ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

14,

1973

In the Matter

of:

R72—9

AGRICULTURAL RLLATED

POLLUTION

I ~AE~

Jib

‘)P

Ii~.

ICN

AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(by

Mr

.

Henss

Dn

Dine

23,

1972,

in

Board

Newsletter

#49,

we

announced

that:

pubbc

hearings wou’d

be

held

on

a Proposed Animal Naste

Reculation

designed

to avoid oDor

nuisances

and

to

reduce

pollution

of

“wuters

of

the

State”.

Under

the

Proposal

this

was

to

be

accomplished

by

prohibiting

livestock

operations

in

certain areas and by

requiring

livestock

operators

to

obtain

a

permit

prior

t:o

construction

and

operation

of

some

livestock

facilities,

issuance of

permits

was

in

part

to

be

based

upon

the

quantity

of

livestock

as

related

to

size

of

feed

lot,

proximity

of

feed

lots

to

surface

water,

and

distance

of

feed

lot

from

sub—divisions.

This

initial

proposal

was

considered

by

many

to

be

a

focai

poLnt

for

discussion

of

the issues related

to animal

waste

disposal.

The hearings were scheduled during the winter

months

to

permit

the qreatcst possible participation

by

farm

people.

An

estimated

4,000 persons attended

six public hearings

in

~ocktord,

GaiJesburg,

Urbana,

Moline,

Jacksonville

and

darbondale.

Illinois.

We

received much valuable testimony

and

coL~rcspondencefrom numerous aqricutural

and livestock experts,

livestock

feeders,

bankers,

government

research

scientists,

representatives

of

other

States

and

the

Federal

Environmental

Prof ection

agency.

Many

farm

witnesses

said

the

Proposed

Regulation

was

unreasonable,

unworkable

and

unnecessary.

There

was not

a

lot

of

evidence

introduced

in

the

first

six

hearings

that

animal

waste

has

been

polluting

Illinois

waters.

However,

an

expert

witness

from the

Illinois

State Water Survey did testify

that

nitrate pollution of surface and underground waters in

Illinois

is

widespread.

He said

the source of

the nitrates

is animal

waste,

human waste

and nitrogen

fertilizer.

The

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency has not yet

introduced all

of

its testimony and desires additional

hearings

for this purpose.

7

—

123

---

In

addition to questioning the basic need for the Regula-

tion the farm witnesses also said:

(1)

The Regulation should be more specific in defining

the “waters of the State” to be protected.

(2)

The Regulation favors “distance”over “performance”.

Why should animal feed

lots be so restricted in

their proximity to shoreline,

town or residence

if they are efficiently operated and are not caus-

ing pollution and odor problems?

(3)

Dairies and milk handling areas are already regu-

lated.

Another Regulation is not needed for those

particular farm operations.

(4)

Farmers would rather “register”

their businesses

than be “granted a permit” to operate them.

(5)

The information requested on the application for

permit is too extensive and too costly for many

farmers.

(6)

An operating permit which

is good for only 5 years

creates problems in raising the capital to build

the facilities needed under the Regulation.

(7)

The Regulation affects too many medium sized feed

lot operations.

Can the EPA really administer

a

permit program involving 42,000

feed lots?

(8)

Some witnesses argued that farm pollution problems

can be handled under existing Regulations and the

statutory provisions regulating nuisance.

Although hearings have not been concluded, we have received

sufficient information to determine that the Regulation should

not be adopted in its present form.

Some features,

of course,

may be retained in any future proposal.

A new proposal will be

prepared and will be published prior to the scheduling of addi-

tional public hearings.

In the preparation of this new version

it will be most helpful

—-

perhaps essential

—-

to know what

Federal requirements shall be imposed upon the States under the

Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,

The Federal

EPA has not yet promulgated a set of final guidelines and regula-

tions governing animal feed lots.

The Illinois EPA has requested that we hold these hearings

in abeyance for a period of six to twelve months to allow the

Agency an opportunity to propose amendments which are compatible

with the Federal Regulations yet to be adopted.

7

—

124

---

We grant the EPA Motion and will not hold further hearings

for

at least

six months.

However, we retain jurisdiction

of

this matter and all testimony to date shall be included as part

of the record upon the resumption of hearings.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify

he

bove Interim Opinion and Order

was adopted

this

j4~

day of

______________,

1973,

by

a vote of

3

to ~

.

—3—

7— 125

---