Wrong approach, worst time: Rule revisions would make dairy farmers scapegoats

By John Holevoet
DBA director of government affairs

The state’s decision to reopen certain administrative rules that have a major impact on dairy farms would create a once-in-a-generation challenge for the Dairy Business Association and the entire dairy community.

This concerted effort at rule revisions, which would cost farmers millions of dollars, is coming at the worst possible time.

Every member of our association knows that the dairy economy has been challenging. Low milk prices have squeezed or eliminated profit margins at farms. Robust global milk supplies mean that devastatingly low prices are here to stay for maybe another year.

Even during a period of good prices, our state has consistently seen the number of dairy farms decline. The steady trickle of farm sales and retirements has grown, and sustained low prices could turn the trickle into a flood.

This is no time for expensive amendments to administrative rules. Yet, we know the Department of Trade, Agriculture and Consumer Protection has announced its desire to amend ATCP 51, the livestock siting rule. The agency’s work on those revisions is ongoing.

Last week, the other shoe dropped. After months of signaling that changes might be in the works, the Department of Natural Resources sent two scope statements that would reopen NR 151 (runoff management rule) and NR 243 (the CAFO rule) to the governor’s office.

When whispers regarding the rule changes first began, agriculture stakeholders, including DBA, were assured that the changes proposed would be highly targeted. However, now that we have gotten a look at the draft scope statements, we see an expansive rewrite of both rules is being sought. The department estimated that 6,000 staff hours would be needed to complete the revisions. The scope statement for NR 243 barely contains a single specific change that will be made; instead it is just a list of broad topics with little indication of the agency’s ultimate direction.

The NR 151 scope statement is similarly vague. The changes to that rule are meant to apply in so-called “sensitive areas,” but the reader is left wondering how those areas will be defined. Based on the scope statement alone, the end result could be new rules that apply to portions of a couple of counties or to half of the state.

It is not just economics that makes these proposed changes poorly timed. A newly released audit of the DNR’s WPDES permitting program, which includes CAFO permitting, has pointed out deficiencies within the program. While most of the issues relate to staffing and other issues at DNR, not actual problems on farms, the reporting about the audit is just the latest in a series of media events that have presented an unfairly negative view of dairy farming.

The reason given by DNR for reopening these rules is concerns over water quality. Farmers do not take this issue lightly. Around our state, many farmers are engaging in thoughtful practices to reduce their environmental footprint.

The dairy community knows it has a stake in this effort and we are more than willing to do are part. However, we will not accept being the scapegoats for what is a complex problem with many causes.

Piling new regulations on a small number of already regulated farms cannot be the solution. To have a chance of actually addressing this problem, we will have to look well beyond the rule changes the state wants.

John Holevoet: jholevoet@widba.com; (608) 358-394