Written comments will be accepted through January 19, 1999 and should be
mailed to Denise C. Coleman, Program Analyst, USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service, ATTN: AFO, P.O. Box 2890, Washington, D.C.
20013-2890, or sent by e-mail to <denise_c.coleman@usda.gov>.
For those of you who will *not* be writing comments, please consider
endorsing the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's comments. Their comments
will be a more detailed version of the sample comments, below. If you
would like to endorse SAC's comments, please FAX SAC a copy of the
following letter (or something to the same effect) on your letterhead (FAX
No. 202-547-1837; SAC Phone No. 202-547-5754) BY JANUARY 18,1999.
Denise C. Coleman,
Program Analyst,
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service,
ATTN: AFO, P.O. Box 2890,
Washington, D.C. 20013-2890
RE: DRAFT UNIFIED NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
Dear Ms. Coleman:
The [NAME OF YOUR ORGANIZATION HERE] endorses the comments submitted by
the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, and adopts these comments, for the
purpose of the docket, as our own.
ADD A SENTENCE HERE ABOUT YOUR ORGANIZATION, FOR EXAMPLE: [YOUR
ORGANIZATION] is a non-profit environmental membership organization with
over 250,000 members and contributors nationwide.
Signed,
Title
*********************************
PLEASE FAX TO SAC BY MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 1999.
*****************************************************
SAMPLE COMMENTS TO BE USED FOR YOUR OWN COMMENTS OR TO SIGN ON TO SAC
COMMENTS:
1. THE DRAFT STRATEGY SHOULD INCLUDE A MORATORIUM ON NEW OR EXPANDING
CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFOs).
The Draft Strategy recognizes that CAFOs which have more than 1,000 animal
units produce quantities of manure that are a risk to water quality and
public health, whether they are well-managed or not. (Draft Strategy at
pp. 15-16) Because of the large amount of manure and other animal wastes
generated and stored at these facilities, spills and breaches of storage
systems have resulted in catastrophic water quality impacts and threats to
public health. Also, land application of large volumes of animal waste
requires very careful planning to avoid water quality and public health
impacts. (Draft Strategy at pp. 15-16) We agree with the USDA and EPA that
there is sufficient evidence of both catastrophic and chronic adverse
impacts from CAFO pollution that all facilities with more than 1,000 animal
units must be regulated under the Clean Water Act's NPDES permit program.
We also agree that the past failure of the EPA to adequately regulate these
facilities under current regulations has left a backlog of some 8,000
existing CAFOs requiring NPDES permits. Moreover, the EPA has acknowledged
that the current NPDES CAFO regulations are inadequate and must be revised
to include more stringent requirements. Therefore, the regulatory program
is currently inadequate even for those CAFOs which have NPDES permits. In
light of the demonstrated adverse impacts from CAFOs and the current
regulatory backlog of thousands of CAFOs requiring NPDES permits, we
recommend that the Draft Strategy include a moratorium on new and expanding
CAFOs, until such time as the EPA and USDA have implemented a regulatory
program that deals adequately with CAFO pollution.
2, THE DRAFT STRATEGY SHOULD PROVIDE NATIONAL, UNIFORM MINIMUM STANDARDS
FOR CAFO REGULATION.
Currently, states dealing with environmental degradation and public health
problems arising from CAFOs are confronted with threats from
vertically-integrated and well-financed animal processors that they will
relocate to other states if reasonable environmental and public health
regulations are imposed on CAFOs. The large-scale livestock
production-processing industry has played the states against each other to
avoid dealing with its environmental and public health problems. But,
recently, citizens in states such as North Carolina, Oklahoma, and
Colorado, which have seen an influx of CAFOs, have insisted that their
states deal with the demonstrated adverse effects of CAFOs. It is
long-past time that the USDA and the EPA acknowledge that CAFO pollution is
a national problem and that there is no place in the nation where citizens
should be subjected to the environmental and public health problems arising
from CAFOs. We recommend that the Draft Strategy clearly provide for
adequate, minimum national standards for CAFO regulation that will give
state and local governments a solid regulatory floor to add their own more
stringent measures for dealing with CAFO pollution.
3. THE DRAFT STRATEGY SHOULD RECOGNIZE AND PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE
ALTERNATIVES TO FACTORY FARM ANIMAL PRODUCTION.
The Draft Strategy acknowledges the roots of factory farm pollution
problems, that is the decoupling of animal production from feed production
and the concentration of large amounts of manure and wastewater on farms
and in watersheds. Yet, the Draft Strategy assumes, erroneously, that
large-scale factory farming is both inevitable and potentially sustainable.
The Draft Strategy gives no serious consideration to recommending that
existing, truly sustainable livestock production practices be encouraged as
alternatives to factory farms. Instead, the Draft Strategy recommends the
expenditure of large amounts of public funds for technical assistance and
cost-share money to encourage and subsidize factory farms and for a
regulatory system that will attempt to bandage over some of the excesses of
a deeply flawed production system. Animal production in small and
mid-sized systems, which link the animal production with the production of
the animal's feed and recognize both on-site and off-site environmental
impacts, provide for sustainable animal production that can avoid and
prevent the kind of pollution that is generated by CAFO factory farms. We
recommend that the Draft Strategy both recognize and promote sustainable
animal production systems as alternatives to large-scale factory farms.
4. THE RESEARCH PLAN FOR THE DRAFT STRATEGY SHOULD EMPHASIZE A
SUSTAINABLE, POLLUTION-PREVENTION AGENDA FOR LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION, NOT THE
MITIGATION AND CLEANUP OF POLLUTING CAFOS.
The Draft Strategy indicates that a detailed, coordinated research and
technology transfer plan will be in place by October 1999, including the
establishment of an information center. Sustainable animal production
systems, however, are barely given a mention in this research plan. Buried
in the list of 14 research and education priorities is #11 - "alternatives
to production methods that use animal confinement." The other priorities
focus on spending even greater amounts of public funds than have already
been spent trying to band-aid over the problems of a deeply flawed factory
farm production system. A taxpayer-funded, coordinated research strategy
to address pollution and other problems inherent in large scale factory
farm systems should begin with priorities related to developing
sustainable, low impact technologies and management systems. We recommend
that the research agenda for the Draft Strategy give priority to
sustainable, pollution-preventing methods for livestock production rather
than focus on trying to mitigate and clean-up the pollution from CAFOs.
5. THE DRAFT STRATEGY SHOULD GIVE TOP PRIORITY TO REGULATING LARGE-SCALE
CAFOS.
The Draft Strategy acknowledges that large-scale CAFOs, those with 1,000
animal units or more, as defined by the EPA, present a special risk to
water quality and public health. Only 2,000 of the estimated 10,000 of
these facilities have NPDES permits as currently required by the Clean
Water Act. Many of the permits which have been issued have been proven to
be inadequate to deal with the water pollution problems presented by these
CAFOs. The Draft Strategy should give clear priority to adequately
regulating these CAFOs Instead, the Draft Strategy begins with a plan of
setting national performance standards and producing comprehensive nutrient
management plans for all 450,000 AFOs, without regard to the number of
animals, the production system, or the gravity of harm and risk arising
from the operation. This approach is a diversion from addressing first the
most urgent problems arising from large-scale CAFOs.
Encouraging animal feeding operations that do not fall within the NPDES
regulatory program to ensure that they are managed in an environmentally
sound manner is a laudable goal. We in the sustainable agriculture
community continue to support voluntary programs to meet that goal, such as
the Conservation Farm Option, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, the SARE program and Clean Water
Act Section 319 funding for small and mid-sized farms. We consider that
increased funding for these programs should be part of the Draft Strategy.
But the Draft Strategy, as matter of sound public policy, should focus
first on regulating large-scale CAFOs, which the Strategy recognizes as
posing the greatest threats to the environment and public health. We
recommend that the Draft Strategy clearly provide that under the Strategy
agency funds and staff resources will be focused on large-scale CAFOs,
until they are all within an adequate and effective regulatory system.
6. CAFOS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE INDIVIDUAL CLEAN WATER ACT NPDES
PERMITS, NOT RUBBER-STAMP GENERAL PERMITS OR WATERSHED PERMITS.
The Draft Strategy acknowledges that current regulations and standards for
dealing with factory farm pollution are inadequate, that a backlog of
thousands of CAFOs need Clean Water Act permits, and that many of these
facilities are currently the source of significant water pollution
problems. The Draft Strategy proposes, however, that most existing
operations be regulated under a general permit process, which does not give
neighboring communities notice or an opportunity to review and comment
before the permit is granted. Most of these permits will be issued in
advance of proposed regulatory amendments and new requirements for nutrient
management plans, providing factory farms with rubber-stamp approval to
continue using large-scale, liquid manure storage facilities and land
application sprayfields. Proposed watershed permits may be even more
inadequate, allowing for a blanket approval of all factory farms packed
into a single watershed without adequate analysis of the cumulative impacts
on the watershed or sufficient public participation in the permitting
process. We recommend that in order to provide effective public
participation and evaluation, the Draft Strategy should provide that all
CAFOs be required to obtain individual NPDES permits.
7. THE DRAFT STRATEGY SHOULD PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION AND PUBLIC
ACCOUNTABILITY.
In addition to our recommendation that CAFOs be subject to individual NPDES
permits to ensure public participation before the establishment or
expansion of a CAFO, we also urge that the Draft Strategy require that
nutrient management plans, monitoring results, and other records required
by the NPDES permit program be publicly filed and readily available for
public review. The burden should not be on neighboring residents and
communities to undertake their own monitoring programs and painstaking
record searches or other measure to assess existing and potential impacts
from CAFOs We recommend that the Draft Strategy establish provisions for
effective monitoring and public accountability for adverse environmental
and public health effects arising from CAFOs.
8. THE DRAFT STRATEGY SHOULD PROVIDE CLEAR STANDARDS AND PROVISIONS FOR
ADEQUATELY ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS ARISING FROM
CAFOs.
The Draft Strategy should clearly address existing and demonstrated
failures to adequately regulate CAFOs. Animal waste generated by poultry
CAFOs should be categorically included within the regulatory framework,
without regard to whether it is generated in a liquid manure handling
system or as dry poultry litter. The EPA-USDA Strategy should also
prohibit the use of anaerobic lagoons and underground earthen storage
systems for new and expanding CAFOs. In addition, existing anaerobic
lagoons and storage systems for CAFO waste should be immediately lined and
covered as an NPDES requirement and phased out within, at most, the next 10
years.
The Draft Strategy represents a big step forward in that both USDA and EPA
now acknowledge that land application of animal waste from factory farms
should be regulated. The Draft Strategy, however, depends heavily on USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) standards as the basis for
Clean Water Act permits for factory farms, including the standards for land
application of animal waste. These NRCS standards, however, may vary
greatly from county to county and are also in need of significant revision
and national guidance from USDA on their application. Although the Draft
Strategy calls for Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans for factory
farms with permits, the Draft Strategy provides little detail as to what
standards will actually govern the content of these plans. The Draft
Strategy should clarify that the standards for Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plans will include both nitrogen and phosphorus limitations,
based on water quality protection, for land application of factory farm
animal waste. The Draft Strategy should also clarify the relationship
between EPA's effluent guidelines for land applied animal waste and the
NRCS technical standards for nutrient management. All facilities requiring
an NPDES permit should have a Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan, which
the public can review before the permit is approved and whose
implementation is a fully enforceable condition of the permit. In
addition, aerial application or spraying of manure from CAFOs should be
prohibited and uncomposted wet manure should be incorporated into the soil
within 24 hours of application. These provisions represent basic minimum
standards necessary to deal with CAFO pollution. We recommend that the
USDA and EPA provide clear standards and provisions in the Draft Strategy
for regulating CAFOs that focus on protecting the environment and the
public health.
9. THE DRAFT STRATEGY SHOULD IMPOSE LEGAL LIABILITY AND FINANCIAL
RESPONSIBILITY FOR FACTORY FARM POLLUTION ON VERTICAL INTEGRATORS:
Vertical integrators are the processing companies, which often own the
animals raised on factory farms and generally dictate operating conditions
on the factory farms. The vertical integrators are the fat cats in the
factory farm system, but the Draft Strategy allows vertical integrators to
dodge any financial or legal responsibility for a factory farm system that
has made them billions of dollars in profits. The entire financial burden
for dealing with factory farm pollution in the integrated systems falls on
contract farmers and the taxpayers. This is a double blow for independent
livestock producers, who must compete with companies that can dodge
financial responsibility for the problems they cause and who will also pay
taxes to subsidize the costs of cleaning up the mess left by the factory
farm production system. We recommend that the Draft Strategy require that
vertical integrators who own the animals in factory farms and/or dictate
the conditions for operation of factory farms be legally liable and
financially responsible for factory farm pollution.
10. USDA, EPA, AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES SHOULD DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE
STRATEGY FOR ADDRESSING AND DEALING WITH ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC
HEALTH THREATS FROM FACTORY FARMS.
The USDA-EPA Draft AFO Strategy deals primarily with the urgent and
significant issue of surface water pollution from factory farms but does
not address a growing list of other large-scale factory farm problems.
Factory farms can be significant sources of ground water pollution, a
problem that may be dealt with through the Draft Strategy only if surface
waters are also polluted. Large-scale factory farms are also significant
sources of air pollutants, including noxious gases such as hydrogen sulfide
and ammonia, which can threaten the health of workers and those living
nearby and whose stench can result in unbearable conditions for local
communities. In addition, nitrate emissions from the massive amount of
manure produced in factory farms can contribute to air pollution and, when
the nitrate is redeposited, to water pollution. Worldwide, public health
officials, including many in the U.S., are concerned that the use of
antibiotics in factory farms is a significant contributor to the
development of antibiotic resistant pathogens. Also, in many communities,
large-scale factory farms are displacing numerous, small and mid-sized
family farmers and their families. The factory farming system has already
received millions of dollars in public funds to subsidize its creation and
to deal with the resultant myriad problems arising from factory farms. This
flow of funds is a transfer of public money to foster the concentration of
wealth and power in the food production system into fewer and fewer hands,
a concentration which is both bad public policy and corporate welfare at
its worst. We recommend that the Clinton administration convene a
multi-agency task force that will assess and address all the harms arising
from the factory farm system and that will also assess the public funds
which have been expended to subsidize and deal with the problems created by
factory farms.
11. EPA SHOULD RESCIND THE RECENTLY ANNOUNCED COMPLIANCE AUDIT PROGRAM
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EPA AND THE NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL.
The EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance has entered into an
agreement with the National Pork Producers Council which will allow the
Council to oversee a Compliance Audit Program. This program is fatally
flawed as a means of addressing large-scale factory farm problems. There
has been no public review or comment on the standards which will be applied
to on-farm assessments; yet, the Program appears to assume that current
animal waste handling systems such as large-scale earthen lagoons,
sprayfields, open-air lagoons, etc. are acceptable practices. Local
communities and neighbors of factory farms are given no opportunity to
submit information on harms to them from factory farms audited under the
Program. Indeed, the Program does not require any assessment of off-farm
harms or remedial measures for dealing with those harms.
Large-scale, polluting factory farms, without regard to the gravity of the
harm they have caused, can have the penalties for Clean Water Act
violations decreased to a pittance. Moreover, the Program appears to
condone the establishment of undercapitalized CAFOs, which have not
provided sufficient animal waste handling facilities or land for
application of waste. Such a facility, with a history of polluting
episodes, could receive little or no penalty and a seal of approval from
EPA. The Program also expressly prohibits the Program agreement between
the operator and EPA or any Consent Agreement/Order under the Program from
mentioning the issue of whether the CAFO is operating without a required
NPDES permit - a bizarre provision given that the, in the Draft Strategy,
the EPA acknowledges the urgency of identifying and issuing permits for
thousands of CAFOs. We recommend that the EPA should scrap this Compliance
Audit Program as means of dealing with large-scale CAFOs and focus its
efforts on dealing with these facilities through effective compliance and
enforcement of individual NPDES permits.
12. ORAL TESTIMONY PROVIDED AT THE USDA-EPA LISTENING SESSIONS ON THE
DRAFT STRATEGY SHOULD BE MADE PART OF THE OFFICIAL COMMENT RECORD.
Many citizens, some of whom came hundreds of miles from their homes,
participated in the USDA-EPA listening sessions held around the country on
the Draft Strategy. USDA and EPA announced that the testimony would be
recorded and made available on their websites, and those making comments
were required to identify themselves.. The agencies, however, have also
indicated that the testimony would not be part of the official comment
record on the Draft Strategy. We disagree with that position. Many of
the comments were made by individual citizens who expended considerable
time and effort to prepare and deliver their comments. Therefore, we
recommend that comments made at the listening sessions should be made part
of the official comment record on the Draft Strategy.
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