They did a study not long ago that found a gene that gives a tendency towards obesity.

Surprisingly, one group of people that almost always had this gene were the amish!

When was the last time you saw a fat amish? And you wouldn't believe the amount of food they take in (and much of it is what many people think of as unhealthy).

They do take in a lot of calories, but it is balanced and meets all the nutrition needs. Then they go out and work off all of those calories despite having a propensity towards being obese.

I'm a sarcastic sob, but for the record I know about and appreciate hedgerows and such for managing erosion by wind and water.

I remain concerned about what these new regs are regulating, but so far I have not done my homework in that regard. If it gets to rules for dust out of a combine or tilling equipment, we've gone too far. Regulating dust on that level is like a national 30 mph speed limit because it works on the streets of Manhattan. Put away your sledge hammer when killing gnats.

I would be for such a measure to regulate dust if it could be done in a method that is: truly fair, beneficial to the environment, and not overly expensive to measure and regulate.

Such a system could never be fair because clearly there are different "normal" amounts of dust in different places and how could you ever decide what's "normal" and what's "too much"? They gray area here is huge.

I don't see how regulating dust per say is beneficial to the environment, there seems to be many many other things which we could get much more bang/buck.

How do you measure dust? What's the cost? The amount of dust varies in the air from day to day and from one acre of land to the next so clearly something like hundreds of daily measurements would be needed for a county = very expensive to gather and record the data.

Clearly those proposing didn't take the time to think this through.

I see a lot of opinions here but not many facts. How about some real studies on dust in agricultural areas? I know this problem has been studied in for logging operations in forests. Dust has been found to be a hazard to people and the ecosystem. These days in all logging operations on Forest Service land the operators are required to sprinkle water at intervals on the logging roads to reduce the dust problem.

If it gets to rules for dust out of a combine or tilling equipment, we've gone too far.

It does.

I've heard about these regs before, but it was in the context of California's Owens Valley, which routinely gets big dust storms laden with heavy metals from the area's alkali soils. It IS a serious problem there.

Before everyone gets their panties wadded about this, how strict are the new regs and will they actually be a problem for ordinary farmers in ordinary rural areas? Or are they targeted towards desert areas like Owens where there actually is a problem?