Research on air quality in Maricopa

463

inmaricopa.com runs, on a regular basis, opinion pieces submitted by community members. The following article is the opinion of the author, and does not necessarily reflect the views of inmaricopa.com.

Public concerns about the environmental effects of air emissions from livestock operations have grown as the population continues to move into what has been largely a rural farming area. Increasingly, there is a growing public awareness of the health and nuisance impacts caused by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) with significant concern not only to new residents but also to many long-time residents. Conflicts over resource use are bound to arise with competing interests and density of growth.

Ask almost any Arizona native about the five C’s, and you’ll most likely hear a recitation of “copper, cattle, cotton, citrus, and climate” as the traditional components of the state’s economy. For several decades, agriculture has flourished in the western half of Pinal County on the broad, flat alluvial plains associated with the Gila and Santa Cruz river basins. Cattle, cotton, and climate has retained an important role in defining western Pinal County’s character and heritage.

PRECEDENT GROWTH

The emergence of prosperous ranches and booming livestock businesses in the late 1950s propelled Pinal County’s economic growth. Because many of the feedlot operations in Phoenix were being crowded by residential development, flooding by the Salt River, and by an egregious situation (Spur v. Del Webb), Pinal County offered tremendous opportunities for CAFOs to relocate. One such move, Spur Industry, enabled a new interpretation of ownership rights.

Briefly, the story goes that Spur Industry feedlot, some 14 to 15 miles west of the urban area of Phoenix and about one-half mile south of Olive Avenue, had become a public nuisance. The question became: should Spur be exonerated from being a public nuisance because Del Webb “came to the nuisance.” In the so-called “coming to the nuisance” cases, the courts have held that the residential landowner may not have relief if they knowingly came into a neighborhood reserved for industrial or agricultural endeavors.

Del Webb, on the other hand, insisted it was entitled to relief from the nuisance, not because Del Webb was blameless, but because of damage to the people who had been encouraged to purchase homes in Webb’s Sun City development. Because Del Webb had taken advantage of the lesser land values in a rural area as well as the availability of large tracts of land on which to build a new city in the area, the trial court opined that Del Webb must indemnify Spur, who was being forced to relocate. The Arizona Supreme Court agreed.

Although the terms of the settlement were not made public, they involved Spur moving the feedlot to a new location, with payment of undisclosed amount by Del Webb to Spur. A lawsuit by the residents was settled, after Del Webb’s suit against Spur, with payments of undisclosed sums to the individual residents.

CURRENT GROWTH

Based on information provided by the Arizona Department of Agriculture, there are 31 dairies and seven feedlots in Pinal County. Based on empirical observation, those feedlot facilities can be grouped into four complexes: the “Cowtown” complex, between the cities of Maricopa and Casa Grande; the Red River complex, west of Stanfield; the Benedict spread, east of Stanfield; and the Red Rock feedlot, south of Picacho Peak.

The problem that livestock operations create is the classic problem in economics of the conflict over property rights. Modern livestock facilities place demands on rural resources such as air and water, intensifying the competition for these amenities even more.

In the last decade, rapid residential growth has spilled into many of the agricultural areas in Pinal County. That growth has been most dramatic in two areas: Johnson Ranch/San Tan and in Maricopa. Accordingly, a meaningful population is exposed to the elevated PM10 levels caused by the CAFOs.

CURRENT CHALLENGE

The challenge for policy makers is how to reconcile the differences over environmental issues such as air quality, water pollution, water usage, odor, sight pollution, light pollution and traffic and how these are distributed between CAFOs and their neighborhoods. Dealing with livestock facilities with their environmental and community impacts is not new to Pinal County. The County already has standards that regulate PM10 emissions from feedlots.

The current Pinal County Air Quality Control District Code of Regulations §4-2-040.H provides that “no person shall operate, maintain, use or permit the use of any commercial feedlot or commercial livestock area for purposes of feeding or displaying animals, or engage in other activity such as racing and exercising, without taking reasonable precautions to effectively prevent fugitive dust from becoming airborne.” Arizona Revised Statute §49-479 requires that Pinal County rules contain standards at least equal to or more restrictive than those adopted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality for Best Management Practice.

However, in comments specifically directed to Pinal County Code §4-2-040, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently opined that “reasonable precaution” rules fail to establish a meaningfully enforceable standard.

Prompted by legislation, especially the Clean Air Act, as well as by public concerns, the EPA is considering what information is needed to define and support feasible regulation of PM10 air emissions from CAFOs. The prevailing county PM10 benchmark sets a limit of 150 micrograms per-cubic-meter, assessed on the basis of a 24-hour average concentration. The criterion allows for three permissible “exceedances” in three years, and the fourth exceedance constitutes a violation of the standard.

At the same time, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is using its authority to modify agricultural practices to mitigate the effects of air emissions. Acting jointly with these agencies is the Arizona Cattleman’s Association that lobbies and evaluates the scientific information, technology and infrastructure needed to address these issues.

PINAL COUNTY ACTION

Due to certain inadequacies of existing rules, the Pinal County Air Quality Control District is currently proposing that the Pinal County Board of Supervisors adopt or amend certain rules under authority of Arizona Revised Statute §49-112 and 49-479, which authorizes the Board to adopt rules to control air pollution.

To protect public health, to comply with the prevailing ambient air quality standards, and to address Pinal County’s characterization as a pollution hot spot, the situation calls for specific, measurable, action-oriented, realistic, and time-sensitive action.

Pinal County is proposing to adopt a set of PM10 emission rules for beef cattle feedlots, as follows:

1. An objective moisture-content standard for the manure pack in cattle pens will reduce emissions from cattle movement and wind-action;
2. An objective opacity standard for fugitive emissions from within cattle pens will allow ready confirmation of the adequacy of dust suppression measures in the pens;
3. An objective silt-loading and silt-content standard for roadways will implicitly require measures to stabilize the surface and thereby reduce emissions from traffic;
4. An objective opacity standard will allow ready confirmation that control measures, in the aggregate, are sufficient to achieve meaningful reduction in PM10 emissions from entrained dusts;
5. Devise a self-assessment requirement to assure that the owner and/or operator regularly does a self-compliance assessment with respect to the other objective measures.
6. A corresponding recordkeeping requirement will provide a ready means for demonstrating compliance with the foregoing requirements

The proposed rules do not impose new fees or affect existing fees, but are subject to penalties if violated as stated in A.R.S. Title 49, Chapter 3, Article 3, A.R.S. §49-471 et seq.

MARICOPA CITY COUNCIL ACTION

Although the “Cowtown” complex was once relatively isolated, that isolation no longer exists. Since the city of Maricopa annexed a number of areas, including the “Cowtown” feedlot complex as well as the adjoining Pinal County PM10 monitor site, the city became a stakeholder in air quality and emissions. A subdivision is located just west of the “Cowtown” complex and the potential for future “big-box” stores are located just northwest of the feedlot, where Wal-Mart is scheduled to open this month.

In February 2007, there was discussion and reports concerning the near purchase (at $59,000 an acre) by the city of Maricopa from the land holders, El Dorado Holdings. This deal would have included Pinal Feeding with related businesses along state Route 238 (Casa Grande Highway), Pinal Feeding would have had to move their cattle to Stanfield (two sites) in that deal, which also included a biogas facility intended to diminish the odor problems. The arrangement fell through within the former Maricopa City Council.

This same council did, however, initially move forward on a purchase of 115 acres of feedlot land controlled by El Dorado Holdings to use as an economic development site. Just days later, at a Feb. 27 2007 special meeting, El Dorado Holdings withdrew its offer to the city after the media revealed a publicly undisclosed external business relationship between the city’s senior economic development consultant and El Dorado Holdings.

The land continues to exist today as part of the Pinal Feeding Company, but El Dorado Holdings leased the land back to Pinal Feeding Company shortly after the deal with the city fell through. The land is also said to be a future site for the so-called Eagle Wing Industrial complex.

FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS

From a general perspective, these questions now arise:

• Can feedlots serve both their communities and their supply chains at the same time?
• Are both objectives mutually exclusive?
• Where the operation of a business, such as a lawful CAFO, becomes a nuisance by reason of a nearby residential area, should the feedlot operation be forced to move by an action brought on by a developer of a residential area?
• Assuming that a “nuisance” exists, should the developer of a completely new town or urban area in a previously agricultural area be required to indemnify the operator of the feedlot who must move or cease operation because of the presence of the residential area created by the developer?
• Are the proposed Pinal County measures all necessary in order to reach compliance with the PM10 standards?
• Is compliance with the proposed standards technically feasible?
• What cost would compliance with the proposed standards impose or affect facilities?

WHAT LIES AHEAD

By any measure, the efforts historically expended to comply with the existing “reasonable precaution” rules have fallen short of achieving compliance with the prevailing PM10 ambient air quality standard as set forth by the EPA.

To protect public health, to comply, with the prevailing ambient air quality standards, and to address Pinal County’s characterization as the pollution hot spot in America, the situation calls for specific, measurable, action-oriented responses both realistic and time-sensitive. Inflammatory remarks and blame-storming must cease. The fault, enough to share, cannot rest solely upon me, thee, or the others behind the tree.

Dr. Hull is a Sustainability Systems Activist, member of the Environmental Concerns Organization (ECO), Inc.; member of International Dark-Sky Association (IDA); member of Arizona Recycling Coalition Legislative Committee; the founder of SOS Maricopa, a Friend of H.O.P.E. (Helping Our Polluted Environment) and a graduate of the first city of Maricopa Citizen’s Leadership Academy.