Get CAFOs to phase out waste lagoons and sprayfields

Concentration and consolidation has been a hallmark of American agriculture over the past 50 years. While this has led to greater efficiencies in the field and farm and lower prices at supermarket checkout lines, the process has not been without a marked downside.

Concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are the dominant means of meat, milk, and egg production in the United States, a major polluter of the nation’s waterways and a significant contributor of greenhouse gas emissions and other airborne pollutants. CAFOs, by definition, discharge into US navigable waters. Consequently, they are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the auspices of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in a manner similar to any other discharging industry.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), there were 2.2 million farms in the United States in 2008. Of those, 11,900 were classified as CAFOs. Yet, despite their relatively small number, these farms account for 40% of the livestock raised in this country and produce 300 million tons of manure per year, twice as much as the total annual sewage waste output of the US population. While it would be unthinkable to dump such a quantity of human waste into the US water supply untreated, this is not the case for CAFO manure, which is normally disposed of in one of two ways: via spraying as fertilizer on nearby cropland, or in large man-made “lagoons”. If the sprayed land was able to absorb the nutrients in the manure and/or the lagoons were thoroughly sealed, there would be no issue; however, this is not the case. Since croplands cannot absorb the high levels of nitrogen and phosphorous contained in the manure, these nutrients are absorbed into the groundwater supply or are carried into water bodies by rain runoff. This leads directly to eutrophication, the over-fertilization of water that promotes algal blooms, which in turn cause large-scale fish kills due to a lack of available oxygen in the water. Additionally, CAFO manure runoff results in the acidification of soil and water, and contains heavy metals, antibiotics, hormones, and pesticides. These additives find their way into municipal water as well as groundwater supplies, the latter often serving as the primary drinking water supply for rural communities.

However, CAFO pollution is not limited to water contamination. As manure decomposes it releases over 160 gasses, including hydrogen sulfide and ammonia as well as the greenhouse gasses methane, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxide. There is a strong correlation between these pollutants and increased occurrences of asthma, depression and other neuropsychopathic abnormalities among CAFO workers and residents within areas surrounding these farms. The smell is also purported to be overbearing and excess greenhouse gas release is a direct contributing factor to global climate change.

As a result of a change in the CWA in 2003 and subsequent legal decisions, there is now greater regulation of CAFOs than at any other time since its inception. However, this regulation is incomplete and not wholly effective. The main result of the 2003 rules was the requirement of mandatory National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for all CAFOs and qualifying AFOs, which allows farms to dump limited amounts of effluent directly into US waterways. Along with NPDES permit applications, CAFO operators must submit a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP), open to public comment, that details how all organic wastes will be stored and disposed. There are several problems with the implementation each of these requirements.

First, both state and Federal governments oversee the administration of NPDES permits. Accordingly, for the 45 states allowed to issue the permits, enforcement of the law is highly inconsistent. Of the 15,437 facilities legally bound to obtain permits in 2007, less than 30% actually had them. In some cases, issuing states use generic NPDES permits, grouping CAFOs together without individual inspection in order to save time and resources. Likewise, while CAFOs that discharge without NPDES permits are liable to government and third-party lawsuits, actions by the EPA usually only happen after citizen complaints or large rainfalls. In fact, between fiscal years 2000-2002, the EPA only inspected 600 CAFOs.

Second, there are no clearly defined Federal requirements for CNMPs, nor is there any technical standard for manure application rates by CAFOs. Additionally, there is only minimal focus within CNMP guidelines on air and groundwater pollution management. Likewise, CNMPs do not need to be developed by certified experts or approved by any EPA permitting authority. Finally, as a result of a 2008 CWA provision, the criterion for overflow discharge by containment structures was relaxed from a 100-year, 24-hour storm standard to industry-regulated “site specific best management practice effluent limitations.”

Accordingly, the best course of action to close these loopholes while both minimizing financial strain on the taxpayer and giving consideration to the needs of private industry is the mandatory phase-out of waste lagoons and sprayfields. As stated, these open-air manure pits and fields generate significant quantities of air and water pollution. Despite an EPA FY2010 budget of $10.5 billion, there is still not enough money for effective enforcement of current regulations. Ultimately, this policy intervenes near the source of the environmental problem at hand: the massive amounts of untreated animal waste pollution in America’s air and water. The solution will require minimal additional funding by the Federal government as the costs of implementation will predominantly be borne by the polluters. Because of high levels of vertical integration among livestock industries, especially in swine and poultry production facilities, most growers do not own their animals. Rather, they are owned by a small group of highly consolidated integrators, yet the growers are by and large responsible for waste disposal. In order to prevent an unreasonable financial burden on contractees, the transitional costs away from current systems and the construction of new waste management systems should be endured by whichever parties own the animals being raised.

In order to ease some of private industry’s financial burden, there are currently several means of Government support available. First and foremost are USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) grants. The 2008 Farm Bill authorized $2.5 billion in obligatory spending in FY2010 to help reduce air and water pollutions on CAFOs with CNMPs, with a maximum grant of $450 thousand per farm. Second, The USDA has also allotted $25 million for FY2011 for Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG), which award funds to producers seeking novel approaches to environmental stewardship. Third, by using innovative technologies like methane digesters, which capture the volatile gas from waste lagoons and convert it into electricity, CAFOs would be able to decrease ambient odor and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while simultaneously generating electricity that can be used to both power individual farms as well as harvest energy that can be sold back to the grid for a profit; a solution that ultimately pays for itself. Additionally, several large CAFO states have various grants and tax abatements for “green” energy production. These are just a few ways for industry to minimize any financial burden as a result of new regulations.

Other options for CAFO pollution reduction exist, including a greater shift away from state to Federal oversight of NPDES permitting and facilities inspection or the mandatory construction of sewage treatment plants similar to those required for human population centers. However, the former requires a substantial increase in EPA funding and in turn an increased burden on the taxpayer, while the latter necessitates potentially crippling financial outlays to farmers and agribusiness firms.

As such, the policy of a mandatory phase-out of waste lagoons and sprayfields is the most prudent option for all stakeholders. The American public benefits through reduced water and air pollution. Rural populations near CAFOs benefit from a reduction in illnesses associated with living and working in close proximity to CAFOs as well as an influx of jobs required to build and service new waste management facilities. State governments benefit through lower administrative burdens stemming from NPDES permit oversight and enforcement. The Federal government benefits because of low funding costs and administrative expenditures in line with preexisting policies. And private industry benefits from a better public image as well as government funding and enterprise options that are able to generate cash flows which make the conversion to new technologies financially worthwhile.

If implemented, a mandatory transition away from current CAFO waste management system would benefit all stakeholders, as well as the environment as a whole. Accordingly, its passage and implementation is a prudent decision for Congress and the country.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sources Cited:
"Aillery, Marcel, et al. United States. Managing Manure To Improve Air and Water Quality.
Washington, DC: Economic Research Service/USDA, 2005. Print.

Conservation Innovation Grants." Conservation Innovation Grants|NRCS. US Environmental
Protection Agency, 3 Dec 2010. Web. 6 Dec 2010. .

Copeland, Claudia. United States. Animal Waste and Water Quality: EPA Regulation of
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Washington, DC: Library of Congress, 2007. Print.

Donham, Kelley J., et al. "Community Health and Socioeconomic Issues Surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations." Environmental Health Perspectives 115 2 (2007): 317-20. Print.

"DSIRE: DSIRE Home." DSIRE: Database for State Initiatives for Renewables & Efficiency. the
North Carolina Solar Center and the Interstate Renewable Energy Council (IREC), 2010. Web. 6 Dec 2010. .

"Environmental Quality Incentives Program." Environmental Quality Incentives Program|NRCS.
US Environmental Protection Agency, 28 Oct 2010. Web. 6 Dec 2010. .

The Hidden Costs of CAFOs. Cambridge, MA: The Union of Concerned Scientists, 2008. Print.

Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, First. Putting Meat on the Table:
Industrial Farm Animal . Baltimore, MD: The Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins
Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2008. Print.

Starmer, Elanor, and Timothy A. Wise. Living High on the Hog: Factory Farms, Federal Policy,
and the Structural Transformation of Swine Production. Medford, MA: Global
Development and Environment Institute, Tufts University, 2007. Print.

United States. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Final Rulemaking – Fact Sheet. US
Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. Print.

United States. Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Final Rulemaking – Q & A. US
Environmental Protection Agency, 2008. Print.

United States. EPA’s Clean Water Act Enforcement Strategy Update for Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency, 2003. Print.

United States. FY 2010 EPA Budget in Brief. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection
Agency, 2009. Print.

"United States, US, U.S. State Fact, fact sheet, facts, state facts, ERS, Economic Research Service, USDA, population, employment, income, state, metro, nonmetro, rural, urban, total, change, per-capita income, earnings per job, education, percent completing college, poverty rate, total number of jobs, unemployment rate, unemployment, employment change, Census of Agriculture, farmland, cropland, acres, conservation and wetland reserve program, woodland, pastureland, farm size, farms by sales, farm organization, average age of farmers, family farms, financial indicators, number of farms, farm income, animal output, capital consumption, agricultural sector output, farm assets, debt, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, land area, tenure of farmer agricultural commodities, farm receipts, agricultural sales, agricultural exports, trade, top counties, rank among states, final crop output, Federal Funds, program functions (purpose), ERS function codes, object codes (type of payments), organic, and more..."." Economic Research Service/USDA. Economic Research Service/USDA, 6 Dec 2010. Web. 6 Dec 2010.
http://www.ers.usda.gov/statefacts/us.htm