|
ACTION ON FACTORY FARMS |
| 7/7/00 |
"We were highlighting a systemic problem," says Melissa Scanlan. Scanlan, the Madison-based attorney for Midwest Environmental Advocates, asked the EPA in April to review and modify all of the factory farm water discharge permits either issued by or pending before the DNR.
The action grabbed the DNR's attention. "In a little over a month, they moved," says Scanlan. "That's incredible. We've gotten major systemic changes if the DNR really follows through." But profound concerns about the environmental impact of factory farms remain.
Factory farms, by popular definition, concentrate large numbers of animals in small and confined feeding areas. Thousands of cattle, hogs or poultry may be housed in a single location, requiring huge manure holding facilities, the purchase and importation of vast feed quantities, and a plan for manure disposal (called nutrient management). Half of the state's 100 factory farms were started in the last two years.
State permits for the operations ignored federal law by not placing limits on the discharge of manure into state waters, as required by the Clean Water Act. Livestock manure contains bacteria, pathogens, antibiotic and drug residues, and chemicals like phosphorus and nitrogen. So much waste is generated by a single factory farm that it's usually impossible to spread it all on site. Instead, the operator will typically contract with nearby landowners and spread excess manure on their land.
The DNR, according to the petition, allows manure spreading within 200 feet of streams, rivers, and lakes and within 200 feet of the groundwater upgradient for wells, sinkholes and cracked bedrock. No effluent limits for manure were contained in the permits. Scanlan says that it's only during the 25 year flood event (the biggest flood/rainfall event expected in an area every 25 years) that manure can legally enter state waterways and even then it can't exceed state standards.
"We finally," observes Scanlan, "have gotten the DNR to put in a prohibition."
State permits for the factory farm operations ignored federal law by not placing limits on the discharge of manure into state waters, as required by the Clean Water Act.
The EPA's Steve Jann acknowledges that the petition piqued their interest. "It raised a question with the quality of the permits," Jann says.
Although the federal agency hasn't finished its formal review of the petition, Jann mentions that they've already had discussions about its implications with the DNR. He characterizes the talks as "helpful" and says "we've been very happy with how DNR has reacted."
On a national level, the EPA has been focusing more attention on the impact of factory farms on water quality. Along with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, guidelines are being developed that will address pollution concerns. Jann expects that the new reg's will be issued later this year.
"We concurred with some points of the petition," says Gordon Stevenson, the DNR's assistant section chief for Run-off Management. In addition to placing discharge language into its permits, DNR is now requiring immediate compliance upon issuance, which includes construction and farm facility upgrades.
Stevenson blames part of the problem on sudden growth in factory farm operations in Wisconsin. "Only in the last two to three years have we seen a huge upsurge in these facilities," he says. He anticipates the trend will continue and expects most of the state's livestock will be concentrated onto fewer farms.
The DNR has also been guilty of issuing factory farm permits before the applicant had completed the necessary paper work in support of it. On a least one occasion, the nutrient management plan wasn't even filed much less reviewed and approved - before the agency handed out its permit.
"I would say that was an administrative mistake," says Stevenson. He indicates that this is not happening anymore.
A shortage of staff to monitor and oversee manure handling and run-off issues has certainly hampered the DNR's efforts. Even the recent addition of two new employees in this area only increases the staff total to seven. Stevenson says the new staff, based in Green Bay, will work to clear the bulging backlog of factory farm permit applications.
Not only does this small staff oversee factory farm operations but they must also cover enforcement and regulatory concerns for the thousands of other farms scattered across the state. Says Stevenson: "We have a large body of work to do with that group."
Scanlan's petition wants tougher manure spreading requirements. She is especially concerned that the DNR allows the use of liquid manure on frozen ground during the winter, doesn't require a buffer between waterways and application areas, and won't demand what agricultural experts call "best management practices" for incorporating it into the soil.
Stevenson argues for regulatory flexibility. "We do like buffers," he says, choosing an example. "But they're not an appropriate practice with every situation."
Another contention raised by the petition is a call for more regular inspections of manure holding facilities with filing of these monitoring reports. Storage practices vary widely from earthen lagoons (ponds in the ground) to engineered holding tanks. Animals on a factory farm may easily produce more waste on a daily basis than small Wisconsin communities that are required to operate waste treatment plants.
The worst case scenario would be a breach of the lagoon or holding tank releasing a flood of animal waste onto the surrounding countryside. More common might be persistent leaks from the facility. Scanlan's group is involved with a separate DNR case challenging the agency's approval of a permit for a factory farm expansion even though the farm's existing manure holding facility had been leaking for years.
Livestock manure contains bacteria, pathogens, antibiotic and drug residues, and chemicals like phosphorus and nitrogen.
Stevenson says factory farm permits will now require quarterly, visual inspections of manure holding facilities.
But Scanlan wants more. "What can you really tell by a visual inspection," she asks. Noting the tremendous volume of waste, she insists that a tougher standard must be required to protect ground and surface waters.
Stevenson says it's a "mistake" to assume a groundwater monitoring system will reveal manure leaks. "For my money," he adds, "I would want to ensure that it was constructed properly in the first place." The agency, however, has yet to articulate how it will achieve this goal, especially as it relates to older manure storage facilities. One solution, suggests Stevenson, may be abandonment.
Despite several unresolved issues, Scanlan is still pleased with the preliminary results of the EPA petition. "But that doesn't mean we will see water quality protected," she quickly mentions. "I think that will require both DNR and citizen enforcement."
Siting staff shortages, the loss of the state's watchdog Public Intervenor's Office, and a drop-off in DNR enforcement activities (after the DNR Secretary became a political appointee of the Governor), Scanlan urges rural residents to step up. By filing eyewitness accounts of problems and checking agency files and monitoring reports, she says people can help "protect what they love - their homes and their land."
She also knows vigilance will be required. In late June, Scanlon testified at a hearing for a dairy operation seeking to expand to 2,500 animals. "When we looked at the permit, we found that some of the things the DNR promised would be in all future permits, including a monitoring requirement, were missing."
[A version of the article originally appeared in Madison's weekly paper Isthmus.]
