Beyond lagoons

Now that good alternatives to hog waste lagoons have been found, costs should not prevent them from being used

A five-year effort by N.C. State University researchers to find better ways of disposing of massive amounts of hog waste already is a success. Financed by Smithfield Foods and Premium Standard Farms, two of the nation's largest pork producers, the research has identified five workable alternatives to the disposal system that is the current standard.

That archaic technology simply flushes millions of gallons of manure from hog barns into giant, open-air pits. After some settling and decomposition of solid material, the liquid typically is sprayed onto fields as fertilizer. The system poses risks of spills from the so-called lagoons (several harmful spills have occurred) and of polluted runoff into waterways from spraying when fields are wet.

Under the agreement that led to the research effort, the pork companies are to adopt environmentally superior waste disposal methods if those methods also are determined to be economically feasible. Now, that economic question has proved to be the big sticking point.

None of the treatment systems has yet been designated by N.C. State as meeting the economic feasibility standard. Two of them are being given extended tests to see if costs can be lowered.

Unfortunately, at this stage there is no consensus as to how much, if any, additional expense the industry should have to bear in converting to a more environmentally friendly means of waste disposal. But the industry should have no right to expect that a new system must come at no extra cost.

As a guiding principle, state leaders should keep in mind that waste lagoons are a bargain-basement technology. It's hard to get much cheaper than a bulldozer operator digging a hole and laborers stringing pipe from barn to pit and pit to field. That should be taken into account when comparing costs.

A committee advising the NCSU researchers has released a minority report, generally reflecting an industry viewpoint. It says the alternatives shouldn't result in any increased business expense, perhaps leading growers to trim the size of their herds. But that's simply unreasonable.

Hog farming, with 10.1 million animals in North Carolina, has shown itself to be a polluting industry. The lagoons and sprayfields are central to the problem. It would be entirely justifiable for the state, in moving to reduce environmental hazards, to require the industry to absorb additional costs in phasing out lagoons.

At the same time, given the hog industry's importance to North Carolina's economy, the state has in interest in not driving growers out of business. Smaller, independent farm operations, many of which grow hogs under contract for Smithfield and Premium, may need financial help converting to the new systems. The legislature should consider tax incentives, for example, under the reasonable theory that clean air and water in the state's eastern counties, where hog farms are concentrated, is in the interest of every North Carolinian.

The research agreement, forged by Governor Easley when he was attorney general, called for results in two years. It's now three years beyond that original deadline, and past time to put the research to work.

North Carolina certainly cannot afford any more disastrous hog waste spills, or for that matter any more of the insidious contamination of streams and groundwater from constant waste spraying. Fishing, tourism and residents' quality of life must be protected. And they can be protected, now that better hog waste disposal methods have been shown to exist.