Manure program supported > Concerns about control, funding raised at hearing

AUGUSTA — Two vital concerns were raised Monday afternoon in a public hearing on rules and regulations for the management of manure by farmers: that the final say on all rules must belong to the Maine Department of Agriculture, and that there must be funds for the management program or it will never work.

Although no one spoke in opposition of LD 623, those testifying on the bill before the Joint Standing Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry all said that funding and control were vital.

The bill as proposed calls for the agriculture department and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection to work together issuing livestock permits as part of the nutrient management program.

“Our whole focus here has been for agriculture to be the leader,” Minot dairy farmer John Hemond said.

Originally proposed to limit large-scale hog farms, the bill was expanded by the agriculture committee a year ago to include manure and fertilizer regulations, called nutrient managment.

Nutrient management regulates use of fertilizers, such as livestock or poultry manures, sewage sludge, compost or commercially manufactured chemical fertilizers. The law includes a year’s moratorium on swine industrial-farming operations and mechanisms for a permitting system for large farmers.

At the time it was adopted, farmers and legislators called the plan “landmark legislation” toward ensuring that Maine’s waters would be protected.

But the rules for the law are complicated and far-reaching.

“We should slow down and educate before we implement,” Ralph Caldwell, a Turner dairy farmer, told the agriculture committee Monday. “Let’s not be in a panic.”

Caldwell commented on the varied regulatory agencies keeping an eye on farmers.

“We have AFOs, CAFOs, MPDES, AGRIs, DEP, EPA, LURC,” he said. “None of those are on the same page. Maybe we need to slow down the implementation of this plan until we can provide some education.”

“These rules need to be understood by the producers,” John Olson, executive secretary of the Maine Farm Bureau, testified.

Peter Mosher of the agriculture department testified that four major changes will be necessary before adoption of the rules. These changes include bumping the deadline for farmers to create a plan from May 1999 to July 1999; ensuring that plans, which create confidential business information, are not open to the public; creating a separate plan for farmers who use residuals, such as sludge and wood ash; and defining the commissioners’ powers regarding revocation of plan certification.

At hearings held last year, farmers and lawmakers agreed that funding the bill would be critical, and all those testifying Monday echoed that sentiment.

A sum of $250,000 was proposed to hire four district specialists who would help farmers create plans for their farms by the May 1999 deadline. That money was cut from the budget.

Olson of the Maine Farm Bureau said that his organization was backing the bill, but if the funding is not part of the package, “we will not support this.”

After the public hearing on LD 623, Rep. Scott Cowger, D-Hallowell, a member of the agriculture committee, presented another bill, LD 1248, that addressed the issue of nutrient plans for farmers who use residuals.

Cowger said residual use was one of four triggers that would require a nutrient management plan. “However,” he said, “residuals are regulated by the [Department of Environmental Protection] and this bill would give the ag department the authority to exempt some farmers. This is so you don’t have DEP defining what agriculture is doing.”

Speaking in favor of Cowger’s bill, Mosher of the agriculture department said that some residuals, such as fish scales, are high in nitrogen or phosphorus and should require a plan. Others, such as wood ash, compost and leaves, are benign and no threat to the environment. “There is no need for regulation of these residuals,” he said.

A work session on both bills has been set for 9:30 a.m. Friday, March 5.