-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
January 13, 1999
Denise C. Coleman
USDA, NRCS
P.O. Box 2890
Washington, DC 20013-2890
Dear Ms. Coleman:
The Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture (Wallace
Institute) welcomes the opportunity to provide input into the process of
developing a draft unified strategy for animal feeding operations by the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The Wallace Institute is a nonprofit,
tax-exempt, research and educational organization. Established in 1983,
the Institute encourages the adoption of low-cost, resource-conserving,
and environmentally sound farming methods.
The Wallace Institute is generally encouraged that the USDA and EPA have
undertaken a joint effort to address the present and potential
environmental problems originating from animal feeding operations (AFOs),
especially concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Furthermore,
we agree with the draft strategy's effort to encourage, through voluntary
and non- voluntary means, the development of comprehensive nutrient
management plans (CNMPs) for all AFOs. In addition, the Wallace Institute
agrees with the move to differentiate CAFOs from other smaller and
less-intensive AFOs, with regard to regulatory approaches. This strategy
potentially enables the USDA and EPA to better target and control
pollution caused by the animal agriculture industry.
There are a number of areas, however, in which the draft strategy is
potentially lacking. Rather than attempt to address all of these
shortcomings in depth, we focus on four that we consider critical. These
four are: (1) the designation of the owner and/or operator as the sole
responsible party, regardless of the structure of the animal sector in
which the owner and/or operator is participating, for developing and
implementing CNMPs; (2) the dearth of language or efforts to promote
sustainable alternatives to purely confined animal operations, despite
the fact that land application of manure remains the primary method of
manure management; (3) the use of general and watershed permits in place
of individual permits, in efforts to implement and improve the existing
regulatory program; and (4) the lack of explicit efforts to make
information regarding CAFOs, including their monitoring and permitting,
available to the public.
#1. The designation of the owner and/or operator as the sole responsible
party, regardless of the structure of the animal sector in which the
owner and/or operator is participating, for developing and implementing
CNMPs.
On page 17 of the draft strategy, it is asserted that "the ultimate
responsibility for developing and implementing CNMPs resides with the
CAFO owner and/or operator." However, such a regulatory strategy is
tenable only if the owner and/or operator has effective managerial
control over the CAFO. Within the poultry industry, and increasingly the
swine industry, the owner and/or operator operates under
resource-providing production contracts, where the integrator, not the
operator, owns the animals. Such contracts also stipulate that other key
aspects of the operation are controlled by the integrator, not the
operator. These key aspects include the relative structure and size of
the operation (number of animals), building and equipment design
(including waste treatment facilities), the quality and type of inputs
(including animal feed), and even many day-to-day production decisions.
In addition, the integrating firms tend to be large- scale corporations
and therefore have greater financial and technical resources than most
operators.
To realize positive environmental management outcomes, the party with the
ability to invest in pollution control technologies and make critical
management decisions should be the party responsible for developing and
successfully implementing nutrient management plans. In the case of
operations carried out under resource-providing production contracts, the
responsible party should be the integrator, not the owner and/or
operator. When operations are independent, or operating under less
restrictive contract arrangements (e.g., the marketing contracts common
in the dairy industry), the responsible party should be the owner and/or
operator.
The guiding principle should be to hold responsible the party that has
the greater level of control over critical aspects of the production
operation.
#2. The dearth of language or efforts to promote sustainable alternatives
to purely confined animal operations, despite the fact that land
application of manure remains the primary method of manure management.
Implicit in the need for a draft unified strategy is the fact that
concentrated animal production, with fewer and larger farms and
production centered within limited geographic regions, brings with it
certain types of environmental problems. While the draft strategy is an
attempt to minimize problems with existing and future concentrated
confinement operations, it falls short because it does not consider the
development and promotion of alternative, more dispersed production
regimes. A more dispersed production system could potentially minimize or
eliminate the types of environmental problems that concern the
agricultural industry, citizens and citizen groups, and rural residents.
The dominant management technique for manure disposal or utilization
remains land application. Given USDA estimates that areas with
concentrated production often contain large surpluses of nutrients, and
that CAFOs are often specialized operations not integrated with
non-animal crop production, there is need for a strategy that promotes
dispersal of production and/or integration with non-animal crop
production, along with regulation of existing (and future) specialized
CAFOs. The current draft strategy attempts only to accomplish the latter
goal.
In addition to the more traditional independent and diversified crop and
livestock production, which is still present but may be quickly
disappearing, promising alternatives (such as intensively managed pasture
systems for beef, dairy, poultry, and swine) have been developed.
Research on such systems by private groups and university scientists,
some of which has been funded by the USDA through its four regional
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) programs, has shown
they can be economically viable and environmentally responsible
alternatives to purely confined animal production. Ignoring the existence
of viable alternatives to the current concentrated confinement systems
amounts to an endorsement, over other current and future alternatives, of
the concentrated confinement approach to animal agriculture. The Wallace
Institute believes that developing environmental standards for animal
agriculture, without considering the full range of production options,
will ultimately not prove cost-effective.
#3. The use of general and watershed permits in place of individual
permits, in efforts to implement and improve the existing regulatory
program.
The draft strategy proposes that the majority of existing CAFOs be
brought under the proposed regulatory framework through a general permit
process and, where appropriate, a watershed general permitting process
based on existing EPA regulations. Although the need to bring existing
operations under a regulatory framework and to tailor permit requirements
to the ecological needs and constraints of particular watersheds is
apparent, these goals can be accomplished through the issuance of
individual permits, if such permits are designed to meet watershed-level
goals. Individual permits that are designed specifically to limit
nutrient loadings into a watershed (from all operations within it) to a
predetermined level, have the advantage—over watershed general permits—of
closer scrutiny of each operation, which should promote more effective
environmental management.
#4. The lack of explicit efforts to make information regarding CAFOs,
including their monitoring and permitting, available to the public.
A number of industries that potentially or currently release toxic
materials into the environment are required to provide the EPA with
information on the types and amounts of such materials, which the agency
makes public through its Toxic Release Inventory (TRI). This process
provides a valuable tool for individuals and groups interested in
monitoring industrial firms' impacts on the environment and public
health.
Manure spills and other CAFO-related events that pollute water should be
eligible for inclusion in the TRI. CNMPs and other information required
for issuing permits to CAFOs should also be made available to the public.
This type of action would assist the EPA in realizing its desired outcome
under Strategic Issue #7, Performance Measures and Accountability.
The Wallace Institute thanks the USDA and EPA for this opportunity to
provide input into the proposed draft unified animal feeding operation
strategy. If we can be of further assistance in the process of developing
a unified national strategy for animal feeding operations, please do not
hesitate to call on us.
Sincerely,
Rick Welsh
Policy Analyst
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".
All messages to sanet-mg are archived at:
http://www.sare.org/htdocs/hypermail