Update: Federal Judge Rules EPA Can Release CAFO Information, Protective Order Issued

-->

Posted January 30, 2015

A Minnesota federal judge ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is allowed to release information regarding livestock farms subject to concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations, according to a Dairy Herd Management article available here. Environmental and Energy Published also published an article available here.

The lawsuit (0:13-cv-01751-ADM-TNL, American Farm Bureau Federation and National Pork Producers Council v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, et. al) was filed July 5, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) and National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) requested a court injunction to prevent EPA from publicly releasing data under Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests until a court could the personal information was private.

U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery for the District of Minnesota denied the motion because they lacked standing because the information's release didn't cause "actual or imminent injury" to the livestock farm operators who provided data to EPA under Clean Water Act permitting, according to EE Publishing.

“It's not only a win for environmental groups and EPA, but for open government,” said Scott Edwards, co-director of the nonprofit Food and Water Justice.

AFBF was disappointed that the lawsuit was dismissed allowing the EPA to release the personal information (such as a person’s name, home address, GPS location and telephone number) of livestock and poultry farmers and ranchers in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, according to AFBF press release.

“Farmers, ranchers and citizens in general should be concerned about the court’s disregard for individual privacy, said Bob Stallman, AFBF president. “This court seems to believe that the Internet age has eliminated the individual’s interest in controlling the distribution of his or her personal information. We strongly disagree.”

AFBF and the National Pork Producers Council have 60 days to appeal the decision.

Update: A U.S. District Court judge issued a protective order against the EPA to stop the disclosure of radical environmental and animal-rights groups information on farmers, according to Pork Network article available here.

“Releasing farmers’ personal information constitutes an irreparable harm that is not outweighed by any public interest, because the public strongly favors the protection of private information,” said NPPC President Dr. Howard Hill.

This order is pending the resolution of a legal challenge brought by the National Pork Producers Council and the American Farm Bureau Federation.

When the suit was dismissed it meant that farmers are not harmed when the government compiles and releases a storehouse of personal information, so long as individual bits of that information are somehow publicly accessible, such as through an Internet search or on a Facebook page, according to an AFBF release available here.

“We are pleased that farmers’ and ranchers’ personal information will be protected while we appeal the court’s decision,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman. “We disagree that the Internet age has diminished the individual’s right to protect personal information. Now, more than ever, citizens need their government to help protect their information—not gather it, tie a bow on it, and send it out to anyone who asks.”

For more information on the Clean Air Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Environmental Groups Sue EPA Over CAFO Violations

Posted January 30, 2015

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is being sued by five animal activist and environmental organizations because they never responded to an earlier concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) petition, according to a Meating Place article available here. Feedstuffs also published an article available here and Agri-Pulse.

The Environmental Integrity Project, the Center for Food Safety, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), Clean Wisconsin, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement and Shafter, Calif.-based Association of Irritated Residents (AIR).

The lawsuit seeks “injunctive and declaratory relief” for the EPA’s “failure … to answer a 2011 legal petition as required by law.”

In 2009 the HSUS filed a petition requesting that EPA list CAFOs as a category of sources of pollutions under the Clean Air Act, and set performance standards for new and existing facilities. In 2011 the Environmental Integrity Project asked EPA to set health-based standards for ammonia, according to Feedstuffs.

The lawsuits request that the court forces EPA to issue a final decision on the two petitions within 90 days.

The plaintiffs are claiming that the 20,000 CAFOs in the U.S. contain billions of chickens, hogs and other animals that emit air pollutants, including ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, volatile organic compounds, methane, and particulate matter. They also claim that these air pollutants are causing health problems in humans and polluting the air and waterways, according to Agri-Pulse.

“The agency has a lot of information before it that we believes demonstrates very clearly that there is an imperative to regulate these emissions,” said Tarah Heinzen, attorney for the Environmental Integrity Project.

For more information on the Clean Air Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

EPA Seeking 30 Percent Reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions by 2030

Posted June 3, 2014

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed a draft rule seeking 30 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2030, based on 2005 emission levels from existing power plants, according to an article on Hoosier Ag Today by Gary Truitt available here. USA Today also published an article with video available here, Forbes here, and The Energy Collective here.

The American Farm Bureau Federation said this proposal would harm the nation’s economy, rural communities, and America’s farm and ranch families while leading to higher energy prices. 

Roger Johnson, National Farmers Union President, urges EPA to recognize rural electric cooperatives serve the nation’s farmers and ranchers by providing power to 42 million Americans, accounting for 12 percent of the total U.S. electricity sales. Any regulatory action must consider the impact on rural electrics and the communities they serve.

The EPA Plan is President Obama’s largest climate effort thus far, according to USA Today.

“This is not just about disappearing polar bears or melting ice caps,” said EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. “This is about protecting our health and our homes. This is about protecting local economies and jobs.” McCarthy said the proposal will spur innovation and create jobs.

The regulations will be announced June 3 and target existing power plants, which could put a heavy burden on utilities getting electricity from coal, and ratepayers who will suffer the cost of pollution controls and alternative sources of electricity, according to Forbes.

Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act also gives the EPA authority to modify the rules for existing power plants, such as grandfathering older plants under theory that they will reach the end of their useful lives to justify the cost of expensive pollution controls.

For more information on the Clean Air Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

WY Farm Bureau Challenges EPA over Clean Air Act Decision

Posted May 15, 2014

The Wyoming Farm Bureau recently filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit over the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) decision to grant local Tribes “Tribes-as-State” status under the Clean Air Act, according to an article by the Fairfield Sun Times available here.  The Wyoming Star Tribune and the Billings Gazette also reported on the story here and here.

In December 2013, the EPA granted the Northern Arapahoe Tribe and the Eastern Shoshone Tribe (both on Wind River Indian Reservation) “Tribe-as-State” status under the Clean Air Act. 

In December of 2008, both tribes sought “Tribe-as-State” status under § 301(d)(2) of the Clean Air Act, “which provides an ‘express congressional delegation’ to tribes of the EPA’s authority to regulate air quality on fee lands located within the exterior boundaries of a reservation.”  The tribes then expanded their application to include the town of Riverton.

The case, Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, poses the question of whether “non-Indian landowners may be subjected to tribal jurisdiction after their land was ceded by the Tribes to the United States and then purchased by settlers over 100 years ago pursuant to an Act of Congress” that stated the land was outside of the reservation’s boundaries.

For more information on the Clean Air Act, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.

Renewable Fuels Groups Oppose EPA’s 2014 RFS

Posted February 4, 2014

Renewable fuels groups opposed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposal to reduce the 2014 renewable fuel standard (RFS), arguing that the decision violates the Clean Air Act, according to a Bloomberg  BNA article available here.

In November, the EPA released its proposed 2014 RFS, reducing the proposed volume to 15.21 billion gallons.  The comment period for the proposed rule closed on January 28.  The reduction, according to EPA, was due to a lack of demand for higher ethanol blends and the fact that most cars and gas stations are limited to E10 with little consumer demand for more -- what some call the “E10 blend wall.”

The EPA proposed to reduce the statutory blending requirements under Section 211(o)(7) of the Federal Air Pollution and Control Act (also known as the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. §§7401-7671q), which “allows it to waive the RFS requirements if implementing the standard could cause severe economic harm or if there is inadequate domestic supply to meet the requirements.”

Renewable fuels producers dispute the EPA’s interpretation of its waiver authority.

Bob Dinneen, President and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, expressed concern that the EPA’s decision will negatively affect the Renewable Identification Number (RIN) market, according to an article by the Wisconsin Ag Connection here.  Dinneen said that the proposed rule “completely eviscerates the RIN market.”  “The most significant factor contributing to the so called ‘blend wall’ is EPA’s proposal itself,” Dinneen continued.

The Iowa Renewable Fuels Association also submitted comments on the proposed rule, giving several reasons for a higher RFS, according to the Cedar Valley Times here.

For more information on renewable energy, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.