Comparative Standards for Intensive Livestock Operations 

in Canada, Mexico, and the United States 

Prepared by 

Jerry Speir, Tulane Institute for Environmental Law and Policy, Tulane Law School 

Marie-Ann Bowden, University of Saskatchewan 

David Ervin, Winrock International 

Jim McElfish, Environmental Law Institute (ELI) 

Rosario Pérez Espejo, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM) 

Tim Whitehouse, Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

Chantal Line Carpentier, Commission for Environmental Cooperation

for the 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

4 February 2003
The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) was established under the North 

American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) to address environmental 

issues in North America from a continental perspective, with a particular focus on those 

arising in the context of liberalized trade. 

This publication was prepared for the Secretariat of the CEC. The views contained herein 

do not necessarily reflect the views of the CEC, or the governments of Canada, Mexico 

or the United States of America. 

Reproduction of this document in whole or in part and in any form for educational or 

nonprofit purposes may be made without special permission from the CEC Secretariat, 

provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The CEC would appreciate receiving a 

copy of any publication or material that uses this document as a source. 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation 

393, rue St-Jacques Ouest, Bureau 200 

Montréal (Québec) Canada H2Y 1N9 

E-mail: info@ccemtl.org 

http://www.cec.org
iii 

Acknowledgments 

This study on Comparative Standards for Intensive Livestock Operation in Canada, 

Mexico and the United States was carried out by the Secretariat under the Law and 

Policy Program with the support of the Environment, Economy and Trade Program. The 

Secretariat wishes to thank the following consultants who contributed to the report; Jerry 

Speir, who compiled, edited and wrote substantial portions of the report, Marie-Anne 

Bowden, Roman Czebiniak, David E. Ervin, Rosario Pérez Espejo,Everardo GonzalezPadilla, Jim McElfish, Marc Paquin, Verena Radulovic, Steve Seres, Alfons Weersink 

and Jonathan R. Winsten. 

If you have any comments on or corrections to this report, please contact Tim 

Whitehouse, Head, Law and Policy Program, Commission for Environmental 

Cooperation at 514-350-4334 or twhitehouse@ccemtl.org. 
iv 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................... vi

ILOs and the Production of Livestock...................................................................................................... vi

The Production of Livestock in North America ...................................................................................... vii

ILOs and the Environment ..................................................................................................................... viii

Environmental Regulation and ILOs........................................................................................................ ix

Environmental Regulations and the Siting of ILOs................................................................................... x

Types of Environmental Requirements .................................................................................................... xi

Country-by-Country Comparisons ......................................................................................................... xiii

The Future .............................................................................................................................................. xiv

Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................. xv

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................. xvi

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

Defining Terms.......................................................................................................................................... 3

ILO Trends and Patterns............................................................................................................................ 4

Factors Affecting ILO Growth .................................................................................................................. 7

Spatial and Size Distribution of ILOs by Sector ....................................................................................... 8

Summary of ILO Status and Trends ........................................................................................................ 16

Environmental and Human Health Concerns .......................................................................................... 16

Summary of Environmental and Human Health Issues........................................................................... 28

Regulations in the United States ................................................................................................ 29

Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 29

Comparison of State Programs ................................................................................................................ 33

Recent Developments.............................................................................................................................. 49

Regulations in Canada ................................................................................................................ 52

Overview ................................................................................................................................................. 52

Siting ....................................................................................................................................................... 54

Design Construction ................................................................................................................................ 62

Nutrient Management.............................................................................................................................. 67

Legal Liability ......................................................................................................................................... 71

Right To Farm ......................................................................................................................................... 76

Comparative Provincial Approaches to Regulation ................................................................................ 77

The local control model: British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Ontario................................................... 78

Regulations in Mexico ................................................................................................................. 88

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 88

National Laws.......................................................................................................................................... 89

State Environmental Authorities and Laws ............................................................................................. 99

Municipal Environmental Regulations.................................................................................................. 103

General Provisions—Summary ............................................................................................................. 106
v 

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. 109

Country-by-Country Comparisons ........................................................................................................ 111

The Future ............................................................................................................................................. 112

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 113

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 114

References .................................................................................................................................. 116

General .................................................................................................................................................. 116

Primary Laws Regulating AFOs/CAFOs in US states covered in this report ....................................... 122

Websites of Interest ............................................................................................................................... 125

Appendix .................................................................................................................................... 129

Map 1: Change in the Number of Large U.S. Confinement Livestock Operations 1982-1997...... 129

Map 2: Estimated Total Livestock Manure Production in Canada 1996 ........................................ 130
vi 

Executive Summary 

Livestock farming has been transformed in the past twenty years from a business 

dominated by relatively small producers to one dominated by large facilities raising 

thousands of animals. A side effect of this development has been a new set of 

environmental concerns unique to this industry. While regulation of livestock agriculture 

has historically been a state/provincial and local matter, governments from the local to 

the federal level have found themselves grappling with the issues created by these new, 

concentrated facilities. This Report surveys the current environmental requirements for 

“intensive livestock operations” (ILOs) in the United States, Mexico and Canada. The 

Report draws conclusions about current regulatory regimes and makes recommendations 

on the management of environmental issues associated with ILOs. 

ILOs and the Production of Livestock 

No single definition for ILOs exists for the three countries of North America. “ILO” 

generally refers to facilities that have a large number of livestock in confined conditions. 

In the US, the preferred term is “concentrated animal feeding operation” or “CAFO.” For 

decades, poultry have been raised in large, enclosed facilities. In recent years, the swine 

industry in particular has also consolidated its operations into large, indoor facilities. 

Over recent decades, the size of fed-cattle and swine operations has dramatically 

increased, while the number of operations has diminished. This concentration has 

already occurred in the United States and Canada and has begun to occur in Mexico. 

According to an industry magazine, for example, in 2001, the eight largest commercial 

pork producers in Canada owned 275,800 sows; the three largest in Mexico owned 

131,500; and, the twenty-five largest in the United States owned 2,485,075. In the 

United States, 110 operations control 47% of the hog inventory.1

 In 2000, operations with 

5000 hogs or more comprised 50% of the US hog inventory. It has been estimated that 

50% of Mexico’s swine production comes from intensive operations. 

One aspect of this concentration is the dominance of a small number of companies, often 

meat processors, who increasingly own the animals, feed mills and brand-names of the 

finished product through a process called “vertical integration.” These companies 

contract with producers, or farmers, to produce a pre-specified quantity of livestock. 

When these companies are meat processors, livestock production facilities tend to cluster 

around the processors. One report states that hogs produced under contract in the US 

went from 10 percent in 1993 to greater than 50 percent in 1999. 

 

1

 Compiled by the CEC from information provided in Successful Farming Magazine, October 2001, 

www.agriculture.com/sfonline/sf/2001/october/pork_powerhouses.pdf 
vii 

The consolidation of these industries has helped contribute to lower meat prices. In 

constant dollars, the real, retail price of chicken in the US has decreased 61% since 1955; 

retail pork prices decreased 8% from 1990 to 1998.2

 This consolidation has also raised 

serious public health and environmental issues. 

The Production of Livestock in North America 

The decline in prices has accompanied increased demand for and production of pork and 

poultry products in North America. From 1980 to 2000, while beef consumption 

remained about the same, domestic consumption of broilers in North America rose from 

6 million metric tons to 14 million metric tons; in the same time period, domestic 

consumption of pork rose from 9.6 million metric tons to 11 million metric tons. 3 In 

2002, the US Department of Agriculture estimates that the United States, Canada and 

Mexico produced 43,926,000 metric tons of beef, pork and chicken, up from 39,086,000 

metric tons in 1997 4

 

The livestock markets of Mexico, the United States and Canada, are becoming 

increasingly integrated into a North American market. In 2001, the United States 

exported US $103 million worth of pork to Canada; US $217 million worth of beef; and, 

and US $155 million worth of poultry. Canada, meanwhile exported US $619 million 

worth of pork to the United States, US $1 billion worth of beef, and, US $28 million 

worth of poultry. 5

The lowering of tariff barriers under NAFTA has contributed to a surge in exports of 

livestock from the United States to Mexico where production has not kept pace with 

demand. From 1990 to 2000, the value of US exports of beef, pork and poultry to Mexico 

increased from $364 million to $971 million.6

 

Despite the dominance of US imports, in 2002, Mexico is expected to export 1.3 million 

head of cattle, most destined for feedlots in the United States, and it will maintain a 

strong export market of meat products to Japan and a small but rapidly expanding export 

 

2

 Martinez, Steve W. 2000. Price and quality of pork and broiler products: What's the role of vertical 

integration? Washington, DC: Economic Research Service. Current Issues in Economics of Food 

Markets; Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 74-02. 

3 USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Production, Supplu and Distribution,

www.fas.usda.gov/psd/complete_files/default.asp 4

 Compiled by the CEC from, “Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade, March 2002, Circular 

Series, DL&P 1-02, USDA, FAS, www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/2002/02-03LP/dlp1_02.pdf 

5

 Compiled by the CEC from information provided in, “Proposal for Global Agricultural Trade Reform: 

What is at Stake for Pork,” www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/WTO/commodities2002/Pork2.pdf , “What 

is at Stake for Beef,” www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/WTO/commodities2002/Beef2.pdf , “What is at 

Stake for Poultry,” www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/WTO/commodities2002/poultry3.pdf 

6

 Compiled by the CEC from, “U.S. Imports and Exports,” USDA, www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/histdata/html 
viii 

market of pork to the United States.7 Mexican exports of pork increased from 511 tons in 

1990 to 31,711 tons in 2000.8

 This growth has been fuelled by increased vertical 

integration, an expansion of companies with more than 500 sows, and increased US 

investment. 

ILOs and the Environment 

The proper handling of the manure and wastewaters produced by ILOs is critical to 

protecting human health and the environment. The volume of these by-products from the 

largest farms can rival the sewage output of a sizable city. For example, the 1600 dairies 

in the Central Valley of California produce more manure than a city of 21 million people 

produces biosolids. A 50,000 acre swine operation in southwest Utah designed to 

produce 2.5 million hogs annually, has a potential output greater than the entire city of 

Los Angeles.9

 In the United States, Mexico and Canada, livestock operations are 

prohibited from discharging untreated manure and wastewaters directly into waterbodies 

(with some exceptions for extraordinary storm events). ILOs ultimately dispose of most 

of their manure on land, often using it as fertilizer. Because of these practices, the design, 

location and manure management practices of ILOs are critical components in ensuring 

an adequate level of protection of human health and the environment. 

The improper management of manure and wastewaters can cause both water and air 

pollution. These ILO by-products can emit significant levels of pollutants into the air, 

such as ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, particulate matter and methane. 

They can also contain pathogens, antibiotics and hormones. Runoffs and leaks from 

animal feeding operations have contaminated surface and ground water, including 

drinking water supplies. 

The amount of manure produced by an ILO can exceed the options for beneficial re-use, 

such as the application of the manure to local lands as fertilizer. Excessive application 

can create soils over-enriched with nutrients and threaten local watersheds with runoff 

that can cause algal blooms, loss of habitat, changes in aquatic biodiversity, and the 

depletion of dissolved oxygen. Transporting manure from areas of excess to areas of 

need appears to be prohibitively expensive. 

The extensive use of antibiotics to control diseases in food-producing animals may lead 

to certain drug resistance problems in humans. The American Medical Association has 

passed a resolution urging the termination or phase out of the prophylactic use of 

antibiotics in livestock operations.10 Likewise, the World Health Organization has said 

 

7

 Compiled by the CEC from, “Livestock and Poultry: World Markets and Trade, March 2002,” pp. 13,22, 

Circular Series, DL&P 1-02, USDA, FAS, www.fas.usda.gov/dlp/circular/2002/02-03LP/dlp1_02.pdf 

8

 Pérez Espejo and González Padilla, 2001. 

9

 Report compiled by the minority staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry for Senator Tom Harkin, D-IA. 

10 AMA Resolution 508 (June 2001) www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/1818-5001.html. 
ix 

that antibiotic use in food-producing animals must be curtailed to prevent the increase of 

drug-resistant diseases.11

Public concern has grown about whether these facilities are regulated in a way that 

protects human health and the environment, resulting in headlines throughout North 

America. Major waste spills from ILOs during hurricanes in North Carolina in the 1990s 

devastated some streams for weeks. Contamination of a water supply in Ontario by 

manure was blamed for several deaths and thousands of illnesses (though the facility was 

not a large, intensive operation). Excessive application of manure to soils in Yucatan has 

generated concerns both for the soils and for the area’s relatively shallow aquifers. 

Public attention has also been focused on the increasingly global nature of intensive 

livestock operations. A recent story in The Ottawa Citizen,12 headlined “Canada: The 

World’s Barnyard,” reports that the Dutch government is “paying its livestock farmers to 

stop farming because of their manure problems” and that Dutch farmers are using the 

money to buy farms in Canada. In the United States, an animal welfare group teamed up 

with Polish farm activists in a public attempt to stymie the efforts of the largest American 

pork producers to introduce large-scale livestock operations in Poland.13

Environmental Regulation and ILOs 

Within North America, ILOs are not subject to uniform regulations or standards. Instead, 

the countries rely on a mix of local, state and federal regulations. In Canada, ILO 

regulation is almost exclusively a provincial matter; in some provinces, regulatory 

authority is further delegated to local municipalities. In Mexico, the controlling 

regulations, to the extent that they exist, are principally a matter of federal law—though 

oversight and enforcement issues are most often handled at the local level. In the United 

States, a recent revision to the federal regulations has imposed a broader federal mandate 

on ILOs than previously existed, but state-level regulation still adds significantly to the 

federal scheme. In all three countries, the regulations that do exist vary significantly 

from state-to-state and province-to-province. 

Strong federal jurisdiction over ILOs has not been a tradition in any of the three 

countries. In particular, in Mexico, where discharges into waterways are governed by 

federal law, a federal regulatory system for addressing environmental concerns has not 

been developed; federal water law could apply to ILOs, but Mexico’s environmental 

agency, Semarnat, has not developed technical standards specific to waste discharges 

from ILOs into waterways. In Canada, federal involvement in ILOs is generally limited 

to agricultural research and not regulation—with the exception of federal fisheries 

legislation that protects fish habitat from many pollution sources. A newly revised 

 

11 World Health Organization, “Antibiotic Use in Food Producing Animals Must be Curtailed to Prevent 

Increased Resistance in Humans,” Press Release WHO/73, Geneva (October 20, 1997). 

12 Tom Spears, August 4, 2001. 

13 “U.S. Pork Producer Hogtied in Polish Venture,” Washington Post, July 3, 2000, p.A01 
x 

federal rule in the United States has instituted new national requirements for nutrient 

management plans, manure and soil testing, and record-keeping at ILOs or CAFOs.14 It 

has also clarified that all facilities meeting the definition of a CAFO must apply for a 

federal water permit or for a “no potential to discharge” determination. Under the prior 

rule, the US Environmental Protection Agency estimated that although more than 13,000 

livestock operations were large enough to require federal water permits, fewer than 20% 

of those actually did—partly as a result of disagreement about what the law required. 

Numerous data gaps complicate the regulation of ILOs. Because very little on-farm 

monitoring for environmental parameters is required of ILOs, there is a general lack of 

data on their specific impacts on air, surface water, and groundwater quality. Very little 

information exists on the long-term effects of the land-application of manure on soil 

biota. Data on compliance rates and enforcement actions at ILOs is limited; where it 

exists at a local level, it is often not aggregated at the state or provincial level. 

Environmental Regulations and the Siting of ILOs 

The data is also inconclusive as to whether variations in environmental regulations 

influence siting decisions for livestock operations. Environmental considerations are one 

cost of many that operators consider when making siting decisions, including proximity 

to feed sources and processors, proximity to markets, the climate, political support within 

the particular jurisdiction, local financial incentives, tax consequences and labour costs. 

To determine whether less stringent environmental standards alone or in combination 

with other factors would create enough cost savings to attract new ILOs, the relative cost 

of environmental requirements, including local land use restrictions and design 

requirements, would need to be considered in relation to these other costs.15

US industry sources, however, report that that they feel “stymied by a myriad of new 

laws and regulations in the United States” and are looking to Canada and Mexico for new 

growth opportunities.16 While precise data is not available, significant US investment 

has gone into the pork industry in Mexico. In North America, Mexico has the lowest 

level of environmental regulations or standards for ILOs and very low labour costs. In 

 

14 40 CFR Part 122 and 40 CFR Part 412. The regulations themselves and extensive documentation are 

available at cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/afo/cafofinalrule.cfm Note that the preferred term in the U.S. is CAFO 

(concentrated animal feeding operation). 

15 A recent study indicates that environmental regulatory stringency is generally not as important as other 

economic variables in the location choices of livestock producers. In the two sectors (hog and dairy) 

where significant regional production shifts have occurred, major drivers appear to be relative prices and 

business climate. “SPATIAL Dynamics of the Livestock Sector in the United States: Do Environmental 

Regulations Matter?” Deepananda Herath, Alfons Weersink and Chantal Line Carpentier, Journal of 

Agricultural and Resource Economics, 1st Submission, 1 March 2003. 

16 “Making Moves in Mexico,” Successful Farming Magazine, October 2001, 

www.agriculture.com/sfonline/sf/2001/October/0111pork_powerhouses.html ; “Sow Herd Building Again: 

This Time it’s Canada Making the Move,” Successful Farming Magazine, October 2000, 

www.agriculture.com/sfonline/sf/2000/october/0011powerhouses.html 
xi 

addition, Mexico does not produce enough pork or poultry to meet its domestic demand 

and Mexico imposes duties on imports over quota limits. As a consequence, Mexico is 

viewed by industry as possessing great potential for domestic expansion. 

Foreign firms are working to be part of this expansion. US-based Smithfield Foods, for 

example, has teamed up with the Mexican company AMSA to develop swine units in the 

state of Veracruz. Within five years they expect to have 56,000 sows. Smithfield has also 

teamed up with the Mexican company Agroindustrial Del Noreste in the state of Sonora 

to export pork to Japan. The US company Cargill operates a feed mill in the Yucatán to 

supply feed for GPM, Mexico’s largest pork producer.17 Tyson Foods has a joint venture 

in Mexico, Trasgo & Citra Poultry, producing chickens for domestic consumption.18 

These changes are almost certainly occurring in response to Mexico’s increasingly 

favourable business climate, its growing domestic demand for meat products, and its 

potential as an exporter. However, specific connections between environmental controls, 

or the lack thereof, and these economic influences are beyond the scope of this study. 

Types of Environmental Requirements 

The three countries address public health and environmental concerns associated with 

ILOs through the following requirements: 

1. Permits. In each of the three countries, some type of permit is required for operations 

above a certain size. Especially in Mexico, the permits may simply be construction 

permits or operating permits with little or no environmental content beyond the 

restrictions that may be imposed on siting (e.g., distance from urban areas). To the extent 

that they are environmental permits, they are almost exclusively concerned with water 

pollution issues in all three countries. Permits with specific concern for air pollution 

from ILOs—beyond the “setback” requirements that separate the operations from their 

neighbors—are rare. 

2. “Nutrient management plans (NMPs)” or “manure management plans (MMPs)”: 

Increasingly, these plans are a part of the regulation of ILOs in Canada and the United 

States, but their stringency varies across jurisdictions. Most commonly, manure from 

ILOs is applied to lands in the vicinity of the operation as fertilizer. At their most 

detailed, NMPs include liner requirements for storage facilities, testing of manure and of 

the land where it is to be applied to prevent excessive nutrification, detailed record-

 

17 “Making Moves in Mexico,” Successful Farming Magazine, October 2001, 

www.agriculture.com/sfonline/sf/2001/October/0111pork_powerhouses.html ; “Livestock-Hungry World: 

South America and Mexico,” Successful Farming Magazine, March 1998, 

www.agriculture.com/sfonline/sf/1998/March/livestock/1.html 

18 “Livestock-Hungry World: South America and Mexico,” Successful Farming Magazine, March 1998, 

www.agriculture.com/sfonline/sf/1998/March/livestock/1.html 
xii 

keeping for manure shipped off-site, application schedules, and certification of the plan 

by a qualified professional. At their simplest, they enforce at least a systematic 

accounting for an operation’s manure handling practices. Seldom, even in their more 

stringent versions, are NMPs concerned with pollutants other than “nutrients” (typically 

nitrogen and phosphorous)—and often they are only concerned with nitrogen, neglecting 

phosphorous. The implications of antibiotics and hormones in these wastes remain 

outside the current regulatory purview. Mexico has not required NMPs to date. 

3. Setback or “minimum distance separation (MDS)” requirements: Odour issues have 

been dealt with primarily by setback requirements (called MDSs in Canada). The 

specifics vary widely across jurisdictions, and may be cast as requirements for minimum 

distances between property lines, from other structures, from water bodies or from other 

livestock operations. Setbacks may apply to production facilities, to the land where 

manure is applied, or both. Mexico does not presently prescribe setback requirements, 

though some municipal laws in Mexico can require a livestock operation to re-locate if 

urban development encroaches too closely on the farm. In the United States and Canada, 

state and provincial right-to-farm laws can act to protect farms from urban encroachment 

in rural areas. 

4. Public information and public notice requirements: Here, too, specifics vary widely. 

The trend, however, is toward greater disclosure of information about the potential 

environmental impacts of ILOs. At one end, Georgia requires notice by certified mail to 

all property owners within one mile of a new or expanding swine operation with more 

than 3000 “animal units;” at least one public meeting must also be conducted. In many 

cases, however, in all three countries, public notice and public information requirements 

are still minimal. 

5. Professional certification. A minority of US states and Canadian provinces has 

mandated that NMPs (or MMPs) for ILOs be certified by appropriate professionals. 

Though the certification process lacks standards (or sufficient history for critique), it does 

suggest how a professional cadre can supplement the work of under-staffed 

environmental agencies. 

6. Financial guarantees. A few US and Canadian jurisdictions require that bonds (or 

some other form of financial guarantee) be posted to ensure the proper closure of manure 

management facilities should a livestock operation go out of business. 

7. Technical assistance: Agriculture in all three countries has traditionally operated as a 

favoured sector, strategically important to each nation’s economy. Numerous 

government programs have provided advice and technical support to agriculture. 

Livestock operations benefit from such programs and the technical assistance has 

frequently been in the area of reducing environmental impacts, especially in the United 

States and Canada. 

Schematically, major points of comparison can be summarized as follows: 
xiii 

Country-by-Country Comparisons 

CANADA MEXICO UNITED STATES 

Definitions of 

ILO/CAFO 

Defined in 8 of 10 

provinces; varies from 

50-400 “animal units” 

(AU). “Unit” 

definitions vary. 

Sometimes defined by 

animal density. 

None At federal level, “large 

CAFOs” = 700 dairy cows, 

2500 swine, 30,000 

chickens, etc., (formerly 

termed “1000 AU”). State 

definitions vary from 300 

to >1000 AU, with a few 

as low as 10 in sensitive 

areas (shorelands, MN) 

Permits/approvals 

required? 

Yes in 8 of 10 

provinces, conditionally 

in the other 2. 

Some 

construction 

and operating 

permits required. Varies 

by state and 

municipality. 

National water 

discharge 

standards must 

be met for any 

discharge to 

public waters. 

Federal water pollution 

control permit required for 

“all CAFOs.” Most states 

require various state 

permits, but a few only 

require the federal water 

permit. 

Public notice 

required? 

May be recommended 

or required by 

municipalities or 

provinces. Zoning 

changes require notice. 

Generally, no. 

Some notice 

for fiscal 

matters, the 

utilization of 

public utilities, 

etc. 

Yes. 

Separation/Setback 

Distances 

Yes, in all provinces. 

Requirements vary 

widely. For example: 

20 metres from 

watercourse or wetland 

(Prince Edward Island) 

to 1 mile from a 

dwelling in a city, town, 

village or hamlet 

(Saskatchewan). 

None required. In federal law, 100 feet 

between land application 

and surface waters (less 

with vegetated buffer or 

approved “alternative 

practices.”) Yes, in most 

states, with wide variation 

based on size, type, 

new/existing, landscape 

features. For example: 

100 feet from stream 

(Alabama) to 1 mile from 

dwelling, school or 

incorporated municipality
xiv 

CANADA MEXICO UNITED STATES 

(Colorado). 

Geophysical 

Requirements? 

Yes, in 8 of 10 

provinces. Some as 

separation distance from 

water bodies or water 

tables; some to avoid 

flood plains. 

ILOs are 

banned in 

zones of water 

scarcity. Some 

floodplain 

restrictions. 

None in federal law. Yes, 

in 16 of 20 states, 

generally to avoid the 100-

year floodplain. 

Government review 

of site required? 

Yes, under some 

circumstances, in 6 of 

10 provinces. 

Changes from 

forestry to 

agriculture 

require EIA. 

Yes, under some 

circumstances, in 13 of 20 

states. 

Government 

approval of plans? 

Yes, under some 

circumstances in 6 of 10 

provinces. 

No. Yes, under some 

circumstances, in federal 

law and in all 20 states. 

Nutrient 

Management Plan 

required? 

Yes, in 6 of 10 

provinces; encouraged 

in others. 

No. Yes, in federal law and in 

all 20 states (some more 

stringent than federal 

requirements). 

The Future 

The environmental impacts of ILOs will likely remain a significant public health and 

environmental issue in the three countries. Given the decentralized nature of the current 

regulatory environment, it is unlikely that environmental requirements and incentives 

will become uniform within a particular country or among the three countries. But 

technical innovations, driven in part by litigation in the United States, may play a role in 

helping governments understand the best technologies and practices for managing large 

concentrations of animal manure and wastewaters. 

In North Carolina, for example, a settlement with Smithfield Foods in 2000 has generated 

a $15 million project to identify “superior technologies” for the management of manure 

from large animal operations. The project is examining ways to reduce the volume of 

manure produced, ways to reduce the environmental impact of the manure, and processes 

for the more efficient treatment of manure and wastewaters. All farms operated by 
xv 

Smithfield Foods are required to adopt technologies deemed environmentally and 

economically superior within the context of the agreement; the hope is that any advances 

made in that project will ripple through the industry. Another settlement, in Missouri, 

may generate as much as $50 million for research to develop and install wastewater 

treatment technologies at ILOs; it also requires the companies involved (Premium 

Standard Farms and Continental Grain Company) to calculate and report on their air 

emissions for possible air permitting. 

The success of these experimental efforts will depend on their efficacy when expanded to 

full-scale operations and on governments’ willingness to incorporate these advanced 

technologies into enforceable permit conditions or regulatory requirements. 

Conclusions 

1. The livestock industry, particularly the swine industry, has undergone dramatic 

concentration in the past twenty years. 

2. A North American market exists for livestock. 

3. Joint ventures are increasingly likely between US, Mexican and Canadian livestock 

producers. 

4. The concentration of manure and wastewaters, as a consequence of those changes in 

the industry, can be a serious environmental and human health problem; legislation has 

not always been able to keep pace. 

5. Environmental regulation of livestock operations has generally focused on water 

pollution, but air and soil pollution are also issues at large facilities, as are concerns for 

worker health and for the industry’s extensive use of hormones and antibiotics. 

6. Environmental regulation varies significantly across jurisdictions. 

7. Though variations in regulations can provide incentives to site new facilities in 

jurisdictions with the least stringent regulations, evidence that disparities in regulation 

influence those siting decisions is only anecdotal. Data for tracking foreign investment in 

livestock operations is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. The United States, for 

example, requires foreign investors to complete Form FSA 153, but the form aggregates 

all agricultural investments. 

8. Enforcement of environmental regulations at livestock operations varies widely. The 

agencies responsible for enforcement are frequently under-staffed and/or not trained 

specifically in livestock issues. In some cases, jurisdictional issues arise between 

environmental agencies and agricultural agencies. 

9. Mandatory “nutrient management plans” and “setbacks” are becoming primary 

regulatory tools. 
xvi 

10. Public information requirements for ILO siting and operation are uneven but of 

increasing importance in several jurisdictions. 

11. Professional certification of manure management plans is increasingly a requirement, 

but there is no standardization of the details of certification. 

12. Research is underway that could reduce the impacts of manure and wastewaters from 

ILOs, though the efficacy and costs of these new technologies are yet to be determined. 

Recommendations 

1. Greater uniformity in the coverage of regulations within (and among) NAFTA 

countries could minimize incentives to site ILOs in the least-regulated jurisdictions. 

Though countries, states, provinces or local governments may be justified in having 

standards different from their neighbours, caution must be exercised to avoid the “race to 

the bottom” effect. Variations from “state of the art” environmental standards should be 

based on a meaningful assessment of environmental risks in the context of other 

economic, social and geological concerns. 

2. Specifically, greater uniformity in requirements for nutrient management plans, 

setbacks, public information, public participation, and professional certification would be 

beneficial. “Public participation” should mean more than an invitation to a public 

meeting after all important decisions have been made. 

3. Where governments have both agricultural and environmental agencies, they should 

carefully consider the relative responsibilities of those agencies in relation to ILOs. 

Agricultural agencies have historically functioned as promoters of agriculture and may be 

ill-equipped to handle an enforcement role. Environmental agencies may need training in 

agricultural systems, but their traditional role as regulators typically makes them bettersuited for the enforcement task. Environmental agencies may also have more experience 

with public participation in regulatory matters. 

4. Development and implementation of new manure and wastewater treatment and 

pollution prevention technologies, which consider the lifecycle of these by-products, 

should be encouraged, especially in areas with excess nutrients. 

5. Systems that impose some responsibility for environmental impacts on “integrators,” 

as well as livestock producers, where the integrators own the animals, would be more 

equitable and would likely result in improved environmental performance at the producer 

level. 

6. Improved systems should be developed in each of the three countries to collect 

information on the environmental conditions associated with ILOs and to periodically 

survey environmental regulation and enforcement in each country. 
xvii 

7. Better data collection systems should be implemented for tracking foreign direct 

investment in ILOs in each of the three countries in order to help determine whether they 

are relocating to meet that country’s domestic demand or whether they are relocating to 

export back to the country from which they moved and thereby avoid regulatory costs. 

8. Worker health, antibiotic, hormone and specific pathogen issues are beyond the bounds 

of current environmental regulation and, therefore, of this study. Each deserves 

improved data collection and significant public attention. 
1 

Introduction 

This section provides extensive background on the nature of intensive livestock 

operations, their growth, and the environmental issues associated with them. Readers 

familiar with this material may wish to go directly to the discussion of regulatory 

regimes, beginning with “Regulations in the United States.” 

A combination of technical innovations and economic forces has wrought a revolutionary 

concentration in the livestock industry. Between 1982 and 1997, the number of large 

feeding operations (more than 1000 “animal units”) in the United States increased by 

47%, while the livestock inventory remained relatively constant. In the same period, the 

number of hog farms decreased by about 75%. As of December 2001, US Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) statistics indicated that 110 operations, with more than 50,000 

animals per farm, represented 47% of the entire hog inventory in the United States The 

largest farms can produce more than two million hogs per year. Increasingly, through a 

process called “vertical integration,” a single company owns multiple stages of the meatproduction process (the animals themselves, slaughterhouses, feed mills, and finished 

product brands) and contracts with farmers to raise the animals. In 2001, the number of 

hogs raised by contractees accounted for 33% of the total US hog inventory (Agricultural 

Statistics Board, US Department of Agriculture). 

One consequence of consolidation in the industry has been relatively cheap meat for 

consumers. In constant dollars, the retail price of chicken in the United States has 

decreased 61% since 1955; retail pork prices decreased 8% from 1990 to 1998 (Martinez 

2000). 

The decline in prices has accompanied increased demand for and production of pork and 

poultry products in North America. From 1980 to 2000, while beef consumption 

remained about the same, domestic consumption of broilers in North American rose from 

6 million metric tons to 14 million metric tons; in the same time period, domestic 

consumption of pork rose from 9.6 million metric tons to 11 million metric tons. In 2002, 

USDA estimates that the United States, Canada and Mexico produced 43,926,000 metric 

tons of beef, pork and chicken, up from 39,086,000 metric tons in 1997. 

The livestock markets of Mexico, the United States and Canada, are becoming 

increasingly integrated into a North American market. In 2001, the United States 

exported $103 million worth of pork to Canada; $217 million worth of beef; and, and 

$155 million worth of poultry. Canada, meanwhile exported $619 million worth of pork 

to the United States; $1 billion worth of beef; and, $28 million worth of poultry. 

The lowering of tariff barriers under NAFTA has contributed to a surge in exports of 

livestock from the United States to Mexico where production has not kept pace with 

demand. From 1990 to 2000, the value of US exports of beef, pork and poultry to 

Mexico increased from $364 million to $971 million. 

Meanwhile, Mexico exports significant numbers of cattle (1.3 million head in 2002) to 

the United States, most destined for feedlots. Mexico also maintains a strong export 
2 

market for meat products to Japan and a small but rapidly expanding export market in the 

United States. This growth has been fuelled by increased vertical integration, an 

expansion of companies with more than 500 sows, and increased US investment. 

Another consequence of consolidation of the industry is the concentration of manure and 

wastewaters from these large operations. Most often, the manure and urine is collected 

and stored in open-air anaerobic pits (known as lagoons) until it can be applied to nearby 

fields, typically by spraying. Inadequate storage infrastructure or application practices 

can cause nutrients, bacteria and other contaminants to enter surface or ground water, or 

to overload the assimilative capacity of soils. All three countries have areas where more 

nutrients are produced by livestock operations than can be used on crops in the local area. 

Gaseous releases can be the source of odours and air pollution. Increasingly, concerns 

also surface about worker health at ILOs, about the use of hormones and antibiotics at 

these facilities, and about the ultimate fate of those substances in the environment. 

Manure statistics are impressive. According to a report compiled by the staff of a US 

Senate Committee: “The 1600 dairies in the Central Valley of California produce more 

waste than a city of 21 million people. . . a 50,000 acre swine operation in southwest 

Utah designed to produce 2.5 million hogs annually, [has] a potential waste output 

greater than the entire city of Los Angeles.” 19 

Canada has recently attracted significant Dutch and Taiwanese investment in intensive 

livestock operations, as opportunities for such development in those countries diminishes. 

And ILOs have engendered controversy; news reports have asserted that “the federal 

government[’s] . . . own investigations show [that] industrial-scale farms are causing air 

and water pollution and posing a significant health hazard to people working in them.”20 

Industry representatives note that Mexico is “just at the start of the curve” and that “the 

mood among large pork producers [in Mexico] . . . is similar to that in the United States 

ten years ago when our industry stood poised for massive expansion, integration and 

consolidation.”21 In Veracruz, one operation has 80,000 hogs and is embarked on a 

growth program that could double that number in 5 years. 

The present report analyzes the comparative regulation of the environmental impacts of 

large animal feeding operations in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. Regulation of 

the livestock feeding industry matured in a world of smaller farms. The agricultural 

sector, generally, has benefited from many exemptions from environmental regulation. 

But this new concentration of manure and wastewaters from large feeding operations has 

motivated an evolution of regulatory policy. Specific motivations have included large 

 

19 Report compiled by the Minority Staff of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and 

Forestry for Sen. Tom Harkin, D-IA. 

20 The Ottawa Citizen, August 21, 2001 and March 19, 2002 (Tom Spears, citing 590 pages of “internal 

government documents” released to him under an Access to Information request.) 

21 “Making Moves in Mexico,” Successful Farming Magazine, October 2001. Available at 

www.agriculture.com/sfonline/sf/2001/october/0111pork_powerhouses.html 
3 

manure spills in North Carolina, first in 1995, then associated with hurricanes in 1996, 

1998 and 1999; several deaths believed to be associated with contamination of drinking 

water by manure in Canada; and nitrate over-loading of soils in some areas in Mexico 

that has raised concerns both about the health of cows grazing on the over-nitrated soils, 

the degradation of the soils themselves, and the pollution of aquifers. 

The new generation of regulation is a mix of efforts at the national, state/provincial, and 

local levels in all three countries. Though there is great variety in the detail, broad 

commonalities among the developing requirements include: 

• Setbacks, of some minimum distance, of the feeding operations themselves from 

property lines, residences, town limits, water sources, and the like. 

• Minimum separation of the manure—both when stored and when land applied—

from groundwater, streams, roads, neighbours, etc. 

• Nutrient management plans (NMPs), which can be quite detailed in their 

requirements for monitoring and reporting on application/disposal practices. 

• Professional certification of facility designs and NMPs, and certification of those 

who land-apply manure. 

• Leak detection systems. 

• Notice to neighbors prior to spreading manure. 

Defining Terms 

The three countries employ modestly different terms to describe the operations that are 

the subject of this report. Federal law in the United States uses the term “concentrated 

animal feeding operation” (CAFO), defined by regulation as one of a minimum size22

 or 

one that is directly impacting water resources, even if of a smaller size. States within the 

United States use a variety of terms. Mexico and Canada often use a more generic term, 

“intensive livestock operation” (ILO). 

No single ILO definition exists throughout Canada, and the regulatory landscape there is 

changing rapidly. Though ILOs are a growing phenomenon in Mexico, the law has yet to 

address (or define) them directly. General water laws there can impact ILOs, and local 

building or operating permits may have environmental aspects. 

The definition of ILO is typically structured around numbers of animals, types of 

confinement, and types of manure handling practices. In the United States, for example, 

30,000 chickens with a liquid manure handling system would be regulated the same as 

125,000 chickens with any other system.23 Each would be a “large CAFO.” ILO

 

22 See full discussion under “Regulations in the United States,” below. 

23 40 CFR 122.23(b)(2). 
4 

definitions often employ the term “animal unit” (AU) as a way of comparing species. In 

some systems, one cows equals 2.5 hogs, for example. Or, put another way, 1000 cows 

and 2500 hogs would each equal 1000 animal units. But definitions of animal unit also 

vary. Some are based on weight, so that 1000 pounds of “live weight” might equal one 

animal unit. Some draw precise connections with manure. Canada’s prairie provinces, 

for example, define an animal unit on the basis of the amount of nitrogen excreted over a 

12-month period. “Thus a beef cow and her calf are 1.25 AU, a dairy cow is 2.0 AU, a 

feeder pig is 0.143 AU, etc.”24 Depending on the jurisdiction, Canada’s ILO regulations 

begin to operate somewhere between 50 and 400 animal units. Governments typically 

begin to consider livestock operations “large” in the 500-1000 AU range. AU is a useful 

term, both for regulatory definitions and for statistical analysis. Despite its imprecision, 

the term AU is necessarily used throughout this Report. 

Some jurisdictions use animal units as a regulatory measure; some use animal numbers 

and others use “steady state live weight.” Statistics in Mexico are often in absolute 

numbers of animals. 

ILO Trends and Patterns 

The trend toward fewer, larger confined livestock operations is clear. In the United 

States, total animal units (confined and unconfined) remained relatively constant from 

1982 to 1997, though the increases in some geographic regions have been dramatic; 

North Carolina’s hog population, for example, quadrupled between 1990 and 2000. The 

total number of livestock operations decreased by 24%, again with significant regional 

variability. The number of US operations with more than 1,000 AUs increased by 47% 

from 1982 to 1997, and the number with more than 300 AUs increased by 67%. The 

number of confined AUs on livestock farms with at least 1,000 AUs increased by 88% 

during this period (Kellogg et al., 2000). In short, livestock operations became fewer 

and larger, and the largest among them became even larger. In Canada, 36% of all AUs 

were produced on operations of greater than 300 AUs, with 60% of these on farms with 

very high stocking rates (greater than 2 AUs/acre) (Beaulieu, 2001). Half of Mexico’s 

milk and pork and over 90% of its chickens are estimated to be produced in intensive 

operations. 

The following charts demonstrate the relative stability in “total animal units,” the decline 

in the number of farms, and the dramatic increase in the number of animals on large 

farms in the United States, where the most comprehensive data is available. 

 

24 Alfred Beck, Manager, Environmental Livestock Program, Manitoba Conservation, personal 

communication, December 2002. 
5 

Figure 1. Total animal units on U.S. livestock operations

50,000,000

55,000,000

60,000,000

65,000,000

70,000,000

75,000,000

80,000,000

85,000,000

90,000,000

95,000,000

100,000,000

1982 1987 1992 1997

Year

Animal Units

 Source: Kellogg et al., 2000. 

Figure 2. Total number of U.S. livestock operations

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

1,000,000

1,100,000

1,200,000

1,300,000

1,400,000

1,500,000

1982 1987 1992 1997

Year

 Source: Kellogg et al., 2000. 
6 

Figure 3. Total animal units in confinement on U.S. livestock operations 

with at least 1,000 animal units

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

10,000,000

11,000,000

12,000,000

13,000,000

14,000,000

15,000,000

16,000,000

17,000,000

1982 1987 1992 1997

Year

Animal Units

Source: Kellogg et al., 2000. 

Another reason for concern regarding ILOs is the trend in spatial distribution. The 

census data compiled by Kellogg et al. (2000) for the US show that the increase in the 

number of large livestock operations is concentrated in geographic pockets. These areas 

include 1) from Wyoming and southern Montana east through Iowa, southern Minnesota, 

and central Wisconsin, 2) from eastern Texas north through western Arkansas and 

Missouri, and 3) pockets in the east from northern New York south through North 

Carolina. Many of these areas have traditionally had the highest livestock populations in 

the country, but a few, such as North Carolina, grew dramatically over the past 15 years. 

Map 1 (see appendix) shows the increase in large confined livestock operations 

throughout the United States 

In Canada, the greatest concentration of AUs is in the “feedlot alley” of central and 

southern Alberta and along the southern tier of Ontario and Quebec (Beaulieu, 2001). 

Map 2 (see appendix) shows the estimated distribution of livestock manure for Canada in 

1996 based on Census of Agriculture data. A large proportion of dairy (78%), poultry 

(74%), and swine (60%) are located in the most populous and fastest growing provinces 

(Caldwell, 1998). The provinces with the greatest increase in manure production from 

1970 to 1995 were British Columbia (45%), Alberta (43%), and Manitoba (25%) 

(Statistics Canada, 2000). Increased numbers of animals in areas of already high 

livestock densities further tax the ability of local soils to assimilate the increased manure 

nutrients associated with production, though regulations (in at least some provinces) 

attempt to match nutrients in applied manure with the capacity of the vegetation. 
7 

Factors Affecting ILO Growth 

Several factors are influencing the re-structuring of the livestock production industry in 

North America. The primary influences are economic. Livestock production is 

characterized by a large number of producers selling a nearly homogeneous product. 

Producers have little control over the price that they receive for their products. Although 

cyclical in nature, product prices often do not keep pace with the increase in prices for 

supplies or the rate of inflation, resulting in reduced profit margins (Moss, 1992). Often, 

producers must decide whether to increase their size to gain economies of scale and 

reduce production costs per animal, or to leave the industry. As some producers exit the 

industry, others expand the size of their operations. Technical innovations (including 

new breeds) have also made it feasible to house larger and larger numbers of animals at 

one facility, with reduced labour costs. 

The use of “vertical alliances” or “vertical integration” in certain livestock sectors, 

replacing more traditional market mechanisms, is also having a pronounced effect on the 

structure of the livestock industry. Vertical integration in the livestock industry refers to 

the consolidated ownership of various phases of the production process (the animals, 

meat processing facilities, and sometimes grain operations, feed mills and even retail 

stores) and involves the use of “production contracts.” Production contracts typically 

involve an incentive-based fee paid to the farmer, or “contract grower,” for production of 

a pre-specified quantity of livestock. With production contracting, some combination of 

production inputs, management decisions, technologies, and financing are often supplied 

by the integrator, which is often the processor. 

The trend toward vertical integration in the livestock sector is driven largely by the 

integrator’s desire to reduce costs. Very large processing plants constructed during the 

past decade require large and continuous shipments of livestock to keep costs low. A 

single, modern slaughterhouse can process as many as 30,000 hogs per day (roughly 10 

million per year). Transaction, administrative, and transportation costs can be reduced by 

contracting with fewer, larger producers in close proximity to the processing facilities. 

Securing a uniform, dependable flow of homogeneous product also reduces the costs 

associated with measuring and sorting livestock for quality assurance. 

For risk-averse producers, production contracts can be desirable because they transfer 

much of the risk of fluctuating market prices to the integrator. This reduced risk, in turn, 

encourages producers to increase the size of their operations (Martinez, 2000). All these 

factors contribute to the trend toward fewer, larger farms and to the concentration of 

producers, especially in the poultry and swine industries, around processing plants. 

Vertical alliances have dominated the US poultry sector since the late 1950s. According 

to the USDA, 95% of poultry were produced under contract in 1998 (Perry and Banker, 

2000). A similar pattern has emerged in the swine industry during the 1990s. Hogs 

produced under contract in the United States went from 10 percent in 1993 to greater 

than 50% in 1999 (Perry and Banker, 2000). 
8 

The four largest US beef processing firms increased their combined market share greatly 

during the 1980s; it has remained at roughly 81% since 1993 (USDA-GIPSA, 2001). 

The four largest US pork processors increased their market share from 40 to 56% during 

the 1990s (USDA-GIPSA, 2001). In theory, this level of concentration in the processing 

sector should not affect prices paid to farmers, if sufficient competition among the 

remaining processors continues. However, with fewer purchasers of livestock, there are 

fewer market options through which producers can sell their product, which can result in 

lower average prices to producers, due to such factors as increased transportation 

expenses to reach the closest processor. 

In production contracting, the producer often does not own the commodity being 

produced. Essentially, the farmer’s labour and facilities are hired by the integrator. 

Most often, however, compliance with environmental regulations is the sole burden of 

the producer, even if the integrator owns the animals producing the manure. Recent 

policy debates have focused on whether integrators should share the responsibility for the 

environmental performance of these operations. 

Spatial and Size Distribution of ILOs by Sector 

This report focuses on four sectors of livestock production: beef, dairy, swine, and 

poultry. The following is an overview of the economic and spatial distribution of 

livestock production for each sector by country, based on available data. 

United States 

The US definition of CAFOs is based on the average number of animals at a facility 

throughout the year. The US Census of Agriculture, however, the most complete source 

of statistics, collects data as of a single day at facilities. To bridge this distinction, 

Kellogg and others, who have done the most recent study of livestock production 

statistics, employ the term “potential CAFO.” According to their research, 11,242 

operations met their criteria as “potential CAFOs” in 1997 among all four types of 

livestock operations. While this represents only 1.1% of all livestock operations in the 

United States, it is an increase of 127% in the number of potential CAFOs since 1982 

(figure 4). In 1982, AUs at potential CAFOs represented 9% of the total AUs produced 

in the United States. By 1997, this number had increased to 17% (Kellogg et al., 2000). 
9 

The trends in the number of potential CAFOs varies widely by livestock sector. Because 

of rapid changes in the swine and poultry sectors during the 1980s and 1990s, 72% of all 

potential CAFOs in 1997 were in these two sectors. Beef finishing and dairy operations 

together comprised the remaining 28% (Table 1). 

Source: Kellogg et al., 2000. 

Table 1. Number of potential CAFOs by livestock type, 1982 and 1997 

Year Beef Dairy Swine Poultry 

1982 2,325 451 1,040 1,185 

1997 1,897 1,296 4,374 3,763 

Change -18% 187% 321% 218% 

Source: Kellogg et al., 2000 

Figure 4. Livestock operations categorized as potential CAFOs

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

1982 1987 1992 1997

Year
10 

Table 2. Total animal units by livestock type, 1982 and 1997 

Year Beef Dairy Swine Poultry 

1982 9,706,927 14,652,378 7,330,637 4,032,844 

1997 9,588,189 12,289,085 8,522,082 6,122,411 

Change -1% -16% 16% 52% 

Source: Kellogg et al., 2000 

Beef 

The number of beef cattle AUs in finishing operations (fattened cattle) in the United 

States was fairly constant from 1982 to 1997 at just under 10 million. Almost all of the 

animals in this sector are confined. While beef production accounted for only 17% of the 

total number of potential CAFOs in 1997, and decreased over time, no other sector shows 

farm size distribution so skewed toward the largest farms. The number of beef finishing 

operations (of all sizes) decreased by 50% from 1982 to 1997, while the total beef AUs 

decreased by only 1%. The greatest number of confined beef cattle and the fastest 

growth rate are in the Central Great Plains and the West. 

Dairy 

This is the only sector that showed a significant decrease (16%) in total animal units from 

1982 to 1997 (Table 2). It is also the only sector that retains a majority of animal units 

on smaller farms. However, the number of farms with fewer than 150 AUs has fallen by 

61% from 1982 to 1997 (Kellogg et al., 2000). The predominant regions for dairy 

production are the traditional Dairy Belt (Northeast and North Central states) and the 

West. The West, and the Southwest in particular, has experienced very rapid growth in 

dairy production in recent years, mostly in the form of very large confinement operations. 

There are also pockets of dairy expansion in New York, Pennsylvania, northern Florida, 

and Texas. The number of farms with greater than 1,000 AUs nearly tripled between 

1982 and 1997 (Table 1). 

Swine 

The total number of swine AUs increased by 16% from 1982 to 1997 (Table 2). By 

1997, 97% of US swine production was in confinement. Farms with fewer than 150 AUs 

decreased by 70%, while the number of potential swine CAFOs increased by 321% 

(Table 1). Operations with 5,000 hogs or more comprised 50.5% of the US hog inventory 

in the year 2000, up from 40% in 1995 (USDA-GIPSA, 2001). This rate of increase in 

economic concentration in the swine sector in the United States is greater than in any 

other livestock sector. 

The spatial concentration of swine production in the United States is dramatic. The focal 

point is Iowa and surrounding areas, North Carolina, the panhandle of Texas, and 
11 

Arizona. Many parts of the Midwest have experienced declining swine numbers in 

recent decades. (See Map 1.) 

Poultry 

The poultry sector experienced the greatest increase (52%) in total AUs from 1982 to 

1997 (Table 2). At the same time, the number of poultry operations decreased by 46% 

and the number of potential CAFOs increased by 218% (Table 1). The areas of greatest 

growth since 1982 have been central Minnesota, the mid-Atlantic region (especially 

North and South Carolina), northern Alabama, and western Arkansas. 

Canada 

The distribution of AUs per operation by livestock sector in Canada is quite different 

from the United States The Canadian livestock sector is dominated by beef production, 

with dairy a distant second. The following data rely on the 1996 Canadian Census of 

Agriculture (the most recent census). Information on the spatial distribution of manure 

production shows that the areas of greatest livestock concentrations are in southern 

Alberta (predominantly beef) and the southern tier of Quebec and Ontario (mostly dairy, 

beef and swine) (See Map 2). 

Beef 

The beef industry in Canada has approximately 6.8 million AUs, and is responsible for 

51% of the total livestock AUs and manure production in the country (Beaulieu, 2001). 

Beef production is dominated by Alberta, where 78% of the AUs are beef cattle. Fifty 

percent of the AUs nationwide are on farms with more than 400 total animal units. 

Western provinces host an even greater percentage of large operations. In Alberta, 79% 

of beef cattle are on operations with more than 400 animal units (Beaulieu, 2001). 

Dairy 

In Canada, dairy comprises 17% of the total AUs. Dairy production is concentrated in 

Quebec and Ontario, with limited production in Alberta, British Columbia, and the 

Atlantic provinces. As in the United States, the Canadian dairy industry is still 

dominated by smaller farms. In 1996, 84% of the dairy AUs were on operations of less 

than 200 total animal units (Beaulieu, 2001). The government’s supply management 

(i.e., quota) system guarantees a “fair” price to farmers for milk produced up to each 

farm’s quota. Acquiring the necessary production quota to increase farm size is often 

quite difficult. Thus, the quota system contributes to the dominance of smaller dairy 

farms in Canada. 

Swine 

The swine industry represented only 8% of Canadian livestock AUs, comprising just less 

than 1.1 million total animal units in 1996. Quebec and Ontario are the leading pork 

producing provinces. Historically, production in these provinces has been on smaller 

farms. Currently, the number of AUs on swine operations is relatively equal among 
12 

small, medium and large farms (Beaulieu, 2001), suggesting that larger swine operations 

are increasing their share of the Canadian swine sector. 

Poultry 

The poultry sector, measured in AUs, is the smallest of the Canadian livestock industry, 

accounting for only 5% of animal units. Ontario is the leading poultry producing 

province, followed by Quebec. Like pork production, poultry AUs are distributed fairly 

uniformly across farm sizes. 

Mexico 

Most livestock sectors in Mexico are dominated by small-holder operations using nonintensive production systems. However, like Canada and the United States, the number 

of large operations has increased significantly during the past decade. Data limitations 

regarding farm size prevent precise estimates of the number or increase in ILOs, yet some 

trends are apparent. 

Beef 

Traditionally, in Mexico, cattle are grazed, and cattle production still occupies slightly 

more than 50% of the nation’s territory. Confinement operations for finishing (fattening) 

beef cattle have established a significant presence in Mexico only in the last two decades. 

In the mid-1980s, approximately one-million tons of dressed beef were produced from 

feedlots. This has increased by 40% to 1.4 million tons in the year 2000. Currently, 

more than 80% of cattle raised for slaughter in Mexico are still extensively grazed. Fiftysix percent of the beef production is concentrated in eight states, with 30% in Veracruz, 

Jalisco, and Chiapas alone (Pérez Espejo and González Padilla, 2001). The following 

chart provides an estimate of the number of intensive beef operations for selected states 

where the data is available: 

Intensive Livestock Operations – Beef Cattle 

Feedlots 

State From 1,000 to 5,000 head More than 5,000 head 

Baja California 8 4 

Coahuila 11 5 

Chihuahua 18 4 

Jalisco 20 5 

Michoacán 2 

Nuevo León 26 8 
13 

San Luis Potosí 10 2 

Sinaloa 12 6 

Sonora 25 8 

Tamaulipas 20 4 

Veracruz 3 1 

Zacatecas 5 

Total 160 47 

 Sources: FIRA, AMEG, private consultants, and feedlot operators. 

Based on estimates from the Mexican Association of Feedlot Operators (Asociación 

Mexicana de Engordadores de Ganado—AMEG), 1.6 million animals were fattened in 

the year 2000. In general, each feedlot goes through between 2 to 3.5 fattening cycles in a 

year. A 1998 study by the Trust Fund for Poultry and Livestock Production (Fideicomiso 

Fondo de Garantia para la Avicultura y la Ganaderia – FIRA) indicates that 53% of 

feedlots, having an average of 11,000 animals, were in the hands of 10% of AMEG 

members. 

Dairy 

There has been a marked increase in the number of confined dairy animals throughout 

Mexico during the 1990s, though Mexico remains one of the world’s largest importers of 

powdered milk. This increase is partly due to a liberalization of milk pricing policies. 

The total dairy herd is estimated to be 3.98 million cows, with approximately 50% of the 

milk produced by intensive facilities (Pérez Espejo R. and González Padilla E., 2001). 

Nine states produce 71% of the milk in the country. Specialized milk production 

operations are concentrated in the western and north-central parts of the country. The 

Laguna (Durango and Coahuila) region produces 32.6% of the nation’s milk. It is 

followed by Guanajuato (Bajío) with 12.7%; Jalisco (Altos and Ciénega) with 8.1%; 

Aguascalientes with 8.0% and Chihuahua (Delicias and Juárez) with 5.4%. Both La 

Laguna and Chihuahua host facilities with 2000–6000 cows. Though the most common 

herd size for larger, modern farms is 100–500 cows, the general trend in Mexico is 

toward total confinement production systems that produce more milk with increasingly 

large herds. 

The following chart provides an estimate of the number of intensive dairy operations for 

selected states where the data is available: 

Intensive Livestock Operations – Dairy Cattle 

Herds of dairy cattle 
14 

State From 500 to 1,000 head More than 1,000 head 

Aguascalientes 30 10 

Chihuahua 2 10 

Hidalgo 1 

Jalisco 8 - 

La Laguna 60 60 

Michoacán 10 - 

Querétaro 25 6 

Sonora 2 - 

Total 137 87 

 Sources: Private consultants 

Swine 

Mexican exports of pork increased dramatically during the 1990s—from 511 tons in 

1990 to 31,711 tons in 2000 (Pérez Espejo and González Padilla, 2001). Although data 

do not exist on the size of the farms from which the exports originated, it is likely that the 

larger, intensive operations were supplying a large share of the export market. It has 

been estimated that 50% of the nation’s swine production comes from intensive 

operations. 

Central Mexico has been the dominant area for swine production. The largest intensive 

pork production zones are the Valle del Mayo, Valle del Yaqui and Costa de Hermosillo 

areas of Sonora; Los Altos, Jalisco; Santa Ana Pacueco, Irapuato, Abasolo and León, 

Guanajuato; La Piedad, Michoacán; Tehuacan and Tecamachalco, Puebla. Recently, 

large operations have been established in the Zona Henequenera, Yucatán and in Perote, 

Veracruz (Pérez Espejo and González Padilla, 2001). Jalisco, Sonora, Guanajuato, and 

Yucatán now account for 53% of all pork production in the country. 

The most notable case of growth in intensive swine operations is Yucatán, where the herd 

grew from 1.2% of the total in the first half of the 1980s to 7.2% for the last half of the 

1990s, a consequence of the opening of three new, large operations in the state. 

The intensification of swine production is also apparent in Veracruz. Though aggregate 

statistics do not reflect a major change, small and medium-sized operations have largely 

given way to major agribusiness operations. One company in Veracruz runs about 

80,000 total animals at a time, and is projected to double its size in less than 5 years. 
15 

A significant factor in this growth is the involvement of companies from outside Mexico. 

US-based Smithfield Foods, for example, has teamed up with the Mexican company 

AMSA to develop swine units in the state of Veracruz. Within five years they expect to 

have 56,000 sows. Smithfield has also teamed up with the Mexican company 

Agroindustrial Del Noreste in the state of Sonora to export pork to Japan. The US 

company Cargill operates a feed mill in the Yucatán to supply feed for GPM, Mexico’s 

largest pork producer. 

The following chart provides an estimate of the number of swine operations, by various 

sizes, in selected states where the data is available. Note that the definitions of small, 

medium, and large vary from state to state, as indicated in the parentheses. 

Intensive Livestock Operations 

Swine inventory 

State Small Medium Large 

Guanajuato 1,371 

(up to 100) 

127 

(101-500) 

37 

(more than 500) 

Jalisco 2,364 

(up to 70) 

500 

(71-250) 

349 

(more than 250) 

Michoacán 594 

(up to 70) 

 82 

(71-250) 

74 

(more than 250) 

Sonora - 78 

(200-500) 

187 

(more than 500) 

Veracruz - - 1 

(more than 5,000) 

Yucatán 108 

(up to 250) 

 15 

(251-500) 

6 

(more than 500) 

Total 4,437 802 654 

 Sources: Regional Pork Producers Unions, Regional Livestock Unions, and private consultants. 

Poultry 

Poultry production in Mexico more than doubled during the 1990s. The technology and 

scale of poultry operations are thought to be on par with that of the United States (Pérez 
16 

Espejo and González Padilla, 2001). Large operations are common. Production is highly 

concentrated, with more than 90% of the laying hens in intensive operations. Six 

companies account for 28% of national egg production, and four companies control 46% 

of the broiler chicken market. This concentration is increasing as a result of recent 

purchases of medium-sized poultry enterprises by the largest Mexican firms. Production 

is also highly concentrated geographically. Two states alone, Jalisco and Puebla, account 

for approximately 50% of egg production, for example (Pérez Espejo and González 

Padilla, 2001). 

Summary of ILO Status and Trends 

The available data clearly show trends toward economic and geographic concentration 

within each country in the major livestock industries. The search for economies of scale, 

and the increasing frequency of production contracting, especially in the United States, 

are fostering the development of larger livestock operations. 

In the United States, the majority of “potential CAFOs” are in the swine and poultry 

sectors. Dramatic growth in specific regions, such as the coastal plain of North Carolina, 

the Delmarva Peninsula (of Delaware, Maryland and Virginia) and north-central Iowa, 

during the past two decades has prompted increasing concern about the environmental 

impacts of these large swine and poultry operations. Dairy CAFOs are also on the rise, 

mostly in non-traditional dairy regions in the South and West. 

In Canada, beef ILOs have historically been the greatest concern, but large-scale swine 

operations are an emerging issue. Canadian beef production is concentrated in south and 

central Alberta. Considerable expansion in swine production has occurred recently in 

Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The potential for manure nutrient problems is also 

large from the abundance of smaller dairy, beef, and swine operations in southern Quebec 

and Ontario. 

In Mexico, as in the United States, the greatest concerns are from the swine and poultry 

sectors. Rapid growth in these sectors, combined with an increase in the use of modern 

production systems are taxing the current regulatory system. 

Environmental and Human Health Concerns 

The increase in ILOs has triggered several environmental and human health concerns. 

Water quality, air quality, soil contamination, and antibiotic and hormone use are among 

the major issues (US EPA, 2001). Worker health is a growing concern, as is the health of 

people downwind and downstream of ILOs. Research to assess the potential problems is 

expanding, but is still small and incapable of establishing a relative ranking of the risks. 

Indeed, the risks vary over the countries and their regions according to the different 

pressures caused by ILOs and the environmental capacities of the regions to tolerate the 

increased animal numbers and wastes. The environmental and health risks caused by an 

ILO depend on the type of manure handling technologies and practices used and on the 
17 

quality of management. It is often difficult to scientifically isolate the environmental and 

human health impacts caused by ILOs. The potential problems stem from concentrating 

so many animals in one location that the manure cannot be disposed on land, or the 

associated gases released into the air, without causing damages to the surrounding 

ecosystem, its inhabitants, and downstream (and downwind) residents. This may be 

termed a ‘stocking density’ problem (Gollehon, Heimlich and Ribaudo, 2001). If an ILO 

has adequate nearby lands to apply manures in ways that do not cause environmental and 

human health problems, serious issues may not arise. It is possible for smaller livestock 

operations to cause pollution and human health problems if their stocking densities are 

too high or they are poorly managed. Hence, all ILOs should not be interpreted to cause 

the same types of environmental and health risks. Again, the data generally do not permit 

quantitative estimates of the relative risks from different types of ILOs. Nonetheless, the 

sheer size of ILO manure flows increases the probability of catastrophic pollution events, 

compared to smaller and non-confined livestock operations. 

Despite the caveats, the recent imposition of compulsory environmental standards for 

ILOs in the United States and Canada indicates serious public concerns. Traditionally, 

environmental programs for agriculture in the United States and Canada have differed 

from those for other industries, both because of the difficulty of controlling diffuse 

(nonpoint) pollution sources over a vast land base, and because of political preferences 

for treating family farms and ranches differently than other industries. Voluntary 

approaches have been most commonly used to control environmental impacts from 

agriculture, often accompanied by compensation to encourage participation. 

Over the past decade, widely publicized pollution problems involving ILOs have 

contributed to an increasing use of regulatory approaches. Manure spills into rivers and 

estuaries, bacterial contamination of water supplies, nutrient pollution in groundwater in 

some areas, and highly offensive odours have given political legitimacy to the imposition 

of direct controls for the environmental and health risks. This growth in regulations for 

ILOs has come predominantly at the state and local levels in the United States (though a 

new, revised set of federal regulations have recently added new national requirements), 

and the provincial and municipal levels in Canada (Carpentier and Ervin, 2002; Fox and 

Kidon, 2002). Mexico’s regulation of ILOs has also tended more to the state and 

municipal level in recent years, though the applicable law is primarily federal. 

United States 25

Water Quality 

Agriculture’s contributions to water pollution have gradually risen in policy importance 

in the United States The early emphasis on regulating industrial and municipal point-

 

25 This discussion of environmental concerns in the U.S. draws from a chapter by C. Line Carpentier and 

D. Ervin, “USA” in Public Concerns, Environmental Standards, and Agricultural Trade (F. Brouwer and 

D. Ervin, eds.) CAB International, 2002. 
18 

source discharges significantly reduced water pollution flows from many non-agricultural 

sources. Yet, many rivers, lakes and streams in the United States remain unfit for their 

designated uses. 

Data from state assessments of water quality collected by the US Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) suggest significant agricultural pollution of surface waters. 

Only 64% of the nation's surveyed rivers, 61% of lakes, and 62% of estuaries met the 

'swimmable and fishable' quality goals in 1996 (US EPA, 1998a). Of the sampled waters 

not meeting the goals, farming and ranching were sources of water-quality impairment in 

70% of the river miles, 49% of lakes, and 27% of estuaries. 

Findings from the US Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment 

affirm that agriculture plays a significant role in surface-water quality (USGS, 1998). 

Their scientists have estimated that 71% of total farmland lies in watersheds where at 

least one agricultural pollutant violates criteria for recreation or ecological health (Smith 

et al., 1994). A national assessment for the US Congress identified the impairment of 

surface waters as particularly significant in the Midwestern Corn Belt, where pesticide 

residues, sediment and nutrients, some from animal wastes, are concentrated in many 

streams, rivers, and lakes (US Congress, 1995). Contamination of groundwater sources 

of drinking water is also an issue of concern, with nitrates from fertilizers and manure 

causing serious problems in certain regions. 

With the growth in large feeding operations, the contribution of animal agriculture to 

water pollution has become increasingly evident in the United States, CAFOs, as ILOs 

are known in the US, can cause several types of water pollution (US EPA 2001). 

Nitrogen and phosphorus constitute both the largest magnitude of water pollutants from 

CAFOs and the most important nutrient sources of water-quality problems in the US 

generally (USDA, 1997a). Other water contaminants that may be produced by livestock 

operations, of whatever size, include: organic compounds, mineral salts and trace 

elements, such as zinc. 

Pollutants from CAFOs can enter surface water and groundwaters in several ways: 

• accidental breaching of manure storage structures, with flows entering surface 

waters directly or running into groundwater through sinkholes or fractures; 

• runoff from cropland and pasture where manure has been applied, or from 

feedlots, into surface waters; 

• leaching through the soil profile to groundwater caused by rainfall or irrigation; 

and 

• atmospheric deposition of ammonia nitrogen from lagoons and sprayfields. 

Quantifying the extent of animal agriculture’s effects on water quality across the United 

States is a very difficult task due to incomplete monitoring data. However, recent 

analyses provide some estimates. For example, animal operations are estimated to be 

responsible, in part, for at least 50,000 kilometres of impaired waters in 22 states that 

have categorized impacts by type of agriculture (USDA, 1998b). In 1998, states that 
19 

categorized the sources of water pollution impacts on rivers estimated that intensive 

animal operations caused 15 percent of the impairments due to agriculture (US EPA 

2001). USGS scientists estimate that nitrogen from manure was the major contributor to 

nutrient enrichment problems in six of 16 watersheds studied, mostly in the Southeast 

and Mid-Atlantic states (Puckett, 1994). 

Mallin identifies the root source of the problems as too many ‘new nutrients,’ i.e., 

importing more nutrients in livestock feed than can be safely applied on local cropland 

when that feed is converted to manure. If applied to land in excess of the ability of crops 

to utilize them, the nutrients can cause algal blooms, loss of habitat, changes in aquatic 

biodiversity, and the depletion of dissolved oxygen. (NRC, 2000). Transporting these 

nutrients from areas of excess to areas of need appears to be prohibitively expensive. 

Nutrient problems can be regional in scope. In one high-profile case, the federal 

government and states surrounding the Chesapeake Bay have undertaken a massive 

program (mostly voluntary to date) to reduce nutrient pollution in the Bay, about one 

third of which is attributed to agricultural sources--cropland runoff and animal manure, 

mostly from large chicken operations. In another regional issue, USGS scientists (1999) 

found that hundreds of thousands of metric tons of agricultural contaminants end up in 

Louisiana's Gulf Coast estuaries, contributing to an off-shore 'dead zone.' They concluded 

that 70% of the total nitrogen delivered to the Gulf originates above the confluence of the 

Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, transported over distances in excess of 1,500 kilometres 

ul 
20 

expansion in the pork industry was moving to Canada because producers were finding 

themselves “stymied by a myriad of new laws and regulations” in the United States26 

In addition to degrading surface water quality, nutrients from agriculture can affect 

groundwater through leaching and run-in (i.e, direct flows into groundwater through 

sinkholes, fractures, etc.). Groundwater supplies half of the US population with drinking 

water and is the sole source for most rural communities. For this reason, contamination of 

groundwater often tops the list of public environmental concerns. The extent of 

groundwater pollution from agricultural nutrients is less well-documented than for 

surface waters. The most serious problem sources appear to be nitrates from inorganic 

fertilizer and animal manure. 

Though the levels of nutrients applied to farmland via commercial fertilizers are five 

times as large as from animal manure (NRC, 1993), groundwater contamination may be 

linked to ILOs in certain areas. Findings from a national water-quality assessment 

showed that 12% of domestic wells in agricultural areas exceed the maximum 

contaminant level (MCL) for nutrients (Mueller and Helsel, 1996). This rate of 

contamination was twice as high as for domestic wells in the vicinity of other land uses. 

Later analysis of groundwater nitrate sampling data concluded that areas showing the 

highest levels have high nitrogen input (such as from fertilizer and manure), well-drained 

soils, and less-extensive forested areas relative to cropland (Nolan et al., 1998). 

Manure spills 

Though animal sources account for a smaller proportion of water pollution from nutrients 

than crop production, ILO spills can cause significant acute damages in localized areas. 

Mallin (2000) has assessed a variety of damages to rivers and estuaries in North Carolina 

due to ruptures and breaches in CAFO hog and poultry manure and wastewater lagoons 

during the 1990s. Three themes emerge. First, the large concentrations of pollution from 

the accidents often cause conditions to fall short of water quality standards by multiple 

factors, e.g., five or more. For example, one spill reduced dissolved oxygen levels to one 

fifth of the minimum water quality standard and resulted in phytoplankton blooms nearly 

eight times the maximum standard; such blooms may contain harmful algal species such 

as Pfisteria piscicidas. Second, the spills release not only nutrients but other 

contaminants as well; high bacteria levels (likely from fecal coliform) were also present. 

Third, nutrient and bacteria pollutants remained in the water system for extended periods 

of time—as long as 60 days. The presence of the pollutants for long periods continues to 

degrade water quality conditions that are necessary for healthy stream biology. 

Data to describe such lagoon spills and overflows during large rain events for the entire 

United States have not been collected and analysed to determine the frequency and extent 

of such problems.

 

26 “Sow Herd Building Again: This Time It’s Canada Making the Move,” Successful Farming, Oct. 24, 

2000. 
21 

Pathogens

Livestock manure can carry many forms of pathogens, including bacteria, protozoa, and 

viruses. Multiple types of pathogens may be transmitted from manure entering into 

surface and ground waters (US EPA, 2001), and water pollution risks from pathogenic 

contamination by bacteria have been broadly associated with animal agriculture in the 

United States (Gollehon et al, 2001). The survivability of bacteria depends on the soil 

type, manure application rate, and soil pH. Cryptosporidia and Giardia, important 

etiologic agents linked to beef and dairy herds, may cause outbreaks of waterborne 

diseases (CDC, 1996). Other sources of bacteria include inadequately treated human 

waste and wildlife. EPA has estimated the cost to drinking water utilities for improved 

bacterial control at approximately $20 billion over 20 years, with half required 

immediately to meet existing standards (U.S. EPA, 1997). But the linkages between such 

bacterial contamination and ILOs, specifically, or smaller livestock operations, have not 

been generally established in the literature. 

Air Quality 

Large animal feeding operations release a variety of air pollutants, including: hydrogen 

sulphide, ammonia, dusts, endotoxins, and methane (USDA, 1997a). Although water 

quality problems have received the most scientific (and regulatory) attention, air quality 

concerns are another force propelling a re-consideration of ILO regulations. Total 

ammonia emissions from agriculture in the North Carolina Coastal Plain have been 

estimated at approximately 97.7 million kilograms of nitrogen; hog operations were 

responsible for 63% of these emissions (Rudek, 1997). This atmospherically deposited 

nitrogen then contributes to water pollution and to deleterious impacts on wetlands, 

aquatic life, coastal ecosystems, etc. (NRC 2000). Data from the National Atmospheric 

Deposition Program in the North Carolina Region indicates that ammonia in rain there 

has doubled in the past decade, a period in which the hog population of the area has also 

roughly doubled. (DAQ 1999). Exposure to hog farm fumes has caused human-health 

problems in workers and is an issue rising in importance at the local and state level. 

To date, the Clean Air Act and its 1990 amendments have had very few impacts on 

farming. CAFOs are not required to implement air pollution or odour monitoring or 

control. Research in the US has estimated some effects of air pollution by CAFOs on 

human health. For example, Wing and Wolf (2000) surveyed residents of three rural 

communities, one in the vicinity of a 6,000-head hog operation, another in the vicinity of 

two intensive cattle operations, and a third without livestock operations. Certain 

respiratory and gastrointestinal problems, such as headaches, runny noses, sore throats, 

excessive coughing, diarrhea, and burning eyes, were significantly higher among 

residents in the vicinity of the hog operation than among the residents of the community 

with no intensive livestock operations. Quality of life, as indicated by the number of 

times residents could not open their windows or go outside even in nice weather, was 

similar in the control (i.e., non-CAFO) area and the community in the vicinity of the 

cattle operation, but greatly reduced among residents near the hog operation. The authors 

noted that their findings were consistent with the results of previous studies of workers in 

intensive swine operations and of the neighbours of such facilities. 
22 

Soil Contamination 

Animal manure may also contain pollutants that contaminate soils (Copeland and Zinn, 

1999). For example, the manures may include trace amounts of heavy metals, such as 

copper, selenium, zinc, cadmium, molybdenum, nickel, lead, iron, manganese, 

aluminium, boron, and some salts that can be transported to the environment via the 

application of animal manure to land. These pollutants can impact soil and aquatic 

environments, including plants, aquatic organisms and terrestrial organisms (US EPA, 

2001). For example, accumulations of zinc, a feed additive, can be toxic to plants. 

Notably, several of the trace elements are regulated as part of the US Clean Water Act in 

treated municipal sewage sludge, but not in animal manure (US EPA, 2001). Long-term 

effects on soil biota of repeated applications of manure has also been a concern in some 

circles. Research that documents such soil contamination problems, the linkages to 

ILOs, and the magnitude and extent of the environmental risks is generally not available. 

Antibiotic and Hormone Use 

Intensive livestock and poultry producers commonly use antibiotics and hormones to 

control diseases among animals confined in close quarters and to maximize growth. The 

use of rBST (recombinant bovine somatotrophin) in dairy production is an example. The 

US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates these compounds to be safe for 

human consumption, but not for their ultimate fate or potential environmental impacts. 

The genetically modified version of a naturally occurring protein hormone in cows, rBST 

is injected into dairy cows to boost production. It was approved by the FDA in 1993 and 

is used in 30% of dairy herds in the USA. 

The use of antibiotics in animal feed has become a high-profile public policy issue in the 

United States More strains of antibiotic-resistant pathogens are emerging. Antibioticresistant forms of Salmonella, Campylobacter, Escherichia coli, and Listeria have been 

identified or are suspected (US EPA, 2001). One form of antibiotic-resistant bacterium 

was detected in groundwater under farmland treated with swine manure, but was nearly 

absent in water under lands where swine manure had not been applied (US EPA 2001). 

An official of the federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has stated 

publicly that there is a relationship between widespread antibiotic use in animal 

agriculture and the remarkable increase in resistant foodborne pathogens (Argulo, 1998). 

He also argued that the EU's recent ban of four animal antibiotics is scientifically 

justified. 

One indication of the breadth and volatility of this argument can be found in the current 

(January 2003) webpage of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS): 

UCS’s Food and Environment Program’s newest project focuses on 

reducing the use of antibiotics in food animals . . . . 

Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are on the rise . . . . And as more bacterial 

strains develop resistance, more people will die because effective 

antibiotics are not identified quickly enough or because the bacteria 

causing the disease are resistant to all available antibiotics. 
23 

Why have bacterial strains become resistant? The short answer is overuse 

of antibiotics [by physicians, veterinarians and farmers] . . . . 

About 25 million pounds of antibiotics are fed every year to livestock for 

growth promotion and disease prevention, almost eight times the amount 

given to humans to treat disease. Both the Centers for Disease Control 

and the World Health Organization have called for an end to the use of 

antibiotics that we depend on in human medicine as growth promoters. 

One of our top priorities is to convince the Food and Drug Administration 

to severely curtail the numbers and kinds of antibiotics available for use in 

livestock production—starting with those drugs important to human 

medicine.27

The American Medical Association has passed a resolution opposing the 

prophylactic use of antibiotics, urging their termination or phase out in livestock 

operations.28 Likewise, the World Health Organization has said that antibiotic use 

in food producing animals must be curtailed to prevent the increase of drugresistant diseases in humans.29

Canada30 

Environmental policy for agriculture in Canada is undergoing dynamic change. 

Although the federal, provincial and municipal governments all play roles, there is a 

trend toward more enforcement of environmental standards at the municipal level (Fox 

and Kidon, 2002). Concerns for water contamination are a driving force. But recent 

emphasis on developing “minimum distance separation” (MDS) policies for livestock 

operations (regulating the distances that new livestock facilities must be from neighbours, 

roadways, property boundaries and watercourses) suggests that air quality and odour 

problems are also important. 

Water Quality 

Available evidence suggests that bacterial contamination of ground and surface water, 

excess nitrate in groundwater and displaced sediment and phosphorous in surface water 

pose tangible and immediate risks to environmental quality and human-health in various 

areas of Canada (Fox and Kidon, 2002). Based on an extensive review of the evidence, 

 

27 www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/antibiotic_resistance/index.cfm?pageID=10 

28 AMA Resolution 508 (June 2001). Available at www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/7205.html 

29 World Health Organization, “Antibiotic Use in Food Producing Animals Must be Curtailed to Prevent 

Increased Resistence in Humans,” Press Release WHO/73, Geneva (October 20, 1997) 

30 The discussion of environmental concerns in Canada owes much to a chapter by Glenn Fox and Jennifer 

Kidon “Canada” in Public Concerns, Environmental Standards, and Agricultural Trade (F. Brouwer and 

D. Ervin, eds.) CAB International, 2002. 
24 

Fox and Kidon suggest that the leading cause of groundwater contamination in rural 

Canada is bacterial contamination, followed by nitrate contamination, with pesticide 

contamination a distant third. The authors note that whether the bacterial contamination 

can be attributed to agricultural sources continues to be a controversial question. Rural 

residential septic systems are another potential source of such contamination. 

Pathogens 

A bacterial contamination episode of E. coli with connections to animal agriculture 

occurred in Walkerton, Ontario in the spring of 2000. The contamination emergency, 

which is thought to have caused seven deaths and more than 2000 cases of intestinal 

problems, led to the shutdown of the municipal water supply for several months and 

raised public awareness of the risks from bacterial contamination of groundwater. New 

standards for management of livestock manure in the province of Ontario are being 

considered. (It should be noted that the Walkerton facility where the problem arose was 

not a large, intensive operation.) 

Diseases caused by enteric bacteria (e.g., E. coli, Salmonella, Campylobacter) come, in 

many cases, from animal reservoirs (Van Donkersgoed et al, 2001). The researchers 

conclude that an elevated risk of the particular E. coli infection in a rural population 

could be associated with living in areas with high cattle density. The study also suggests 

that the importance of contact with cattle and the consumption of contaminated well 

water or locally produced food products may have been previously underestimated as risk 

factors for this condition (Michel et al, 2001). Alberta, the Canadian province with the 

largest number of beef feedlot operations, also has the largest number of cases of E. coli

related illness on a population adjusted basis (Gannon, 2001). A high prevalence of this 

pathogen in the feces of cattle at slaughter and in surface waters in areas that drain from 

intensive cattle operations has been found. Similar linkages may exist for other 

pathogens such as Salmonella, Campylobacter and Cryptosporidium (Gannon, 2001). 

Nutrients 

Nutrient pollution is a growing environmental problem in some regions of Canada, 

although generally less serious than in countries with a longer history of settlement and 

agricultural production, such as the United States and many European nations (Chambers 

et al, 2001). It is reasonable to expect that Canada’s problems, without elevated attention, 

will track the experience of countries with a longer history of large-scale animal 

husbandry. Animal operations have been identified as an important source of nutrient 

pollution in certain areas. For example, manure is a local concern in the Fraser River 

Valley because of its connection with rising nitrate levels in local water supplies 

(Chambers et al, 2001). In the high intensity animal agriculture areas of Quebec, Ontario 

and Alberta, more nutrients are available than are required by crops grown in some areas. 

Chambers and colleagues (2001, p. 173) note that phosphate levels in soils are 

accumulating, and its migration to surface and ground waters poses risks of 

contamination, especially in the humid regions of Canada. 
25 

Despite these local concerns, the evidence linking manure management to deteriorating 

water quality conditions is generally not robust. Harker et al. (1997) concluded that 

“Within the context of the Canadian Water Quality Guidelines, there is no significant 

body of evidence to indicate the wide-spread contamination of surface and ground waters 

from agricultural activities on the prairies” (Harker et al., 1997, p. vii). 

Nitrate contamination of groundwater is one of the more common water quality problems 

associated with intensively fertilized and irrigated croplands on the prairies. The 

potential for nitrate contamination varies across regions as a result of differences in the 

intensity of manure and fertilizer application as well as because of precipitation 

differences and local variations in soils and topography. 

Linking agricultural sources of nitrogen, including manure, to excessive levels of nitrate 

in groundwater has proven difficult because natural background levels in the prairie 

provinces are high (Harker et al., 1997, p. 44). Baseline data for individual aquifers is 

limited and further research is needed, especially for areas of intensive land use, for 

locations where aquifers are shallow, and for areas with high precipitation or where 

irrigation is used intensively (Harker et al., 1997, p. 49). The combination of high levels 

of manure application and irrigation has been linked to high nitrate levels in groundwater 

in an experimental trial near Lethbridge, Alberta (Chang and Entz, 1996). 

Air Quality 

The air quality issue most commonly associated with ILOs is offensive odours. With the 

increase of large beef and swine ILOs in some provinces, public concern about air quality 

has followed. The siting and operation of these facilities are generally subject to 

municipal permitting and codes of practice (Fox and Kidon, 2002). 

Air quality degradation from ILOs that do not conform with applicable provincial Codes 

of Practice can trigger criminal and civil penalties. No general assessment of the extent 

and degree of air quality problems associated with ILOs across Canada exists. 

Antibiotic Resistance 

Use of antibiotics for growth promotion causes increased antibiotic resistance in bacteria 

from animals and an increase in the antibiotic resistance of certain bacterial species from 

humans. e.g. enterococi and some salmonellas (Gannon, 2001a). Work on this question 

has begun in Alberta, but is not yet completed. 

Mexico 

The negative impacts of intensive livestock operations on surface waters are directly 

linked to contamination by fecal matter and other organic wastes produced by large 

operations, slaughterhouses and meat processing facilities. In some intensive dairy 

operations in arid regions, overdraft of groundwater for production of forage crops is an 

additional problem. Groundwater contamination from manure or agro-chemicals from 

livestock operations is only beginning to raise concerns. 
26 

The most serious water impacts are associated with slaughterhouses and hog farms that 

lack adequate treatment processes for their effluents. Although the problem is localized, 

it is estimated that these activities account for the release of more organic matter into 

watercourses and bodies of water than the entire human population of the country. 

Until the early 1980s, hog farms were designed to discharge their manure and 

wastewaters directly into rivers and streams. The situation is particularly critical in part 

of the Lerma basin, where the majority of hogs are produced. Another area of concern is 

the Yucatán Peninsula, whose topography, soil structure and shallow aquifers can 

exacerbate the problem of water pollution if the effluents from the large hog farms and 

slaughterhouses are poorly managed. 

In closed basins in northern Mexico (La Laguna), where groundwater is used for 

irrigation, overdraft has lowered the water table by about one metre per year. Forage 

crops for intensive dairy production and beef cattle fattening, the main crops in these 

areas, contribute significantly to this problem, which could be mitigated with appropriate 

water-saving irrigation technologies and fodder production systems. 

A lesser, more localized impact on soil quality has been the excessive use of manure. 

This is being monitored more closely in the irrigated areas of La Laguna, where some 

dairy operations now apply up to 100 tons of manure per hectare per year, which can 

cause nitrate buildup in the soil. Certain health problems observed in cows in the area 

have been linked to nitrate concentrations in plants, as well as mineral imbalances that 

may be caused by changes in soil pH. 

Status And Outlook For Natural Resources 

Opinions among Mexican experts interviewed for this report varied, depending on the 

resource and region of the country. For soil, the prevailing opinion is that the situation is 

bad but not yet critical; overgrazing and poor management are seen as much more 

important factors in soil degradation than ILOs. Soil degradation is seen as a worsening 

trend which can only be curtailed through major investments to promote and support the 

use of appropriate technology. 

Water pollution by intensive animal production systems and slaughterhouses is serious, 

but it is deemed critical in only a few areas. The situation shows signs of improving; but 

experts note that a significant effort and major investments targeted at the source of the 

problem will be required. 
27 

Comparisons with the European Union31

Many European Union Member States have also confronted environmental and health 

problems associated with concentrated animal feeding operations. The policy response 

there has generally been to implement more direct controls than in North America. 

Nutrient management has been the most prevalent concern. The World Health 

Organization’s standard of a 50 milligram per litre concentration of nitrates in drinking 

water, comparable to United States and Canadian standards, is exceeded for 

approximately one fifth of the agricultural lands in EU countries. Nutrient contamination 

occurs especially in regions where there are concentrations of intensive livestock 

production (mainly swine and poultry). Parts of Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, 

and the Netherlands have been affected. The large hog feeding farms around Rotterdam 

are a well-publicized example of excessive nutrient pollution. 

Control over the land application of manure is increasingly exercised. In addition to EUwide requirements, some member countries, particularly in Northern Europe, put 

additional restrictions on the maximum amount of animal manure that may be applied. In 

Germany, for example, the application of livestock manure must not exceed 170 

kilograms of nitrogen per hectare on arable land (200 kilograms per hectare on 

grassland). Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, France and Italy enforce 

limitations on “stocking densities,” or the number of animal units that may be housed per 

hectare—an indirect method of limiting manure application. 

A moratorium on new intensive operations and on increases in production has been 

instituted in the Netherlands, in an attempt to limit manure production application to 125 

kilograms of phosphates per hectare. Manure storage requirements are also in place in 

many regions, especially those with a concentration of intensive livestock facilities. 

Odour and other air quality issues are major nuisance concerns at the local level in 

regions with intensive livestock production units. Ammonia is a particular concern in 

regions with a high concentration of intensive livestock operations. Over 90% of total 

ammonia emissions in the EU (and the subsequent acid deposition) originate from 

agricultural activities, primarily animal production systems. 

Odour problems are addressed through a variety of development and land use planning 

laws, both national and local. Permits are required for new installations of a certain size. 

Rules vary between Member States, but most have been tightened over time. Permits 

may include storage capacity specifications and requirements for on-farm treatment 

facilities. 

 

31 The discussion of environmental and health concerns in the European Union draws heavily from a 

chapter by Floor Brouwer, Janet Dwyer and David Baldock “European Union” in Public Concerns, 

Environmental Standards, and Agricultural Trade (F. Brouwer and D. Ervin, eds.) CAB International, 

2002. 
28 

Other public concerns in the EU related to ILOs include: 

• the potential residual effects of hormones which may be used to stimulate animal 

growth or milk outputs; 

• antibiotic resistance from the use of antibiotics in livestock feed; and 

• other veterinary residues. 

Four antibiotics have been forbidden as feed additives in the EU since 1999: bacitracin 

zinc, spiramycin, virginiamycin and tylosin phosphate. Three Member States have 

implemented separate bans. Sweden has a total ban on the use of anti-microbial feed 

additives. The Danish farmers’ union established voluntary programs in 1997 to ban 

anti-microbial feed additives for all poultry, cattle and fattening pigs. Finland had 

banned two products (spiramycin and tylocin phosphate) prior to the EU legislation. 

There are also active programs in many EU Member States to control the spread of 

Salmonella and E. Coli. 

Summary of Environmental and Human Health Issues 

The increasing number of ILOs and their large manure output pose multiple 

environmental and human health concerns. Water pollution caused by nutrients from 

excessive field manure applications and ruptures in manure lagoons appears to be the 

most extensive problem. However, case studies also suggest that pathogenic 

contamination may be a problem in certain locations. Air pollution problems are serious 

in certain areas, with some documented human health impacts to ILO workers and to 

nearby residents. Soil contamination and antibiotic-resistance concerns are emerging, but 

little research has been done in these areas. The lack of broad-scale environmental and 

human health monitoring data related to livestock operations of all types inhibits the 

identification of the most pressing issues, the specific roles of ILOs, and the design of 

sound remedial policies. 
29 

Regulations in the United States 

Overview 

Since 1972, United States federal law has regulated large-scale animal facilities as point 

sources of water pollution requiring a permit, called a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit, under the Clean Water Act. The Act is 

administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In general, 

the Act requires discharge permits for “point sources” (discharges of pollutants from a 

discrete conveyance) but not "nonpoint sources,” such as runoff from farms and fields. 

But the statute specifically defines point source to include "concentrated animal feeding 

operations [CAFOs]...from which pollutants are or may be discharged."32 

Thus, at the federal level, regulation of CAFOs is primarily a matter of water permits. 

Recently a requirement for nutrient management plans (NMPs) has been added to the 

United States federal regulations, but the NMPs remain focused on water pollution 

concerns. A wide range of state and local requirements are also in place, many of which 

go beyond federal requirements. “Setbacks,” for example, meant to deal with odour and 

other nuisance concerns, are a significant component of state and local laws. Some state 

and local jurisdictions also impose stricter requirements for NMPs, for discharge 

limitations, for monitoring and reporting, etc., than does the federal government. 

Typically, permits must be periodically renewed, and permittees are required to report 

discharges that violate the permit. 

At the federal level, a CAFO is defined as an AFO (animal feeding operation) of a certain 

size, or an AFO of any size that is “designated” a CAFO because it has been shown to be 

a source of water pollution. An AFO is defined as “a lot or facility” where animals are 

“stabled or confined and fed or maintained for a total of 45 days or more in any 12-month 

period,” and where crops are not grown.33

Prior to the 2002 amendments to the regulations, CAFOs were defined in terms of 

“animal units” (AUs)—a scheme that equated 2.5 hogs to one cow, for example, in an 

effort to facilitate comparisons of manure output (and other factors) across species. The 

new regulations abandoned “animal units” in favour of absolute numbers of animals. 

CAFOs are characterized as large, medium, or small. A large CAFO is an AFO with at 

least 700 dairy cows, or 1000 cattle (other than dairy), or 2500 swine over 55 pounds 

each, or 30,000 chickens with a liquid manure handling system, or 125,000 chickens with 

 

32 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). 

33 40 CFR 122.23(b)(1). 
30 

any other kind of manure handling system. A medium CAFO is an AFO with 200-699 

dairy cows, 3,000-9,999 swine each weighing less than 55 pounds, etc. A small CAFO is 

any AFO with fewer than any of the minimum numbers in the definition of a medium 

CAFO.34

Prior to the December 2002 revisions, NPDES permits, in practice, simply prohibited all

discharges of manure and wastewaters from CAFOs to the “waters of the United States,” 

though there was an exception when storm events caused an overflow from a facility 

designed to withstand a 25-year, 24-hour storm event. 

The newly revised regulations have expanded the requirements of the federal permitting 

process to include: 

 — “a nutrient management plan . . . based on a field-specific assessment of the 

potential for nitrogen and phosphorous transport from the field and that addresses the 

form, source, amount, timing, and method of application of nutrients on each field to 

achieve realistic production goals, while minimizing nitrogen and phosphorous 

movement to surface waters.”35

 — a “determination of application rates” for manure that “must minimize 

phosphorous and nitrogen transport from the field to surface waters in compliance with 

the technical standards for nutrient management established by the Director.”36

 — manure sampling once annually for nitrogen and phosphorous content.37

 — soil analysis (where manure is applied) at least once every five years for 

phosphorous content.38

 — a setback of 100 feet between the land application of manure and surface 

waters (or a 30-foot vegetated buffer or a demonstration of acceptable “alternative 

practices”).39

 — maintaining records on-site for five years (of numbers of animals, amounts of 

manure generated and transferred off-site, etc.), as well as records for five years of the 

land application areas (amounts of manure applied, dates, weather conditions, sampling 

results, etc.).40

 

34 CAFOs are defined at 40 CFR 122.23. 

35 40 CFR 412.4(c)(1). Note: the NMP is not required until December 31, 2006. 

36 40 CFR 412.4(c)(2). 

37 40 CFR 412.4(c)(3). 

38 Id.

39 40 CFR 412.4(c)(5). 

40 40 CFR 412.37(b)-(c). 
31 

Some critics have complained that the new regulations will create new expenses for 

producers and “threaten the economic survival of some small feeding operations.”41 

Others complain that the new regulation “has no enforceable federal measures for dealing 

with land applications—it merely requires CAFO operators to write up a nutrient plan 

which they can then stick into a drawer and ignore.”42 Others have expressed 

disappointment that the new regulation “fail[s] to encourage large operations to find a 

replacement for lagoons.”43 The new regulation may be challenged in court. 

A basic feature of permitting in the United States is “state delegation." A state that is 

willing and able to implement the Clean Water Act permit program, for example, may 

seek approval from EPA to do so, and may issue NPDES permits in place of EPA once 

its application is approved and the program is delegated. All but seven states operate 

delegated programs, issuing NPDES permits. The seven are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, 

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. An eighth state, Oklahoma, 

administers the NPDES program for most purposes but has not been authorized to 

administer the NPDES program for CAFOs. 

Under the US system of dual sovereignty, states may also impose their own regulatory 

and permitting requirements on operators in addition to EPA requirements. State law 

may not conflict with federal requirements, but states are free to impose additional 

requirements and to regulate more conduct, more operations, and more stringently than 

the federal NPDES requirements. 

NPDES permits may be issued on an individual basis, or, where there is great similarity 

and uniformity within an industrial sector, EPA or a delegated state may issue a “general 

permit” which applies to those operations that conform to the minimum requirements, 

give notice, and seek to be covered under the general permit. 

The universe of animal operations in the United States is quite large. EPA estimates that 

there are approximately 376,000 AFOs nationwide. The potentially regulated CAFO 

universe is a small fraction of this number but still quite large. EPA estimates that, under 

its old regulations, there were approximately 9,000 large CAFOs that should have had 

NPDES permits, and that approximately 4,000 medium CAFOs were “dischargers” and 

should have had NPDES permits. However, only about 2,250 CAFOs nationwide had 

NPDES permits, under the old regulation. About half of those were under general 

permits and half had individual permits.44 The remaining 10,000+ CAFOs potentially 

subject to the old regulations did not have NPDES permits, in part because of differences 

 

41 Ed Maixner, “EPA Posts Animal Waste Management Rules,” in Farm Progress, 

www.farmprogress.com/frmp/articleDetail/1,1494,11411+19,00.html (quoting a National Pork Producers 

Council statement). 

42 Id., (quoting Martha Noble, Senior Policy Analyst, Sustainable Agriculture Coalition). 

43 Charles Abbott, Reuters, Dec. 17, 2002 (quoting Dan Whittle, Environmental Defense), available at 

www.environmentalobservatory.org/News/news.cfm?News_ID=1896 

44 See 66 Fed. Reg. 2968-2969 (Jan. 12, 2001). 
32 

in interpretation of the law. Under the old system, about a quarter of the states and 

numerous operators articulated their position in this way: 

• The NPDES program required permits only for point source discharges to the 

waters of the US, and CAFOs were defined in the statute as point sources only if 

"pollutants are or may be discharged" from them. 

• The effluent guidelines for CAFOs prohibited discharges (except in 25-year/24-

hour storms); complying CAFOs did not discharge, nor were they likely to 

(except during the allowed exception). 

• Therefore, most CAFOs did not need NPDES permits. 

As recently as 2001, seventeen states authorized to issue CAFO NPDES permits had 

never done so.45 Still others issued them only to CAFOs where there was proof of 

repeated discharges resulting in water pollution. For example, until 2002 North Carolina 

did not require its CAFOs to obtain NPDES permits, but law suits by citizens drove a 

number of CAFOs in the state to seek NPDES permits under consent orders or 

settlements.46 

Though the new federal regulations seek to clarify that “all CAFO owners or operators 

must apply for a permit,” they also provide for individualized determinations of “no 

potential to discharge,” which can exempt owners or operators from the permit 

requirement.47

The NPDES permitting situation has gradually changed in many states due in part to 

litigation by environmental organizations.48 States have also revised their interpretations 

of the Clean Water Act’s permitting requirements for CAFOs, in part in anticipation of 

the new revisions to the federal NPDES rules and as a result of increasing EPA pressure 

and, also in part, because of their own increasing recognition of the potential water 

impacts of livestock operations. 49 Finally, litigation against specific CAFOs has also 

helped drive the NPDES permit process in states that have resisted it.50 Litigation filed 

in 1989 by the Natural Resources Defense Council also helped promote the new federal 

 

45 66 Fed. Reg. 2969. 

46 See American Canoe Association v. Murphy Farms (E.D.N.C. Dec. 15, 1998)(granting preliminary 

injunction) (subsequently settled on consent in 2001). 

47 40 CFR 412.4(d). 

48 See, e.g., Concerned Area Residents for the Environment v. Southview Farm, 34 F.3d 114 (2d. Cir. 

1994). 

49 See U.S. EPA - U.S. Department of Agriculture Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding 

Operations (1999). http://www.cleanwater.gov/afo/ 

50 E.g., Citizens Legal Environmental Action Network v. Premium Standard Farms, No. 97-6073-CV-SJ-6 

(W.D. Mo. Nov. 20, 2001, consent decree). 
33 

regulations by establishing a timetable for EPA to carry out several rulemakings required 

under the Clean Water Act.

51

Comparison of State Programs 

Many states regulate AFOs and CAFOs under separate state laws and programs. EPA 

notes that over 45,000 state authorizations and permits of various kinds have been issued 

to AFOs and CAFOs through state programs apart from the NPDES program.52 

For this report, the AFO/CAFO laws and regulatory programs of the federal government 

and twenty states, including the states with the greatest volume of animal production, 

were examined to determine which facilities and operations are regulated, how they are 

regulated, what regulatory standards apply, and how compliance with standards is 

monitored and enforced. This study examines a consistent set of issues across all of the 

programs to determine what conduct is regulated and how the existing federal and state 

programs interact. 

The states examined were Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New York, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin 

Primary Applicable Laws and Responsible Government Authority 

Federal and State NPDES Programs 

Delegated state NPDES programs are almost always operated by the state environmental 

agency. In a few states, the NPDES authority for animal agriculture has been assigned to 

the state agriculture department. For example, in Ohio, the state legislature recently 

transferred NPDES permitting of CAFOs from the Ohio Environmental Protection 

Agency to the Ohio Department of Agriculture because of concern that the Ohio EPA 

might be insufficiently sensitive to the interests of farmers. 

Of the states studied, only New York relies solely on its NPDES program for CAFO 

permitting and regulation. The other states all have some additional level of state 

AFO/CAFO regulation—permitting operations with smaller numbers of animals, 

imposing additional requirements on some CAFOs, or requiring registration of animal 

feeding operations with the state environmental agency. Others (e.g., Oregon and Texas) 

rely on NPDES permitting for CAFO regulation but also have watershed programs with 

enforcement mechanisms that can reach pollution events caused by non-regulated 

entities, including some AFOs. 

 

51 Natural Resources Defense Council v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980(RCL)(D.D.C. Jan. 21, 1992 consent 

decree, since modified). 

52 66 Fed. Reg. 2969 (Jan. 12, 2001).
34 

Non-NPDES Permits 

The state environmental agencies responsible for NPDES permitting in most of the 

studied states also issue other state permits (such as construction and operating permits) 

that can impact discharges from CAFOs. In some states these permits apply to smaller 

operations that are not subject to NPDES permitting under the federal regulations. In 

others, they regulate particular structures, such as containment facilities, or particular 

operations, such as feedlots. 

A significant number of states issue both NPDES permits for operations that meet the 

federal CAFO definition and other state permits for smaller operations. For example, 

Minnesota requires feedlots of 50 AUs or more to register and obtain a certificate (10 

AUs or more in shoreland areas). Kansas requires registration and permitting of AFOs 

with more than 300 AUs. Indiana requires "approvals" from the Department of 

Environmental Management for all "confined" feeding operations with more than 300 

cattle, 600 swine, or 30,000 fowl. 

Other State Registrations, Livestock Facility Regulation, and Enforceable 

Nonpoint Source Programs Applicable to Animal Feeding Operations. 

Some states, in addition to water permits, also regulate construction and operation of 

animal feeding operations above a certain size; they may require preparation of a manure 

management plan, or regulate retention basins, for example. The leading role in this type 

of regulation is often played by the state department of agriculture or a state resource 

agency that deals with soil erosion and agricultural runoff. Of the twenty states 

examined in this study, eight have some form of permitting or regulation by an 

agriculture department or soil conservation agency, apart from the state environmental 

agency and apart from the NPDES program. Some of these programs simply require 

AFOs to "register" with the state; others impose regulatory requirements for the operation 

of manure containment facilities, or require the preparation and implementation of 

nutrient management plans for the land application of manure. Oregon and Ohio have a 

different approach; they can use state enforcement authority for agricultural nonpoint 

sources to address discharges from AFOs that are not within the NPDES program. 

Local Regulation of AFOs. 

In a few states, local governments participate in the regulation of AFOs. For example, a 

number of states explicitly authorize local and county governments to establish setback 

provisions for manure containment facilities (California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

Mississippi).53 Some (including California, Minnesota, Wisconsin) also allow counties 

to impose additional substantive requirements on AFOs, in the interest of protecting 

water quality and other public interests. In such states, requirements may differ 

 

53 It should be noted, however, that the North Carolina Supreme Court recently struck down county 

regulation of swine CAFOs in that state on the grounds that the state legislature had “occupied the field” 

with a “complete and integrated regulatory scheme.” Craig v. County of Chatham, 356 N.C. 40, 565 

S.E.2d 172 (2002). 
35 

significantly from county to county. These differences and their implications are covered 

in greater detail below. 

In a few states, soil conservation districts (sometimes called soil and water conservation 

districts, or natural resources districts) have a quasi-regulatory role in addressing water 

pollution from AFOs. These local government entities are elected by the landowners of 

the area and traditionally perform the nonregulatory role of providing technical assistance 

and cost-share funding to their local farmers. However, they have been integrated into 

mandatory manure management planning, nutrient planning, and runoff controls in 

Pennsylvania and even into some complaint and enforcement functions in Ohio. 

In sum, environmental jurisdiction over AFOs and CAFOs has historically been vested in 

the states, subject to US EPA oversight with respect to the delegated states' handling of 

NPDES permitting. State requirements, however, apply to animal operations of various 

sizes, and may require notices, registrations, plans, and permits for many AFO entities 

not regulated under the NPDES regime. A few states allow county or local regulations to 

address issues of setbacks and other location requirements. Significant changes have 

been effected by the revised “CAFO rule” of December 2002. Its federal requirements 

for nutrient management plans, manure and soil sampling, and record-keeping will 

provide a new “floor” for CAFO regulation in the United States But the bulk of 

regulatory activity will still take place at the state level, especially in “delegated states.” 

Permits and Thresholds 

States have their own requirements for their programs, and these vary widely. Alabama, 

for example, requires a Notice of Registration for any AFO with greater than 100 AUs if 

it is located in a priority watershed, and for an AFO of any size with a liquid manure 

management system but lacking a manure management plan.54 Arkansas requires a state 

permit for construction and operation of a "confined" animal feeding operation of any 

size with a liquid manure management system.55 Colorado does not require state permits 

for most CAFOs, but does require a state permit for a swine AFO that maintains 800,000 

pounds or more of swine.56 Georgia requires swine and non-swine operations with more 

than 300 AUs to obtain a state permit.57 

Indiana requires confined feeding operations of more than 300 cattle, 600 swine, or 

30,000 fowl to obtain regulatory approval.58 Kansas requires AFOs with greater than 300 

AUs to register; and some of these to be permitted.59 Maryland does not require small 

AFOs to be permitted, but does require all AFOs with more than 8 AUs to prepare a 

 

54 Al. Admin. Code 335-6-7-.10(4). 

55 Ark Reg. 5.301. 

56 Colo. Rev. Stat. 25-8-501.1. 

57 DNR EPD Rule 391-3-6-.20, 391-3-6-.21. 

58 327 IAC 16-2-5. 

59 Kan. Stat. Ann. 65-171d. 
36 

nutrient management plan.60 Minnesota requires all feedlots with more than 10 AUs in 

shoreline areas, and more than 50 AUs in other areas, to register and obtain a certificate 

of compliance.61 Mississippi requires a state permit for all feedlots, Grade A dairies, 

poultry operations with more than 9000 birds, swine operations with 10 or more sows or 

50 or more swine.62 Nebraska requires all livestock operations with 300 or more AUs to 

file a request for inspection in order to evaluate them for possible permitting.63 North 

Carolina requires state “non-discharge” permits for animal operations with at least 250 

swine, 100 confined cattle, 75 horses, 1000 sheep, or 30,000 poultry with a liquid manure 

system.64 

Ohio does not require NPDES permits for AFOs with fewer than 1000 AUs, but does 

have authority through its Division of Soil and Water Conservation to abate pollution 

from those smaller AFOs. Oregon requires permits for all "confined" AFOs without 

specifying the size.65 

Pennsylvania does not use AU, but its own term "animal equivalent units (AEU)," 

defined as one thousand pounds live weight of livestock; it regulates facilities based not 

only on the total AEUs, but also on the concept of Concentrated Animal Operations 

(CAO). A CAO is defined as an agricultural operation where the animal density exceeds 

2 AEU per acre suitable for application of manure.66 It requires individual NPDES 

permits for new or expanded animal feeding operations with more than 1000 AEUs and 

for a CAO with 301-1000 AEU in a Special Protection Waters Area. Pennsylvania also 

requires nutrient management planning by all CAOs.67 

Texas requires permits or registration for operations with more than 300 AUs through its 

Dairy Outreach Program Area.68 Wisconsin's priority watersheds program reaches AFOs 

below the federal thresholds in priority watershed areas.69 

Permit Overview 

This section provides a brief overview and comparison of the requirements of state 

permitting programs regarding: 

 

60 Md. Stat.Ann. Agric. 8-801. 

61 Mn. Rules 7020. 

62 DEQ Reg. WPC-1. 

63 Neb. Rev. Stat. 54-2403. 

64 NCGS 143-215.10B(1).

65 ORS 468B.205. 

66 25 Pa. Code 83.201. 

67 3 P.S. 1701-1718. 

68 30 Tex. Admin. Code 321.32. 

69 Wis. Stat. Part 281. 
37 

• Notice to the public of a CAFO application (and any opportunity for public 

comment); 

• Siting, design, and construction requirements; 

• Nutrient management plans; 

• Financial guarantees (by the operator that the permit requirements will be 

followed and facilities properly closed); and 

• Permit fees. 

Public Notice and Review. 

Under federal NPDES regulations, the public must be notified of an individual NPDES 

CAFO permit, and the public must have an opportunity to comment on such permits. 

The public must also be notified of a proposed general permit, and have an opportunity to 

comment on the permit’s terms. However, no public notice or comment is required when 

a CAFO applies for a certificate of coverage under a general permit that has already been 

adopted. (“General permits” are issued for a class of facilities. If a facility meets the 

definition of the class, adheres to the permit conditions, and files a “Notice of Intent,” it 

is deemed to have a permit and is subject to the permit’s restrictions without actually 

going through a formal permitting process.) Effectively, under federal law, there is little 

public notice or opportunity to comment on CAFOs that do not obtain individual NPDES 

permits. 

Some states provide for additional levels of notice for large operations or particular kinds 

of operations. For example, Georgia requires new or expanding swine operations with 

more than 3000 AUs to "notify [by certified mail] all adjoining property owners and all 

property owners who own property located within one mile of any boundary of the swine 

feeding operation of that person's intent to construct the swine feeding operation." The 

notice must include detailed information about the proposed operation and identify the 

person preparing the manure management plan. In addition, the owner or operator must 

conduct a minimum of one public meeting to present the plan and receive written 

comments.70 

Siting and Design. 

The federal NPDES permit includes requirements to construct and maintain manure 

storage sufficient to address all process wastewater plus all run-off from a 25-year, 24-

hour rainfall event. Spill control measures are required, and liners for containment 

structures are required where there is a “direct hydrologic connection through 

groundwater” to the waters of the United States. The permits typically affect the design 

of the facility but not siting. In contrast, many of the state permits affect both design and 

siting. (See Siting and Design Requirements, below). 

 

70 DNR EPD Reg. 391-3-6(8)(e). 
38 

Nutrient Management Plan. 

Federal NPDES permits now require a site-specific “comprehensive nutrient management 

plan,” including practices to prevent the land application of animal manure from 

degrading water quality. Virtually all of the studied states also require nutrient 

management plans as a condition for state permits, some with more extensive 

requirements than the federal rule. Pennsylvania and Maryland have separate nutrient 

management planning laws that are not tied to the permitting program but apply to all 

AFOs, whether permitted or not. In part, those laws were adopted to address pollution 

issues of Chesapeake Bay, and the states did not want to limit the coverage only to 

permitted operations. NMPs are discussed in greater detail below. 

Financial Assurance. 

The federal NPDES permit program does not require the posting of financial guarantees 

to assure proper closure of manure management facilities at CAFOs. Of the twenty states 

studied, five have adopted some form of financial guarantee requirement for selected 

facilities. Colorado, Kansas and Georgia require financial guarantees for large swine 

facilities. Illinois requires financial assurance for any new or modified manure 

management lagoons.71 Georgia requires use of a trust fund, an irrevocable letter of 

credit, insurance, or a surety bond.72 In contrast, Colorado allows the permittee to submit 

any form of assurance, but authorizes the state agency to reject the form proposed "upon 

a determination of insufficiency."73 Kansas requires only a demonstration by the 

operator that it has sufficient financial ability to cover the costs of closure.74 The 

regulations allow a trust fund, surety bond, letter of credit, insurance, or self-insurance.75 

Iowa has adopted a program that creates a Manure Storage Indemnity Fund, supported in 

part by fees, that helps assure proper closure of abandoned manure storage facilities.76 

Permit Fees. 

EPA charges no permit fees; but delegated states are free to charge such fees. Most do, 

but fee amounts vary substantially. Some states have flat fees for the filing and 

processing of permits (e.g. Arkansas, Illinois, many others); others base the fees on the 

number of animal units (Nebraska) or gross weight (Iowa) or the volume of water 

discharge (Maryland). Some have annual fees, sometimes based on the number of animal 

units (e.g. Nebraska) or animal weight (Colorado), that are intended to support 

inspections and the ongoing administration of the AFO program. 

 

71 8 Ill. Admin. Code 900.702. 

72 Ga. DNR EPD Rule 391-3-6-.20(11). 

73 Colo. Reg. 61. 

74 KRS 65-1-89, -90. 

75 K.A.R. 28-18a-24. 

76 11 IC 455J. 
39 

Siting and Design Requirements 

State permits may also contain a variety of other elements, such as: 

• setback requirements specifying how far the feeding operation or its manure 

management facilities must be from property lines, occupied dwellings, schools, 

churches, hospitals, waterways, wells, and other features; 

• geophysical requirements and other siting standards, pertaining to land areas, 

slope, soils, and other limitations: 

• requirements for regulatory agency review and approval of the site; 

• storage capacity limits; 

• technical and design standards for the facilities; and 

• monitoring requirements. 

Some states also provide incentives and cost-shares to encourage enhanced 

environmental controls. 

Setbacks. 

Until the 2002 revisions, the federal NPDES program did not specify setbacks or siting 

standards. Federal regulations now require a 100-foot setback between the land 

application of manure and surface waters; with a “vegetated buffer,” only a 30-foot 

setback is required. Many states havehad setback requirements for years, as well as a 

limited number of geophysical requirements and limitations, and other features. 

For example, fourteen of the twenty states have adopted state-wide setback standards for 

CAFO facilities and/or the manure management facilities associated with them, while 

Maryland requires setbacks but does not prescribe numbers in its regulations (leaving the 

setback to be prescribed permit-by-permit). Another state, Ohio, is developing state-wide 

standards. Several other states rely on local ordinances (California, Oregon, Wisconsin) 

to prescribe required setbacks, and others allow county setbacks in addition to state 

standards (Minnesota). Setback requirements generally apply only to facilities 

constructed after the date the setback requirement was adopted. Typical subjects for 

setback distances are drinking water sources, private and public water wells, streams and 

watercourses, residences, noncommercial buildings, commercial buildings, adjacent 

property owners, and municipal boundaries. Virtually all of the states have state or local 

setback provisions aimed at protecting water and water resources. The ranges for setback 

distances differ substantially among states (compare Nebraska's prescribed distance of 

1000 feet from a public water supply and 100 feet from a private well, with 

Pennsylvania's 100 feet from a drinking water well or public water intake). Of the states 

studied, only Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, and Pennsylvania prescribed 

distances from "property lines." Numerous states prescribed distances from residences or 

groups of residences -- Alabama (1320 ft), Arkansas (1320 ft.), Colorado (1 mile - large 

swine operations only), Georgia (700 ft-1750 ft - large swine operations only), Illinois 
40 

(1/4 mi.-1/2 mile), Kansas (1320 ft - 5000ft), Mississippi (1000 ft), and North Carolina 

(1500 ft – swine only). 

Geophysical Requirements. 

The federal NPDES program does not specify geophysical limitations. It simply 

prescribes that the facility be designed to prevent discharges, except those caused by a 

24-hour, 25-year rain event. Liner requirements are evaluated on a case-by-case basis; 

both synthetic and clay liners have been approved. Various states have their own liner 

requirements. Most states have few geophysical limitations, except for a fairly common 

prohibition of manure retention structures in the 100-year floodplain (either prohibited 

outright or unless protected from such flooding). Other than that, the most common 

limitations address the presence of karst geology (which might allow a leak to travel 

rapidly to groundwater and lead to contamination far from the immediate site). Many 

states require investigation and certification of the site by a professional. 

Minimum Capacity Requirements. 

Most states in the study do not prescribe minimum capacity requirements for manure 

management facilities. Most rely on the federal standard that the facility be designed and 

managed to withstand a 25-year/24-hour storm event, and advisory standards by the US 

Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) prescribing 

a minimum 1-2 feet of freeboard in lagoons and similar retention structures. (NRCS 

develops technical standards for manure management, and its conservation specialists 

provide technical assistance to farmers.) A few states have prescribed further capacity 

requirements in an effort to assure that retention and management structures are not 

under-designed. This can be important to prevent situations in which growers are 

unable to spread manure on the land because of weather or other constraints. For 

example, Alabama requires that facilities be designed to manage 180 days of manure 

outputs in northern Alabama and 120 days in southern Alabama.77 Illinois requires 150 

days capacity;78 Nebraska 180 days;79 Minnesota 9 months;80 (and Iowa 14 months for 

liquid manure systems.81 

Technical Standards. 

Technical standards for manure management and retention facilities vary by state and by 

the type and size of facility. States commonly reference “best practices” and Natural 

Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) standards, such as those found in NRCS' 

 

77 AAC 335-6-7.20(24)(a). 

78 510 ILCS 77/13(a)(1)(B). 

79 NAC 130.8.001. 

80 Minn. R. 7020.2100(3)(A). 

81 567 IAC 65.15(5). 
41 

National Handbook of Conservation Practices.82 

Many state programs require that lagoons and other manure management structures be 

designed by registered engineers or other certified professionals (often available through 

NRCS). Government review and approval of these structures is required in all of the 

states studied. 

Monitoring and Reporting. 

Under the federal NPDES provisions, monitoring requirements apply only in the event of 

a discharge, and operators must report discharges. Self-inspection of containment 

structures is required to assure their structural integrity and to assure that adequate 

freeboard is maintained. Requirements for environmental monitoring and sampling are 

most frequently case-by-case83 and as prescribed by permits (as under the federal NPDES 

system, California's Waste Discharge Requirements, and many others). In fact, on-farm 

monitoring for environmental parameters is rare. Many state programs require that an 

“operating record” be maintained at the facility.84 

Incentives and assistance. 

Incentives and cost-shares are not available to CAFOs under EPA programs, but a US 

Department of Agriculture program known as the Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP) and some state cost-share programs can help defray the operator’s cost 

of constructing manure management facilities for smaller CAFOs. Until recently 

(2002), the law prohibited use of the funds for manure facilities at farms with more than 

1000 animal units, but that restriction has been lifted. States have broad latitude to 

administer the federal EQIP monies. 

Among state programs, the most generous is Maryland’s, which will fund up to $75,000 

on a cost-shared basis. In contrast, Ohio offers only up to $15,000. A few of the studied 

states offer tax credits for certain pollution control equipment (Kansas, Maryland, 

Nebraska). In general, however, the cost of the structures required for manure and 

wastewater management at CAFOs falls substantially upon the producer. 

Nutrient Management Plans 

The federal NPDES program now requires a comprehensive nutrient management plan at 

CAFOs, but NMPs were already a feature of many permits in state programs prior to the 

new federal rule. 

Every state studied has some nutrient management planning requirements. In some states 

these are linked solely to the NPDES permitting program, while in others they apply to a 

broader array of AFOs. Nutrient management plans are even required in some states for 

 

82 http://www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/nhcp_2.html

83 E.g., 567 Iowa Admin. Code 63.5(1). 

84 E.g. 327 Indiana Admin. Code 16-9-5. 
42 

AFOs that do not need either federal or state permits. For example, Maryland requires 

nutrient management plans for agricultural operations with 8 or more AUs. 

Preparation and Location of Plan. 

The plans are prepared by the operator (or by a certified nutrient planner on behalf of the 

operator). The states differ as to whether the plan must be submitted to a state or county 

agency or simply be maintained onsite by the operator (as is the minimal federal 

requirement). Fourteen of the twenty studied states require submission of the plan to a 

governmental agency for review. Submission of a document generally makes it public 

and subject to public scrutiny. There are exceptions, however. Maryland, for example, 

requires the state Department of Agriculture to keep the plan confidential, and has 

legislative hurdles even to the Department of the Environment obtaining access to the 

plan. Other states require submission of plans under some circumstances (e.g. Arkansas - 

if requested; Illinois - if the operation has 5000 AUs; Kansas – for swine facilities with 

>100 AUs; Oregon - for new CAFOs). Still others require the operator to maintain the 

plan but do not expressly state whether it should be submitted; presumably, agencies 

have access to the plan on request (California, Mississippi). 

Nutrient management planning requirements are largely based on NRCS and USDA 

Agricultural Extension Service practice. Nebraska's requirements are among the more 

detailed of those states that have adopted nutrient management planning regulations 

linked to permitting. Under Nebraska's CAFO regulations, a “comprehensive nutrient 

management plan” must be submitted to the state’s DEQ. It must include a legal 

description of planned manure application areas, as well as the number of useable acres, 

slope, soil type, cropping practices, historic yields, distance to surface water, location of 

wetlands and use by other operations; manure sampling and analysis procedures; land 

application soil sampling and analysis procedures; planned application rates, methods, 

and frequencies; appropriate record-keeping of locations and quantities of livestock 

manure land applied, sold, or given away; and sample results. Any areas not owned by 

the operation must include the landowner's name, address, legal description, number of 

acres and an agreement signed by the landowners allowing for the planned use of the land 

and any restrictions.85 Land application of livestock manure may not be in excess of 

agronomic rates for nitrogen and owner/operators shall sample and analyze the soil for 

nitrogen and phosphorus prior to the application of manure.86 (The "agronomic rate" is 

the rate at which nutrients will be taken up by crops. Application at greater than an 

agronomic rate will leave excess nutrients in the soil that may be washed out into the 

groundwater or surface waters or may degrade the soils themselves). In Nebraska, the 

frequency and methods of sampling and analyzing nitrogen and phosphorus must be 

based on planned crops, crop rotation and other site-specific requirements and defined in 

the comprehensive nutrient management plan.87 Owner/operators must report all 

 

85 NAC 130.3.001.04H. 

86 NAC 130.11.006.02-3. 

87 Id.
43 

analyses that exceed 150 parts per million for soil phosphorus.88 Upon reviewing the 

data and evaluating the potential for contamination of waters of the State, DEQ may 

require the owner/operator to modify the comprehensive nutrient management plan.89 

Owner/operators must maintain records for at least 5 years of the estimates and analyses 

of the nutrient value of livestock manure utilized to determine land application rates for 

manure; and, if requested, submit to DEQ the results of the sampling events.90 All 

owner/operators must attend a “land application training program,” with additional 

training every 5 years.91 . Owner/operators must notify the Department of any changes 

in the land application areas.92 

Neither the NPDES program nor the various state programs that include manure 

management planning impose restrictions on the kinds of crops that may be grown on 

lands where manures are applied, nor do they proscribe application of manures that 

contain pathogens, antibiotics, etc. 

Nutrients Addressed. 

The plans are generally focused on nutrients that are water pollutants. Most of the 

studied states require analysis and establishment of application rates for nitrogen. About 

half also include phosphorous, or provide that phosphorous must be addressed in the plan 

when the state determines it is necessary to do so (or when soil testing indicates the 

likelihood that phosphorous will become an issue). Many of the states also require soil 

tests to address metals, salts, pH, and other factors that may affect nutrient mobilization. 

Limits on Land Application of Manures. 

State standards for land application fall into three general categories: 

(1) Limitations on rates of application, variously described as “agronomic rates” 

(e.g. Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas), rates 

appropriate for "optimum crop yields" (Iowa), "reasonable rates" (California), or other 

similar terms with reference to NRCS or professional standards (Alabama, others). 

(2) Setbacks of land application areas from surface waters, wells, property lines, 

residences, etc. These are similar to the setbacks for the animal confinement facility and 

the manure management facilities themselves. 

(3) Limitations on the manner and timing of land application. These include 

prohibitions on land application when ground is frozen or snow-covered, as well as 

requirements in some states that certain manure (such as swine manure) be applied in a 

way so as to minimize odour and runoff (e.g. prohibitions on spray applications). 

 

88 NAC 130.11.006.03. 

89 Id.

90 NAC 130.11.006.07. 

91 NAC 130.5.005.05. 

92 NAC 130.5.005.06. 
44 

Most of the states have all three types of standards or limits. Setbacks for land 

application include state-wide numerical standards in Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas. 

Like the similar setbacks for manure management facilities, these can vary significantly. 

For example, North Carolina requires land application of swine manure to be set back 75 

feet from a residential property line or perennial stream. In contrast, Georgia requires 

swine manure to be applied at least 150-200 ft. from a property line, and 100-150 ft. from 

surface waters. Other general manure application setbacks include: Illinois (200 ft. from 

surface waters), Maryland (50 ft. from surface waters), and Alabama (50 ft. from surface 

waters). Minnesota county setbacks vary from 50-750 feet from surface waters. Again, 

Nebraska is fairly illustrative of waterway setback requirements: Manure may not be 

applied within 30 feet of any streams, lakes and impounded waters specifically 

designated by the Nebraska DEQ, unless in accordance with an approved comprehensive 

nutrient management plan.93 When manure is land applied within 100 feet of a stream, 

lake, or impounded water, DEQ may impose other requirements, such as an additional 

buffer or injection of the manure.94 

Specific limitations based on weather conditions and soil saturation exist in eight of the 

20 states studied. The other states had performance standards such as requiring the 

operator to “prevent water pollution” or “follow planning requirements,” which could 

have the same effect. A few states authorize application of manure on frozen ground 

subject to conditions. Illinois allows it if the slope is 5% or less or there are adequate 

erosion control measures in place; Pennsylvania allows it if a 100 foot setback from 

surface waters is observed (200 feet if the slope is 8% or greater). 

Monitoring. 

Groundwater monitoring is not typically required for the land application of animal 

manure, but it may be required by a permit condition in any of the states studied. A few 

states have specifically required (or authorized) groundwater monitoring for the land 

application of swine manure from large facilities. These include Kansas95 and Georgia.96 

California provides for a “Waiver of the Waste Discharge Requirement” on assurance 

that there will be “no discharge.” Some California regional water quality control boards 

have imposed groundwater monitoring as a condition for the waiver. 

In Nebraska, groundwater monitoring is generally not required for facilities under 1000 

AUs unless (a) a spill or non-permitted release from the facility has occurred, (b) 

percolation from the facility exceeds the allowable percolation rate, or (c) DEQ 

determines it necessary to maintain ground water quality.97 Groundwater monitoring 

 

93 NAC 130.11.006.04. 

94 NAC 130.11.006.04.05. 

95 K.A.R. 28-18a-18. 

96 Reg. 391-3-6-.20. 

97 NAC 130.13.002. 
45 

may be required for larger facilities based on a site-specific review.98 Information used 

to determine the need for groundwater monitoring includes: the materials and methods 

used in the construction of the facility; the size of the livestock operation; depth to 

ground water; type of soils; type of consolidated or unconsolidated sediments above and 

below the water table; local and regional use of groundwater for drinking water and other 

beneficial uses; and other criteria, including, but not limited to, location of the nearest 

public water supply wells, use of local Rural Water District, and location of on-site 

wells.99 If groundwater monitoring is required, an applicant may ask DEQ to reconsider 

by submitting additional site-specific hydrogeologic information.100 

Odour and Air. 

Odour and air requirements are quite uneven among the states. The federal Clean Air 

Act does not require states to establish standards for odours or for many of the air 

pollutants associated with animal feeding operations. Even where standards do exist for 

organic air pollutants (ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, methane), they are seldom required 

to be applied to releases from animal operations or from the land application of animal 

manure. Nevertheless, some states have adopted odour or air pollution requirements. In 

most of the states studied, these are quite rudimentary and frequently make reference to 

the use of "best management practices" (BMPs) developed by the NRCS and others for 

the control of odours. Colorado explicitly requires preparation and implementation of an 

odour management plan for large swine operations. Kansas and Nebraska also require 

such plans. Arkansas requires annual training in odour control methods. Alabama has a 

general performance standard under which operators are to minimize odours "to the 

maximum extent practicable."101 A recent citizen’s suit in Alabama led to an injunction 

requiring a hog operator to submit an odour control plan for state approval. Mississippi's 

two-year moratorium on new CAFOs that expired in January 2000 led to the adoption of 

air and odour requirements, and CAFOs are now required to obtain air permits or 

multimedia permits that include air standards.102 Texas provides for an "air quality 

standard permit authorization" (which includes an air quality management plan) for 

CAFOs that meet the requirements for registration or individual permitting under the 

water pollution regulations.103 The Texas regulations prohibit CAFOs initiated after 

August 19, 1998 from locating any "permanent odour sources" within 1/2 mile of any 

occupied residence or business structure, school, church, or public park without written 

consent from the landowner (1/4 mile with an “odour abatement plan”).104 North 

Carolina’s odour rules are complaint-driven and require the use of BMPs if state 

regulators confirm that the complaint is valid. 

 

98 NAC 130.13.001. 

99 Id. 

100 NAC 130.13.003. 

101 AAC 335-6-7-.04(1). 

102 Reg. APC-S-2. 

103 30 TAC 321.46. 

104 Id. 
46 

Discharges and Emergency Planning and Reporting. 

All of the states require CAFOs and AFOs operating under permits to self-report on spills 

and discharges, and many of them require the preparation of a contingency plan.

Liability and Enforcement 

Under the federal NPDES program, EPA or state personnel may inspect permitted 

CAFOs and determine whether they are in compliance. In addition, permitted operators 

are required to notify the regulatory agency of any discharges or violations of permit 

conditions. Enforcement measures include orders, injunctions, civil penalties, and 

criminal penalties. State enforcement of delegated NPDES programs must be consistent 

with federal standards. 

In general, the studied states focus on the owner/operator of the facility. There has been 

little attempt in state legislation to identify or attach liability to an integrator or owner of 

the animals who may be using contract growers; however, states have used common law 

principles in some individual enforcement cases to determine who is the real “party in 

interest.” North Carolina has adopted regulations addressing integrators that provide 

250 or more animals to swine operations and retain ownership or control of the animals. 

This law requires contract growers in North Carolina to identify the integrator when they 

obtain a permit or apply for coverage under a general permit, and requires the state 

DENR to notify integrators of violations by growers; however, the law does not expressly 

make the integrator liable for violations.105

Because of the general lack of on-farm monitoring requirements, detection of 

noncompliance is heavily dependent upon complaints and self-reporting, though all of the 

states have some inspection capacity. A number of states rely heavily on county 

inspectors or other personnel to identify violations (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania). Most states begin compliance efforts with a “notice of violation” or 

“warning letter,” with the emphasis on achieving compliance rather than on imposing a 

penalty. Ohio's program for small AFOs and other agricultural nonpoint source pollution 

allows the chief of the soil and water conservation division of the DNR to issue a "chief's 

order" to abate the pollution; but the statute explicitly prohibits enforcement of any 

chief's order that would require an operator to spend money on construction unless the 

state is also able to provide cost-share funds.106 

Penalties may be imposed in all states for violations of permits. Violations of NPDES 

permits can result in civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day of violation, but amounts at 

that level are rarely assessed. Authorized state penalties for permit violations range 

widely, but typically are set in the low thousands of dollars. Penalties for failures to 

comply with nutrient management plans are typically lower than penalties for permit 

 

105 General Assembly of North Carolina, Session Law 1998-188, available at 

www.ncga.state.nc.us/html1997/bills/CurrentVersion/ratified/house/hbil1480.full.html 

106 Ohio Rev. State 1511.02(H). 
47 

violations and spills from manure containment facilities (e.g. Maryland - $250, 

Pennsylvania - $500). 

Very little information is available on enforcement against CAFOs and AFOs. Most 

states either do not track this information or track it only for the current year, and many 

of these track only the initiation of enforcement related actions (such as notices of 

violation) without tracking the outcomes. States with decentralized programs, such as 

California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, do not have information available 

on a statewide basis for these programs. The same is often the case with inspections. 

Most states with NPDES programs have few, if any, inspectors dedicated solely to 

CAFOs; typically they use inspectors who also have other duties. Some states have 

dedicated CAFO permitting staff, but rely on others (often in regional offices or counties) 

for inspections. 

Right to Farm. 

Right-to-farm legislation is found in virtually every state. The purpose of such 

legislation has generally been to prevent homeowners and others from filing lawsuits 

against agricultural operations (including AFOs) as a public or private nuisance. The 

premise is that people moving into an agricultural area should expect to encounter 

agricultural odours and related impacts. Some state right-to-farm laws also prohibit local 

units of government from enacting ordinances that declare agricultural practices a 

nuisance. But right-to-farm laws have no effect on CAFO/AFO regulation by states. 

None of the statutes constrains the state legislature or state regulatory agencies nor offers 

any defence from enforcement actions taken under permit and regulatory programs. All 

of the statutes in the studied states are explicitly limited to providing a defence against 

court actions in the nature of nuisance, or limiting the power of local governments to 

adopt regulations. The chief effect of right-to-farm laws in the AFO/CAFO arena is to 

limit the ability of local citizens and local governments to bring such actions against 

animal feeding operations. This is most significant in the area of odours and air pollution 

where there is little regulatory leverage and where nuisance is by default the primary 

tool. A number of states explicitly exclude from protection those operations that are 

conducted negligently or that pose a threat to public health or safety. Minnesota's statute, 

moreover, explicitly excludes large animal feedlots from coverage by the statute.107 

Moratoria, Anti-Corporate Farming, and Other Provisions 

The federal NPDES program does not provide for or include moratoria. Two of the 

studied states (Mississippi and North Carolina) imposed temporary moratoria on certain 

types of CAFOs in order to permit the development of additional regulatory programs 

and management plans. The Mississippi moratorium has expired; the North Carolina 

moratorium has been extended by legislation. Mississippi used its moratorium to develop 

regulations for air pollution and odour control. North Carolina has used its moratorium 

 

107 Minn. Stat. 561.19. 
48 

to encourage the development of local zoning regulations and for research and 

development of alternative manure and wastewater technologies. 

Federal law and regulations do not impose any limits on the forms of business entities 

that may operate CAFOs. A few states in the Midwest, however, do not allow 

corporations (except family-owned corporations) to engage in the business of agriculture 

(Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and several others not included in this 

study). This does not mean that CAFOs cannot operate in these states, but it does mean 

that the growers in these states must be individuals or partnerships or family corporations 

rather than other public or private corporations. In some of these states, corporations 

may still exercise substantial control as customers or even owners of the livestock; 

however, Iowa's law also outlaws this form of "contract farming" control. Of the states 

that do prohibit corporate ownership, Kansas allows feedlots and poultry confinement 

facilities to be owned by corporations, as well as swine and dairy operations in counties 

that wish to opt out of the state prohibition. 

Another significant development is the use of voluntary compliance and performance 

improvement programs. The US EPA has entered into agreements with the National Pork 

Producers Council and the US Poultry and Egg Association, for example, to improve 

industry awareness of regulatory requirements and to encourage adoption of processes 

that would lead to compliance. In November 1998, EPA and the National Pork 

Producers Council reached agreement for a Compliance Audit Program whereby pork 

producers that voluntarily sought inspection of their operations would be granted 

amelioration of penalties for violations that might be discovered, assuming that the 

problems were promptly remedied. A voluntary program was agreed to in December 

1998 by the poultry and egg producers aimed at introducing and promoting 

implementation of poultry litter management plans and related actions. States also have 

voluntary programs and provisions. Colorado offers an Environmental Leadership 

program for large swine operations. North Carolina is promoting the voluntary adoption 

of environmental management systems (EMSs) by large hog producers; in a separate 

development, farms owned-by Smithfield Foods will adopt EMSs as part of the 

settlement discussed in “Recent Developments” below. Pennsylvania promotes adoption 

of nutrient management planning by AFOs not subject to state or NPDES permitting 

requirements. 

North Carolina conducted a program to buy conservation easements on a limited number 

of hog operations located in the 100-year floodplain after hurricanes resulted in 

catastrophic failures of manure lagoons and pollution of the state's rivers. The statefunded buy-out paid growers to remove existing manure lagoons from the floodplain 

based on priority risks and costs; the number of facilities wishing to participate exceeded 

the available funding. 

Some states are also beginning to require detailed information on corporate parents, 

owners and controllers of livestock operations, including their compliance history. The 

information is used to determine whether to grant or deny permits and also, in part, to 

determine whom the permittee should be and where liability should rest. Ohio and 
49 

Nebraska are among the states seeking such information in their permit programs. 

Georgia has very detailed background and “bad actor” provisions for large swine facility 

operations, requiring substantial disclosure by applicants and mandatory disapproval of 

permits under certain circumstances, including prior violations by applicants and their 

owners or controllers.108 

Recent Developments 

Litigation was the driving force behind a major effort to develop new technology for 

swine manure management in North Carolina, an effort that may have implications for 

the industry throughout North America. 

An out-of-court settlement with Smithfield Foods resulted in commitments for $15 

million dollars to develop superior technology, $50 million (over 25 years) for 

“environmental enhancement” in the state, plus commitments to test and implement the 

new technology at company-owned farms.109

 The performance standards expected of this new technology are: 

• Eliminate all discharges to water 

• “Substantially eliminate” ammonia emissions 

• “Substantially eliminate” odours beyond the property line 

• “Substantially eliminate” the release of disease vectors and airborne emissions 

• “Substantially eliminate” nutrient and heavy metal contamination of soil and 

groundwater 

• The agreement recognizes the importance of economic feasibility and establishes 

factors to be considered in that regard, including: 

• The 10-year annualized “cost per 100 pounds of steady state live weight for each 

category of farm system” 

• The 10-year annualized cost of the current system 

• The projected revenues from any by-product utilization or other cost savings 

• Any available financial or technical assistance, tax incentives, or credits that may 

be available to support such technology development 

• The impact that adoption of the new technology would have on the 

competitiveness of the state’s swine industry 

 

108 DNR EPD Reg. 391-3-6(10). 

109 See North Carolina State Univ., The Water Resources Research Institute, “The ‘Smithfield Agreement’: 

What does it say?” at www2.ncsu.edu/ncsu/CIL/WRRI/news/so00smithfield.html The full agreement is 

available at www.p2pays.org.ref/11/10597.pdf 
50 

The Parties agreed that alternative technology may be deemed “feasible” even if it costs 

more than the status quo. 

Implementation of the Agreement is managed by a “Designee” of the Chancellor of 

North Carolina State University, which has a major agricultural school. The Chancellor 

designated the director of the University’s Animal and Poultry Waste Management 

Center. The Designee is required to seek the advice of various experts and to appoint a 

multi-stakeholder “peer review panel.” 

The Companies agreed to: 

• Identify their buildings or lagoons located in the 100-year floodplain and to 

propose measures to protect state waters 

• Identify company-owned farms with “potential to adversely impact water quality” 

and to propose measures to correct those problems 

• Identify wetlands and natural areas on company-owned farms that protect water 

quality and propose measures to preserve them 

• Identify abandoned lagoons and propose methods for closure 

• Submit a plan for implementing environmental management systems that are 

certifiable to ISO 14001 (the international standard) at all company-owned farms 

• Prioritize company farms for conversion to the Environmentally Superior 

Technology and submit the priority list to the Attorney General 

The Companies also agreed to convert all company-owned farms to the Environmentally 

Superior Technology as soon as the new technology is deemed feasible and to provide 

financial assistance to contract farmers to facilitate their conversion. 

The Agreement includes a dispute resolution process that begins with a 30-day mediation 

period, followed by submission to the local state court (Superior Court of Wake County) 

if the issue is not resolved in mediation. 

Meanwhile, it is agreed that the Attorney General will “undertake a comprehensive 

review of the operation of the swine industry in North Carolina to ensure . . . all 

appropriate steps . . .[are being taken] to ensure that they remain at all times in 

compliance with the law.” The Agreement does not limit State or private enforcement of 

past, present, or future violations. 

The Agreement called for the Designee to issue a report on his findings within two years; 

he recently requested a one-year extension of that mandate. More than a dozen pilot 

projects are underway, involving constructed wetlands, bio-gas recovery, the separation 

of liquids and solids, and other techniques. 
51 

A similar settlement in Missouri may generate as much as $50 million for research to 

develop and install new manure and wastewater treatment technologies; it also requires 

the companies involved (Premium Standard Farms and Continental Grain Company) to 

calculate and report on their air emissions for possible air permitting.110

 

110 See U.S.E.P.A, “Fact Sheet,” November 19, 2001. Available at 

www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/mm/psffs.pdf 
52 

Regulations in Canada 

Overview 

The Canadian constitution assigns provinces primary responsibility over property and 

civil rights.111 Therefore, provincial governments have the lion’s share of control over the 

regulation of intensive livestock operations (ILOs). Several provinces have delegated 

this responsibility to local governments (primarily rural municipalities) to regulate ILOs 

through their land use planning and zoning powers. With the exception of Quebec, 

where the bulk of environmental regulations pertaining to ILOs falls under the 

jurisdiction of the Ministry of Environment, departments of agriculture, not 

environmental departments, typically retain the primary responsibility for regulating 

livestock operations. Departments of agriculture typically deal with the siting and 

licensing of livestock operations whileenvironment departments licence water use and 

become involved when pollution or contamination problems arise. 

The federal government has some minimal environmental responsibility through its 

exclusive jurisdiction over federal lands (including Indian reserves) and through national 

legislative programs for agriculture, fisheries and the environment, but ILOs are not an 

issue on federal lands. The federal Fisheries Act112 and the Canadian Environmental 

Protection Act113 might be triggered should there be contamination from an ILO. The 

Fisheries Act provides, for example, that there shall be no deposit of deleterious 

substances into water frequented by fish. A manure spill affecting fish could be the 

subject of a federal Fisheries prosecution. A 1998 prosecution under the Federal Fisheries 

Act and the Environmental Protection Act resulted in fines and penalties of $120,000 

against Western Feedlots Ltd.114 Recently, two charges have been laid under the federal 

Fisheries Act §36(3) as a result of watershed surveys in southeastern Ontario by the 

Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). One case involves direct discharge into 

water frequented by fish by a large scale farming operation. The second case involves 

the failure of a smaller farming operation to comply with an inspector’s directive. 

Neither case has yet been definitively resolved. But, on the whole, federal legislation is 

only of secondary impact and does not involve direct regulation of the livestock industry. 

Generally, federal involvement in ILOs in Canada is in the area of agricultural research 

rather than regulation. Often federal assistance is directed through provincial initiatives. 

For example, in the province of Ontario, literature on best management practices has 

been developed by the provincial and federal agriculture ministries under the Agricultural 

 

111 Constitution Act 1867, §92(13). 

112 R.S.C. 1985, c. F-14. 

113 R.S.C. 1999, c. 33. 

114 See report available at www3.gov.ab.ca/env/protenf/enforcement/1998-99_EnforcementActionsReportFiscal.pdf, at p. 18. 
53 

Green Plan Initiative. The purpose of these booklets is to provide information to promote 

environmentally sound agricultural practices. The federal government, primarily through 

cost-share grants, also provides funds to local and regional programs that encourage best 

practices. However, none are specifically directed toward the livestock industry, nor are 

there the broad-scale financial assistance programs to encourage best management 

practices like the Environmental Quality Incentive Program in the United States. 

All provinces in Canada, through environmental legislation, guidelines or regulations 

prohibit the deposit of pollutants into water bodies, except as may be allowed by a permit 

or approval.115 ILOs in Canada require a number of permits and authorizations, 

including those relevant to design and construction. The order of such permits and the 

level of sophistication of the application varies from province to province. Certain 

common threads emerge, however. In most provinces, the operator of an intensive 

livestock operation would be required to obtain a building permit from the local 

government in order to commence construction. Commonly, departments of agriculture 

also receive detailed information regarding the siting and design of the facility and its 

manure storage and management plans. But whether such information is forwarded for 

separate approval and review or is made available to the province at all, is dependent 

upon the individual jurisdiction. 

The regulation of ILOs assumes a variety of different forms: legislation, regulations, 

codes of practice, standards, guidelines and recommendations. At the risk of over 

generalizing, it is fair to say that statutes, regulations, and municipal bylaws116 have the 

force of law, but unless incorporated into a legal instrument, guidelines, standards, and 

policies or codes of practice do not. Specific terms and conditions in a licence or permit 

also become legally enforceable and bind the operator. 

 Normative standards established in guidelines or other non-legal form are worth noting 

for a number of reasons, however. First, codes or guidelines established by a senior level 

of government are often incorporated legislatively by a lower level of government. For 

example, municipal bylaws will often directly adopt provincial codes of practice to take 

advantage of research and expertise unavailable locally and to make the standards 

enforceable. Second, the existence of standards in the trade, as articulated in guidelines, 

is strong evidence of “normally accepted agricultural practices.” Any operator 

conforming to such standards may be able to use such conformance as a defence against 

civil actions or statutory complaints under “right to farm” legislation. Finally, the 

existence of a guideline, legal or otherwise, offers a standard of practice against which to 

measure ILO performance or operation. 

 

115See for example, the Environmental Management and Protection Act, S.S. 1983-84, c.E-10.2 

Saskatchewan. See also New Brunswick Clean Water Act, S.N.B. 1989, c. C-6.1, s. 12(1). and Quebec 

Environmental Quality Act. L.R.Q., c. Q-2, ss. 20 and 22, Règlement sur les exploitations agricoles 

(Regulation Respecting Agricultural Operations), R.R.Q., Q-2, r.11.1,ss.4-5 

116 In Canada municipal “ordinances” or “laws” are referred to as “by-laws” due to the subordinate status 

of municipalities, which are wholly creatures of provincial statute. 
54 

Siting 

“Minimum distance separation,” setbacks, and water quality 

All Canadian provinces with ILOs dictate standards in relation to the siting of new and 

expanded facilities. All include a requirement for “minimum distance separation” (MDS), 

the preferred Canadian term for setbacks when specifically referring to the distance 

between a livestock facility and its neighbours. The MDS provides a recommended 

minimum separation between new or expanded facilities and non-agricultural 

development (commercial, recreational or residential). Some provinces simply set the 

MDS in regulation; others offer a formula for calculation on a site-by-site basis. In 

several cases, provinces provide a minimum standard in addition to an MDS calculation. 

For example, in Alberta, in no case shall the MDS be less than 150 metres.117 

When scouting a site for a new ILO, proponents are well-advised to “select a location 

that will impact on as few neighbours as possible.”118 But inevitably, neighbours must be 

dealt with, and their right to the use and enjoyment of their own land respected. 

Factors relevant to the determination of the MDS may include: the size of the operation, 

the type of manure storage, the presence of other uses in the vicinity and the density of 

those other uses, the livestock type and, in some provinces, prevailing winds.119 On 

Prince Edward Island, for example, the minimum separation distance may be reduced by 

up to 25% if prevailing summer winds are favourable to reducing nuisance odours to 

neighbouring dwellings. 

Alberta, Quebec and New Brunswick have developed a formula for MDSs. In New 

Brunswick, for example, the minimum distance between ILOs and private dwellings is 

calculated as A x B x C, where A equals 500 metres, B equals the “manure factor” and C 

equals the “livestock factor.”120 The manure factor is based on the type of manure and the 

type of storage (e. g., solid manure/open pile storage, liquid or semi-solid manure, 

earthen or non-earthen open tank). The livestock factor is a combination of the type of 

livestock and the method of housing (e.g., caged or uncaged). So, for example, solid 

manure in an open pile has a manure factor of 0.8, the livestock factor for barn-housed 

pigs is 1.5, and the formula in that instance would yield an MDS of 600 metres (500 X .8 

X 1.5). Alberta’s recently developed formula is even more complex, incorporating 

“odour factors,” “dispersion factors,” and “expansion factors.”121. In Quebec,MDSs are 

 

117Standards and Administration Regulation, A.R. 267/2001. s.3(4). 

118Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture 

and Environment, (2001). Best Management Practices: Agricultural Waste Management. 

www.gov.pe.ca/af/agweb/library/documents/bdest_management_practices/bmp_book.pdf. 

119Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Guidelines for Manure Management for 

PEI, (1999) s. 7.2. www.gov.pe.ca/af/agweb/library/documents/manureguide/index.php3. 

120N.B. Reg. O.C. 99-262, Schedule A. 

121 The result is a series of tables. See Standards and Administrative Regulation, A.R. 267/2001, Schedule 

1. 
55 

calculated based on seven parameters; number of animal units; base distances; odour 

coefficient per category of livestock; type of manure; type of project; mitigation factors; 

use factor; and siting standards with respect to various neighbors..122

In addition to the MDS between competing land use structures, some provinces also 

establish minimum setbacks for the ILO from the boundary of the parcel on which it is 

located. New Brunswick, for example, sets a minimum 20 metres setback from the 

property boundary,123 while Manitoba demands that any manure storage facility have a 

minimum setback of 100 metres from the boundaries of the operation.124

Although generally not included within MDS requirements, some provinces have 

included provisions for separation distance from public highways. Nova Scotia, for 

example, considers a 50 metre separation necessary.125 Prince Edward Island goes so far 

as to require that a permit be obtained to confirm the setback.126

Some jurisdictions differentiate between MDS requirements for new operations and those 

for the expansion of existing operations. Nova Scotia, for example, distinguishes between 

expansions of up to 50%, which must meet the existing guidelines, and expansions 

between 50-100%, and greater than 100%. In the latter two cases, the MDS 

recommendations have been expanded in order to address the increased size of the 

operation. 

The articulation of MDS standards relative to other rural land uses is important in light of 

right-to-farm legislation in the Canadian provinces. Right-to-farm legislation protects 

farming activities from nuisance actions, provided the operation conforms with “normally 

acceptable agricultural practices.” Many of the impacts such as odour, dust and noise 

associated with ILOs are immune from civil action provided they meet the standard of 

the trade. Neighbours are expected to endure some level of inconvenience. MDS 

requirements, whether in legislation, regulations or guidelines, serve two functions. For 

neighbouring residents, they provide a standard of protection. For producers, adhering to 

the MDSs may serve as evidence of their conformance with accepted practices in the 

industry. It is important, therefore, that the opinions and desires of all rural stakeholders 

be considered in establishing MDS requirements. 

 

122 Les Orientations du gouvernement en matière d’aménagement, La protection du territoire et des 

activités agricoles. Document complémentaire révisé. Government of Quebec, December 2001. 

123New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, (1999b). General Regulations 

Under the Livestock Operations Act, O.C. 99-262, s. 12(1). 

124Livestock, Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation, Man. Reg. 42/98, Schedule A. 

125Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing, (1991). Guidelines for the Management and Use 

of Animal Manure in Nova Scotia, Publication No. R-91-2000. 

126Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture 

and Environment (2001). Best Management Practices: Agriculture Waste Management, pp. 13-14. 
56 

All Canadian jurisdictions address the issue of setback requirements relative to water and 

water bodies, but the nature of the water bodies subject to protection varies from 

jurisdiction to jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions the protection of drinking water sources 

receives the most attention, while other water sources are subject to less stringent setback 

standards. 

In the case of new facilities, requirements for setback from springs and wells, varies 

between 30 metres in New Brunswick127 and 100 metres in Alberta.128 Generally, 

provinces have tended to increase the required distances in recent years. Where possible 

contamination of open water is an issue, a distinction between surface water for domestic 

use and for other uses is made. The former usually requires a setback double the latter.129

In Quebec, new facilities and expansion of existing ones are subject to a setback 

requirement of 15m. from lakes, wetlands, swamps, pounds, and sections of streams 

whose total discharge area is higher than 2 m2

.

130 Specific requirements for setbacks 

apply in the vicinity of an underground water catchment system where the water is to be 

used for human consumption.131

Only two provinces, Alberta and Manitoba, make reference to the location of storage 

facilities relative to the flood plain. Alberta demands siting one metre above the highest 

known flood level, and prohibits manure facilities within the 25-year flood plain.132 

Manitoba provides that no storage facility can be built within the boundaries of the 100-

year flood plain in that province.133

The definition of “water body” in Prince Edward Island is unique in that it specifically 

includes wetlands as subject to setback protection of 90 metres from newly constructed 

livestock operations.134 In addition, the legislation introduces the requirement that 

existing livestock operations establish and maintain a wetland buffer zone of 20 metres 

around all buildings and around newer storage facilities where the slope of the land is 9% 

or less and a 30 metre buffer zone where the slope is greater than 9%. Since 

grandfathering of standards is the norm in most provinces, the buffer zone minimum for 

existing facilities is somewhat unique. 

 

127Reg. 90-79 under Clear Water Act, O.C. 90-531, s. 22(2). 

128 Standards and Administration Regulation, A.R. 267/2001. s.7.

129See for example, British Columbia Government, (1992). Agricultural Waste Control Regulations, s. 

7(1). 

130 Règlement sur les exploitations agricoles, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 11.1, s. 6. 

131 Règlement sur le captage des eaux souterraines (Regulation respecting Catchment of Underground 

Water), R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 1.3, ss. 29 and 57. 

132 Standards and Administration Regulation, A.R. 267/2001. s.8. 

133Livestock, Manure and Mortalities Management Regulations, Man. Reg. 42/98, s. 5(1). 

134 Government of Prince Edward Island, (1988) Environmental Protection Act, s. 11.2(10). 
57 

A number of provinces address the issue of water table protection: Alberta, Manitoba, 

New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, for example, all impose a one metre buffer 

between ILO facilities and the water table. Quebec requires that the soil on which an 

animal breeding installation is built or set up be protected from manure by a watertight 

floor or through any other appropriate means.135

Setback requirements for the field storage of solid manure from water courses are 

generally more stringent than for other manure storage options, but requirements vary 

across the country, depending somewhat on the age of the guideline or regulation. The 

most rigorous standards are imposed by Quebec and Prince Edward Island and Quebec, 

which demand a 300 metre setback for any field storage from water sources used for 

public water supplies.136 

Prince Edward island is unique as well in that any field storage of solid manure must also 

be sited in a manner to avoid runoff into public roads and ditches. Manitoba requires a 

100 metre setback from watercourses, which include roadside ditches. Prince Edward 

Island establishes no specific distance but requires that such runoff be prevented.137 

In Quebec, MDS requirements for field storage of solid manure are based on six criteria: 

the pile of manure must be located at more than 150 m from lakes, wetlands, swamps, 

pounds and, sections of streams whose total discharge area is greater than 2 m2

; the pile 

must be located at more than 15 m from any agricultural ditch; the soil must be covered 

with vegetation and have a slope of less than 5%; surface runoff must not come in contact 

with the manure; and, the pile must not remain at the same place for two consecutive 

years.138

Alberta has recently required owners and operators of an ILO or manure storage facility 

to construct an engineer-designed surface water control system to limit runoff from the 

project; the system must be certified.139

New Brunswick offers an example of the very detailed use of setbacks to protect water 

quality: 

Manure should not be spread on sloping land adjacent to a water course 

without immediate incorporation or the provision of an appropriate buffer 

strip to prevent contamination of the water course. Liquid manure being 

spread on land within 300 metres of any water course must be spread at 

rates to ensure that all liquid is absorbed by the soil and no runoff occurs. 

 

135 Regulation Respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 11.1, s. 8. 

136Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Fisheries, Acquaculture 

and Environment, (2001). ). Quebec Regulation Respecting Catchment of Underground Water, R.R.Q., c. 

Q-2, r. 1.3, ss. 30 and 57. 

137Id.

138 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 11.1, s. 7. 

139Standards and Administration Regulation, A.R. 267/2001. s.6.
58 

Manure should not be applied to land within 30 metres of the bank of any 

water course unless incorporated into the soil within one day. Manure 

should not be applied to land within 5 metres of the bank of a water course 

under any circumstances.140

Nova Scotia, provides an example of a setback targeted specifically at groundwater 

protection: “Manure should not be applied within 30 metres of an existing well on a 

clay loam or loam soil, and not within 60 metres on a sand or gravel soil.”141 Other 

provinces have very specialized MDSs; British Columbia’s guidelines, for example, 

stress that cattle manure should not be spread “within 30 metres of streams flowing into 

shellfish growing areas.”142

In Quebec, two regulations address MDSs from water with respect to the application of 

manure. The first one relates to farming operations and provides that manure should not 

be applied in a stream or body of water or to land on their banks, as defined by 

municipal by-law. Where no by-law has been adopted, the banks are deemed to be 3m 

wide for most streams and water bodies and 1m wide for agricultural ditches. The 

regulation also provides that the application of manure should be performed in such a 

way as to ensure that no runoff reaches the above-mentioned areas.143

The second regulation establishing MDSs pertains to the catchment of underground 

water for human consumption. The regulation prohibits the establishment of an 

underground water catchment system within 30m from a cultivated parcel of land. It 

also provides that the owner of a catchment system must delineate around the system a 

protection area of a radius of a least 30m within which, inter alia, the deposit of a 

substance that could contaminate the water is prohibited. The regulation also sets, for 

larger catchment systems, bacterial and viral protection areas based on the time bacteria 

and viruses would take to reach the water table given the rate of migration of water (set 

at 200 days for bacteria and 550 days for viruses). These protection areas must be 

determined by an engineer or a geologist who must also determine the vulnerability of 

the underground water within these protection areas in accordance with the DRASTIC 

methodology. For smaller catchment systems, the bacterial protection areas are set at 

100m and viral protection areas at 200m unless a different area is set by an engineer or 

geologist. In this last instance, underground water is deemed vulnerable for the purpose 

of the regulation, unless an engineer or a geologist determines the vulnerability of the 

water in accordance with the DRASTIC methodology. 144

 

140New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, (1997). Manure Management 

Guidelines for New Brunswick, s. 5.3(g). 

141Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, (2001). Siting and Management of Hog Farms in 

Nova Scotia, s. D. 

142British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food, (1998). Environmental Guidelines for Beef 

Producers. 

143 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r.11.1, s. 30. 

144 Regulation respecting Catchment of Underground Water, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 1.3, ss. 8, 24, 25. 
59 

The water catchment regulation also contains specific provisions relating to the 

application of manure. According to the regulation, application of manure is prohibited 

within a radius of 30 m from the catchment system. In addition, such application is also 

prohibited within the bacterial protection area if the water table is deemed vulnerable or 

when the DRASTIC index of vulnerability is of 100 or more. The regulation also 

provides that the application of manure should be performed in such a way as to ensure 

that no runoff reaches the above-mentioned areas.145

A unique water quality provision in British Columbia should also be noted. As early as 

1992, British Columbia made reference to the number of “units in a basin” as a factor 

relevant to considering setback distances.146 That is, the greater the number of intensive 

livestock operations in a particular drainage basin, the higher the setback requirements. 

To date, British Columbia is the only province to address this question in specific relation 

to ILOs, but other provinces are considering the benefits of basin management. 

Hydrology, soils and topography 

When ILOs are proposed, all provinces require information from the proponent about 

hydrology and soils; some require topographic information. Jurisdictions may demand 

information on groundwater depth, the source of the water supply, seasonal variations, 

precipitation, and the quality of the water source. Saskatchewan, for example, requires 

specific site information on the depth of groundwater, regional drainage patterns for the 

project area, seasonal flow conditions and characteristics of the general water quality. It 

also requests that any available information on high water conditions be included.147 On 

the basis of this information, the individual decision-maker subjectively weighs all of the 

information to determine not only whether an approval should be granted, but also what 

conditions should be included. 

Soil parameters that potential operators may be asked to investigate include: depth to 

bedrock, soil permeability, texture and plasticity. Saskatchewan specifically asks 

potential operators to provide information regarding soils in the vicinity, to describe and 

map soil survey data and to provide additional information on soil fertility and its 

assimilative capacity for manure fertilization. Some provinces demand topographic 

information on such parameters as slope and drainage patterns.148 Most jurisdictions 

leave the decision as to who prepares the site-specific information to the discretion of the 

proponent; some make reference to the advisability of expert hydrological, geotechnical, 

and engineering advice. 

 

145 Regulation respecting Catchment of Underground Water, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 1.3, s. 26. The regulation 

also allows a municipality to adopt a by-law prohibiting the application of manure in the intake area of a 

catchment system where nitrate concentrations in the water exceed 5mg/l (s. 27). 

146Agricultural Waste Control Regulation, B.C. Reg. 131/92, Code s. 29. 

147Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management, (1997). Draft Interim Guidelines: Information 

Required for Proposed Intensive Hog Operations, Feeder Barns, Manure Storage and Disposal, s. 3.5. 

148See for example, New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, (1997). 

Manure Management Guidelines for New Brunswick, s. 3. 
60 

Alberta, for example, may require that documents prepared for an ILO application be 

prepared by a professional engineer or land surveyor.149 Documents that must accompany 

the application include facility plans, hydro-geological assessments, a site plan, and a 

manure management plan.150

 All of the agencies and departments charged with review of applications exercise broad 

powers based on the information that is forwarded to them. With the exception of 

Alberta and Manitoba, the actual approval, licence, or permit is issued by the Minister, 

not a civil servant. As a result, the grounds for judicial review of such decisions are 

severely constrained by administrative law. In the absence of articulated reasons that 

may expose the Minister to a judicial challenge to quash the decision, an applicant would 

have great difficulty establishing a patent injustice on grounds of vexatious, arbitrary or 

capricious action on the part of the decision-maker. Reasons for an action (or a failure to 

act) are rarely required when a Minister is exercising a discretionary power. In Alberta, 

the Natural Resources Conservation Board has the ultimate review and approval 

authority, and its decisions are subject to limited judicial review.151 In Manitoba, a 

permit to construct, modify or expand a manure storage facility is issued by a Regional 

Director and this decision may be appealed to the Minister. 

Public participation 

The siting of ILOs raises questions about a community’s opportunities for participation in 

the decision. Environmental departments and local planning authorities have 

considerable experience with land use conflicts and stakeholder participation models. 

But the majority of ILOs are licensed and administered by departments of agriculture; 

historically, their contact with the public has been focused on farmers, and their role has 

been primarily educative. In many respects, provincial government personnel involved 

with ILO siting and operation are newcomers to broad-based stakeholder involvement. 

Nonetheless, specific requirements for public participation in matters relating to ILOs do 

exist in some provinces. In Manitoba, intensive livestock operations with over 400 

animal units can be classified as a “conditional use” in a “general agricultural zone” 

within local planning areas. This designation requires public notice and a hearing to 

consider the impact of the proposal upon neighbouring lands as part of the planning 

process.152 Similarly in Saskatchewan, when the council of a rural municipality proposes 

the adoption or amendment of an ILO-related zoning bylaw under the Planning and 

Development Act, that municipality is required to give notice of the provisions and to 

 

149Board Administrative Procedures Regulation. A.R. 268/2001. ss. 2(2) & 3(2)

150Id. s. 2(1) and 3(1).

151 Agricultural Operations Practices Act .S.A.2001 c. A-7 Part 2 

152Regulation and Approval Process: Manitoba Regulations and Guidelines. 
61 

offer opportunities for public participation.153 In both cases, the opportunity to canvas 

public opinion, disseminate valuable information, and debate the pros and cons of an ILO 

is mandated prior to irrevocable decision-making. 

Environmental impact assessment provisions, which require a systematic review and 

assessment of projects with potentially negative environmental impacts, could be another 

vehicle through which to incorporate public consultation. Environmental assessment 

legislation exists in every province in Canada. However, to date no environmental 

assessment of an ILO has been completed. 

Even where agencies have no mandate for public participation, they frequently offer 

advice to developers in this regard. The Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture and 

Food for example, in its Guidelines for Establishing and Managing Livestock Operations, 

“strongly emphasizes the need for communication and consultation between the 

developer and local public in order to foster community participation and avoid potential 

misunderstandings.”154 In the face of growing concern and opposition to existing and 

new proposals for ILOs, some provinces have gone so far as to recommend on-going 

public relations activities in order to secure the acceptability of the operation. The rising 

concern in rural Ontario led to a conference entitled “Living With Your Neighbours” in 

March 1997. One presenter articulated “good examples of farm efforts to maintain good 

neighbour relations,” listing: notifying neighbours prior to spreading manure, holding a 

barbeque, holding farm tours, displaying a showcase of agriculture, and organizing an 

agricultural appreciation dinner, as possible strategies that might be employed by ILO 

operators.155

New provisions in Alberta attempt to open up the application process to public comment, 

but much discretion remains. Although owner/operators must include a list of “affected 

parties” with their applications, section 19 of the Agricultural Operations Practices Act

provides only that an approval officer may require the applicant to actually notify 

affected parties. On the other hand, subsection 3 of the same section, requires that the 

approval officer make the application available for “viewing during regular business 

hours by any member of the public for 15 working days after the application was 

determined to be complete.” An appeals process provides affected parties an opportunity 

to influence the review conducted by the Natural Resources Conservation Board.156

 

153Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment, (1996). C.C. L. 1996. Expanding Intensive 

Hog Operations in Saskatchewan: Environmental and Legal Constraints. 

154Id., p. 26. 

155Toombs, “The Rising Concern in Rural Ontario Regarding Swine Production”, from Living With Your 

Neighbours, Shakespeare, Ontario, March 26, 1997. 

www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/swine/facts/concern.htm. 

156For a complete description of the NRCB review process see Board Administrative Procedures 

Regulation. A.R. 268/2001.
62 

In Quebec, the Ministry of Environment posts on the Internet the list of pending and 

granted requests for Certificates of Authorization for livestock operations.157

Design Construction 

As is the case with many rural building activities in Canada, a construction permit issued 

by the rural authority (usually a rural municipality) is generally required for an ILO. No 

exceptions are made for ILOs simply because they may require other permits pursuant to 

provincial legislation. On the contrary, specific building requirements for ILOs are often 

incorporated into the building standards of provincial codes of practice, guidelines or 

even federal codes. 

Capacity 

Requirements for manure storage capacity in Canada are often related to climate and 

concerns for the potential environmental hazards associated with spreading manure on 

frozen ground. 

In the colder parts of Canada, storage expectations tend to be longer. Requirements for 

210 days of storage capacity are common.158 According to Saskatchewan Agriculture 

and Food, “six months storage of manure is the minimum to allow operators enough 

flexibility to maximize the value of the manure and avoid the need to ‘dispose’ of manure 

during the winter months when access to fields is limited.” That same agency instructs 

that 12 months of storage allows for greater flexibility, but notes that multi-year storage 

is less than ideal due to possible odour problems associated with long-term storage. 

Some operations within the province are known to have 300-400 days of capacity.159

In Quebec, “storage facilities must have the capacity to receive and accumulate without 

spillage the livestock manure produced in breeding facilities as well as all other products 

received there for the whole period during which the application of livestock manure 

cannot take place.”160

 

157 http://www.menv.gouv.qc.ca/certificats/index.htm 

158See, e.g., New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, (1999b). General 

Regulation Under the Livestock Operations Act, O.C. 99-262, s. 13(1). 

159 Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, (1997). Guidelines for Establishing in Managing Livestock 

Operations. 

160 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q.,c.Q-2, r.11.1,ss.9-10 
63 

In British Columbia, with its more moderate maritime climate, regulations provide that “a 

manure storage facility should be sized to contain six months of manure production;”161

guidelines suggest ranges from 125-200 days of capacity. 

Several provinces also include a general requirement that facilities design, construct and 

maintain manure storage in a manner that will prevent pollution. The Manitoba 

regulations stipulate that manure storage facilities shall ensure “sufficient capacity to 

store all of the livestock manure produced or used in the agricultural operation until such 

time as the livestock manure can either be applied as fertilizer or otherwise removed from 

the manure facility.”162 Similarly, the New Brunswick guidelines provide that manure 

storage facilities should be designed and located in a manner to: 

• prevent the escape of materials which could contaminate ground and surface 

water bodies; 

• contain the manure throughout the winter until it can be applied to crops; 

• minimize odour; and 

• facilitate removal and management of the manure.163

Alberta requires that operators of an ILO or manure storage facility employ reasonable 

measures to control fly infestations; the Natural Resources Conservation Board may 

require a specific program to control flies (or dust).164 Alberta also requires a minimum 

of nine month’s storage for liquid manure. 

Field storage 

Some jurisdictions distinguish between field storage facilities and manure storage 

facilities adjacent to the livestock holding facility. British Columbia provides that solid 

manure storage may take place in a field for up to 9 months provided that it is located no 

less than 30 metres from any water source used for domestic purposes or any water 

course and that the manure is stored in a manner that prevents pollution from escaping.165

The provision is further tempered by a requirement that berms must be constructed 

around a field storage area to prevent escape. British Columbia’s climate has resulted in 

another unique provision: in those areas that receive moisioe1.000ther metilmatres fr nira 
64 

from October to April, manure must be covered to prevent possible escape and 

pollution.166

The province of Ontario has provided suggestions to ILO proponents for the siting of 

storage facilities which include the following: 

• The storage should not be located to interfere with any future expansion plans. 

• The storage should be easily accessible and convenient to the fields receiving 

manure. 

• The storage should be located far enough away from the farmstead home and 

neighbouring homes so that it does not cause an odour problem. 

• Liquid manure storage should be located at least 100 feet from a waterway or 

drilled well and at least 50 feet from a dug or bored well. 

• Visual screening such as fences or tree lines can be used to help reduce the impact 

of manure storage..167

Alberta specifies that field storage can not exceed six months in one location over a 

three-year period, that storage can not be in a 25-year flood plain, within one metre of 

the water table, within 100 metres of a spring or water well, or within 30 metres of a 

common waterbody. 

Liner materials 

Specifications for liners in manure storage facilities vary from province to province. 

Liner materials are roughly divided into two categories, solid (both above and below 

ground) and earthen. Solid liners are primarily concrete and steel. When located in the 

ground, they are expected to weather ground hydrostatic and ice pressures; specific 

requirements are sometimes articulated. British Columbia, for example, requires that 

concrete storage facilities shall have a rated strength of 20 Mega pascals (3000 psi) or 

greater. In those jurisdictions that lack such specificity, proponents would be well 

advised to consult the National Building Code of Canada and the National Farm Building 

Code of Canada. New Brunswick makes specific reference to these Codes and requires 

that non-earthen manure structures shall be designed and constructed in accordance with 

them.168

Prince Edward Island maintains that solid liners shall be 20 inches above the bedrock and 

20 inches above the high-water mark (40 inches for earthen liners) unless alternative 

 

166Id., Code s. 9. 

167Hilborn, (1995). Storage of Liquid Manure, (last reviewed 1997). A.G.D.E.X. 721, order number 94-

097. 

168 New Brunswick Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Aquaculture, (1997) Manure Management 

Guidelines for New Brunswick, s.4.1 
65 

means of protection are provided.169 Quebec provides that manure storage facilities must 

be water-tight, with no overflow or bottom drains.170

Earthen liners may be constructed of concrete, clay, bentonite or plastic. Where the 

geology permits, clay is by far the most popular substance. Requirements for liner 

construction are often quite detailed. Manitoba, for example, provides that in the case of 

clay or clay-type materials: 

• topsoil must be stripped; 

• soil must be properly compacted using a fully ballasted “sheepsfoot” packer to a 

density of at least 95% of Standard Proctor density; 

• the storage bottom must be one metre above the water table; and 

• construction shall be completed under conditions where soil temperatures are 

above freezing.171

Further specifications are often provided for the berm, addressing such issues as slope 

and width. 

In some circumstances, regulators have found it necessary to temper the clay-liner option 

with further requirements. For example, Manitoba requires a synthetic liner to be 

installed in a proposed earthen storage facility when it is within an unsaturated portion of 

an aquifer.172 Prince Edward Island suggests that, if suitable natural soil is unavailable, 

earthen storage should be lined with a flexible membrane, concrete or other material.173 

The Department goes on to suggest that a leak detection system is recommended in 

combination with synthetic liners, a precaution which may also be a licensing condition 

in New Brunswick.174 In Alberta, clay-lined liquid manure storage facilities require leak 

detection systems with at least one monitoring well up-gradient of the facility and 2 

down-gradient.175 

 

169Government of Prince Edward Island, (1999). Guidelines for Manure Management for Prince Edward 

Island, s. 4.5. 

170 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c.Q-2, r.11.1, ss. 9-15. 

171Manitoba Agriculture and Food, (2001). Living With Livestock - Siting Livestock Production 

Operations. www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/publicconcerns/cwa01s07.html. 

172Livestock, Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation, Man. Reg. 42/98, Schedule A, s. 2f. An 

unsaturated portion of an aquifer would most likely occur in the case of an unconfined (surficial) aquifer. 

173Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture 

and Environment, (2001). Best Management Practices: Agricultural Waste Management. 

174New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, (1997). Manure Management 

Guidelines for New Brunswick. 

175Standards and Administration Regulation. A.R. 267/2001. s. 18
66 

British Columbia requires that enclosed manure storage systems be adequately ventilated 

to prevent the accumulation of hazardous gases.176 Alberta requires that liquid storage 

facilities be secure from unauthorized access and that warning signs about the nature and 

danger of the facility be posted.177

Professional accreditation/certification 

In Prince Edward Island, a certificate of inspection must be signed by the designing 

engineer and submitted to the Department of Technology and Environment after 

completion of construction and before the facility may begin operation.178 Some other 

provinces have similar requirements. Manitoba, for example, requires a professional 

engineer’s certification that a project conforms with regulatory requirements. New 

Brunswick and Quebec each require that applications for their Certificates of 

Authorization be accompanied by evidence that the project complies with the 

Environmental Quality Act and all applicable regulations. 

For smaller production facilities projects, Quebec requires that, at least 30 days prior to 

the beginning of operations, a notice of project be sent to the Minister accompanied by a 

professional agronomist’s certificate that the proposed project conforms to regulatory 

requirements. The agronomist must be hired to supervise the construction of the facility 

and attest, no later than 60 days after the completion of the work, that the project, as 

built, meets the regulatory requirements. Where applicable, a professional engineer must 

also certify that existing manure storage facilities are large enough to stock the additional 

manure that will be produced by the expansion or new installation.179

For new or expanded storage manure storage facilities, the notice of project must be 

accompanied by a certificate from a professional engineer that the proposed project 

conforms to regulatory requirements. The engineer must be hired to supervise the 

construction of the facility and, no later than 60 days after the completion of the work he 

must attest that the project, as built, conforms to regulatory requirements.180

For larger production facilities projects, the promoter must file a request for a Certificate 

of Authorization accompanied by the construction plans and specifications, which must 

be signed by an engineer.181

 

176British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, (1998). Environmental Guidelines for 

Beef Producers. www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/fppa/pubs/environ/beef/beeftoc.htm. 

177Standards and Administration Regulation. A.R. 267/2001. s.12.

178Government Prince Edward Island, (1999). Guidelines for Manure Management for Prince Edward 

Island, s. 4.9, 4.10 and 4.11. 

179 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r.11.1, ss. 39-41. 

180 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r.11.1, ss. 39-41. 

181 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r.11.1, ss. 42-43. Environmental Quality 

Act, L.R.Q., c. Q-2, s. 22. Engineers Act, L.R.Q., c. I-9, s. 2. 
67 

Manure Storage Plans 

Saskatchewan is somewhat unique in that it incorporates all requirements relating to 

construction, manure storage, land required and liner materials within a requirement for a 

manure storage plan.182 A plan is required for any intensive livestock operation that 

contains an earthen manure storage area, lagoon, or liquid manure storage tank. For 

earthen manure storage areas or lagoons, for example, proponents must provide the 

Minister with a plan that, at a minimum: 

• specifies total storage days and total storage volume; 

• provides for a minimum 60 centimetres of freeboard; 

• provides drawings and specifications for all dimensions, including length, depth, 

interior and exterior side slopes and berm width; 

• provides drawings relating to setbacks and distances from surface waters, 

including water courses; 

• provides well records for the area; and 

• provides information relating to sub-surface water tables, soils and ground water 

monitoring programs, as well as any other information required by the 

Minister.183 

Nutrient Management 

All Canadian provinces make specific reference to the desirability of, if not a requirement 

for, a nutrient/manure management plan (NMP) at ILOs.184

Although the requirements for nutrient management plans vary from province to 

province, there is considerable commonality. Differences can be attributed to a number 

of factors, including climate, population density, the historical level of public opposition 

to such projects, and the age of the policy or guideline. Nutrient management planning 

requirements are increasingly stringent. 

The primary focus of these plans is the distribution of manure, post-storage. Typically, 

nutrient management plans include information as to where the manure is to be applied, 

the timing and frequency of application, the method of application, the rate of 

application, and information regarding soils and manure nutrients. In addition, some 

 

182The Agricultural Operations Regulations, (1996), c. A-12.1, Reg. 1, s. 5-7. 

183Id., ss. 5(1) and (2). 

184Nova Scotia does not promote the development of an Manure Management Plan per se, but it does 

provide guidelines for the management and use of manure. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and 

Marketing, (Revised 1991) Manure Management Task Group. Guidelines for the Management and Use of 

Animal Manure in Nova Scotia, publication number R-91-2000. See also, “Development of an On-Farm 

Manure Management Program” (1996). www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/rs/greenplan/waste/manure/131.htm 
68 

jurisdictions demand information regarding topography, location of water courses, water 

sources and wetlands, maximum manure application, other uses for the manure where it 

is not to be applied to land, as well as other relevant information which may be required 

by the reviewing agency. Requirements that are not as common include information on 

the proposed method of transporting the manure from storage to the application site, any 

pre-treatment of the manure, and an emergency action plan. New Brunswick and Quebec 

requires that nutrient management plans be signed by an agrologist registered under the 

provincial Agrologists Act.185 To the extent that soil sampling is required in Canada 

under an NMP, it is solely for determining the level of nutrients in the soil and not the 

level of contaminants (such as metals, pathogens, antibiotics, etc.). 

Several provinces make reference to the necessity for sufficient land upon which to 

efficiently utilize the manure produced. Saskatchewan, for example, asks that operators 

specify the land area available for the annual application of manure and provide the 

written agreements for spreading manure on land other than the land that is controlled 

by the ILO operator.186 Quebec also has similar requirements .187

Many provinces establish application rates for manure that take into consideration 

whether “incorporation” (including injection) is to take place. Incorporation reduces the 

loss of nitrogen, as ammonia gas, as well as nutrient runoff. 

Whether required or only recommended, manure management plans are generally 

prepared only once, for new operations. Manitoba and Quebec are exceptions. Manitoba 

requires that manure management plans (for operations with more than 400 AUs) be 

registered annually and submitted no less than 60 days prior to manure application.188 

Quebec provides that an agro-environmental fertilization plan shall be prepared for each 

parcel of land and each growing season. The plan must be in place before the growing 

season and may cover a single growing season or two or more successive seasons, but not 

more than five.189

Quebec provides that an agro-environmental fertilization plan shall be prepared for each 

parcel of land and each growing season (for breeding operations that produce more than 

1,600 kg of phosphorus (P2O5), or operators of application lands of more than 15 ha (5 ha 

where the land is used to cultivate fruit or vegetables). The plan may cover a single 

 

185N.B. Reg. O.C. 99-262, s. 5(d). ). In Quebec, Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. 

Q-2, r. 11.1, s. 24. The plan can also be signed by the farm operator himself, one of his partners or a 

shareholder of the farming operation, if that person holds a certificate of competency delivered by the 

Minister of Education pursuant to an official study program on the preparation of agro-environmental 

fertilization plans. 

186The Agricultural Operations Regulations, (1996), c. A-12.1, Reg. 1, cl. 8(1)(g)-(h), ss. 8(1)(g) and (h). 

187. Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 11.1, ss. 20 and following. 

188Livestock, Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation, Man. Reg. 42/98, s. 13(1) and (4). 

189Regulations Respecting the Reduction of Pollution from Agriculture Sources, O.C. 742-97, 1997. G.O.Q. 
69 

growing season or two or more successive seasons, but not more than five.190 The 

operator of a breeding operation must have, at least once a year, the manure produced 

through its operations tested for its fertilizing capacity. The operator of a cultivated 

parcel of land comprised in an agro-environmental fertilization plan must have that parcel 

analysed for the content and percentage of saturation in phosphorus as well as for all 

other data required to exploit the parcel.191 The regulation also requires that farm 

operators and applicators ask a registered agronomist to determine the annual phosphorus 

balance of the breeding operation (or of the manure received for application) and the 

volume that can be applied on available lands in accordance with the regulations.192

Alberta’s new Standards and Administration Regulation outlines a number of 

requirements for nutrient management, including soil testing and laboratory analysis of 

the manure.193 The soil sampling focuses on nitrogen, phosphate phosphorous, potassium 

and sulphur content, as well as salinity and soil texture.194 The difference between the 

crop requirement and the present level of soil nutrients is the rate at which nutrients can 

be supplied by organic fertilizer (manure) or inorganic fertilizer.195 The calculation is 

based on “the average soil fertility levels in the four soil zones and manure nutrient from 

typical production systems.”196 This calculation is further broken down into detailed 

analyses of the soils, nutrient content of typical livestock manures by species, and 

manure production volume.197 

Climate considerations 

As with manure storage requirements, climate is a factor in the land-application of 

manure from ILOs.. All provinces, at a minimum, suggest that the application of manure 

on frozen or snow-covered soil should be avoided;198 some prohibit the practice outright. 

In Quebec, it is prohibited to fertilizing substances between October 1st and April 1st

, 

unless an agronomist specifies otherwise in an agro-environmental fertilization plan and, 

where the substance to be applied is manure, the substance be incorporated to the soil 

within the next 2 or 5 days depending on the nature of the soil.199 Alberta provides a 

table of minimum setback distances from common water bodies for application of 

manure on frozen or snow-covered land,200 while Manitoba uniquely prohibits the 

 

190Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 11.1, ss. 3, 22 and following. 

191 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 11.1, ss. 28 and 29. 

192 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 11.1, s. 35. 

193Standards and Administration Regulation. A.R.267/2001 Schedule 3.

194Similar analysis is often required of the effluent before it is spread on the fields.

195Thus there is no testing for antibiotic or hormone residues nor for other organic contaminants.

196Standards and Administration Regulation. A.R. 267/2001. Schedule 3

197Id.

198See Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (2001). Siting and Management of Hog Farms 

in Nova Scotia, s. D. www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/rs/envman/onfarm/hogsite.htm. 

199Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., Q-2. r. 11.1,s.31. . 

200Standards and Administration Regulation. A.R.267/2001 Schedule 3. Table 1.
70 

application of livestock manure between November 10 and April 15, for operations larger 

than 400 animal units.201 

Other provinces have different concerns about the weather. In Nova Scotia for example, 

applicators are advised to “apply manure on a sunny, windy day where there is sufficient 

air mixing high above the ground.”202 According to a Nova Scotia researcher, “ideal 

conditions are those with sunny, windy days and cloudy nights. It is believed that the 

unstable air movement during the day will assist in diluting odours, while the sun dries 

the manure quickly, thus reducing odour.” 203 Prince Edward Island also highlights the 

impact of wind, maintaining that both speed and direction are critical in judging the 

impact of odours on neighbours. The province further suggests that trees and windbreaks 

can assist in mixing and diluting odours through the creation of turbulence.204

In Quebec, the use of manure spreading equipment designed to spread manure at a 

distance of more than 25m is prohibited. Low ramps equipment must be used to apply 

liquid manure.205

Conflicting land uses 

Prince Edward Island is unique in Canada in that it provides that manure should not be 

spread, unless it is absolutely necessary, between June 20 and September 8 of each 

year.206 Should it prove necessary in that period, manure spreading should be confined to 

the fertilization of hay, pasture land, summer fallow or established cover crops. There 

are also specific requirements on incorporation207 between those dates, and for minimum 

separation distances from recreational areas, restaurants and motels.208 Those restrictions 

are directly attributable to the other mainstay of the Prince Edward Island economy, the 

tourism industry, which thrives from June through September. 

 

201Livestock, Manure and Mortalities Management Regulations, Man. Reg. 42/98, s. 14(1). This provision 

does not come into effect until November 10, 2003. In spite of this sunrise clause, there is an absolute 

prohibition between the dates mentioned if the mean slope of the land is 12% or more. Ibid., s. 14(3). 

202Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, (2001). Siting and Management of Hog Farms in 

Nova Scotia, s. D. 

203Jacobs, (1994). Odour Control Guidelines for Livestock Operators. Final Report 2: Canada/Nova Scotia 

Agreement on the Agricultural Component of the Green Plan. 

204Government of Prince Edward Island, (1999). Guidelines for Manure Management for Prince Edward 

Island, s. 5.2.2. 

205 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 11.1, s. 32. 

206Id.

207“Incorporation” involves tilling the soil to reduce direct manure runoff and odour. Increasingly, manure 

is being injected directly into the soil. There is some concern that injection and incorporation, although 

reducing the threat of runoff into surface waters, may increase the risk of leaching into groundwater. 

208Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Fisheries, Aquaculture 

and Environment, (2001). Best Management Practices: Agricultural Waste Management. 
71 

Saskatchewan has its own unique approach to dealing with an ILO’s neighbours. The 

province provides for minimum recommended setbacks for manure spreading based on a 

standard to achieve “public comfort,”209 whether the method is injection, incorporation or 

direct land application. The public comfort level and corresponding setbacks are 

contingent upon the population to be impacted by the spreading and the method. For 

example, should the operator choose not to incorporate the manure, the suggested setback 

distance is 800 metres from populations of up to 1,000 (200 metres if injected), whereas 

if the population exceeds 5,000, a setback distance of 1,600 metres is suggested (400 

metres if injected). Although these distances are only “suggested,” an operator who fails 

to follow the suggestion might be deemed not in conformance with “normally accepted 

agricultural practices” and found liable should a problem arise.210

Other provinces are less specific yet quite practical in their advice. Nova Scotia for 

example, suggests that manure be spread at times to avoid periods when neighbourhood 

activity is most likely to be affected by the odours and, in particular, that it not be spread 

on weekends or holidays.211 

Alberta prohibits the use of liquid manure on crops that are intended to be eaten 

uncooked.212

Legal Liability 

Owners, operators, developers or individual employees of an ILO may find themselves 

vulnerable to enforcement action should a violation of legal mandates occur. Inspectors 

are typically given broad authority—and considerable discretion—in enforcing the law. 

For example, Alberta’s Agricultural Operations Practices Act provides: 

In carrying out an inspection under this section, an inspector may 

(a) require that any equipment used to manage manure be operated, used 

or set in motion under conditions specified by the inspector 

(b) take samples of anything connected with an agricultural operation, 

(c) conduct tests or take measurements, 

 

209Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food, (1997). Guidelines for Establishing in Managing Livestock 

Operations. 

210See discussion below. 

211Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, (2001). Siting and Management of Hog Farms in 

Nova Scotia, s. D. 

212 Standards and Administration Regulation, A.R.267/2001. s.24(4). 
72 

(d) demand production of, inspect and make copies of or take extracts 

from any record, approval, registration or authorization and on giving a 

receipt for it remove it for not more than 48 hours for the purpose of 

making copies of it, 

(e) record or copy any information by any method, 

(f) take photographs or audio-visual records, and 

(g) make reasonable inquiries of any person, orally or in writing.213

New Brunswick has an inspection provision specific to ILOs: “an inspector may at any 

reasonable time enter and inspect any site, parcel, place or premises, except a private 

dwelling, that the inspector has reason to believe is being used for or in connection with a 

livestock operation.”214

These powers of inspection are usually coupled with a provision for fines should an 

inspector be obstructed or hindered in the performance of his or her duties. In 

Saskatchewan, for example, obstructing the work of inspectors is punishable by a fine of 

not more than $50,000, plus up to $1,000 a day for each day the offence continues.215

In Saskatchewan, the Minister may also, on the recommendation of an inspector, suspend 

or cancel the approval of a manure management or storage plan where, in the opinion of 

the Minister, the person has failed to construct the approved operation within three years, 

or fails to comply with the plan, the Act, regulations or any term imposed by the 

Minister.216 

Alberta’s new Agricultural Operations Practices Act gives the province’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Board broad powers to issue cease-and-desist orders, or 

to require investigation or even specific construction “if in the opinion of the 

Board a person is creating a risk to the environment or an inappropriate 

disturbance.”217 A person who complies with such an order is exempted from 

prosecution for any offence associated with the facts that gave rise to the order. 

Many provinces reinforce their Ministerial Orders with a provision to allow the Minister 

her/himself to carry out the Order, if the original recipient of the Order fails to do so, and 

then to charge back the costs associated with such compliance to the individual who 

caused the adverse environmental impact.218

 

213 Alberta, Agricultural Operations Practices Act, S.A. 2001, c. A-7, s. 3a(2). 

214Livestock Operations Act, S.N.B. 1998, c. L-11.01, s. 19(1). 

215The Agricultural Operations Act, S.S. 1995, c. A-12.1, s. 26(1). 

216Agricultural Operations Act, S.S. 1995, c.A-12.1. s. 24(1). 

217 Agricultural Operations Practices Act, S.A. 2001, A-7, s.39. 

218Saskatchewan Environmental Management and Protection Act, S.S. 1983-84, c.E-10.2, s.8 
73 

For the most part, offences under provincial jurisdiction that are quasi-criminal in nature, 

are strict liability offences, i.e., offences to which “due diligence” (or “reasonable care”) 

is a defence.219 Adherence to “best management practises” or “industry standards” may 

be useful in establishing due diligence, but they may not be sufficient. Due diligence 

involves a broader inquiry into social standards of “reasonable care” in light of all the 

circumstances of a specific case.220 It is incumbent upon the accused to show the 

existence of a proper system of environmental management as well as the effective 

operation of that system.221

Like environmental statutes, regulations specific to ILOs may include a variety of 

responses to offending conduct. The Manitoba regulations provide for three possibilities: 

a warning (for a first time offence with minimal environmental consequences), an Order 

(involving corrective action, commonly used for manure run-off or manure storage 

problems), or an Offence Notice (generally reserved for repeat offenders who cause 

serious environmental degradation). In addition, there is always the “back up” of the 

Environment Act.222

It is difficult to determine statistics on the number of enforcement actions against ILOs 

(i.e., number of warnings, Ministerial Orders or actual prosecutions) because provinces 

do not generally break down statistics specific to intensive livestock operations. In those 

provinces where primary control for ILOs rests with the municipalities, yet another level 

of statistical analysis would be necessary. The most reliable and detailed data on 

prosecutions comes from Manitoba. In the first year of enforcement under its Livestock, 

Manure and Mortalities Regulation (1998-99), Manitoba reported 12 Offence Notices, 28 

Warnings and 9 Orders of Remediation. The statistics for 2000-2001 noted 12 

Environment Officer Orders, 9 Directors Orders and 47 warnings.223 The problems 

provoking these Orders and Warnings were categorized as: 

• manure stored too close to water courses; 

• escape of manure from the agricultural operation causing pollution; 

• excessive or improper application of manure; 

 

219 There are exceptions to the general strict liability approach. For example, in New Brunswick the Clean 

Water Act, S.N.B. 1989, c. C-6.1, specifically provides in section 35, “every person other than an 

individual who commits an offence under this Act, or the Regulation, commits an absolute liability 

offence.” 

220R. v. Gonder. (1981), 62 C.C.C.(2d) 329 (Y.T.Terr. Ct.). 

221R. v. Sault Ste Marie. (1978), 40 C.C.C.(2d) 353 (S.C.C.). 

222Environment Act, S.M. 1987-88, c. E-125, s. 33, wherein penalties range up to $50,000 for the first 

offence and up to $100,000 for subsequent offences, in addition to possible imprisonment, and in the case 

of corporations, up to $500,000 for the first offence and $1,000,000 for subsequent offences. 

223In 2000 the former term “Remedial Order” was further broken down into Environment Officer Orders 

and Directors Orders to reflect the level of bureaucracy issuing the directive. In that same year, a number 

of offence notices (in essence, tickets) were also issued, but because their disposition was not complete at 

the time of the report, they were not included in the statistics. Conversation with Al Beck, Manager of 

Environmental Livestock Program, Manitoba Conservation, February 12th, 2002. 
74 

• manure storage permit infractions and manure management plan infractions; and 

/or 

• inadequate facilities.224

Penalties vary considerably across the country. In those provinces that have updated their 

environmental regulations in recent years, potential maximum fines for corporate 

offenders as high as $1,000,000 are common.225 The most severe penalties for corporate 

offenders are in Ontario’s Environmental Protection Act, where a first time corporate 

offender may receive penalties of up to $6,000,000, and up to $10,000,000 on each 

subsequent conviction, provided the offence results in adverse effects.226 Other 

provinces demand more modest fines. In Prince Edward Island, for example, corporations 

that violate any provision of the province’s Environmental Protection Act are liable for 

fines of not less than $1,000 and not more than $50,000 (although they may also be 

responsible for any restitution a judge may order).227 In Quebec, corporate fines range 

from $1,000 to $150,000 for a first offence and from $4,000 to $500,000 for subsequent 

convictions.228

Penalties for individuals are typically less than those prescribed for corporate offenders. 

At the lower end of the spectrum, Prince Edward Island provides for a minimum fine to a 

“natural person” of not less than $200 and not more than $10,000, and/or for 

imprisonment up to 90 days.229 Restitution may also be required. At the other end of the 

spectrum, Ontario provides for fines up to $4,000,000 for first time offenders and 

subsequent penalties of up to $6,000,000 and/or five years in prison, again provided the 

offence resulted in adverse effects.230 A few jurisdictions provide for fines based on the 

amount of “monetary gain” that accrued as a result of the offence, in addition to other 

penalties.231

Evidence of non-compliance may be brought to the attention of the government from a 

number of different sources. An operator may inform the regulator directly of an 

accidental spill, for example. Citizens’ complaints or government inspections may also 

provide the evidence necessary for prosecution of an ILO. Several provinces require ILO 

operators to maintain detailed records of their activities, and those records may be subject 

 

224Manitoba Conservation, (2001). Enforcement Statistics, Actions 2000-2001. Enforcement Summary 

Under Environmental Protect Legislation. 

225See the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, S.A. 1992, c. E-13.3, s. 214(1), for 

example. See also, Manitoba’s Environment Act, s. 33. Penalties under the Agricultural Operations 

Practices Act are significantly lower, however. (See sections 34-36.) 

226Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-19, s. 187(7). 

227Environmental Protection Act, S.P.E.I., c. E-9, s. 33(4). 

228 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 11.1, s. 44. 

229Environmental Protection Act, S.P.E.I., c. E-9,. 32(2). 

230Environmental Protection Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E-19, s. 187(8). 

231See e.g., Manitoba’s Environment Act, S.M. 1987-88, c. E-125, s. 36. 
75 

to scrutiny for possible violations. In Alberta, records must be kept on the following, at a 

minimum: 

• dates of manure application; 

• volume of manure applied; 

• location and size of each field; 

• results of soil sampling prior to and after application; 

• details regarding the transfer or sale of manure.232

Quebec requires that a copy of agro-environmental plans be kept by the person who 

cultivates the parcel for two years after the plan expires and that such plans be provided 

to the Minister of Environment upon request. The same applies to application registries, a 

copy of leases passed with land owners to allow for manure application and a copy of 

agreements for the transfer of manure from one location to another233 

In the event of an accidental spill from an ILO, provinces provide for the reporting of the 

event to the appropriate environment ministry. Regulations typically stress the 

importance of timeliness. Saskatchewan’s new Environmental Management and 

Protection Act (2002) requires any person responsible for a spill to report it “as soon as 

that person knows or ought to know” of its existence to the department, his or her 

employer, the owner of the land, the person in charge of the substance, and any other 

directly impacted parties.234 But not all spills are necessarily the subject of reporting. In 

British Columbia, a report is required only if the spill exceeds 200 kilograms. 

Prince Edward Island states as a requirement of its guidelines for design and construction 

of manure storage facilities that an emergency plan should be available should a mishap 

occur.235 British Columbia empowers its Minister to order the preparation of contingency 

plans as he or she deems necessary.236 Other provinces, including Ontario, recommend 

that emergency plans be in place that accord with good farming practices. 

Enforcement actions may also result as a consequence of citizens’ complaints. In many 

provinces, citizens’ complaints are first directed to those bodies charged with the 

administration of “right-to-farm” legislation, either as an alternative to formal 

environmental investigation or as a precursor to such investigations. For example, in 

British Columbia, the Agricultural Environmental Protection Council addresses less 

 

232Standards and Administration Regulation, A.R. 267/2001. 

233Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c.Q-2,r.11.1. ss. 16, 21, 26, 27, 33 and 34. 

234 Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2002, S.S. 2002, c.E-10.21. 

235Government of Prince Edward Island, (1999). Guidelines for Manure Management for Prince Edward 

Island, s. 4.10. 

236 Waste Management Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 482. s.12(2). 
76 

severe concerns; if resolution is not possible, other agencies then enforce the 

regulation.237

Some environmental legislation in Canada makes explicit provision for civil liability. 

Saskatchewan’s Environmental Management Protection Act, for example, provides that 

“any person . . . has a right to compensation . . . for loss or damage incurred as a result 

of the discharge of a substance . . . .” This is a strict liability matter; the claimant need 

not prove fault or negligence, but the owner can avoid liability by demonstrating that “he 

took all reasonable steps to prevent the discharge of the pollutant” or that it was the 

consequence of an exceptional natural phenomenon or an act of war.238 Right-to-farm 

legislation also introduces adherence to “normally accepted agricultural practice” as a 

defence to civil liability in nuisance actions.

Right To Farm 

“Right to farm” legislation239 was originally introduced in Canada to preserve the 

integrity of the family farm in the face of encroaching urban development, but large, 

corporate-owned, intensive livestock operations are also protected. 

Although there are variances across the country, a number of common elements can be 

identified in right to farm legislation. All statutes involve an exemption from liability for 

nuisance. Generally, an operator will be protected insofar as he or she engaged in 

“generally accepted” agricultural practices,240 “normally accepted agricultural 

practices”241 or even “normal” farm practices.242 The standard for what is “ normal” or 

“acceptable” is determined by that which is common in the trade, often incorporating a 

requirement for attention to innovative practices.243 In several provinces establishing 

such practices is the only requirement for the protection; in others, such as Manitoba and 

Ontario, an operator must also meet requirements under various environmental, public 

health, and land use control regulations. If there is a violation of any of those ancillary 

 

237British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food, (1998). Environmental Guidelines for Beef 

Producers, Appendix B. 

238Environmental Management Protection Act, Chapter E-10.1, section 13. 

239For a survey of right to farm legislation in Canada, see, Kalmakoff, John “The Right to Farm: A Survey 

of Farm Practice Protection Legislation in Canada”, (1999), 62 Saskatchewan Law Review, p. 225. 

240Agricultural Operation Practices Act, S.A. 1987, c. A-7.7, s. 2(1)(c). 

241Agricultural Operations Act, S.S. 1995, c. A-12.1, s. 3(1). 

242Government of Manitoba, (1992). The Farm Practices Protection Act, 1992, S.M. c. F-45, s. 21. 

243 A recent Ontario Court of Appeal case, Pyke et al., v. TRI GRO Enterprises Ltd et al; Ontario 

Federation of Agriculture, Intervenor (2001) O.J. No. 3209, held that “normal” farm practices included 

consideration of “circumstances” beyond strict industry standards to include the degree of intensity of the 

disturbance to neighbours and who was first in the neighbourhood. Available at 

www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/engineer/nfppb/coa2001-08-03.pdf
77 

provisions, individuals seeking remedy may be able to point to those violations as 

evidence of a failure to meet acceptable levels of practice. 

In all provinces, the onus rests upon the person claiming that there has been a violation of 

the standard of normally accepted agricultural practice or of the legislation to establish 

the case. But procedures vary. In some provinces, like New Brunswick, the board 

hearing the case may not have a judicial role and may engage, instead, in alternative 

dispute resolution, attempting to find a mediated response between the complainant and 

the operator. If after 90 days such mediation proves unsuccessful, the complainant may 

then go to court, and the court may consider the deliberations of the board in reaching its 

own conclusions.244 Other provinces have taken a far more aggressive approach and 

empowered their boards with quasi-judicial authority, empowering them even to shut 

down ILOs engaged in unacceptable practices.245 Provinces that have pursued this 

avenue include Nova Scotia,246 Saskatchewan,247 and Manitoba.248

The legislation in both Prince Edward Island and Ontario adds an additional wrinkle to 

the “right to farm” issue. These provinces allow aggrieved farmers to challenge 

municipal bylaws that attempt to restrict a normal farming practice.249 This protection 

was incorporated as a response to attempts by several municipalities to effectively 

institute a moratorium on ILOs by passing highly restrictive municipal bylaws.250

 Comparative Provincial Approaches to Regulation 

In considering Canada’s ten provinces, it is useful to categorize the regulation of ILOs as 

either provincially controlled, municipally controlled or a combination of provincial and 

municipal partnership to regulate the industry. One province, Newfoundland—and 

Labrador—, has little or no regulation or guidelines specific to intensive livestock 

operations; such operations are few in number there due to the unsuitability of the area 

for agriculture in general. Therefore, the following discussions exclude Newfoundland 

and Labrador. 

 

244Agricultural Operations Practices Act, (1999), c. A-5.3 assented to March 12, 1999; yet to be 

proclaimed. 

245Though the power exists, no instances of the exercise of the power have been identified. 

246Farm Practices Act, S.N.S. 2000, c. 3. 

247Agricultural Operations Act, S.S. 1995, c. A-12.1. 

248The Farm Practices Protection Act, (1992), c. F-45. 

249Farming and Food Production Protection Act , S.P.E.I. [Prince Edward Island]1999, c. F-14.1, s. 16. 

Farming and Food Production Protection Act, S.O. [Ontario] c. 1 at s. 6. 

250 Recently, however, the court in Ben Gardiner Farm Inc. v. West Perth Twsp. (2001) 24 M.P.L.R. (32) 

43 (Ont.Div.Ct) upheld the right of a township to severely restrict the size of ILOs within its jurisdiction 

based on water quality concerns. The decision was further justified through reference to the precautionary 

principle. 
78 

Definitions of regulated livestock operations vary across the provinces, as do definitions 

of “animal units.” Factors that may come into play include manure production,251 live 

weight252 or the number of animals per a defined space. Differences may exist even 

within provinces when regulation is left to municipalities. 

The local control model: British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Ontario 

British Columbia And Nova Scotia 

The provinces of British Columbia and Nova Scotia rely primarily on local governments 

to approve ILOs through their planning and construction permit processes. Neither 

province offers much guidance as to what should be expected at the start-up stages, 

although British Columbia has prepared guidelines for the beef and dairy industries.253 

Similarly, Nova Scotia treats the control and regulation of intensive livestock operations 

primarily as a land use issue to be dealt with by municipalities or planning areas. The 

provincial government provides information in the form of handbooks on such topics as 

farm waste management; manure storage, handling and use; and livestock production, but 

the purpose of these documents is only “to provide a guide for agricultural producers of 

the environmental regulations, standards, code and guidelines which affect or may affect 

decisions made in the management of their farm.”254 It is left to the municipalities to 

develop their own bylaws for intensive livestock operations, including such fundamental 

issues as defining the scope of the regulation. The County of Antigonish, for example, 

has defined an intensive livestock operation as “an operation consisting of only one type 

of livestock in which a minimum of 30 animal units are confined to feedlots, structures or 

poultry facilities for feeding, breeding, milking or holding for eventual sale or egg 

production.”255 The bylaw also describes “minimum distance separation” (MDS) 

requirements for the county. 

Municipal level regulation can create stark differences within a single province. One 

county may encourage the establishment of ILOs while a neighbouring jurisdiction 

 

251Alberta Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, (2000c). 2000 Code of Practice for 

Responsible Livestock Development and Manure Management. www.agric.gov.ab.ca/agdex/400/400_27-

2.html. Quebec: Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2,r 11.1. 

252Agricultural Waste Control Regulation, B.C. Reg. 131/92, OC 557/92. An agricultural unit is defined as 

a live weight of 455 kg (1000 lbs) of livestock, poultry or farmed game of any combination of them that 

equals 455 kg. 

253British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture and Food, (1998). Environmental Guidelines for Dairy 

Producers. 

254Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing, (1998). Environmental Regulations Handbook 

for Nova Scotia Agriculture. www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/rs/envman/educate/handbook.htm. Nova Scotia 

Department of Agriculture and Marketing, (1998). Siting and Management of Hog Farms in Nova Scotia. 

www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/rs/envman/onfarm/hogsite.htm. 

255County of Antigonish, (1994). The Municipality of the County of Antigonish: Land Use Bylaw, Eastern 

Antigonish County Planning Area. www. antigonishcounty.ns.ca/lub-east.htm. 
79 

attempts an outright ban. Highly populated Yarmouth County, for example, has imposed 

separation distances for hog and mink ranches that seriously limit opportunities for 

growth in the industry due to a shortage of land to meet the separation requirements.256 

Ontario 

Ontario is the final example in which primary responsibility for regulation of ILOs rests 

with the local government. The provincial Building Code Act assigns responsibility to 

the municipalities for construction, alteration, and demolition permits.257 This, coupled 

with the authority granted to the municipalities under Ontario Planning and Development 

legislation, has enabled municipalities to establish standards on minimum distance 

separation, siting, nutrient management plans and manure storage. The province provides 

information on industry standards to local governments to assist them in drafting their 

bylaws. For example, the province makes available a “Guide to Agricultural Land Use 

and the Minimum Distance Separation I and II” for municipalities to use as they see fit. 

As a result, more than 50 local governments have established bylaws on intensive 

livestock operations,258 with considerable variation among them. For example, the 

Township of South Perth has no minimum manure storage requirement nor does it 

demand manure lease agreements, while the neighbouring Township of Lucan Biddulph 

has a 365-day storage requirement and demands a formal contract between the livestock 

farmer and landowners who will accept manure. Similarly, in some municipalities, there 

has been a cap placed on the size of intensive livestock buildings, while others offer no 

such restriction. A cap of 600 units per site has been imposed in West Perth County, 

Ontario. Lampton County’s bylaw does not impose a cap on animal units, but instead 

requires that any operation over 25 units must meet county-developed nutrient 

management requirements. 

In Ontario, the role of the provincial government comes to the fore in the area of manure 

management. As part of Ontario’s “Clean Water Strategy,” the province has recently 

passed the Nutrient Management Act 2002.

259 The legislation provides for provincial 

authority to establish standards for all materials containing nutrients, including manure, 

commercial fertilizers, and biosolids from municipal sewage treatment facilities. Rather 

than look at nutrient management on an industry-by-industry basis, the approach is to 

view the land as a resource and carefully control the nutrient “loading” from outside 

sources. In so doing, primary responsibility will move from the municipality to the 

 

256 Mike Langman, Director, Resource Stewardship, Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. 

February 11th 2002. 

257Building Code Act, 1992. S.O. 1992, c. 23, s. 8(1). 

258George Garland, P. Eng. Manager Engineering and Technology. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food 

and Rural Affairs, Personal Communication, October 2001. There are some 400 local municipalities in 

Ontario, but many of them would not require such bylaws as there is little or no intensive livestock activity. 

259 S.O. 2002, c.4. 
80 

provincial level where universal standards will be set and applied. The intention is to 

provide a comprehensive approach to all land-applied materials to ensure environmental 

sustainability. Public consultations (Stages 1 and 2) began in late 2002, seeking input for 

the supporting regulations specific to the various sectors, including ILOs.260

In Ontario, five proposed intensive livestock projects are presently under consideration 

for environmental impact assessments (EIAs) pursuant to provincial legislation.261 All 

of the requests for EIAs have come from the public. Such requests are necessary for the 

legislation to be applied to private projects, which are otherwise exempt.262 It has yet to 

be determined whether the projects will undergo a full EIA; concerns regarding potential 

pollution risks may be addressed instead by municipal requirements for a nutrient 

management plan. Should a full EIA be required, it will involve a level of provincial 

involvement in ILO approval heretofore unprecedented in Ontario. 

The provincial control model: New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, 

and Alberta 

New Brunswick 

New Brunswick, through its Livestock Operations Act,263 requires that a livestock 

operation licence be obtained prior to commencing operation. As in many provinces, 

existing facilities are exempt from the requirement unless they increase their size by a 

factor of ten or construct new facilities more than a kilometre from the original 

operation.264 

In lieu of an operating licence, many existing operations have obtained a Certificate of 

Compliance. This Certificate of Compliance is a voluntary program commenced some 25 

years ago to evaluate applicants’ capabilities for manure management and their ability to 

control pollution.265 Although not a legal requirement, many funding agencies and 

private lenders have demanded the certificate as a prerequisite to financing ILOs in the 

province. The program (administered by the New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, 

Fisheries and Aquaculture) evaluates manure siting, utilization, storage and handling, as 

well as the disposal of dead animals and milkhouse waste. 

The term “intensive livestock operation” is not a term of art in New Brunswick 

legislation. Any new livestock facility (intensive or otherwise) is prohibited from 

 

260 Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, “Eves Government Moves Forward with Nutrient 

Management Regulations,” see www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/infores/releases/2002/112602.html

261Environmental Assessment Act, R.S.O., 1999a, c. E-18. 

262Id. 

263S.N.B. 1998, c. L-11.01, s. 3. 

264N.B. Reg. O.C. 99-262, s. 4(2)(d). 

265New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture. Certificate of Compliance. 

www.gnb.ca/afaa-apa/20/10/201001oe.htm. 
81 

operating without a licence.266 Since the inception of the legislation in 1999, only eight 

licences have been issued. 

A person applying for a livestock operating licence is required to provide the following: 

• a site development plan; 

• a description of the manure management system; 

• a manure nutrient management plan signed by an agrologist registered under the 

Agrologist Act; 

• a copy of any water course alteration permit as required; 

• any other information the registrar may require.267

Once reviewed by the province, additional terms and considerations may be imposed on 

the licensee by the regulator including: specific minimum distance separations or 

setbacks; measures to minimize environmental risk; measures to minimize disease; and 

restrictions on the method of collection, treatment, transportation, containment, storage, 

and application of manure and waste water.268 

According to New Brunswick officials, there have been two proposed projects that, due 

to the volume of their manure and wastewaters, triggered the province’s environmental 

assessment process. However, in both cases, the projects were withdrawn by the 

proponent and never constructed. Thus, here too, no full EIA has been completed on an 

ILO.

Quebec 

In 2002, Quebec entirely revised its environmental protection regulations pertaining to 

agricultural operations and to underground water catchment for human consumption.269

These two regulations are the key components of the environmental regime applicable to 

intensive livestock operations. Their enforcement rests upon the Minister of the 

Environment. Very few powers are delegated to municipalities with regard to ILOs. 

As mentioned earlier in the text, Quebec requires, for the construction or expansion of 

smaller production facilities, that prior notice of a project be sent to the Minister 

accompanied by a professional agronomist’s certificate that the proposed project 

conforms to regulatory requirements. The agronomist must be hired to supervise the 

construction of the facility and attest, no later than 60 days after the completion of the 

 

266Livestock Operations Act, c. L-11.01, s. 3. 

267New Brunswick Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Aquaculture, (1999b). General regulation 

under the Livestock Operations Act, O.C. 99-262. 

268Livestock Operations Act, c. L-11.01, s.10(1). 

269 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r.11.1, and Regulation respecting 

Catchment of Underground Water, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r. 1.3. 
82 

work, that the project as built meets the regulatory requirements. Where applicable, a 

professional engineer must also certify that existing manure storage facilities are large 

enough to stock the additional manure that will be produced by the expansion or new 

installation.270

For new or expanded storage manure storage facilities, the notice of project must be 

accompanied by a certificate from a professional engineer that the proposed project 

conforms to regulatory requirements. The engineer must be hired to supervise the 

construction of the facility and, no later than 60 days after the completion of the work he 

must attest that the project as built conforms to regulatory requirements.271

For larger production facilities projects, the promoter must file a request for a Certificate 

of Authorization accompanied by the construction plans and specifications, which must 

be signed by an engineer.272 An application for a Certificate of Authorization requires 

“evidence enough to satisfy the Minister that the proposed project complies in all 

respects with the Environment Quality Act,273

In many respects, Quebec’s requirements are the strictest in the country. Quebec, for 

example, demands leak detection systems as standard practice, bans the spreading of 

manure on frozen or snow covered ground, and has supported moratoria in specific 

townships. 

Prince Edward Island 

Unlike its counterparts, the Island province does not have specific legislation regarding 

ILOs, but relies instead on various pieces of legislation that form a patchwork of 

regulation. The Guidelines for Manure Management for Prince Edward Island274 contain 

a list of permit and approval processes that must be completed by the proponent of a new 

livestock development. These include a well water permit under the Well Water 

Regulations within the province’s Environmental Protection Act,

275 as well as separate 

environmental approval for both new livestock operations and significant expansions of 

existing operations. Approval is also needed for any proposed manure storage plan. The 

latter, along with a certificate of inspection, must be endorsed by a design engineer and 

submitted to the Department of Technology and Environment for authorization. 

 

270 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r.11.1, ss. 39-41. 

271 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r.11.1, ss. 39-41. 

272 Regulation respecting Agricultural Operations, R.R.Q., c. Q-2, r.11.1, ss. 42-43. Environmental Quality 

Act, L.R.Q., c. Q-2, s. 22. Engineers Act, L.R.Q., c. I-9, s. 2. 

273 Environmental Quality Act, L.R.Q., c. Q-2, ss. 22 and 24. 

274Government of PEI, (1999). Guidelines for Manure Management for Prince Edward Island. 

www.gov.pe.ca/af/agweb/library/documents/manoreguide/index.php3. 

275S.P.E.I. 1988, c. E-9. 
83 

Alberta 

For several years the province of Alberta left primary responsibility for the control of 

ILOs with rural municipalities. To support local decision-making, the province developed 

a Code of Practice for Responsible Livestock Development and Manure Management, 

but left it to the municipalities to determine which of the elements of the Code they 

wished to incorporate in their own development or construction permits. 

With the 2001 amendments to its Agricultural Operation Practices Act, the province now 

retains the responsibility for site determination, monitoring and enforcement of standards 

for new and expanded ILOs. Specific responsibility rests with the Natural Resources 

Conservation Board (NRCB). 

According to the province, municipalities will “continue to play a key role” in the siting 

of intensive livestock facilities through the development of “land-use plans to identify 

where new and expanding [ILOs] would not be incompatible with current or future land 

uses”276 Moreover the NRCB will respect conditions imposed by municipalities on 

existing operations, although the NRCB will assume monitoring tasks. Existing 

operations will be subject to new regulatory standards for the protection of water bodies 

from contamination, and to new manure management standards.277

Three regulations, the Standards and Administration Regulation,278 the Board 

Administrative Procedures Regulation,279 and the Agricultural Operations, Part 2 

Matters Regulation280 provide the detail on such issues as minimum distance separation, 

manure storage and nutrient management, application and procedures. Owners of a new 

or expanded confined feeding operation will require either an approval or registration of 

their operation, depending on the size of the operation.281 Authorization will also be 

required for the construction or expansion of a manure storage facility designed for the 

containment of manure for six months or more.282 “Authorization,” “approval,” and 

“registration” differ in the degree to which the public is involved in the process. 

Essentially, the larger the operation, the more complex and participatory the decisionmaking process. The Board Administrative Procedures Regulation outlines the rights of 

“affected parties” to be notified about operator applications, to make submissions 

 

276Backgrounder. Confined Feeding Operations. Government of Alberta Press Release. November 13, 

2001. www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200111/11557.html

277Id.

278Standards and Administration Regulation. A.R. 267/2001.

279Board Administrative Procedures Regulation. A.R. 268/2001.

280Part 2 Matters Regulation. A.R. 257/2001.

281Id. ss. 2 & 3. Schedule 2 of the regulation sets out the specific numbers of animals in either the 

approvals or registration category. For example, 200- 499 beef feeders of less than 900 pounds require 

only registration, while operations with over 500 feeder require an approval. 282Id. s.4.
84 

regarding a proposed operation, and to seek a public review. The Part 2, Matters 

Regulation defines “affected party” broadly. Examples include: 

(a) a person or municipality within 10 miles downstream of an ILO that is 

within 100 metres of the stream, if that person or municipality is 

entitled to divert water from the stream; 

(b) the municipality where a confined feeding operation is located; 

(c) a municipality or person who resides within 

(i) 1/2 a mile of a confined feeding operation that contains 500 or fewer 

animal units (AUs); 

(ii) one mile of a confined feeding operation with 501 – 1000 AUs; 

(iii) 1.5 miles of a confined feeding operation with 1001 – 5000 AUs; 

(iv) 2 miles of a confined feeding operation with 5001 – 10,000 AUs; 

(v) 3 miles of a confined feeding operation with 10,001 – 20,000 AUs; 

(vi) 4 miles of a confined feeding operation with more than 20,000 AUs; 

(d) a neighbour to land on which manure from a confined feeding 

operation is spread. 

Alberta has a two-option approach to the regulation of nutrients. On the one hand, the 

Standards and Administration Regulation sets out manure application limits and related 

matters in great detail, with variations for soil and crop types. On the other hand, the 

regulation provides for flexibility by allowing individual nutrient management plans, 

provided the NRCB is satisfied that the plans will be at least as protective of water and 

soil as the regulations. 

 The cooperative model: Manitoba and Saskatchewan 

Manitoba 

In Manitoba, the approval process generally begins at the local level where land-use 

bodies control the siting of livestock operations through the issuance of development 

permits by municipalities or planning districts.283 Some municipalities have specific land 

use bylaws; others do not. For municipalities that do not have local land use plans, 

applications for intensive livestock operations are reviewed at the provincial level within 

the context of provincial land use policies. The province goes so far as to suggest that 

Municipalities can establish specific "livestock zones" within which all 

intensive livestock operations over a certain size must be located. These 

livestock zones would be located in suitable areas with low development 

 

283Livestock Stewardship Panel, (2000). Sustainable Livestock Development in Manitoba: 

www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/news/stewardship/stewardship.html 
85 

density, compatible land uses and appropriate soil, groundwater sensitivity 

and distance from surface water.284

No such zones have been established to date, however. 

One additional indicator of the cooperative relationship between levels of government in 

Manitoba is the establishment of Regional Technical Review Committees to assist 

municipalities with livestock operation proposals. These Committees, comprised of 

representatives from the Department of Agriculture and Food, Conservation, and 

Intergovernmental Affairs, assist local municipalities seeking information as to whether a 

proposed operation satisfies all provincial guidelines and regulations. Changes to The 

Planning Act in 2000 require Regional Technical Review Committee reports for all 

proposals for operations with 400 or more animal units. However, this does not preclude 

municipalities from requesting TRC reports for smaller operations. The locally elected 

Council of the rural municipality can use the information and recommendations provided 

by the Technical Review Committee to inform its decision-making process. The report is 

available to the proponent and, once reviewed by the council, to the public. 

At present, in rural municipalities with their own zoning bylaws in Manitoba, the 

majority of ILOs are granted local permits as a “conditional use” within a “general 

agricultural zone.” The local Council approves the activity based on information from the 

proponent, the Technical Review Committee, and local public input garnered from a 

mandatory conditional use hearing.285 There is no appeal mechanism from the local 

decision. 

Project proponents in Manitoba face a number of additional approval requirements from 

a variety of legislative and regulatory sources.286 Through its Livestock Manure and 

Mortalities Management Regulation, issued pursuant to the Environment Act, Manitoba 

prescribes requirements at the provincial level for the “use, management and storage of 

livestock manure and mortalities in agricultural operations so that livestock, manure and 

 

284 Department of Conservation, Department of Agriculture and Food, Department of Intergovernmental 

Affairs. “Livestock Stewardship 2000.” See 

www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/newslsteward/stewardship7.html#Planning%20Act

285Manitoba Agriculture and Food, (2001). “Requirements for Setting up Hog Barn Operations”. Manitoba 

Swine Update, vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan. 2001) <http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/pork 

/swine/bab02s50.html>. The Technical Review Committee provides information on whether a proposed 

operation satisfies all provincial guidelines and regulations. The TRC may also highlight concerns, but the 

final decision on whether to issue a development permit remains with the Council. Petra Loro, Livestock 

Environment Specialist, Animal Industry Branch, Manitoba Agriculture and Food. Personal 

communication, October 2001. 

286 For a survey particular to the requirements for hog farmers, see 

<http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/pork/swine/bah00s00.html>-- from the Farm Practice 

Guidelines for Livestock Producers in Manitoba. 
86 

mortalities are handled in an environmentally sound manner.”287 Among other 

requirements, a permit is required for the construction, modification, or expansion of a 

manure storage facility. That permit will not be issued unless a professional engineer’s 

certificate has been provided certifying that the completed project conforms with siting 

and construction requirements set out in the regulation. Slightly more than 500 such 

permits have been issued to date to large, medium and small-scale producers.288

In addition, under provincial water rights legislation, proponents of projects will require a 

water rights licence if the operation uses 5,500 or more gallons of water per day. Finally, 

proponents must provide an annual manure management plan to the province within 60 

days before manure application begins from large-scale operations. Thus, the province 

maintains an ongoing role in monitoring and enforcement to compliment the activities of 

the local planning body. Currently, 166 water rights licences have been issued to 

intensive agricultural operations in Manitoba, with an additional 27 licences currently 

being processed and another 101 applications outstanding.289 

Saskatchewan 

The other province utilizing a cooperative approach is Saskatchewan. Pursuant to 

Saskatchewan’s Agricultural Operations Act290 and regulations, any proponent of a new 

or expanded ILO must receive approval for both a manure management plan and a 

manure storage plan. The province specifically defines an intensive livestock operation 

as one where the space per animal unit is less than 370 square metres. In addition, the 

province also provides use-related permits pursuant to its Water Corporation Act.291 At 

the municipal level, bylaws control the development of ILOs through siting, zoning and 

building permit phases and also issue permits or approvals for heavy hauling once the 

operation begins.292

In issuing its approvals for manure storage and manure management plans, the 

Saskatchewan Department of Agriculture and Food refers plans to various other 

departments, including the Department of Municipal Government and the local rural 

municipality for their input, though the department is not required to follow the 

recommendations of other agencies in issuing its approval. 

 

287Livestock Manure and Mortalities Management Regulation, s. 2. Man. Reg. 42/98, s. 2. 

288 Al Beck, Manager, Environmental Livestock Program, Manitoba Conservation, personal 

communication, December 2002. 

289Shirley Romano. Database Manager, Water Licensing Section, Manitoba Conservation, personal 

communication, August, 2001. Applications “being processed” are those for which administrative review 

has been completed and that are awaiting official approval. “Outstanding” applications are those that are 

still at some stage of administrative review. 

290The Agricultural Operations Act, S.S. 1995, c. A-12.1. 

291Water Corporation Act, s.s. 1983-84, c. W-4.1. 

292Centre for Studies in Agriculture, Law and the Environment (1996). Expanding Intensive Hog 

Operations in Saskatchewan: Environmental and Legal Constraints, p. 24. 
87 

To date, no intensive livestock application has required an environmental impact 

statement pursuant to the province’s Environmental Assessment Act.293 According to 

provincial officials within the Department of Environment and Resource Management, 

“extensive project proposals” have been required for screening a number of sites where 

potential impacts were of concern.294

The Walkerton Legacy 

Recent events in Walkerton, Ontario, are likely to help retain a focus in livestock issues 

in Canada. Walkerton’s water supply was contaminated by E.Coli bacteria in May and 

June of 2000. Some 2300 residents became ill as a result of the contamination and seven 

died. The province of Ontario established the Walkerton Inquiry as an independent 

Commission to examine the contamination. The Commission's findings (two volumes) 

were presented to the Ontario government and made public in January and May 2002. 

The findings of the Commissioner indicated a number of problems throughout the 

administration and operation of the drinking water system at all levels of government. He 

also confirmed that the original source of the E. Coli was manure that entered the system 

through a source well located downhill from a field occupied by cattle (not an ILO). The 

operator of the farm was exonerated from blame, however, because the farm operated 

pursuant to good farming practices and was deemed duly diligent in the management of 

its manure.295 The second volume of the report addressed larger issues related to 

drinking water quality management, including the impact of intensive livestock 

operations on the resource. 

The report included a number of specific recommendations, among them: that no 

certificate of approval for spreading manure should be issued unless the approval is 

compatible with source water protection plans, and that the Ministry of Environment 

should be the lead agency in regulating potential impacts of farm activities, as opposed to 

the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, which should be limited to the task 

of technical support only. 

 

293Environmental Assessment Act, S.S. 1979-80, c. E-10.1. There has, however, been a challenge to the 

determination that an intensive livestock operation is not a “development” within the meaning of section 

2(d) of the Act. The action was dismissed at the Court of Appeal. See Irvine v. Kelvington Superswine

(1997), 26 C.E.L.R. (N.S.) 1 (Sask. C.A.). 

294Brent Bittner, Project Manager, Saskatchewan Environmental Assessment Branch, Saskatchewan 

Environment and Resource Management, personal communication, August 2001. 

295Hon. Dennis R. O’Connor, Report of the Walkerton Inquiry: The Events of May 2000 and Related 

Issues. Jan. 2000. 
88 

Regulations in Mexico 

Background 

According to official statistics, livestock production occupies more than half of Mexico’s 

land area (mostly for cattle grazing) and involves more than 3 million producers, most of 

them very small-scale. But agriculture, generally, has declined in importance in recent 

decades as the manufacturing and service sectors have become the axis around which the 

economy revolves. With the rapid growth of those sectors after the Second World War, 

all agriculture accounted for only 18% of the GDP by 1950, 11% by 1970, 7% in the 

1990s and under 6% by the start of the twenty-first century. Livestock was 5.3% of GDP 

in the 1950s, 4.5% in 1965, 4.0% in 1970, 3.3% in 1979, and only 1.1% in the 1990s. 

Livestock inventories grew very little or not at all over the last decade. Total meat 

production rose less than 2%. The lively growth of modern livestock operations has 

barely managed to offset the slowdown and stagnation of more traditional small and 

medium-sized units. 

Half of the nation’s milk production and half its pork production are estimated to come 

from intensive, mechanized operations. Over 90% of its egg production comes from 

intensive operations. Though beef cattle are still extensively grazed, beef production 

from feedlots increased 40% between 1980 and 2000. 

Specific data on the numbers of intensive livestock operations (ILOs) in Mexico is not 

available, though some estimates are provided in the Introduction of this Report. 

Definitions vary. The number of animal operations that the government of one state 

(Jalisco) considers large enough to track may serve as a useful indicator. 

Jalisco 

NUMBER OF 

OPERATIONS 

PERMITS 

PORK 413

POULTRY 47

BEEF 5

DAIRY 1

COMBINATION 16

UNSPECIFIED 9

TOTAL 491
89 

Intensive livestock operations have had an advantage in recent decades because they 

could more quickly adapt to qualitative and quantitative shifts in demand while offering 

more homogeneous products. Their integration into international networks provides for 

access to important inputs and technology (technical consulting, nutritionally balanced 

feeds, drugs, agrichemicals, machinery, equipment and infrastructure), and their 

production scale is not subject to restrictions under the agricultural laws, as extensive 

grazing systems are. (Agrarian Law in Mexico restricts the physical size of agricultural 

operations, especially if irrigation is involved.) 

Mexican environmental law is relatively young. The General Law on Ecological Balance 

and Environmental Protection (Ley General del Equilibrio Ecológico y la Protección al 

Ambiente—LGEEPA) was enacted in 1988. It has subsequently been amended in light of 

changes to the Public Administration Law (Ley de la Administración Pública), primarily 

to reflect the decentralization of public administrative functions. 

In effect, though environmental law in Mexico is rooted in national legislation, 

environmental laws—and their enforcement—are increasingly becoming a function of 

state and local government. In the last administration (1994–2000), the Ministry of the 

Environment, Natural Resources and Fisheries (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos 

Naturales y Pesca—Semarnap), now Semarnat, put much effort into rendering federal 

powers compatible with state and municipal ones. An understanding of the regulation of 

ILOs in Mexico requires an appreciation of the law at all three levels (federal, state and 

municipal) and their interaction. 

National Laws 

 Six national laws directly or potentially regulate ILOs: 

1.- General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection 

2.- National Water Law 

3.- General Health Law 

4.- Federal Water Duties Law 

5.- Federal Animal Health Law 

6.- Federal Metrology and Standardization Law 

In practice, however, only the National Water Law and two water standards have much 

impact on the operations of ILOs. 

General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA) 

The LGEEPA has regulations in the following areas: 

1) environmental impact; 

2) environmental impact assessment; 
90 

3) hazardous waste; 

4) air pollution prevention and control. 

Environmental issues of the agriculture and livestock sector are only marginally 

addressed by the LGEEPA, however. Its provisions on “solid wastes,” for example, refer 

only to municipal wastes, not agricultural wastes. And odours from agricultural sources 

are not covered in its odour provisions. The law does provide for an environmental 

impact assessment process that could be applied to ILOs (it addresses “fishing, 

aquacultural or farming activities that could cause harm to ecosystems,” art. 28) but, in 

practice, it has not been. In several cases, regulations and standards envisioned by the 

law have not been formulated or implemented. Water resources are largely the province 

of the National Water Law (see below), but for all other resources, LGEEPA is the 

primary environmental law, and its enforcement is the responsibility of the Office of the 

Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (Procuraduría Federal de Protección al 

Ambiente—PROFEPA). 

National Water Law (LAN) 

The National Water Law (Ley de Aguas Nacionales—LAN), passed in 1992, provides 

that “authority over and administration of national bodies of waters and public resources 

resides with the Federal Executive, which shall exercise its power directly or through the 

National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional del Agua—CNA).” 

Water legislation has existed in Mexico for over five decades. The current law repeals 

that of 1972 which, like its predecessors, was predominately normative and 

administrative in nature. The current LAN contains substantial changes in the regulation 

of water, the role of the authorities and the users’ responsibility for the resource. The law 

also has a coercive function, establishing sanctions and penalties for violators. 

The Commission (can) is an important public body that has inherited many of the 

responsibilities of the former Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources. The agency 

was subsumed under the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Production in the 1980s. 

With the inception of S in 1994, the CNA came under its auspices, but preserved its 

singularly influential and important status. A very high percentage of Semarnap’s 

resources (almost 90%) were assigned to the CNA. 

Among the important responsibilities of the CNA are to enforce compliance with the 

LAN, set conditions on wastewater discharges, issue permits and licences for water use 

and discharge, draft and enforce Mexican Official Standards, and enforce the Federal 

Water Duties Law (Ley Federal de Derechos en Materia de Agua—LFDMA). 

The CNA, in coordination with the state and municipal governments, can: 

1) establish and enforce requirements concerning wastewater discharges; 

2) require a permit to discharge wastewater into public waters; 

3) order activities to be suspended where: 
91 

a) no discharge permit has been issued, 

b) the corresponding Mexican Official Standard or the particular 

conditions of discharge are violated, or 

c) the duties for use of public property are not paid, 

4) order any work necessary where there is a threat of harm to the population or 

the ecosystem, at the expense of whomever is responsible; 

5) impose penalties ranging from 50 to 10,000 times the daily minimum wage for 

18 different violations, including: discharge of wastewater in violation of the law, 

use of national waters without title thereto, etc. (Articles 4–5, 7, 85-96, 119-123). 

Water laws as they affect ILOs have been considerably strengthened across Mexico in 

recent years, forcing some reductions in direct discharges of untreated manure and 

wastewaters from livestock operations into public waters. One consequence is an 

increase in the quantities of manure applied to land. 

General Health Law 

The General Health Law (Ley General de Salud) was originally enacted in 1984. 

“Prevention and control of the harmful environmental effects on health” is one of the 

twenty-eight areas that article 3 of this law includes under its purview of “general 

sanitary conditions.” 

Though article 3 includes the concepts of prevention and control of “harmful effects,” 

article 111, on the promotion of health, only uses the word control. The Ministry of 

Health interprets that language in such a way that it does not engage actively in 

prevention; it only intervenes when such effects have already manifested themselves, 

and then endeavours to control them. This interpretation significantly limits the Ministry 

of Health’s ability to exercise any proactive authority over livestock operations. 

Federal Water Duties Law (LFDMA) 

The LFDMA296 (Ley Federal de Derechos en Materia de Agua), a chapter of the Federal 

Duties Law (Ley Federal de Derechos), may require the payment of a “duty” for use of 

federal bodies of water. The rate of duties is amended every six months and published in 

the Revenue Law (Ley de Ingresos). 

The LFDMA and its related wastewater discharge standard are expressions of an effort to 

internalize environmental costs. “Fees must be paid when the concentrations of basic 

pollutants, heavy metals and cyanides, fecal coliform. [etc.] . . . are higher than the 

maximum limits allowed” (art. 278B). The fees vary according to the types and 

quantities of pollutants discharged, but the emphasis of the law to date has been on 

 

296 DOF (Diario Official de la Federacion), July 1991. 
92 

revenue collection. Fees can be reduced by the amount spent on measuring equipment. 

The collected fees go to the Ministry of the Treasury. 

Federal Animal Health Law297

In the 63 articles of the Federal Animal Health Law (Ley Federal de Sanidad Animal—

LFSA), there are no references to environmental aspects as risk factors in animal health, 

nor are there any references to the environmental effects of livestock operations. 

The scope of the LFSA is limited to diagnosis, prevention, control and eradication of 

animal diseases and pests. 

Federal Metrology and Standardization Law (LFMN)298

The Federal Metrology and Standardization Law (Ley Federal de Metrología y 

Normalización—LFMN) frames the development of mandatory Mexican Official 

Standards for products and processes that threaten safety, health, or the environment. 

The development of Mexican Official Standards involves a process of consensusbuilding among the different sectors of society—public, private, academic, and civil 

society. 

By 1994, a total of 44 water-related standards had been drafted and published, covering 

various aspects of economic activity. In 1995, a standard was under development to 

regulate wastewater discharges from hog operations, but the standard was never adopted. 

In January 1997 those 44 standards were abrogated. None of the other standards under 

development specifically address ILOs. 

Although article 40, paragraph 13, of the LFMN includes livestock production among 

the areas for which standards (or regulations) might be developed at the national level, to 

date that development has not occurred. Instead, the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock 

Production, Rural Development, Food and Fisheries (Secretaría de Agricultura, 

Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Alimentación y Pesca—SAGARPA) has directed its 

efforts toward regulation of animal health matters (zoosanitary campaigns in particular) 

and toxic wastes. The LFMN provides much latitude for the setting of standards, but to 

date, SAGARPA has not ventured into issues specifically concerning manure from 

livestock operations. Two general water standards do impact ILOs, however. 

• NOM-001-ECOL-1996 (“Standard 001”), Establishing the maximum contaminant 

limits for wastewater discharges into national bodies of water. 

 

297 DOF, June 1993. 

298 DOF, May 1997. 
93 

• NOM-002-ECOL-1996 (“Standard 002”), Establishing the maximum contaminant 

limits for wastewater discharges into urban and municipal sewer systems. 

A broad process of participation and consultation must be undertaken, and a cost-benefit 

study demonstrating the economic viability of a standard must be undertaken before it 

can be enacted. 

Standard 001 

The standard’s stated purpose is to protect the quality of national bodies of water and 

property, to reverse the contamination of water, and to provide for its subsequent use. 

Unlike previous standards, Standard 001 regulates the recipient body (cuerpo receptor), 

not the activity producing the discharge. Discharges from various economic activities and 

municipalities must not exceed the maximum contaminant limits (MCL) established as a 

function of two characteristics: the type of recipient body and the subsequent use of the 

water. 

The recipient bodies are classified as: 

a) rivers, 

b) natural and artificial reservoirs, 

c) coastal waters, 

d) soil, or 

e) natural wetlands. 

Subsequent water uses include:

f) agricultural irrigation; 

g) urban drinking water supplies; 

h) fishing, navigation, recreation and other uses, with specific reference to 

coastal waters. 
94 

Pollutants Covered by Standard 001 

Basics Heavy metals and 

cyanide 

Pathogens and parasites 

pH Arsenic Fecal coliform 

Temperature Cadmium Helminth eggs 

Oils and greases Cyanide 

Floating matter Copper 

Settleable solids Mercury 

Total suspended solids Chromium 

Biochemical oxygen demand Nickel 

Total nitrogen Lead 

Total phosphorus Zinc 

 

Three staggered deadlines have been set for compliance with the contaminant loads 

established by the standard, as measured by biological oxygen demand (BOD) or total 

suspended solids (TSS). The first is for large polluters (more than 3 tons/day of BOD or 

TSS), the second for medium-sized polluters, and the last for anyone else who is required 

to comply with the standards. For municipalities, compliance deadlines are set as a 

function of population. 

Compliance Deadlines for Non-municipal Discharges 

COMPLIANCE DEADLINES CONTAMINANT LOAD 

BOD 

(tons/day)

TSS 

(tons/day)

1 January 2000 > 3.0 > 3.0

1 January 2005 1.2–3.0 1.2–3.0

1 January 2010 All All

Source: NOM-001-ECOL-1996, p. 75. 
95 

 

In an intensive livestock activity like pork production, compliance with the MCL set by 

Standard 001 for discharges into recipient bodies would entail tertiary treatment systems, 

since the organic load of ILOs is much higher than that of the industries that were 

included in the cost-benefit analysis that was performed for the development of the 

standard. Limited evidence suggests that these costs cause ILOs to dispose of their 

manure and wastewaters by other means than discharge to water. The table below 

demonstrates the significant difference between contaminant loads for hog production 

compared with other industrial activities. 

Characterization of Discharges for Various Industries and Hog Production 

INDUSTRY TSS 

mg/l 

BOD 

mg/l 

Sugar production 

 Raw 59 149 

 Standard 335 714 

 Refined 305 1091 

Chemical 

 Acids, bases and salts 1452 13 

 Synthetic resins and rubber 896 428 

 Pharmaceuticals 463 562 

 Pesticides 376 209 

Hog production* 19,144 7238 

* Raw discharge: assumes the use of 18 litres of water per hog 

Source: Rojas et al., 1997. For hog production: Taiganides et al., 1996. 

Compliance Reporting (E.G. Annual Self-Monitoring) 

Standard 001 also requires companies to monitor their wastewater discharges to 

determine the daily and monthly averages of the regulated parameters. 
96 

BOD 

(t/day) 

TSS 

(t/day)

Sampling and Analysis 

Frequency 

Reporting Frequency 

> 3.0 > 3.0 monthly quarterly 

1.2–3.0 1.2–3.0 quarterly half-yearly 

< 1.2 < 1.2 half-yearly annually 

The Standard provides that the CNA shall conduct sampling and analysis of wastewater 

discharges periodically or randomly in order to verify compliance with the MCLs. 

Inspection visits under the National Water Law are of two types: those arising from a 

pre-established program and those arising from a complaint. More than 90 percent of 

inspection visits are of the latter type.

Officials with CNA’s Technical Division report that each state has an average of three 

inspectors. With the incorporation of the staff from the Clean Water Program into the 

CNA management structure, this number rises to five or six. 

The inspectors do not have specific training for the different industries to which they are 

exposed. Since they are few in number, they are unable to specialize, but must conduct 

inspection visits to all types of companies. Large industrial establishments are subjected 

to the closest monitoring. 

Since the human resources available to devote to this activity are scarce, compliance 

cannot be assured. Even in states such as Jalisco, Michoacán and Guanajuato, where 

livestock is an important industry, the industrial sector has been the priority for 

environmental compliance and enforcement efforts. 

Inspection visits are costly, since they entail water analysis, and the CNA does not have a 

sufficient budget to cover all users. An added factor is that within the CNA, there is a 

conflict between the revenue management function, which seeks to maximize the 

application of penalties, and the technical function, whose goal is to ensure water quality. 

Municipal authorities indicated that three animal feeding operations had been closed, two 

of them for noncompliance, but the nature of the noncompliance was not disclosed. The 

assistant manager of water administration noted that a negative decision was never issued 

for technical reasons, only for formal reasons, e.g failure to acquire a permit or 

deficiencies in the application. The third facility was closed because it was too close to 

the town; municipal laws in Mexico can require an animal feeding operation to re-locate 

when urban development nears the farm. 
97 

Assessing Standard 001 

A study299 of the viability of Standard 001 found it inadequate to regulate wastewater 

discharges from hog operations, for the following reasons: 

• It is a generic standard that does not distinguish the peculiarities of these 

activities. Discharges from hog operations require tertiary rather than secondary 

treatment in order to comply with the MCL set by the standard. 

• The standard adopts an “end-of-pipe” strategy; it deals with the manifestation of 

the problem (the discharge) rather than its source. 

• Implementation of the standard requires expertise that the authority does not 

possess and that would be costly for it to acquire. 

• Fines and fees collected under the standard do not go to improvement of water 

quality in the recipient bodies; they go to the general fiscal funds. 

• The authority does not possess the human resources and budget to monitor and 

enforce the standard. 

• Standard 001 is regressive, since small producers have to invest proportionately 

more than large and medium-sized producers to comply with it. 

Critics complain that, though some hog producers have built treatment infrastructure and 

equipment, they have done so without adequate technical support, and the equipment 

often goes unused. It is expensive to operate and government surveillance is insufficient. 

Though producers have “internalized” part of the environmental cost, they still cannot 

comply with the standards. The LFMN provides that standards may be reviewed and 

amended every five years. Standard 001 could have been reviewed in 2001, but review 

was not proposed. Various changes to the standard have been urged: 

• it should cease to be a generic standard; a specific standard for hog production is 

needed; 

• the staggered compliance provisions should be amended, to avoid waiting another 

ten years to resolve water pollution problems; and 

• the MCL for some parameters, such as fecal coliforms, should be changed. 

Though information is not yet available to access the extent to which Standard 001 is 

being implemented and enforced in relation to ILOs, it should be remembered that until 

the entry into force of Standard 001, discharges from hog production were entirely 

unregulated. 

 

299 R. Pérez: “Aspectos económico ambientales de la ganadería en México: la porcicultura en la región de 

La Piedad, Mich.“ Doctoral thesis. 
98 

Standard 002 

Standard 002, like 001, is generic and also subject to staggered enforcement. It regulates 

wastewater discharges to public sewer systems. 

 Among its requirements are: 

a) pH between 5.5 and 10; 

 b) maximum temperature of 40°C; 

c) floating matter must be absent; 

d) BOD and TSS are as in standard 001; 

Under the provisions of Standard 002, livestock operations discharging wastewater into 

public or municipal sewer systems in urban or suburban areas will find it easier to meet 

their environmental commitments than operations located in rural areas and discharging 

into public water bodies. 

Federal Agricultural Assistance Programs 

Mexican agricultural assistance programs are essentially three: 

• Direct Rural Support Program (Programa de Apoyos Directos al Campo—

PROCAMPO) 

• Alianza para el Campo, initiated in October 1995, and a 

• Marketing Support Program (Programa de Apoyos a la Comercialización) 

PROCAMPO provides an income subsidy to producers. When the North American Free 

Trade Agreement (NAFTA) took effect, PROCAMPO was allowed to offset subsidies 

paid by the US and Canada to their agricultural sectors during an adjustment period of 15 

years. Though the program’s coverage is broad, it primarily supports crop producers, not 

livestock. In fact, the bulk of the subsidy goes to five crops—corn, sorghum, wheat, 

beans and cotton—mainly in three states (Tamaulipas, Sonora, Sinaloa).300

Unlike PROCAMPO, Alianza para el Campo (which accounts for some 23% of federal 

rural support funds) is designed to promote capitalization and raise productivity. The 

characteristics and operation of Alianza differ in each state, but most of its beneficiaries 

in the livestock sector have been large ILOs. Large dairy farms in the state of Hidalgo, 

large pork producers in central and northwestern Mexico and the Yucatán Peninsula, and 

poultry producers in Jalisco, Puebla, Guanajuato, and Querétaro, have received funding 

under this program. 

The program’s eligibility criteria include compliance with the relevant environmental 

regulations and standards, but this requirement has not been enforced in practice. 

 

300 Activity Report 1996-1997 and Activity Report 1998-1999. Sagar. 
99 

The Marketing Support Program is a small program, originally created to alleviate a 

problem peculiar to sorghum growers in the state of Tamaulipas. It has been extended to 

corn purchasing in Sinaloa and wheat purchasing in Sonora, but has no direct impact on 

ILOs. 

State Environmental Authorities and Laws 

Environmental authorities at the state level have a variety of names and operate at a 

variety of levels within state governments: ministries, deputy minister’s offices, divisions 

(direcciones generales), directorates (direcciones de área), institutes and councils. 

Of the nineteen states in which significant ILOs are found, only in seven (Durango, 

Jalisco, México, Nuevo León, Querétaro, San Luis Potosí and Yucatán) is the 

environmental authority a cabinet-level body. In three states (Aguascalientes, Puebla and 

Veracruz), it is a second-level body, e.g., a deputy minister’s office. In Baja California, 

the environmental authority is a division, and in three states (Chihuahua, Michoacán and 

Sinaloa), it is a directorate, i.e., a fourth-level body. 

To this assortment of hierarchical levels may be added other entities such as the institutes 

of ecology of Coahuila, Guanajuato and Sonora and the environment council (consejo de 

ecología) of Hidalgo. There are also local offices of the Federal Attorney for 

Environmental Protection (PROFEPA) in all states. 

All states of the republic have an “environmental” law, but not all of them have amended 

their laws to reflect the 1996 revision of the LGEEPA; the process of amending and 

adapting the LGEEPA is ongoing.301 The 1996 amendments were fundamental. They 

affected matters as important as the allocation of resources and the delegation of 

environment-related powers (such as authority to review and evaluate environmental 

impact statements). Of the 31 states and the Federal District of which the Republic is 

composed, only seven have amended their environmental laws. Six of these have largescale ILOs: Aguascalientes, Coahuila, Durango, Guanajuato, Jalisco and San Luis Potosí. 

Common features of the state environmental laws include: 

• State laws invest neither states nor the municipalities with explicit powers over 

manure and wastewaters generated by livestock operations. 

• State powers are frequently transferred to the municipalities through the signing 

of coordination agreements. 

• Some states have entered into coordination agreements with municipalities to 

delegate such matters as environmental impact assessment and the licensing of 

point sources of pollution. 

 

301 In early October 2001, amendments to 16 articles of the LGEEPA were tabled in the Congress 

(Congreso de la Unión). 
100 

• Among the activities potentially requiring environmental impact assessment are 

waste treatment facilities, sanitary landfills, and wastewater or non-hazardous 

solid waste disposal. Certain environmental authorities are working toward 

extending this provision to treatment systems in the pork production sector (e.g. 

SEMADES in Jalisco). 

• State laws typically provide that activities that may cause ecological imbalance or 

environmental impact, or that may exceed certain limits, are subject to prior 

authorization (i.e., permitting) by the municipal governments. Wastewater 

discharges by ILOs generally fall under such provisions, but enforcement of these 

provisions has often been a low priority for regulators. 

• State laws generally provide that the state government and, as applicable, the 

municipal governments, shall promote the treatment and reuse of wastewater. 

• There are no national or state standards governing the gases emitted by ILOs. 

• In concordance with the National Water Law, state laws provide that “wastewater 

of... agricultural or livestock... origin shall be treated before being discharged 

into rivers, watersheds, reservoirs, marine waters or other bodies of water or 

watercourses, including groundwater.”

Guanajuato: A Case Study of a state with ILOs and an amended 

environmental law 

A brief case study of the state of Guanajuato highlights typical issues in the interaction of 

federal, state and local authorities. The state has its own Guanajuato State Law for 

Environmental Protection and Preservation (Ley para la Protección y Preservación del 

Ambiente del Estado de Guanajuato). The state-level executive branch, the municipal 

governments, the State Institute of Ecology (Instituto Estatal de Ecología), and the State 

Attorney General for Environmental Protection (Procuraduría de Protección al Ambiente 

del Estado) all have some level of authority under the statute. 

Some disagreement arises as to which agency has what authority over livestock activity, 

however. The Institute argues that the State Attorney General for Environmental 

Protection has the responsibility to inspect farms. The Attorney General’s Office, 

however, asserts that the Ministry of Health is responsible for ensuring compliance by 

livestock operations. The Ministry of Health, on the other hand, says that the law clearly 

establishes that municipal authorities are those who should intervene. Those 

disagreements aside, the Ministry of Health has, in fact, closed a swine farm in 

Guanajuato, relying on the state health law—and in response to pressure from 

neighbours. The Ecology Department of the municipality of Apaseo el Grande has done 

the same with another farm, based on its own regulations. 

Livestock operations are not mentioned in the state’s environmental law. They could be 

considered “hazardous activities” under the law’s expansive definition (those activities 

“which may cause damage to ecosystems and the population’s health,” (art. 4)), but they 

are not. Neither do livestock manure and wastewaters fit the law’s definition of “non-
101 

hazardous solid wastes” (a category primarily addressing municipal wastes). Though the 

statute grants the state broad authority for developing environmental policy, agriculture 

generally (and ILOs specifically) tend to escape review; attention is focused almost 

exclusively on industrial sources and municipal wastes. A section of the law authorizes 

“environmental technical standards” (art. 50) that could address ILOs, but they have not 

been developed. 

Guanajuato also has a Livestock Branch within state government. Its fundamental task 

consists of carrying out two programs:302

1) Rural Development Assistance Program (Programa de apoyo al desarrollo 

rural—PADER) targeting small, low-income producers, and 

2) Alianza para el Campo, or Rural Alliance, (mentioned under “Federal 

Agricultural Assistance Programs” above) is a tripartite program for 

medium and large producers, whose projects are financed with resources 

from the federal government, state government and the producers 

themselves. In Guanajuato, Alianza para el Campo operates in three areas: 

genetic (genetic standardization), food (processing of feed pellets), and 

equipment, infrastructure and manufacturing (e.g., construction of 

slaughterhouses that meet US import requirements). 

 As is true at the federal level, Alianza para el Campo’s operating rules require 

environmental compliance of beneficiaries of its program, but this requirement is 

typically not enforced in Guanajuato. In general, the livestock branches of state 

governments are not given responsibility for environmental matters. 

Guanajuato’s Law on Livestock includes no environmental parameters. Generally, there 

is a lack of state legislation concerning the impact of ILOs. Further, state government 

officials responsible for the livestock sector have limited coordination with state 

environmental authorities. There is no program that links these areas, nor is there an 

entity that coordinates their activities. 

The only activities conducted by the Livestock Branch that have an environmental 

component are the programs for composting cattle manure, carried out by the 16 

Livestock Groups for Validation of Transfer of Technology (Grupos Ganaderos de 

Validación de Transferencia de Tecnología—GGAVATTs) in Guanajuato. 

A Manual of Good Livestock Practices is being drafted, but the initial proposal concerns 

itself only with issues of productive management, not environmental issues. 

The Livestock Branch of the Guanajuato State Government maintains that there are only 

two intensive livestock units in the state, both poultry, though other sources suggest that 

the state hosts at least 37 swine operations with more than 500 hogs. (See “Swine 

Inventory” chart, Introduction of this report.). 

 

302 Both are part of the federal program based on agricultural policy and known as Alianza para el Campo. 
102 

The Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock Production, Rural Development, Food and 

Fisheries (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Alimentación y 

Pesca—SAGARPA) also has an office in Guanajuato, but there is no formal, institutional 

coordination between this state office of the national Ministry and the Livestock Branch 

of the state government. Some informal coordination does take place. Neither does the 

state-level SAGARPA office coordinate its efforts with the state environmental agencies. 

Environmental Impact Statements 

Authority to implement state-level environmental laws may be delegated to a 

municipality through a coordination agreement (convenio de concertación), on the theory 

that municipalities are the most knowledgeable level of government about local 

problems. 

The agreement signed between the Guanajuato Institute of Environment and the 

Municipality of Celaya, for example, transfers powers invested in the former body by the 

Guanajuato Environmental Protection Law, in the following areas: 

• environmental impact assessment; 

• granting of operating licences for point sources under state jurisdiction; 

• granting of authorizations to operate quarries. 

Though the Agreement is dated May 2001, the transferred powers have not yet been put 

into practice by the municipality. 

Article 27 of the Guanajuato state environmental law would subject ILOs to 

environmental impact assessment, but an unwritten practice exempts agricultural and 

livestock operations from environmental impact assessment procedures on grounds that 

they are a strategic food production sector. An environmental impact study is mandatory 

where the project entails a conversion of forests to another land use. 

State Technical Standards 

State environmental laws grant states the prerogative of enacting environmental technical 

standards that are exempt from the provisions of the national standardization law 

(LFMN). State technical standards are enforced by the state attorneys for environmental 

protection. Unlike the Mexican Official Standards, they do not set MCLs. 

The state environmental authority (whether an institute, directorate, ministry or other 

entity) drafts environmental technical standards and submits them to the State Advisory 

Council for consideration; the input of other state and municipal authorities as well as the 

general public is solicited. 

The development of environmental technical standards by the states is a relatively recent 

phenomenon. In Guanajuato, for example, four standards have been published regarding 
103 

1) agricultural harvest by-products, 2) brick kilns, 3) footwear, and 4) quarries – none 

related to ILOs. 

Municipal Environmental Regulations 

New facilities (with no size specification) are typically required to obtain the following 

municipal permits: 

1. Building permit 

2. Land use permit 

3. Land tax registry (registro catastral) 

4. Animal health certificates for the movement of animals and 

products 

Older operations (the majority) were built without permits of any kind. 

The process of “municipalization” delegates various state government responsibilities to 

the municipalities, at the same time that “federalization” is delegating more functions to 

the states. As part of this transformation, municipalities have committed to amending 

their by-laws to reflect these new powers. 

Information obtained on the by-laws of 35 municipalities shows the following: 

• Seventeen municipalities have an environmental protection by-law, and five of 

these have ILOs: León and Celaya, Guanajuato; Tepatitlán, Jalisco; Culiacán, 

Sinaloa; and Mérida, Yucatán. 

• Only the environmental regulations of Tlacomulco, Puerto Vallarta and Zapopán 

in Jalisco are up to date. Other municipalities may still follow the obsolete 

regulations in finalizing activities already in process, but not for the purpose of 

initiating new activities. 

• Some of the municipal by-laws have specific provisions related to livestock 

(Celaya, Guanajuato; Tepatitlán, Jalisco; and Culiacán, Sinaloa). Others, such as 

Mérida, have no such provisions; yet intensive livestock production is a major 

activity in that municipality. Moreover, the Yucatán Peninsula has serious 

environmental problems due to soil permeability and the shallowness of 

groundwater. 

The following, from the Environmental Protection Regulation of the Municipality of 

Culiacán, 303 in Sinaloa, is an example of the kind of laws with some bearing on ILOs 

that one finds at the municipal level. 

ARTICLE 115 

 

303 14-10-92 Official Gazette of Sinaloa. 
104 

Refuse disposal sites, manure piles, and other sources of physical, 

chemical or biological contamination shall not be sited near water supplies 

for human consumption. 

ARTICLE 116 

It is strictly prohibited to raise any kind of animal, or to site barns, stables 

or pigsties whose activities generate any type of contaminant such as 

pathogens, foul odours, or wastes representing a nuisance or a health 

hazard, in urban or suburban areas. Any such facilities already established 

shall be removed within a period of 15 days. 

ARTICLE 117 

Animal manure generated by meat, milk, or egg production facilities or 

any similar site shall not be disposed of or used without prior treatment. 

The systems authorized for such purpose are the following: 

• Manure piles. 

• Digesters. 

• Composting. 

• Fermentation facilities. 

• Any other system authorized by the Department based on a review 

of its final design. 

 . . . . The owners of stables, horse farms or any other structure designed 

for the enclosure or production of animals whose siting is duly authorized, 

shall transport the manure produced each day to treatment sites authorized 

by the Department, avoiding at all times soiling public roads; should this 

occur, the violator shall be immediately sanctioned, and its operating 

authorizations shall be revoked; where the producer wishes to use the 

material for agricultural or industrial purposes, it shall provide prior 

treatment using the aforementioned systems. 

Data on the implementation and enforcement of these provisions in Culiacán is lacking. 

The municipality of Celaya, in Guanajuato, in its Municipal Environmental Control, 

Protection and Improvement By-Law (1994) 304 provides: 

ARTICLE 9: that the Department305 shall keep an up-to-date inventory of the 

point sources of air pollution located in the municipality. 

 

304 This information may be usefully correlated with the section entitled “Guanajuato: A Case Study” 

above. 

305 Municipal Environment Department. 
105 

ARTICLE 11: that potential generators of air pollution must file an environmental 

impact statement with the Department before the operating licence is 

processed. 

ARTICLE 61: that establishments engaged in animal raising in rural areas shall 

install non-polluting systems for final disposal of their manure and 

wastewaters. 

ARTICLE 62: that establishments engaged in animal raising in urban areas shall 

relocate to semi-urban or rural areas within a period of 60 days from the 

date so ordered by the Department. 

In an interview, the Director of the Environment Department of Celaya made the 

following comments about the regulation of ILOs in his municipality: 

• The Department did not include ILOs among point sources of air pollution, nor 

does it have a list of the ILOs in the municipality. 

• For these reasons, none of these operations was required to file an environmental 

impact statement, which is a municipal responsibility. 

• The Department lacks the resources, whether financial,306 material or human,307 to 

monitor ILOs, and so Articles 61 and 62 of the by-law are not enforced. 

• The Environment Department does not have a special ILO program and only acts 

in response to complaints. 

• The fundamental problem for the Environment Department is the management of 

solid waste (garbage). 

• The city of Celaya (population 400,000) does not have a wastewater treatment 

plant. 

Visits to several municipalities with large hog farms (Irapuato, Abasolo, and Pénjamo in 

Guanajuato; and La Piedad, Numarán, and Yurécuaro in Michoacán) showed that none 

had air pollution control measures applicable to ILOs. 

 

306 Its budget represents 0.6% of the total municipal budget. This Department is subordinate to the Urban 

Development Division. 

307 The Department has 19 employees, six of whom are inspectors and only three of whom are 

professionals. 
106 

General Provisions—Summary 

Siting of Facilities 

There are no standards in Mexico on the “setback” distance of facilities from property 

boundaries, population centers, or other ILOs, except an explicit prohibition in certain 

municipal by-laws of animal raising in urban areas. 

In general, a land registry requirement is the extent of public notice. Inspection by the 

environmental and municipal authorities is haphazard. 

Design of Facilities 

Municipalities issue building permits, but there are no environmental requirements in the 

specifications for the construction of livestock facilities. The construction of manure and 

wastewater treatment facilities also requires a permit, either from a municipality or from 

another body designated by the state executive branch. 

Manure storage capacity is essentially unregulated. For hog production, 

recommendations on characteristics, size and cost of lagoons for storage and removal of 

contaminants do exist.308

Required Land Area 

Though Mexico has no regulations on the amount of land required to establish an ILO, 

the requirements of Standard 001 on wastewater discharges imply the need for enough 

land to provide for the treatment of wastewater and its application on crops. Without 

this, the cost of treatment or the payment of duties for exceeding the MCLs set out in the 

standard would make the operation economically unviable. Enforcement of Standard 

001 should force some farmers away from water discharges and toward land application 

of their manure. Presently, there are no standards applicable to land application and no 

data on the subject.

Liner Materials for Lagoons 

There are no specific standards for manure lagoon liners, but the CNA must be assured 

that the groundwater will not be contaminated. In Jalisco, the Ministry of the 

Environment for Sustainable Development requires an environmental impact study to be 

filed by operators building a wastewater treatment lagoon. Some other states have 

 

308 Manual on Management and Control of Wastewater and Hog Manure in Mexico (1996) Consejo 

Mexicano de Porcicultura and Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas de la UNAM. 
107 

similar provisions. Data on the implementation and enforcement of these requirements is 

lacking. 

Approval of Siting Plans 

Review and authorization of the civil engineering plans is the responsibility of the 

municipal authorities. Wastewater facilities are the responsibility of the CNA. 

Moratoria on New Facilities or Expansions 

No moratoria on new ILOs exist in Mexico, though there are zones in which the CNA 

prohibits the siting of new ILOs because groundwater resources are already over-taxed. 

Manure Management 

Aside from the restrictions on discharges to water bodies, manure management is 

generally unregulated. Producers use a wide variety of methods. Much of the manure is 

land-applied as fertilizer, with few restrictions. Some hog producers use the treated 

solids in ruminant feeds; practically all chicken wastes are used in cattle feeds. Some hog 

producers in central Mexico sell their manure to avocado producers for fertilizer. 

There are no standards on nutrient concentrations in solids. 

Per-hectare Limits on Manure/Fertilizer 

Among the duties of the Nacional Institute for Forestry, Agricultural and Fisheries 

Research experiment stations is a mandate to develop and provide recommendations on 

the appropriate use of fertilizers. No recommendations have been issued so far on the use 

of manure as a fertilizer. In some experiment stations, the nutrients in cow manure have 

been analyzed, and the results have been published in specialized journals. 

A study performed in Mexico by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N.309

found that producers using cow or pig manure as fertilizer do not take its economic or 

agronomic value into account. The organic fertilizers are employed in conjunction with 

chemical fertilizers, and often over-applied. Producers typically add a percentage to the 

recommendations of the experimental stations, “for good measure” but with no scientific 

basis for the practice. The result is over-nutrification of the soil, with the potential for 

water contamination and the degradation of soils. 

Water Monitoring 

The National Water Commission has a large National Monitoring Network (Red 

Nacional de Monitoreo—RNM) and a National Water Quality Information System 

 

309 LEAD-AWI-Mexico Project. 
108 

(Sistema Nacional de Información de Calidad del Agua), consisting of 744 sampling 

stations. But data on contributions to water quality problems by ILOs has not been 

developed. 

Odour and Air Emission Standards 

Fourteen Mexican Official Standards set MCLs for various gases and particles, but none 

for methane, ammonia, hydrogen sulphide or carbon dioxide, the gases generated by 

ILOs. 

Emergency Plans 

There are no specific recommendations relating to accidental releases from ILOs. 

Article 149 of the regulation to the LAN provides that a company must report the 

malfunctioning of a treatment system, and whoever is responsible for the accident shall 

repair the harm caused. 

Bonding/Financial guarantees 

Mexico has no bonding or insurance requirements for ILOs. 

Penalties for Noncompliance 

The LAN (National Water Law) stipulates penalties for violations, ranging from 150 to 

10,000 times the daily minimum wage. The LFDMA provides for payment of a duty 

where the MCLs set by Standard 001 are exceeded. 
109 

Conclusion 

Increasingly, livestock are raised in large, intensive operations. The concentration of the 

industry over recent years has been dramatic. Since 1982, the number of large feeding 

operations in the United States has increased by 47%, while the number of hog farms 

decreased by 75% and the overall inventory of animals remained about the same. Similar 

patterns are evident in Canada, and Mexico is in the early phases of parallel development. 

Not only are animals concentrated in large facilities, but the facilities themselves tend to 

be concentrated around large processing plants (and in proximity to feed sources). These 

changes are driven by a variety of technical innovations and economic forces, including 

greater “vertical integration” of the various sectors. Antibiotics and growth hormones 

facilitate the raising of animals in such concentrated facilities. 

Larger production facilities, frequently clustered around processing facilities, have 

generated a new level of environmental impacts and public concerns; the regulatory 

regimes of each of the countries has had trouble keeping pace. Manure volumes can 

exceed local capacities for re-use. Manure spills, surface and groundwater 

contamination, and odours from large feeding operations have captured headlines. At 

least one study indicates that a concentration of ILOs in a relatively small region can 

contribute to the atmospheric deposition of nitrogen in the region. Consumer groups 

have threatened boycotts for what they see as the excessive use of hormones and 

antibiotics in the industry. The health of workers in the industry is also a matter of 

increasing public interest. 

Regulatory models in Canada, Mexico and the US vary. In Canada, the regulation of 

intensive livestock operations (ILOs) is largely a provincial matter; in some cases, 

authority is further delegated to local municipalities. In British Columbia, Nova Scotia 

and Ontario, ILO regulation has traditionally been a local matter. Mexico has no 

environmental regulations specific to ILOs; its general water regulations, which do 

impact ILOs, are federal, but oversight and enforcement are primarily local matters. The 

bulk of the regulation of ILOs/CAFOs in the US has historically been at the state level, 

though new federal regulations will provide a new floor under those state rules. In short, 

regulations vary among the three countries and from state-to-state and province-toprovince within the countries. 

Whether these regulatory differences influence the siting of ILOs can not be conclusively 

determined with currently available evidence. Labour costs and proximity to processors 

and feed mills appear to be the most influential factors, but there is evidence, for 

example, that some corporations have proposed facilities in other countries because they 

found the regulatory climate too restrictive in their native countries (such as the 

Netherlands, Taiwan and the US). Significant US investment has also gone into ILOs in 

Mexico and Canada. Local rules can discourage the siting of ILOs (by requiring large 

separation distances between facilities and their neighbours, for example) or encourage 

them (by providing financial incentives). 
110 

But, despite the differences, similarities are also apparent, especially between Canada 

and US. Common requirements and trends that define the current state-of-the-art in ILO 

regulation include (see chart of comparisons below): 

1. Permits. In each of the three countries, a permit of some type is required for ILOs 

above a certain size. Especially in Mexico, the permits may only be construction permits 

or operating permits with little or no environmental content beyond siting restrictions that 

limit the proximity of ILOs to developed areas. Where the permits are environmental 

permits, they focus almost exclusively on issues of water pollution in all three countries. 

Air pollution from ILOs is dealt with almost entirely by setback requirements that 

separate the operations from their neighbours. Requirements that address soil 

contamination per se (whether from excessive nutrients, metals, pathogens, or other 

contaminants) are very rare. 

2. “Nutrient Management Plans” (NMPs) or “manure management plans” (MMPs). 

These plans seek to control manure at ILOs from its creation through its ultimate 

disposition, most often on nearby lands as fertilizer. The more comprehensive NMPs 

specify liners for manure storage facilities, require the testing of manure and the land 

where it is applied (to prevent excess nutrification), mandate record-keeping (for manure 

shipped off-site, application schedules, etc.) and insist on certification of the plan by a 

qualified professional, though requirements for such detailed NMPs are rare. Seldom are 

even the most stringent NMPs/MMPs concerned with pollutants other than nutrients; the 

nutrients of concern are typically nitrogen and phosphorous, and often only nitrogen. 

The implications of antibiotics and hormones in manure are outside the current regulatory 

purview. 

3. Setback or “minimum distance separation” (MDS) requirements. Requirements that 

ILOs be setback a minimum distance from property lines, other structures or other 

livestock operations are common in the US and Canada, though the specifics vary 

greatly. Such separation requirements have largely been in response to odour complaints, 

but setback requirements from water bodies are also common and contribute to water 

protection. 

Though Mexico does not presently prescribe setback requirements, some municipal laws 

in Mexico can require a livestock operation to re-locate if urban development encroaches 

too closely on the farm. “Right to Farm” laws in the US and Canada typically protect 

farmers from encroaching development. 

4. Public information and public notice requirements. A few jurisdictions require notice 

to adjacent property owners and public meetings before an ILO can be sited, but such 

requirements are rare. Though the trend is toward greater disclosure of information about 

the potential environmental impacts of ILOs, requirements in this area are still minimal. 

5. Professional certification. A few US states and Canadian provinces require that 

nutrient management plans be certified by appropriate professionals. Though the 

certification process lacks standards (or sufficient history for critique), it also offers the 

prospect of professional support to under-staffed environmental agencies. 
111 

6. Financial guarantees. A minority of US and Canadian jurisdictions require the posting 

of bonds (or other financial guarantees) to ensure the proper closure of manure and 

wastewater facilities should an ILO cease to operate. 

7. Technical assistance. Particularly in the US and Canada, agricultural operations in 

general have benefited from government programs of technical advice and support. 

Livestock operations have also benefited from such programs, often in the area of 

reducing environmental impacts. 

Major points of comparison can be summarized as follows: 

Country-by-Country Comparisons 

 CANADA MEXICO UNITED STATES 

Definitions of 

ILO/CAFO 

Defined in 8 of 10 

provinces; varies from 

50-400 “animal units” 

(AU). “Unit” 

definitions vary. 

Sometimes defined by 

animal density. 

None At federal level, “large 

CAFOs” = 700 dairy cows, 

2500 swine, 30,000 

chickens, etc. (formerly 

termed “1000 AU”). State 

definitions vary from 300 

to >1000 AU, with a few 

as low as 10 in sensitive 

areas (shorelands, MN) 

Permits/approvals 

required? 

Yes in 8 of 10 

provinces, conditionally 

in the other 2. 

Some 

construction 

and operating 

permits required. Varies 

by state and 

municipality. 

National water 

discharge 

standards must 

be met for any 

discharge to 

public waters. 

Federal water pollution 

control permit required for 

“all CAFOs.” Most states 

require various state 

permits, but a few only 

require the federal water 

permit. 

Public notice 

required? 

May be recommended 

or required by 

municipalities or 

provinces. Zoning 

changes require notice. 

Generally, no. 

Some notice 

for fiscal 

matters, the 

utilization of 

public utilities, 

etc. 

Yes. 
112 

Separation/Setback 

Distances 

Yes, in all provinces. 

Requirements vary 

widely. For example: 

20 metres from 

watercourse or wetland 

(Prince Edward Island) 

to 1 mile from a 

dwelling in a city, town, 

village or hamlet 

(Saskatchewan). 

None required. In federal law, 100 feet 

between land application 

and surface waters (less 

with vegetated buffer or 

approved “alternative 

practices.”) Yes, in most 

states, with wide variation 

based on size, type, 

new/existing, landscape 

features. For example: 

100 feet from stream 

(Alabama) to 1 mile from 

dwelling, school or 

incorporated municipality 

(Colorado). 

Geophysical 

Requirements? 

Yes, in 8 of 10 

provinces. Some as 

separation distance from 

water bodies or water 

tables; some to avoid 

flood plains. 

ILOs are 

banned in 

zones of water 

scarcity. Some 

floodplain 

restrictions. 

None in federal law. Yes, 

in 16 of 20 states, 

generally to avoid the 100-

year floodplain. 

Government review 

 of site required? 

Yes, under some 

circumstances, in 6 of 

10 provinces. 

Changes from 

forestry to 

agriculture 

require EIA. 

Yes, under some 

circumstances, in 13 of 20 

states. 

Government 

approval of plans? 

Yes, under some 

circumstances in 6 of 10 

provinces. 

No. Yes, under some 

circumstances, in federal 

law and in all 20 states. 

Nutrient 

Management Plan 

required? 

Yes, in 6 of 10 

provinces, encouraged 

in others. 

No. Yes, in federal law and in 

all 20 states (some more 

stringent than federal 

requirements). 

The Future 

The environmental impacts of ILOs will likely remain a significant public health and 

environmental issue in the three countries. Given the decentralized nature of the current 

regulatory environment, it is unlikely that environmental requirements and incentives 

will become uniform within a particular country or among the three countries. But 

technical innovations, driven in part by litigation in the United States, may play a role in 

helping governments understand the best technologies and practices for managing large 

concentrations of animal manure and wastewaters. 
113 

In North Carolina, for example, a settlement with Smithfield Foods in 2000 has generated 

a $15 million project to identify “superior technologies” for the management of manure 

and wastewaters from large animal operations. The project is examining ways to reduce 

the volume of manure produced, ways to reduce the environmental impact of the manure, 

and processes for more efficient manure treatment. All farms operated by Smithfield 

Foods are required to adopt technologies deemed environmentally and economically 

superior within the context of the agreement; the hope is that any advances made in that 

project will ripple through the industry. Another settlement, in Missouri, may generate as 

much as $50 million for research to develop and install wastewater treatment 

technologies at ILOs; it also requires the companies involved (Premium Standard Farms 

and Continental Grain Company) to calculate and report on their air emissions for 

possible air permitting. 

The success of these experimental efforts will depend on their efficacy when expanded to 

full-scale operations and on governments’ willingness to incorporate these advanced 

technologies into enforceable permit conditions or regulatory requirements. 

Conclusions 

1. The livestock industry, particularly the swine industry, has undergone dramatic 

concentration in the past twenty years. 

2. A North American market exists for livestock. 

3. Joint ventures are increasingly likely between US, Mexican and Canadian livestock 

producers. 

4. The concentration of manure, as a consequence of those changes in the industry, can 

be a serious environmental and human health problem; legislation has not always been 

able to keep pace. 

5. Environmental regulation of livestock operations has generally focused on water 

pollution, but air and soil pollution are also issues at large facilities, as are concerns for 

worker health and for the industry’s extensive use of hormones and antibiotics. 

6. Environmental regulation varies significantly across jurisdictions. 

7. Though variations in regulations can provide incentives to site new facilities in 

jurisdictions with the least stringent regulations, evidence that disparities in regulation 

influence those siting decisions is only anecdotal. Data for tracking foreign investment in 

livestock operations is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. The US, for example, 

requires foreign investors to complete Form FSA 153, but the form aggregates all 

agricultural investments. 

8. Enforcement of environmental regulations at livestock operations varies widely. The 

agencies responsible for enforcement are frequently under-staffed and/or not trained 
114 

specifically in livestock issues. In some cases, jurisdictional issues arise between 

environmental agencies and agricultural agencies. 

9. Mandatory “nutrient management plans” and “setbacks” are primary regulatory tools. 

10. Public information requirements for ILO siting and operation are uneven but of 

increasing importance in several jurisdictions. 

11. Professional certification of manure management operations is increasingly a 

requirement, but there is no standardization of the details of certification. 

12. Research is underway that could reduce the impacts of manure and wastewaters from 

ILOs, though the efficacy and costs of these new technologies are yet to be determined. 

Recommendations 

1. Greater uniformity in the coverage of regulations within (and among) NAFTA 

countries could minimize incentives to site ILOs in the least-regulated jurisdictions. 

Though countries, states, provinces or local governments may be justified in having 

standards different from their neighbours, caution must be exercised to avoid the “race to 

the bottom effect.” Variations from “state of the art” environmental standards should be 

based on a meaningful assessment of environmental risks in the context of other 

economic, social and geological concerns.

2. Specifically, greater uniformity in requirements for nutrient management plans, 

setbacks, public information, public participation, and professional certification could be 

beneficial. “Public participation” should mean more than an invitation to a public 

meeting after all important decisions have been made. 

3. Where governments have both agricultural and environmental agencies, they should 

carefully consider the relative responsibilities of those agencies in relation to ILOs. 

Agricultural agencies have historically functioned as promoters of agriculture and may be 

ill-equipped to handle an enforcement role. Environmental agencies may need training in 

agricultural systems, but their traditional role as regulators typically makes them bettersuited for the enforcement task. Environmental agencies may also have more expertise 

with public participation in regulatory matters. 

4. Development and implementation of new manure and wastewater treatment and 

pollution prevention technologies, which consider the lifecycle of these by-products, 

should be encouraged, especially in areas with excess nutrients. 

5. Systems that impose responsibility for environmental impacts on “integrators”, as well 

as livestock producers, where the integrators own the animals, would be more equitable 

and would likely result in improved environmental performance at the producer level. 
115 

6. Improved systems should be developed in each of the three countries to collect 

information on the environmental conditions associated with ILOs and to periodically 

survey environmental regulation in each country. 

7. Better data collection systems should be implemented for tracking foreign investment 

in ILOs in each of the three countries in order to help determine whether they are 

relocating to meet that country’s domestic demand or whether they are relocating to 

export back to the country from which they moved and thereby avoid regulatory costs. 

8. The worker health, antibiotic, hormone and specific pathogen issues are beyond the 

bounds of current environmental regulation and, therefore, of this study. Each deserves 

improved data collection and significant public attention. 
116 

References 

General 

Alexander, R.B., Smith, R.A. and Schwartz, G.E. 1997. The regional transport of point 

and nonpoint-source nitrogen to the Gulf of Mexico. In: Proceedings of the First 

Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Management Conference, December 5-6, 1995, Kenner, 

Louisiana. EPA-55-R-97-001, US Environmental Protection Agency, 

Washington, D.C. Web site http://pelican.gmpo.gov/nutrient/front.html 

America's Clean Water Foundation (undated). State Programs for Poultry Production. 

America's Clean Water Foundation, Washington, D.C. 

Animal Confinement Policy National Task Force 1998. National Survey of Animal 

Confinement Policies. cherokee.agecon.clemson.edu/confine.htm Argulo, 1998. 

US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, Georgia. 

Aserca 1998. Claridades Agropecuarias. Sagar. Aserca. Mexico. 

Asociación Mexicana de Veterinarios Especialistas en Cerdos (2001). “Manual de 

Bioseguridad en granjas porcinas,” AMVEC. CPA. Ediciones Pecuarias. Mexico. 

Beaulieu, Martin S. 2001. Intensive livestock farming: does farm size matter? Ottawa, 

Canada: Statistics Canada; Agriculture and Rural Working Paper no. 48. 

Beaulieu, Martin S. Bedard, Frederic, and Lanciault, Pierre 2001. Distribution and 

Concentration of Canadian Livestock. Ottawa, Canada: Statistics Canada; 

Agriculture and Rural Working Paper no. 47. 

Bohm, P. 1997. The Economics of Environmental Protection. Edward Elga Pub, Great 

Britain. 

Brouwer, F., J. Dwyer and D. Baldock 2002. “European Union” in Public Concerns, 

Environmental Standards, and Agricultural Trade (F. Brouwer and D. Ervin, 

eds.) CAB International . 

Budedo, G. 1997. “La política fiscal en México y los nuevos instrumentos de política 

ambiental.” Economía Ambiental: lecciones de América Latina. Instituto 

Nacional de Ecología [National Institute of Ecology], Mexico. 

Caldwell, Wayne J. 1998. Land-use planning, the environment, and siting intensive 

livestock facilities in the 21st century. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 

53(2):106-112; April. 
117 

Carpentier, C. L. and D. Ervin 2002. “USA” in Public Concerns, Environmental 

Standards, and Agricultural Trade (F. Brouwer and D. Ervin, eds.) CAB 

International . 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1996. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease 

Outbreaks- United States, 1994-95. 45 (SS-1). 

Chambers, P, M. Guy, E. Roberts, M. Charlton, R. Kent, C. Gagnon, G. Grove, and N. 

Foster 2001. Nutrients and Their Impact on the Canadian Environment. 

Environment Canada. 

Chang, C. and Entz, T. 1996. Nitrate content in the groundwater under long-term feedlot 

manure application. Proceedings of the Irrigation Research and Development 

Conference, Water Resources Institute, Saskatoon, pp. 339-356. 

Chapela y Mendoza, G. 1983. “La producción porcina en la región de La Piedad,” Rev. 

de Geograf. Agríc. 3, 135-150. 

Copeland, C. and J. Zinn 1999. Animal Waste Management and the Environment: 

Background for Current Issues. Congressional Research Service. The Library of 

Congress. 45 pp. 

DAQ (Division of Air Quality, North Carolina). Nitrogen Emissions in North Carolina. 

In: Proceedings from the Workshop on Atmospheric Nitrogen Compound 

Emissions, Transport, Transformation, Deposition and Assessment. June 7, 1999. 

Chapel Hill, N.C., pp. 208-13. 

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF) 1997. NOM-001-ECOL-1996, Mexican Official 

Standard 001-ECOL-1996, which establishes the allowed maximum limits of 

pollutants in wastewater discharged into national waters and property. DOF, 

Mexico City, pp. 68-86. 

Drucker, A. 1997. Normatividad ambiental, producción porcícola e incentivos 

económicos. FMVZ-Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, Mérida. Unpublished. 

Environmental Defense 2000. Dollars and Sense: An Economic Analysis of Alternative 

Hog Waste Management Technologies. 75 pp. 

Ervin, D.E. 1995. A new era of water quality management in agriculture: From best 

management practices to watershed-based whole farm approaches? Water 

Resources Update, 101, 18-28. 

Ervin, D. E. 2001. “Trade, Agriculture, and the Environment ” in International 

Environmental Economics, G. Schulze and H. Ursprung, ed’s. Oxford Press, pp. 

84-113. 
118 

Ervin, D.E., Runge, C.F., Graffy, E.A., Anthony, W.E., Batie, S.S., Faeth, P., Penny, T. 

and Warman, T. 1998. Agriculture and the environment: A new strategic vision. 

Environment, 40(6), pp. 8-15, 35-40. 

Fox, G. and J. Kidon 2002. “Canada” in Public Concerns, Environmental Standards, and 

Agricultural Trade (F. Brouwer and D. Ervin, eds.) CAB International. 

Gannon, V. 2001. Water as a Source of Escherichia coli O157:H7 Infection in Southern 

Alberta. Presentation to Canadian Society of Microbiology, Annual General 

Meeting, Waterloo Ontario, June 2006. 

Gollehon, N., M. Caswell, M. Ribaudo, R. Kellogg, C. Lander and D. Letson. 2001. 

Confined Animal Production and Manure Nutrients. Resource Economics 

Division, Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, Agriculture 

Information Bulletin 771. 

González-Padilla E, Magaña V. S., Contreras R. S. y Valencia S. E.1982. Superficies 

dedicadas a la ganadería en México, su aportación de energía metabolizable 

actual y potencial, carga animal y balances energéticos para rumiantes domésticos 

y equinos, por zonas y entidades. Academia Veterinaria Mexicana. Sesiones 

Públicas 1981-1982. 

Goolsby, D.A., W.A. Battaglin, G.B. Lawrence, R.S. Artz, B.T. Aulenbach, R.P. Hooper, 

D.R. Keeney, and G.J. Stensland. 1999. Flux and Source of Nutrients in the 

Mississippi-Atchafalaya River Basin: Topic 3 Report. Report submitted to the 

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Committee on 

Environment and Natural Resources, Hypoxia Workgroup, May 1999. 

Harker, D., K. Bolton, L. Townley-Smith, and B. Bristol. 1997. A Prairie-wide 

Perspective of Non-point Agricultural Effects on Water Quality: A Review of 

Documented Evidence and Expert Opinion. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation 

Administration, Prairie Resources Division, Agriculture Canada, Regina. 

Hansen, A., León, A., and Bravo, L. 1995. Fuentes de contaminación y enriquecimiento 

de metales en sedimentos de la cuenca Lerma-Chapala. Ingeniería Hidráulica en 

México X, pp. 55-69. 

Kellogg, R., C. Lander, D.C. Moffitt, and N. Gollehon 2000. Manure nutrients relative to 

the capacity of cropland and pastureland to assimilate nutrients: spatial and 

temporal trends for the United States. Washington, DC: USDA; December. 

Mallin, M.A. 2000. “Impacts of Industrial Animal Production on Rivers and Estuaries.” 

American Scientist 88: 26-37. 

Marks, R. and R. Knuffke 1998. America's Animal Factories: How States Fail to Prevent 

Pollution from Livestock Waste. Clean Water Network; Natural Resources 

Defense Council, Washington, D.C., p. 183. 
119 

Martinez, Steve W. 2000. Price and quality of pork and broiler products: What's the role 

of vertical integration? Washington, DC: Economic Research Service. Current 

Issues in Economics of Food Markets; Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 74-

02. 

Meador, M.M. 1998. Regulation of Air Emissions from Concentrated Swine Feeding 

Operations: Woo Pig Poooieeee, 30 April. Research Paper in Partial Fulfillment 

of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Laws, University of Arkansas 

School of Law, Fayetteville. 

Moss, C. B. 1992. The cost-price squeeze in agriculture: an application of cointegration. 

Review of Agricultural Economics. 14(2):205-213. 

Mueller, D.K. and Helsel, D.R. 1996. Nutrients in the Nation's Water: Too Much of a 

Good Thing? Circular 1136, US Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. 

Michel P., Wilson J.B., Martin S.W., Clarke R.C., McEwen S.A., Gyles C.L. 1999. 

Temporal and geographical distributions of reported cases of Escherichia coli 

O157:H7 infection in Ontario. Epidemiol Infect Apr;122(2):193-200 

NASDA 1998. State Survey on Waste and Manure Management Regulations. Draft 

(December), National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, 

Washington, D.C. 

Nolan, B.T., B.C. Ruddy, K.J. Hitt, and D.R. Helsel 1998. A national look at nitrate 

contamination of groundwater. Water Conditioning and Purification, 39(12), 76-

79. 

NRC (National Research Council) 1996. A New Era for Irrigation. National Academy 

Press, Washington, D.C. 

NRC (National Research Council) 2000. Clean Coastal Waters: Understanding and 

Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. National Research Council, National 

Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C. 

NRC (National Research Council, Board on Agriculture) 1993. Soil and Water Quality: 

An Agenda for Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

Pérez Espejo, R. 1987. Aspectos económicos de la porcicultura en México: 1960-1985. 

Asociación Americana de Soya. 

Pérez Espejo, R. “Aspectos económico ambientales de la ganadería en México. El caso 

de La Piedad, Mich.” Unpublished dissertation. 

Pérez Espejo, R. and Ibarra, F. R. 2000. “De política agrícola y otros asuntos del campo.” 

Revista de Estudios Agrarios, Year 6, No. 14, January-April. 
120 

Pérez Espejo R. and González Padilla E. 2001. “Environmental Standards of Intensive 

Livestock in North America.” 

Perry, Janet and D. Banker 2000. Contracting changes how farms do business . Rural 

Conditions and Trends 10(2):50-56. 

Puckett, L.J. 1994. Nonpoint and Point Sources of Nitrogen in Major Watersheds of the 

United States. Water-Resources Investigations Report No. 94-4001, US 

Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 

Rabelais, N.N., R.E. Turner, and W.J. Wiseman, Jr. 1997. Hypoxia in the northern Gulf 

of Mexico: Past, present, and future. In: Proceedings of the First Gulf of Mexico 

Hypoxia Management Conference, December 5-6, 1995, Kenner, Louisiana. 

EPA-55-R-97-001, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. Web 

site pelican.gmpo.gov/nutrient/front.html 

Reynnells, R.D. and B.R. Eastwood 1997. Animal Welfare Issues Compendium: A 

Collection of 14 Discussion Papers. US Department of Agriculture, Cooperative 

State Research, Education and Extension Service, Plant and Animal Production, 

Protection and Processing. Web site 

www.nal.usda.gov/awic/pubs/97issues.htm#doctop 

Rojas, F., G. Serhan, y S. Volantin (1997). “Análisis costo-beneficio de la norma 

obligatoria para las descargas de aguas residuales a cuerpos nacionales.” 

Ingeniería Hidráulica en México, Vol. XII, No.1, pp. 27-40. 

Rudek, J. 1997. Atmospheric nitrogen deposition and ecosystem health in North 

Carolina: A public perspective. In: Proceedings: Workshop on Atmospheric 

Nitrogen Compounds; Emissions, Transport, Transformation, Deposition, and 

Assessment, March 10-12, 1997, Raleigh, North Carolina. North Carolina State 

University, Department of Marine, Earth, and Atmospheric Sciences, Raleigh. 

Sagar. Informe de Labores 1996-1997; Informe de Labores 1998-1999. 

Scialabba, N. 1994. Los residuos del ganado y el medio ambiente. FAO, Rome, 27 p. 

Smith, R.A. and R. B. Alexander 2000. “Sources of Nutrients in the Nation's 

Watersheds” in Managing Nutrients and Pathogens from Animal Agriculture 

Proceedings from the Natural Resource, Agriculture, and Engineering Service 

Conference for Nutrient Management Consultants, Extension Educators, and 

Producer Advisors, March 28-30, 2000, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 

water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/nut_sources/nut_sources.htm 

Smith, R.A., R.B. Alexander, and K. Landfear1993. Stream water quality in the United 

States: Status and trends of selected indicators during the 1980s. In: National 

Water Summary 1990-91: Hydrologic Events and Stream Water Quality. WaterSupply Paper No. 2400, US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, pp. 111-140. 
121 

Smith, R.A., G.E. Schwarz, and R.B. Alexander 1994. Regional Estimates of the Amount 

of US Agricultural Land Located in Watersheds with Poor Water Quality. OpenFile Report No. 94-399, US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia. 

Smith, R.A., R.B. Alexander, and G.E. Schwarz 1996. Quantifying Fluvial Interstate 

Pollution Transfers. Unpublished manuscript, US Geological Survey, Reston, 

Virginia. 

Statistics Canada 2001. A geographic profile of manure production in Canada. Ottawa, 

Canada: Environment Accounts and Statistics Division. Web site 

www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/16F0025XIB/m/manure.htm Statistics Canada 

2000. Human Activity and the Environment 2000. Ottawa, Canada: Environment 

Accounts and Statistics Division. Catalogue no. 11-509-XPE. 

US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment 1995. Targeting Environmental 

Priorities in Agriculture: Reforming Program Strategies. OTA-ENV-640, US 

Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 

USDA 1994. Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators. Agricultural 

Handbook No. 705, US Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 

Washington, D.C. 

USDA 1998a. World hog production: Constrained by environmental concerns? 

Agricultural Outlook, 249, 15-19. 

USDA 1998b. Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry. US Department of Agriculture, National 

Agricultural Statistics Service, Washington, D.C. Web site 

jan.mannlib.cornell.edu/reports/erssor/livestock/ldpmbb/livestock_dairy_and_poultry_08.17.98_updated_08.19.98 

USDA, US EPA. 1999. Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations.

USDA and EPA. Web site www.epa.gov/owm/finafost.htm USDA-GIPSA 2000. 

Assessment of the cattle and hog industries: calendar year 2000. Washington, 

DC; June.

US EPA 1995. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. EPA-841-R95-005, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C. 

US EPA 1997a. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey: First Report to Congress. 

EPA 812-R-97-001. January. 

US EPA 1997b. Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. US Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. Web site 

www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/elistudy/nonpoin3.html 

US EPA 1998. National Water Quality Inventory: 1997 Report to Congress. EPA-841-R95-005, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 
122 

US EPA 2001. Environmental Assessment of Proposed Revisions to the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Regulation and the Effluent Guidelines 

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. EPA-821-B-01-001, January. 

USGS 1999. The Quality of Our Nation’s Waters: Nutrients and Pesticides. Advance 

copy subject to revision, US Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey, 

National Water Quality Assessment Program, Reston, Virginia. 

Taiganides, E. P., R. Pérez, y E. Girón 1996. Manual para el manejo y control de aguas 

residuales y excretas porcinas en México. Instituto de Investigaciones 

Económicas [Institute for Economic Research], UNAM. Mexico. 141 p. 

Van Donkersgoed, J., J. Berg, A. Potter, D. Hancock, T. Besser, D. Rice, J. LeJeune, and 

S. Klashinsky 2001. Environmental sources and transmission of Escherichia coli

O157 in feedlot cattle. Canadian Veterinary Journal Sep;42(9):714-20 

Villegas D. G., M.A. Bolaños, y P.L. Olguín 2001. La Ganadería en México. Temas 

Selectos de Geografía de México. 1.Textos monográficos: 5. Economía. Instituto 

de Geografía. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 2001. 

Wing, S. and S. Wolf 2000. “Intensive Livestock Operations, Health, and Quality of Life 

among Eastern North Carolina Residents.” Environmental Health Perspectives

108:233-238 (2000). 

Wright, P. 1998. Manure spreading costs. In: Manure Management Proceedings. 

Presented at Manure Management Conference, Managing Manure in Harmony 

with the Environment, February 10-12, 1998, Ames, Iowa. Web site 

www.ctic.purdue.edu/FRM/ManureMGMT/paper8.html 

Primary Laws Regulating AFOs/CAFOs in US states covered in this report 

Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1342, and regulations 40 CFR 122.23, Pt. 122 

App. B, Pt. 412. 

Alabama Water Pollution Control Act, COA 22-22-1 et seq, and regulations AAC 

335-6-7. 

Arkansas Water & Air Pollution Control Act, ACA 8-4-101 et seq., and Reg. No. 5- 

Liquid Animal Waste Management Systems 

California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, Cal. Water Code 13260, and 

regulations, Cal. Regs tit. 27, 22560-22565. 
123 

Colorado Water Quality Control Act, CRS 25-8-101 et seq., and regulations 

(Reg.81) 5CCR 1002; and Amendment 14 (Commercial swine feeding 

permits) CRS 25-8-501.1 

Georgia Water Quality Control Act, OCGA tit. 12, ch.5, and regulations for land 

application systems, 391-3-6-.11 and .19; regulations for swine feeding 

operations 391-3-6-.20; regulations for non-swine feeding operations 391-

3-6-.21. 

Illinois Livestock Management Facilities Act 510 ILCA 77/, and regulations 8 

IAC pPart 900; and Environmental Protection Act 415 ILCS 5/ et seq. and 

Agriculture Related Water Pollution Rules and Regulations 35 IAC Part 

501-508. 

Indiana Confined Feeding Control Law, IC 13-18-10, and regulations 327 IAC 16. 

Iowa Iowa Code water pollution construction and operations permit system, 11 

IC 455B; livestock feedlot program, 11 IC 172D, manure storage 

indemnity fund, 11 IC 455J; and regulations, 567 IAC ch. 65. 

Kansas Water Pollution Law, KSA 65-164 et seq; Confined Feeding Law, KSA 

65-171d et seq.; and regulations for confined feeding operations KAR, ch. 

28, art. 16-18a; and Kansas Livestock Feedlot Law, KSA 47-1501 et seq. 

Maryland Md. Code Ann., Envir. 9-319 et seq. and regulations COMAR 

26.08.04.09; Water Quality Improvement Act, Md. Code Ann. Agric. 8-

801 et seq. and regulations COMAR 15.20.01 et seq.; Md. Code Ann., 

Envir. 4-413 (soil and sediment). 

Minnesota Minn. Pollution Control Law, Minn. Stat. 115; and Minn. Feedlot 

Program, Mn. Rules ch. 7020. 

Mississippi Air & Water Pollution Control Law, Miss. Code Ann. Tit. 49, ch. 17; and 

regulations WPC-1 and APC-S-2. 

Nebraska Livestock Waste Management Act, NRS 54-240- to -2414, and regulations 

NAC Ch. 130. 

New York Environmental Conservation Law, NY ECL 17-0801 and regulations. 

N. Carolina Animal Waste Management Systems Act, NCGS 143-215 et seq.; 15 

NCAC 02H.0122.; Swine Farm Siting Act, NCGS 106-800 et seq. 

Ohio ORC 903.01 et seq. (permitting); Agricultural Pollution Abatement Act, 

ORC 1511.02. 
124 

Oregon Oregon Rev. Stat. 468B.200-.230 and regulations OAR 603-074, -090, -

095 & OAR 340-51; Agricultural Water Quality Act, ORS 568.900 et seq, 

and 561.190 and .191. 

Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law, 35 P.S. 691.1 et seq. and regulations 25 Pa. Code 

91.35, .36; Nutrient Management Act, 3 p.S. 1701-1718 and regulations, 

25 Pa. Code ch. 83. 

Texas Tex. Water Code Ch. 26 and regulations 30 TAC 321; and Water Quality 

Management Plan Program, 7 Tex. Ag. Code 201.026. 

Wisconsin Wis. Stat. Ch. 283, 281, 92 and regulations WAC NR 243, WAC ATCP 

50. 
125 

Websites of Interest 

Government of Alberta, News Release, “Alberta introduces legislation governing new, 

expanding Confined Feeding Operations” 

www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200111/11557.html

American Fisheries Society, Symposium, “Confined Animal Feeding Operations: 

(CAFOs): Emerging Concerns For Aquatic Resources,” August 2000 

www.ecu.edu/org/afs/st_louis/CAFOsymposium.htm

County of Antigonish, “The Municipality of the County of Antigonish, Land Use By-law, 

Eastern Antigonish County Planning Area” 

www.antigonishcounty.ns.ca/lub-east.htm

British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, “Environmental 

Guidelines for Beef Producers” 

www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/fppa/pubs/environ/beef/beeftoc.htm

Environmental Defense, “Hog Watch” 

www.hogwatch.org/

Estado de Aguascalientes 

http://www.aguascalientes.gob.mx/

Estado de Coahuila 

http://www.coahuila.gob.mx/

Estado de Guanajuato 

http://www.guanajuato.gob.mx/

Estado de Jalisco 

http://www.jalisco.gob.mx/

Estado de Mexico 

http://www.edomexico.gob.mx/

Estado de Puebla 

http://www.puebla.gob.mx/

Livestock Stewardship Panel, “Sustainable Livestock Development in Manitoba: Finding 

Common Ground” 

www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/news/stewardship/stewardship.html
126 

Manitoba Agriculture and Food, “Living with Livestock – Siting Livestock Production 

Operations” 

www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/publicconcerns/cwa01s07.html

Manitoba Agriculture and Food, “Requirements for Setting up Hog Operations” 

www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/livestock/pork/swine/bab02s50.html

National Animal Confinement Policy Task Force, “1998 National Survey of Animal 

Confinement Policies” 

cherokee.agecon.clemson.edu/confine.htm

North Carolina State University, “Animal & Poultry Waste Management Center”

www.cals.ncsu.edu/waste_mgt/smithfield.htm

North Carolina State University, “Animal Waste Management” 

www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/manure/awm.html

Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, “Siting and Management 

of Hog Farms in Nova Scotia” 

www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/rs/envman/onfarm/hogsite.htm

Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing & Nova Scotia Department of the 

Environment, “Environmental Regulations Handbook for Nova Scotia Agriculture” 

www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/rs/envman/educate/handbook.htm

Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Marketing, “The Development of an OnFarm Manure Management Program” 

www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/rs/greenplan/waste/manure/131.htm

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food, “Legislation and Farming Practice Fact Sheet” 

www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/engineer/facts/94-047.htm

Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. “Proposed Nutrient Management Act, 2001” 

www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/agops/index.html

“The Pig Site” 

www.thepigsite.com/default.asp

Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry, “Guidelines for Manure 

Management for Prince Edward Island” 

www.gov.pe.ca/af/agweb/library/documents/manureguide/index.php3
127 

Prince Edward Island Department of Agriculture and Forestry, Department of Fisheries, 

Aquaculture and Environment & Environment Canada, “Best Management Practices: 

Agricultural Waste Management” 

www.gov.pe.ca/af/agweb/library/documents/best_management_practices/bmp_book.pdf

PROFEPA: 

http://www.profepa.gob.mx/

SAGARPA: Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo rural, Pesca y Alimentación 

http://www.sagarpa.gob.mx/

SE: Secretaría de Economía 

http://www.economia.gob.mx/

SEMADES: Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y el Desarrollo Sustentable del Estado de 

Jalisco 

http://semades.jalisco.gob.mx/

Semarnat 

http://www.semarnat.gob.mx/

SHCP: Secretaría de Hacienda y Crédito Público 

http://www.shcp.gob.mx/

SSA: Secretaría de Salud 

http://www.salud.gob.mx/

Statistics Canada, “Estimated Livestock Manure Production” 

www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/16F0025XIB/m/manure.htm

Toombs, Michael, “The Rising Concern in Rural Ontario Regarding Swine Production,” 

www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/swine/facts/concern.htm

Twin Tiers Endless Alliance, “Pig Tales: A World of Information about Hogs and 

Factory Farms” 

pigtales.org/guides/index.cfm?GuideID=3

Union of Concerned Scientists, “Antibiotic Resistance (Animal Agriculture)” 

www.ucsusa.org/index.html

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation, “Manure Nutrients 

Relative to the Capacity of Cropland and Pasture Land to Assimilate Nutrients: Spatial 

and Temporal Trends for the United States” 

www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/pubs/manntr.pdf
128 

U.S. Department of Agriculture & U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Draft 

Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations” 

www.cleanwater.gov/afo/

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Guidance Manual and Example NPDES Permit 

for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Review Draft” 

www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/dman_afo.pdf

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, “Animal Feeding Operations” 

cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=7

U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service, “National Conservation Practice Standards” 

www.ftw.nrcs.usda.gov/nhcp_2.html

U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, Minority Staff, for 

Senator Tom Harkin, “Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging National 

Problem: Environmental Risks Of Livestock & Poultry Production,” December 1997. 

http://www.senate.gov/~agriculture/animalw.htm
129 

Appendix 

Map 1: Change in the Number of Large U.S. Confinement Livestock Operations 

1982-1997 

Source: Kellogg et al., 2000. 
130 

Map 2: Estimated Total Livestock Manure Production in Canada 1996 

Source: Statistics Canada, Environment Accounts and Statistics Division