FCUSA COMMENTARY, APRIL 5, 1999

A Word on Water : Clean Water Act and Animal Feeding Operations

By Teresa Platt, Executive Director, FCUSA

WE ARE WARNED that one day government will tax the air we breathe and the water we drink. We laugh. Government won't tax the air and water! They'll just regulate how often we inhale, exhale and spit and let the lawyers fight over the spoils.

Every day, all around us, water flows. To ensure health and human safety, government, local and federal, sets standards for controlling pollution. In addition to stringent state regs, the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) has established national standards for water quality with "zero discharge" goals. For many years, the government satisfied itself with "point source" pollutants discharged from factories and sewage treatment plants. Progress was made. However, the state and federal governments are rapidly turning their attention to "non-point source" pollution, runoff from city streets, agricultural activities (including animal feeding operations or AFOs) and other sources which our federal government says continue to "degrade the environment" and put drinking water "at risk."

The CWA provides that no person may "discharge" a pollutant except in accordance with a permit issued under section 402 of the Act. A "discharge" is defined as "any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source." "Pollutant" is now so broadly defined in the CWA that technically one could argue that it is illegal to pour tap water into a lake or to let car wash runoff escape into sewers.

Gore Has a Plan that Includes a "Strategy"

In February 1998, President Clinton released the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP), a blueprint for addressing water quality issues nationwide under the CWA. On March 9, Vice President Gore pushed forward by unveiling his new plan. Central to Gore's plan is a Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations (the Strategy), developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which includes measures for reducing run-off from some 450,000 animal-feeding operations nationwide. Most of these operations are small operations and the Strategy includes actions to prevent and reduce run-off via feeding, land management, and manure handling and storage practices.

While most of the programs contained in the Strategy are of a "voluntary" nature, the Strategy does establish goals for the eventual development and implementation of a "comprehensive nutrient management plan" for all animal feeding operations by the year 2009. Record-keeping will be a component of the program.

Let's Get More Complicated

To complicate matters further, the Strategy states [Section 4.2] that the EPA plans to propose the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) implementation rule in 1999 and that "EPA may consider clarifying its authority to designate AFOs as CAFOs in an NPDES-authorized State." What does this mean? CAFOs, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, are already regulated by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits under authority of the Clean Water Act [40 C.F.R 122.23]. The EPA allows many states to issue these permits under its guidance. Will the EPA attempt to further its control over AFOs through the state permitting process?

The TMDL process under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires localities to calculate maximum "loads" of input from human-induced sources, watershed by watershed. Industrial facilities and other sources of "pollutants" along the watershed will be restricted through NPDES permits based upon these TMDLs.

What Is an Animal Feeding Unit?

Of the 450,000 animal-feeding operations in the U.S. in 1992, about 6,600 had more than 1,000 Animal Units (AUs) and are considered to be large operations which are already regulated as CAFOs by NPDES permits under authority of the Clean Water Act. These regulations can be found at 40 C.F.R 122.23, and Section 4.2 of the Strategy discusses the regulatory definitions of CAFOs.

USDA data (from the 1992 Agricultural Census) indicate that the vast majority of farms with livestock are small, with about 85% of these farms having fewer than 250 AUs. An AU is equal to roughly one beef cow, or equivalent number of other animals.

Bias Against Modern Farming?

The USDA and the EPA express a bias against modern farming operations when they state [Section 2.1], "As a result of domestic and export market forces, technological changes, and industry adaptations, the past several decades have seen substantial changes in America's animal production industries. Despite USDA support for sustainable agricultural practices, these factors have promoted expansion of confined production units, with growth in both existing areas and new areas; integration and concentration of some industries; geographic separation of animal production and feed production operations; and the concentration of large quantities of manure and wastewater on farms and in some watersheds."

Noting increased production from fewer facilities, USDA/EPA commented on the consolidation in the agricultural industry [Section 2.1]. Dairy operations, for example, experienced 93% increase in the average number of AUs per operation, pork producers saw a 134% increase and those raising broiler chickens 148%. For fur farmers, 1997's USDA statistics on mink farms showed the same trend as our mink production rose 7% while the number of farms fell 3%.

The domestication of cattle in Europe about 8,500 years ago changed us from a society of nomads following the migrations of wildlife to villagers raising animal protein in compounds. The manure fertilized our fields and modern agriculture was born, and in no time, higher yields from lower energy input allowed the human population to triple. Yet in spite of this obvious success, the USDA and EPA apparently see animal-feeding operations as being in conflict with their desire for "sustainable agricultural practices."

What Next?

It is easier to deal with the Federal government when you don't let it sneak up on you. For example, gas station owners in the U.S. were given 10 years to comply with EPA regulations designed to upgrade, replace or close old underground storage tanks prone to leaking. Ten years is a very short time frame for capital improvements as costly as underground storage facilities. Of the 892,000 underground storage tanks in operation in the U.S. in 1998, the EPA estimates only about 500,000, or 56%, can meet the tough new federal standards. These owners now face fines of $11,000 a day for violating the rules. The EPA has extended the time frame once more, but EPA regs and fines hanging over businesses infuse more risk into what is already a risky business.

Luckily fur farmers have strong protections already in place to protect the water quality on our properties. But let's not be complacent and let the gorilla of government sneak up on fur farmers.

Notes:

The Unified National AFO Strategy Executive Summary can be found at http://www.epa.gov/owmitnet/afo.htm. The U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations is available on the FCUSA site in PDF format by clicking here.

The American Farm Bureau Federation's Public Policy Division has excellent reports available from its Water Quality Task Force, notably "Animal Feeding Operations: Should national standards be enacted and enforced upon animal agriculture to meet water quality goals?" available at http://www.fb.com/issues/backgrd/afo.html. Ask for them, read them and share them.

See also:

Is Piglet Poisoning the Well? The Sierra Club's Vision of Small, Tidy Hog Farms Is Sweet but Untrue By Denis Avery, Director of Global Food Issues, Hudson Institute. From 1980-88, Avery was Senior Agricultural Analyst for the U.S. Department of State. (Direct link to the Hudson Institute.)

Teresa Platt, executive director of Fur Commission USA, represents 400 mink-farming families, and serves on the boards of the National Animal Interest Alliance and Alliance for America, groups working to restore people and common sense to the environmental equation. For further information contact: Teresa Platt, Executive Director, Fur Commission USA, PMB 506, 826 Orange Avenue, Coronado, CA 92118-2698 USA, (619) 575-0139, (619) 575-5578/fax, furfarmers@aol.com, www.furcommission.com.

Back to Perspectives / Home