by: Jimie Demonte
The policy issue that I have become increasingly interested in and am writing my term paper on concerns non-point source pollution sources and how they affect our waterways. The current issue is very complicated, but the main issue is that we have not solved the full issue of non-point source pollution. According to the Clean Water Act “Diffuse pollution sources (i.e., without a single point of origin or not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet)”. So even if we may think we know where a pollutant comes from, such as storm water run-off into streams, there is not a policy we can make about it because it is not coming out of a pipe. My problem with this issue is that there most likely are ways to solve this problem, or ways that the government or the EPA can provide incentives to the general public. I’m thinking monetary rewards/ incentives every time the waterway in a county is tested and there are less traces of motor oil or soap from washing your car on the street, etc. And – what about the non-point sources of pollution from agricultural run-off? This is a problem since farms or CAFO’s (concentrated animal feeding operations) need to be a certain size before they must attain a permit. So where is the incentive for small local farms to obtain a permit, unless they are very environmentally inclined, even so- permits are expensive!! So where is the incentive? Again, I’m thinking we could give monetary incentive to use organic fertilizers or minimize herbicide use, or even incentive to buy a permit, by rewarding small farms in a rivers drainage area when there is a decreased amount of pollution from year to year. This problem is a difficult one to institute, and the monetary incentives need to come from somewhere, but I know that pollution mitigation and pollution testing is very expensive and if the EPA saved more money because they didn’t have to mitigate the issue, that money could go directly to residents or farm owners.
8 comments:
WE PAY FOR THE EPA. I'm not subsidizing CAFO's! I don't want my tax dollars going to some middle-school-esque incentive structure where polluters with good grades get my money! NO WAY!
This does not have to be funded by the EPA in entirety. There are many non-profit organizations, especially in the Boulder area devoted to testing waters and cleaning where cleaning is needed. The cost of clean up i'm sure is way MORE expensive than the small reward we will give people that don't pollute. The cost for cleaning the environment is coming from your tax dollars already...
I feel like the "non point" sources of pollution such as large farms and large feedlots are becoming increasingly more "point source" in the sense these farms are large agricultural businesses. There aren't tons of small farms who give off small amounts of pollution anymore. If the government can regulate how much pollution a firm gives out, i feel like they can regulate the fertilizer and waste management of these large farms.
I feel like this is just another example of how big companies with lobbyist get their way and can just stay insulated from laws. Everyone knows that big agricultural companies and CAFOs emit tons of pollutants but the government lets their hand be tied by their constituents.
I saw this up close in Costa Rica when feedlot waste was being directly put into the streams. It was brown, smelly, and unregulated. The government will always see the meat/agricultural production more important than the waste each produces. Unless a whole new way of thinking evolves and clean water becomes more of a priority then unhealthy high yield production, a policy will not be effective
I agree with Courtney and believe that the large farms should be targeted with "point source" pollution. I believe it should be mandatory for large farms to build canals and other structures that would capture and treat the run off to a certain degree before it pollutes down stream.
CAFOs are actually already defined by the EPA as point source pollution.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7
However, as Jimie said, they are only required to obtain permits if the farm meets a certain size requirement. Smaller farms such as those located near the Chesapeake Bay can be considered non-point source polluters. If monetary incentives are not agreeable, then monetary punishment must be implemented. Stricter monetary fines on the confined animal feeding operations will force these farms to deal with manure and waste instead of leaving it for people downstream to deal with. However, remember there are several non-point sources that must be addressed in addition to CAFOs.
I think it is extremely important to look at non-point sources when conserving and protecting our planet. It is especially important, and becoming easier to identify these non-point sources. I think it is great that the EPA is trying to regulate these sources when looking at nutrient enrichment and eutrophication in major water sources!
Post a Comment