Today's award goes to the US Environmental Protection Agency.
Having watched the oil gushing in the Gulf of Mexico, dairy farmer Frank Konkel has a hard time seeing how spilled milk can be labeled the same kind of environmental hazard.
But the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is classifying milk as oil because it contains a percentage of animal fat, which is a non-petroleum oil.
The Hesperia farmer and others would be required to develop and implement spill prevention plans for milk storage tanks. The rules are set to take effect in November, though that date might be pushed back.
. . .
Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, [called] for the EPA to rescind its ruling.
"The federal Clean Water Act requirements were meant to protect the environment from petroleum-based oils, not milk," he said. "I think it is an example of federal government gone amuck."
But Gayle Miller, legislative director of Sierra Club Michigan Chapter, said agricultural pollution probably is the nation's most severe chronic problem when it comes to water pollution.
"Milk is wholesome in a child's body. It is devastating in a waterway," Miller said. "The fact that it's biodegradable is irrelevant if people die as a result of cryptosporidium, beaches close for E. coli and fish are killed."
. . .
In May, U.S. Rep. Candice Miller, R-Mount Clemens, introduced legislation, co-sponsored by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Holland, that prohibits enforcement of the EPA's regulations on dairy and dairy product producers, processors, handlers and distributors.
"This is an example of where we have overreach by the department that defies common sense," said Matt Smego, legislative counsel for Michigan Farm Bureau.
Smego said its an unnecessary regulatory burden that creates additional costs. He said it could cost $2,500 for a certified engineer to safeguard milk, plus more to construct secondary containment structures.
. . .
This month the International Dairy Foods Association said it has learned the EPA will exempt the industry from the rule.
But [Michigan] state lawmakers say they won't let up until that is official.
There's more at the link. Bold print is my emphasis.
Ye Gods and little fishes! Milk classified as the equivalent of petroleum??? What's next? Will eggs be classified as biological weapons? (Well, old, rotten eggs may fit the definition, I guess . . . )
Peter
Peter
5 comments:
The folks at the Watts Up With That blog have a good point - large milk spills are bad for streams, because of the anaerobic decomposition. No, milk is not the same as crude oil or heavy fuels, but in very large quantities it can be dangerous to fish and other critters.
And no, sorry Ms Sierra Club, crypto is not found in milk and neither is E. coli unless said milk has been contaminated with cow flops.
LittleRed1
The question I have is, how often is there a meaningful milk spill?
In any case, someone needs a meaningful slap in the head for even proposing such lunacy. Can you imagine the bill if dairy farmers had to put in secondary containment for a nation's worth of milk hoppers?
Jim
The only way to stop this nonsense is for personal accountability to be applied and enforced.
Beurocrats are at present unaccountable for the stupid costly ideas they propound. This idea came from someone who should be identified, exposed, and then fired.
This may put a chill on others who may want to abuse their position with this type of nonsense.
Paul in Texas
It could only be a government agency that spent considerable time and money crying over spilled milk.
Antibubba
LittleRed- no, but there's plenty of cowflop contamination in streams already, and while I'm not as sure about crypto, E. coli can and will happily eat lactose, which most things you can find in a stream can't.
Overabundant food source that only a few beasties can eat = great big honking bloom of whatever those beasties are.
Equivalent to petroleum? Hell no. Could cause all sorts of problems you don't want to have? Sure.
Post a Comment