Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

GRAND RAPIDS -- Having watched the oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico, dairy farmer Frank Konkel has a hard time seeing how spilled milk can be labeled the same kind of environmental hazard.

But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is classifying milk as oil because it contains a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil.

The Hesperia farmer and others would be required to develop and implement spill prevention plans for milk storage tanks. The rules are set to take effect in November, though that date might be pushed back.

"That could get expensive quickly," Konkel said. "We have a serious problem in the Gulf. Milk is a wholesome product that does not equate to spilling oil."

But last week environmentalists disagreed at a Senate committee hearing on a resolution from Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, calling for the EPA to rescind its ruling.

"The federal Clean Water Act requirements were meant to protect the environment from petroleum-based oils, not milk," he said. "I think it is an example of federal government gone amuck."

But Gayle Miller, legislative director of Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, said agricultural pollution probably is the nation's most severe chronic problem when it comes to water pollution.

"Milk is wholesome in a child's body. It is devastating in a waterway," Miller said. "The fact that it's biodegradable is irrelevant if people die as a result of cryptosporidium, beaches close for E. coli and fish are killed."

Miller said "big agriculture" is constantly trying to be exempted from environmental regulations at the state and federal level. She was disappointed to learn the EPA told The Press it "expects shortly to issue a notice to extend the date for milk storage tanks to comply with SPCC (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure) regulations."

Also, the International Dairy Foods Association said it has learned the EPA will exempt the industry from the rule.

But state lawmakers say they won't let up until that is official.

Konkel, who also spoke at the Senate hearing, co-owns Silver Sky Dairy, with his wife, Shari, and a brother-in-law and his wife. They have 300 milking cows on about 800 acres and a 5,000-gallon tank that keeps their milk cool.

The regulations apply to farms that store more than 1,320 gallons in above-ground containers or more than 42,000 gallons in buried containers.

In May, U.S. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mount Clemens, introduced legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, that prohibits enforcement of the EPA's regulations on dairy and dairy product producers, processors, handlers and distributors.

"This is an example of where we have overreach by the department that defies common sense," said Matt Smego, legislative counsel for Michigan Farm Bureau.

Smego said its an unnecessary regulatory burden that creates additional costs. He said it could cost $2,500 for a certified engineer to safeguard milk, plus more to construct secondary containment structures.

Michigan has 2,299 dairy farms. According to the Michigan Department of Agriculture, dairy is the leading segment of Michigan's agricultural industry, providing a $5.1 billion impact on the state's economy.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is proposing an amendment to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule to exempt storage containers (both bulk and processing vessels) containing milk, as well as associated piping and appurtenances from the SPCC requirements, if they are constructed according to the current applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and are subject to the current applicable Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) or a State dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to the current applicable PMO.

Under this proposal, EPA would exempt milk storage containers and associated piping and appurtenances that are constructed according to 3-A Sanitary Standards and are subject to the current applicable Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), or an equivalent state dairy requirement to the current applicable PMO from SPCC rule requirements. Overall, EPA estimates that this proposed action would reduce annual compliance costs by approximately $155 million for owners and operators of affected facilities.

Farmers Relax (a Little) After Cow Tax Scare
By KATE GALBRAITH

We are not the enemy. (Photo: Wendy Carlson for The New York Times)
To ranchers, they were two of the most absurd and terrifying words in the English language: “cow tax.”

Last last year, rumors that the Environmental Protection Agency was considering a tax on methane in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused angst in the farming community.

Methane, which the E.P.A. considers over 20 times more potent as a heat-trapping greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, is emitted when cattle burp. The New York Farm Bureau calculated that such a tax could amount to $175 per dairy cow, and about half that for beef cattle.

...

∞∞∞ wrote:Wow, that story is just aweful reporting. I guess anyone can become a journalist today.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) is proposing an amendment to the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule to exempt storage containers (both bulk and processing vessels) containing milk, as well as associated piping and appurtenances from the SPCC requirements, if they are constructed according to the current applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and are subject to the current applicable Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) or a State dairy regulatory requirement equivalent to the current applicable PMO.

Under this proposal, EPA would exempt milk storage containers and associated piping and appurtenances that are constructed according to 3-A Sanitary Standards and are subject to the current applicable Grade “A” Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO), or an equivalent state dairy requirement to the current applicable PMO from SPCC rule requirements. Overall, EPA estimates that this proposed action would reduce annual compliance costs by approximately $155 million for owners and operators of affected facilities.

http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/spcc/spc ... signed.pdf

II. Entities Potentially Affected by This Proposed Rule
Industry Sector
NAICS Code
Farms………………………………………………………..111,112
Food Manufacturing………………………………….311,312

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:First, Corzine-The-Crook, one of Obama's largest contributors (according to Biden), gets caught embezzling hundreds of millions from farmer's investment's...pleads ignorance to Congressional investigors, while DOJ turns a blind eye...

...now, MF Global's President Bradley Abelow is outed as Chair of the EPA's financial advisory board...

MF Global chief missing $1.2B is financial adviser to EPA

By Jim McElhatton
Tuesday, December 27, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... viser-epa/


...60 years ago, Holder, Salazar, Jackson, Solis, Bryson, Chu and Geithner would NEVER have been appointed to any Cabinet-level position: Their views are too extreme, integrity befeft, and the economic and regulatory "damage" and upheaval left in their wake will cost American's hundreds of billions and take decades to resolve.

Adding insult, the American Dems, Socialists and Entitlement-Seeking voters elect a genuine "Chicago Politics" operative, who is surrounded by crooks/liars/thieves now empowered to loot the American taxpayer and business owners.

I used to remark that the "most unexpected" event I'd witnessed in my life was, "...the collapse of the Soviet Union..."

...but that's been replaced by, "...the takeover of our Federal Government by Organized Criminals...".

God Save America.

[/quote

"I don't belong to any organized political party...I'm a Democrat.

I was born around the time Nixon founded the EPA. In those years, the Spokane River (like many) was petty much sterile and devoid of aquatic life due to decades of pollution. Today, I can wade its banks and toss an elk hair caddis to rising native redbands.

kalm wrote:

travelinman67 wrote:First, Corzine-The-Crook, one of Obama's largest contributors (according to Biden), gets caught embezzling hundreds of millions from farmer's investment's...pleads ignorance to Congressional investigors, while DOJ turns a blind eye...

...now, MF Global's President Bradley Abelow is outed as Chair of the EPA's financial advisory board...

MF Global chief missing $1.2B is financial adviser to EPA

By Jim McElhatton
Tuesday, December 27, 2011

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... viser-epa/


...60 years ago, Holder, Salazar, Jackson, Solis, Bryson, Chu and Geithner would NEVER have been appointed to any Cabinet-level position: Their views are too extreme, integrity befeft, and the economic and regulatory "damage" and upheaval left in their wake will cost American's hundreds of billions and take decades to resolve.

Adding insult, the American Dems, Socialists and Entitlement-Seeking voters elect a genuine "Chicago Politics" operative, who is surrounded by crooks/liars/thieves now empowered to loot the American taxpayer and business owners.

I used to remark that the "most unexpected" event I'd witnessed in my life was, "...the collapse of the Soviet Union..."

...but that's been replaced by, "...the takeover of our Federal Government by Organized Criminals...".

God Save America.

"I don't belong to any organized political party...I'm a Democrat.

I was born around the time Nixon founded the EPA. In those years, the Spokane River (like many) was petty much sterile and devoid of aquatic life due to decades of pollution. Today, I can wade its banks and toss an elk hair caddis to rising native redbands.

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:
"I don't belong to any organized political party...I'm a Democrat.

I was born around the time Nixon founded the EPA. In those years, the Spokane River (like many) was petty much sterile and devoid of aquatic life due to decades of pollution. Today, I can wade its banks and toss an elk hair caddis to rising native redbands.

Yep. The government is here to save us.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
Yep. The government is here to save us.

Not really, but you know that, yawn. There are important duties it performs, like protecting us from greed-ridden people like you and Tbags.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
Not really, but you know that, yawn. There are important duties it performs, like protecting us from greed-ridden people like you and Tbags.

I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

You, personally, would be fucked without government. With rare exception here, YOU have benefited most from government activities.

I was born around the time Nixon founded the EPA. In those years, the Spokane River (like many) was petty much sterile and devoid of aquatic life due to decades of pollution. Today, I can wade its banks and toss an elk hair caddis to rising native redbands.

JohnStOnge wrote:

I was born around the time Nixon founded the EPA. In those years, the Spokane River (like many) was petty much sterile and devoid of aquatic life due to decades of pollution. Today, I can wade its banks and toss an elk hair caddis to rising native redbands.

I love to fish but there are more important things than the question of whether or not you can catch trout in a local river. The EPA has too much power. It is populated with environmental extremists. It should be eliminated. Some things would be lost in its absence. But, on balance, we would be better off.

There's also a whole hell of lot more benefits to clean water than just having a healthy fishery.

∞∞∞ wrote:Considering I worked for the EPA, I can guarantee you that they're not full of "environmental extremists." It's just a bunch of everyday scientists, chemists, engineers, analysts, and etc. There's no question on the job application that says, "Do you love the environment?" It's your run-of-the-mill job made up of your run-of-the-mill people.

JohnStOnge wrote:

There's also a whole hell of lot more benefits to clean water than just having a healthy fishery.

I don't think we need the EPA in order to have a reasonable balance between the need for clean water and respect for private property rights as well as the principle of limited Federal government. I haven't researched it yet but I'm sure the EPA is yet another abomination precipitated by liberal interpretation of the commerce clause to give the Federal government about any power one wants to give the Federal government by saying that if it can be argued that something "affects" interstate commerce the Federal government has the power to regulate it.

If I were to learn that I am correct in assuming that the basis for EPA power is the commerce clause I would say that I am absolutely confident that if you could raise the people who ratified that clause from the dead, fully inform them as to what has transpired since they did it, and ask them if the Constitution really gives the Federal government the power the EPA exercises they would answer with a resounding "NO."

Actually I think they'd say that regardless of whether or not I'm correct about the commerce clause being cited as the specific authorization. The principles of limited central government upon which this country was based have been utterly betrayed and the existence of the EPA is just one more example of that.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
You, personally, would be fucked without government. With rare exception here, YOU have benefited most from government activities.

Do tell.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
I don't think we need the EPA in order to have a reasonable balance between the need for clean water and respect for private property rights as well as the principle of limited Federal government. I haven't researched it yet but I'm sure the EPA is yet another abomination precipitated by liberal interpretation of the commerce clause to give the Federal government about any power one wants to give the Federal government by saying that if it can be argued that something "affects" interstate commerce the Federal government has the power to regulate it.

If I were to learn that I am correct in assuming that the basis for EPA power is the commerce clause I would say that I am absolutely confident that if you could raise the people who ratified that clause from the dead, fully inform them as to what has transpired since they did it, and ask them if the Constitution really gives the Federal government the power the EPA exercises they would answer with a resounding "NO."

Actually I think they'd say that regardless of whether or not I'm correct about the commerce clause being cited as the specific authorization. The principles of limited central government upon which this country was based have been utterly betrayed and the existence of the EPA is just one more example of that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully aware of what a pain in the ass regulatory agencies can be, but what incentives do businesses have to do the right thing in regards to environmental stewardship? Has the EPA really hurt progress or has it been more a thorn in the side? Does environmental quality have an economic value?

∞∞∞ wrote:Considering I worked for the EPA, I can guarantee you that they're not full of "environmental extremists." It's just a bunch of everyday scientists, chemists, engineers, analysts, and etc. There's no question on the job application that says, "Do you love the environment?" It's your run-of-the-mill job made up of your run-of-the-mill people.

travelinman67 wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:Considering I worked for the EPA, I can guarantee you that they're not full of "environmental extremists." It's just a bunch of everyday scientists, chemists, engineers, analysts, and etc. There's no question on the job application that says, "Do you love the environment?" It's your run-of-the-mill job made up of your run-of-the-mill people.

Kinda like saying Iran's Revolutionary Guard are just a bunch of run-of-the-mill-people doing a run-of-the-mill job...

...under the command of a suicidal demagogue leading the country to self-destruction.

Not any different than...



Those three are responsible for more lost jobs and industry in the U.S. than all other factors combined.