Mechanicsburg – The PA State Grange Legislative Director, Brenda Shambaugh, testified before the Environmental Quality Board and State Conservation Commission last night at a public hearing held at the Mechanicsburg Holiday Inn to accept public input on proposed Nutrient Management and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Regulations.

Mrs. Shambaugh began by explaining that the Grange Agricultural Affairs Committee was reviewing the proposed regulations and may wish to make additional comments after the PA State Grange Session being held in Harrisburg October 23-26, 2005. 

She then went on to explain that with more and more regulations requiring small and medium farms to complete paperwork and additional duties required of them, many farmers cannot actually get into their fields to farm because they are in their office all day writing reports and filling out forms.  She stated, “However, most farmers are already good stewards of their land so they understand some of the environmental concerns addressed in these regulations.”  But, she continued, “They believe that laws and regulations have to be realistic.”  She asked, on behalf of all farmers, that any new requirements bring a minimum of paperwork and recording.

Brenda stated that, “The number one statement I heard from our members when discussing this hearing is that they will eventually require ALL farmers to have a nutrient management plan.”  “Many of our members are small family owned and operated farms,” she said.  “These individuals are concerned that some believe all farmers should be required to develop and implement a nutrient management plan.  Because so many of our members recognized the importance of this issue, we felt compelled to state our [PA State Grange] policy and emphasize our opposition on mandatory nutrient management plans.”

Continuing, she said, “The Grange is concerned about the minimum property setback requirements for new manure storage facilities or expansions covered in 91.36(a)(7) of the proposed CAFO regulations.”  She explained that, “The term ‘relevant criteria’ is used in the proposed regulations, which is too open-ended and vague.”   “A similar problem occurs in section 91.36(b)(2),” she continued, “where the Department of Environmental Protection is given the authority to require setbacks for spreading of manure around streams.”  “While we approve of a required setback from streams,” she said, “we believe that the setback should be pre-determined at 100 feet or a vegetated buffer at 35 feet.”  She recommended that these sections of the regulations be more specific and not left to the interpretation of the Department of Environmental Protection employees.

“We strongly oppose the section 83.351 of the Nutrient Management Regulations,” which prohibits the Commission or delegated conservation district from waiving manure storage distance restrictions relating to property line setbacks.”  She said that, “While that authority would be taken away from the Conservation Districts, a neighboring landowner within the property line setback area may waive the distance restrictions.”  She explained that, “It seems that we are taking a sound science approach toward waiving the setback requirements and turning it into an emotional decision based on whether or not the neighbor approves.”   She reiterated, “We strongly oppose this section of the regulations.”

Mrs. Shambaugh then referred to section 83.294, saying, “The proposed nutrient management regulations require a one hundred foot setback from active and inactive wells.”  She stated that, “The Grange believes that this requirement should be amended. If a well is inactive, we do not believe that the same setback should be required as active wells.”  She recommended, “Perhaps a compromise would be a 35 foot setback for inactive wells.”

In reference to manure spreading, she said, “The Grange agrees that setbacks should depend on several factors including the slope and contour of the land, the season, and the cultivation practices used on the land.”  But she went on to say, “The bottom line is that setbacks cost farmers money.  They should be regulated as sparingly as possible.” 

She explained that, “Every time a farmer is told that he cannot farm his land, it means less money in his pocket.”  “We [the Grange] accept a 35 foot buffer and 100 foot setback as I stated earlier, but we also believe that those amounts should be considered as maximum amounts and should not be left to interpretation.”

Her final remarks dealt with farmers who import manure.  “Under the proposed nutrient management regulations, nutrient management plans or nutrient balance sheets will be required for these farmers,” she said.  “The Grange is concerned about the negative affect this proposal will have on infrequent importers.”  She told the Board and Commission, “These folks will help out a neighboring farmer on limited occasions.  They should not have to obtain a nutrient management plan or go through the time consuming paperwork involved in spreading imported manure.”  She closed by saying, “We believe that there should be a threshold under which a farmer can import manure and not be covered under these regulations.”

The Grange is a family fraternal organization dedicated to the betterment of rural America through community service, education, legislation and fellowship.  The Grange represents approximately 20,000 rural Pennsylvanians across the state.  It is the oldest agricultural organization of its kind in the United States. The National Grange (Patrons of Husbandry) began in 1867 and the PA State Grange was chartered in 1873.