Sen. Christopher Bond (R-MO) is on the list, at least as of August 26, 2007, of 25 co-sponsors of S.807, a bill introduced last spring by Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Tysonville) that would amend the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 to provide that manure shall not be considered a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. She is joined by other senators from heavily CAFO-ridden states. The list probably has someone you voted for on it.

Lincoln, who says she's from a seventh-generation Arkansas farm family, was re-elected in 2004 after a landslide victory with 580,000 votes, the highest total cast for a candidate to the U.S. Senate. Apparently, she's convinced her constituents that she's there for working families and, as her website suggests, as a "leading voice on national priorities like health care..."

Has she asked herself why health care has become such a priority? However, run-off from manure into the groundwater doesn't add to any health issue. It's not a source of contamination, she says.

Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmonson disagreed when he filed a lawsuit against 14 Arkansas poultry companies claiming that run-off from their improper land application methods and storage of hundreds of thousands of tons of poultry waste have polluted the Illinois River watershed and Lake Tenkiller, eventually affecting more than 20 Oklahoma public water supplies.

"This waste can also contain high levels of arsenic, zinc and copper, Edmonson reported. "It creates high phosphorus levels that cause excessive algae growth and eventually can cause high levels of carcinogens in drinking water. We are extremely concerned about the impact this waste could have on human health.

While the Farm Bureau attempts to scare small farmers into thinking that they will be held accountable for pollution control measures, the group fails to reinforce the reality that current laws protect responsible farmers who use livestock manure as fertilizer to grow crops. There are other operations that create large amounts of manure that must be held accountable for the manner in which they store or dispose of it.

So, have these Congressmen invested their PAC contributions in the stock of bottled water companies? Phosphorus, ammonia and hydrogen sulfide are substances associated with livestock waste. Are these supporters suggesting that putting more vast quantities of these chemicals in the water is okay?

Those opposed to Lincoln's bill and H.R. 1398, a similar bill proposed in the House by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-MN) and 122 scary co-supporters like Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), believe that when factory farms pollute rivers or drinking water supplies with their waste, they should have to pay the cost to clean up the mess, not cities, states and drinking water suppliers that pass the cost along to you and me. And without the penalties, they say, there would be no incentive for factory farms to manage their waste properly and keep it out of our drinking water supply.

Did you think this type of bill was dead in the water (no pun intended)? This type of legislation won't be dead as long as politicians finance themselves with PAC money and business donations. It won't be dead as long as people turn their backs on the issues or are blind-sighted by political doublespeak.

Commentary by Belleann Dumont, Joplin

Go Back