WATERLOO - Manure smells and combining soybeans creates dust.

Those are two facts of life in rural America that can't be stopped, according to Midwest lawmakers and farmers. But not everyone understands what it takes to raise grain and livestock, and producers are worried environmentalists are trying to regulate them out of business.

The Environmental Protection Agency has been blasted recently by farmers and Corm Belt politicians. Many people believe the agency is taking steps to eventually tax livestock due to greenhouse gas emissions from manure and clamp down on dust created by field work and gravel roads. Both could lead to fines and financial ruin for farmers, ag officials claim.

EPA spokewoman Catherine Milbourn said it's a misconception that the agency wants to hurt agriculture. She said the EPA can't impose a livestock tax and has no intention to do so. As far as dust issues from farming practices, she said states determine how to comply with air-quality standards.

"I'm eager to correct the record," Milbourn said.

Despite the reassurance this week by the agency, some politicians aren't taking any chances. A bill was introduced in the House on Wednesday to stop a "cow tax" tied to manure emissions. Similar legislation was offered in the Senate March 5.

Neither state nor federal environmental officials would say farmers never have to worry about dust created by combining or tilling the ground.

Sen. Charles Grassley says he is skeptical of the EPA and supports the bills. In his estimation, he says, regulators are trying to control the uncontrollable.

"Only God determines when the wind blows, and only nature determines when soybeans are harvested at 13-percent moisture," the Republican said. "Believe it or not, dust happens."

Cow tax

Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., introduced a bill that will prevent the government from requiring livestock producers to obtain Title V operating permits under the Clean Air Act. It's in response to the EPA publishing the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the subject of regulating greenhouse gasses.

According to Lucas, the EPA outlines several regulatory options, including making livestock producers obtain operating permits.

A similar bipartisan bill was offered in the Senate by Republican John Thune of South Dakota and Democrat Charles Schumer of New York.

If approved, lawmakers and the American Farm Bureau Federation estimate permits would run $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per beef cow and about $20 per hog.

Thune estimated it would cost South Dakota producers $367 million.

"I don't think we can take any chances with this administration when it comes to putting greater burdens on our farmers and ranchers. With the release of the president's budget, this administration has already demonstrated it is out of touch with production agriculture," Lucas said in a statement, referring the Pres. Barack Obama's plan to eliminate direct payments to farmers if their gross sales exceed $500,000.

Roger Traetow of rural Waverly chuckles every time he hears the government wants to regulate farmers these days.

Not that the grain and livestock producer doesn't take protecting the environment seriously. But the potential rules are unrealistic, he said, adding that there's no way to control dust in the fall and that permit fees for the 40 to 50 steers he feeds a year would discourage him from raising beef.

Why pay an extra $4,300 a year to raise cattle that are already a losing proposition, he said. Manure will smell and emit some gasses, Traetow said.

"If you charge ($87.50) per head and you're losing $200, who is going to feed them? You'll see more consolidation and the big corporate farms will then set the price of food," Traetow said. "They (Obama administration) are out of touch with reality."

Milbourn contends the EPA has no plans to begin work on regulations to tax livestock. The Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking points out the agency can't impose taxes, fees or other monetary charges for greenhouse gasses.

"…. Additional authority may be required if EPA were to administer such charges," Milbourn said.

Grassley spokesperson Beth Levine said the EPA is developing a rule under the Clean Air Act that will be open for public comments for 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. It would cover 13,000 facilities nationwide ranging from refineries to animal agriculture.

"If they're not thinking about a cow tax, why put it out for comment? They may not have the taxing authority, but they can fine," said Grassley, who still farms near New Hartford. "Putting stuff out for comment is the first step toward regulation."

Fugitive dust

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled the EPA does not have to reconsider its decision to set standards covering all coarse particulate pollution, such as dust, in rural and urban areas. The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council asked the court to exempt farmers.

The court ruled the EPA made its case that farm dust is "likely not safe," published reports said. Farmers are now nervous that future regulations - and possible fines - are on the horizon to control dust that can't be stopped. In the fall, a typically dry time of the year, combines harvest dry plants. Vehicles often drive on dry gravel roads, which are common in Iowa.

All three circumstances cause dust.

"Dust just roars out of my combine and there's no way to control it," said Jerry Steimel, president of the Black Hawk County Corn and Soybean Association. "(Rules) are proposed by people not in touch with rural America. I'm leery with what will come down the pike."

Milbourn said the EPA issues national ambient air quality standards to protect public health, but not for the purpose of controlling a particular industry. She said states must best determine how to achieve air quality standards.

The Iowa Department of Natural Resource's Air Quality Bureau plays a key role in keeping the state's air clean. Jim McGraw, a program development supervisor, said farming operations, like combining, are not targeted since it's not a year-round activity.

He said states like Iowa typically target pollution sources that can be controlled with existing technology. Examples he provided were factories, cement production and vehicle exhaust.

"There's not an immediate plan now to change, but I'm not saying there won't be," McGraw said. "I'm not sure why it's an issue."

The fact that environmental regulators won't definitively say farmers won't have to worry about getting fined for causing air pollution for harvesting crops is what worries producers.

Grassley recently invited EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to his farm to prove that farmers can't control grain dust. He said "faceless bureaucrats" are out of touch with agriculture, which is the problem.

"The EPA … you have to wonder what planet they came from," Grassley said.

Contact Matthew Wilde at (319) 291-1579 or matt.wilde@wcfcourier.com.