By COOKSON BEECHER Capital Press Staff Writer,The Capital Press , 9/9/99
|
OLYMPIA - When Ecology slapped a Longview beef raiser with a $10,000 fine last week for allowing animal waste to pollute waterways leading to the Columbia River, the state's cattle industry heard a warning shot coming its way. Whereas the state's new dairy legislation requires all dairy farms to be inspected to make sure they're complying with water-quality standards, it has not yet put other livestock operations into its regulatory sights. But most ranchers know the day is coming. Peter Van Grisven of Longview certainly knows that now that he's been fined for allowing his 12-acre livestock farm to discharge animal waste into a wetland and a slough that drains into the Columbia River. According to Department of Ecology records, a June inspection of the farm found fecal-coliform bacteria levels at 19,000 parts per 100 milliliters of water in the slough, compared to 69 parts per 100 milliliter upstream of the farm. The maximum safe level is 100 parts per 100 milliliter of water. Fecal coliform bacteria is an indicator of poor water quality. It poses a threat to human health and is also harmful to aquatic life, including endangered species of fish such as salmon. At the time of the inspection, Van Grisven was raising approximately 50 beef cattle, 10 pigs and one donkey on the farm. He also had 13 Pomeranian dogs at the site. Ecology stepped in when Cowlitz County lodged a complaint based on complaints received from citizens. The county had no way to enforce compliance with clean-water standards so turned the matter over to Ecology. This is not the first time Ecology had tangled with Van Grisven. Sandy Howard, Ecology spokesperson, said the agency's history with him goes back to April 1993, when Ecology went out to his farm, which then was a commercial nursery as well as a 200-pig operation. Like the recent visits, Ecology's previous visits were triggered by citizen complaints. Back then, Ecology referred Van Grisven to his local Conservation District for help in drawing up a farm plan. The conservation district did help him develop one, but nothing happened. In November 1995, Ecology began working on enforcement action. In Jan. 1996, it issued an administrative order that required Van Grisven to implement the farm plan by August 31 and to stop all actions that were leading to a discharge of manure into the waterways. But still nothing happened. Van Grisven failed to comply, and Ecology failed to follow up on its administrative order. But this time when Ecology visited the farm and found such huge fecal coliform readings, it put some teeth into its previous actions and fined Van Grisven $10,000. He has 30 days to appeal the penalty and order to the state Pollution Control Hearings Board. Van Grisven could not be reached for comment. When asked why Ecology had failed to back up its original enforcement action, Howard explained that there are only so many staff members and therefore many non-dairy livestock operations and hobby farms often fall through the cracks - as do heifer-raising operations since they are not included in the state's new dairy law. "We have no law that requires us to be out at those sites," she said. But with growing public awareness about the relationship between livestock operations and water pollution, more citizen complaints can be expected. And it's those complaints that Ecology responds to. "I imagine there will be more of this happening," Howard said, referring to the recent enforcement action. Eric Schlorff, water quality specialist for Ecology, said he ran into a wall of resistance - primarily from cattle ranchers - when he carried out a 15-month project that focused on non-dairy livestock operations in the Upper Chehalis watershed. "Clearly there are a lot of sections of creeks in this part of the watershed that don't meet standards," he said. "The problem is not all dairy." He said the prevailing attitude he ran into when he talked with beef raisers was: "I can do what I want with my own property.: Even when he told livestock owners there was cost-share funding available for fencing and other pollution-control equipment, he found few takers. "I had a hard time convincing people there was a problem," he said. But he is quick to point out that the National Marine Fisheries Service is exceedingly concerned about riparian areas, and that anyone running livestock on waterways can expect to see stricter regulations. Geneal Fox, who with her husband Del, raises cattle in Snohomish County and operates Del Fox Custom Meats, said ranchers statewide know that the writing is on the wall. "You bet we do," she said. "We know beef raisers will be next - if not now, soon. We talk about it a lot." She said the Cattlemen's Association is trying to be proactive and that some ranchers have already started fencing animals away from waterways. "My own personal opinion is that we better cooperate or we'll wish we had," she said. "If the people who are polluting don't work on this voluntarily, it will be worse for them - and worse for all of us in the long run." |
Upper Chehalis livestock study Eric Schlorff, water-quality specialist for the Department of Ecology, spent 15 months on a project in the Upper Chehalis watershed that sought answers to questions about potential and actual non-dairy livestock water-pollution problems. During that time, he met with cattle ranchers and other livestock owners, visited ranches, or visually assessed the agricultural practices on land in the watershed. He put the information he gathered into a data base and computer mapped where the livestock operations were. He marked each of them according to how many animal units - one animal unit equaling 1,000 pounds - were involved. That way when water-pollution problems arise, Ecology can see what kind of livestock operations there are on a particular segment of a stream or the river. Here's what he found on the sites he was able to review: øThere were about 9,000 animal units on the 78 farms he visited or visually assessed. The total acreage involved was 7,800 acres. øThere was a high potential for contamination involving 3,000 animal units on 36 farms. øThere was a medium potential for contamination involving 2,800 animal units on 18 farms. øThere is a low potential for contamination involving 2,600 animal units on 19 farms. øThe number of animal units with access to creeks was 2,800 on 45 farms. øThe number of animal units with access to seasonal creeks was 1,300. øThe number of animal nits with sloughs, wetlands and ponds was 3,000. He said most horse farms kept the horses away from waterways with electric tape. |
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council