Re: Draft Guidance Manual and Example NPDES Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Dear Mr. Beatty:

I am a member of the Izaak Walton League, which is a 77 year old national conservation organization.  At our annual convention this summer, we passed a policy resolution that asks for a moratorium on all new animal feeding operations for 5 years, until studies can be completed on their environmental impacts.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is to be commended for requiring that Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) obtain Clean Water Act permits.  I am pleased that EPA is requiring Clean Water Act NPDES permits over general permits because Clean Water Act permits allow for protections such as citizen lawsuits against polluters and penalties for polluters.  These measures are necessary to protect our environment and public health.

The heart of the permits are Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs), but the measures included in these plans are totally discretionary.  These plans will neither be written, nor reviewed by water quality personnel, and will be kept on-site by operators, making public evaluation of their effectiveness in meeting water quality standards nearly impossible.

The content of the permits is just as important as the requirement to obtain the permits.  EPA’s Draft Guidance Manual and example NPDES Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations grant far too much discretion to the states as they create their permit programs.  The result will be continued weak and variable state programs and pollution problems and public health threats from factory farms.  From the state-level perspective, we were looking to EPA to set minimum standards below which no facility in the country could operate.  This, in effect, would have leveled the playing field between states with currently unequal standards.

Giyen that states have shown an unwillingness to create strong and effective regulatory programs, the likely result of implementation of the draft documents will be weak and variable and weak regulatory programs for CAFOs. [GIVE AN EXAMPLE HERE OF WHAT IS HAPPENNNG IN YOUR STATE].

States are looking to EPA for guidance on what they should do about feedlot pollution.  The federal government needs to provide this regulatory backbone.

Finally, the draft documents inappropriately delegate standard-setting and other significant powers to USDA which has no regulatory role in the protection of waterways.  Instead, EPA should retain this regulatory and enforcement authority.

The draft documents need firm standards that ensure at least a minimal level of protection from factory farm pollution across the country, including the following requirements for all CAFOs:
 

• All CAFOs of over 1,000 animal units (including large scale poultry operations and integrators) should obtain Clean Water Act permits (except that a moratorium should be established for new and expanding CAFOs until the rules are updated); The draft documents recommend far too much reliance on general permits, which allow no public involvement, and elicit very little regulatory oversight;
• Setbacks should be required away from ecologically vulnerable locations, including lakes, rivers, streams, areas with karst topography, alluvial terrace deposits, sandy or highly erodible soils, floodplains, and wetlands, and liners for manure storage facilities,
• All CNMPs should be reviewed by water quality agency personnel to ensure that they protect water quality, do not conflict with other CNMIPs within a particular watershed and address cumulative impacts. If a CNIVIP is deemed to be inadequate, the permit associated with it should be revoked. CNIVIP’s should include restrictions on the land application of manure based on the nutrient most likely to cause pollution problems for each sites—and the ability of the land to uptake the nutrients7 based on the type of crop grown, and consistent rates for similar soil and crop conditions across the nation.
• The draft documents do not curtail air pollution from CAFOs. The draft documents should require lagoons to be covered and ban spraying manure onto the land; and
• Facilities should conduct ground and surface water quality testing and reporting.

There are some good features of the draft documents, including joint liability by the large corporations that own the animals and the producers who raise them, as well as and restrictions on the land application of manure within permits.  The draft documents also reference linings for lagoons, buffer and filter strips surrounding CAFOs, water quality monitoring, and setbacks from floodplains.  These features should be made mandatory, rather than discretionary, and should be made more stringent.

In summary, EPA should establish firm, measurable, and nationally-consistent standards through these documents that reduce pollution from CAFOs across the nation.

Sincerely,