Animal Waste Management and the Environment:
Background for Current Issues Environment:(contd.)

98-451

CONTENTS FOR THIS SECTION

Recent Livestock Industry Activities
Congressional Response

Administration and interest group positions on legislation
Other relevant federal legislation: research, CWA reauthorization, and appropriations

Conclusion: Policy Questions

Recent Livestock Industry Activities

Each segment of the livestock industry is represented by at least one group that promotes its activities, ranging from market promotion, to producer education, to lobbying for favorable legislation and policies. The National Pork Producers Council, one such group, initiated a dialogue to bring together major interests, including opponents of concentration, to address animal waste issues that arise from activities of its members. Working through America's Clean Water Foundation, it organized a national dialogue to promote sound environmental activities by pork producers, leading to a set of recommendations and proposals issued in December 1997.

One purpose of the dialogue was to develop a nationally-consistent environmental strategy that would replace the patchwork of responses to major new or expanded proposals and actions at state and local levels that could affect them, including moratoria and nuisance lawsuits. At a congressional briefing to describe the recommendations, a representative of the Council stated that the industry wanted to avoid some of the kinds of problems that the timber industry encountered as it attempted to deal with the spotted owl issue in the Pacific Northwest old growth forest areas. It was stated that a major challenge for the Council would be to get the full participation of all producers in this program.45

Implementation of the group's recommendations would not require any congressional action; all of these recommendations, as envisioned in the final report, would be implemented through enactment of state and local legislation, and as a result of initiatives undertaken by individual producers. Implementation would start when states adopt a framework which would apply to new and expanding facilities immediately, and would be phased in by existing facilities over 5 years. The Council expects that EPA will make recommendations to states regarding adoption of the recommendations in the strategy. One component that will receive considerable attention is a more sophisticated way to determine setbacks for odor, using a formula that the Council representatives say was developed and is used in Austria.

The dialogue started m May 1997, and participants met on eight occasions. Both EPA and USDA were involved and have endorsed the process. While two interests, environmental groups and local governments, chose not to participate fully, the dialogue process has received positive comment from many who are concerned with the environmental effects of animal agriculture. The National Broiler Council, representing a large portion of the poultry industry, has initiated a similar process. However, it is not completed, and little information has been made available.

The pork industry dialogue resulted in a report 46 with more than 20 recommendations that include the following:

· The framework should apply immediately to all new or expanding commercial operations, and be phased in over 5 years for existing operations.

· Regulatory authorities should have the flexibility to waive recommendations based on new information or innovative technologies and when hardships make conformance impractical.

· All producers should register manure and wastewater facilities with regulatory authorities within 2 years.

· New manure and wastewater facilities at new or expanded farms should be based on an evaluation of cumulative effects of environmental conditions at the site, and the presence of neighboring pork production facilities.

· Setbacks should be used for new facilities, and existing facilities should carry out protective measures but should not have to relocate to meet setback requirements.

· Construction of new homes and public facilities near existing production facilities should follow setback recommendations comparable to those imposed on the siting of new or expanding production operations.

· New or expanded manure or wastewater storage facilities should be able to handle 6 months of waste, and accommodate the greater of either a 25-year, 24-hour or 10-year, 10-hour rainstorm.

Existing manure and wastewater storage facilities must not exceed their design capacity, be properly maintained, and retain their structural integrity.

· Manure should be applied only to lands with adequate soil sampling, nutrient testing, and an approved nutrient utilization plans, and application rates should be based on phosphorus requirements.

All operations should have 2 years to evaluate soil tests regarding phosphorus levels that exceed crop uptake needs, and an additional 5 years to make necessary adjustments.

· All operations should prepare and keep a current emergency response plan.

· All operations should keep manure and nutrient management information for at least 3 years.

· Operators and contractors should be certified, and employees should be trained.

· Abandoning earthen basins and lagoons should be prohibited, and a program to finance the costs of closure for new and expanded facilities should be in place in 5 years.

· Public participation should be a part of the development of new and expanding facilities.

· Pork production operations should be inspected periodically.

The dialogue is a significant effort within the livestock community. It demonstrates the willingness of one sector of that community to pro-actively seek solutions that are workable within the industry and acceptable to outsiders. The Council asserts in the dialogue that many of the recommendations are little more than sound business practices that should be adopted, if they are not already followed, by all producers in the swine industry. The dialogue's recommendations provide a baseline of expectations for those who raise pork. Whether pork producers can meet those expectations, and whether they will be acceptable to critics of pork production, who may have more substantial expectations, are the two questions that will be debated in the future.

Congressional Response

Members of Congress, too, have responded to increased attention to animal waste management issues Two bills introduced in the 105th Congress take different approaches.

H.R. 3232, introduced by Rep. George Miller, proposes to amend the Clean Water Act with CAFO-specific provisions. Currently, feedlots are subject to general permit language in the law. The bill would define in law which CAFOs are required to obtain discharge permits, tightening EPA's current regulatory threshold by halving the number of animal units triggering regulation. For example, it would apply to feedlots with 350 or more dairy cattle, while EPA's regulations cover dairy feedlots with 700 or more animals. It would require all CAFOs to have CWA permits within 18 months and would require EPA to revise existing CAFO regulations within 2 years. Regulated feedlot operators would be required to submit waste management plans to state or federal permitting authorities. The bill would require a CWA permit for land application of animal waste in excess of amounts needed for agronomic uptake of plants. Feedlot operators who cease operations would be required to remove and dispose of all animal waste at the facility.

A second bill, S. 1323, introduced by Senator Tom Harkin, takes a different approach. The Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee held a hearing on S. 1323 on April 2, 1998.47 The focus of this bill is on USDA, not EPA. It would direct USDA to establish minimum required elements and technical standards for animal waste management plans. CAFO owners would submit such plans to USDA in order to operate lawfully, and USDA would conduct on-site inspection as part of its review and approval process. It would define CAFOs in terms of "animal weight capacity," meaning feeding operations with capacity of more than 400,000 pounds for cattle or more than 200,000 pounds for other livestock, rather than number of animal units. This definition would extend regulatory coverage to many additional facilities (for example, animal feeding operations with 320 beef cattle, compared with 1,000 under current EPA rules).

The Harkin bill would call for USDA, in consultation with EPA, to establish maximum permitted levels for application of animal waste to land, based on quantities necessary for efficient crop nutrient requirements (taking into account all sources of nutrients) and quantities which do not pose a risk of increased soil toxicity or surface or ground water pollution. It would be unlawful to apply wastes in excess of such quantities. If more waste were produced, it would have to be treated (for example, at an off-site wastewater treatment plant). Finally, S.1323 would make the development and implementation of waste management plans eligible for EQIP finding and would increase total EQIP finding from $200 million to $600 million annually through 2002.

Both bills specify minimum elements for waste containment systems, as well as minimum distance standards for aerial spraying of wastes. Both bills would hold owners of animals (integrators) jointly liable with the feedlot operator for application of animal waste in violation of a management plan or CAFO discharge permit.

In another congressional response, Rep. Wayne Gilchrest and Rep. Charles Stenholm hosted a workshop on Phosphorus and Water Quality in November 1997. It was designed to address the Maryland problems associated with Pfiesteria. At this meeting, experts discussed several connections between phosphorus and agriculture, including what is known about phosphorus, phosphorus-related activities at USDA and EPA, and an examination of alternative methods for either using or reducing animal waste that are currently being studied.

Administration and interest group positions on legislation. A large number of interest groups are presenting views on animal waste management topics. How this particular issue is viewed depends on the perspective that the group has on broader issues, as well.

Administration views. At the April 2 Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, witnesses from EPA and USDA said the Administration opposes S. 1323 because it would lead to regulatory duplication and overlap by their two agencies. USDA said it prefers working with farmers on a voluntary, cooperative basis (through implementation of EQIP, for example) and does not have the resources to take on a new regulatory role. Under the bill's expanded coverage, USDA said, the department would be responsible for inspecting 40,000 animal feeding operations nationwide.

Industry view. Industry groups say that they do not need regulation, but could use technical and financial assistance. New regulatory programs, they say, would be costly both to farmers and taxpayers. Small farmers would be hardest hit by new requirements, they say, and less able to absorb added costs, compared with larger producers. Regardless of size, they would be put at a competitive disadvantage with producers in less-regulated countries. At the April 2 Senate hearing, industry and other private witnesses criticized S.1323, saying that overlapping authority between EPA and USDA would lead to confession. Several said that federal legislation is not needed at this time, in view of EPA's recent initiatives, coupled with ongoing state and local activities.

In many cases, industry groups argue that legislation is not needed, because voluntary measures already in place are doing a good job of controlling animal agriculture wastes and preventing environmental harm. This point is reflected in ongoing debates in several states. In Virginia, for example, poultry producers voluntarily agreed in 1995 to develop manure management plans. Thus, they have opposed legislation proposed in the state to regulate waste from their activities. Similarly, in Maryland, where 70% of poultry producers already have manure management plans, these farmers opposed the Governor's proposal for stricter regulation. Critics of agriculture in both of these states and elsewhere, however, say that voluntary measures are not enough, in view of the need to prevent nutrient runoff which could harm economically and ecologically important watersheds such as Chesapeake Bay. Moreover, while many such plans are being developed and implemented, there is little information on how they are working.

State and federal roles and responsibilities. With the extent and range of legislative and regulatory activity occurring in states, some persons argue that there is little need for federal legislation that could prove disruptive and duplicative of state efforts. Farmers are reluctant to see another layer of rules imposed on their businesses by the federal government.

At the same time, a proliferation of state laws and rules raises its own concerns, especially for large-scale livestock operators located in several states. Witnesses at the April 2 Senate hearing endorsed the fact that S.1323 draws attention to the need for solutions to animal waste problems nationally, and most agreed on the need for a federal role and national standards. Some (including the pork industry) believe that minimum nationwide standards enacted in federal law could bring stability to livestock industries and level the playing field where states and counties are adopting a patchwork of requirements. Support by livestock groups for federal efforts is likely to hinge on whether federal rules are viewed as unduly restrictive or impose unrealistic deadlines, and whether they include incentives such as financial assistance.

State environmental and agricultural officials do not necessarily object to minimal national uniformity, but strongly believe that states and localities should not be preempted from imposing tighter controls, where they choose to do so. Their view is that, because of the variability in geographic and geologic conditions nationally, a "one-size-fits-all" approach to regulating animal waste is not possible.

Environmentalists views. Environmental and conservation groups call for strong national baseline standards for permitting of waste storage facilities and operations and waste application. As noted above, some favor a national moratorium on new facilities. A strong federal program, they say, would provide for more accountability than programs run by state and local jurisdictions and is more likely to ensure that permitting and decision making includes public participation. Nevertheless, environmentalists who favor stringent control requirements are in general less concerned with which level of government has responsibility than with fundamentally ensuring that policies and implementation strongly protect public health and the environment. These groups have been active both in state and federal debates on these issues.

In debate on many of these issues, alliances exist between environmentalists and small farm operators who together have been urging state legislators, in particular, to regulate the entrance and operation of large-scale farming operations which these groups believe pose the greatest environmental risk in the state and the greatest economic threat to the viability of small, family farming operations that already exist. In many states, these two groups have argued that wastes, discharges, and air emissions from large livestock operations not only threaten environmental quality, but also tourism, recreation, fishing, boating, property values, and economic development.

Other relevant federal legislation: research, CWA reauthorization, and appropriations. The 105th Congress has been considering legislation to reauthorize agricultural research and extension programs. In March, conferees reached agreement on provisions of a bill (S. 1150) which would create a separate nutrient management research and extension initiative. According to the bill managers' statement on the bill, this initiative is to focus on Animal waste and odor, water quality and ecosystems, rural/urban interfaces, animal feed, and alternative uses of animal waste.48

Legislative attention to animal waste issues could occur in connection with reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. As noted above, H.R. 3232 would amend the CWA to tighten EPA's regulatory programs for AFOs, and other specific proposals may be introduced, as well. Moreover, reviewing the Act's current provisions that deal with management of nonpoint source pollution (including contributions from agriculture) is likely to be a prominent issue when reauthorization occurs. However, no comprehensive reauthorization bills have been introduced in the 105th Congress, and congressional committees have not scheduled hearings or other legislative activity, because of the limited time remaining and attention to other legislative priorities. Thus, CWA reauthorization is not expected before the 106th Congress.

Legislative attention also could occur in connection with funding for the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan. The President's FY 1999 budget request includes a total of $568 million in additional funds to implement this water quality initiative, including $100 million more for USDA's EQIP and $145 million for EPA, emphasizing nonpoint source pollution and animal waste. How the President's priorities will fare in Congress depends both on support for the funding requests themselves and on whether the requests are viewed as taking funds away from other programs or projects having congressional priority.

Conclusion: Policy Questions

Social and political pressure to address the environmental impacts of livestock production has grown to the point that many policymakers today are asking what to do, not whether to do something. The setting is one where agricultural policy and environmental policy, which traditionally have separate agendas and priorities, come together on some points. A major direction of inquiry is what strategies will be effective and attainable, who should be responsible for developing and implementing strategies to address known and future problems, and who should bear the burdens of new strategies. Animal waste management issues are one set of concerns, along with a number of others, that currently face animal agriculture generally. Underlying the current discussion is a broader debate, as well. should evolving policies deal primarily with residues of livestock production, or should policies also seek to influence the ongoing trends in the industry towards concentration of animals among smaller numbers of producers? Consideration of the following questions is likely to shape policies that are developed to address the waste management issues, irrespective of how other societal concerns also are addressed.

What is the federal role today? Federal, state, and local governments currently have numerous programs and policies in place that address animal waste issues. At the federal level, policies include both EPA's regulatory programs implementing water quality requirements and USDA's technical assistance and incentive payment programs to farmers. EPA's policies, in particular, are changing through its Animal

Feeding Operation Strategy which emphasizes regulation and enforcement of clean water rules on CAFOs. USDA, as well, is starting to implement EQIP. Both will be coordinating activities to address agricultural pollution more than ever under the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan. One question, in terms of EPA's program, is whether to modify the current regulatory threshold of 1,000 animal units and possibly bring more animal feeding operations under EPA's rules. Many other questions also will be raised as EPA develops revised feedlot rules, including what type of water quality monitoring requirements and land application standards should be set at the federal level, versus, state and local governments.

What should the federal role be vis a vis state and local roles? State and local governments implement a variety of regulatory, siting and zoning, technical assistance, and cost share programs. A key question, especially in view of the varied state and local policies that also now exist, is what degree of federal leadership and national consistency is appropriate and how federal policies will blend with those of states and localities. Some groups and individuals are likely to favor a strengthened federal role that holds states to minimum national consistency. For example, the National Pork Producers Council is advocating minimum national standards, which it has recommended through its dialogue. Others would prefer that states have the lead role in policy formulation, based on their knowledge of geographic, climatic, economic or other unique factors, while limiting the federal role to providing guidance and financial assistance.

Further, there are questions about additional aspects of the federal role generally in addressing animal waste issues. For example, is there a role for government in supporting efforts to facilitate exchange or transfer of manure to lessen imbalances between areas with intense animal production and areas with fewer livestock farms where the nutritive value of manure can be used? Is there need for government to encourage certain manure management practices with potential for increasing the nutrient value while reducing off-site damages? 49 What levels of financial assistance can and should the federal government provide to farm operators and/or states for implementation of waste management planning? How should federal funds to operators be provided directly from federal agencies, routed through states which determine high-priority needs, or some other system? Also, because current federal environmental programs do not deal with animal waste impacts on groundwater or air quality, there is a question of whether federal policy should address these concerns, which are beyond the Clean Water Act regime.

A related question concerns how to balance the roles of EPA and USDA, in terms of federal responsibility and policy direction. This split is reflected by the two legislative proposals introduced so far in the 105th Congress, one emphasizing EPA's role under the Clean Water Act (H.R. 3232), the other focusing on enhanced responsibility for USDA (5. 1323). Implicitly, this question asks whether animal waste is viewed primarily as an environmental pollution problem, or primarily as an agricultural resource management problem. Answers may not represent either-or policy choices, but could involve better coordination of the agencies' differing roles, which is a key goal of the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan.

What balance of federal regulation and voluntary approaches is needed?

This question is closely related to those concerning the appropriate federal role and the way in which animal waste management is viewed as a policy matter If it is viewed as a point source pollution problem, EPA's traditional regulatory tools of standard setting, permitting, compliance deadlines, and enforcement are the key available tools. Alternatively, if viewed as an agricultural resource issue, the desired policy tools might be those most familiar to the agriculture community: non-regulatory, incentive-based approaches.

Here, too, solutions are unlikely to be exclusive either-or determinations. Solutions are more likely to be broad-based, along the lines and consistent with evolving policies which view resource management problems, especially those involving water resources, in terms of watershed management. Some view watershed management as the next generation of both pollution control and resource management policies, since it is a concept centered on addressing the highest-priority problems within geographic areas that encompass multiple economic and resource activities. It seeks to move beyond focusing on individual chemical contaminants or their sources to a broader assessment of all sources of impairment within the watershed, including habitat degradation, air quality impacts, biological factors, or polluted runoff In many watersheds, agricultural sources (cropland and livestock) will be part of the mix. Solving problems on a watershed basis may involve a mix of policy tools: funding (grants and loans), land use management, regulation, technical assistance and education, market-based approaches (such as trading of effluent reduction requirements by point and nonpoint sources), and coordination among federal, state, and local levels of government. These are the kinds of policy and program tools that EPA, USDA, and other agencies are using today; whether they will be the correct or exclusive tools to address future problems remains to be determined.

What kinds of additional research and evaluation are needed? Experts identify a number of areas of research needed to inform current and new animal waste management policies. First, many believe basic research on using and disposing of manure is crucial. Odor management is a key concern, although this topic may be a higher priority to industry, states, and localities, than to the federal government which has no regulatory interest as of now. Other research needs include improved soil tests to determine nutrient application rates and methods, and improved systems to identify water resources at risk from manure and fertilizers (i.e., those where geology, soils, and climate create potential for runoff and erosion). Two related questions are who should take the lead on research questions (government or industry, for example) and whether some research must precede implementation (for example, studies on crop uptake of nutrients and application of phytase or other nutrient-reducing enzymes in feed). How the results of relevant federally funded research and technology development will be transferred to the public and private sectors and the commercial marketplace also is an issue. Efforts to educate and assist farms in understanding the value of manure as a soil amendment and the use of alternate disposal techniques seem likely to be a priority.

Further, one part of a research agenda is likely to be more complete evaluation and monitoring of programs, both ongoing and new. What programs (i.e., governmental and private sector) are underway and how effective they are in addressing animal waste issues could be examined. Evaluation activities will provide accountability, especially where federal dollars are spent, and will aid in determining what steps are needed to address remaining problems.

Is federal legislation needed? This, finally, is the question of how Congress will choose to address national policies on animal waste management. Legislation has been proposed to guide EPA and/or USDA activities, and thus, influence states and livestock producers. At issue is whether current federal policies and recent proposals alone will be adequate to address animal waste problems nationally and encourage improved management practices. Congress could likewise guide the agencies' activities through the appropriations process, by either limiting or expanding funding for specific programs and initiatives or, more broadly, for the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan.

ENDNOTES

45 Comments of Jim Moscley, National Pork Producers Council, at congressional staff briefing, Dec.17, 1997

46 America's Clean Water Foundation. Comprehensive Environmental Framework for Pork Production Operations: The Recommendations of the National Environmental Dialogue on Pork Production. Washington, DC, Dec.17, 1997. 30 p.

47 For information and some of the testimony from this hearing, see:
http://www.senate.gov/agriculture/hea98402.htm

48 See: http://www.senate.gov/agriculture/98mgrs.pdf

49 For example, commercially available amendments such as slaked lime or alum can reduce ammonia nitrogen volatilization and phosphorus solubility of poultry waste but may not be considered affordable or economically justified by farm operators.