Having read the Economic Impact Analysis of proposed changes to 4 VAC 5-15 I must comment.  The words "economic" and "analysis" imply that a situation is studied using facts and definitive numbers.  This document does not do that.  It is lacking in real information about the cost of these regulations to Virginia farmers.  Lacking the information and wishing to promote the changes anyway, the report turns to a string of assurances that "the impact is not likely to be large."

The first sentence of the Economic Costs section reads "The proposed phosphorous and nitrogen management criteria are likely to impose additional costs...."  Further on there is the statement "While the overall impact on poultry farmers is hard to determine with any degree of certainty, DCR expects that...."  And, "Due to the uncertainty surrounding the number of poultry farmers likely to benefit and lose out due to the proposed change, an estimate of the cost savings is not possible at this time."  The classic line is "Thus, given the many large uncertainties, it is not possible at this time to make a sound determination of the net economic impact of the proposed change.  However, both the costs and benefits are likely to be large and the net economic impact, whether positive or negative, is not likely to be very large."  It seems that the agency does not know the economic impact and is determined to charge ahead anyway.

Many poultry farmers have just felt the impact of the current phosphorous standard in the last two years.  They are buying commercial nitrogen to supplement.  The are hauling greater distances.  They are renting more land.  They are often giving away what once was an income producer.  Based on concerns expressed by many of our contract growers the proposed phosphorous application rates appear to be burdensome.  Without a clear understanding of these costs on a small but important group, it is not appropriate to hasten on with reductions in allowed phosphorous application rates.

I would recommend that the rates be no more restrictive than "crop removal."  That is already moving manure over greater areas and encouraging responsible application.  The 50% saturated criteria for 2010 must have only an arbitrary basis.  I have not previously heard of any arguement for this criteria.  The perception is that it is an arbitrary number that will continue the increasing restriction of phosphorous application.  The 50% criteria should be removed.

The use of the P Index is good science and is a good addition to the regulation.  The use of conservation BMPs is good for the environment, localizes nutrients and should be encouraged.  The P Index does encourage the use of BMPs by recognizing the benefits.  With good BMPs one can safely apply more than "crop removal," decreasing the need for inorganic nitrogen application.