by Dr. Joseph Mercola, Mercola:
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- A new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory rule will harm local food producers by forcing small meat and poultry producers to invest heavily in new water filtration systems or face closure
- This rule threatens to have long-term repercussions on the food supply and benefits factory farms and multi-national beef producers by punishing small domestic producers and incentivizing imported meat and poultry products
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
- The Kansas Natural Research Coalition, American Stewards of Liberty and a myriad of smaller coalitions have denounced these rules as a departure from the EPA’s constitutional and statutory authority
- Federal regulators have evaded accountability in court for decades by using their interpretation of ambiguous statutes. Consumers are best served buying beef products with American Grassfed Association Certification rather than a USDA stamp
A new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory rule is an attack on the local food movement and domestic agriculture. It will force small meat and poultry products (MPP) producers to invest heavily in new water filtration systems or face closure.
The EPA moved quickly to implement new rules on wastewater generated by the domestic MPP industry. This effort to regulate wastewater was not without opposition though.
The Kansas Natural Resource Coalition (KNRC), American Stewards of Liberty and smaller coalitions argue this is an example of federal overreach. The rule incentivizes meat importation, which may force small businesses to close.1
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) were first defined in the Clean Water Act of 1974.2 These wastewater standards are developed by the EPA based on the current technological performance of treatment and control technologies. The goal was to prevent the discharge of harmful pollutants at levels that could adversely affect human health and the environment.
ELGs vary by industry, reflecting the unique characteristics and pollution profiles of different types of industrial activities. For the MPP industry, ELGs are designed to minimize the release of nutrients, pathogens and organic matter that could deplete oxygen levels in water bodies, harm aquatic life and compromise water quality.3
The standards for meat and poultry producers were last updated in 2004. Currently, they apply to approximately 150 of the 5,055 MPP facilities in the U.S. As the KNRC pointed out, “The history of EPA’s regulation of MPP effluent guidelines and standards has never extended beyond direct discharge facilities. The proposed rule seeks to significantly expand EPA regulatory reach.”4
EPA Rules Previously Covered Only Direct Discharge Facilities
EPA rules for the MPP did not previously cover direct discharge facilities. A direct discharge facility in this industry refers to a plant or operation that releases treated or untreated effluent directly into surface waters, such as rivers, lakes or estuaries.
This contrasts with indirect discharge facilities that release effluent into municipal sewage systems for further treatment before being released into the environment. Direct discharge facilities are subject to stringent regulatory oversight because their effluents enter the water system directly, where they can have immediate impacts on water quality and aquatic ecosystems.5
EPA Shifts Enforcement Priorities Away From Factory Farms
The new effluent guidelines represent a major change. The EPA’s proposed amendment establishes strict limitations on nitrogen and phosphorus, while adding E. coli bacteria limitations for direct discharge facilities. But they have also greatly expanded the reach of their regulations.
The EPA’s proposal, at a cost of an estimated $232 million annually, is designed to reduce pollutant discharges by 100 million pounds per year.6 It is just part of an aggressive plan to update effluent guidelines nationwide, applying a wave of new industry specific standards.7
Waters of the United States Expanded to Include Private Sources
Most water used in meat and poultry farming is from well sources or privately owned water sources. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA’s authority extends to the regulation of pollutants discharged into the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS), a term that encompasses the scope of waterbodies under federal jurisdiction.8
The definition of WOTUS has been subject to change and legal battles, which significantly impacts regulatory scope. These waterbodies typically include major rivers, lakes and coastal waters, along with their tributaries and adjacent wetlands. Expanding EPA rules to include private water sources represents a massive expansion of federal reach.9
Moreover, as the KNRC noted in their comment to the EPA,10 the stringent requirements under the updated Effluent Guidelines (ELGs) for the MPP industry,11 raises concerns among smaller producers about the financial and operational feasibility of meeting these enhanced environmental protections.
New Clean Water Rules Fast Tracked
With something as important as the expansion of federal authority over private water sources and laws that could shutter domestic meat producers in an era of inflation and supply chain issues, you should expect a period of deliberation.
The Clean Water Act Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point Source Category rule was proposed by Biden Administration regulators on January 23, 2024. The public hearings were held January 24 and 31, 2024. The minimum for public comment closed on March 24 and the new rules took effect on March 25, 2024.12
The EPA public comment process requires a minimum of 60 days following publication date. Considering the initial Clean Water Act was last updated in 2004, the stakeholders impacted by these rules hardly had time to mount a defense before they took effect.13
New Meat and Poultry Regulations, an EPA Power Grab?
The KNRC argues this rulemaking’s proposal to regulate indirect discharge facilities strikingly stray from constitutional and statutory grounds, threatening to upend the delicate balance of power between state and federal governments. While it took immediate effect, it is certain to face legal challenges.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was crafted by Congress with a clear intent — to keep the primary control over land and water use firmly in the hands of the states. As KNRC noted in their comment,14 the Supreme Court, in Sackett v Environmental Protection Agency et al, highlighted the dangers of stretching the CWA’s scope too far, warning it could infringe on this critical state authority.
Nitrogen and Phosphorous Pollution Turned Up by EPA Field Tests
In the case of MPP producers, EPA field researchers failed to find much in the way of viruses, bacteria, heavy metals or traditional toxins. What they did find were significant quantities of two nutrients — nitrogen and phosphorus.15
Nitrogen and phosphorus, while essential for the growth and health of aquatic plants, are damaging in excessive quantities. For meat and poultry producers, controlling the discharge of these nutrients within acceptable EPA guidelines can pose a major challenge.
High concentrations of nutrients in bodies of water lead to eutrophication. This is a process characterized by the overgrowth of algae that depletes oxygen levels, harming fish and other aquatic species, as has happened in Florida.16 This imbalance not only disrupts ecosystems but also compromises water quality, affecting the wildlife and human populations depending on these water resources.
Concerns About New EPA Restrictions
Reducing pollution of public or private water sources is an admirable goal on paper. But there is more here than meets the eye. The rules list 17 species of endangered animals, setting the table for future lawsuits by environmental groups citing the Endangered Species Act to sue the EPA and private businesses.
In their comments in the federal comment register, the KNRC stated the new rules “gives priority to environmental justice goals and emphasizes ecological benefits, but the EPA jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act is not based on ecological importance or environmental justice.”17
