03/28/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C. Field Burning Status Report--Stan Long, City Attorney, said staff was not asking Council for any particular action at this time. However, he noted there Me a number of thi ngs occurri ng that may requi re .. Council to act quickly in the next ten days. He reviewed his last ,~ field burning report which was at the conclusion of a successful several months of field burning, negotiations, and interactions with others involved. The result had been a one-year interim control strategy which was adopted. The basis for that control strategy and changing of field-burning strategy was that the Federal law permits only 50,000 acres to be burned. The City negotiated 150,000 acres to be burned, with an additional 30,000 allowed if the per- formance was adequate on the first acreage burned. Mr. Lieuallen arrived. The Environmental Quality Commission mandated that system as negotiated by the City and the seed growers. It was hoped that approach might lead to a permanent strategy based on how much field burning would be allowed dependent upon how much smoke or pollution was in the air. Also, it was hoped a working relationship with the seed industry could be established. Mr. Long noted it would appear that these hopes are in the process of being dashed as Senate Bill 472 has been passed. The bill purports to remove field burning from Federal control and take it out of the State Implementation Program (SIP). Second, the bill purports to permit up to 250,000 acres to be burned in the next two years. He noted the bill had been assigned to the House Agricultural Committee this morning, and its fate is uncertain. Council alternatives and courses of action available were outlined. ~ First, the Council could seek to enforce the 50,000 Federal limit for field burning this summer. Second, he noted changes in the Clean Air Act could present other options. Council could attempt to seek to classify individual fields that are burned as major site-specific sources under the Clean Air Act. If so, it would set in motion a system whereby each grower would have to obtain a permit to burn more than authorized. This would be based on clean air considerations, and not political decisions. He noted the Federal Government has pena 1 t i-es if a seed grower were to burn wi thout a permi tin that the grower would forfeit his profit. A third alternative would be based on the argument present in the law. Mr. Long said he believed that Federal law requires that before any dispersion technique is used, all other methods of dispersion that are reasonable must be tried. The State has consistently used field burning before trying other techniques. The City thus could urge the Federal Government to enforce the law, saying the State must try all other available means and only then could it use smoke-management technique. Finally, Mr. Long said there were a number of administrative steps that could be taken including requesting control of carcinogens and control of visually-obstructing pollutions. e 3/28/79--2 \lb