Environmental Management

, Volume 37, Issue 6, pp 745–752

Governmental Oversight of Discharges from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

FORUM

Abstract

As point sources of pollution in the United States, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are subject to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permitting system requirements. Changes to federal regulations in 2003 and a 2005 court decision have increased the governmental oversight of CAFOs. Manure application to fields from “large CAFOs” that results in unpermitted discharges can be regulated under the Clean Water Act. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of agricultural stormwater discharges was approved so that unpermitted discharges may arise if an owner or operator of a CAFO fails to apply manure correctly. Owners and operators do not, however, have a duty to secure governmental permits in the absence of a discharge. Turning to the federal provisions regarding nutrient management plans, a court found that they were deficient. Moreover, the federal government needs to reconsider requirements that would reduce pathogens from entering surface waters. Although these developments should assist in reducing the impairment of U.S. waters, concern still exists. Greater oversight of nutrient management plans and enhanced enforcement efforts offer opportunities to provide greater assurance that CAFO owners and operators will not allow a discharge of pollutants to enter surface waters.

Keywords

Concentrated animal feeding operations Discharge Manure Nutrient management Regulation Water quality 

Literature Cited

  1. Araji A. A., Abdo Z. O., Joyce P. 2001. Efficient use of animal manure on cropland: economic analysis. Bioresource Technology 79:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beegle D. B., Carton O. T., Baily J. S. 2000. Nutrient management planning: justification, theory, practice. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:72–79Google Scholar
  3. Brief for the American Farm Bureau Federation and others 2003. For consideration in Waterkeeper Alliance v. Environmental Protection Agency, case no. 03-4470(L), Second Circuit Court of AppealsGoogle Scholar
  4. Brief for the Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. For consideration in Waterkeeper Alliance v. Environmental Protection Agency, case no. 03-4470(L), Second Circuit Court of AppealsGoogle Scholar
  5. Brief for Waterkeeper Alliance and others. 2003. For consideration in Waterkeeper Alliance v. Environmental Protection Agency, case no. 03-4470(L), Second Circuit Court of AppealsGoogle Scholar
  6. Centner T. J. 2001. Evolving policies to regulate pollution from animal feeding operations. Environmental Management 28:599–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Centner T. J. 2004a. Enforcing environmental regulations: concentrated animal feeding operations. Missouri Law Review 69:697–730Google Scholar
  8. Centner T. J. 2004b. New regulations to minimize water impairment from animals rely on management practices. Environment International 30:539–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CFR (Code of Federal Regulations). 2004. Title 40, parts 122 and 412Google Scholar
  10. Chittenden, J. A. 2003. State helps farmers meet water quality objectives. New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets, Albany, N.Y., January 6. Report available at http://www.agmkt.state.ny.us/AD/release.asp?ReleaseID= 1270
  11. Cole D., Todd L., Wing S. 2000. Concentrated swine feeding operations and public health: a review of occupational and community health effects. Environmental Health Perspectives 108:685–699Google Scholar
  12. De S., Kloot R. W., Covington E., Bezuglov A., Taduri H. 2004. AFOPro: a nutrient management decision support system for the United States. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture 43:69–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Federal Reporter Third 344:832–881 (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)Google Scholar
  14. Environmental Law Institute. 1999. Locating livestock: how water pollution control efforts can use information from state regulatory programs. Washington, D.C., JuneGoogle Scholar
  15. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. State compendium: programs and regulatory activities related to animal feeding operations. Office of Wastewater Management, Washington, D.C., MarchGoogle Scholar
  16. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. 2000 National water quality inventory. Office of Water, Washington, D.C., Chapters 2 (p 14) and 3 (p 22). Report available at http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report
  17. EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. National pollutant discharge elimination system permit regulation and effluent limitations guidelines and standards for concentrated animal feeding operations. Federal Register 68:7176–7274Google Scholar
  18. Fleming R. A., Long J. D. 2002. Animal waste management: measuring the cost of restricting access to cropland for manure nutrient management. Agronomy Journal 94:57–64Google Scholar
  19. Georgia Compilation Rules and Regulations. 2005. Rule 391-3-6-.21Google Scholar
  20. Gollehon, N., Caswell, M., Ribaudo, M., Kellogg, R., Lander, C., and Letson, D. 2001. Confined animal production and manure nutrients. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 771, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  21. Harter T., Davis H., Matthews M. C., Meyer R. D. 2002. Shallow groundwater quality on dairy farms with irrigated forage crops. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 55:287–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heathwaite L., Sharpley A., Gburek W. 2000. A conceptual approach for integrating phosphorus and nitrogen management at watershed scales. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:158–166Google Scholar
  23. Letson D., Gollehon N., Breneman N., Kascak C., Mose C. 1998. Confined animal production and groundwater protection. Review of Agricultural Economics 20:348–364Google Scholar
  24. Lory J. A. 2004. Feasibility and costs of phosphorus application limits on 39 U.S. swine operations. Journal of Environmental Quality 33:1114–1123Google Scholar
  25. Mallin A., Cahoon L. B. 2003. Industrialized animal production—a major source of nutrient and microbial pollution to aquatic ecosystems. Population and Environment 24:369–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin J. H. 1997. Implications of CARE vs. Southview Farm on the US livestock and poultry industry. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33:741–746Google Scholar
  27. Metcalfe M. 2000. State legislation regulating animal manure management. Review of Agricultural Economics 22:519–532Google Scholar
  28. Mullen J. D., Centner T. J. 2004. Impacts of adjusting environmental regulations when enforcement authority is diffuse: confined animal feeding operations and environmental quality. Review of Agricultural Economics 25:209–219Google Scholar
  29. Natural Resources Defense Council. 1998. America’s animal factories: how states fail to prevent pollution from livestock waste. New York. Report available at http://www.nrdc.org/water/pollution/factor/aafinx.asp
  30. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Reilly. 1992. Case no. 89-2980 (Federal District Court, District of Columbia)Google Scholar
  31. New York Department of Environmental Conservation. 2004. State pollutant discharge elimination system (SPDES) General permit no. GP-04-02, Albany, New York. Report available at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/gp0402permit.pdf
  32. Parker D. 2000. Controlling agricultural nonpoint water pollution: Costs of implementing the Maryland Water Quality Improvement Act of 1998. Agricultural Economics 24:23–31Google Scholar
  33. Parry R. 1998. Agricultural phosphorus and water quality: a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency perspective. Journal of Environmental Quality 27:258–261Google Scholar
  34. Ribaudo, M. O., Horan, R. D., and Smith, M. E. 1999. Economics of water quality protection from nonpoint sources: theory and practice. Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service Agriculture information bulletin no. 782Google Scholar
  35. Schiffman S. S. 2000. Potential health effects of odor from animal operations, wastewater treatment, and recycling of byproducts. Journal of Agromedicine 7:7–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmidt C. W. 2000. Lessons from the flood: will Floyd change livestock farming? Environmental Health Perspectives 108:A74–A77Google Scholar
  37. Sharpley A. 1999. Agricultural phosphorus, water quality, and poultry production: are they compatible? Journal of Poultry Science 78:660–673Google Scholar
  38. Sharpley A., Foy B., Withers P. 2000. Practical and innovative measures for the control of agricultural phosphorus losses to water: an overview. Journal of Environmental Quality 29:1–9Google Scholar
  39. U.S. Code. 2000. Title 33, sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, 1361, 1362, and 1365Google Scholar
  40. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Federal Reporter Third 399:486-524 (Second Circuit Court of Appeals)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of GeorgiaAgricultural and Applied EconomicsAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations