Fur Industry Regulations Still Need Improvements
Primarily in response to blue-green algal blooms which have appeared in various lakes along the Carleton River over the past decade, the Nova Scotia government passed the Fur Industry Act, which received Royal Assent on May 11, 2010. Subsequently, the Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture has been developing the Fur Industry Regulations, which are needed to make the Act take effect.
The Department completed its first draft of the Regulations in July, 2011, and had public meetings with concerned and affected members of the public, as well as with fur farmers. It used the feedback it received to produce a second draft of the regulations, which were circulated on February 22, 2012, a day before a second set of public meetings were held to elicit feedback.
On the environmental side, TREPA notes a few improvements. The inclusion of surface water testing is very welcome, and a few ambiguities and loopholes were cleared up. However, the new version of the regulations has some serious gaps and other loopholes which need to be closed:
(1) The ground water sampling program, specified in the first version of the regulations, has been excised, and this is not acceptable. Ground water testing provides an early warning system, which allows farmers to make corrections before drinking water supplies become seriously affected by farming operations. Domestic wells should not be polluted by leaching from fur farms. It is in the best interests of fur farmers, as well as the general public, to test the ground water below their farms.
(2) The first version of the regulations required farmers to dispose of carcasses, manure, and waste feed off-farm “at an approved disposal facility.” The new version gives another alternative” on-farm in an approved manner.” The problem here is that the “approved manners” need to be specified and other “manners” explicitly prohibited. Otherwise, unprohibited, unforeseen, potentially hazardous ‘manners” will be permissible.
If a farmer comes up with a new disposal method which is not hazardous, he can request a change to the Regulations.
(3) The surface water sampling program is much too vague. In fact, it looks as if a farmer who has no natural watercourse running within the setbacks specified in the regulations may not need to sample anything. This program as written needs considerably more specificity as to when and where surface water is to be sampled.
TREPA has shared these and a number of other concerns with the Department. In addition, it has facilitated both meetings between the Department and concerned and affected citizens, and sent its notes on the proceedings of these meetings to the Department.