Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*
|
Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment* |
|
|
|
Animal Waste Management
and the Environment: 98-451 CONTENTS FOR THIS SECTION Federal Programs and Activities
List of Boxes Federal Programs and Activities Programs for Animal Waste at USDA Agriculture resource conservation programs are voluntary and rely on the combination of education, technical assistance, and cost sharing payments to attract participation. Little information is available, however, on the cost-effectiveness of this approach whether owners of the lands and resources that could benefit most are participating in these programs. This question of who participates was less of an issue when conservation programs revolved around helping landowners to protect their soil and water resources so that they could increase their productivity and profits. But as these programs have expanded to address resource degradation and off-site environmental problems, as well, non-agricultural interests have raised more questions about program effectiveness in reaching the right land (and landowners) and addressing the most pressing problems. Agricultural interests contend that much is being accomplished, especially with the shifis in policy in the 1996 farm bill (P.L 104-127, the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Refom Act of 1996; the FAIR Act), which have led to active State Technical Committees and "locally led conservation" to help ensure that the most pressing problems are identified locally and receive priority attention at a state level. Decisions that were largely made in Washington about priority problems and priority areas in which to concentrate program efforts are now being made at the state level, based on local involvement and input from a wide range of agricultural and other interests. But this system is less than 2 years old. The transition has not been completed in all places, and there are few results to report. Until the 1996 farm bill was enacted, no conservation programs dealt explicitly with animal waste management issues, although many were used to address some kinds of problems that might originate with animal waste, especially water quality problems. It is difficult to discern what portion of the extensive USDA water quality protection effort can be tied back to addressing animal waste management questions, or what those programs have accomplished. However, one review of conservation spending for selected programs between FY 1992 and FY1994 shows that $89 million (out of more than $525 million) was provided in cost sharing assistance to farmers for manure management, primarily to build animal waste containment structures.23 The 1996 farm bill created the Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP). EQIP is a mandatory spending program and receives $200 million a year. It is the only conservation program to explicitly identiy meeting the needs of animal agriculture as a stated program purpose. Half the EQIP funds are to address problems associated with livestock production. The law directs the program to maximize environmental benefits in the installation of structural and land management practices per dollar expended. The funds provide assistance through a combination of cost sharing (up to 75% of project costs), technical assistance, and education. A plan is required to participate. Payments per contract are limited to $10,000 annually and to $50,000 over the life of a contract (5 to 10 years). However, exceptions to the annual limit may be granted. A majority of the funds (70% to 80%) are to be spent in priority areas, with the most pressing needs selected at the state level. This is a major change from older conservation programs, where ffinds and technical assistance were made available more uniformly across the country. Funds to be spent on livestock production favor smaller farms, as the law prohibits cost share funds from being used for construction of animal waste management facilities on large farms. Congress left the definition of large farms to USDA, which chose to use the EPA definition of CAFOs (see pages 18 and 19, and footnote 27), with some flexibility for adjustment. The Department has estimated that half the 5100 million for animal issues annually (550 million) will be spent on animal waste management facilities, so this limitation applies to a significant component of the program. Final regulations were released in May 1997, and the program has been in operation for less than a year. Initial contracts were signed during the early fall of 1997. While there is no record of accomplishment as yet, the program is meeting a demand; according to USDA, producers sought almost three times the available amount during their initial opportunity to sign contracts. The Clinton Administration and pending animal waste legislation in Congress both propose increasing annual funding. But there is no information yet on the purposes for which producers sought funds, or what types of proposals were accepted or rejected. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is less directly tied to animal waste management, but can be important in several ways. It is used to retire highly erodible and environmentally sensitive lands from production for 10 years (or longer under certain circumstances). Successful bidders receive annual rental payments, and also cost sharing and technical assistance to plant conserving vegetation. The program has an enrollment cap of 36.4 million acres (almost 10% of the country's cropland) and currently has more than 30 million acres enrolled. In general, producers bid to enter the program during enrollment periods. Bids are compared using an environmental benefits index that includes six variables to ensure the maximum environmental benefits for the funds expended. One of those is water quality, so animal waste concerns may be addressed indirectly, for a few bidders, through the credit given under this factor. CRP has two sub-programs that may be more helpful in addressing animal waste issues. One is the Conservation Reserve Eriliancement Program (CREP) where states can supplement the federal program with a more focused state effort. Maryland was the first state to have a CREP approved, in the fall of 1997, to address pfisteria related issues on the state's eastern shore of Chesapeake Bay. CREPs were subsequently approved for Minnesota and Illinois, and together they will be used to retire about 500,000 acres and address water quality concerns. The second effort, operated largely through the CRP, is an initiative to have 2 million miles of water bodies protected by buffers by 2002. Data on the current status of this effort are not available, although some persons close to the program believe that perhaps half a million acres may already be protected. These initiatives are intended to protect waterquality from numerous problem sources, including animal wastes.
USDA initiated a Water Quality Program in 1990, with three other federal agencies (EPA and the Departments of the Interior and of Commerce), to promote sound farm production practices and protect waters from contamination originating with agriculture. Farm chemicals and waste products, which can include animal wastes, have been the focus of this effort. Through 1996, an average of about $100 million was being spent by several agencies at USDA on this initiative annually. This initiative has been implemented through demonstration and watershed projects that include research, information, and assistance components. This is a recent effort that builds on a long history of interest in water quality. In this and earlier efforts, animal waste has not been a focus, but the nutrients from animal waste sometimes have been considered. Some observations on this initiative, which generally supports the traditional approaches for assisting farmers, were offered by the Economic Research Service aft er examining these water quality programs.24 · Voluntary programs are most likely to succeed where farmers recognize
that agriculture contributes to local water quality problems. USDA recently initiated a number of activities to more specifically address the animal waste issue. They build on past water quality initiatives, but do not appear to reorient them. They were summarized in recent congressional testimony 25 and include the following. · Prepare an interagency status report by all relevant USDA agencies. Animal Feeding Operations and the Clean Water Act Much of agriculture is not directly subject to the Clean Water Act (CWA), the federal law that governs the quality of United States rivers, lakes. estuaries, and coastal waters. The Act's traditional focus has been on controlling wastewater from manufacturing and other industrial facilities, termed point sources. Most agricultural activities are considered to be nonpoint sources of pollution, since they do not discharge wastes from clearly identifiable pipes, outfalls, or similar conveyances. Nonpoint pollution occurs as surface erosion of soil by water and as surface runoff of rainfall or snowmelt from diffise areas such as farm and ranch land, construction sites, and mining and timber operations. Nonpoint sources are not required to obtain discharge permits. Consequently, agricultural and other nonpoint sources are not subject to the compliance and enforcement regime that applies to point sources. Agricultural and other nonpoint sources have become increasingly prominent in debates over water quality policy, however, because these types of difflise sources are believed to represent the largest remaining water pollution problem affecting United States waters. To begin to address these issues, the 1987 CWA amendments directed states to implement programs for managing nonpoint sources. Consequently, under federal law, agricultural sources could be subject to state-developed plans requiring operators to use management measures to limit pollutant runoff from their lands. There is anecdotal information that state nonpoint pollution programs are addressing agricultural runoff in various ways, including technical and financial assistance.26 Large animal feeding operations are an exception to the general approach to agriculture in the CWA. Since 1972 (P.L. 92-500), the CWA has defined CAFOs as point rather than nonpoint sources. They are subject to the Act's prohibition against discharging pollutants into waters of the United States without a permit. Thus, CAFOs are treated in a similar manner to other industrial sources of pollution, such as factories and municipal sewage treatment plants. The Act is administered by EPA, and in 1974 and 1976, EPA issued regulations defining the term CAFO for purposes of permit requirements (40 CFR §122.23) and speciing limits on pollutant discharges from feedlots (40 CFR Part 412). Discharge permits, issued by EPA or qualified states (43 states have been delegated this responsibility), specifi' allowable amounts and constituents of effluents and a schedule for compliance. EPA's rules cover facilities that meet all of the following criteria: · Animals are stabled or confined and fed for 45 days or more in a
12-month period; EPA's regulations generally prohibit discharge of wastewater from CAFOs into navigable waters, except those caused by the worst 24-hour storm that would occur in a 25-year period. The CWA does not regulate most land application of animal wastes, nor does it address odor control or groundwater impacts from animal agriculture operations. These topics, if regulated at all, are subject to varied state and local authority, not federal law or regulation. In addition to the CWA, the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA) imposed waste management regulations on most livestock producers in the coastal zone of the 29 states that participate in the Coastal Zone Management Act. CZARA is the first federal program to require specific measures to address agricultural erosion and runoff and other major sources of coastal nonpoint pollution. Its requirements are implemented by states through plans that they develop under CZARA. Federal CZARA guidance for agricultural sources specifies minimum management measures including retention ponds, solids separation basins, and vegetative practices such as filter strips between production facilities and nearby surface waters. CAFOs with as few as 50 animal units may be subject to these and other requirements. Federal approval of state CZARA programs is occurring now, and livestock and poultry producers in the coastal states will begin to see actual requirements in the near future. The law and the implementing regulations do not specify a timeline for implementation. Problems with CAFO regulation. A number of problems with the current CAFO regulatory system under the CWA have limited its effectiveness in preventing environmental problems from livestock production.
EPA has not lacked authority to address water quality problems associated with animal feeding operations, but doing so was not an apparent priority.30 For several years, Agency officials discussed the need to revise the CAFO regulations, and in 1997, plans were announced for two initiatives -- one dealing with CWA enforcement against livestock producers and one dealing comprehensively with all sources of nonpoint source pollution, including farm operations, but with few implementation details. Several events combined to raise the priority of these topics. One was increasing attention to pollution incidents resulting from or believed associated with animal waste spills. Another was the growing number of lawsuits filed by environmentalists against states and EPA (involving nearly 2 dozen states), seeking to compel action against remaining sources of water pollution, including agriculture.31 A third came in October 1997, the 25th anniversary of the Clean Water Act, when Vice President Gore announced an initiative to address the nation's remaining water quality problems. He directed EPA and other federal agencies to develop an Action Plan to improve and strengthen water pollution control efforts across the country. That plan, released in February 1998, identified controlling polluted runoff as one of the biggest remaining water quality challenges and focused on agriculture's contributions.32 In March, EPA announced its first program to implement the plan (other programs not related to animal waste will presumably come later): a draft animal feeding operations strategy to minimize public health and environmental impacts. While this strategy is a key element of the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan, in fact, it represents completion of measures that have been discussed for some time. The draft strategy,33 issued for public comment and to be finalized later this year, consists of multiple steps to improve compliance with existing CAFO regulations and, longer term, to revise and strengthen those regulations. In the near term, EPA proposes a number of actions. ·Complete inspections of all CAFOs within 5 years. EPA's longer term plans include other actions. · Revise the existing effluent limitation guidelines to reflect
industry changes and to better protect the environment, including addressing non-water
quality environmental impacts such as air quality, with Regulations for the poultry and
swine sectors to be revised by December 2001, and others (i.e., beef and dairy cattle) to
be revised by December 2002. USDA is not specifically involved in implementing EPA regulatory programs. Historically and until recently, the two agencies' programs have not been well linked or coordinated. The draft EPA strategy refers to a number of activities to be done with it and other federal agencies. In particular, EPA and USDA are now developing a unified national strategy for all animal feeding operations to define roles and responsibilities for implementing the EPA plan on animal feedlots. Activities will include working jointly on guidance documents; coordinating data collection (including identiing and locating animal feeding operations, regardless of size); reviewing achievements of existing voluntary programs such as Farm*A*Syst, AgSTAR, and CWA section 3 19; and expanding partnerships with USDA to support that agency's programs which complement EPA's efforts, such as EQIP and CREP. The EPA/USDA strategy is expected to be issued in November 1998. What remains to be seen is whether these initiatives and official announcements will, in fact, result in greater linkages between the two agencies, especially at the level of program implementation. ENDNOTES 23 U.S. General Accounting Office. "Briefing section 5: USDA conservation programs providing cost sharing assistance for animal waste management." Animal Agriculture: Information on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues.. GAO/RCED-95-2OOBR June 1995: 72-81. 24 USDA, Economic Research Service. "Chapter 6.2: water quality programs." Agricultura1 Resources and Environmental Indicators, 199697. (1997): 281-83. 25 Statement of Craig Cox'. Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources, USDA, before the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. April 2, 1998. 26 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Section 319 Success Stories: Volume II. Highlights of State and Tribal Nonpoint Source Programs. EPA 841-R-97-OOl. Oct.1997. 213 p. 27 An animal unit is defined as 1,000 pounds of live weight of any given livestock species or combination of livestock species. This term varies according to animal type; one animal is not always equal to one animal unit. Under EPA's regulation, it includes 1,000 beef cattle; 700 mature dairv cattle; 2,500 swine weighing over 55 pounds; 500 horses; 10,000 sheep; 55,000 turkeys; or 30,000 laying hens or broilers (with a liquid manure handling system). Animal feeding operations that include fewer than 1,000 animal units may be subject to regulation if they pose a threat to water quality or use. 28 Illustrating tlie concentration that has occurred in the animal agriculture sector are changes over time in the number of CAFOs. When EPA's current CAFO regulations were proposed in 1975, USDA analyzed the potential impacts. It reported that 95,000, or 13.6%, of the 700,000 animal feeding operations in the country would be subject to those rules. (Source:U.S. Department of Agriculture. "Implications of EPA Proposed Regulations of November 20, 1975 for the Animal Feeding Operations." Washington, DC, Jan.30, 1976.26 p.) The smaller number of total operations and smaller number of CAFOs today suggest that those that are regulated currently are, on average, much larger than 20 years ago. 29 Parry, Roberta. " Agricultural phosphorus and water quality: a U.S. Environmental protection Agency perspective." Journal of Environmental Quality. Vol. 27, no. 2(1998): 258. 30 CWA section 304(b) requires EPA to review and, if appropriate, revise effluent limitation guidelines at least annually. The CAFO standards have not been reviewed or revised since they were promulgated in the mid-1970s. 31 The lawsuits address federal and state implementation of CWA §303(d), which requires states to identify and list waters not meeting water quality standards, then establish total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to allocate loadings of pollutants in those waters. For information, see CRS Report 97-831 ENR, Clean Water Act and TMDLs. 32 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America's Waters. Feb.14, 1998. 1 vol. See: http://www.epa.gov/cleanwater . For additional information, see CR5 Report 98-150 ENR, The Clean Water Initiative. 33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Strategy for Addressing Environmental and Public Health Impacts from Animal Feeding Operations." March 1998. 22 p. See: http://www.epa.gov/owm/afo.htm 34 Farm*A*Syst is a partnership among USDA, EPA, and private business that enables individuals to prevent pollution on farms, ranches, and homes using confidential environmental assessments. AgSTAR is a voluntan' program sponsored by EPA, USDA, and the Department of Energ, that promotes cost-effective methods for reducing methane emissions from manure management. The main focus is on the swine and dairy industries. The CWA section 319 program provides grants to states (but not individuals) to assist in implementing regulatory and nonregulatory nonpoint pollution management programs and projects.
|
CRS Reports Home
|
||
 |
National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org |
 |
