By Jeff Klinge

February 14, 2003
FARMERSBURG, Iowa—Is funding for large-scale manure storage a good use of taxpayer dollars that are earmarked for conservation? That's the question we have to ask ourselves before March 7 as we consider the new proposed Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) rules. If these proposed rules are finalized, EQIP would allow huge factory farms to receive up to $450,000 in cost-share money to build new or expand existing facilities. As a Midwestern cattle producer who is trying to compete with these mega-operations, I'm appalled at this corporate welfare handout. As a resident of a part of Iowa that is vulnerable to groundwater pollution, I'm just plain scared.

First, let's look at the economics. A new so-called state-of-the-art hog finishing building (early wean to finish) costs approximately $165/pig space (not including land, water and electrical hookups). A 2,499-head unit costs approximately $412,335 ($165 X 2,499). Keeping the maximum capacity below 2,500 finishing hogs, which is considered 1,000 animal units, will make it easier to meet state and federal environmental regulations for this type of facility. One integrator I'm aware of is paying farmers who own facilities like this about $36/pig space/year and is guaranteeing this for 10 years for labor, management and building use. The yearly gross income from this facility would be $89,964 ($36 X 2,499). That amount is guaranteed even if there are no pigs in the building. So far, these facilities seem to be going up without EQIP funding.

Under the proposed rule changes, EQIP allows for 75 percent cost share for manure storage with a limit of $450,000/individual. The cost of the liquid manure pit and pit wall usually runs 35-38 percent of the entire building ($412,335 X 35 percent = $144,317). This $144,317 amount could be cost-shared at 75 percent ($144,317 X 75 percent = $108,237). So $108,237 out of $412,335 represents 26 percent of the cost of the entire building, which could be paid for with taxpayers' dollars. I should note that Iowa allows EQIP money to go toward construction of new facilities, which makes no sense at all.

Farmers who grow their own feed prefer to have all their hogs at one site to save the time and expense of running feed and hogs to different locations. Because the hogs and feed are brought in from outside the farm in the example above, it is feasible to have facilities at more than one site. A farmer could build four of these facilities at four sites, receive $108,237 cost sharing for each facility, equaling $432,948 (well within the $450,000 limit), and have a total capacity of 9,996 hogs. A married couple that has kept their records separate could double that.

What's the environmental cost of paying farmers to build huge manure facilities? These things may leak and accidental spills have occurred. We've had major manure-caused fish kills in Iowa and southern Minnesota in recent years. The Northeast Iowa Demonstration Project provided cost share incentives for the construction of 30 settling basins and manure storage structures. Now several of the operations that erected these facilities have gone out of business. The worst-case scenario is when a publicly funded structure sits unused and full of manure, creating a potential environmental hazard no one wants to deal with. The proposed EQIP rule changes could multiply that risk by a thousand.

EQIP doesn't have to be a factory farm handout. In my part of Iowa, EQIP, as it was implemented before 2001, helped improve woodlands and local pasture systems. And Iowa's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), with the help of county committees, is considering ways to limit spending, such as allowing only 50 percent cost share on projects over $100,000 and giving priority to other eligible projects such as rotational grazing and timber stand improvement. You can help continue such positive steps by contacting your local NRCS office and getting involved with the local EQIP work group. These groups help determine what practices will be given priority under EQIP.

But even more immediately, comment on the proposed rule changes before the USDA's March 7 deadline. Send your written comments to: Mark Berkland, NRCS, Rm. 5241, South Bldg., USDA, Washington, DC 20250. You can also e-mail comments to farmbillrules@usda.gov. Tell USDA you don't want EQIP money going for large-scale manure facilities.

Then call your U.S. Representatives and Senators and tell them that $450,000 is way too much for one operator to get. Tell them to cut the EQIP payment limit to $100,000, which is still double what it was two years ago.

Jeff Klinge is a Farmersburg, Iowa, cattle producer and Land Stewardship Project Federal Farm Policy Committee member