SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS Tables
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
72–859 PS
2001
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
(107–21)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
MAY 16, 2001
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman
THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
STEPHEN HORN, California
JOHN L. MICA, Florida
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JACK QUINN, New York
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama
STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio
SUE W. KELLY, New York
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio
JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana
JOHN R. THUNE, South Dakota
FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
JIM DEMINT, South Carolina
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
MARK STEVEN KIRK, Illinois
HENRY E, BROWN, JR, South Carolina
TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
SAM GRAVES, Missouri
C.L. (BUTCH) OTTER, Idaho
MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
VACANCY
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
BOB CLEMENT, Tennessee
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia
JERROLD NADLER, New York
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
CORRINE BROWN, Florida
JAMES A. BARCIA, Michigan
BOB FILNER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
MAX SANDLIN, Texas
ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California
BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey
LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa
JAMES P. MCGOVERN, Massachusetts
TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
JOHN ELIAS BALDACCI, Maine
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma
JIM MATHESON, Utah
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
RICK LARSEN, Washington
(ii)
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
STEPHEN HORN, California
VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
SUE W. KELLY, New York
RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio
RICHARD W. POMBO, California
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho
HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South Carolina
BRIAN D. KERNS, Indiana
DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana, Vice-Chair
C.L. (BUTCH) OTTER, Idaho
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
VACANCY
DON YOUNG, Alaska
(Ex Officio)
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
NICK LAMPSON, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington
FRANK MASCARA, Pennsylvania
MARION BERRY, Arkansas
ROBERT A. BORSKI, Pennsylvania
BOB FILNER, California
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD, California
BILL PASCRELL, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
(Ex Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
TESTIMONY
Frank, Bobbie K., Executive Director, Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, Cheyanne, Wyoming
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Harding, Russell J., Director, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Hill, Craig, Livestock Producer, Milo, Iowa
Nishida, Jane, Secretary, Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland
Smith, Charles Martin, Cattle Producer and Attorney, Ocala, Florida
Smith, Hon. Nick, a Representative in Congress from Michigan
Spence, Terry, Unionville, Missouri
Walden, Hon. Greg, a Representative in Congress from Oregon
Walker, Dr. Forbes, Environmental Soils Specialist, Department of Plant and Soil Science University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, Knoxville, Tennessee
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Blumenauer, Hon. Earl, of Oregon
Otter, Hon. Butch, of Idaho
Smith, Hon. Nick, of Michigan
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Frank, Bobbie K
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Harding, Russell J
Hill, Craig
Nishida, Jane
Smith, Charles Martin
Spence, Terry
Walker, Dr. Forbes
ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD
American Farm Bureau Federation, statement
American Horse Council, statement
National Cattlemen's Beef Association, statement
MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS
Wednesday, May 16, 2001
House of Representatives, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m. in room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr. [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DUNCAN. I call this hearing of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee to order. I want to welcome everyone here today.
Most of our hearings have a great many Members who show up and participate. But this topic is not what some people would describe as a sexy topic. So, we may not have as much participation today.
But in spite of that, I do think it is a very, very important subject and an important issue. I think certainly any Members who have farming operations in their districts should be concerned about this. I think anyone, even in the cities, who cares about or is concerned about the survival of small and even medium sized farms in this country should be concerned about this because we are talking about something that the EPA has come out with, I think I saw in one testimony, 400 pages of regulations.
This booklet is the proposed regulation. I don't know how many pages it is, but it is all those pages of fine small print and it is an extremely complicated, extremely difficult thing. So, it certainly raises some concerns on my part.
The subcommittee meets today to receive testimony on how farmers, State governments and the federal government are working to manage, as I said, a very important part of our national agricultural program, concentrated animal feeding operations.
In particular, witnesses will address the proposed Clean Water Regulations under consideration by the EPA.
We will be hearing first from our colleagues, Congressman Nick Smith of Michigan and Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon. They will be followed by a panel composed of farmers, State regulators and individuals who are working on plans to address these issues.
One of the primary questions that should be addressed is whether the States are in a better position to develop programs that will handle these issues than the federal government.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Clean Water Act only regulates point source discharges of pollutants. There is no Federal authority to regulate non-point sources. That authority is retained by the States.
While CAFO is a point source that is within the scope of the Federal regulatory scheme, most agricultural activities are classified as non-point sources. As EPA reduces the number of animals required to qualify as a CAFO and attempts to include within that those areas where manure is applied, more areas and facilities become subject to Federal regulation.
That is the real concern here today. Some of us feel that we already have so many rules and regulations and red tape on the books that we have not even designed a computer that can keep up with all of them, much less a human being.
Now, to talk about piling more and more regulations creates extreme difficulties for certain small farms and small business and even medium sized farms and business operations.
In the past few years attention has been given to the problem of excessive nutrients and the contribution of animal feeding operations to water quality programs. Since 1996, 12 States, including Maryland, have established new environmental regulations to address animal feeding operations.
Other States, including Michigan, have pursued non-regulatory approaches. We want to look at several questions here. Does the EPA have authority to control a farmer's use of manure in the field as a part of this rule?
Under the new rules EPA proposes to regulate releases to groundwater that have a direct connection to surface waters. Does the EPA have that authority? Who has the burden of showing such a connection does or does not exist? As a part of the public notice, EPA estimated that the proposed regulations will result in livestock production cost includes to animal feeding operators to $850 million to $940 million per year.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These estimates were based on the EPA's use of USDA data. However, since the rule was proposed, the EPA has begun to discuss the estimates with the farmers and now acknowledges that its calculations may need significant revision and could be much, much more costly than that.
Of course, all of those costs ultimately have to be passed on to the consumer. That is a real concern of mine. The States may be better able to provide the staffing throughout the country and to address the site-specific problems. They may be in a much better position to address the broad variation that exists in industry practices, climate and hydrology.
We need to take a serious look at all of the issues surrounding this and make sure that these costs are not excessive. As I said earlier, my big concern is what we are doing to small and medium-sized farms in this country, not only with this, but also with many other things.
I had a very good hour-long meeting with Christine Todd Whitman five or six weeks ago when she first came in. I told her that what I hoped she would do is keep in mind the effect of every regulation, every rule that the EPA issued, the effect on small businesses and small farms and so forth, because it seems that so much of what we do in Washington helps out the big giants in any industry, because it drives out many of the small or medium-sized operations or forces them to merge. So, that is my concern when I see a whole booklet of regulations coming out like I just held up a few minutes ago.
So, with those words, I will stop and turn it over to the Ranking Member of the committee, my friend, Mr. DeFazio.
Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to welcome our colleagues here. If I step out during their statements, it is not to be impolite, but I have to be at a press conference at 2:30.
I think there are a lot of grounds for agreement here in that we all want to prevent pollution of our waterways and improve water quality. The question is: How do we best get there? I am often concerned with one-size-fits-all rules.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I understand when the original rules were drafted at EPA that to some extent they were modeled on chicken farming on the Eastern Shore which doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with cattle ranching in Western Oregon, or Eastern Oregon for that matter. I represent Western Oregon, but the gentleman there represents mostly Eastern Oregon.
We live in an area where we have some desert and we have another area where we have basically rainforests. Even within our State it would be hard to come up with a prescriptive rule that would resolve these issues satisfactorily, a prescriptive rule, as opposed to going toward a goal-oriented rule, which is to keep the nitrates and the pollutants out of the public waters.
I think that we can do better in getting there. I think there is really a lot of potential for bipartisan agreement on this, looking at technical assistance grants and innovative technology. In my mind EPA would act a little bit more like OSHA and if I were engaged in CAFO activity, I could invite the EPA on to my property and they would be a resource to me and say, ''Well, someone who is in a similar situation and similar climate did this and did that. That is what worked. We want you to develop a plan here and we are going to come back and monitor the implementation of the plan.'' We can provide some technical assistance, ideally.
I don't know a rancher or a farmer in my State who would object to that sort of approach. But what happened in Oregon, and I believe Mr. Walden will address it, is that the first time any of these Federal officials were seen and the first time anybody was really aware that they were under this regulation was when some people showed up at the gate, wanted in and then started writing out the bills for the fines.
I just don't think that is a good way to get to this approach. We have approached a very contentious issue of salmon recovery in my State with a much more cooperative attitude. This is obviously an adjunct to that because some of these pollutants can impact salmon. Some of this would go to non-salmonoid waters. But I think that a similar approach would be better.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, I am pleased that the committee is holding this hearing. I am pleased that our colleagues are here. I hope we can find some grounds for agreement and ways to improve the program and to get to the goal which I think we all share of cleaner water.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you, Mr. DeFazio. I share your desire that maybe we can come up with something a little better. I can tell you this: We need something that is a lot simpler and a lot less technical.
I can almost guarantee you that this was not produced by a farmer.
Do we have other members who wish to make opening statements at this time? Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. GILCHREST. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure what Mr. Walden and Mr. Smith are going to testify to. I would certainly say that we need to encourage regional approaches to make agriculture not only sustainable in those regions, but also profitable so it can be sustainable and also the continued improvement of best management practices which many people are implementing now, so that the farmer downstream or the homeowner downstream or the fisherman downstream can continue to have access to clean water.
As far as municipalities are concerned, I look at some of this and we have to work through all of the kinks and the obstacles and everything else, but the municipalities, when we get to the areas of TMDLs, it is a stormwater issue. If we could understand how we could improve stormwater practices, so from the Wal-Mart or the highway, that stuff just doesn't run direct into the nearby stream or waterway.
I think all of us here are smart enough to figure out how we can keep those streams, waterways, bays, estuaries and groundwater clean. But we can't be talking past each other.
I thank the Chairman for this hearing.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Anyone else? Mr. Berry.
Mr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today. I think we are all concerned about water quality and how it is going to impact this country.
I can tell you from personal experience, before I was in the Congress I served on the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission. We had a serious water pollution problem in Northwest Arkansas, where we have a high concentration of the poultry industry.
In 1991 and 1992, the Soil and Water Commission implemented a voluntary plan and an education plan where we enrolled every farmer in that area in Best Management Practices and we did not pass one law or one regulation and there was not one government official from one government agency that showed up ready to destroy a farmer over his practices.
We can document now that we successfully dealt with that pollution problem. I am pleased that we are having this hearing today and encourage the EPA and the new Administration to approach this problem in this way.
I can tell you that under the past Administration we can only hope it is going to be different now. EPA not only had attempted some un-scientific, non-transparent ways to deal with this problem in a political way and had tried to include as many things that were actually agriculture and make them point sources as they possibly could.
I would hope that today will be the beginning of bringing some reason to what EPA tries to do in this area.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Berry.
Does someone else have a statement? Dr. Horn.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, I commend you for providing time for this particular issue of pesticides in farms going into our streams throughout America.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I come from an urban area, although I grew up on a farm. In my urban area, I have mostly window boxes. We do have lawns with various pesticides. When that gets into the sewer system, the Los Angeles River has metal from various and sundry shops, little shops, large shops. It has just been, over the years, dumped in the river. It is dumped right in the Harbor of Long Beach and the Harbor of Los Angeles.
So, thank you. I am interested in this.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Taylor, do you have any statement?
Mr. TAYLOR. I will wait until after the witnesses speak.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you.
Dr. Ehlers.
Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, I appreciate your holding this hearing. I just want to, as I have before, caution against us developing a system that is too proscriptive. I certainly think it is a problem we have to deal with. It has become a problem across the country.
But the answer to the problem for Michigan is far different than it is for Arizona. There is a difference in the water tables, difference in soils. So, I think it is very important that, although we developed a standard for this and may even suggest some solutions, we shouldn't proscribe them.
In other words, I don't think we should tell them to put diapers on the animals in the feedlots. But let them figure out their own solution. Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Governor Otter.
Mr. OTTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
With his permission, I would like to associate myself with Mr. Berry's remarks. How things can be accomplished for folks who truly are at ground zero and can accomplish those things and all those other speakers before me who have spoken to the unique idea of Washington doing nothing and allowing those folks at ground zero to work on the problem itself.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Obviously, in Idaho the rules as planned right now would cause a tremendous problem. Long before we were ever asked to take a look at it ourselves. But I quite frankly believe that our agencies in the State of Idaho and the State of Oregon, Mr. Walden's group, which I have had the pleasure of operating several operations in, and still do, are adequately qualified and technically qualified to clean up their own problems and will do so.
So, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing attention to this. I hope the result of this meeting is to allow the States to act themselves.
Mr. DUNCAN. All right. Thank you very much.
Governor Rehberg or Mr. Brown?
Okay, thank you very much.
We are pleased to start off with a Members panel. We are very pleased and honored to have two good friends, the Honorable Nick Smith from Michigan and the Honorable Greg Walden from Oregon.
Gentlemen, the way we do in the subcommittees that I have chaired, we let the Members go ahead and make their statements. We do not ask questions of the Members because we know we have a chance to discuss these matters with you later on the Floor at different times. We know you have very business schedules and also we want to get to our other witnesses.
So, we will let you proceed with any statements that you wish to make at this time. Nick, we will start with you, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. NICK SMITH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM MICHIGAN, AND HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OREGON
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much. I think I agree with every comment that was made by you, Mr. Chairman, and you, Mr. DeFazio, and the membership.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is certainly a question that affects Michigan a great deal, that affects small farmers a great deal. As a dairy farmer from southern Michigan, and also serving on the Agricultural Committee here in the House, I have been very involved with the regulatory developments that affect nutrient management and water quality protection for livestock operations.
I am specifically concerned about the EPA proposed rules regulating the CAFOs that were released last December.
I would just like to share with you my views on these rules and why I believe they are a poor approach to water quality protection and especially an imposition on many farmers that are already doing the job in many States that are already accomplishing maybe even better goals.
I would like to bring to your attention legislation that I have introduced addressing State and Federal responsibilities for managing animal feeding operations.
My first concern with EPA rules though is for permitting of animal feeding operations is that they seem to be stretching the boundaries of Congressional intent with regard to the Clean Water Act. One of the major provisions in the Act was the establishment of a permitting system for point source pollution that discharged directly into surface waters.
It is very interesting, a review of the 1972 Senate Floor discussion between Senator Dole and Senator Muskie, I think, is worth reviewing. On the Clean Water Act, that discussion clearly illustrates that agriculture, industrial or any other operations in question were only to be considered point source if they discharged measurable amounts of waste to surface water from a distinguishable source such as a pipe or ditch.
Unfortunately, I think EPA has taken the single referral to CAFOs included in the Clean Water Act and developed an 800-page guideline detailing new regulations for livestock facilities, regardless of whether or not they discharge to surface water from a distinguishable source. It is questionable whether they even have the legal authority. Certainly, as was mentioned, if Congress had the ability to review regulations to see if they were consistent with Congressional intent, these CAFO EPA rules would not be before us.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I think it is good to review just briefly the cost. EPA estimates $1 billion per year. Many believe that this cost will not be accompanied by improved water quality protection. I think it is reasonable to assume that we can get a much better return for our environmental protection dollar if we allow more authority for the States to implement these kinds of regulations that we now have in many States.
Furthermore, by their own admission, EPA cost estimates are probably understated because they assume that all farms are already in compliance with their strict interpretation of current regulations. What is really out there is overlooking thousands of farms that currently do not have discharge permits.
I believe, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, that there is a real danger. These compliance costs could regulate our animal production industry right out of the country or at the very least only leave the very big corporate giants in place.
Beyond the question of Congressional intent and the enormous cost of the EPA rules, I also believe there are several unreasonable provisions in the rules that make them unworkable. For instance, they eliminate the sensible permitting exemption that currently exists for operations that do not discharge waste except in the event of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event.
This zero discharge provision which will force, we have estimated, over 30,000 farms to obtain Federal pollution discharge permits, although many of them have never had a single discharge. Further, the rule would preempt many successful State water quality programs that address animal feeding operations.
Again, for example, in my State of Michigan we have established the Michigan Agricultural Environmental Insurance Program and I am sure that you are going to hear more of that from our DEQ Director, Russ Harding.
We are very proud of the level of water quality protection that our State has achieved and the efficiency with which it has been done. Not surprisingly, other States are now looking to the Michigan program as a model of successful animal waste management.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Unfortunately, this program and other successful State level livestock waste management programs are threatened. Because the EPA proposal is an unfunded mandate, States will have to shift limited resources from existing programs in order to administer the discharge permits.
The permit in itself does little to protect water. There is a real concern that this bureaucratic shift could actually harm and not help water quality and that is a challenge for this committee, to make some of those evaluations.
In conclusion, I have introduced legislation that would allow animal waste management programs to be results-oriented rather than process-oriented. In my bill, H.R.1138, it simply provides flexibility so that State-run programs that effectively manage animal waste could be used as an alternative to EPA CAFO permitting, provided in the bill that water protection is not compromised. This approach has received strong support from numerous producer groups and State officials.
While there is always room for improvement, I believe that American farmers are among the most conscientious guardians of the environment. If we can achieve the same or even better results at a fraction of the cost, why not increase State and local input and ideas into animal waste management programs by providing the kind of State alternatives to EPA's, what I consider, over-zealous one-size-fits-all permitting that was mentioned by some of your Members of the Committee.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, thank you very much, Nick. Thank you for offering to be with us and taking time out from your schedule. You are free to go now or you may stay as long as you wish. Greg, you may begin your statement.
Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to join you today. I thank you for holding this hearing. I appreciate your interest in this important issue and the opportunity to share some of my thoughts with you today.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would also like to thank my colleague, Mr. DeFazio, the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, for his attention to this issue. We have discussed this for a period of months now about the problems confronting our cattle ranchers and others in Oregon, the differences between our basins and the effect of these proposed EPA rules and the way the existing ones are being enforced in the district.
My colleague, Mr. Gilchrest, your comments about stormwater are well taken. The problem I have in my State is the urban center of Portland discharges 2.8 billion gallons of run-off water when it rains every year into the Willamette River, which has its own TMDL, issues.
Meanwhile, I have cattle ranchers in eastern Oregon, one of whom this year was the subject of a very aggressive enforcement action by the EPA, when he thought he was working with the Agriculture Department to come into full compliance with the State's interpretation of the CAFO rules, the EPA showed up on his doorstep and fined him $50,000, after he had spent well over $100,000 reconfiguring his operation to come into compliance.
He actually thought when the EPA inspector showed up that they were part of the team he had been working with to come into compliance from the Agriculture Department. It created incredible hardship. He may well have filed for bankruptcy, I am not sure. But after you spend $100,000 trying to come into compliance and then have another agency come in on top, because Oregon had a little problem in how it was enforcing the rules—
Mr. GILCHREST. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALDEN. Certainly.
Mr. GILCHREST. Is there some way when we have this bureaucratic mess-up that the Conservation Service, Department of Agriculture can sit down with EPA and say, well, you are not exactly doing it right. We are not going to fine you. You have been working on it. Let us see if we can help you out.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WALDEN. We tried that. Frankly, the Oregon Extension Service has been very good, with their Extension Agents putting on seminars for ranchers all across Oregon. There have been literally hundreds and hundreds that have attended seminars to find out how they can stay in compliance, kind of the best farming practices concept that Mr. Berry referenced, same concept. They have had enormous turnout.
Those that needed some extra effort out of that, there were at least 50 last year that spent close to, I think the figure was $680,000 combined, to bring their operations up to the best standard. There is a real willingness to do that, but a great uncertainty about which master they have to serve, which officer they have to comply with.
When you think you are working in compliance with one government entity and another one comes in and tromps you and issues the fines, it creates a really, really bad feeling out there. So, that is where Congressman DeFazio and I have talked about in the State of Oregon under our implementation of the OSHA regulations, we create a safe harbor provision where employers can invite in consultants from the OSHA or OSHA to go through their facilities and say, 'where am I in compliance? Where am I out? I want to meet the rules. But, you know, we are not rule experts in small business.'
So, as long as you are trying to achieve that compliance, the other side of OSHA or OSHA that does the fining, can't come in and fine you during that period. So, there is a safe harbor where you can go figure out what the newest rules are and make sure you are in compliance and if you are not, put together a plan where you can come into compliance and have a window where they can't come in and fine you from the other side of the agency.
I would like to see that principle applied to these sorts of rules because I think at the heart most people I know in farming and small business would just as soon be in compliance. They don't want a fine. They don't want a ticket. They want to be in compliance.
But for gosh sakes, you have one agency one day hitting you with a new set of rules and then another agency. Every day, some new set of rules from some new agency comes down on top of you. It is impossible to run your business and keep up, especially as the Chairman pointed out, a 404-page document of new rules, some of which may be adopted or not.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So anyway, I would like to see us and see your committee create some sort of safe harbor provision where you could help people come into compliance, come forward. Because that helps us achieve the goal of getting to clean water. Isn't that what we should be about, achieving a common goal of safe water, clean water, and farms that don't pollute.
You know, the numerous ranchers and farmers in my district care deeply about the land. It is their home. They work it every day, in many cases for decades if not generations. To abuse the water and land would be shortsighted and foolish. They know it. In fact the vast majority of farmers and ranchers in eastern Oregon are very law-abiding citizens who are sound stewards of the land who do their best to comply with the laws and rules that accompany there livelihood.
However, with any industry and field of employment, there will always be a few bad apples who ignore Federal laws and rules. They should not be immune from legal accountability. But the EPA needs to publicly recognize the vast majority of our ranchers and farmers deserve to be treated fairly, not penalized based upon the bad actions of a few.
The federal government needs to understand that America's ranchers and farmers are a strong partner in achieving the desired end result of CAFO regulations, clean water, because it is in their best interest to do so. As a matter of fact, I would like to see greater flexibility in other Federal laws.
We have, as you know, an enormous effort under way at salmon recovery, in fact in the Resources Committee today you joined us in voting for additional authorization for salmon recovery efforts based on local processes. Too often in our efforts to get to the Endangered Species Act requirements and do the kind of restoration work that needs to happen, we try to meet a Federal goal that keeps moving on us and you get enforcement regulations and a conflict among the agencies that results in nothing happening on the ground.
Yet, where we can have these local decisions, this local process, we are doing incredible things. I would be glad some day when we have more time to share some of that with you. There is some excellent work going on on the ground. We need to get the Federal agencies to recognize that and support it.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Regarding EPA's proposed CAFO rules, I have had several conversations recently with many involved in the ranching and farming industry in Oregon about their concerns. It appears there needs to be considerable thought given to any proposed changes. Most importantly, we need to know exactly what is to be gained by changing the existing standards.
I have been told about the 404 pages of proposed rules changes, the additional costs that are to be mandated and about a nebulous environmental gain from these proposed actions. Some in the industry estimate 2500 operators in Oregon currently defined as CAFOs could grow to as many as 39,000 and that this proposal could force many operators to simply halt production in their smaller lots, as my colleague, Mr. Smith, pointed out as well.
The end result would be fewer and bigger lots. I would like confirmation from EPA that this is the goal they aim to achieve, and I will pose this question to the EPA.
Many also tell me they are currently having trouble surviving the regulatory burden and that the additional costs of the proposed rules could force smaller operations to fold.
Again, these additional costs associated with complying with the proposed rules must be carefully weighted with the perceived environmental gain.
I look forward to posing these concerns and a number of others to the EPA. I also think that it is time to take a new look at how we enforce capital standards.
As I mentioned, Mr. DeFazio and I have discussed several ways to achieve the desired end results for CAFOs and I believe we have a promising idea with legislation I would like to see us finish drafting and move forward on to create this is safe harbor provision. It works in other areas of our laws where we implement Federal goals. I think it would work here.
I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. Both of you have done an outstanding job describing the problem. As I said at the beginning of this hearing, my main concern is that I don't want to drive more small or even medium-sized farms and ranches out of existence or force them to merge and just end up with nothing but big giants in the industry.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I agree with you, Mr. Walden, already these farmers have so many rules and regulations they have to comply with. Then you come in with 400 pages more of fine small print and thousands of more farms and ranches. I am telling you, you are going to put another nail in the coffin of many of these smaller or medium-sized operators.
That is what we are going to try to call attention to and to see if we can in some way avoid. Thank you very much for being with us. We need to move on to our panel.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, very quickly, if I might, if you had your druthers as a farmer, would you like to see EPA come up with a standard which has science behind it, because some of us have wondered sometimes if they have any science and I am going to be putting a bill in in the next couple of weeks to do that.
What about the Federal agencies who go on the farmer's farm? Which one of those would you rather have enforcing it?
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. I will give just a quick response. Some of what is happening in Michigan is EPA officials come out from Chicago. Under the Clean Water Act, if someone gives a formal complaint, they are obligated to go check. They come walking on the farm without, in one case, telling the farm owner what they are doing and later they indicated they have the legal responsibility and right to do that, simply to come on this farm and starting looking at particular violations.
For those of you familiar with dairy farming and the pre-cooling of milk by this particular dairy farm that was pumping water from the ground and then running the milk through the radiator to pre-cool it be it went into the cooler, it was listed as a technical violation because they were discharging the water back on the land at a warmer temperature than it came out of the ground.
So, they become very technical going by the specifics of the regulations and it is a huge imposition inasmuch as every State is different.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. GILCHREST. So, you are saying based on the particular product those inspectors come, in the case of milk or in the case of butchering or whatever.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Well, this is an aggressive community, sometimes, that is looking for any violation they might see, especially on livestock operations. So they have an organized effort quite often in many areas to make an official complaint and then that official complaint results in sometimes-huge costs to these farmers that doesn't really improve water production.
Mr. GILCHREST. So, there is no reason then for picking any particular agency? It depends on what they are doing.
Mr. SMITH OF MICHIGAN. Yes.
Mr. WALDEN. May I respond to that as well, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. DUNCAN. Very briefly. We have to get on to the regular panel, Greg.
Mr. WALDEN. I would prefer to see the delegation of authority down to the State level and then probably the departments of agriculture be the ones involved in this in terms of meeting the goal.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much for being with us.
We will now go the panel of witnesses that we have requested to be with us today. We have a very fine panel of farmers, experts and people directly involved in this very important issue.
I would ask that they take their seats at the witness table at this time. We have Mr. Craig Hill from Milo, Iowa; Mr. Charles Martin Smith from Ocala, Florida; Mr. Terry Spence from Unionville, Missouri; and Dr. Forbes R. Walker who is with the Department of Plant and Soil Science at the University of Tennessee in my hometown of Knoxville.
The Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts is represented today by Ms. Bobbie K. Frank, the Executive Director, from Cheyenne, Wyoming; Ms. Jane Nishida who is Secretary for the Maryland Department of the Environment from Baltimore and finally, we have the Director of the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Mr. Russell J. Harding from Lansing, Michigan.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I can tell you that we certainly appreciate all of you being with us here today and taking time out from your busy schedules to be with us. We always proceed in the order in which the witnesses are listed on the call of the hearing. So, Mr. Hill, that means we will start with you.
My mother is originally from Iowa and I have a lot of relatives out there, even still today. We are glad to have you with us. You may begin your statement.
STATEMENTS OF CRAIG HILL, LIVESTOCK PRODUCER, MILO, IOWA; CHARLES MARTIN SMITH, CATTLE PRODUCER AND ATTORNEY, OCALA, FLORIDA; TERRY SPENCE, UNIONVILLE, MISSOURI; DR. FORBES WALKER, ENVIRONMENTAL SOILS SPECIALIST, DEPARTMENT OF PLANT AND SOIL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION SERVICE, KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE; BOBBIE K. FRANK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WYOMING ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS, CHEYENNE, WYOMING; JANE NISHIDA, SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND; AND RUSSELL J. HARDING, DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. HILL. Good afternoon. My name is Craig Hill. I am a livestock producer from near Milo, Iowa. My wife, Patty, and I produce about 1100 acres of corn and soybeans in Iowa. We feed most all of the grain that we produce to livestock.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to talk with you about the impact of EPA's proposed new regulations on livestock producers and why I believe this additional layer of regulation is not needed.
We have a farrow to finish operation, which means that we grow hogs in all phases of the production cycle, including breeding, farrowing, growing, finishing and marketing. We have 250 sows that we farrow to finish. We produce about 4,500 hogs per year.
Pork production is a risky, low-margin business. At one time pork production in Iowa was considered the mortgage lifter. It was a profitable, labor-intensive business. The young producers could buy a farm and make the farm pay with pork production.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I still am an independent pork producer, which means I am not aligned or contracted with any one packer. I look for competitive bids to market my animals. I am somewhat of a dying breed in that sense.
I have added another building in the last year. This building was an expansion in a way, but more than an expansion, it was a way for me to take the livestock that I was growing outdoors on concrete lots and move those indoors into confined facilities that have technologies that capture the nutrients and capture the waste under the building below the slats.
Iowa law precludes any farm operation in Iowa to discharge effluent into the waters of the State. In Iowa also, we have recently passed the 1996 Comprehensive Livestock Regulatory Bill that adds layers and layers of additional regulations on Iowa producers. This legislation was debated for years. The commodity organizations, the farm organizations, legislators, all worked to consensus agreement on how to best care for the environment and not damage our industry.
Iowa is number one in hog production in the U.S. We are number one in egg production, which is something new. We have risen from five, four, three, two to number one.
We are seventh in cattle production. That is a decline from where we stood before. We are 11th in dairy production. It may surprise you to know that we have remained rather consistent in the number of livestock marketed and produced over the last 50 years in Iowa. In 1950 Iowa farmers raised about 23 million hogs per year. Today, Iowa farmers raise about 23 million hogs.
Now, today's perception is that we are less environmentally sound because there are fewer farmers producing these hogs. The perception is that confined facilities are more environmentally damaging than outside pens used by farmers 50 years ago. This perception is that there is more waste today than there was 50 years ago. This perception is wrong.
First, let me begin with the 1950s. It took about 425 pounds of feed to produce 100 pounds of pork. Today it takes less than 300 pounds of feed to produce 100 pounds of pork. That is greater than a 25 percent reduction in the amount of feed fed and correlates into more than that in a reduction in the amount of waste produced.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Secondly, I have raised hogs all my life. Every day we would spend two or three hours, when I was young, with a shovel. Many of you may have done the same. We would, by hand, remove that manure from the feed logs, the concrete floors of the buildings, and we would haul it out to the fields.
This is a year-round, seven day a week job. Whether you were planting or you were tilling the soil or whether you were in the middle of the summer with growing crops, you would find a place to haul the manure.
This was something that most of us didn't enjoy. But it was a way of life. It was what we did. If you will notice in the older Iowa farmsteads, you will see that most of the feedlots were built on the top of a ridge or next to the barn where the drainage off the roof of the barn would go across the feed lot. That was intentional. That was because it was quite pleasing to go out in the morning after an inch and a half rain and find that all that waste had disappeared. We didn't have to shovel it. That was the way we used to farm. It is not the way we farm today.
Each adaptation and each technology improvement that I have made in my operation has made me more environmentally sound. We may have had ten hog farms in a township each producing 500 head per year. Today, that township probably has only one hog farm producing 5,000 head per year.
But we are better today environmentally than we were then. Now, I don't relish the change that we have seen. I don't relish the fact that we have lost producers, but we have to be proudful that we have made the gains that we have.
My operation has more control over the manure that we produce than it ever has before and regulations did not cause this. This was done by producers understanding the economics and the value of the manure. We understand good animal husbandry. We understand efficiency. We understand stewardship. It has all been connected to get us to where we are today. It has not been completed by regulation.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EPA views this important byproduct of meat production as a waste, not a resource. The regulations will not help the future of agriculture; they will hinder it. EPA is recommending duplicative and costly regulation to improve the environment. It makes these recommendations with little understanding of what is already occurring within the State and how producers raise and market livestock.
The State of Iowa has a comprehensive regulatory program that is designed to allow livestock producers to flourish with an environmentally sound framework.
One size fits all solutions may seem attractive and may seem rational from Washington but it is very harmful to Iowa's pork producers. What we are doing today is working well for us.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I left some time that I hopefully could respond to questions.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Hill. You mentioned the seven-day a week job. I can tell you, I have always marveled at the fact that the most full-time farmers have to work seven days a week in an around-the-clock type of job.
Then I marvel even more at so many farmers who have to work at full-time jobs off the farm to support the farm and then come and work more than full time trying to keep their farms going.
What we are doing on the time, we have asked all the witnesses to give five-minute statements. We are going to let you go to six minutes, but then I will waive this or stop you. We do that in fairness to the other witnesses.
So, Mr. Smith, you are next.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Marty Smith. I am a cattle rancher and also an attorney from Ocala, Florida. Mr. Duncan, as you indicated, I am one of those ranchers or farmers who had to get some outside employment to be able to afford to continue in the business. So, I appreciate what you say.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you very much for holding this hearing today and for paying some attention to this proposed regulation that we are all faced with throughout agriculture and particularly with the livestock sector.
As a number of you pointed out in your comments preceding this hearing, this proposed regulation greatly expands the jurisdiction of EPA over production agriculture. It gets into a lot of these non-point source areas that are typically outside of the Clean Water Act.
I do want to comment, too, a little bit about the costs associated with this. I think you mentioned that in some of your remarks.
These are costs that unfortunately really cannot be passed on by agriculture to the consumer. We are in the position of being price takers for our commodities. We can't just raise the price to pass these along.
The other problem that we face is that, you know, if you go to borrow money in agriculture or in any business, you have to be able to show some return for it.
With these kinds of pollution control measures mandated by EPA, we don't have that opportunity to go to the bank and say, 'Well, we are going to be producing this much more as a result of this expenditure.'
It is hard enough sometimes to borrow money in agriculture, as it is for things that may be productive. But when you have something that is not productive, it is going to be next to impossible.
The result, of course, of that, as many of you pointed out is that it is going to take a lot of small producers out of business. You talked a little bit about the reduction in the threshold numbers proposed by EPA, bringing it down from 1,000 head maybe as low as 300.
At the same time EPA says that is what they want to do. They also point out that the trend in the industry that they are concerned with is toward larger and more concentrated operations. Well, the net result of this rule, if it goes as being proposed here, is going to take the smaller producers out of business. It is not going to impact the larger producers. In other words, the exact opposite from the trend that they say they are concerned about.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many other things that they are talking about doing will likewise be counter-productive and really unachievable.
As a lawyer, I have practiced in this area representing farms and ranches with environmental issues for the past 15 years. One of the things that you all talked about a little bit was they are trying to bring in now hydrologic connection to ground water and actually take jurisdiction over ground water under the Clean Water Act.
Not only is that outside of their typical jurisdiction or jurisdiction granted to them by Congress, but it is impossible in large areas of the country to achieve.
Where I am from in Florida and throughout most of the coastal plain States, we have what we call coarse geology, that is, porous limestone. By definition, there is going to be some conduit between the surface and the groundwater.
Having litigated some of these cases on behalf of ranchers, you simply can't prove that. What you do have to prove, and what we are able to show is that we are going to take care of all the nutrients in the surface layer and never let it get to ground water.
Again, I think that is just a lack of understanding, perhaps, on their part and really not understanding what goes on out in the country and what the States have done to address some of these issues.
Mr. Gilchrest, you mentioned, I believe, talked a little bit about best management practices. I think that is one of the best things that a lot of States have focused on doing. I was President of the Florida Cattlemen's Association several years ago when we instituted and started to develop best management practices. With the cooperation of our State water quality group and our Water Management District we were able to do that.
We undertook that project and paid for it out of our own association. We did not ask for any government funding. We did it because it was the right thing to do. It has been very successful. We are going around now and trying to educate people, educate ranchers. It has been well received throughout the country.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A lot of other States have done likewise, again, not as a result of regulation or not at the direction of some governmental agency, but because it was needed. It was the right thing to do.
What EPA proposes by bringing everybody under a permit system doesn't achieve those same kinds of goals. In fact, I think many of you have pointed out and recognized that there are not going to be a whole lot of measurable increases in water quality as a result of what they are doing.
Several other areas that I will briefly touch on where they are expanding their jurisdiction, one of them is co-permitting where they are trying to bring in all types of operators, anybody that may have any connection to the feeding of cattle, for instance, would be required to have a permit.
One of the changes in our industry, Mr. Hill mentioned that he was an independent pork producer. We don't have the vertical integration in the cattle business that they do in the pork business, but we do, a lot of us that are cow-calf producers like myself; retain ownership into the feedlot.
We actually have no control. We enter into a contract with the feed yard to feed the cattle for us, but we still own them. This would require each of us to have separate permits.
At the same time, something that we have no control over, it is treated differently, in other words, than any other industry out there.
One of the other major concerns with what EPA is doing here is they are presuming sort of as a foundation to this that each owner of any kind of livestock is doing something wrong, that we are polluting. They presume that until we can prove otherwise.
One of the difficulties with this permit scheme that they have developed is the cost of proving that you don't have to have a permit is actually going to be about the same as getting the permit.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
For that, you get anything in return except you have spent all of your money trying to prove you don't need something. That is treating us differently than any of the other potential polluters or any of the other industry out there.
To ranchers and other people in agriculture throughout this country, our land and our water are really the most precious and valuable resources that we have. The bulk of our assets are tied up, in fact, in that real estate. If something is wrong with the real estate and something is wrong with the water, we are hurting our own selves and we are not going to do that.
This proposed regulation really assumes the opposite, that we want to hurt something or cause damage to something that is most precious to us.
I appreciate again this committee paying attention to this. We really look forward to working with some of these governmental agencies to develop better programs. That is better done at the State and local level. Where that has been done throughout the country it has been successful and will continue to be that way.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. Those are very good points and very fine testimony.
Mr. Spence.
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Terry Spence. I own and operate a 400-acre livestock farm in northeast Missouri, in Putnam County.
Over the years my farm has been a diversified operation, raising beef, swine, dairy, poultry and crops, all of which was common practice through the midwestern states.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At the present time my operation consists primarily of a beef cow-calf herd operation and hay and pastureland. Missouri has been no exception when talking about the CAFOs and the issues that we are talking about here today.
I got ahead of myself. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, to be before the committee.
The consolidation and the concentration of the livestock industry into fewer and fewer hands has left the nation's landscape dotted with large concentrated animal feeding operations.
Large-scale feed lots are causing huge environmental disasters because of the massive amount of waste they generate, store and dispose of in a manner that has raised significant concerns about public health, environmental degradation in rural communities.
Missouri, the State that I come from, has been no exception when talking about disasters related to CAFOs. Eighteen of Missouri's 19 largest factory farms have been charged with violating the water pollution control laws and other environmental laws.
One of Missouri's operations, Premium Standard Farms, now majority owned by Continental Grain, is located in Mercer, Putnam and Sullivan Counties in northeast Missouri. Over 2.5 million hogs are raised in this concentrated geographic area each year. In one month, in 1995, Premium Standard Farms' facilities were responsible for six manure spills, killing over 180,000 fish and contaminating miles and miles of stream and creek beds.
From March 1997 until July 1998, Premium Standard Farms had at least 20 more spills polluting Missouri's streams with more than a quarter million gallons of manure and urine.
In 1999 alone, Premium Standard Farms' facilities were responsible for 25 more waste spills. The reason I am referencing this operation is because one of their facilities, which houses 80,000 head, is within a mile and a half of my property.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I know from six years' experience that the impacts of these operations are having on a daily basis to the health of the rural communities in which they operate.
The majority of the spills that I referenced earlier took place at the facility right next to my farm.
While large manure spills from the lagoons attract public attention, on-going pollution problems are a lot of times not even noticed. Large lagoons are currently allowed, under several State and Federal standards, to seep or leak one-eighth to one-quarter of an inch per day, totally hundreds of thousands of gallons per lagoon and still be under no discharge permit.
Many traditional family farms have sufficient acreage to accommodate the waste from the farm's livestocks. The nutrients and animal manure are beneficial fertilizer for sustainable family farms when applied at rates that the crops or forage can accommodate.
While sustainable family farmers and ranchers consider manure for their livestock as an asset or benefit for production, the industrial factory farm considers the effluent a byproduct that is burdensome and costly to their production.
Most CAFOs do not have sufficient land to apply their large amount of effluent that they generate, so over-application is common, leaving saturated soils, nutrient build-up, leaching onto groundwater and run-off into waterways and streams in the immediate area.
In my opinion, we have reached critical mass in this country in relationship to concentrated animal feeding operations. The U.S. EPA has had the statutory and regulatory authority for 20 years to deal with the problems arising from this concentration of animal factory farms and the inadequate methods used by the factory farm system for dealing with its wastes.
EPA has granted primacy to most States to administer the NPDES permit under State law with the EPA having oversight of the program. Somewhere along the line the oversight and guidance got lost. Some States have left CAFOs virtually unregulated.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have been involved with CAFO issues for the last eight years with the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, the Water Pollution Control Program and the Clean Water Commission, as well as the U.S. EPA.
It is not hard to understand why we are in the national dilemma we are in today. With the proper oversight and enforcement by the Federal EPA, the problems this country is facing today would not be as significant as they are.
EPA's new proposed regulations have made some improvements on certain issues, but there is still uncertainty with regards to resolving the national pollution problems that exist.
As a family farmer, I am very concerned about what is happening in the agricultural world. The heritage of the American family farmer has played a vital role in providing an abundance of quality farm products, which in turn support strong, healthy rural communities all across this country.
The stewardship by family farms in regard to the land, their animals and community is something that over the century we as farmers have taken pride in. But in recent years the pride is being replaced by disgust and anguish over polluting factory farm production.
Since the industrialization of agriculture has taken place, the main focus of State and Federal agencies have been directed on how to subsidize corporate entities through taxpayers' dollars, subsidies that promote and foster the devastation and destruction that is caused by huge CAFOs.
The environmental public health harms imposed on rural communities by CAFOs are compounded by the fact that many factory farm facilities operate in a vertical integrated system in which the livestock and poultry processors have gained control of the market access by consolidation of processing facilities.
Family farmers can produce quality livestock more efficiently than a CAFOs, with little or no negative impacts to the environment and which benefit the regional and local economies. But many farmers and ranchers who do not want to produce in the factory farm system are denied access to the markets by large-scale CAFOs.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Many consumers want quality meats and they want assurances that the meats they purchase are sustainably raised. Family farmers without access to current markets are beginning to rely on the traditional process of selling directly to consumers.
In summary, there are many sustainable systems and practices for the production of livestock and poultry. These alternative systems are economically viable and competitive with CAFO production.
If the CAFOs are required to bear the full cost of water pollution control and the other environmental and public health measures necessary to deal with the harms that they generate, the farmers and ranchers using sustainable production methods and systems have a genuine concern for the land and resources, as well as the welfare of the animals they produce.
I know I am running over time, Mr. Chairman, so I will stop with that. I thank you very much.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Spence. I can assure you that I don't have the same concerns about regulating an extremely large operations like the 80,000 head operation that you mentioned. What my concern is regulating out of existence many of the small operations that are already having too much regulation or barely hanging on as it is.
Next, I would like to introduce one of my bosses, Dr. Forbes R. Walker from the University of Tennessee. Dr. Walker, you may begin your statement. Thank you very much for being with us.
Dr. WALKER. Thank you very much. Chairman Duncan, Members of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment, I would like to thank you all for giving me this opportunity to speak today on the topic of management options for CAFOs and to make some comments on the proposed rules and regulations.
I would appreciate it if you would enter my written comments into the record.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the interest of time, I would just like to summarize a few of my main points. As Congressman Duncan mentioned, my name is Forbes Walker. I am an environmental soil specialist with the University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service.
Part of my job as an environmental soil specialist is to translate documents like these into plain English and talk to farmers about them and assist them with how to comply with the rules and regulations. I will get to the comments on this particular document a little later in my discussion.
I think we can all agree that clean water is a very important thing. I think no one in the room or anywhere else would say that we don't want to have clean water. Clean water is especially important to agriculture and it is especially important to livestock producers whose livelihoods depend on having clean water.
There have been recent changes in agriculture, especially in the livestock industry. In the last few decades we have moved away from more or less a closed system of agricultural production whereby feed and forage is grown in the same locality or on the same farm as the animals are produced to one where the feed is often produced many miles away from where the animals are produced.
This has improved the economics of production, but it has left us with the potential challenge of dealing with the concentration of the animal manures and poultry litters and the nutrients contained in those manures and poultry litters.
This topic has been addressed many times around the nation. Groups of experts from academia, from industry, from government have met at various workshops and seminars to discuss this issue. Pretty much the conclusions from those types of meetings are very similar.
I would like to draw the Members' attention to a summary of a document, which was released last August by the Joint Institute for Energy and the Environment. This was a three-day workshop, experts from around the nation and two of the main four conclusions of the particular workshop were that we need to adjust our pricing policy to include the cost of environmental compliance and manure management into the cost of our food.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There was also a great need seen to increase funding for research and development efforts to move existing technologies that have been developed into the market place. This is just one particular document. There are many similar type documents available.
As has been alluded to by various Members, there are some concerns in some area of the country, however there are many technologies which have been developed and are available which can dramatically reduce the impact that manures and poultry litters have on the environment.
Congressman Berry from Arkansas mentioned the concerns they had in northwest Arkansas about phosphorus from chicken litters potentially polluting the environment. There are now many different technologies that have been developed whereby we can increase the availability of the phosphorus in animal feed and thereby reduce the amount of phosphorus that is excreted by animals.
We can also add enzymes to the feed to make the phosphorus more available, also reducing the amount of phosphorus that is excreted.
We have also got available to us amendments we can add to our litter to make the phosphorus less soluble and therefore less of a problem for our water sources.
Now, I would like to make a few comments on the EPA proposed rules and regulations. These, as Congressman Duncan mentioned, were released sometime in December. The EPA has gone through a period of public hearings earlier on this year. I attended a public hearing in Chattanooga in late March.
I consider myself vaguely familiar with the rules and regulations and some of the implications. For the record, I would like to mention that I found that public hearing not what it was supposed to be, ''educating the public on the particular rules and regulations.'' I felt it did not do that. I felt it was more for the benefit of the EPA to say that it held a public hearing than actually to educate the public on these proposed rules and regulations.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now, I would like to make a few comments on the rules and regulations. I would like to comment in three particular areas. First, on the proposed changes to redefine a concentrated animal feeding operation. Then I would like to talk a bit about nutrient management plans. Finally, I would like to talk about some of the costs that EPA is suggesting.
The document that sits in front of me is suggesting that we either move to a two-or three-tier system of defining concentrated animal feeding operations. Under both scenarios, we are going to be reducing the threshold for animal numbers and thereby increasing the potential number of CAFOs. This is obviously something that we need to take great consideration of because it is going to have major cost implications.
I also find that the EPA document is a fairly gross under-estimate of the number of CAFOs, which would be classified under each particular scheme. From our own estimates at the University of Tennessee, we are seeing EPA numbers of about half what we anticipate, the minimum numbers for only one sector, the poultry sector, not considering the swine sector and the dairy sector.
This whole issue of having either a two-or a three-tier system is also causing a lot of people some concerns if they wish to expand or to relocate and establish new operations. They really don't know which type of system they need to be playing under and which type of system they need to be planning under.
Now, a few things about nutrient management plans. This is an area, as a soil scientist, that I have been fairly heavily involved with. I fully support the need for producers to have and use and develop nutrient management plans, but I question the reason why we need to actually mandate them.
Nutrient management plans are basically a field-by-field estimation of the type of nutrients that we are going to need in the field, depending on the crop and the soil type. We also balance this with the sources of nutrients, including nutrients from manures, nutrients from fertilizers and from other organic sources.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When we come to estimating nutrients from manures, the precision that we can achieve is rather less than the precision that we can achieve with commercial inorganic fertilizers. I have some concerns about the expectations of the EPA in the precision that we can get from these nutrient management plans compared with a nutrient management plan that we might have with an inorganic fertilizer.
There are also some other rather concerning proposals in the Federal Register here. There was a proposal that any non-CAFO farmer taking 12 tons of manure or more could potentially become a CAFO. Twelve tons of manure is basically one or two trailer loads of poultry litter. I don't think any row crop farmer would want to go through all the hoops and regulations to become a CAFO just to use one or two trailer-loads of fertilizer.
I will move on quickly to a few other comments on some of the other costs, the costs that the EPA is mentioning. Doing some rough calculations, some extrapolations of some of the numbers here, we are looking at about $8,500 for your average poultry farmer to comply with the costs of compliance.
Talking to our poultry specialist at Tennessee, $6,000 or $7,000 is the net return on a house for an average poultry farmer in Tennessee. So, effectively you are going to be penalizing the small guys, pushing them out of business and encouraging the large people to get larger with the economies of scale that they could get.
In summary, I think we can all agree that we do need clean water. I think these proposed rules and regulations are more of a big stick to the small producer and an encouragement for the larger producer to get larger.
If these rules do go forward, we are going to need a lot more money to educate people, to train people with agencies such as the Cooperative Extension Service in each State as well as the NRCS and other agencies.
I think the American farmer has been very good, as has been mentioned earlier. If you give them the appropriate technologies they will use them. A great example of how appropriate technology has helped agriculture in Tennessee and water quality in Tennessee has been the development of no-till technologies. Farmers have dramatically reduced the amount of erosion, the amount of sedimentation that has gone to our waters. That was done through assisting farmers with technology, not through regulation.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Walker.
Ms. Frank.
Ms. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
My name is Bobbie Frank. I am the Executive Director of the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts. I am here representing our 34 local districts which are local units of government that are specifically charged in Wyoming by State statute with natural resource conservation including water quality protection while stabilizing farming and ranching operations and protecting their local tax base.
I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, to bring a little western flavor and information to you on what is occurring in our State, at least, and I am sure in many others.
First of all, I would like to tell you that we do need help out in the country. But the form of that help we do not need is more Federal regulations for our livestock producers.
Our landowners want to do the right thing for the resource. They have to. It is part of their business operation. We have a program in Wyoming that we have been implementing in conjunction with our Wyoming Department of Agriculture, our Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, our livestock organizations, our University of Wyoming, where we are delivering the education and information necessary for the producers to understand the issue in the first place, as well as providing technical and financial assistance for producers to do the right thing. They do want to do the right thing.
In Wyoming, our DEQ is the permitted authority, the Department of Environmental Quality. They do permit the larger 1,000 animal unit operations in our State. Our main concern, and certainly my comments today on the proposed regs and our recommendation is aimed at the smaller and middle-sized operation which make up the majority of agriculture in Wyoming, which is the third leading industry.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to give you an example of a few of the families in Wyoming that have taken the initiative to do the right thing and protect the resources and comply with the regulations. We have three examples that I would like to share with you today that will describe virtually all of the ranch operations in Wyoming.
We are mainly cow-calf, sheep operators, some very small. There is some feeding and a few hog operations in our State.
Miles Land and Livestock is a family operation owned by Jim and Peggy Price in Casper, Wyoming, out near Alcova, run by Jim and Peg Price and their four daughters. Last year they completely relocated calving facilities that were located near the North Platte River. Those calving facilities were put there in 1925. That project cost them over $100,000.
Jim and Jeanne Anderson, who are sheep operators in Tensleep, Wyoming, had a lambing facility built in 1950 near a cold-water trout fishery in Tensleep, Wyoming. That family as well spent over $100,000 relocating that facility.
A little farmer named Mr. Roy Hitt in Wheatland, Wyoming, 72 years old, has a little cow-calf operation, partially relocated corrals. He has a fishing pond on his place that serves as the local fishing hole for all the kids in Wheatland. He partially relocated that and spent near $30,000 to do so, to make sure that he is doing his part.
The sad thing about today's proposed regulations is that we would have to go back to all of those producers and tell them they haven't quite done enough. Not one of them would be able to pass the certification as proposed to today's rules. But from a conservation and environmental protection perspective, we believe they have more than done an adequate job to provide protection for the resource.
What I described again describes nearly every operation in Wyoming. We have a lot of mid-and small-sized operations. When it takes a 300-cow operation just to have an economic unit to try to support a family and even then a spouse is working off the ranch, those are the people who we are talking about regulating en masse.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have gone over 7,000 miles in our State to educate over 1,000 producers to date. The projects that I described to you, we have over 60 similar projects in varying degrees and we have had over 200 requests from livestock producers in our State for technical assistance from our local Natural Resource Conservation Service field offices.
Our challenge is that we cannot currently meet that demand. We have producers who want to do the right thing. We can't get the help to them in terms of planning assistance.
Additionally, and my last comment is, I believe that certainly in Wyoming and other States as was mentioned earlier, the States and the local governments and the livestock producers working together will do the right thing, are doing the right thing and they do need the assistance.
Today's proposed regs, if they were passed as proposed, will do nothing more than put many of them out of business. It is very difficult for us to decide whose job and whose place would be the one that was picked in an attempt to comply with these regulations, even though the regulations, in our opinion, will not provide much in terms of environmental gain.
The requirements we place on our producers truly need to be grounded in water quality protection and resource protection. We don't believe that that will be accomplished through the proposed regs.
We do believe the alternative of the good faith effort, the State equivalent to help these producers do the right thing is the approach that we can live with, certainly in Wyoming, and we hope to get the help to the producers we already have waiting.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest would like to introduce the next witness.
Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The next witness is the Secretary of the Maryland Department of Environment, Jane Nishida from the State of Maryland.
I would like to say that over the years, while we have not always agreed on a number of different issues, Ms. Nishida has been very responsive to our office. I also think she has been very responsive, both in an industrial and an agricultural sense to the people of Maryland.
Welcome, Ms. Nishida.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.
Ms. Nishida.
Ms. NISHIDA. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say that I am especially honored to have Congressman Gilchrest introduce me. Because as he noted, while we don't always agree, he has always been very open and very supportive of my agency and of the environment. So, I just wanted to publicly recognize and thank him for all that support over the years.
I am here testifying, as Congressman Gilchrest as indicated, on behalf of the State of Maryland and particularly the Maryland Department of the Environment. Maryland strongly supports EPA's efforts to move forward in permitting CAFOs and establishing more stringent national standards.
We believe that this program is critical to our efforts to protect all waters of Maryland, including the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Maryland has been aggressively dealing with the effects of excess nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries for nearly two decades.
In the early 1980s, an exhaustive study conducted by EPA showed that the Chesapeake Bay was suffering from low dissolved oxygen and over-enrichment from nutrients being discharged from wastewater treatment plants, urban runoff and from agricultural land.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since that time, Maryland and the other signatory States of the Chesapeake Bay agreement have taken major steps to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the bay, including from agricultural sources.
This experience has taught us that a comprehensive approach is necessary to achieve pollution reductions from all segments of society and from all kinds of land uses in order to protect and restore our nation's water resources.
The approach taken by EPA is based on a national performance expectation that all animal-feeding operations should develop and implement comprehensive nutrient management plans to minimize impacts on water quality and public health.
These plans should address feed management, manure handling and storage and land application of manure. These plans should also address management processes to minimize public health risks from these operations.
For the vast majority of feeding operation, voluntary efforts are the principal approach taken by EPA. There is a strong focus on providing environmental education, as well as technical and financial assistance.
However, the largest of these facilities should and will be covered under the Federal Clean Water Act discharge permit. In addition, there are some smaller operations that should and will be covered under a permit where there is a greater risk to water pollution.
The Federal Clean Water Act has been tremendously successful in a number of fronts. The nation is steadily moving toward achieving the goal of the Clean Water Act, so that the nation's waters be suitable for fishing and swimming.
However, concentrated animal feeding operations have created a new challenge to the Clean Water Act in that the number of size of these operations have increased dramatically in recent years.
A national approach to the regulation of CAFOs is essential to ensure consistency among States. Without a national approach, we could create a situation where large animal feeding operations may move from State to State to find the State with the least degree of regulatory protection.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is in just these situations where national water quality goals are threatened where EPA should set a standard for the nation. Unlike more traditional methods of farming, concentrated animal feeding operations can rely on less and less land, can be separated from the source of the feed operation and can therefore be located virtually anywhere.
The management of such operations must be done, therefore, at a national level to ensure a level playing field and protect water quality, regardless of the location of the operation.
I now want to turn to Maryland's experience. Agriculture, as Congressman Gilchrest knows, is among the most important economic sectors in Maryland. We cannot afford to lose this type of business.
At the same time, Maryland cannot afford to compromise its water quality resources, such as the Chesapeake Bay. In Maryland, agriculture accounts for 36 percent of the nitrogen loading to the bay, compared to 29 percent of the nitrogen loading coming from point sources and 24 percent from urban lands and 11 percent from forests, fields and open space.
The Maryland Department of the Environment is working cooperatively with the Department of Agriculture in monitoring and correctly environmental problems at agricultural facilities for over 20 years.
We turn to regulations enforcement only if voluntary measures are unsuccessful. While the vast majority of farmers throughout Maryland and throughout the nation follow best management practices and minimize losses to soils and nutrients, there are times when operations necessitate enforceable State and Federal regulations.
Maryland has proposed a general permit for CAFOs that recognizes the importance of nutrient management. The general permit took effect in December of 1996 and eight CAFOs have registered under the permit since that time.
In 1998, several waterways on the Eastern Shore of Maryland were closed to fishing, swimming and boating as a result of a toxic organism known as physteria that thrived in nutrient-rich waters. As a result, Maryland enacted the Water Quality Improvement Act in 1998. This act requires the development of nutrient management plans, relying on existing nutrient management planning process for all agricultural facilities with eight or more animal units.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, Maryland saw the need to supplement this act by developing conditions to be placed in the water discharge permits for processing facilities.
These conditions require the poultry processors to assist their contract growers in developing individual nutrient management plans and as well, require growers to dispose of excess chicken manure in a manner that will not increase nutrient loadings to the bay. These provisions are all consistent with the EPA-proposed regulations.
From these experiences, Maryland has learned that water quality, agriculture and the economy are integrally linked.
In conclusion, we therefore reiterate Maryland's support for a strong EPA and national approach to dealing with CAFOs. Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Nishida.
Mr. Harding, last but not least.
Mr. HARDING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed it is a pleasure to be here in front of the committee to talk about a very important issue to us in Michigan.
My name is Russ Harding. I am Director of Michigan's Department of Environmental Quality, the agency charged with protecting Michigan's environment. In Michigan we enjoy some of the strictest water quality standards in the world. You might not be surprised by that as we are surrounded by nearly 20 percent of the world's fresh water in our State.
However, we have also an agricultural industry which is thriving in the State. It has been there for a long time. We hope that will be there for a long time in the future. It is an industry which is highly diversified. I think it is second only to California.
We do have large animal operations in the State, none of which are corporate or very few are corporate. Almost all of them are family-owned CAFOs.
We certainly do not argue with the need for national performance standards as it relates to CAFOs. Where I would certainly disagree with my colleague, Jane, here, is that they should be performance standards, not process standards.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I have had the opportunity to serve as a regulator in Alaska, Arizona, Missouri, and Michigan. I can say that the challenges and issues are vastly different throughout this nation. The one-size-fits-all approach certainly does not work.
I would not take issue with States that feel a permitting process is the way to go, but I will remind the committee that certainly in the State of Michigan, and I think this is true in other States where I worked, we have a very dispersed and diverse agriculture community to work with. I kind of refer to it as the second wave of environmental protection in our nation. We have been very effective with the top down command and control proscriptive approach on point sources.
But as we move into the non-point arena, we are going to have to take some different approaches to be successful. We are going to have to form partnerships and work with the farmers to solve these problems. We need to back that up with enforcement.
The way in which we are doing that in Michigan is through the Michigan Environmental Assurance Program. That is really an effort that is really a lot of folks working together. We have government. We have conservation groups. We have agricultural producers and commodities as well as regulators. We have a program where there are third party independent certification of operations.
It has been my experience on farms that generally we encounter three kinds of problems. One is where livestock enters into the surface waters directly. Secondly, is where we have manure not appropriately applied, perhaps in Michigan on frozen fields in the winter. Then it thaws and we will get run-off. We also have problems from leaking lagoons.
However, it is also my experience that almost every farmer is trying to address those problems and they are trying to move ahead positively to work with us to get that done. Where that doesn't happen, we are not reluctant to enforce and in fact have a number of very active enforcement cases in our State. Our policy is zero discharge into our surface waters.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But if we take the approach that EPA is suggesting, we are not going to meet those goals. It simply will not work. We will be taking cops off the beat in our State. We will more than double the universe of all NPDES permits we currently issue for all types of facilities in our State, including industrial and municipal. And we are a heavy manufacturing State.
We will not have additional resources to do that. We certainly do not see more money coming from the federal government.
Like many States, with the downturn in the economy, we have to balance our budgets. My agency is under a hiring freeze. We are taking budget reductions, so we will be doing these jobs with equal or less number of people than we currently have. We are going to have to form these partnerships like we are doing in Michigan.
We are going to have to work together to solve these problems. If we take this very, very proscriptive approach that EPA wants to take I heard Jane mention the general permits. You know, that is exactly what will happen when you bring in this large universe of farms into the NPDES program. States simply will not have the resources to individually do permits for that kind of universe of farms.
So, you do a general permit. What a general permit will be is something that will sit on a shelf. It will be a nice exercise. There will be a lot of activity that will go into the permitting. But there won't be many resources left to ensure things improve.
I don't think that is the kind of performance the taxpayers in our State expect. They want us to continue to move forward with clean water. They want to continue to have a thriving agricultural industry in our State. We can do that, but we are only going to be able to do that if we work together.
Certainly as I mentioned earlier, we are not afraid to enforce when that is necessary. A balanced program with sound enforcement is critical for a level playing field. But we have to have some common sense here.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It has been interesting to me the last few years to see numerous reports, all basically with the same conclusion that if we are going to get what the public expects, and that is increased environmental protection and do it cost effectively, we are going to have to change the way in which we do business and try some new approaches.
Yet, we do not see that reflected in the approach that EPA takes. Instead, what we see in every case is additional regulation piled upon regulation. We are not going to get the desired results from that.
So, I hope this committee will seriously look at this issue, as I know you will. We certainly need some relief here from these oppressive Federal regulations so we can work to get the job done.
Thank you.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Harding. Every witness has been very helpful and very good.
Does anyone have a question that they could ask very quickly since we are starting a vote?
Mr. Gilchrest, I will come to you first.
Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Hill, I live in Kennedyville, Maryland. Outside of my little town is a hog farmer with about 1,000 acres and about 4,000 hogs, very similar to your operation.
I have been on his farm a number of times. It sounds like his agricultural operation is exactly the way yours is now, because it was a lot different 20 years ago. It is fundamentally environmentally sound.
My question, Mr. Hill, the present existing rules for AFOs and CAFOs with EPA right now, do you think it is adequate? Is it too much? Could we leave it the way it is?
Mr. HILL. In Iowa, with the existing regulation, at 200,000 pounds on a site, I will need to have a manure management plan. That manure management plan will look at the crop uptake of nutrient and allow me only to put into the soil what the crop will require. My gallonage and the calculations I use about 250 acres per year to utilize that nutrient and we utilize it as a resource.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I will mention to you that there is a transportation issue with this in that the further you must go from your operation to haul this slurry, the more expensive it is and the less likely you are going to recover your costs.
So, there is in Iowa kind of a geographically dispersion of farms because our manure management plans keep the operations smaller so they don't have as far to go to put that nutrient in the soil.
Mr. GILCHREST. So, I guess the existing rules in EPA, before they implement the new rules, if they do, can you live with the present rules with AFO and CAFO right now?
Mr. HILL. With the present EPA rules?
Mr. GILCHREST. Yes.
Mr. HILL. Well, I am not familiar that EPA has, in Iowa, that much jurisdiction until they come in with the new proposal.
Mr. GILCHREST. But the way you are doing things now, you see it as—
Mr. HILL. Yes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Taylor.
Mr. TAYLOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am from the State of Mississippi. The Mississippi River drains two-thirds of the continental United States, so for those of you who are saying, 'What does the United States have to say about water pollution?'' I would say that what starts in many of your States ends up flowing past mine.
Therefore it is Federal in nature. I understand your desire to minimize the costs to your farmers. That is natural. I understand your desires to protect your constituencies, Ms. Frank. That is natural.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My question to you would be, would you be willing—since I do think it is Federal nature to try to protect the waters, and those laws date back to the 1890s, the first laws that said the waters are everyone's waters and therefore, we are going to protect them—could you live with the EPA giving you guidelines of what leaves your property?
However you treat it is up to you, whatever industry, be it large or small, Mr. Spence, as long as what leaves your property is within certain guidelines.
I would open it up to the panel. If you can find a better way to do it to solve this problem than the EPA, have at it.
Mr. SPENCE. I will take a stab at that. In part the answer to that, I think, is that under most of these State programs that are in existence today, that is already being addressed, particularly with what I am familiar with in Florida, you cannot have off-site discharges. So it is already being addressed.
Within the current framework of CAFO regulations, that is also addressed as well. In other words, there cannot be an off-site discharge except under certain circumstances, primarily an incident that exceeds the 24-hour flood event. That is still going to be the design criteria for the permitting.
So, I would answer that question with sort of a qualified yes. It is something producers can live with. It is something producers to a large degree can live with.
The other problem that we face is that, you know, if you go to borrow money in agriculture or in any business, you have to be able to show some return for it. With these kinds of pollution control measures mandated by EPA, we don't have that opportunity to go to the bank and say, 'Well, we are going to be producing this much more as a result of this.
Mr. HILL. In Iowa as well, we have been able to get along quite well with it. If we achieve a certain size, we are going to be inspected on a routine basis to make sure we are compliant.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But any operation, if a neighbor suggests that there is a discharge or there is a concern, DNR is tripped into the farm for an inspection, without any notification to the producer. They can walk on to the farm and inspect the farm to make sure that we are compliant to that State law.
Mr. WALKER. If I can make a comment on what happens in Tennessee, we currently for the last two years—
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Walker, I have to say it. I don't think you are originally from Tennessee.
Dr. WALKER. I am from a little east of Tennessee, over the ocean. I am from Scotland originally. I knew that would be an issue, yes, that was well spotted.
In Tennessee for the last couple of years we have effectively had a three-tier system of CAFO definitions. We have an upper tier (or class 1) requirement for operations with greater than 1,000 animal units. That is a fairly strict permit requirement, almost like an NPDES permit. There are very comprehensive nutrient management planning requirements for that.
Between 300 animal units and 1,000 animal units, we have what is known as a Class 2 permit requirement. There we have requirements for a nutrient management plan as well as waste system handling design.
Many States already have their own systems in place. If these EPA regulations were to supersede them, it would cause a lot of confusion to a lot of people.
Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Walker, I served in State government. I think right now three-fifths of our States are having revenue downturns. Budgets are being cut. That means fewer inspectors in the field.
I really do understand your concerns, but I hope you would also understand that I come from a seafood-producing area. If the water is ruined, we can't harvest oysters. We kill the shrimp. There are no menhaden to go into fertilizers and other things that you use.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So, it really is a closed system. What happens in Iowa does indeed affect the seafood industry in Mississippi.
So, my question is: I don't quite buy the idea that we have no Federal government authority just in case the State, for whatever reason, is not enforcing the law. I would welcome your comments on that.
Mr. DUNCAN. Well, let me say this: With that comment we are going to have to conclude this, unfortunately, because we are about to miss a vote here right now.
We have about 45 minutes worth of votes, so unfortunately, I am going to have to ask any other Members to submit their questions in writing.
You have been very helpful witnesses and very informative. Your full statements will be placed in the record and also any supplemental materials you wish to present.
Dr. Walker, I can tell you, many of us in east Tennessee have Scottish ancestry. Thank you for being with us.
I think we have gotten the message out today. I think all of us want to see things done and our water kept clean, but have these things done in a way that we don't run more small farmers and even medium sized farmers out of business. That is my number one concern.
Certainly the EPA proposal right now would have the effect of helping the big giants get even bigger. We certainly, I don't think, want that if it is done at the expense of the small or medium-size farmers.
Thank you very much for being with us and for coming from all around the country and taking time out from your very busy schedules. You have been outstanding witnesses.
Thank you very much. That will conclude this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. EARL BLUMENAUER
Today's hearing is the perfect opportunity to highlight the problems associated with confined animal feeding operations and to commend the Environmental Protection Agency for its attempts to improve water quality through permitting of point source pollutants. Concentrated animal feeding operations (often referred to as CAFOs) are a large source of nitrate pollution in groundwater, rivers, and drinking water, a source of disease-causing pathogens, and are recognized as a cause of the ''dead zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico. While confined animal feeding operations have long been recognized as a point source pollutant under the Clean Water Act, only the largest and most egregious polluters have been regulated.
I have two main concerns with confined animal feeding operations. The first is the fact that Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency continue to allow confined animal feeding operations to be inappropriately located in floodplains and other environmentally-sensitive areas. Congress lost a tremendous opportunity to redress such a scenario recently when Hurricane Floyd flooded factory hog farms in the lowlands of North Carolina. Of the approximately 2,500 hog farms in that state, nearly 40 percent were located in flood plains. Vast lagoons of highly polluting hog waste were ruptured or flooded by the hurricane's wrath; and almost half continued to overflow for months after the floodwaters receded. Congress had a unique opportunity to question the wisdom of building such destructive facilities in a region so vulnerable to nature's fury. Instead, federal money was granted to restore the hog farms and vast lagoons, providing yet another example of how we often chose to maintain the status quo—even when we know it's the wrong thing to do. The second is that we should have reservations about some of the consequences of ''factory farming'' when it presents severe environmental, health, and safety risks to workers and subjects animals to an inhumane existence.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
On the other hand, I have concerns with the proposed regulations as well. These new regulations should not be arbitrary in nature, but rather should be based on a flexible framework. We should recognize that many industries have improved and changed for the better in the last 30 years, but there are still some individuals with bad practices, and there are still natural events and land use issues—and these issues mean that we need some level of protection. If intense storm frequencies continue to rise, as is predicted by global warming forecasts, then we need to be more intelligent in our land-use choices, and be certain that these waste lagoons are not placed where they would be vulnerable to flooding.
Individuals are being more careful, but we should all do more to pollute less. These regulations are not about hurting the family farmer. They are about the uneven responsibility that has been placed on the animal feeding industry, and the problems associated with the market consolidation that has taken place over the past 40 years.
The concentration of these activities with much larger operations is a serious issue. We need to continue to make more progress. While considering these regulations, we need to be sensitive to the future of our planet to make sure that we don't make things worse, rather than better. Those who have a proven track record of responsibility and commitment to thoughtful environmental practices should be given the flexibility to continue to improve their operations in ways that work for them, so long as they are willing to be held accountable for their actions.
Today, we have the opportunity to re-access the status quo and make the federal government a better partner in building more livable communities. A simple way to accomplish this goal is by being more thoughtful about where we are investing federal dollars, and ensuring that the highest environmental standards are maintained. The Environmental Protection Agency has taken the first step toward safer, healthier, and more sustainable animal farming by promoting rules that would broaden the definitions of these operations and allow more extensive permitting for these point-source pollutants. I support these measures, and would take them even further, to make sure that the environment is protected, and that everyone is held to the same standards.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF BOBBIE FRANK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE WYOMING ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bobbie Frank, Executive Director of the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, and I am here representing Wyoming's 34 local Conservation Districts. Local Conservation Districts are political sub-divisions of state government, which are governed by 170 locally elected officials. Districts are charged, pursuant to §11–16–101 et seq., with the protection of natural resources, including water quality, while stabilizing farming and ranching operations and protecting the tax base.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our view on this important issue.
The Association appreciates Governor Whitman's decision to extend the original comment deadline by 75 days. The Association requested a 150-day comment extension. Although the full 150-day extension was not granted, the Association is appreciative of the Administrator's recognition of the magnitude of this proposed rule. Additional time was necessary to allow the affected livestock producers, state and local governments' adequate time to provide constructive and meaningful input.
These proposed rules will potentially affect 1000 or more livestock producers in Wyoming alone, based on the number of farms with 200–499 and 500 or greater head of livestock.(see footnote 1) This does not account for those producers who may be smaller, yet still send livestock to feedlots and subsequently may be subject to co-permitting requirements. EPA claims that under the 2-tier proposal 7% of AFOs would be regulated, and under the 3-tier proposal 4.5 to 8.5% of AFOs would be regulated. Wyoming has approximately 3200 livestock producers.(see footnote 2) Based on the above number potentially affected by this proposed rule, approximately 29.4% of Wyoming producers could be subject to regulation. EPA in the Unified Animal Feeding Operation strategy, dated March 9, 1999, claimed that a majority of animal feeding operations, (95% was cited in the strategy), would be addressed using voluntary approaches.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If private landowners are expected to provide public benefits then technical and financial help must be available to these landowners. To treat these private landowners differently than municipalities, who were also required to eliminate pollutants, yet were provided with enormous amounts of monetary assistance, is unacceptable. The Association recognizes that some changes in the livestock industry need to occur, however given that most changes are being demanded on operations that homesteaded in the west many years ago, it is only ethical that the government provide the financial assistance to achieve these standards. This has not yet occurred even under the current requirements.
1. Success of voluntary incentive based programs
The local Conservation Districts and the WACD, in coordination with the livestock industry organizations, Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Department of Environmental Quality, USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service, and the University of Wyoming have been working together to implement a state wide Animal Feeding Operation/Confined Animal Feeding Operation Program since 1996. This program is aimed at providing livestock producers the information/education, technical, and cost-share assistance necessary to protect water quality. The AFO portion of this program has been partially funded through Clean Water Act section 319 funds with remaining program costs covered with local funds, volunteer time, and mostly livestock producer resources. Progress and success has been achieved, which demonstrates the fact that locally driven voluntary programs are effective in protecting the resource and are more effective than top down regulatory programs.
Conservation Districts, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Environmental Quality have conducted 19 workshops throughout Wyoming as of May 9, 2001. We have logged over 6500 miles to help educate livestock producers. As a result, the request for animal feeding operation technical assistance from local Conservation Districts/Natural Resources Conservation Service has increased substantially in the past two years. A workload analysis conducted in the fall of 1999 by the local Conservation Districts and Natural Resource Conservation Service, estimated the total AFO workload for 2001 to be 25 projects, yet, as of the beginning of May 2001, the total request from livestock producers is approximately 200. This demand for assistance cannot currently be met in Wyoming. NRCS technical assistance in the field is insufficient to meet the workload demand.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This demonstrates, unlike EPA's analysis in the proposed rule, that livestock producers will address issues of concerns with livestock facilities. The Association appreciates the fact that the EPA Region VIII recognizes these efforts and has so far, supported this approach.
The Association recognizes the need to assist producers in eliminating unacceptable conditions. There has been an extraordinary amount of time devoted to this effort. There are currently over 60 animal feeding operation projects in various stages from planning to complete, funded either through USDA NRCS Environmental Quality Incentive or Section 319 programs. The Association can clearly demonstrate that with proper education and adequate technical and financial assistance, livestock producers will address potential contributions of pollutants to waters. The challenge is to provide enough assistance to serve the requests. The issue is not that there is a lack of regulations. The proposed CAFO regulations will do nothing to assist these livestock producers and will only serve to add additional regulatory burden on small family owned livestock operations.
Again, the Unified Animal Feeding Operation Strategy stressed the importance of locally led conservation efforts such as those outlined above. In fact the strategy states: ''It is hard to overstate the importance of effectiv