Farmers Critical of Nonpoint Rules

The following article first appeared in The Country Today (March 2000), Wisconsin’s largest paid-circulation farm newspaper, and is reproduced here with permission.

Farmers Critical of Nonpoint Rules

By Judy Brown, Regional Editor

FOND DU LAC — Some nonpoint source pollution rules proposed for Wisconsin are as muddy as the water they’re intended to clean up, several producers said March 16 at a hearing conducted by the Department of Natural Resources.

Dozens of farmers, local town officials, land conservation department officials, crop consultants and others weighed in on many aspects of a big package of rules designed to set performance standards to improve water quality.

A handful of county highway commissioners also testified they were discontented with the nonpoint rules.

Speaking for the Department of Transportation, Dan Scutter, Madison, said DOT would send DNR an entirely rewritten subchapter on the rules.

He said the costs for implementing various proposals would be substantial at the state level and when local and county costs are added “it may be staggering,” he said.

Since the rules are nowhere near ready for implementing, the DOT official suggested they be turned back to the nonpoint advisory council.

Although the redesign of nonpoint source pollution rules has been a work in progress for the past three or four years, many testified that the rules were vague and confusing.

Others said they understood very clearly the rules and indicated that if allowed to stand, they’ll consider career changes.

“If we have to stop growing corn silage for our cows, you are going to put us out of business,” said Green Lake County dairy farmer Rodney Zeitlow, Berlin.

He, like many others, contended that a provision under N.R. 151 limiting soil loss from riparian fields to 0.33 or less of the T (tolerable) rate has to be changed.

“I think the rules as they are written are quite restrictive,” Mr. Zeitlow said.

Bernard Halbur, Fond du Lac, also said the 0.33 soil loss standard was unacceptable.

“To get down to that level I think some concessions have to be made,” Mr. Halbur said. “It will actually squeeze some producers out of business.”

Through March, DNR and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection will hold hearings to receive comments on proposed administrative rules to control nonpoint source pollution in both urban and agricultural areas.

Four new rules have been proposed along with three revised rule packages.

With such sweeping rules planned, other farmers brought up DNR’s track record in managing the state’s deer herd and wondered about the Canada geese that contribute to water quality problems.

Saying she rents land from DNR, Sheila Hafeman, St. Cloud, told the agency officials, “Your record is terrible. I don’t believe you should be controlling us as a dairy farmer.”

In an interview, Mrs. Hafeman, who has a 42-cow herd, told of several concerns in the proposals.

Even though there would be cost-sharing dollars for practices, she questioned how many producers could come up with $30,000 for manure storage.

She also is troubled knowing that in the past producers installed cost-shared practices, such as manure storage tanks and contour strips, to be in compliance but find that the systems have to be updated.

If new stringent rules are to prevail, Mrs. Hafeman said they should apply to all, including urban residents, loggers and fish hatcheries.

Others wanted to know whether there would be tax breaks if formerly farmed land close to streams were turned into buffers.

“We’re of the opinion that land should be valued as to what it’s used for,” said Russell Rasmussen, runoff management section chief in the DNR Bureau of Watershed Management.

He said DNR was working with the Department of Revenue to make its point on the value of taking land out of production.

Based on comments received at this and previous hearings, Mr. Rasmussen said DNR would look at one issue that requires incorporating manure because it’s sending mixed messages.

“We can’t expect to incorporate manure and do no-till at the same time,” Mr. Rasmussen said.

Several farmers noted that many small farms with 50 to 60 cows haul manure daily.

“With one load of manure it’s not practical to incorporate every day,” said Harold Schoessow of Mequon in Ozaukee County.

Having spent parts of several days reading the proposed rules, Wilmer Geiser, chairman of the town of Charleston in Calumet County, said the proposals create more questions than solve problems.

In a wide-ranging statement, Mr. Geiser shared many of the same concerns as others regarding cost-sharing, time allowed to inject manure and wildlife damage sustained by farmers.

“Three days to incorporate eliminates daily spreading,” Mr. Geiser said. He also questioned the need to keep a log on the amount of manure spread and the day.

“We don’t have secretaries,” Mr. Geiser said. “We can’t be working that way.”

Other crop consultants who are active in writing nutrient management plans questioned the need for detailed paperwork.

“Your records will become a public record,” said Brian Madigan of Rosendale. Town and village people who respond to complaints about farm odors no doubt will access the manure records, he said.