Mr. President, I rise today to speak about two issues that are of great importance to Vermonters--sustainable agriculture and environmental protections. Over the years, I have fought for education dollars when it seemed none were…
Mr. President, I rise today to speak about two issues that are of great importance to Vermonters--sustainable agriculture and environmental protections. Over the years, I have fought for education dollars when it seemed none were available. I have fought to protect the environment when its champions were few. But my greatest priority has been to find ways to ensure that Vermont agriculture, the lifeblood of our economy and our culture, remains sustainable and competitive into the future.
I have worked successfully in both the House and the Senate to help assure dairy farmers of a fair and stable price for their milk, through the dairy compact and MILC Program. I have worked hard to provide strong Federal support for conservation programs, helping farmers to be good stewards of the land, while never comprising my commitment to environmental protection. I have supported the cider and cheese industries in the face of increasing Federal regulation and have promoted tax policy that allows for the intergenerational transfer of farms.
Today, I stand before you somewhat perplexed. For several months now, two of the issues where I have dedicated the majority of my time in public service--the environment and agriculture--have been seemingly at odds with one another.
In some States, lawsuits have been brought against large agricultural operations under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, CERCLA. I have been contacted by a number of Vermont farmers very concerned about whether CERCLA applies to them and about what it would mean to be sued under this law.
In response to this concern, proposals have been made that would unnecessarily adopt expansive exemptions from the Superfund statute for major pollution streams stemming from very large agricultural operations. I cannot support these proposals that would eliminate one of the tools of last resort for communities with waters contaminated by large-scale animal feeding operations.
I have watched with regret as the face of American agriculture in some regions has changed from one of the individual family, working hard to extract their living from their land, to one of the corporate executive, leading massive agribusiness operations. With this type of consolidation, we have lost in many places, though not in Vermont, the reality of the hard-working family farming using sustainable practices. In many parts of the Nation, we see massive animal feeding operations, often controlled by corporate interests located outside the State, contributing significantly to local water quality problems. Allowing these large operations to simply walk away from the damage that they can cause to our local communities allows them to cut costs, tipping the economic scales in their favor when compared with smaller farms that have less environmental impacts. I wish to do everything in my power to ensure that this scenario never becomes the norm in Vermont.
Vermonters have a long tradition of strong feelings about water quality. In 1972, when the Clean Water Act was adopted by Congress, our Nation was faced with a water pollution crisis. Toxic materials were routinely dumped into pristine water bodies by industrial polluters. It was standard practice in municipalities to have underground pipes deliver raw sewage from homes directly into rivers and streams without any intervening treatment. Citizens demanded action to solve our environmental problems. In 1970, I was the state attorney general of Vermont. My office worked to create Vermont Act 252, which enacted the toughest water pollution laws in the country at the time. I had the honor of testifying before this Committee during Senator Muskie's chairmanship during the first phases of the debate on the 1972 Clean Water Act. Some of the concepts in Act 252 are today part of Federal water pollution laws. One of my fondest memories from this period is of the slogan, ``Jeffords Won't Let Them Do it in the Lake,'' which came about as we successfully fought off efforts by International Paper to dump untreated waste into Lake Champlain.
Despite progress on wastewater treatment and point sources of pollution like International Paper, by the mid-1980s, it was clear that without action on other water quality issues such as toxics like mercury and nonpoint source pollution from urban and agricultural sources, we would not be able to meet our clean water goals. In 1987, our own Senator Stafford of Vermont worked with champions like Senator John Chafee, Senator Mitchell, and Senator Bentsen to write the 1987 Clean Water Act amendments, overcoming the third Presidential veto in the act's history. Many of the key pieces of the 1987 amendments, in particular, nonpoint source pollution, continue to resonate in our clean water debate today.
Despite our progress on these issues, there is much to be done. According to the EPA, the overwhelming majority of the population of the United States--218 million people--live within 10 miles of a polluted river, lake or coastal water. Almost 40 percent of these waters are not safe for fishing, swimming, boating, drinking water or other needs. The EPA estimates that nonpoint sources of pollution are responsible for 50 percent of our water quality problems.
I discuss this history because it is relevant. I understand the impacts of nonpoint sources of pollution on water quality. I also understand the importance of small-sca1e farming to my home State of Vermont, and I do not believe that CERCLA is well suited, or was ever intended, to apply to the normal operations on Vermont-scale farms.
I am here today with my colleague from California, Senator Barbara Boxer, who will be taking over the helm of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I know that the committee will be in good hands.
I have written to Senator Boxer and asked her to consider an alternative approach that I have put together on this issue of animal manure and CERCLA during the Committee's deliberations on this issue in the 110th Congress. This proposal takes steps to equalize the playing field between
smaller, Vermont-scale farms and large-scale agriculture. It would clarify that the normal application of fertilizer as described in the CERCLA statute includes the use of animal manure as fertilizer. I wrote to the EPA earlier this year asking them to take regulatory action for that purpose and they refused.
The proposal does not change the existing provision in CERCLA, which provides that Federal permitholders, when they are in compliance with their permit, are not subject to CERCLA litigation. Existing law ensures that larger animal feeding operations that will be required to hold Clean Water Act permits and are more likely to have significant waste streams should be protected from CERCLA litigation as long as they are in compliance with the terms of their permit. My legislation takes steps to provide similar assurances to smaller, Vermont-scale farms that are generally not required to hold Clean Water Act permits. It provides that an independent, third-party certification that a farm has applied fertilizer to land in a manner that is in compliance with its nutrient management plan would serve as evidence for an affirmative defense in the unlikely event that a CERCLA lawsuit would be filed against a small, Vermont-scale farm. I offer this extra assurance, even though there is no record of farms of this scale having been sued under CERCLA, and even though such a lawsuit is an unlikely event given the amount of material being handled at these small facilities and the structure of CERCLA, which is designed to address major waste streams. Federal Officials and Environmental advocates understand, I think, that resorting to a Superfund lawsuit to gain compliance from a small farm would be like using a sledge hammer to open a walnut.
Some have asked me: What does that actually get you? The independent third-party certification offered as evidence during the course of any civil or administrative proceeding would support the fact that the facility properly used or applied animal manure to land in compliance with its nutrient management plan. This presumption of fact could only be overcome by contradictory evidence. I believe that the establishment of this affirmative defense will protect Vermont small-scale farmers from CERCLA litigation.
Mr. President, I will not be here in the next Congress to help my colleagues find a way forward on this issue. I offer this idea as a starting point in the debate after much discussion with Vermonters, farmers, environmentalists, and legal and policy experts. We are all seeking the silver bullet that will help to maintain the American tradition of the small, family farm and allow us to make forward progress on the persistent problem of nonpoint source pollution. This idea is my vision of how we can overcome this latest hurdle in our efforts to effectively deal with nonpoint source pollution and hopefully bridge the gap between two of my passions--sustainable, Vermont-scale agriculture, and environmental progress.
