OMAHA (DTN) -- Farm groups are concerned that a proposed EPA rule that would require all concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) to report information to the agency would jeopardize the privacy and security for livestock producers.

The proposed rule could make it possible for the public to access otherwise proprietary and personal information on farms either online or through the Freedom of Information Act. In addition, the rule could be costly for states to implement. The rule came about as a result of a legal settlement EPA made with environmental groups in 2010.

The data would include basic facts such as contact information, location of production areas, permit status, the number and type of animals confined and the number of acres available for land application of manure.

Christina Gruenhagen, government relations counsel for the Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, said farmers are concerned the rule could be dangerous.

"Farmers have concerns about security of farms," she said. "They have biosecurity concerns associated with having a federal database. Iowa's database went online a couple of years ago and we've seen an uptick in vandalism and thefts. It may just be a coincidence."

State governments could supply information from current databases, Gruenhagen said, but that would add burdens to states. The Iowa database used to provide technical assistance to producers has errors that would need to be corrected, she said.

"There will be costs associated with that," Gruenhagen said. "There are available databases already, but EPA would want all the information available in the same software program."

While about 8,000 CAFOs nationally are required to have National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, or NPDES, permits, the EPA wants to collect information from livestock producers not required to have permits. Agriculture groups are concerned it would give EPA a reason to investigate farms not required to have permits.

Gruenhagen said the regulation does not include safeguards for protecting sensitive information.

"EPA is well aware of those concerns," she said. "The Department of Homeland Security has raised issues with it as well. The main thing is EPA is asking for disclosure from farms that are not required to be regulated under the Clean Water Act. This will include a broader group of livestock farmers."

TWO OPTIONS

EPA has proposed two options for obtaining the information.

One option is for EPA to use Clean Water Act authority to obtain certain identifying information from all CAFOs.

Another option would allow EPA to obtain the information from CAFOs in certain watersheds that have identified water quality problems.

With either option farms would be required to answer a survey by mail or online. The public comment deadline is Dec. 20 and EPA plans to take action on the final rule by July 2012. Then the rule would take effect within 90 days.

The NPDES rule can be found at http://goo.gl/…. Other CAFO and NPDES rules can be found here: http://goo.gl/….

INFORMATION PUBLIC

Gruenhagen said the biggest concern is that EPA is considering making the information public.

"Our farmers are questioning the purpose for collecting information," she said. "It is a federal database that would include personal information. A lot of farmers do have farms where they live."

In a May 2010 EPA entered into a settlement agreement with the Natural Resources Defense Council, Waterkeeper Alliance and the Sierra Club. This came about despite a lawsuit won by the National Pork Producers Council on EPA's 2008 CAFO rule.

That rule required large livestock operations that might discharge into waterways to obtain Clean Water Act permits. On NPPC's suit a federal court ruled that the CWA requires permits only for operations that actually discharge.

AG GROUPS CONCERN

NPPC said in a statement that it was encouraged to see EPA offering two proposals. But the group said it disagrees with a legal settlement that did not include livestock producers.

NPPC president Doug Wolf, a pork producer from Lancaster, Wis., said in a statement that the livestock industry could have benefited from having a voice in the settlement talks.

"Our government is not supposed to operate through a process of secret settlements," he said. "Pork producers decry that settlement agreement as the product of a bad and closed process that improperly attempted to make major policy decision out of the public eye, and this rule is a product of that flawed process."

In its October newsletter to members, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association expressed concern that the proposed regulation would expose farmers' operations.

Ashley Lyon, NCBA's deputy environmental counsel, said in a statement that EPA's proposed rule may be overly broad and could exceed EPA's Clean Water Act authority.

"NCBA also remains concerned that sensitive information from commercial livestock operations will be placed on EPA's website, which could lead to harassment or other security issues," he said.

PROPOSED RULE USEFUL

A senior engineer at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency said in public comments posted about the rule that he believes the rule will help government officials.

"This rule is an excellent idea," he said in his comment. "The land available for manure application is currently not widely reported, is difficult information to obtain from field and aerial observation, and is extremely valuable in watershed analysis, watershed model development, and Total Maximum Daily Load formulation" or TMDLs. TMDLs are established in watersheds to limit nutrient runoff.

Further, existing data sources such as animal data from the National Agricultural Statistics Service, or NASS, does not include information on animal weight -- an important factor in managing nutrient runoff.

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@telventdtn.com.

(CCSK)

© Copyright 2011 DTN/The Progressive Farmer, A Telvent Brand. All rights reserved.