The Iowa Department of Natural Resources is training operators of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on the safest ways to apply manure to their fields and what to do if a spill happens. It is part of the state's effort to help reduce accidents and protect the environment.
Iowa produces about 50 million tons of manure every year or enough to fertilize roughly 17% of the state's cropland.
Jeff Prier, senior environmental specialist for the Iowa DNR, said the state is teaching commercial and smaller operators how to apply it safely by following a required manure management plan.
"When they go out to do their application, they need to comply with any separation distances to residence, church, business, school, public use area, water sources," Prier outlined. "Dependent on their application method."
Manure from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations is known to pollute air and groundwater when it is not properly applied. Commercial operators said they are looking for more environmentally friendly ways to operate while trying to meet consumer demand for high quality meat. The deadline to apply for the DNR training is next week.
The DNR charges commercial operators $225 for a manure application permit and $175 for smaller operators. Prier noted it is a small price to avoid fines of between $3,000 and $5,000 for applying fertilizer without state certification.
"When they hear the numbers, they tend to open their eyes pretty big and think that's a pretty big number," Prier observed. "But the best reason is being in compliance with the rules and regulations and knowing what to do if there is a spill."
Prier, who has been overseeing training for 26 years, added given the amount of manure spread on Iowa farms every year, the number of spills is relatively small.
get more stories like this via email
A recent report revealed the Shell petrochemical plant in Beaver County has failed to deliver the promised economic benefits since its announcement more than a decade ago.
New findings from the Ohio River Valley Institute showed the plastics plant has not brought and economic boom, and promised jobs have not materialized.
Eric de Place, research fellow for the Ohio River Valley Institute, said Beaver County's economy has performed worse than Pennsylvania as a whole, as well as the nation and even its own past benchmarks.
"Its economic performance is actually declining over time," de Place reported. "Since Shell announced that plant, what's happened is they've lost population, they've lost GDP, they've lost jobs, they've lost businesses."
De Place pointed out local residents were promised an economic renaissance with thousands of jobs and increased tax revenue when Shell built its petrochemical plant, leading Pennsylvania to give the company $1.6 billion in subsidies. He stressed it is important for community members to demand accountability and question why Shell continues to receive taxpayer support.
Shell contends its complex has created nearly 500 jobs. De Place countered Beaver County saw a short-term boost during the Shell plant's construction, with thousands of workers on-site. But since operations began, the promised economic gains have not happened.
"Clearly in the data, Shell is employing a few hundred people at the plant now. Those are real jobs, but what we're looking at is the net effect," de Place explained. "Sure, you add a few hundred jobs in one place but what happens to the rest of the economy during that time? And what happens is, it's actually declining."
De Place noted the plant produces tiny plastic pellets called nurdles, which are the building blocks for many plastic products, including disposable items such as grocery bags. Essentially, it transforms fracked gas into the raw material for plastics.
Disclosure: The Ohio River Valley Institute contributes to our fund for reporting on Budget Policy and Priorities, Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, and Public Lands/Wilderness. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Environmentalists said a bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives meant to curtail forest fires in New Mexico and elsewhere will do no such thing, and are encouraging Senators to vote against it.
The "Fix Our Forests Act" would reform the National Environmental Policy Act. The 55-year-old law requires environmental reviews and public input for major federal actions such as new logging, which supporters argued could mitigate wildfire risks.
Dan Ritzman, lands, water and wildlife director of the Our Wild America campaign for the Sierra Club, believes the deceptively-named bill would undermine environmental protections.
"The Sierra Club has long supported science-based, responsible forest management," Ritzman pointed out. "We echo the experts who support prescribed burns, responsible forest management, and we support home and community hardening to make neighborhoods and cities more resilient in the face of fires."
New Mexico's largest utility company recently warned customers in several fire-risk areas, including Santa Fe, high wind events often increase in the spring, and reminded residents to be prepared for potential power shut-offs to ensure power lines are not a source of wildfires.
Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., said to combat climate change, the U.S. needs more renewable energy including solar, wind and battery storage technology. Instead, he noted the focus is on DEI, the acronym for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.
"They keep invoking DEI but we know that DEI to Donald Trump just means 'Defending Elon's Interests,'"Markey contended. "It's just such an incredible power and money grab."
President Donald Trump has repeatedly called climate change a "hoax" and recently suggested he might end the Federal Emergency Management Agency's role in responding to local climate disasters. Many state leaders already have said they do not have the resources to tackle such events on their own.
Disclosure: The Sierra Club contributes to our fund for reporting on Climate Change/Air Quality, Energy Policy, Environment, Environmental Justice. If you would like to help support news in the public interest,
click here.
get more stories like this via email
Rural communities in the U.S. remain at the center of debate about the growing presence of large livestock operations.
South Dakota lawmakers are considering boosting fees that help regulate these sites.
A bill making its way through the Legislature would update the fee structure for concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. These fees have stayed the same since the late 1990s.
State agricultural leaders say as CAFOs expand, increasing permit revenue would help address gaps in paying for the oversight program.
Angela Ehlers, executive director of the South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts, said funds are greatly needed for technical assistance.
"Are the soils capable of handling the amount of fertilizer being applied?" asked Ehlers. "Is it being applied in the proper manner? So, it's that type of technical assistance. And if we're gonna provide a program, we need to provide the staff to carry it out properly."
The measure comes amid proposed budget cuts for the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
Ehlers said without this program, regulatory work might have to shift back to a regional federal office. Some farm lobbyists say they don't like fee hikes but recognize the need.
CAFOs have become a sore subject in smaller communities, as residents push back over air and water pollution issues.
The tension surrounding CAFOs mostly involves operations with big animal herds. But Ehlers said they also need to regulate smaller sites, which can sometimes avoid regulation.
"One could have 50 head of cattle. Those cattle are standing in the creek all summer long, doing what cows do naturally," said Ehlers. "And smaller CAFOs need the permit fee so that they can guarantee they're not polluting a very special stream that may be the water source for the town just down the road."
South Dakota's secretary of agriculture says there are now nearly 430 CAFOs permitted within the state.
The bill, which has cleared the House and now awaits Senate action, saw a compromise added to ease concerns from farming interests.
get more stories like this via email