Lancaster farming. (Lancaster, Pa., etc.) 1955-current, May 21, 1994, Image 38

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    A3B-Lancaster Fanning, Saturday, May 21, 1994
(Continued from Page A3l)
attempting to create regulations
which comply with current laws
and yet manage to make all who
use water responsible to all other
water needs in the basin.
The commission has deter
mined that a main issue of concern
is “consumptive use” of water
which, in basic terms, means any
use of water which makes it
unavailable for return to the flows
in the Susquehanna River Basin.
The evaporation-cooling tower
at the Three-Mile Island Nuclear
Reaction Facility in Middeltown is
an example of “consumptive” use.
The evaporation of the water taken
from the river puls it into the air,
and makes it unavailable to those
living downstream, who depend
on certain flows of water.
Although some may take issue
with the degree of consumption, in
the proposed regulations agricul
tural uses of water are considered
consumptive if water is given to
livestock to drink, or if used to irri
gate crops. Aquaculture is also
considered a consumptive use.
In simple terms, the gist of the
plan behind the proposed rules is to
encourage those operations
agricultural and other consumers
of water to either create facili
ties which can store water that can
be used during drought, adopt
practices which result in conserva
tion and storage of water flows to
the river, or to pay a fee of 14 cents
per 1,000 gallons.
That rate of payment is based on
the estimated amount it costs the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to
store water at the Curwinsville and
Cowanesque reserviors, according
to Cairo.
Currently, the SRBC pays the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for
25,000 acre-feet of water in the
Curwinsville reservior. Then when
drought comes, the power plants
which need water to generate
electricity pay the SRBC for the
water, which is released from the
reservior.
The money is to be set aside in
an escrow account and is to be used
by the commission for the purch
ase of water or for other expenses
involved with managing basin
flows.
Background
The SRBC was formed during
the 1970 s as a multi-state agency
to oversee the use of water in the
Susquehanna River Basin.
The need for a commission was
and is straightforward: The bound
aries created by traditional U.S.
political entities were not designed
to follow natural boundaries.
Therefore, in order to realistically
deal with a real resource, such as
the water in the Susquehanna Riv
er Basin, an agency needed to be
formed that could derive its
authority from all {tolitical entities
within the natural boundaries of
the resource.
In general terms, the commis
sion was granted the authority to
regulate the uses of water within
the Susquehanna River Basin by
the governments of the people liv
ing in the Susquehanna River
Basin, and the federal government.
The members of the commis
sion are the heads of the respective
states’ agencies concerned with
environmental issues, and the sec
retary of the U.S. Department of
the Interior. However, Interior
Secretary Bruce Babbitt has yet to
be officially declared the federal
representative.
The proposed rules are to be
published in the federal register.
There are three parts to the prop-
osed regulations, which according
to Cairo, are a reorganization of
existing regulations and official
procedures which cover the com
mission’s review of water-use
projects.
In the introduction summary of
the draft Notice of Proposed Rule
making (NPRM), it is stated that
the proposed regulations were
created because of, ‘The need to
improve the overall precision and
clarity of regulations; the need to
reorganize the regulations into an
integrated format that is more
readily understandable ... ; the
need to add provisions covering
subject matter not addressed or
inadequately addressed in existing
regulations; and the need to deal
more effectively with certain seg
ments of the regulated
community.”
Cairo stressed that the regula
tions do not convey any water
property rights. In Pennsylvania,
the water property rights law is the
archaic “riparian” rights. In
simple, general terms, it means
that, in Pennsylvania, whomever
lives closer to the water, or
whomever can get the water has
rights to it.
(As an aside, there are several
groups attempting to have this law
changed. For example, under ripa
rian rights, in general, if a farmer’s
well goes dry because of other
commercial or residential ground
water demands, it’s too bad. Under
riparian rights, those who can get
to the water first —by being
upstream, or using bigger and
deeper pumps have the most
rights.)
What the regulations do attempt
to control are the review and
approval procedures for “con
sumptive” uses of water, ground
water withdrawals and surface
water withdrawals.
They also set up special regula
tions on water withdrawal registra
tion, water conservation standards,
the procedures of public hearings
and how penalties are to be
imposed.
The wording in the regulations
is ambiguous in that it provides the
commission, its director and staff
with the discretion to determine
what is “significant” and to make a
determination as to what “may
have an adverse or adverse cumu
lative effect on the water resources
of the basin.”
According to Cairo, the com
mission must have this authority of
making case-by-case decisions,
based on sound, scientific princi
pals, and pertinent information
because of the variety of situations
which exist, or can crane to exist
Also, there is an appeals process
to commission decisions included
in the proposal.
In the introductory material pro
vided with the proposal, it states
that existing regulations used by
the commission in its project
review process were created over
the course of several years and are
not necessarily consistent.
“As a result of this piecemeal
promulgation, general procedures
for review of projects ... do not
always mesh cleanly with the more
specific requirements of the spe
cial regulations on consumptive
use and ground-water
withdrawals.”
It goes on to outline major areas
of confusion by those involved in
the process, from those who desire
to conduct a project to those in
other state agencies who may have
related authorities.
“The commission attempted to
correct these types of deficiencies
with certain regulatory amend-
SRBC Proposes Rules
ments adopted in 1990; however,
the confusion persists in,the regu
lated community and even among
the signatory party agencies who
cooperate with the commission in
the management of the river
basin’s water resources.
According to the introduction,
under the current wording in the
rules of application procedure, “as
it is presently written, directs the
sponsors of certain types of pro
jects to apply to the commission,
though ultimately these projects
may not require commission
approval.
“This has been a constant source
of confusion, as applicants and
others who work with the regula
tion fmd it difficult to distinguish
the application process from the
approval process.”
The proposed regulations
attempt to make clear which pro
jects require commission approv
al, while also providing a section
to cover projects which may or
may not require approval (In that
case, a determination is to be made
by the SRBC executive director.).
New rules proposed as part of
the package would also create a
requirement for registration of
water withdrawal if the amount
exceeds 10,000 gallons per day
(gpd). The registration basically is
so that the commission has a better
(Continued from Pago A 34)
California, now the leading milk
producing dairy state and the sec
ond leading cheese producer, pro
duced 8.4 percent more milk in
April than a year ago.
This was accomplished with 2.4
percent more cows and 5.9 percent
more milk per cow.
The question is. was BST
responsible for this strong increase
in milk per cow?
Better Conditions
Produce More Milk
The answer is that very favor
able weather for milk production
and good quality feed are the prim
ary facts for strong milk produc
tion per cow in California.
California produced 160 million
pounds more milk this April than
last, while Wisconsin produced
146 million pounds less milk.
Overall, California produced
211 million pounds more milk than
Wisconsin did in April.
California produced this much
more milk than Wisconsin with
405,000 fewer milk cows than
Wisconsin. California averaged
465 pounds more milk per cow.
April compared to a year ago
shows Idaho with 7.6 percent more
cows, 6.5 percent more milk per
cow and an increase in total milk of
14.9 percent.
Pennsylvania
Livestock Auction
Waynesburg, Pa.
Thun., May 19, 1994
Report Supplied by Auction
CATTLE: SL COWS: UTILITY &
COMMERCIAL 46.00-52.00; CUTTER &
BONING UTILITY 41.00-46.50; CAN
NER & LOW CUTTER 39.00-43.50;
SHELLS 38.50 & DOWN. BULLS:
YIELD GRADE 1 1500#-1870#
50.00-70.00; YIELD GRADE 2
1000#-1400# 48.00-57.00.
FEEDER STEERS: M&L-l 300-500#
70.00-96.00; 250-280# 75.00-106.00, M
900-1000 55.00-68.00. HEIFERS M
l&L-l 300-500# 70.00-95.00; L-l
400-650# 60.00-85.00. BULLS M&L-l
300-620# 58.00-90.00.
CALVES: VEAL.. PRIME
80.00-100.00; CHOICE 74.00-90.00;
data base of who is using water and
how much is being used at lower
levels than might otherwise be
considered significant.
Also, the proposal cites a need
for clarity in agricultural water use
as a legitimate area of concern.
“A final reason for this package
... is the need to deal more effec
tively with certain segments of the
regulated community.
“For example, the existing con
sumptive use regulation 803.61
applies to agricultural activities
such as crop irrigation. Neverthe
less, agricultural compliance with
the regulation has been spotty and
inconsistent due mainly to a lack of
knowledge of the regulation in the
agricultural community and SRBC
enforcement limitations.
“When the commission made an
affirmative effort to inform the
agricultural community of these
requirements, agriculture quickly
responded on the need for adjust
ments in the regulation to take into
account the special compliance
problems faced by farmers.
“As a result, special provisions
have been included in the revised
consumptive use regulation
extending a SO percent compliance
credit to agricultural consumptive
users as an incentive for their up
front compliance with the
regulation.”
Complete copies of the draft of
Milk Prices Decline,
BST Not To Blame
Washington had 1.6 percent
more milk cows, 1.8 percent more
milk per cow and 3.6 percent more
total milk.
Florida reported a few more
milk cows. 6.8 percent more milk
per cow and 7.3 percent mote total
milk.
And Texas had 2.9 percent more
milk cows producing 7.6 percent
mote milk per cow and 10.7 per
cent more total milk.
Milk plant capacity has been
exceeded in the West and South
west. Surplus milk has moved out
of the states to other states with
manufacturing plants, some as far
as Wisconsin.
Nonfat dry milk plants in the
West are at capacity. The extra
nonfat dry milk production has
weakened nonfat dry milk prices
and West Coast nonfat dry milk is
being sold at support prices to the
Commodity Credit Corporation.
Some milk in California and
Texas that could not immediately
find a plant outlet had to be
dumped.
BST Not To Blame
In each of these states. BST is
only a small contributing factor to
more milk production.
This may be partially verified by
two factors.
First, some areas of California
GOOD 60.00-72.00.
FARM CALVES: #1 HOLSTEIN
BULLS 90-120# FEW 100.00-120.00; #2
HOLSTEIN BULLS 80-100# FEW
75.00- 100.00; BEEF X
BULL&HFRS./HD. 75.00-150.00.
HOGS: BARROWS & GILTS #l-2
210-255# 40.00-41.00; #2-3 255-280#
35.00- SOWS #l-3 300-500#
32.00-
FEEDER PIGS: 1-3 25-35#
12.00-30.00/HD.
LAMBS: HIGH CHOICE 55-75 LBS.
60.00- CHOICE 90-105#
65.00- FEEDER LAMBS GOOD
60.00- EWES 15.00-40.00.
GOATS: LARGE 35.00-75.00/HD.;
MEDIUM 25.00-40.00/HD.; SMALL
10.00-
HORSES: 45.00-70.00, PONIES
20.00-50.00.
proposed rules should begin being
circulated through different agen
cies and to representatives of agri
cultural organizations.
According to Cairo, a series of
public hearings has been sche
duled to be held within the
watershed by the commission in
carder to receive comments on the
proposed rules.
Also, written comments on the
proposal will be accepted by the
commission until August 1,1994.
Send comments to: Richard Cairo,
General Counsel/Secretary, Sus
quehanna River Basin Commis
sion, 1721 N. Front St., Harris
burg, Pa. 17102-2391.
The scheduled hearings are:
• June 23,1:30 p.m„ at the Fred
L. Waterman Conservation Educa
tion Center, Hilton Road, Apala
chin, N.Y.
• June 23, 7 p.m., same place.
•June 24,10 a.m., in the auditor
ium of the Pennsylvania Game
Commission Headquarters Build
ing, 2001 Elmerton Ave., Harris
burg. It is located about five miles
from the PDA headquarters build
ing in Harrisburg.
• June 24, 7 p.m., at the SRBC
Headquarters Building, 1721 N.
Front St.. Harrisburg.
• July 14,1:30 p.m., at the Tide
water Inn, Easton, Md. This hear
ing will follow a regular meeting
of the commission, which starts at
9 a.m.
where milk production is up sub
stantially are the same areas where
milk plants had a moratorium on
BST use by their producers.
Second, milk per cow and total
milk production has not shown
similar increases in the Northeast
where there are reports of greater
adoption of BST than Western and
Southern states.
Compared to last year, April
milk per cow was up just 1.9 per
cent for New York and down 1.7
percent for Pennsylvania.
Both New York and Pennsylva
nia had fewer milk cows, down 1.2
percent and .3 percent respective
ly. As a result. New York produced
just .7 percent more milk, and Pen
nsylvania had a 1 percent decline.
Of the 21 reporting states, 11 did
produce less total milk than April a
year ago. Ten had fewer milk cows
and 11 had less milk per cow. So
milk expansion is concentrated in
those Western and Southwestern
states.
In summary, for the 21 reporting
states, April compared to year ago,
milk cow numbers were down 1.7
percent, milk per cow was up 2.3
percent and total milk production
was up .6 percent Total milk pro
duction for the period of January
through April was down .3
percent
Indiana
Livestock
Thursday, May 19, 1994
Report supplied by Auction
BEEF: HEIFERS GOOD 64.00-67.50,
MEDIUM 60.00-63.50, COMMON 60.00
DOWN. STEERS: GOOD 67.00-69.00,
MEDIUM 64.00-67.00, COMMON 63.00
DOWN. COWS: GOOD 51.00, MEDIUM
45.00- COMMON 43.00 DOWN.
BULLS: BUTCHER 58.00, BOLOGNA
55.00-
FEEDERS: GOOD 300 LB.
70.00- MEDIUM 500-600 LB.
70.00- COMMON 60.00-68.00.
CALVES: 85-115 LB. (BULLS)
110.00- 85-115 LBS. (HFRS)
135.00- 80 LB. UNDER
65.00- 120 LBS. OVER VEAL
95.00-