State sought input on burning
BOISE – Idaho’s congressional delegation sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency pressuring it to tell Idaho it could continue to allow field-burning – a day before the EPA sent a letter to Idaho’s governor with just that news.
“Written guidance indicating the state is within its right to issue the permits would be extremely helpful at this critical time,” said an April 26 letter signed by all four members of the congressional delegation, GOP Sens. Larry Craig and Mike Crapo, and Reps. Bill Sali and Mike Simpson.
The next day, EPA’s regional administrator in Seattle, Elin D. Miller, wrote to Idaho Gov. Butch Otter offering an interpretation of a recent federal court ruling. Miller wrote that Idaho can continue to issue field-burning permits while the EPA reconsiders the state’s plan for complying with the federal Clean Air Act.
Previously, the state had interpreted the January court decision as blocking all field-burning in Idaho outside of Indian reservations, which weren’t subject to the decision. The state directors of Agriculture and Environmental Quality had already toured the state and met with farmers, informing them that Idaho would not be issuing field-burning permits this year.
“The reason why we approached the EPA was because we were very concerned about the effect of the current decisions,” said Wayne Hoffman, communications director for Sali. “There were farmers up north that were asking for us to explore every possible option to help them out. And one of the options was to approach the EPA and ask for clarification.”
Hoffman said Sali is concerned because “a great deal of northern Idaho’s economy … is dependent on this practice.”
Dan Whiting, communications director for Craig, said the senator considers field-burning “an important agricultural tool that we need to make sure we still have out there.” A letter to a federal agency signed by a state’s entire congressional delegation carries “extra weight,” Whiting said. “We were pleasantly surprised at the quick turnaround.”
Shortly after receiving the EPA’s letter, Otter called on all sides in the field-burning debate to come negotiate and offered to broker the talks if all would agree to suspend legal action. However, the clean-air group Safe Air For Everyone had already filed a petition with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking it to clarify the intent of its decision – whether it was meant to block field-burning or not.
All parties, including SAFE, responded to Otter by Friday that they were willing to talk. But SAFE said it wouldn’t suspend its legal petition. Otter said he was “disappointed” but still held out hope for negotiations.
The congressional delegation’s letter to the EPA noted Otter’s letter, which had been sent two days earlier, and attached a copy of it.
Justin Hayes, program director for the Idaho Conservation League, said, “It seems to me that clearly the delegation wants EPA to say, ‘Go ahead and burn this year.’ ” But, he said, “The burn program in Idaho appears to be illegal, and the courts have ruled on that, and I think it would be very short-sighted of the state, Agriculture, or EPA collectively to allow the burning program to continue.”
SAFE has particularly objected to the burning of Kentucky bluegrass seed fields on the Rathdrum Prairie, where farmers torch their fields each year to bring on another crop without replanting. SAFE was formed by Sandpoint-area physicians concerned about the effects of the smoke on their respiratory patients.
Field-burning has prompted numerous lawsuits in recent years, including one against farmers that led to a settlement that paid hundreds of thousands to respiratory patients in North Idaho and Eastern Washington who were impacted by smoke. State lawmakers have since banned such lawsuits. The latest case challenged the legality of field-burning in Idaho under federal law.
Hayes said, “The impact that the burning program has on the lives of people in North Idaho also, I think, has to be considered. We’ve had a lot of public outcry in North Idaho about the health implications of bluegrass burning, so I think it’s unfortunate that the delegation essentially is trying to say the health of the communities up there … takes second seat to … the role of burning in agriculture.”
Lindsay Nothern, spokesman for Crapo, said the EPA’s interpretation merely allows field-burning to continue this year – not for the long term. Crapo, he said, is “definitely concerned about the air-quality issues. The trouble is … you also have the fact that field burning is a very traditional and very important tool for some of these growers. We’re trying to balance those things out, and I don’t know that we’ve found that balance yet.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has not yet ruled on SAFE’s petition for clarification.