Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Citizen, 2003-04-16, Page 9THE CITIZEN, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 16, 2003. PAGE 9. Many questions remain for farmers with Bill 81 By Bonnie Gropp Citizen editor What became apparent during the almost two-hour panel discussion at a nutrient management information meeting in Seaforth, April 9 was that while great strides have been taken since the initial document was first presented by the province, many answers are still not clear. Agricultural leaders who have been working with the government on the nutrient management legislation brought their perspective to farmers at an information night in Seaforth Community Centre, April 9. Some 75 interested people were present to hear the latest on Bill 81 then had the opportunity to present input and ask questions. And several times the comment was made by the panel that the answers were “opinion, not definitive.” John FitzGibbon, chair of the Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition (OFEC) said, “There are a lot of questions unanswered, but we’re trying to give the answers we can.” The first speaker of the night was Dave Armitage of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) research department. He provided some background on the legislation going back 10 years to when the OFA through OFEC were approached by a number of municipal councils concerned about how to deal with the large livestock operations. The result was a nutrient management strategy which contained a plan as well as a model bylaw. What happened was that once circulated the bylaw was not adopted in its entirety. “It was an inconsistent approach to nutrient management.” The impact of the Walkerton water tragedy brought in the provincial government. With agriculture seen as a contributor to the contamination, OMAF began working unilaterally on the nutrient management act (NMA), resulting in long delays in finalizing the legislation, said Armitage. After stage two of the draft legislation was presented, there were many concerns from the agricultural community. The Ministry went back to the table and presented a condensed stage two “It was a sign the government was listening, something we were grateful for.” A new direction was taken and on March 21 the Minister’s nutrient management advisory committee was established. Panelist Chris Attena, a water quality Ontario Ontario Ontario represent the livestock operators’ viewpoint said, “The one comment I do want to make is that the challenge here today is to forget everything you heard about the nutrient management plan prior to March 21. The old regulation has been killed, cut and quartered.” Attena said the province has made significant changes, but what his groups are concerned with are that they be science-based, rational and affordable. One of the big changes has been the phasing-in of operations, with all new and expanding livestock operations to or within category 4 (over 300 nutrient units) being compliant by July 2003, existing category 4 by 2005 and 2008 at earliest for other categories. specialist, hired by the Cattlemen’s Association, Pork Producers and the Sheep Producers to A nutrient unit is the number of animals housed or pastured at one time that will provide fertility for one acre of crop. “This is a new direction. The compliance regulation is tied to the nutrient management plan phase-in schedule. It was something we asked for that has been acted on.” By the time each category is expected to be phased-in provincial funding should be available to assist operators with the changes. Interestingly, while the original regulations would have seen many small operations go out of business with the need to comply this year, the changes have also raised many questions and concerns. Until compliant, operators would be governed by the municipal bylaw rather than the NMA. However, some municipalities do not require NM plans for anything other than new or expanding operations. Conversely, some bylaws have greater restrictions than provincial act. Attena said, “What we are going to end up with is a patchwork, the downside of consistency and predictability.” When the question was posed that if an operator with under 300 NU’s decided to do a plan before 2008 the ‘Might we see smaller ones doing things the larger ones are restricted from?’farmer questions would fall under the municipal jurisdiction the answer was yes. Ron Bennett, of Howick asked, “Might we see smaller ones doing things the larger ones are restricted from.” The answer was a definite yes. There were many questions regarding funding. Regarding early compliance, Attena said he feels there should be something for voluntary phase-in. “But you can understand the dilemma that creates. You are saying you want the funding but want to come in quicker.” One attendee noted that many don’t need the funds because they are “already there”. FitzGibbon said, “The Minister is quite keen. I’m confident something will be worked out.” However, he added when questioned that none of the groups had been apprised of the funding approach at this time. One thing FitzGibbon was clear on was that there would not be any funding for things already required under municipal bylaw. “Some people have already done this without funding. This is in the name of equity.” Money is also a reason for the phasing-in said FitzGibbon. “If phased-in a short period of time, the impact on construction would result in inflation. Spread out the average cost, it should be more stable. However, the province is also concerned about demands on the public purse.” Attena said there is also no agreement on what the standards will be. “If we get the standards where they need to be our feeling is we don’t need much funding. The only win for agriculture is to get the standards reasonable.” Ben Van Diepenbeek of Ashfield wondered how an operator with multiple adjacent or nearby ‘small’ farms would be classified. Attena said it would be up to the farmer as to whether they would declare their operation as one farm unit or more. “There is clearly have the the be a more will be flexibility in how you declare your farm unit. FitzGibbon cautioned, however, to think carefully before deciding. “As a single you could be over 300 NU.” Van Diepenbeek also stated his feeling that if a person with a category one or two farm wants to be involved earlier than 2008 there should be funding available. “That would be a way to encourage voluntary compliance,” agreed Armitage. “The province needs to come up with some kind of strategy on this.” A young man in the audience said he was concerned because he would be taking over a large family operation and wondered if he could afford the changes. “The Minister is aware of the succession program. The government doesn’t want nutrient management to be a barrier to taking over a farm. I believe there will be specialized programs to deal with new farmers rather than new farms,” said FitzGibbon. The panel also explained the process for responding to complaints. The initial contact would be with OMAF. “They will seek a non-confrontational way to solve it,” said FitzGibbon. Should this not happen, OMAF would contact the Ministry of the Environment. “Farmers still protection of courts, but enforcement will much progressive order at this point.” In the end there prosecution if no other solution can be found. Armitage spoke of a local advisory committee. “It would be essential for mediation of complaints. We feel there’s value. There is one in Huron which has worked well and we would like to see a real commitment from OMAF on this.” Bob Hallam of West Wawanosh, however, wondered if with a provincial advisory committee, comprised of farmers, municipal representatives, environmental scientists and others, the local group would be little more than puppets. As many of the complaints are nuisance, Armitage said these would be handled by the local group. “That’s where we see the local advisory group active. I have heard nothing but good things about the local committee model.” Concern was also expressed by several about the required inspection for manure storage. FitzGibbon said that unless the storage was in protected areas, the first technical inspection, he believed, would be done by the farmer with a checklist. An engineer need only be contacted if there’s a problem. Attena concurred, adding however, that “it’s a clearly contentious issue from our perspective. We don’t think an engineer’s inspection is practical.” “We believe if the storage facility is put into the building codes and the farmer signs off that it’s adequate, then it’s adequate. If the government doesn’t agree then they can hue their own engineer.” The matter would be discussed at the advisory committee level, the group was told. Covers for dry manure storage will not be required. “The coffee shop talk of concrete bunkers with roofs simply is not true.” Asked how many farms are near municipal wells, FitzGibbon said no one knows. “(The province?) wants to protect wells based on the time and travel idea. If you look at much of Europe for agriculture the distance impacts are 50-90 days. The Ministry wanted two years. We can see that for toxic compounds, but if the threat is bacteria 50 days is all that’s needed.” Farmers were also upset about the vegetative buffers from water sources, as it means a loss of agricultural land. “If the municipality wants you to farm, you should be paid for environmental services you provide. You’re not just producing timothy, you’re producing clean water. This is an income-based activity,” said FitzGibbon. Peter Johnston, a crop specialist with OMAF reminded however that the issue isn’t just bacteria. “It’s nitrates in the groundwater. They have a bigger catcher zone than 50- 90 days. Nutrient management should deal with the nitrate problem. Nitrate can be partially linked to agriculture. Agriculture has to take some of the blame.” Bennett commented, ’’We’re talking about a product that in most cases is not worth the value to haul it. Whatever we do is value to society. I just want you to think about that.” Other concerns were raised about storage times, spreading, transportation and insurance. Regarding the latter, FitzGibbon said J Wedding. CLnttc-itticement j| 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 11 TRICK - HADERLEIN Karen Jean Trick and Henry Heinrich Haderlein were united in marriage on Saturday, Sept. 14. Karen is the daughter of Bob and Sylvia Trick of RR1 Londesboro. Henry is the son of Ulla Haderlein of Kitchener and Henry Haderlein of Stratford. The ceremony took place at 3 p.m. at the Londesboro United Church with Rev.' Paul Ross officiating. The maid of honour was Cindy Gibbings, friend of the bride. The bridesmaids were Barb Svab and Carla Oliveira, friends of the bride. Stephanie Sanderson, cousin of the bride was a junior bridesmaid. Mike Wikholm, friend of the bride was Bachelor of Honour. The best man was Jeff Yantzi, friend of the groom. Groomsmen were Trevor Goforth, Dennis Yantzi, friends of the groom and Ron Haderlein brother of the groom. The ringbearer was Tyler Wieringa, nephew of the groom. A reading was delivered by f4ike Wikholm friend of the bride. The soloist was John DeJager and the organist was Barb Bosman, both friends of the bride. Dinner and reception were held at the White Carnation in Holmesville. Following a honeymoon in Banff, Alberta, Karen and Henry are now residing in Kitchener. that with compliance insurance rates should be significantly less. “The Minister has said this is as much for your protection as the environment’s. This knife has two edges and both are sharp.” And when will the uncertainty end? FitzGibbon said they had hoped to see the final regulation by last week or this week. “We are going to these meetings and a lot of what we’re saying is our best knowledge. In terms of uncertainty/ there are probably going to be five years of uncertainty. “ Bennett closed the discussion with commendations to the panel. “They have worked long and hard to get us where we are from where we started. I give them my total gratitude.” Cali 1-866-734-9425 or visit www.medicalert.ca ® Medic Alert Lets You Live Life.