EPA wants Idaho study of burn costs

Stepping once more into the battle over regional field burning, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is telling Idaho officials they should consider health costs to the public and other downsides of burning before they give a green light to farmers to torch fields this year.

EPA is essentially telling Idaho it should do what Washington and Oregon have already done – conduct broad analyses of the effects of field burning on the public and the environment. But Idaho law doesn’t require any cost-benefit analysis.

A new state law backed by grass growers and passed in Boise last spring requires Idaho regulators to simply “certify” field burning as the most profitable way for farmers to remove stubble from their fields. The law says any alternatives to burning must be equally profitable.

EPA’s advisory opinion came in a May 13 letter to Pat Takasugi, director of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. The EPA has given $2 million to Northwest tribes, states and universities over the past four years for research on alternatives to grass residue burning, but hasn’t used a regulatory hammer on Idaho.

“The costs and benefits associated with field burning extend far beyond just the grower, and they should be factored into the (agency’s) determination,” said EPA Regional Administrator John Iani. Idaho “should include the public health and welfare impacts such as visits to doctors/hospitals, work days lost and school days missed due to smoke-related impacts, and impact on tourism in the area,” Iani said.

Environmental impacts should also be considered, he added. A University of Oregon economic analysis of field burning shows “there may be hidden ‘costs’ associated with field burning such as loss of nutrients and moisture in the soil, and that benefits of straw retention in the field can be calculated,” the EPA said.

Takasugi is expected to decide on certifying this year’s field-burning season by June 28 and is constrained by Idaho law in what he can consider, said Kathy Sodhi, the Department of Agriculture’s communications director. Takasugi didn’t return a call asking whether he agreed with EPA’s call for a cost-benefit analysis.

Takasugi also has decided not to hold public hearings in North Idaho despite requests from several public officials, including Sandpoint Mayor Ray Miller.

“There will not be any public hearings. The decision was made that it was best to receive public comments in a written format,” Sodhi said. The public comment period for Idaho’s field-burning certification ended last week with 200 comments submitted, she said.

It’s a slap in the face to the people of Sandpoint for the state not to hold a hearing, Miller said when told of the department’s decision. “It kinda stinks, just like the smoke,” he said.

Many Sandpoint officials have been vocal critics of field burning because it occurs at the height of the summer tourist season. The state burn program often allows growers to burn when prevailing winds send the smoke toward Sandpoint and away from more populated areas.

Clean-air groups have sued the Idaho State Department of Agriculture over last year’s certification. In their lawsuit, they contend the department’s July 22, 2003, ruling allowing field burning to begin in 10 North Idaho counties was flawed because the agency didn’t hold public hearings or analyze smoke impacts on the public and on tourism.

House Bill 391, the new law passed by the Idaho Legislature last spring, directs Takasugi to certify field burning as the only economically viable alternative for farmers unless a cheaper method is available. It also shields growers from lawsuits if they register their fields and burn legally. Its constitutionality has been challenged in a class-action lawsuit brought by Seattle attorney Steve Berman and argued recently before the Idaho Supreme Court.

EPA’s letter makes it clear that Idaho officials aren’t following the same procedures as neighboring states to weigh grass-burning profits against public health considerations, said Patti Gora of Safe Air for Everyone, one of the groups suing Idaho over the certification process.

“I think Idaho’s credibility is on the line here. It’s just not believable that Idaho can’t implement the same successful alternatives that have worked in Oregon and Washington, and EPA’s letter points this out,” Gora said.

Idaho has tried harder this year to get public input for its grass-burning certification, but the definition is extremely narrow, discouraging any consideration of field-burning alternatives, she said.

Washington officials began to phase out most Kentucky bluegrass field burning in 1996, initially as an emergency action based on a petition by hundreds of Spokane doctors who said the practice posed a serious health risk to many of their patients. Tiny particles in the field smoke can be inhaled deeply into the lungs, where they can aggravate breathing problems. The particles, called PM 2.5 because they are 2.5 microns or less in diameter, are also linked to heart attacks in some studies.

In 1998, the Washington Department of Ecology started rule-making that made the emergency ban permanent. The agency hired Washington State University researchers for a cost-benefit analysis that weighed the increased costs to farmers of changing their post-harvest practices against the impact on the public of less smoke in the air. Such cost-benefit studies are required by Washington state law, but are not required in Idaho

The WSU study concluded that public health benefits – including fewer hospital admissions and asthma medication purchases – from cleaner air outweighed increased costs to the grass seed industry for baling their fields by nearly $3 million a year.

Ecology certified mechanical stubble removal in 1998 as a practical alternative to the open burning of Kentucky bluegrass fields.