U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

73–568 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 110–1180 

EXAMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL HUMAN 

HEALTH, WATER QUALITY AND OTHER 

IMPACTS OF THE CONFINED ANIMAL FEEDING 

OPERATION INDUSTRY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming1

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

1Note: During the 110th Congress, Senator Craig Thomas, of Wyoming, 

passed away on June 4, 2007. Senator John Barrasso, of Wyoming, joined 

the committee on July 10, 2007. 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

September 6, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 15 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 86 

WITNESSES 

Hirsch, Robert, Associate Director for Water, U.S. Geological Survey ............... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Grumbles, Benjamin H., Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Edmondson, Drew, Attorney General, Oklahoma Office of Attorney General ... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Sims, Olin, President, National Association of Conservation Districts ............... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 51 

Bonacquisti, Thomas P., Water Quality Program Manager, Loudoun County 

Sanitation Authority, VA, and Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies . 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Blackham, Leonard, Commissioner, Utah Department of Agriculture and 

Food and National Association of State Departments of Agriculture .............. 62 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Fitzsimmons, Catharine, Chief, Air Quality Bureau, Iowa Department of Natural Resources and National Association of Clean Air Agencies ..................... 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Chinn, Chris, Farmer, American Farm Bureau Federation ................................ 90 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91 

Nemec, Nick, Farmer, Western Organization of Resource Councils And Dakota Rural Action ................................................................................................. 96 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 98 

Dicks, Michael, Oklahoma State University ......................................................... 101 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 103 

Dove, Rick, Community Representative ................................................................ 115 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Articles: 

The Plain Dealer; Looking out for farmer Goliath ........................................ 146 

The Idaho Stateman; Pollution exemption for dairies stinks ....................... 147 

The Register-Guard; Unlovely lagoons ........................................................... 148 

The Salt Lake City Tribune; Politics stinks, Manure factories don’t rate 

protection ....................................................................................................... 149 

Kansas City Star; Neighbors say nearby dairy farm contaminates their 

wells with manure ........................................................................................ 150 

Brief of Amicus Curiae Texas Departments of Agriculture In Support of 

Defendent’s Motions Regarding Dimissal of CERCLA Claims ......................... 153 

Brochure; Caliornia Dairy Quality Assurance Program ....................................... 174 

Letters: 

The United States Conference of Mayors ....................................................... 176 

State of New York, Office of Attorney General .............................................. 179 
Page

IV 

—Continued 

National League of Cities ................................................................................ 180 

National Association of Counties .................................................................... 181 

City of Tulsa Oklahoma, Office of Mayor Kathy Taylor ............................... 182 

City of Waco, City Manager’s Office ............................................................... 183 

Hidden View Dairy ........................................................................................... 186 

State of Iowa, Department of Natural Resources .......................................... 188 

State Attorney’s General; A Communication from the Chief Legal Officers 

of the Following States: California, Connecticut, Kentucky, New Jersey, 

New Mexico, Oklahoma, Wisconsin ............................................................. 189 

STATEMENTS: 

Steve Kouplen, President of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau and Director 

on the American Farm Bureau Federation Board ..................................... 193 

NACAA, National Association of Clean Air Agencies .................................... 200 

NACCHO, National Association of County & City Health Officials ............ 203 

Arlen L. Lancaster, Chief Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. 

Department of Agriculture ........................................................................... 204 

John D. Dingell & James L. Oberstar, Ranking members of the Committees with Jurisdiction Over Superfund and the Clean Water Act ............ 213 

New York State Department of Agriculture & Markets ............................... 214 

American Public Health Association ............................................................... 225 

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies .................................................. 226 

DeMoines Water Works, Source Water Contamination from Animal 

Waste ............................................................................................................. 228 

Farmers for Clean Air & Water, Inc. .............................................................. 229 
(1) 

EXAMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL HUMAN 

HEALTH, WATER QUALITY AND OTHER IMPACTS OF THE CONFINED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION INDUSTRY 

Thursday, September 6, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Lautenberg, Bond and 

Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. We are here today to hold a hearing, which I call 

to order, on a critically important public health issue, concentrated 

animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. CAFOs are industrialized 

animal production facilities including some that can hold more 

than one million animals. I want to ensure that there is a clear picture of the significant environmental and health issues that stem 

from these facilities. 

There is currently a proposal that would exempt CAFOs from important environmental and public health safeguards, in particular 

from the public reporting or right to know provisions of the Superfund Law. The proposal also would eliminate provisions that ensure polluters pay to clean up their mess. 

People deserve to have a clear understanding of the environmental threats in their communities, so they can make informed 

decisions to protect themselves and their families. 

These environmental protection laws also ensure that where 

there has been damage caused by these facilities and there have 

been numerous instances of air and water pollution, contamination 

of wells and other water supplies, the parties responsible can be 

held accountable and pay to clean up the mess they made. Proposals to weaken accountability for CAFOs pollution undermine 

public health and the public’s right to know about pollution, and 

I believe it would be bad news for the American taxpayer. 

Proposals to roll back environmental protections on CAFOs have 

sometimes been portrayed as a non-controversial issue, but in fact 

there have been serious consequences, including deaths, connected 

with CAFOs across the Country. Just this year, five people—four 
2 

members of a family and a farmhand—died in Rockingham County, 

VA, when the father was overcome by hydrogen sulfide gas from 

their dairy farm manure pit that he was trying to repair. Others 

died from breathing the gas while trying to save him. 

The waste can increase phosphorus levels in water, causing algal 

blooms that can foul drinking water supplies, increase treatment 

costs and cause massive fish kills. CAFOs can create significant air 

pollution including foul odors, ammonia, volatile organic compounds and hydrogen sulfide. CAFOs’ air pollution can exceed the 

amounts emitted by industrial facilities. 

Let me repeat that: CAFOs’ air pollution can exceed the amounts 

emitted by industrial facilities. 

When the proponents of these proposals come to me, they all say, 

well, you know, farms are different than industry. 

Well, in a lot of ways they are, but in this way, in some cases, 

it could be worse in terms of the pollution. 

I believe this hearing will contribute to the public’s clear understanding of the threats to environmental and health associated 

with these facilities. Well managed agricultural operations can 

avoid serious environmental and public health consequences. 

Rollbacks on environmental reporting and polluter pays requirements will greatly increase the risks that these facilities can pose 

to local communities. 

That concludes my statement. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARABARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

We are here today to hold a hearing on a critically important public health 

issue—Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or ‘‘CAFOs’’. 

CAFOs are industrialized animal production facilities, including some that can 

hold more than 1 million animals. 

I want to ensure that there is a clear picture of the significant environmental and 

health issues that stem from these facilities. 

There is currently a proposal that would exempt CAFOs from important environmental and public health safeguards—in particular from the public reporting or 

‘‘right to know’’ provisions of the Superfund law. The proposal also would eliminate 

provisions that ensure polluters pay to clean up up their mess. 

People deserve to have a clear understanding of the environmental threats in 

their communities so they can make informed decisions to protect themselves and 

their families. 

These environmental protection laws also ensure that where there has been damage caused by these facilities—and there have been numerous instances of air and 

water pollution and contamination of wells and other water supplies—the parties 

responsible can be held accountable and pay to clean up their messes. 

Proposals to weaken accountability for CAFO pollution undermine public health 

and the public’s right to know about pollution, and would be bad news for the American taxpayer. 

Proposals to roll back environmental protections on CAFOs have sometimes been 

portrayed as a non-controversial issue, but in fact there have been serious consequences—including deaths— connected with CAFOs across the country. 

Just this year, five people—four members of a family and a farm hand—died in 

Rockingham County, Virginia when the father was overcome by hydrogen sulfide 

gas from their dairy farm manure pit that he was trying to repair, and others died 

from breathing the gas while trying to save him. 

The waste can increase phosphorus levels in water, causing algae blooms that can 

foul drinking water supplies, increase treatment costs, and cause massive fish kills. 

CAFOs can create significant air pollution, including foul odors, ammonia, volatile 

organic compounds and hydrogen sulfide. CAFOs’ air pollution can exceed the 

amounts emitted by industrial facilities. 
3 

I believe this hearing will contribute to the public’s clear understanding of the 

threats to environmental and health associated with these facilities. 

Well managed agricultural operations can avoid serious environmental and public 

health consequences. Rollbacks on environmental reporting and ‘‘polluter-pays’’ requirements will greatly increase the risk that these facilities can pose to local communities. 

Senator BOXER. I want to put in the record, and I ask unanimous 

consent to do it, the list of State and local officials, public health, 

farm and environmental groups who oppose weakening health protections and the polluter pays principle. I may make reference to 

this later. 

[The referenced material follows:] 

Senator BOXER. We are very pleased to have with us a couple of 

great panels. It is not that we want to rush you. It is that we want 

to get to all of you. So I am going to be tough on the 5-minute rule. 

I am going to say as soon as we have 30 seconds to go, I am going 

to say finish up, and we are going to move on. 

When Senator Inhofe, I will turn to him for his opening statement. 

We will start off with panel one, and we are going to go this way 

across. We will start Robert Hirsch, Associate Director for Water, 

U.S. Geological Survey. 

Welcome, sir, and you are on. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT HIRSCH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR 

WATER, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Mr. HIRSCH. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman and Committee members, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works to testify on U.S. Geological Survey studies of water 

quality issues related to CAFOs. 

I am Dr. Robert M. Hirsch, Associate Director for Water, the U.S. 

Geological Survey. 
4 

My written statement contains a number of specific findings from 

USGS studies and contains a reference list of USGS publications 

from which the testimony was developed. My oral remarks will 

briefly summarize that material, and I request that my full statement be entered into the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Mr. HIRSCH. The mission of the USGS is to assess the quantity 

and quality of the Earth’s natural resources and to provide scientific information to help resource managers and policymakers at 

the Federal, State and local levels to make sound decisions. Assessment of water quality conditions and research on the fate and 

transport of pollutants and water are important parts of the USGS 

mission. 

We work closely with EPA, USDA, the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and public health agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention to ensure that the results of our research and monitoring are useful and widely available. 

The quality of our Nation’s water is affected by many things including geologic factors such as naturally occurring metals and atmospheric deposition of various substances. In addition, activities 

on the landscape such as urban and suburban development, agriculture, mining and energy production all affect water quality. 

CAFOs are a relatively new and rapidly changing factor which 

the USGS is studying as part of its mission to understand the Nation’s water quality and what influences it. USGS studies over the 

past 10 years have shown that CAFO impacts can include a wide 

variety of contaminants in many different environmental settings. 

The USGS and other organizations have investigated impacts 

from CAFOs that include the following: nutrients that cause hypoxia or harmful algal blooms or could contaminate drinking water 

sources, trace elements such as arsenic and copper that can affect 

fish and aquatic plants, pathogens such as bacteria, viruses and 

parasites, antibiotics that could foster the development of antibiotic-resistant pathogens and hormones that could influence fish 

reproductive capability. 

USGS research has focused on five major areas of investigation 

that are designed to track contaminants from their sources through 

the environment and to animal and human receptors. These research topics are development of methods for identifying and quantifying veterinary medicines, naturally occurring hormones, pathogens, surfactants and other compounds which are not typically 

monitored in the environment but which are likely to be associated 

with a variety of sources including non-concentrated animal production, CAFOs and sewage treatment plants. 

The second area of study is quantifying relative contributions 

and types of environmental contaminants originating in CAFO 

waste. 

Third, documenting and understanding the direct and indirect 

pathways of these contaminants in the environment. 

Fourth, developing source fingerprinting or source tracking techniques that use genetic, chemical and microbial approaches to identify sources of environmental contaminants. These fingerprinting 

techniques may have the potential to enable water quality sci-
5 

entists to discriminate between contaminants coming from CAFOs 

and those coming from sewage treatment plants or other sources. 

And, finally, investigating potential individual and community 

level ecological health issues that have been hypothesized to arise 

from CAFO contamination. These issues include eutrophication and 

oxygen depletion, diseases from pathogens, antibiotic resistance 

and endocrine disruption. 

Through our research and monitoring, the USGS has found 

CAFOs to be a source of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus 

and ammonia, pharmaceuticals including both synthetic and naturally occurring compounds and metals like arsenic and copper in 

nearby waters and lands receiving wastes. 

Ongoing research at the USGS is focused on comparisons of the 

importance of CAFOs sources to other common sources. Accurate 

identification of sources and movement of waste contaminants requires more research on degradation and metabolic products from 

the many compounds used in animal agriculture. 

The USGS will continue to work closely with EPA, the USDA, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service and public health agencies as we 

move forward on these issues. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the results of USGS’ assessments and research on CAFOs, and I am happy to respond to 

questions from the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hirsch follows:] 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT HIRSCH, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR WATER, 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Madam Chairman and Committee members, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Committee on Environment and Public Works to testify on the findings of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies of water-quality issues related to 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, commonly referred to as CAFOs. 

As you may know, the mission of the USGS is to assess the quantity and the quality of the earth’s resources and to provide information to assist resource managers 

and policymakers at the Federal, State, and local levels in making sound decisions. 

Assessment of water-quality conditions and research on the fate and transport of 

pollutants in water are important parts of the overall USGS mission. 

USGS studies over the past 10 years have shown that CAFO impacts can include 

a wide variety of contaminants in many different environmental settings. The USGS 

and other organizations have investigated impacts from CAFOs that include the following: nutrients and their proximity to receiving waters that could cause hypoxia, 

harmful algal blooms, or contaminate drinking water sources; trace elements such 

as arsenic and copper that can contaminate surface waters and affect fish and 

aquatic plants; pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites; antibiotics that 

could foster the development of antibiotic-resistant pathogens; pesticides and hormones that can influence changes in fish reproductive capability; and solids from 

feed and feathers that could limit growth of desirable aquatic plants. 

USGS research has centered on five major areas of investigation which are designed to track contaminants from their sources, through the environment, and to 

animal and human receptors: 

1. analytical method development 

2. occurrence and relative source contributions of specific chemical and microbial 

contaminants and their mixtures 

3. pathways into and through the environment 

4. source fingerprinting, and 

5. ecological effects. These areas of research are designed to provide scientific insights into potential public and ecological health impacts as well as provide management and policy decisionmakers with CAFO related information. 
6 

ANALYTICAL METHOD DEVELOPMENT

The first step in assessing potential environmental contamination from CAFOs is 

to anticipate and identify chemicals and microbes that are likely to be associated 

with CAFO wastes and effluents. USGS scientists continually develop new methods 

for identifying and quantifying veterinary medicines, naturally occurring hormones, 

pathogens, surfactants, and other compounds which are not typically monitored in 

environmental settings but which are likely to be associated with a variety of 

sources including, non-confined animal production, CAFOs, and sewage treatment 

plants. Indeed much of our research related to CAFO impacts on the environment 

thus far has focused on analytical method development for a range of these potential 

contaminants in various environmental matrices including water, sediment, and 

animal tissue. 

OCCURRENCE AND RELATIVE SOURCE CONTRIBUTIONS

Because environmental contaminants have many sources, the USGS is quantifying relative contributions and types of environmental contaminants originating in 

CAFO wastes. The intent is to understand environmental contaminants that are 

specific to CAFO operations. 

CAFOs can be sources of nutrient introduction to the environment. Around the 

Nation, the USGS finds that relative to other sources (atmospheric sources, synthetic fertilizers, or point source nitrogen), manures were shown to be the single 

largest source of nitrogen for some rivers, such as the Susquehanna (PA), Altamaha 

(GA), Apalachicola (FL), White (AR), San Joaquin (CA), and the Fox (WI). Manures 

are the second largest source of nitrogen for the Potomac (VA, MD), Trinity (TX), 

Rio Grande (NM), Snake (ID), Platte (NE), and Willamette (OR). In the Neuse River 

Basin of North Carolina, we have found that nitrogen concentrations in groundwaters near or under areas treated with liquid swine waste tend to be higher than 

areas treated with synthetic fertilizers. After 4 years of application, nitrogen concentrations from swine waste increased by 3.5 times in shallow groundwater compared to concentrations prior to application, and median nitrate concentrations were 

about double from swine spray applications compared to commercial fertilizer. In 

Oklahoma, shallow monitoring wells were tested around CAFO hog operations from 

the central part of the State to the northwest, and these monitoring wells indicated 

considerably higher nitrate concentrations than for monitoring wells away from 

CAFO installations. For 79 wells sampled in 2001, median nitrate concentrations in 

wells affected by animal operations were near 30 mg/L versus about 15 mg/L for 

wells mostly affected by fertilizer applications. These studies indicate a substantial 

influence from CAFO operations on nitrogen concentration in the underlying aquifer, and although the wells tested were not used for drinking water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency drinking water nitrate standard of 10 mg/L was exceeded. 

A study conducted in the Stillwater Basin in Ohio examined runoff from agricultural fields for a variety of contaminants. The study showed that veterinary antibiotics, particularly lincomycin (detected in 23 percent of samples), were present 

more frequently in streams draining watersheds with the highest animal density. 

Antibiotics introduced to the environment from the many CAFO type operations are 

of interest because of their potential for causing antibiotic-resistant bacteria to proliferate. In a reconnaissance water sampling of fish hatcheries in 7 States from 2001 

to 2003, the USGS found aquaculture-approved antibiotics at low concentrations in 

about 15—30 percent of samples from hatchery water. 

The USGS conducted a study near a National Wildlife Refuge in Nebraska to determine the impacts of swine operations on fecal bacteria occurrence. For the area 

near hog operations in Nebraska, we found that the CAFO was a potential source 

of zoonotic bacterial pathogens like salmonella. Wetlands created from swine wastewater effluent had 5–50 fold greater concentrations of phosphorus, ammonia, and 

total nitrogen, and 2–3 fold greater salinity compared to control sites. Cyanobacteria 

were abundant in the created wetlands and microcystin toxins were also detected 

in three of six wetlands sampled water samples. 

CAFO operations may also be sources of metals like copper and arsenic. Often 

these metals are used as feed amendments to enhance animal growth. Organic arsenic feed additives are used in poultry production for increasing weight gain, improving feed efficiency and pigmentation, and controlling bacterial and parasitic disease. The USGS has done reconnaissance for arsenic on the Delmarva Peninsula in 

areas dominated by poultry production. From our examination of storm water, soil 

water and shallow groundwater, it is evident that some arsenic from poultry operations is released to the environment because concentrations in fresh poultry litter 
7 

were about 10 times the concentrations found in soil of the area. Concentrations in 

most samples in the Delmarva were generally below the drinking water standard 

of 10L (parts per billion). 

USGS water-quality research continues to show that contaminants in water resources seldom occur alone and more commonly occur in mixtures with other contaminants, including combinations of naturally occurring or man-made inorganic, 

organic, or microbial contaminant groups. These mixtures sometimes originate from 

similar sources but often come from varied sources contributing contaminants to our 

watersheds and aquifers 

PATHWAYS INTO AND THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENT

CAFO wastes can enter the environment directly though leaching under lagoons, 

ditching, or other direct hydraulic connections or they can enter indirectly when 

solid and liquid wastes are removed from CAFOs and applied to land elsewhere as 

nutrient and soil amendments. Once in the environment, various properties of 

chemical and microbial contaminants as well as interactions with ambient conditions will determine their movement and behavior. For example, some contaminants 

have a natural affinity to attach to soils or organic material and therefore tend to 

be sequestered close to the sources of contamination while others readily dissolve 

in water and may move long distances from the introduction location. The type of 

soil, amount of organic material, and indigenous bacterial populations it contains 

may facilitate or retard the movement of various contaminants. 

In one study around hog operations in Iowa where tetracycline was used, we did 

not find the antibiotic in the groundwater or even the lagoon berm, probably because tetracycline is known to sorb to solids and the area soil is rich in organic matter. In contrast near a hog operation in North Carolina where both tetracycline and 

sulfamethazine are used, tetracycline was not found in monitoring wells near the 

lagoons, but the sulfamethazine was found. Sulfamethazine is known to be much 

more mobile in water than tetracycline. 

Poultry litter is applied to croplands in the North Carolina coastal plain as a nutrient source, as it is in many areas across the Nation, and the application increased 

shallow ground-water concentrations of nitrogen more than synthetic fertilizer applications in the vicinity. This is an important finding because synthetic sources of nitrogen are typically applied in readily available forms to plants as opposed to manures, which require additional natural processing after application and likely remain in the soils for longer periods of time. Therefore the time between animal fertilizer application and when their nutrients become available to plants dictates the 

volume needed as well as timing of application, and understanding these factors will 

be crucial to finding effective management solutions. In contrast to the North Carolina study, however, USGS research in southwestern Missouri, where poultry operations are also concentrated, did not find that nitrogen concentrations increased in 

shallow groundwater after several years of poultry litter application was used as a 

soil amendment. These differences likely represent soil and geohydrologic property 

differences between the two areas studied and the time period over which the studies were conducted. The results suggest that it is difficult to make broad generalized 

statements about CAFO impacts to the environment from these studies of limited 

geographic and temporal scope. 

Movement of contaminants in CAFO waste also depends on farm operations and 

local environmental conditions, and may reflect the hydrologic or precipitation conditions at time of sampling. In addition, hormones and other chemicals are excreted 

in a changed or transformed form after being metabolized by animals and therefore 

have different toxicological, chemical, and physiological characteristics than before 

they are metabolized. Waters draining land where animals have been raised on pasture and not subject to CAFO finishing will likely have unique chemical signatures. 

These differences in water chemistries must be understood in context with the individual species of animals raised in CAFOs as compared with their pastured counterparts in order to understand contaminant issues unique to CAFO management procedures. All these factors along with the many sources of waste products from 

human and animal activity contribute to wide variation in environmental conditions 

at or near CAFO operations. 

SOURCE FINGERPRINTING

In addition to development of laboratory analytical methods for specific contaminants, the USGS is focusing on development of ‘‘source-fingerprinting’’ or ‘‘sourcetracking’’ techniques to identify various waste, and other, sources of environmental 

contaminants. These efforts include genetic as well as chemical and microbial ap-
8 

proaches but all share the common objective of identifying one or a few chemicals/ 

microbes which, when detected in environmental waters, can be unambiguously 

traced back to a unique contaminant source. 

As mentioned before, there are many varied sources of nitrogen to the environment and therefore we believe it is important to determine the different sources of 

nitrogen in surface and groundwaters. The USGS is developing tools to identify 

sources of nitrogen from CAFOs using nitrogen isotopes and elements such as calcium, magnesium, sodium and potassium. In test wells located in fields sprayed 

with swine waste, concentrations increased after spraying by 2 to 4 times for many 

elements and an isotope of nitrogen (nitrogen–15), thereby indicating that the 

source of contamination was the swine waste. 

Because CAFO areas can be an important source of bacteria and other pathogens, 

and the antibiotics from these areas can lead to antibiotic resistant bacteria, the 

USGS has been developing microbial source tracking methods to determine pathogen contamination of environmental waters associated with livestock sources. The 

approach is to distinguish the origins of gut microbes based on source-specific characteristics such as individual species that are host specific, like bacteroides found 

only in humans and therefore indicative of human waste sources, or bacteria populations resistant to antibiotics commonly used by humans versus other animals, or 

looking for genetic markers that indicate specific host-microbe interactions. While 

advances in these methods have been made in recent years, microbes are most often 

found in complex mixtures of waters from many waste sources originating from animals exposed to various food and other sources of chemicals and microbes. These, 

and other complexities, produce ambiguous results even within organism specific 

identification procedures. 

In one study on biosolids applications in agricultural fields in Colorado, molybdenum and tungsten, and to a lesser degree antimony, cadmium, cobalt, copper, 

mercury, nickel, phosphorus, and selenium, were determined the most likely inorganic indicators of chemical migration from biosolid applications on land to groundwater or surface water. Other approaches have included indicators that occur infrequently in nature but are associated with specific uses and waste sources. While 

these fingerprinting techniques are not yet fully developed, they will soon be used 

alone or in conjunction with each other to enable the unambiguous distinction between contaminants coming from CAFOs and the many other potential sources of 

specific contaminants. This capability will be crucial for management and policy decisions unique to CAFO sources of environmental contamination. 

ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

Because most USGS research thus far has focused on methods development and 

occurrence activities we are still in the beginnings of investigating potential ecological health effects of CAFOs. USGS research is focused on individual as well as community-level ecological health issues such as eutrophication/hypoxia of nearby waters, diseases from pathogens, antibiotic resistance, and endocrine disruption. 

Preliminary results have shown that fecal indicator bacteria counts in surface waters downstream of hog operations in Nebraska have exceeded Federal concentration 

standards for contact recreation, and the majority of bacterial isolates tested were 

resistant to at least one antibiotic, usually tetracycline. Initial results from the 

study in Nebraska near a National Wildlife Refuge indicate that impacts to created 

wetlands from nearby hog operations could pose a threat to waterfowl health due 

to pathogen exposure. In Oklahoma near cattle and hog operations, the findings 

were similar and although bacteria concentrations in Oklahoma were generally 

lower, they have exceeded Federal standards for contact recreation. In addition, resistance to antibiotics used in animal agriculture was common among fecal indicator 

organisms found in the Oklahoma study, especially gram positives, which includes 

many well-known genera such as Bacillus, Listeria, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, 

Enterococcus, and Clostridium. 

Information from studies in the literature and preliminary studies by USGS have 

guided us to focus future CAFO research on the spread of antibiotic resistance and 

the effects of hormonally active chemicals. 

SUMMARY

The USGS has found CAFOs to be a source of nutrient, pharmaceutical, and 

metal contaminants in nearby waters and lands receiving wastes. Additional research is needed to determine the relative source contributions and environmental 

behavior of contaminants originating from a range of animal and land-use operations to make scientifically credible management and policy decisions specific to 
9 

CAFOs. Identification of sources and movement of waste contaminants requires 

more research on degradation and metabolic products from the many compounds 

used in animal agriculture, especially pharmaceuticals in various feed mixtures, 

therapies, and environmental settings. Some potential ecological effects have been 

hypothesized and are currently under investigation, including the role of CAFOs in 

eutrophication of receiving waters, wildlife exposure to pathogens and endocrine 

disruptors, and development of antibiotic resistance. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the results of USGS assessments and 

research on CAFOs. I am happy to respond to any questions from the Committee. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much. 

Next, we will hear from Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you, 

members of the Committee. I appreciate the honor to appear before 

the Committee to discuss this matter, which is a very important 

one, and represent EPA. It is an honor to be here. 

EPA is working to accelerate the pace of environmental protection while maintaining our Country’s economic and agricultural 

competitiveness. 

I just want to say at the outset, Madam Chairman, that we recognize there are risks. There are substantial and significant risks 

from improper management of manure, from CAFOs in various respects, and the Agency is taking many actions with many partners 

on many fronts to advance the ball. 

The first thing I would like to do is to say that over the years, 

EPA and USDA have recognized, both in this Administration and 

the previous administration, the importance of advancing efforts on 

nutrient management at CAFOs throughout the Country. CAFOs, 

as Bob Hirsch indicated, are changing. There is definitely a trend 

toward larger and more concentrated and intensive production efforts. 

We also have concerns about the carrying capacity of certain watersheds, and so our approach, our strategy has been and will continue to be to use both the regulatory and statutory tools we have 

but most importantly to truly advance cooperative conservation and 

the voluntary programs and tools that are out there. 

One of the items that I think is a national model is the California Dairy Quality Assurance Program. This is something that 

EPA is pleased to be a supporter of. That example as well as examples in the Chesapeake Bay, throughout the Country, demonstrate 

that voluntary efforts, education, producer education about nutrient management and what requirements exist under Federal environmental laws will lead us toward greater progress. 

The next thing I would like to do is highlight some very important programs we have at EPA that we are stepping up the pace 

on. One is under the Clean Water Act, and that is the CAFO Rule. 

In February 2003, Madam Chairman, the Agency issued a final 

rule on CAFOs which made substantial improvements over the rule 

from the 1970’s. 

It reduced the level of exemptions. It expanded the universe. It 

clarified that land application of manure was subject to Clean 
10 

Water Act regulatory requirements. It took several important 

steps. 

We have been focusing for years on implementation of that rule, 

and we will continue to do so. It is important. 

In the meantime, a very important development occurred, and 

that was a Federal court decision, the Waterkeepers decision in the 

Second Circuit. By and large, a large majority of that rule that this 

Administration issued was upheld. However, there were some key 

issues where we had to go back to the drawing board. 

Madam Chairman, we are working on that as fast as we can, and 

we intend. The Administrator is looking to finalize that rule by the 

end of this year. 

The next thing I would like to mention are some of the other efforts we are doing on the voluntary basis. We are working very 

closely with our State partners and the Departments of Agriculture 

throughout the Country to advance the knowledge and information 

on nutrient management, particularly under the Clean Water Act 

programs and authorities. 

We have worked to help with a website for producer information 

and technology training. Our Agency has stepped up to the plate 

and held numerous training and workshop sessions, all about implementing that improved and revised February, 2003 rule. 

The last thing I would focus on, Madam Chairman, is the importance of looking at other aspects and potential risks that may arise 

from concentrated animal feeding operations. One of those is 

through the air emissions as you mentioned. 

The Agency, in 2005, released an air compliance agreement, and 

the goal there, Madam Chairman, is to increase knowledge about 

air emissions, to be able to have a good scientific understanding of 

how to characterize those risks and to further improve efforts 

under the Clean Air Act and to ensure that the air is clean and 

safe. 

So we are very excited about that effort as well as working under 

other authorities that we have under other Federal programs, 

working in partnership with the agencies and with producers 

across the Country. 

Madam Chairman, I am happy to answer questions that you or 

your colleagues may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grumbles follows:] 

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. GRUBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

I. INTRODUCTION

Madame Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Benjamin H. Grumbles, 

Assistant Administrator for Water at the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). Thank you for the opportunity to discuss EPA’s programs and actions 

to protect water quality and public health from potential adverse effects of concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). We are taking important actions, on 

many fronts with many partners, to accelerate the pace of environmental protection, 

while maintaining our country’s economic and agricultural competitiveness. 
11 

1Alteration of the hydrologic characteristics of a water body, such as channelization or water 

diversions 

II. HUMAN HEALTH, WATER QUALITY AND OTHER EFFECTS OF THE

CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATION INDUSTRY

Nationally, there are an estimated 1.3 million farms with livestock. About 238,000 

of these farms are considered animal feeding operations (AFOs) ? agriculture enterprises where animals are kept and raised in confinement. Feed is brought to the 

animals rather than the animals grazing or otherwise seeking feed in pastures. 

AFOs annually produce more than 500 million tons of animal manure. If properly 

managed, these operations may minimize environmental impacts and provide valuable by-products; however, if improperly managed, the manure from these operations can pose substantial risks to the environment and public health. 

Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) are operations where animals are kept and 

raised in confined situations for at least 45 days/year and vegetation is not present 

in the confined area (to distinguish it from grazing operations). An operation must 

meet the definition of an AFO before it can be defined or designated as a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO). CAFOs are further defined as a large 

or medium CAFOs based primarily upon the number and type of animals confined 

at the operation. Additionally, an AFO that does not meet either of these definitions 

may be ‘‘designated’’ as a Small CAFO if it is determined to be a significant contributor of pollutants to waters of the US. 

An ongoing trend toward fewer but larger farm operations, together with greater 

emphasis on intensive production methods, increases environmental and public 

health risks by concentrating more manure nutrients and other animal waste impacts within smaller geographic areas. In addition, many large operations do not 

have sufficient land to effectively use the manure they generate as fertilizer. Animal 

waste and wastewater can enter waterbodies from spills or breaks of waste storage 

structures (due to accidents or excessive rain), and over-application of manure to 

crop land. 

Despite substantial improvements in the nation’s water quality since the inception of the Clean Water Act, many of the Nation’s assessed waters show impairments from a wide range of sources. Improper management of manure from CAFOs 

is among the many contributors to remaining water quality problems. EPA’s 2002 

National Assessment Data base summarizes State water quality reports (Section 

305(b) reports) and categorizes the quality of the state’s assessed waters as good, 

threatened, or impaired. For the 2002 reporting cycle, States assessed 19 percent 

of river and stream miles and 37 percent of lake, pond, and reservoir acres nationwide. Of the waters assessed by States, those States identified 45 percent of the assessed miles of rivers and streams as impaired; agriculture, hydromodification1, and 

habitat alterations are the leading identified sources, in that order. States identified 

47 percent of assessed acres of lakes, ponds, and reservoirs as impaired and identified agriculture, atmospheric deposition, land application/waste sites, and 

hydromodification as the leading sources. 

Improperly managed manure has caused acute and chronic water quality problems and is a significant component of waterbody impairments. Manure and wastewater from CAFOs can contribute pollutants such as excessive amounts of nitrogen 

and phosphorus, organic matter, sediments, pathogens, heavy metals, hormones, 

and antibiotics to the environment. Excess nutrients (i.e., nitrogen and phosphorus) 

in water can result in or contribute to low levels of dissolved oxygen (anoxia), eutrophication, and toxic algal blooms. 

These conditions may be harmful to human health and have been associated with 

algal blooms. Decomposing organic matter (i.e., animal waste) can reduce oxygen 

levels and cause fish kills. Pathogens discharged into waterways have also been 

linked to threats to human health. Pathogens in manure can also create a food safety concern if manure is applied directly to crops at inappropriate times. In addition, 

pathogens are responsible for some shellfish bed closures. Nitrogen in the form of 

nitrate can contaminate drinking water supplies drawn from groundwater. 

III. EFFORTS TO REDUCE THE IMPACTS OF AFOS AND CAFOS

Congress passed the Clean Water Act to ‘‘restore and maintain the chemical, 

physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.’’ (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). Among 

its core provisions, the Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source 

to waters of the United States except as authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and it also requires EPA to establish 
12 

national technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and standards (ELGs) for 

different categories of sources. Section 502 of the Clean Water Act specifically defines the term ‘‘point source’’ (for the purposes of the NPDES program) to include 

CAFOs, but in addition exempts ‘‘agricultural stormwater discharges’’ from the definition of ‘‘point source.’’ 

EPA’s regulatory program regarding animal agriculture focuses on the largest operations (or ‘‘CAFOs’’) which present the greatest potential risk to water quality. 

EPA revised its NPDES regulations to control discharges from CAFOs in 2003. 

As a result of that rulemaking, EPA estimated at that time that close to 60 percent 

of all manure generated by AFOs would be regulated. In addition to these regulations, EPA has a strong voluntary program to reduce environmental impacts from 

animal agriculture, ranging from outreach programs to compliance assistance programs. An example of this is the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations jointly developed by EPA and the United States Department of Agriculture 

(USEPA/USDA, March 1999) which specifies that the vast majority of operations 

that confine animals are and will continue to be managed through locally focused 

voluntary programs. EPA and USDA offer a comprehensive suite of voluntary programs (e.g. technical assistance, training, funding, and outreach) in addition to the 

regulatory programs to ensure that livestock operations, both regulated and nonregulated, properly manage their manure in order to protect the environment and 

public health. 

The Strategy defines a national objective for all AFOs to develop comprehensive 

nutrient management plans to minimize impacts on water quality and public health 

from AFOs. The vast majority (estimated to be about 95 percent) of these plans will 

be developed under voluntary programs. 

EPA’s working relationship with USDA has strengthened our ability to protect the 

environment from animal agricultural runoff. Our two Agencies hold bi-monthly 

meetings to discuss all aspects of this issue. This, as well as our day-to-day collaborations with USDA, has promoted increased understanding of the industry, broadened our outreach efforts and increased our ability to provide onthe-ground technical assistance to the farmer. 

The CAFO Rule 

In February 2003, EPA made comprehensive improvements to NPDES regulations 

for CAFOs. These revisions updated regulations originally issued in the 1970’s, and 

they expanded the number of CAFOs covered by NPDES requirements to an estimated 15,500 facilities and added requirements to manage the land application of 

manure from CAFOs. The Agency estimates that the revisions would reduce annual 

releases of phosphorus by 56 million lbs.; nitrogen by 110 million lbs; and sediment 

by over two billion lbs. 

The rule also required all CAFOs with a potential to discharge to apply for 

NPDES permits and required them to comply with the technology and water quality-based limitations in the permit as defined by the permitting authority. It also 

required each permitted CAFO to develop and implement a site-specific nutrient 

management plan (NMP). 

Stakeholders representing both industry and environmental groups filed lawsuits 

challenging various provisions in the regulations. The case was brought before the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 28, 2005, the Second Circuit issued its decision in Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v EPA. While it upheld the 

majority of the regulatory provisions, the Court vacated the requirement that all 

CAFOs with a potential to discharge apply for NPDES permits, and held that only 

those CAFOs that actually discharge must obtain NPDES permits. The Court also 

held that the terms of the nutrient management plans (NMPs) are effluent limitations that must be made part of the permit and enforceable as required by sections 

301 and 402 of the CWA and, as such, must be subject to public comment and must 

be reviewed and approved by the permitting authority. The court upheld EPA’s definition of ‘‘point source’’ as including discharges from a CAFO’s land application 

areas and its application of the ‘‘agricultural stormwater discharges’’ exemption to 

only those precipitation-related discharges that occur where the CAFO’s land application practices ensure the appropriate agricultural use of the nutrients in the landapplied manure, litter and wastewater. 

In June 2006, EPA proposed targeted revisions specifically to respond to the 

Court’s ruling in the Waterkeeper case. EPA’s proposed rule would require only 

those CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge to apply for a permit. It would 

require CAFOs to submit their nutrient management plans to the permitting authority with their permit applications Permitting authorities would then be required 

to provide public notice and review of the plans, and include terms of the NMP as 
13 

enforceable elements of the permit. It also clarifies that CAFOs land applying manure, litter or processed wastewater would not need NPDES permits if their only 

discharge is exempt agricultural stormwater. 

EPA received 580 unique public comments on the proposed rule, which were considered in preparing a draft final rule. The draft final rule is currently undergoing 

a 90-day interagency review under Executive Order 12866, which began on August 

13, 2007. We anticipate that the Administrator would sign the final rule by the end 

of the calendar year. 

EPA believes our NPDES CAFO regulations are critical to restoring and protecting watersheds across the Nation and we are putting a priority on implementation. Since the 2003 regulations, EPA has instituted a quarterly reporting process 

for tracking the number of CAFOs and NPDES permits. This reporting shows that 

the number of CAFOs has grown to approximately 19,000 facilities, and that roughly 8,300—or 43 percent—of those CAFOs are covered by NPDES permits. The EPA 

is committed to finalizing the pending rulemaking process and to moving ahead in 

its work with States and agricultural partners to ensure continued increases in permits and NMPs for CAFOs. 

In addition, outreach and training is a major component of our CAFO program. 

After the 2003 rule was finalized, EPA published a series of guidance documents— 

one particularly targeting the CAFO industry by providing plain language explanations of how to comply with the rule. We have also held training courses in all 

of our 10 Regions to ensure EPA and State CAFO permit authorities clearly understand how to implement this rule. Furthermore, we are principal participants in an 

annual meeting held for all State regulatory authorities on matters pertaining to 

CAFOs. The Association of State and InterState Water Pollution Control Agencies, 

or ASIWPCA, arranges this meeting and also holds monthly conference calls where 

EPA regularly participates, to keep State regulatory authorities up-to-date on CAFO 

regulatory issues. 

CAFO Rule Extension 

In July 2007, EPA finalized a rule extending certain compliance dates necessary 

to allow the Agency time to respond adequately to public comments on issues raised 

by the February 2005 Waterkeeper decision before those compliance dates take effect. It extended the date by which facilities newly defined as CAFOs under the 

2003 rule must seek NPDES permit coverage to February 27, 2009. In addition, all 

permitted CAFOs now have until February 27, 2009, to develop and implement nutrient management plans. 

The extensions provide time for States and the agricultural community to adjust 

to the new requirements once they are finalized. I also issued a memorandum urging regional offices and States to continue to implement their existing regulatory 

programs while the Agency’s response to the Court decision is being finalized. Until 

NMPs and other aspects of the regulation can be implemented in accordance with 

the court ruling, State and existing Federal rules unaffected by the court ruling will 

continue to protect water quality. 

IV. PARTNERSHIP AND COLLABORATION

EPA has forged strong working relationships with other organizations across the 

country to further promote environmental protection from CAFOs. One such organization is the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA). 

State departments of agriculture are a source of expertise that EPA can use to provide both outreach and technical advice to farmers. As an example of this partnership, EPA awarded a grant under our Clean Water Act 304(b) program to NASDA 

to provide a website where farmers and the public at large can obtain information 

regarding State requirements and technical standards for manure management. It 

is called CNMPWatch.com. 

Other partnership and collaborations include: 

The California Dairy Quality Assurance Program: This partnership among industry, EPA, and State regulatory authorities offers a training course to farmers in addition to no-cost, onsite, independent evaluations of farmers’ operations. The State 

has seen a decrease in the rate of surface water discharges from these operations 

as a result of the program, the cooperation of industry, and enforcement actions by 

the State and EPA. 

USDA MOU: On May 9, 2007, the EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) announced additional measures for coordination and cooperation among the 

two agencies in prioritizing and implementing nutrient reduction activities in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. Under the agreement, EPA and USDA are more closely 
14 

coordinating actions, aligning resources, tools, and partners, and monitoring for results to accelerate clean water progress in the Bay watershed. Because crop and 

pasture use account for 25 percent of the Bay Watershed—which includes lands in 

Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia—the nutrient reduction activities include a significant focus on agricultural contributions 

from livestock operations. 

Great Lakes: One of the key issue areas addressed in the Great Lakes Regional 

Collaboration’s Strategy to Restore and Protect the Great Lakes is nonpoint source 

pollution. Agriculture is recognized as one of the sources of this pollution in the 

Great Lakes basin, and the Federal Great Lakes Interagency Task Force has several 

activities underway to help reduce the impacts of nonpoint source pollution on the 

Lakes. For example, USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is 

conducting rapid watershed assessments in eight watersheds in the western Lake 

Erie basin to collect natural resource data and apply critical conservation on the 

ground. USDA’s Conservation Innovation Grants program is funding several efforts 

in the Great Lakes, including projects to reduce nutrient loadings and recycling 

waste streams from dairy farms. NRCS is also working with the Corps of Engineers 

as the Corps, through its Great Lakes Tributary Model program, develops watersheds models for State and local agencies to evaluate the effectiveness of conservation practices and prioritizes areas for attention. 

Gulf of Mexico/Hypoxia: Reducing the large hypoxic zone in the Gulf of Mexico, 

which is largely created as a result of excessive nutrients coming from municipal 

facilities as well as agriculture, is a formidable challenge that requires focused attention by our Federal and State partners. EPA has taken a lead role reducing the 

affects of agricultural runoff on the hypoxic zone. In 1997, EPA led the formation 

of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, which I 

chair, and EPA continues to coordinate ongoing Task Force efforts. The goal of this 

Federal-State partnership is to identify innovative and non-regulatory approaches to 

reducing Gulf hypoxia while enhancing water quality and quality of life in the Mississippi River Basin (Basin) and the Gulf. We plan to issue a revision of the 2001 

Action Plan in March 2008. Additionally, OW has sponsored four scientific symposia 

and requested EPA’s Science Advisory Board to review the State of the science regarding: (1) the causes and extent of Gulf hypoxia, and (2) the scientific basis for 

different management options targeting hypoxia mitigation in the Mississippi RiverAtchafalaya River Basin (MARB). 

V. CAFO WATER ENFORCEMENT

With input from EPA Regions, States, Tribes, and the public, EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) selects multi-year national compliance and enforcement priorities that focus on specific significant environmental 

problems and identified widespread noncompliance patterns. CAFOs have been an 

EPA Clean Water Act enforcement and compliance priority for several years, and 

EPA has proposed to maintain it as a priority through 2010. Our State partners 

have consistently identified agricultural operations as a leading source of water 

quality impairment throughout the Nation. Industry trends have resulted in largersized operations generating large volumes of manure. This, in combination with outdoor manure storage at some CAFOs has contributed to some unauthorized discharges into waters of the United States. 

EPA’s recent compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts have focused primarily on existing CAFOs that are discharging without an NPDES permit. 

In fiscal year 5, EPA Regions conducted 174 Federal inspections and 118 joint inspections with States at CAFOs, and concluded 63 enforcement actions against 

CAFOs for Clean Water Act violations. In fiscal year 6, EPA Regions conducted 262 

Federal inspections and 130 joint inspections with States at CAFOs, and concluded 

56 enforcement actions against CAFOs for Clean Water Act violations. 

VI. CAFO AIR COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT AND MONITORING STUDY

EPA concluded and the National Academy of Sciences confirmed that it did not 

have sufficient air emissions data for animal feeding operations (AFOs), which made 

it difficult to determine the compliance status of AFOs with regard to existing air 

emission requirements. In January, EPA published a Federal Register notice providing AFOs with the opportunity to participate in a voluntary consent agreement 

and monitoring study. As part of the agreement, each participant agreed to: 1. pay 

a penalty for potential past and ongoing CERCLA, EPCRA, and CAA violations; 2. 

direct the payment of money into an industry fund used to conduct a national air 

emissions study; and 3. make its farm available, if selected, for air emissions moni-
15 

toring; 4. use the emission estimating methodologies developed from the monitoring 

study to determine its compliance status, and comply with any applicable CAA, 

CERCLA, or EPCRA requirements. The goals of this innovative enforcement agreement were to ensure compliance with Federal laws regarding air emissions, monitor 

and evaluate AFO air emissions, reduce air pollution, and promote a national consensus on methodologies for estimating air emissions.’’ 

VII. CONCLUSION

Thank you Madame Chairman and Members of the Committee for the opportunity 

to describe environmental and public health risks from CAFOs and the many actions EPA is taking with our State, local and agricultural partners. The implementation of the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations and EPA’s 

2003 and 2007 CAFO rules is critical in our mission to restore and protect watersheds across the Nation. EPA is committed to working with our Regions, States and 

agriculture partners to ensure timely development of NMPs and submission of permit applications and proper nutrient management from all livestock operations. 

I would be happy to respond to any questions you may have. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Just in perfect timing because I was about to call on the Attorney General from Oklahoma, our Ranking Member, Senator Inhofe 

has arrived, and I know he would like to make some comments. So 

you are recognized 

Senator INHOFE. Very brief, and this is one of the rare times, 

Madam Chairman, that I am glad you are Chairman and not me 

to try to juggle all these votes that are coming up in front of us. 

Senator BOXER. I know. 

Senator INHOFE. First of all, it is a real honor for me to have two 

Oklahomans coming before us today, Madam Chairman. 

Michael Dicks of the Oklahoma State University, I have to say 

how much I enjoyed. I guess you are back there some place. 

Senator BOXER. He must be. There he is. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, there he is. I enjoyed the honor that I got 

at Oklahoma State University last Friday and all the contributions 

that you have made. 

I have to say to my good friend, Drew Edmondson, that I have 

known for a long, long time. He is a Democrat. He is an outstanding public servant, and he comes from a long line. 

I knew J. Howard Edmondson very well. I knew your dad and 

Ed Edmondson, well for a long, long time, and so I appreciate very 

much your being here. 

The only thing that I would want to mention is that as we look 

forward to this, I happen to have been out in the Panhandle just 

about 4 days ago. As we look at the problem that is there, that we 

are addressing today—and I am glad we are addressing this—I just 

want to keep in mind, Madam Chairman, that we have a lot of our 

farmers in Oklahoma and throughout America that watch very 

carefully the decisions that we are making today and the discussion that is going on. 

So I will look forward to asking questions at the appropriate time 

and look forward to the hearing. 

I apologize for being late, but as you know we had our Armed 

Services hearing. They let me go first on that one. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 
16 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Oklahoma is among the states with the most concentrated animal feeding operations. Concerns have been raised about the possible environmental impacts of these 

facilities, particularly the impact they have on water supplies. Communities must 

have clean drinking water. In each of the past two Congresses I have co-authored 

legislation to infuse significant Federal funds into the two State revolving loan 

funds to help communities meet their clean water obligations. Both bills would have 

also authorized grants for disadvantaged communities. Further, my legislation to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act’s small system technical assistance program 

was recently passed by the Committee. 

We can have clean water and an active agriculture industry but we cannot have 

one at the expense of the other. I have been aggressive in assisting water systems 

comply with Federal laws however, any effort to further regulate farms must consider the critical economic and employment benefits provided by the nation’s farms. 

In a 2000 study, the State Department of Agriculture found that of the over 111,000 

agriculture jobs in Oklahoma, 71 percent were related to livestock production. According to the USDA, total farm and farm-related employment in Oklahoma in 2002 

was 343,636 jobs. Any legitimate concerns should be addressed without threatening 

the economic viability of Oklahoma’s agriculture industry. 

It is rare that we have the privilege of two Oklahoma witnesses at one hearing 

but today we are joined by Drew Edmondson, Oklahoma’s Attorney General and by 

Professor Michael Dicks of Oklahoma State University. It is always a great pleasure 

to have folks from home come before the Committee. 

Conversely, I am disappointed that the Chairwoman refused to allow the Department of Agriculture to testify. USDA oversees a variety of programs, including the 

Environmental Quality Incentives Program to which so many farmers turn for compliance assistance. The USDA would have been able to provide much needed information for today’s discussion. 

Today’s hearing will focus on several aspect of environmental protection, including 

clean air. One of our witnesses works with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR), yet is not representing Iowa. I wonder if that is because when Iowa’s 

DNR studied the issue of odor, it found that relatively few problems, with fewer 

than 4 percent of the measurements taken near public areas, homes and businesses 

exceeding acceptable odor levels. Further, another Iowa study out of the University 

of Iowa found that every-day products, pets and smoking were the cause of ammonia 

emissions and not from CAFOs. Given these air studies, and the fact that industry 

is working diligently to provide EPA with monitoring data to assist EPA in its regulatory assessment, it seems clear that this is an example of government actually 

working. 

I anticipate some discussion today from those who suggest that applying the nation’s hazardous waste response law—Superfund—to CAFOs is the solution to protecting our communities’ waters. The prospect of declaring animal manure a hazardous waste and thus regulating under CERCLA deeply concerns me. If animal 

manure is found to be a hazardous waste, then virtually every farm operation in 

the country could be exposed to liabilities and penalties under this act. Furthermore, how then do we categorize the producers of such ‘‘hazardous waste?’’ Are 

chickens and cows producers of hazardous waste and subject to CERCLA regulation 

as well? I do not believe this is what Congress intended. This issue needs a common 

sense approach where nature and sound science meet and I look forward to our discussion on it. 

CAFOs are already regulated under the Clean Water Act. In 2003, EPA published 

a new regulation updating its CAFO program. The Second Circuit Court would later 

rule in its ‘‘Waterkeepers’’ decision that EPA could not require farmers with only 

a potential to discharge to have an N.P.D.E.S. permit. The Court correctly found 

that the Clean Water Act only regulates actual discharges, not potential discharges. 

The EPA will soon finalize a new rule to implement the Court’s decision. For those 

who call for additional regulation, it is important to note that one of the current 

primary regulatory tools has not yet been fully implemented. We need to see how 

EPA’s soon-to-be published rule, which for the first time regulates land application 

of nutrients, improves water quality. 

Both Mr. Dove and Professor Dicks speak of converting manure into energy. This 

is innovation that would contribute to our nations’ energy supply while addressing 

concerns about excess animal waste. Most people know that Oklahoma is a leader 

in the oil and gas world but Oklahoma also leads in developing innovative energy 

technologies. For example, I have highlighted the Noble Foundation’s work with bioenergy crops while chairman and ranking member. Before the recess, I added a pro-
17 

vision to the Senate energy bill that would promote geothermal energy for GSA 

buildings. Oklahoma City’s Climatemaster is a national leader in this growing field. 

We need to encourage innovation in all fields, including animal waste. 

This is an important hearing that will allow us to take a comprehensive look at 

the numerous Federal, State and local initiatives and authorities that already exist 

to address any pollution concerns related to livestock production. I look forward to 

hearing from all of our witnesses. 

Senator BOXER. We are very happy you are back. 

Now it is my honor to introduce Drew Edmondson, Attorney General, Oklahoma Office of Attorney General. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DREW EDMONDSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

OKLAHOMA OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, and 

thank you, Senator Inhofe, for your invitation to appear here this 

morning and, Senator Inhofe, thank you for being safe home from 

Iraq too. I appreciate that. 

My written statement is obviously too lengthy to read, and I 

would ask that it be considered part of the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. EDMONDSON. In 2005, the State of Oklahoma filed a lawsuit 

after 3 years of unsuccessful negotiation against the major poultry 

companies in western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma over degradation of the Illinois River watershed due to the surface application of poultry waste for many, many years. 

Madam Chair, CAFOs are not normal agricultural operations 

which are exempt under CERCLA. These are not chickens in a 

yard, and you throw grain down and feed them and go in the next 

morning and see if they laid any eggs. 

These are houses that hold as many 25,000 birds at a time. They 

turn over 4 to 5 crops a year which means a single house will have 

a 100 to 125,000 birds in it in a year, and a typical poultry farm 

will have from 3 to 20 houses. So you are talking about an enormous amount of waste that is generated at an industrial level by 

these operations. 

The amount of phosphorus that is generated in the Illinois River 

watershed alone from these poultry operations would equal the untreated human waste of 10.7 million human beings, more than the 

population of Oklahoma, Arkansas and Kansas combined. 

If we would contemplate, for just a second, taking the human 

waste of 10.7 million human beings and simply surface applying it 

to the land rather than sending it to treatment facilities, that is 

exactly what we are getting annually in a precious watershed in 

eastern Oklahoma and western Arkansas from poultry operations. 

That is why we felt it necessary to litigate when negotiation proved 

unsuccessful, and that is why we hope to be able to change the 

practice of the industry in western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. 

It is about a one million acre watershed, lying roughly half in Arkansas and half in Oklahoma. There are nearly 3,000 poultry operations within that watershed, about 2,300 of them in Arkansas and 

the balance in the State of Oklahoma. So it is a shared problem, 

and we could only reach it through the Federal courts. 
18 

As has been mentioned, there are more chemical agents besides 

nitrogen and phosphorus. There is also arsenic. There is also selenium, zinc and copper and other trace elements as well as growth 

hormones and, of course, E. coli. 

So there are significant problems. They resulted in degradation 

of that watershed and other watersheds in Oklahoma, and I dare 

say, notwithstanding the progress that has been made, the Chesapeake Bay remains degraded and work needs to be done in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. Work needs to be done in Georgia. 

I would suggest, if I may most humbly, that rather than looking 

at exempting these industrial size operations from the provisions 

governing clean water, that Congress might take a look at national 

legislation to prevent the surface application of untreated animal 

waste of an industrial level. That way the playing field will be level 

and different operations would not have competitive advantages, 

one against the other. 

Senator Inhofe, thank you for mentioning my father and my 

uncle. They used to take me canoeing on the Illinois River. I took 

my children, picnicking and swimming on the Illinois River and 

Lake Tenkiller. The result of your work and our efforts in Oklahoma will determine whether or not my children can take their 

children to enjoy those same waterways. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Edmondson follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

Olin Sims, President, National Association of Conservation Districts. 

STATEMENT OF OLIN SIMS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS 

Mr. SIMS. Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the 

Committee. 

My name is Olin Sims, President of the National Association of 

Conservation Districts and a rancher from McFadden, Wyoming. 

Established under State law, conservation districts, nearly 3,000 

across the country, are local units of State Government, charged 

with carrying out programs for the protection and management of 

natural resources at the local level. We share a single mission: to 

support voluntary incentive-based programs that present a range of 

options, providing both financial and technical assistance to guide 

land owners in the adoption of conservation practices. 

Districts help producers participate in Farm Bill programs like 

the cost-share Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and districts also utilize EPA’s 319 Non-Point Source Grant Program to 

address concerns on animal feeding operations. 

NRCS’ conservation technical assistance program is the backbone 

for these Federal programs as well as State and local programs. 

Technical assistance is the individualized guidance and information 

that helps a landowner make a needed change to their operation. 

Each State addressed livestock producers’ needs differently. 

Today, I am pleased to share examples of our members’ work 

across this great Country. In my home State, the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, in cooperation with Federal and 

State partners, initiated an animal feeding operation program in 

1997. 

The goals of the efforts were to, No. 1, inform and educate livestock producers on potential impacts of AFOs on water quality and 

other resources and regulatory requirements. No. 2, establish demonstration projects and, No. 3, provide the necessary cost-share and 

technical assistance to Wyoming’s livestock industry. 

Fifteen demonstration project sites on animal feeding operations 

were implemented, and additional efforts to fund several animal 

feeding operation projects to address impairments on surface waters within the State. 

To my friend to the right from Oklahoma, the Oklahoma Association and the Conservation Commission addressed water pollution 

in two different watershed projects. Utilizing voluntary incentivebased programs to reduce phosphorus loading in the watersheds, 

the State also entered into an agreement on a conservation reserve 

enhancement program with USDA and the State technical committee prioritized certain watersheds as EQIP priority areas, focusing efforts where they were most needed. 

The South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts and their 

member districts worked to provide technical assistance to producers to implement nutrient management plans. 

Once a CNMP is complete, a producer frequently needs assistance with the plan’s requirements and guidance on maintaining 

their operation to comply with the plan. Districts teach producers 
50 

how to correctly obtain soil, water and manure samples and how 

to interpret the results, so they can correctly apply the required 

amounts. Plans are reviewed annually with the producer to determine success and identify needed changes with a long term goal of 

the producer gaining the technical skills to manage their own 

CNMP. 

Soil and water conservation districts in North Carolina, that are 

present with us here today, partner with the State Soil and Water 

Conservation Commission to lead an aggressive and proactive effort 

dealing with the State’s major livestock and poultry industries. In 

1983, the North Carolina General Assembly authorized the North 

Carolina Agricultural Cost-Share Program to improve water quality associated with agricultural and 3 nutrient sensitive areas covering 16 counties. In 1990, the program was expanded statewide 

due to its success. 

While the program addresses a range of agricultural-related 

water quality issues, 2,500 permitted facilities are often the focus 

of the activities. Approximately $58.1 million of the funds have 

been directed to CAFOs and AFOs. 

This year, North Carolina passed and the Governor just recently 

signed legislation establishing a permanent moratorium on new lagoon construction and developed a lagoon conversion program to 

provide cost-share assistance to producers to voluntarily convert 

conventional lagoon and spray field systems to innovative animal 

waste management systems. The program supports new technologies that produce marketable byproducts, reduce or eliminate 

the emission of ammonia and greenhouse gases, and are capable of 

being connected to a centralized waste collection and treatment 

system. 

The Cayuga County Soil and Water Conservation District in Auburn, New York, works daily with CAFOs on multiple projects including best management practices, bunk silos, manure storage 

and transfer systems, milk house waste reduction, barnyard runoff, 

crop planning and erosion control. The district educates farmers 

about conservation tactics and efficient agricultural techniques. 

The most ambitious of the district’s projects has been the construction of a community methane biodigester. The biodigester will 

centralize manure collection from three local CAFOs. 

As these examples demonstrate, each State or local conservation 

district may take a slightly different approach to addressing local 

environmental concerns, but there is a consistent theme of working 

with landowners, providing technical assistance and financial assistance and expertise to help them improve their operations and 

practices. These changes are critical to our success. 

Conservation districts across the Country have been working 

with landowners for over 70 years and will continue to seek solutions that benefit our communities and protect natural resources. 

We believe that flexibility should be built into Federal programs 

and requirements to allow States to buildupon their own successful 

efforts. NACD and our members will continue to work with landowners to ensure the protection of our natural resources. 

Madam Chair and members of the Committee, thank you very 

much for the opportunity to testify today, and I am more than willing to answer any of your questions. 
51 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sims follows:] 

STATEMENT OF OLIN SIMS, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS

Good morning, I am Olin Sims, President of the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD) and a rancher from McFadden, Wyoming. On my family operation, the Sims Cattle Company in the Rock Creek Valley, we run a 700 cow/calf 

operation on 22,000 acres of deeded, private, State and Federal leases in southern 

Wyoming. The ranch retains ownership of all calves and feeds to finish in Nebraska. 

I was first elected to my local Conservation District, Medicine Bow Conservation 

District, as a Rural Supervisor in 1987 and have served as an area director since 

1996. As a national officer of NACD I am required to maintain my local elected position in Wyoming. Conservation Districts across the country are led by Boards that 

have been locally elected or appointed by State officials. We represent members of 

the community, landowners, farmers, ranchers, businessmen and women or anyone 

that has a keen interest in the protection of natural resources in their local community. 

Across the United States, nearly 3,000 conservation districts are helping local people to conserve land, water, forests, wildlife and related natural resources. We share 

a single mission: to coordinate assistance from all available sources—public and private, local, State and Federal—in an effort to develop locally driven solutions to natural resource concerns. More than 17,000 members serve in elected or appointed positions on conservation districts’ governing boards. Working directly with more than 

2.3 million cooperating land managers nationwide, their efforts touch more than 1.5 

billion acres of private forest, range and crop land. NACD believes that every acre 

counts in the adoption of conservation practices. We work with landowners across 

the country—urban, rural, row crop farmers, ranchers, forestland owners and specialty crop producers on the plains, in the hills and on both coasts—so we know that 

no one program, practice, or policy will work for everyone. We support voluntary, 

incentive-based programs that present a range of options, providing both financial 

and technical assistance to guide landowners in the adoption of conservation practices, improving soil, air and water quality and providing habitat and enhanced land 

management. 

Established under State law, conservation districts are local units of State Government charged with carrying out programs for the protection and management of 

natural resources at the local level. Our members work with the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS) as well as State and 

county programs to assist livestock producers in developing, understanding, and implementing the terms of their individual nutrient management plans . Each State 

may address the needs of livestock producers a little differently and included in my 

testimony are a few examples of what local Conservation Districts are doing across 

the country. 

LOCALLY LED CONSERVATION

Local county-level Conservation Districts assist in the implementation of Federal 

conservation programs, working with the USDA’s NRCS and the Farm Service 

Agency (FSA). Our members see the benefits of appropriate technical assistance and 

offering financial assistance when working with private landowners. As members of 

our local communities, our neighbors frequently want to take the correct action, but 

need the technical information to know what those actions may be, the education 

and training to be able to apply new practices and requirements to their operations 

and in some cases financial assistance to make a change in an agriculture operation. 

The major Farm Bill program that assists livestock producers is the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). EQIP provides cost-share funding (generally 50 percent Federal, 50 percent from landowner) for specific systems and practices, construction, and the development of Comprehensive Nutrient Management 

Plans(CNMPs). Conservation districts assist in gathering local input and priorities 

for these programs, addressing the most pressing natural resource issues within the 

state. Livestock producers in all states can apply for assistance under EQIP. 

Several states have also entered into agreements with FSA and identified watershed and water bodies that would benefit from a Federal/State partnership under 

the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). While this program focuses on buffer strips, filter strips and retirement of certain acreage from production 

and does not specifically address livestock operations, it is utilized to focus broader 

efforts for water quality improvements and leveraging State and Federal funds. 
52 

EPA’s 319 Non Point Source Grant Program is frequently utilized in states to address concerns on animal feeding operations. Several Conservation Districts or State 

Associations receive these grants to assist livestock producers (non CAFOs) on proper management of their operations and protecting water quality. 

Conservation Technical Assistance is considered the backbone for these Federal 

programs as well as State and local programs. Technical Assistance is the individualized guidance and information that helps a landowner make a change. It could 

be engineering design work, assistance from an agronomist or localized information 

for soil types, habitat, nutrient reduction strategies and know-how for application 

of conservation practices and structures or the development and implementation of 

nutrient management plans. 

CAFO REGULATIONS

NACD provided comments to EPA on their CAFO regulations on several occasions. In our written comments to the agency, NACD expressed support for the 

elimination of duty to apply requirement for all CAFOs. NACD supports EPA’s proposal for the revised regulation that would require only those CAFOs that discharge 

or propose to discharge to apply for aNational Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. 

NACD agrees with including CNMPs as a component of NPDES permits for 

CAFOs. We also agree that associated production and/or land application areas, as 

defined in the proposed regulation, should be included within the permit only for 

the CAFO permitee. It should not include offsite application of CAFO-generated 

wastes. In modifying a nutrient management plan, we support allowing the operation to modify implementation and report modifications to the permitting authority 

while not requiring public review. An operator must have flexibility in meeting the 

goals of the nutrient management plan providing for some alteration in cropping 

and practices as appropriate for their operation. 

NACD also supported the action by EPA this summer to extend the compliance 

deadline for obtaining a comprehensive nutrient management plan. As you will note 

from our specific State examples, Conservation Districts and individual producers 

are actively working on developing and implementing comprehensive nutrient management plans. While this work is underway, we did not see that it would have been 

possible to meet the July 31, 2007 deadline and therefore we support the extension 

to February 27, 2009. 

With regard to unpermitted large CAFOs and AFOs not required to obtain permits, we would encourage all operators to work with voluntary conservation programs and their local conservation districts to determine the conservation practices 

that best suit their specific operations. Landowners are frequently seeking assistance in applying conservation practices, but are limited by the technical knowledge 

to implement these practices correctly. 

Conservation Districts are actively working with livestock producers with various 

sizes of operations. NACD is facilitating information between our states and individual districts to share success stories and information. We are pleased to provide 

the committee with several examples of outreach and implementation efforts from 

across the country. 

STATE EXAMPLES

In my home state, the Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, in cooperation with the Wyoming Department of Agriculture, Wyoming Department Environmental Quality (DEQ), NRCS and livestock industry in Wyoming, initiated an Animal Feeding Operation/Confined Animal Feeding Operation Program in 1997. 

The effort was implemented from 1997 ? 2001 with projects continuing to be implemented to date. Educational efforts were funded in part utilizing Clean Water 

Act section 319 funds. The goals of this effort were to 1) Inform and educate livestock producers on potential impacts of AFO’s on water quality/resource conditions 

and also an understanding of Federal/State regulatory requirements 2) establish 

demonstration projects to further awareness and 3) to provide the necessary costshare and technical assistance to Wyoming livestock industry. 

The first 2 years of the program the primary focus was aimed at elevating the 

level of awareness within the livestock industry on Federal regulatory requirements 

through the development of a educational brochure which was distributed to 3,000 

livestock producers (producers owning 200 head of livestock or more) and the development and distribution of a self-assessment for producers to utilize to determine 

their risk. Over 22 educational workshops were held throughout the State with 

more than 1,250 livestock producers attending. 
53 

A cooperative agreement was also developed with NRCS which dedicated two field 

staff to providing dedicated assistance to producers to assess their operations and 

develop plans for modifications if necessary. 

Approximately 15 demonstrationsites on animal feeding operations were implemented throughout the State on animal feeding operations program that had ‘‘unacceptable conditions’’ as defined by the Federal regulations. Tours were conducted of 

the sites after completion. 

In addition, due to the high demand from livestock producers to address unaccept- able conditions on AFO’s, NRCS dedicated $225,000 at the State level in EQIP 

funds to specifically meet the need for AFO cost share. Wyoming also sought additional funds from the national level and received $105,000 through NRCS to add 

additional technical assistance to meet the demand. After the educational efforts 

were conducted, a huge increase in assistance was experienced by NRCS and folks 

in some areas were put on a waiting list. 

In addition, the local conservation districts through their water quality improvement efforts have continued to fund a number of animal feeding operation projects 

as part of efforts to address impairments on surface waters within the state. Funding for these are typically from a variety of sources including producers, local funds, 

CWA 319 and/or EQIP funds. All districts that have waters listed on the state’s 

303(d) list as being impaired due to bacteria (E. Coli) have local programs to assist 

producers within these watersheds to address their operations if unacceptable or 

contributing conditions exist. 

NRCS reports that in 2006 an additional 21 projects and in 2007, 28 projects were 

funded through the statewide EQIP set aside fund. 

Regarding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, in Wyoming all CAFO’s 

(based on the size threshold) are required to obtain a NPDES permit from Wyoming 

DEQ. DEQ started requiring that the permit include the nutrient management plan 

prior to the final adoption of the EPA regulatory revisions. There are 63 CAFO permits issued in Wyoming. 

In New Mexico, the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts worked to 

ensure that conservation programs made sense for the dairy operations within their 

state. After initial concern about a process that was too complicated the Association 

worked to ensure dairy producers could utilize conservation assistance programs. 

Today, the State Technical Committee that establishes priorities for the implementation of USDA Farm Bill Conservation programs at the State level sets aside EQIP 

funding to assist CAFOs in developing CNMPs. The Association has also worked to 

obtain State funds for additional technical assistance to CAFOs. The Association has 

been able to contract with retired NRCS employees to provide additional resources 

to develop CNMPs. 

The South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts and member districts 

work on several outreach and implementation efforts with livestock operators within 

the state. For animal feeding operations, the Association provides, through an EPA 

319 nonpoint pollution grant, cost-share to design nutrient management systems in 

targeted watersheds to meet Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) goals. Under this 

grant, the Association staff work with the producer from initial contact through full 

implementation. The producer pays 25 percent of the cost of the engineer to design 

the system with 319 funding providing the other 75 percent. Once the design work 

is complete, the Association staff helps the producer apply through EQIP or local 

watershed projects for cost-share assistance for any needed construction assistance 

such as sediment ponds, lagoons, vegetated treatment areas, etc. To date, 69 producers are involved in the program. 

South Dakota’s work on existing CAFOsincludes an agreement with NRCS to provide technical assistance to producers to implement their nutrient management 

plans. Once a CNMP is complete, a producer frequently needs assistance with the 

requirements of the plan, and guidance on the maintenance of their operation to 

comply with the plan. Agronomists help to ensure continued proper application rates 

of nitrogen and phosphorus. Producers are taught how to correctly obtain a soil sample, a water sample, and a manure sample and how to interpret the results so that 

they can correctly apply the required amounts. The Association’s employees have 

taught producers how to calibrate their application equipment ? including using 

portable scales so that producers can weigh their manure spreaders and find out 

how much they really hold. 

On an annual basis, the Association staff sits down with the producer and re-evaluates their plan so that they can see how well it is working or what they may need 

to do differently. This really helps when the producer is using rented land for application—sometimes they don’t keep the lease and then they need to re-work their 

application plans for new land. The goal is that, after a few years, the producer 

gains the technical skills to manage his own CNMP. The Association has learned 
54 

that they are asking the producers to adopt a whole new way of doing things and 

that requires transfer of technical knowledge. They don’t expect producers to be able 

to learn it on their own because it can be overwhelming. 

CAFO operators can also seek financial assistance for development of CNMPs and 

construction cost-share through the EQIP programs. 

In Minnesota, Conservation Districts play an important role as an intermediary 

between producers and communities where CAFOs are proposed. Districts are often 

called upon to provide hearings for public comments when establishment of a CAFO 

is being considered. The district can help to vet issues raised by their local community, and can also provide information to the community on the environmental impact of proposed CAFOs. This service as a moderator ensures that dialog is established between public and private interests during CAFO planning phases. 

Minnesota districts also assist CAFOs with different approaches ensuring proper 

nutrient management. They can serve as a bridge between CAFOs and NRCS when 

operators wish to apply for Federal assistance through programs such as EQIP. Districts also facilitate and promote EQIP opportunities for operators, and provide assistance to operators interested in applying for EQIP. Finally, Districts promote creation of nutrient management plans in TMDL areas and Well Head Protection 

Areas, and encourage CAFO operators with existing NMPs to meet with Certified 

Crop Advisors to revisit their plan and make sure its provisions are current with 

soil conditions. 

In Oklahoma the Conservation Commission has taken the lead on two different 

watershed projects addressing water pollution. In cooperation with Federal State 

and local partners, these projects resulted in improved water quality. The 

Peacheater Non Point Source National Monitoring Program Project included the 

Adair and Cherokee County Conservation Districts, NRCS, USGS, EPA, Oklahoma 

State University Extension, and the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission. This 

project was funded through a 319 grant to work with landowners to implement riparian management, buffer and filter strips, composters and animal waste storage 

facilities, improved pasture management and septic systems. Through the installation of BMPs, the phosphorus loading to Preacheater Creek was reduced by 69 percent. 

A similar project was conducted on the Eucha/Spavinaw Watershed where 319 

funds, State priority watershed funds and individual landowner funds were used on 

a locally led effort. A Local Watershed Advisory Group was established to recommend BMPs and cost-share rates. The program included the Delaware County 

Conservation District in Oklahoma and the Benton County Conservation District in 

Arkansas, as well as the city of Tulsa, USGS, NRCS, EPA, Oklahoma State University Extension, and the Arkansas Soil and Water Conservation Commission. The 

project included riparian management, buffer and filter strips, streambank stabilization, composters and animal storage facilities, pasture establishment and management, proper waste utilization and septic systems. The project resulted in a 31 

percent decrease in phosphorus loading to Beaty Creek in the Eucha/Spavinaw Watershed. 

This area in the Eucha/Spavinow Watershed is also an EQIP priority area and 

this past spring became a CREP area. The primary objectives of the Oklahoma 

CREP are to install field buffers to trap sediment, nutrients and bacteria; reduce 

sediment loading by up to 3,702 tons, phosphorus loading by up to 19,825 pounds 

and nitrogen loading by up to 191,887 pounds annually. These goals are to be 

achieved by voluntary enrollment in 14 or 15 year Conservation Reserve Program 

contracts and 15 year or permanent State easements, as well as enrolling adjacent 

non-CREP riparian acreage into a State incentives program (FSA CREP fact sheet). 

Oklahoma has a variety of voluntary conservation programs working together to address nutrient and sediment loading to improve water quality as well as improving 

wildlife habitat. 

Thanks to a proactive approach to working with poultry producers in Texas, most 

poultry facilities were already in compliance with EPA when they recently made 

changes that defined larger dry-litter operations as CAFO’s. 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Texas have been working with the State 

for several years to assist poultry facilities to comply with State laws. All operations 

in Texas are required to have a Water Quality Management Plan, which is equivalent to a CNMP. 

These CNMPs included virtually all of the technical components of a CAFO permit under the EPA NPDES Permitting Program; consequently, the industry was 

well prepared for the EPA regulation changes. Soil and Water Conservation Districts in Texas provide the technical and financial assistance to develop and implement these CNMPs so they comply with Federal and State CAFO regulations. 
55 

The districts employ technical service providers to develop the CNMPs and assist 

producers with the installation. Local districts also provide state-appropriated cost 

share funding. District employees also work with the poultry operations to ‘‘maintain’’ the implemented status of CNMPs through annual status reviews and by providing soil sampling services. 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts in North Carolina in partnership with the 

state’s Soil and Water Conservation Commission, have led an aggressive and 

proactive approach to dealing with the state’s major livestock and poultry industries. 

In 1983 the North Carolina General Assembly authorized the NC Agriculture Cost 

Share Program to improve water quality associated with agriculture in three nutrient sensitive areas that covered 16 counties. The program was expanded in 1990 

to include 96 Soil and Water Conservation Districts covering all 100 counties. 

The program provides 75 percent cost share for producers to implement resource 

management practices and encouraged the use of new and emerging technologies. 

Highlights of the program include the installation of 3559 waste management structures to properly store and manage dry and wet animal waste; the installation of 

815 mortality management systems to properly manage livestock mortalities to minimize water quality impacts; and the placement of over 950 miles of fencing in combination with other practices to exclude livestock from streams. 

While the program addresses a range of agriculture-related water quality issues, 

2500 permitted facilities are often a focus of the activities. Approximately $58.1 million (38 percent) of the funds have been directed to CAFOs and AFOs. 

According the program’s recent annual report, the program is delivered locally by 

494 elected and appointed Soil and Water Conservation District supervisors and by 

over 400 local staff of districts and Federal partners. District supervisors are responsible for seeing that State funds are spent where they are most needed to improve water quality. District supervisors are required to develop a prioritization 

ranking system for administering the program in their respective districts to maximize the benefits to the state’s water quality goals. Applications are evaluated and 

prioritized by the District and Districts are required to inspect at least 5 percent 

of the contracts annually. 

The cost share program is not the only activity in NC to help better manage livestock and poultry operations. In 1993, the NC State government established a nondischarge rule requiring all farms meeting the following threshold numbers to register with the appropriate State agency and to secure a certified animal waste management plan by 1997. The size requirements are as follows: 

250 swine (55 pounds or greater) 

100 or more confined cattle 

75 horses 

1,000 sheep 

30,000 confined poultry with liquid waste system 

These plans must be certified by a technical specialist designated by the NC Soil 

and Water Conservation Commission. The technical specialists are often conservation district employees. These requirements became a part of the State and NPDES 

permitting process in 1996. 

In 1999, in the wake of flooding devastation from Hurricanes Dennis, Floyd, and 

Irene, the State initiated a buyout program for active swine operations in the 100- 

year floodplain. The State has invested over $16 million to operate this program to 

date, and has removed 39 swine operations from harm’s way in the floodplain. Another grant of $3 million has just been approved to continue this popular and highly 

successful flood hazard mitigation program with the expectation that another 6–7 

high-priority operations will be included. Participating operations must agree to 

allow a conservation easement on the property to prevent future CAFO operation 

on the property and to prevent development of the property for non-agricultural 

uses. 

Just this year, NC passed legislation that established a permanent moratorium 

on the construction of new lagoons and a new Lagoon Conversion Program where 

producers can receive cost share assistance to voluntarily convert from conventional 

lagoon and spray field systems to ‘‘approved’’ innovative animal waste management 

systems. The program supports systems that produce marketable by products, reduce or eliminate the emission of ammonia and greenhouse gases, and are capable 

of being connected to a centralized waste collection and treatment. 

The NC Soil and Water Conservation Commission and conservation districts will 

be involved in the development and implementation of this exciting new initiative. 

As you can see, communication and collaboration among interested parties have 

established exciting programs and policies in NC. In many cases the success of the 
56 

programs can be tied to a goal of locally led programs with involvement and support 

of conservation districts. 

The Sussex Conservation District in Delaware has four conservation planners on 

staff funded through a Nonpoint Source Pollution Section 319 Grant and the State 

of Delaware. These planners are funded to provide nutrient management plans to 

Sussex County landowners. 

Upon request, the Sussex Conservation District provides producers with technical 

and financial assistance. A conservation planner visits the farm to assess their resource concerns and provide the farmer with a comprehensive nutrient management 

plan. The District also provides financial assistance through a cost-share program 

for BMPs that address water quality issues. Some of the BMPs that the District provides cost-share assistance are poultry manure structures, poultry carcass 

composters, poultry incinerators, poultry windbreaks, animal waste systems, heavy 

use area protections (concrete pads at the ends of chicken houses or manure structures), and cover crops. With the District’s cost-share program, structural BMPs 

have to be ranked because we always get more requests for funds than we have 

cost-share money. 

The District also administers a 3 percent low interest Agricultural Nonpoint 

Source loan program that allows farmers to finance, at a low rate, their portion of 

BMPs that is not covered through cost-share. The normal cost-share rate for BMPs 

is 75 percent meaning that the farmer must come up with the remaining 25 percent. 

For example, they can also use the 3 percent loan to purchase a front-end loader 

for their composting operation or a calibratable manure spreader. 

The District also works closely with the Delaware Nutrient Management Program. Delaware’s program, which was established with the passing of the Nutrient 

Management Law in 1999, mandates all landowners with 10 or more acres or 8 animal units be required to have a nutrient management plan by 2007. We are proud 

to say that the Sussex Conservation District assisted the Delaware Nutrient Management Program in meeting this goal. 

If there is conservation or nutrient management concerns on a farm, the District 

staff may accompany the representatives from the Nutrient Management Program 

to the farm to discuss alternatives or solutions to whatever issues the farmer is facing. The Delaware Nutrient Management Program also offers cost-share assistance 

to poultry operators for manure relocation and nutrient management planning. The 

manure relocation program takes manure from farms that have excess manure and 

ships it to farms that need the manure or for alternative uses. The cost-share is 

used to cover the transportation costs. In western Sussex County, there is a manure 

pelletizing plant that manufactures and packages pelletized manure to be sold to 

retail locations for fertilizer. 

The Cayuga County Soil and Water Conservation District in Auburn, New York 

has had many beneficial interactions with CAFOs in Cayuga County. The District 

has about half a dozen conservation professionals that work regularly with CAFOs 

on multiple projects including:BMPs, bunk silos, manure storage and transfer systems, milk house waste reduction, barn yard runoff, crop planning and erosion control. The District has worked extensively with farmers to educate them about conservation tactics, and efficient agricultural techniques. The nutrient management 

specialists have worked to lower the environmental impacts of manure waste on the 

community and environment. The District has been involved with vermacomposting, 

drag hose application; manure additives and wind powered manure agitators all of 

which limit CAFOs waste problems. 

The most ambitious of the District’s projects has been the construction of a Community Methane Biodigester. The Biodigester will centralize manure collection from 

3 local CAFOs on the District’s campus. The manure, along with food waste, will 

be anaerobically digested to create ‘‘environmentally friendly’’ biogas, liquid fertilizer and solid compost. The Biodigester will address nutrient runoff and loading 

problems in the Finger Lakes. The Biodigester will make the liquid fertilizer much 

more nutrient balanced for reapplication to the farm fields, while removing the 

solid, nutrient rich, compost out of the watershed by selling it separately to gardeners and nurseries. The Biodigester will also eliminate pathogens and odor caused 

by the spread of manure and that make community relations difficult for CAFOs. 

At a recent NACD Northeast Region meeting, a Conservation District shared a 

proactive approach in working with CAFOs. The district realized that in the event 

of an agriculture emergency such as a manure spill, they could provide assistance 

both to the operator and to emergency management personnel who would respond 

by serving in an advisory capacity. 

To that end, the district has established a relationship with 911 officials and local 

fire departments so that they are aware of agriculture related emergencies and how 

to respond. As a result, the local 911 center created a data base of resources to uti-
57 

lize for agriculture emergencies, including the local conservation district. The district has also provided outreach to local CAFO operators to provide instruction on 

how to develop agriculture emergency plans and procedures for contacting authorities in the event of an agriculture emergency. In doing so, the district is also helping 

CAFO operators stay in compliance with regulations, which require notification in 

the event of an emergency. 

As these examples demonstrate, each State or local conservation district may take 

a slightly different approach to addressing environmental concerns in the local area. 

We have provided only a few examples, but most states have similar efforts and 

Conservation Districts across the country are assisting in the delivery on Farm Bill 

Conservation Programs, prioritizing local projects and natural resource issues within the state. Each State may take a different approach, but there is a consistent 

theme of working with landowners, providing technical assistance, financial assistance and expertise to help them make changes to their operations, or alter practices 

that is critical to our success. Conservation Districts across the country have been 

working with landowners for 70 years, and we will continue to seek solutions that 

benefit our communities and protect natural resources. Proactively working with 

landowners, educating, teaching and providing useful information, expertise and 

guidance is critical to the success of our efforts. We believe that flexibility should 

be built into Federal programs and requirements to allow states to buildupon their 

own successful efforts. NACD and our member State associations and individual districts look forward to continuing to work with landowners to ensure the protection 

of our natural resources. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, sir. 

We next turn to Thomas Bonacquisti, Water Quality Program 

Manager, Loudoun County Sanitation Authority, Association of 

Metropolitan Water Agencies. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. BONACQUISTI, WATER QUALITY 

PROGRAM MANAGER, LOUDOUN COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY, VA, AND ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WATER 

AGENCIES 

Mr. BONACQUISTI. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Senator 

Inhofe and distinguished members of the Committee. 

My name is Tom Bonacquisti, and I am currently the Water 

Quality Program Manager with the Loudoun County Sanitation 

Authority which serves drinking water and provides wastewater 

services to 175,000 people in eastern Loudoun County, Virginia. 

Previously, I worked as the Director of Water Quality and Production for the Fairfax County Water Authority also located in northern Virginia. 

Today, I am here on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan 

Water Agencies or AMWA, which is an organization of the largest 

publicly owned drinking water providers in the United States. 

AMWA’s members provide clean and safe drinking water to more 

127 million Americans from Alaska to Puerto Rico. 

AMWA commends you for holding this hearing to investigate the 

impact of concentrated animal feeding operations on regional water 

quality and safety and appreciates the opportunity to present its 

views on this important and timely issue. 

Thirty-five years ago this fall, Congress passed the Clean Water 

Act, landmark legislation that has greatly reduced the discharge of 

harmful pollutants into the Nation’s waters and enabled their continued use as drinking water supplies. 

With the subsequent passage in 1980 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, CERCLA, 

also known as the Superfund Law, Congress sought not only to 
58 

strengthen environmental protections but also to ensure that communities were able to recover from polluters the cost of cleaning up 

toxic and hazardous waste released into the environment. 

However, in recent years, the owners and operators of large concentrated animal feeding operations or CAFOs have increasingly 

advocated in favor of taking steps to exempt themselves from the 

critical environmental law. 

Today, I will discuss the negative impacts that components of 

animal waste have on America’s drinking water supplies and testify that exempting these substances from the requirements of 

CERCLA would carry significant public health and financial cost 

for all Americans who depend upon access to clean and safe water. 

First, it is important to define what exactly constitutes a CAFO. 

According to EPA, a CAFO is a large farm that generally holds 

hundreds of animals such as more than 700 dairy cattle, 1,000 beef 

cattle, 55,000 turkeys or 30,000 hens for a period of at least 45 

days. Clearly, it would be difficult to confuse a large industrial 

CAFO with a small family farm which generally holds far fewer 

animals and, as a result, has much less of an impact on the surrounding environment. 

Over the past several decades, the number of corporate CAFOs 

in the United States has steadily increased while the number of 

small farms has declined and, as a result, today it is estimated that 

54 percent of U.S. livestock are held on CAFOs, representing only 

5 percent of livestock farms. 

These CAFOs alone generate approximately 570 billion pounds of 

animal waste per year. Because such a large volume of waste is 

generated each day at CAFOs, it is rarely economically feasible to 

have animal manure hauled away. As a result, the waste is usually 

stored in onsite lagoons until it is applied to fields as fertilizer. 

There are several problems with this process including poor 

maintenance of lagoons that will allow the waste to leach into the 

ground and surrounding water supply. For example, a study in 

Iowa found that more than half of the State’s 5,600 agricultural 

manure storage facilities consistently leaked in excess of legal limits, thereby allowing CERCLA-regulated contaminants commonly 

found in manure, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, to run off into 

the watershed. 

The increasing prevalence of such contaminants in drinking 

water contributed to EPA’s finding in 2000 that agriculture is the 

leading contributor to State-reported water quality impairments 

with 29 States identifying livestock feeding operations as a source 

of such impairments. 

One of the most common drinking water quality problems related 

to animal manure is the increasing level of algae that grows in 

water supplies when phosphorus or nitrates are present. When too 

much a nutrient, such as phosphorus, is added to a reservoir, it 

stimulates plant algae and bacterial growth, leading to serious 

taste and odor problems. 

Senator BOXER. Sir, we have to ask you to finish up. 

Mr. BONACQUISTI. OK. 

In conclusion, public drinking water systems have a duty to do 

all that they can to ensure that the water they deliver to their customers is clean and safe. Likewise, CERCLA, with its polluter pays 
59 

1EPA, Risk Management Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, EPA/600/ 

R–04/042 at 3–1 (May 2004) (‘‘Risk Management Evaluation’’), http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/pubs/ 

600r04042/600r04042.pdf. 

principle, offers assistance to communities forced to clean up the 

mess. 

Senator BOXER. Sir, I am sorry. Our problem is, sir, we have just 

been told that the cloakroom is not going to postpone this vote. So 

the vote is actually going to start at 11:05. 

Mr. BONACQUISTI. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bonacquisti follows:] 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS P. BONACQUISTI, WATER QUALITY PROGRAM MANAGER, 

LOUDOUN COUNTY SANITATION AUTHORITY, VA, AND ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WATER AGENCIES

Good morning, Madam Chairwoman, Senator Inhofe and distinguished members 

of the committee. My name is Tom Bonacquisti, and I am currently the Water Quality Program Manager with the Loudoun County Sanitation Authority, which serves 

drinking water and provides wastewater services to about 175,000 people in eastern 

Loudoun County, VA. Previously, I worked as the Director of Water Quality and 

Production for the Fairfax County Water Authority, also located in Northern Virginia. Today I am here on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, 

or ‘‘AMWA,’’ which is an organization of the largest publicly owned drinking water 

providers in the United States. AMWA’s members provide clean and safe drinking 

water to more than 127 million Americans from Alaska to Puerto Rico. 

AMWA commends you for taking the opportunity offered by this hearing to investigate the impact of concentrated animal feeding operations on regional water quality and safety, and appreciates the opportunity to present its view on this important 

and timely issue. 

Thirty-five years ago this fall Congress passed the Clean Water Act, landmark 

legislation that has greatly reduced the discharge of harmful pollutants into the nation’s waters and has helped make them safe for multiple uses, including as drinking water sources. With the subsequent passage in 1980 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as the 

Superfund law, Congress sought not only to strengthen environmental protections, 

but also to ensure that communities were able to recover from polluters the cost of 

cleaning up toxic and hazardous waste released into the environment. However, in 

recent years the owners and operators of large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) have increasingly advocated in favor of exempting themselves from 

this critical environmental law, by removing manure and its components from 

CERCLA’s jurisdiction. Today, I will testify that providing a blanket exemption for 

manure from the requirements of CERCLA could damage the quality of drinking 

water sources that millions of Americans have come to depend upon. 

WHAT IS A CAFO?

It is essential to first define what exactly is a ‘‘CAFO.’’ Despite the arguments 

made by some, concentrated animal feeding operations are very different from small 

family farms. According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2004 Risk Management Evaluation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, a CAFO is a 

large farm that generally holds more than 700 dairy cattle, 1,000 beef cattle, 55,000 

turkeys, or 30,000 hens (with a liquid manure system) for a period of at least 45 

days.1 On an annual basis, these CAFOs can produce as much waste as a smallto-mid-size American city. Clearly, large operations of this size are not what one 

thinks of when envisioning a typical family farm. 

It must also be clear that small family farms are unlikely to be impacted one way 

or another by efforts to redefine CERCLA’s application to agricultural operations. 

While some have painted the absence of a CERCLA animal waste exemption as a 

threat to the existence of family farms in the United States, responsible small farming operations are unlikely to pollute to the extent to which they would be found 

in violation of the Superfund law. However, the sheer magnitude of animals densely 

held in CAFOs cause such operations to have a far more serious impact on the surrounding environment and water quality. It is estimated that 54 percent of U.S. 
60 

2Gollehon N, Caswell M, Ribaudo M, Kellogg R, Lander C, Letson D (June 2001), Confined 

Animal Production and Manure Nutrients, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 771, http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib771/ 

. 3U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Manure and Byproduct Utilization: National Program Annual Report: fiscal year 1, www.nps.ars.usda.gov/programs/programs.htm?npnumber=206&docid=1076. 4Risk Management Evaluation at 3–1. 

livestock are held on CAFOs representing only 5 percent of livestock farms,2 which 

generate approximately 575 billion pounds of animal waste every year.3

Contributing to this problem is the growing prevalence of these CAFOs. In 1982 

there were more than 1.2 million small farms in America holding fewer than 150 

animals, but by 1997 there were only about 920,000, a 26 percent reduction. During 

the same timeframe, large farms with more than 1,000 head of livestock increased 

47 percent, from 5,442 to 8,021. Viewed a different way, over that fifteen-year period 

the total number of animals on small farms decreased from 45.8 million to 34 million, while the animal population of large farms increased by 58 percent from 15.7 

million to 24.9 million.4 The consequences of this shift are twofold: not only are 

large corporate-run animal feeding operations rapidly supplanting traditional family 

farms, but the typical manure disposal practices of CAFOs—which commonly involve holding waste in huge leak-prone cesspools and field application techniques 

that lead to increased runoff—pose serious dangers to the quality of nearby drinking 

water supplies. Waste from family farms, on the other hand, is usually generated 

and released in much smaller volumes, so it is more readily controlled. 

CURRENT MANURE REGULATION UNDER CERCLA

As the number of CAFOs in the United States continues to grow, industry representatives have increasingly argued that they deserve an exemption from pollution cleanup liability under CERCLA. Legislation has been introduced in both 

houses of Congress that would specifically exclude manure and its components from 

the law’s definition of a ‘‘hazardous substance’’ under section 101(14) and from the 

definition of a ‘‘pollutant or contaminant’’ under section 101(33). These proposals ignore the facts about CAFOs, CERCLA and animal manure in favor of giving large 

industrial farms the freedom to release regulated contaminants into the environment without consequence. 

Most importantly, it must be noted that under current law, animal manure itself 

is not considered a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant under CERCLA. 

Arguments from the farm industry that environmentalists are seeking to place animal manure in the same broad category as industrial waste are simply false. However, several toxins frequently found in waste emissions from CAFOs are regulated 

as hazardous substances under CERCLA, including phosphorus, nitrates, ammonia 

and even arsenic. Because a dangerous toxin remains a dangerous toxin whether it 

is released into the environment alone or as a component of another substance, it 

would be a mistake for Congress to relieve CAFOs of Superfund liability for each 

and every chemical and substance that may be found in animal manure. When deposited into the drinking water supply, community water systems must take additional treatment steps to remove these toxins and keep the water potable, regardless of their original source. If water systems were unable to recover excessive costs 

from polluters, all the citizens of the community would see their water rates increase just to maintain their previous level of drinking water quality, an outcome 

that is unfair and in direct conflict with the Superfund law’s ‘‘polluter pays’’ philosophy. 

Furthermore, some have argued that the Superfund law could enable the government to prohibit farms from spreading manure-based fertilizers on their fields. This 

is plainly false. In fact, CERCLA already excludes liability for pollution related to 

the ‘‘normal application of fertilizer.’’ However, cost recovery is permitted against a 

CAFO that wrongly uses fertilizer as a way to dispose of waste in an attempt to 

avoid the law. This is a fair, common sense approach that prevents CAFOs from 

abusing the law, and therefore should not be tampered with. 

THE IMPACT OF CAFOS ON WATER QUALITY

For a number of years there have been cases of components of untreated manure 

from CAFOs having harmful effects on public drinking water supplies across the 

country. For example, in 2000 EPA’s National Water Quality Report to Congress 

identified agriculture as the leading contributor to state-reported water quality im-
61 

5EPA, ‘‘National Water Quality Inventory, 2000 Report’’ (August 2002) EPA–841-R–02–001, 

http://www.epa.gov/305b/2000report/ 6Risk Management Evaluation at 4–2. 

7Simpkins WW, Burkart MR, Helmke MF, et al. (2002) Potential impact of waste storage 

structures on water resources in Iowa. J Am Water Resources Assoc. 38:759—771. 

pairments, with twenty-nine states identifying livestock feeding operations as a 

major source of water impairments.5 EPA has also reported that the sources of 

drinking water for 43 percent of the U.S. population have suffered some level of 

pathogen contamination related to CAFOs.6

As I previously mentioned, CAFOs typically dispose of their animal manure first 

by storing it in large lagoons, usually close by where the animals are kept. But because such a large volume of waste is generated each day at CAFOs, it is rarely 

economically feasible for a CAFO to have animal manure hauled away. As a result, 

the waste usually stays stored in onsite lagoons until it is applied to fields as fertilizer. There are several problems with this process. First, many manure lagoons 

are poorly maintained, and allow the waste to leach into the ground and surrounding water supply. For example, a study in Iowa found that more than half of 

the state’s 5,600 agricultural manure storage facilities consistently leaked in excess 

of legal limits.7 Even when applied to fields as fertilizer, many CAFOs are not large 

enough to absorb the massive amounts of nutrients contained in the manure. As a 

result, CERCLA-regulated contaminants included in manure, such as nitrogen and 

phosphorus, often runoff into the watershed and adversely impact the water supply. 

One of the most common drinking water quality problems related to animal manure is the increasing levels of algae that grow in water supplies when phosphorus—a common manure component and a CERCLA-regulated hazardous substance—enters the water supply. When too much of a nutrient such as phosphorus 

is present in a reservoir, it stimulates plant, algae, and bacterial growth. If left untreated this increased algae causes serious taste and odor problems with the water, 

making it unfit for human consumption. To counter this problem water utilities 

must undertake additional treatments to combat the algae, but the effectiveness of 

these treatments tend to diminish over a long period of time if nutrients continue 

to be added to drinking water sources. What’s more, increased treatment made necessary by high levels of nutrients in water sources also contribute to the formation 

of disinfection byproducts that result from the reaction of natural organic matter 

with disinfectants such as chlorine, ozone, chlorine dioxide and chloramines. The 

entry of these disinfection byproducts into the water supply can be largely avoided 

if excessive nutrients are not deposited into drinking water sources in the first 

place. 

Finally, these additional disinfection measures are a sustained cost that water 

systems and ratepayers should be entitled to recoup from polluters—for the dual 

purpose of keeping costs under control and encouraging responsible environmental 

stewardship on the part of agricultural producers. 

Some recent examples of CAFO-related drinking water pollution include: 

• Des Moines, Iowa 

The Des Moines Water Works supplies drinking water to approximately 350,000 

people in 4 counties and 23 communities in Central Iowa. In 1991 it constructed 

the world’s largest nitrate removal system (at a cost of $3.7 million to the utility) 

to clean water from the Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers. The plant costs approximately $3,000 a day when in use, and on average must operate between 45 and 60 

days per year in response to upriver manure releases. Nitrate is a common component of animal manure and is also on the list of contaminants regulated by 

CERCLA. • Oshkosh, Wisconsin 

The city of Oshkosh spends an extra $30,000 a year on copper sulfate treatment 

to kill algae in drinking water supplies from Lake Winnebago, which are attributed 

to excess nutrients like phosphorus from manure and other sources. In 2004, there 

were 59 reported incidents of manure polluting water in Wisconsin, although the 

State says that the actual number was likely greater. • Illinois River, Oklahoma 

The Illinois River, which flows through Arkansas and into Oklahoma, is the 

source of 22 public drinking water systems. But Arkansas’s Illinois River watershed 

has one of the nation’s densest poultry operations, producing waste equal to 10.7 

million people, greater than the combined populations of Arkansas, Kansas and 

Oklahoma. After 4 years of attempted negotiations and mediation with the industry, 

the State of Oklahoma sued 14 corporate poultry operations for polluting the Illinois 

River and the Tenkiller Lake. 

• Chino Basin, CA 
62 

The Chino Basin is the supply of drinking water for Orange County. In 1988, 40 

percent of the wells in the basin had nitrate levels above drinking water standards. 

EPA found that dairies were a major cause of the nitrogen, which is a CERCLAregulated hazardous substance. Removing these nitrates costs more than $1 million 

per year. Chino also removes more than 1,500 tons of salt per year, which comes 

from local dairies, at a cost of $320 to $690 for every ton. 

• Waco, Texas 

Lake Waco supplies drinking water to 150,000 people. Dairy cows in CAFOs upstream from Lake Waco created 5.7 million pounds of manure per day that was 

over-applied to land and made its way into the lake. The State found that nearly 

90 percent of the controllable phosphorus in the river came from CAFOs in the watershed, and an independent researcher who conducted much of the state’s analysis 

found that dairy waste applied to fields supplied up to 44 percent of the lake’s phosphorus. From 1995 to 2005, the city spent $3.5 million on phosphorus-related water 

pollution, and has spent a total of approximately $70 million to improve water treatment. To recoup costs the city filed suit against 14 large industrial dairies in 2003 

and eventually reached a settlement with the defendants. 

• Tulsa, Oklahoma 

The city of Tulsa supplies drinking water to 500,000 people in its metropolitan 

area, but pollution from poultry farms in Arkansas led to excessive algae growth 

in Lake Eucha, one of its main water sources. As a result the city spent more than 

$4 million on increased drinking water treatments to address the problem, and unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate with poultry operations to reduce their manure 

applications. In 2002, the city sued six major poultry operations and the case was 

eventually settled, agreeing to a temporary moratorium on the application of litter 

and the installation of a new drinking water treatment system. 

CONCLUSION

When properly managed, the animal waste from agricultural operations can have 

a minimal impact on their region’s water quality. However, this outcome is dependent upon farm operators—particularly those overseeing CAFOs—implementing 

strong environmental management practices that adequately treat animal waste before releasing it into the surrounding environment. Unfortunately, too many large, 

corporate-run CAFOs have not implemented these practices on their own, which is 

why it is so essential for the communities and the public to continue to have recourses available through the Superfund law. 

Public drinking water systems have a duty to do all that they can to ensure that 

the water they deliver to their customers is clean and safe. Likewise, CERCLA, with 

its ‘‘polluter pays’’ principle offers assistance to communities forced to clean up the 

mess when CAFOs ignore their responsibility to minimize harmful discharges into 

the environment. However, providing an entire industry with a waiver to discharge 

regulated hazardous substances such as phosphorus and nitrates into their region’s 

watershed would result in a more polluted environment and higher costs for community water system ratepayers. As Congress celebrates the thirty-fifth anniversary of 

the Clean Water Act, such a waiver would turn back the clock to the days of unchecked pollution and declining water quality. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Blackham, Utah Department of Agriculture 

and Food. We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF LEONARD BLACKHAM, COMMISSIONER, UTAH 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD AND NATIONAL 

ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. BLACKHAM. Madam Chairman, members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify on concentrated animal 

feeding operations and the environmental issues facing agriculture. 

My name is Leonard Blackham. I am the Commissioner Agriculture for the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food. 

I appear here today to represent the National Association of 

State Departments of Agriculture, NASDA. NASDA represents the 

commissioners, the secretaries and directors of agriculture in 50 

States and 4 territories. 
63 

We share your commitment to the environment and have a long 

history of being good stewards of the land by implementing sound 

conservation practices. States are partners with the Federal Government and the Federal system in protecting the environment. 

For example, a majority of the 50 States’ departments of agriculture have been the lead agency in implementing Federal pesticide laws. 

You may be surprised to hear that half of the State conservation 

agencies are housed within the State departments of agriculture. 

In this capacity, we oversee and implement soil and water conservation programs, non-point source water quality programs and 

a variety of other environmental resource programs. 

In my State of Utah, we jointly administer the concentrated animal feeding operation program in partnership with the Department 

of Environmental Quality and with non-governmental partners, all 

the major commodity groups, Farm Bureau and Utah State Extension. 

State agriculture departments have tackled many environmental, 

water quality, food safety and pesticide issues before they reach the 

national attention. In part, this is due because we have established 

a close working relationship with farmers and ranchers and a diverse group of local stakeholders. 

In Utah, we have had an amazing success in the CAFO, and I 

think one of the main reasons is that because when a knock comes 

on the door, it is either a farm bureau rep, someone from the conservation district or someone from the extension service, knocking 

on the door. We hear them say there is a little problem here, but 

we are here to help you, and it is one time when they believe that, 

that we are here to help. It is far different than if it is an EPA 

staff member knocking on the door, saying that there is a problem. 

State-led initiatives and Farm Bill conservation programs are 

providing significant and continuing opportunities for major environmental quality protection. Crop and livestock producers are 

among the most dedicated and effective stewards of our natural resources because agriculture depends upon the continued access of 

clean water, air and fertile land for its vitality. 

USDA conservation programs have increased in addressing water 

quality issues related to livestock operations. The Environmental 

Quality Incentives Program, EQIP, provides financial and technical 

assistance to install and implement conservation practices on working agricultural land. The 2002 Farm Bill, in fact, requires 60 percent of EQIP funds to be targeted toward livestock production in 

this arena. 

EQIP and USDA conservation programs are critical to agriculture because meeting new environmental demands is a make or 

break challenge for most producers. Many on-farm environmental 

enhancements are beyond the short term and even long term economic payback for producers. For example, many conservation 

practices have high capital and management costs but do not generate any additional revenue. Agriculture is not organized in a 

fashion that allows increased costs to be passed on to the consumer. 

We have many State programs, and that is included in the written testimony, and I will skip that. You can look at that. 
64 

We have provided you with three examples that report—California, New York and Utah—on the CAFO program. You can read 

that and see some real success stories that are happening in the 

Country with those three examples, and many other States have 

similar success. 

NASDA believes in a market-based approach to agriculture environmental protection is more effective. We reach the producers. We 

provide greater environmental benefits, give States flexibility to address the most critical problems, target resources where most needed on a site-specific basis, increase local buy-in to find workable solutions, emphasize preventive measures which are more cost-effective and offer economic returns, and address the expanding list of 

emerging problems such as carbon emissions and air quality problems. 

A key component of our proposal for the 2007 Farm Bill is a new 

incentive to address agriculture conservation and natural resource 

and environmental priorities through a State partnership agreement. We are suggesting a block grant type approach to the departments of agriculture to address these important issues. 

A strong livestock—— 

Senator BOXER. Sir, could you just wrap it up? You have 8 seconds left. 

Mr. BLACKHAM. You bet. Thank you. 

A strong livestock industry is important to all of us. We all enjoy 

food. We enjoy cheap food in this Country, and we don’t want to 

do a program that is going to drive our livestock industry outside 

of this Nation. 

We want to protect the environment, and a partnership with the 

States and with local commodity and organizations and farming is 

the way to do it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackham follows:] 

STATEMENT OF LEONARD BLACKHAM, COMMISSIONER, UTAH DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF

AGRICULTURE

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

testify on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and environmental 

issues facing agriculture. My name is Leonard Blackham. I am the Commissioner 

of the Utah Department of Agriculture and Food, and I appear here today on behalf 

of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA). NASDA 

represents the commissioners, secretaries and directors of agriculture in the fifty 

states and four territories. 

We share your commitment to the environment and have a long history of being 

stewards of the land by implementing sound conservation practices. Today, I would 

like to broadly outline the important role that State agriculture departments play 

in environmental protection and describe our efforts and issues related to animal 

feeding operations. The challenge today is how to maintain an economically viable 

and healthy agricultural landscape producing the food and fiber on which our country depends, while improving the agricultural environmental benefits our citizens 

enjoy. Agriculture provides not only the food and fiber of America, but is the largest 

offset provider against human activity. A healthy agricultural landscape provides 

clean air, water and open space. 

ROLE OF STATE AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENTS

States are partners in the Federal system of environmental protection. For example, a majority of the fifty State departments of agriculture have long been the lead 

State agencies for implementing Federal pesticide laws. You may be surprised to 
65 

hear that about half of the State conservation agencies are housed within the State 

agriculture departments. In this capacity, we oversee and implement soil and water 

conservation programs, non-point source water quality programs, and a variety of 

other environmental resource programs. In my State of Utah, we jointly administer 

the program for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in partnership 

with the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. 

State agriculture departments often tackle environmental, water quality, food 

safety, and pesticide management issues before they reach national attention. In 

part, this has occurred because we have established close working partnerships with 

farmers, ranchers, and a diverse mix of local stakeholders. However, the scope and 

range of our environmental activities are rapidly expanding. For instance, major initiatives on water quality, including proposals for Total Maximum Daily Loads 

(TMDLs), Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), new Clean Air Act 

standards, and endangered species protection all have a significant impact on agricultural activities and individual farm and ranch operations. Implementing these 

new and ongoing regulatory activities are placing tremendous demands on State 

budgets and resources in the technical, financial, educational, and enforcement delivery system. 

AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES AND

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

State-led initiatives and Farm Bill conservation programs have provided significant and continuing opportunities for major environmental quality protection. Crop 

and livestock producers are among the most dedicated and effective stewards of our 

natural resources because agriculture depends upon continued access to clean water, 

air and fertile land for its viability. Many of them have voluntarily adopted environmentally friendly practices that have local, regional, and even global benefits. However, the public is increasingly looking to the agriculture sector to address a growing 

agenda of environmental issuesincluding nonpoint source pollution and water quality, water shortages, air quality, urban sprawl, animal predation, and invasive species. Other emerging challenges include climate change, carbon emissions, pesticide 

use, and biodiversity. 

USDA conservation programs have increasingly addressed water quality management issues related to livestock operations. The Environmental Quality Incentives 

Program (EQIP) provides financial and technical assistance to install or implement 

conservation practices on working agricultural land. The 2002 Farm Bill required 

that sixty percent of EQIP funds be targeted at practices dealing with livestock production. Another important provision requires producers who receive cost-share 

money to complete a Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) or Comprehensive Nutrient 

Management Plan (CNMP). The 2002 Farm Bill provided an historic funding increase for EQIP authorizing $6 billion over 6 years, starting with $400 million in 

fiscal year and increasing to $1.3 billion in fiscal year 6. According to USDA, even 

with increased levels of funding, requests for EQIP contracts are exceeding available 

funding by almost six to one. 

EQIP and other USDA conservation programs are critical to agriculture because 

meeting new environmental demands is a ‘‘make or break’’ challenge for producers. 

Many on-farm environmental enhancements are beyond the short-term and even 

long-term economic payback for producers. For example, many conservation practices have high capital or management input costs, but do not generate additional 

revenues. Agriculture is not organized in a fashion that allows increased costs of 

production to be passed on to consumers. As such, on-farm expenditures for conservation compete directly with servicing farm debt, and other family financial 

needs. In addition, implementing more stringent and complex standards usually increases the need for more costly approaches and technologies. Farmers are ready 

to do their part in accomplishing current and future national environmental goals. 

However, what will be expected of a cattle feeder in North Dakota will be quite different from the challenges faced by a citrus grower in Florida. 

Many State departments of agriculture have begun to move on our own to try and 

fill the gaps in exisiting programs. These initiatives have taken different forms in 

each region of the country, reflecting State and regional differences both in what 

our farmers produce and in the most pressing agricultural challenges that they face. 

For example: 

• California began implementing a Dairy Quality Assurance Program (CDQAP) in 

the late 1990’s to promote public health (food safety), animal care and welfare, and 

environmental stewardship. CDQAP is a partnership of government, educators, and 

the dairy industry. For example, the environmental stewardship component is de-
66 

signed to assist producers in meeting all Federal, state, regional, and local requirements related to manure management and water quality. The voluntary program 

provides education about their legal environmental obligations, resources, and funding for the certification of dairy operations. 

• New York has developed the highly successful Agricultural Environmental Management (AEM) program. It’s principal focus has been to provide direct assistance 

to farmers with the technical side of nutrient management planning, followed by 

cost sharing for improvements carried out under plans developed with that technical 

assistance. The primary environmental goal has been to assure that their dairy 

farms, which account for more than half of the state’s agriculture output, can continue to operate within increasingly stringent water quality regulations. 

• Kansas has focused on pesticide management as a key environmental challenge, 

developing programs to support integrated pest management and establishing Pesticide Management Areas designed to protect surface and groundwater quality. 

• The New Jersey Urban Conservation Action Partnership concerns itself with 

the issues that arise when farming coexists with urban and suburban development. 

• Southwestern states are looking at programs that have a large water conservation component. 

• Utah has partnered with State agencies, farm organizations, commodity groups 

and others to achieve an 86 percent succes rate in developing and completing 

CNMPs for all CAFOs in our State. 

Each of these State programs are designed to supplement those that already exist 

to help farmers carry out their stewardship function and bear the costs of what we 

see as substantial public benefits: open space conservation, resource preservation for 

future generations, clean air and water. Each is voluntary, incentive-based rather 

than sanction-based, designed to address local needs while complimenting existing 

programs, and carried out in collaboration with all Federal and State agencies already engaged in local environmental management activities. 

NASDA believes that such market-based approaches to agricultural environmental protection will be much more effective because they would: 

• Reach more producers, thus provide greater environmental benefits overall; 

• Give states flexibility to address their most critical problems; 

• Target resources to where most needed on a site-specific basis; 

• Increase local buy-in to find workable solutions; 

• Emphasize preventive measures, which are more cost-effective and offer more 

economic returns; 

• Address the expanding list of emerging problems (i.e. carbon emissions, etc.). 

This is a high priority for State departments of agriculture and one of our key 

proposals for the 2007 Farm 

Bill is a bold, new initiative to address agricultural conservation, natural resource 

and environmental priorities through State partnership agreements. This new Agricultural Stewardship Partnership 

Agreement would be a ‘‘block-grant’’ type initiative that would give State and local 

governments more flexibility, innovative tools, and resources to implement agricultural conservation and environmental priorities. 

ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFOS) AND

WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES

A strong livestock industry is essential to our Nation’s economy, a healthy and 

high quality food supply, and the viability of our rural communities. Animal Feeding 

Operations (AFOs) and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) present 

a number of natural resource protection and management challenges. In recent 

years, animal feeding operations have become increasingly consolidated, specialized, 

and regionally concentrated. 

If properly stored and used, manure from these operations can be a valuable resource. Applying manure to land can be an environmentally sound approach to fertilizing fields. With today’s technology, manure can also be used in digesters to 

produce electricity and other beneficial by-products such as ethanol. If not managed 

correctly, wastes produced from animal operations can impact the environment and 

human health. We believe it is important to address waste management issues and 

water quality impacts in a way that is most appropriate for individual operations 

affected and which can be implemented with reasonable cost. States and producers 

need flexibility. 
67 

STATE ACTIVITIES AND REGULATION OF ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been regulating Concentrated 

Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) for more than 25 years. In many cases, the 

states preceded the Federal Government in both recognizing and regulating issues 

related to animal feeding operations. Throughout the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s, a 

number of states set higher or more restrictive standards for CAFOs, usually as a 

result of local issues or information. Some states developed permit programs and/ 

or required design criteria for protection of both surface water and groundwater. 

Other states implemented voluntary, incentive-based programs with strategies for 

nutrient management. These efforts have been led by State agriculture and conservation agencies working together with Federal agencies, livestock and poultry industries, land grant universities, engineering consultants, scientists, and other local 

stakeholders. 

Both State and Federal CAFO rules have been reevaluated and updated over the 

past several years to keep up with industry changes, new technologies, and public 

perceptions. EPA finalized new regulations for CAFOs in 2003 which expanded the 

number of operations covered by the Clean Water Act (CWA) permit program to an 

estimated 15,500 operations. New permit requirements were added to include comprehensive nutrient management planning, and to extend coverage to include all 

poultry operations of a certain size. EPA is currently revising its 2003 CAFO rules 

to conform to a ruling of the 2d Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2005. EPA proposed 

a revised rule in 2006, but it has not yet been finalized. 

NASDA supports EPA’s proposed 2006 revised rule. Now, the State agriculture 

departments and other agricultural stakeholders are anxiously awaiting the agency’s final rule. We have urged EPA to limit the final rule to the issues addressed 

by the court ruling and to provide more clarity on the regulatory obligations of livestock operations. States will need time to modify their CAFO programs to conform 

with the final rule. In late July, EPA announced that certain compliance deadlines 

would be extended until February 2009. This is helpful and will allow the states 

and other stakeholders an opportunity to adjust to the new requirements. 

Although states have additional time to implement the new CAFO program requirements, the changes will create a resource and administrative challenge for 

State agriculture and conservation agencies. EPA has estimated that the CAFO regulations could result in compliance costs of $850 million to $940 million per year. 

States will need to increase our efforts to identify, permit and inspect CAFOs. A 

major challenge is the ability of producers and State agency personnel to prepare 

the thousands of new nutrient management plans that will be required under the 

new rule. Livestock operators will need to address multiple nutrients in their waste 

management plans. They will need additional technical assistance, education, and 

training to comply with their permits. This creates additional demands on the State 

agriculture and conservation agencies which provide technical and financial assistance. The key to achieving the national goal of assuring that animal feeding operations 

are managed to protect water quality is to provide states with the flexibility and 

resources to meet legal and programmatic responsibilities. We strongly believe that 

programs for managing animal nutrients are most appropriately implemented at the 

State and local level. 

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGES

While environmental improvements are being made, many challenges remain and 

new issues continue to emerge. NASDA believes there needs to be more recognition, 

evaluation and research on cross-media impacts from animal feeding operations. 

CAFOs can affect multiple pollutant media streams—soil, water, air? which could 

present management challenges or benefits. For example, methane emissions from 

an animal feeding operation could provide a potential energy source. 

Air quality concerns associated with agricultural production include odors, ozone 

precursors, particulate emissions, and greenhouse gases. More study is needed. Very 

little science exists for agriculture related air quality issues. In fact, agriculture is 

currently financing $15 million in research for EPA to help refine air quality issues. 

EPA and USDA should develop partnerships with State agriculture departments 

to address these issues in a voluntary, incentive based way because we will have 

better success. For example, odor is a local issue. Addressing air quality concerns 

is an area of increasing emphasis in USDA conservation programs. Livestock producers enrolled in EQIP can receive cost-share assistance for installing anaerobic 

waste digestors, which significantly reduce odors. The new Conservation Security 

Program (CSP) provides enhancement payments for action that directly benefits air 
68 

quality, including improving visability, reducing near-surface ozone levels, reducing 

transport of fine and course particulates, reducing the potential for airborne agricultural chemicals and volatile organic compounds to affect human health, and increasing the sequestration of carbon on crop, range, and pasturelands. 

SUPERFUND REGULATION OF ANIMAL WASTES

Recent lawsuits are threatening livestock and poultry operations by potential liability for emissions or discharges from manure produced or used in their operations. 

NASDA strongly believes that it was never intended for agricultural operations 

and manure to be regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Recovery, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Environmental Protection and 

Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which are commonly known as Superfund. 

We are pleased that EPA has issued guidance to clarify this issue, but urge Congress to pass legislation and confirm that agricultural byproducts produced during 

routine agricultural operations should not be subject to the provisions of EPCRA 

and CERCLA. If this clarification is not put into place, farming operations of all 

sizes could be subject to unwarranted litigation which would negatively impact their 

operations and the nation’s food supply. 

Animal agriculture operations and manure managements are already regulated 

under the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and various State laws to protect the 

environment. These laws and regulations provide for permitting, enforcement, and 

if necessary, remediation. 

It is important to note that CERCLA/EPCRA clearly exempt the application of 

chemical fertilizers containing the same constituents as manure—orthophosphate, 

ammonia, and hydrogen sulfide—which occur naturally in the environment. 

This is not a large versus small farm issue. CERCLA/EPCRA current reporting 

requirements and liability thresholds for non-agricultural releases/emissions of regulated substances are quite low. This means virtually any agricultural operation producing, storing, and/or using animal manure could be held liable under laws. We 

do not want agriculture to be driven out of business or outside our borders by the 

heavy hand of government. CERCLA/EPCRA will only divert critical resources away 

from making agricultural environmental improvements to legal pockets. 

STATE SURVEYS ON CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS

(CAFOS)

NASDA’s Research Foundation has been conducting periodic surveys on CAFOs 

since 1997 with the latest surveys conducted in 2003 and 2005. These surveys were 

developed to obtain detailed information about State efforts to address water quality 

concerns, provide an overview of State requirements and regulations, and development of nutrient management plans. 

The surveys show that many states have regulations more stringent and/or specific than Federal regulations for CAFOs. Most states have required the development and implementation of a nutrient management plan for the application of manure, while some use a voluntary, incentive-based approach in accordance with 

sound agricultural practices and agronomic rates. Some states have developed more 

inclusive individual permit programs and/or required design criteria for protection 

of both surface water and groundwater. Other states have specified additional surface water protection based on containment structure capacities. A number of states 

have mandatory training requirements for the operation of a variety of animal operations. In addition to the Federal EQIP cost-share program, many states have their 

own cost-share programs or a low-interest loan program for best management practices. Most states have required inspections as part of their monitoring and enforcement process. 

In 2006, NASDA launched CNMP Watch, a complete web-based source for manure and nutrient management planning information. This website was designed to 

help producers in preparing NMPs/CNMPs and provide all stakeholders with a portal for information on Federal and State activities. The website address is: 

www.CNMPWatch.com. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

As we have emphasized throughout our testimony, states have already taken a 

strong lead in working with and regulating animal feeding operations. The Federal 

Government should capitalize on the proven strengths of the State CAFO programs 

by providing funding, guidance, and coordination of resources to effectively achieve 
69 

environmental quality on animal operations. NASDA offers the following recommendations to enhance our capabilities: $ EPA should provide states with the 

flexibility to account for regional differences in approach and should recognize ‘‘functionally equivalent’’ State programs that meet the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) goals. 

• More coordination is needed between EPA and USDA regarding components of 

CNMPs, and other forms of nutrient management planning. The CNMP used in the 

regulatory program as a permit requirement must be the same as the CNMP used 

voluntarily by non-permitted AFOs. If two different plans are used, the incentive 

for producers to voluntarily develop CNMPs in hope of avoiding the regulatory program disappears. 

• Fully fund the EQIP and Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program. 

NASDA has long believed that the 319 program has been severely underfunded. 

Under the 319 program, states receive funds to support a wide variety of activities 

to address nonpoint source water quality issues, including technical assistance, education, training, technology transfer, demonstration projects, and monitoring. 

• Provide and fund additional technical assistance from USDA’s Natural Resource 

Conservation Service (NRCS). Thousands of CNMPs are currently waiting for technical support to be completed. 

• Provide more research and funding for water quality data and air quality data. 

Current information and statistics on water quality are lacking in completeness and 

are dated. Very little science and data currently exists for agricultural air quality 

issues. More State and Federal funding is needed in these areas to get more accurate, science-based data. This evolving base of knowledge can be used to provide 

technical assistance and educational assistance to producers. From this knowledge, 

we also know which management practices and investments should be supported 

with financial assistance in the form of cost-share payments, loans, and grants. 

• Additional research and technology development is needed to better understand 

cross media issues, such as air quality, odor, greenhouse gases. 

• Congress should approve legislation to confirm that agricultural byproducts produced during routine agricultural operations should not be subject to the provisions 

of EPCRA and CERCLA. 

CONCLUSION

One of the most significant trends in the last decade is the growing awareness 

of nearly all segments of the U.S. society in the importance of preserving our land, 

water and air resources. Agriculture—like other business sectors—has made substantial investments and taken great strides in protecting the environment. 

The challenge today is how to maintain an economically viable and healthy agricultural landscape producing the food and fiber on which our country depends, while 

improving the agricultural environmental benefits our citizens enjoy. Agriculture 

provides not only the food and fiber of America, but is the largest offset provider 

against human activity. A healthy agricultural landscape provides clean air, water 

and open space. 

NASDA urges you to carefully consider agriculture’s needs as we continue efforts 

to enhance environmental protection while maintaining a viable farm production 

system. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss these critical issues and look 

forward to working with you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, sir. 

Senator Inhofe and I have been collaborating on how to deal with 

the time problem. We have come up with a plan. 

I would ask the second panelists, is there anyone on the second 

panel who could not come back at 2 p.m.? 

Can you all come back at 2 p.m.? 

That is excellent. So what we are going to do is take the rest of 

our time. We don’t have that much left, but we will now hear from 

our final speaker on this panel. 

Catharine Fitzsimmons, Chief Air Quality Bureau, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, National Association of Clean Air 

Agencies, welcome. 
70 

STATEMENT OF CATHARINE FITZSIMMONS, CHIEF, AIR QUALITY BUREAU, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN AIR AGENCIES 

Ms. FITZSIMMONS. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chairman 

and members of the Committee. 

Senator INHOFE. Move it a little closer, if you would, please. 

Ms. FITZSIMMONS. Thank you. 

My name is Catharine Fitzsimmons, and I am Chief of the Iowa 

Air Quality at the Department of Natural Resources. 

I appear today on behalf of NACAA, the National Association of 

Clean Air Agencies, the association of air pollution control agencies 

in 54 states and territories and over 165 metropolitan areas across 

the Country. 

NACAA’s members are responsible for ensuring that our citizens 

breath clean air. We are required under the Clean Air Act to develop State implementation plans demonstrating that areas attain 

and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. In developing these plans, we analyze every important source of pollution, 

large and small, ranging from electric utilities and other industrial 

sources, from cars and trucks to even bakeries and dry cleaners. 

In light of the fact that plan development is a zero-sum calculation, our agencies do not have the luxury of ignoring any significant sources of air pollution. Accordingly, we are troubled by legislative and regulatory efforts to exempt large industrial size CAFOs 

from environmental laws. If CAFOs emit air pollutants that exceed 

permitting thresholds or reportable quantities, then just like any 

other sources of pollution, CAFOs should comply with environmental laws. 

Our primary concern is with large industrial scale CAFOs that 

house thousands of dairy cows or beef cattle, tens of thousands of 

swine and hundreds of thousands, even millions, of chickens. These 

facilities are responsible for thousands of tons of manure and release in substantial quantities, air pollutants such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and particulate matter that can cause severe health 

effects including death, heart attacks and increased severity of 

asthma attacks. 

In light of this, it seems obvious that like every other industry 

that has an impact on human health and the environment, CAFOs 

should comply with environmental laws. Instead, however, there 

have been several attempts to exempt CAFOs from these important 

statutes. Let me give you a few examples. 

First, EPA entered into an agreement with the CAFO industry 

to fund a monitoring program to obtain emissions data in exchange 

for a safe harbor from Clean Air Act, CERCLA and EPCRA requirements. 

The agreement has several major problems. It contains a much 

too broad enforcement waiver. Given the small number of farms 

that are being monitored, the data collected will not likely be representative, and there is no assurance that participating CAFOs or 

any CAFOs will be required to reduce their air emissions as a result of the agreement. 

Second, we are concerned about regulatory and legislative efforts 

to exempt manure from CERCLA and EPCRA requirements. The 

implications of this exclusion are significant. Emergency respond-
71 

ers would be prevented from having critical information about potentially dangerous releases, EPA or a State could not use 

CERCLA response authorities, and CAFOs would also be exempt 

from any natural resource damages, leaving the financial burden of 

any cleanup on the public. 

Finally, we are concerned about efforts by an industry-dominated 

Federal advisory committee of the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

to limit the application of environmental laws to CAFOs. For example, last year the committee recommended defining the word, 

source, so narrowly that CAFOs might not face any requirements 

for controlling air emissions regardless of the results of the monitoring being conducted under the air compliance agreement for 

AFOs. 

In summary, the well documented adverse health effects and 

substantial levels of air pollutants from CAFOs warrant rigorous 

application of environmental laws to these sources. It is exactly 

such sources that statutes such as the Clean Air Act, CERCLA and 

EPCRA are intended to address. 

Attempts by Congress, EPA and other to exempt CAFOs from environmental laws and arguments made in support of such exemptions are inappropriate. Instead, CAFOs, like every other major industry in this Country, should be expected and required to accept 

their obligations and comply in full with environmental laws. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Fitzsimmons follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CATHARINE FITZSIMMONS, CHIEF, AIR QUALITY BUREAU, IOWA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN AIR

AGENCIES
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

We are going to start our questioning. We are going to do it the 

early bird rule, and each of us will have 4 minutes, and I am going 

to try to enforce the rule. Let me start. 

Mr. Blackham, you said at the end that you want to see cities 

and States and counties work together to resolve these issues, and 

I just wanted to pick up on the point because we have a list here 

of the folks who oppose weakening the health protections and the 

polluter pay principles, in other words, the people who support the 

current law. That includes the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of City and 

County Health Officials, the American Public Health Association, 

the National League of Cities, the city of Waco, Texas, the city of 

Tulsa, Oklahoma, and it goes on. 

So I just wanted to point out that when we say that we want the 

cities and counties to work in a cooperative way and the States, 

they have already spoken out. I guess that would. lead me to a 

question to Mr. Grumbles. 

I am assuming that you would agree that, say, for example, the 

State of Oklahoma has the right to sue the CAFOs industry. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I would agree that they have the right to sue. It 

always depends on what statute or authority you are focusing on. 

Certainly, the Agency respects and celebrates the fact, for instance, under the Clean Water Act, it is largely the States that 

carry out the programs that we oversee when we provide national 

standards. So throughout our efforts to strengthen control regulation over CAFOs and work. 

Senator BOXER. They are suing under Superfund is my understanding. Is that right? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That is right. 

Senator BOXER. Attorney General Edmondson, suing under 

Superfund? 

Mr. EDMONDSON. That is one of our causes of action, yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. OK, one of them. So I wonder if you could talk 

to us because it is a big step. You are going up against a lot of giants, and I would like to know what was the straw that broke the 

camel’s back that you decided that you needed to do the lawsuit. 

Mr. EDMONDSON. We began negotiating with the industry in November 2001 and went through several years of unsuccessful negotiations. During that process, the city of Tulsa also found it necessary to file a lawsuit. They negotiated a settlement, and the industry began removing 70 percent of the litter out of the Eucha/ 

Spavinaw of our watershed that provides drinking water to the city 

of Tulsa. 

Even after doing that, they continued to surface supply in the Illinois River watershed and the other watersheds of western Arkansas and eastern Oklahoma. 

The straw, if there was one, was simply a loss of patience. Every 

month that we negotiated was another month with litter being applied on the land. 

Senator BOXER. What did you hear from the people in Oklahoma? Why were they upset about this? 

Mr. EDMONDSON. They were upset about it in the State of Oklahoma for two reasons. One is this watershed is a recreational re-
81 

source, and the water clarity and quality had declined dramatically 

over the last several decades, and the other is municipal and rural 

water districts rely on that watershed for drinking water. 

As was mentioned by another panelist, heightened levels of chlorine were necessary in order to treat the levels of algae, and the 

more chlorine you use, the more risk you have of producing 

trihalomethanes which are a carcinogen. So it is Hobbesian choice 

for those who want that water to drink. They either get it smelling 

bad and tasting bad or they up their risk of cancer. 

Senator BOXER. My last question, because I am running out of 

time, is to Mr. Hirsch. I really appreciated your very clear testimony, sir. 

Livestock operations use antibiotics and hormones to promote 

growth and to reduce the likelihood of disease outbreaks in areas 

where animals are tightly packed together. Could you describe 

some of the USGS’ findings concerning antibiotics and hormones in 

relation to livestock operations and some of the concerns that have 

spurred USGS to examine these pollutants? 

Mr. HIRSCH. I think I would prefer to respond for the record to 

that. There is a lot of research. I am not familiar with the details 

of it, and I don’t think it would be wise for me to try to delve into 

that at this time. 

Senator BOXER. Do you agree that those antibiotics and hormones show up in the waste? 

Mr. HIRSCH. Yes, they do. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

All right, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

First, Ms. Fitzsimmons, one quick question here: Are the public 

health departments in swine-intensive counties reporting higher incidents of respiratory problems than public health departments 

elsewhere? 

Ms. FITZSIMMONS. I do not have data about every county in the 

State of Iowa or in other areas. However, Wellmark Blue Cross and 

Blue and the University of Iowa have conducted a number of 

health surveys that have annotated that. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, that is fine. I think the answer is no on 

that, but we are on a fast track here. 

Mr. Edmondson, your lawsuits against the poultry industry and 

you are asking the court to define animal waste as hazardous 

waste in 1972 CERCLA, my problem has been that it is not confined to the poultry industry, and I think that is the reason that 

the Farm Bureau and the Farmers Union and all the farmers are 

concerned about this. I would like to have you explain to us what 

you think the impact would be on those industries. 

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you, Senator. 

Our litigation was confined to the poultry industry. 

I understand the concern felt by the cattle industry and others 

as to the possible future ramifications of our lawsuit. I don’t think 

those concerns are valid in regard to cattle that graze and cattle 

droppings in a field. The concentrated feeding operations, whether 

they are bovine or swine, are still subject to stricter regulation 

than animals in a field, and I think that will remain the case. 
82 

We are not talking about rodeos. We are not talking about parades. We are talking about industrial level generation of waste. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, some of the cattle waste, for example, has 

been used very productively in types of fertilizer and even some 

suggestion on energy being produced from these. It is concerning 

to me that the method of disposal, should that be declared as a 

hazardous waste, would be to lose all that, which could be an asset. 

Have you thought about that as being a problem? 

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think it can be an asset, and I don’t think the 

result of this lawsuit is going to keep that from happening. There 

are some very exciting ideas about there. 

Senator INHOFE. I hate to keep rushing here. But in the lawsuit, 

and you are a smart, smart lawyer—I know that—is there any way 

that you could construct this thing to somehow confine it to the 

poultry industry or alleviate some of the problems that we see, that 

I see and that you see, I am sure too, and as well as our farmers 

see in Oklahoma? 

Mr. EDMONDSON. Senator, we would be real happy in the event 

of a successful result to work with the court to make sure that the 

findings are so limited. Whether our lawsuit is successful or not, 

the chemicals are what is listed in CERCLA, and we are not going 

to add chemicals or remove chemicals from what is already covered 

under that statute. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Sims, first of all, I wish there was more time. I could elaborate on the great loss that we have here, losing Craig Thomas. He 

and I were elected to the House at the same time and the Senate, 

and he served on this Committee, and he certainly is ably replaced 

by Senator Barrasso. 

We have in Oklahoma a program that has been very successful. 

We had a hearing there, and we passed this into legislation. It is 

the partnership program with Fish and Wildlife. 

I think you have commented in your written statement how successful these programs, the voluntary conservation programs, have 

been. Yet, I think there are probably some on this panel who feel 

that nothing is going to really be done and achieve environmental 

progress unless it is through a very heavy-handed regulation. 

I would just like to know your experience and your feelings about 

that. 

Mr. SIMS. Excuse me, Madam Chairman. 

Senator, thank you for the opportunity. 

We have seen across the Country that probably one of the biggest 

issues in this whole subject that we are talking about today is just 

the lack of understanding of the existing rules and regulations that 

are in place. 

In many States across the Country, they already, the States 

themselves, the State environmental agency has more stringent 

regulations than the Federal Government, not in all States but in 

some States. And so, the States, a lot of them, have already been 

ahead of the curve on a lot of this. 

But you have got some smaller operations that, even though they 

fall under this threshold of the numbers that we talked about of 

whether it is livestock or chickens or whatever, for the fact that 

they have had facilities that are built on live streams, like our 
83 

grandfathers did years ago when they settled our part of the Country. Even though they are a small operation, they still meet the 

technical criteria of unacceptable conditions. That throws them 

under this CAFO definition. 

So through voluntary efforts and education, we have been able 

to educate those folks and really make a lot of change out there on 

the ground to improve the water quality issue. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr Sims. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

When I was the Governor of Delaware, we wrestled with, as most 

States did, what to do about welfare, how to make sure people got 

off welfare and were better off. We wrestled with how do we reduce 

incidents of teenage pregnancy. We wrestled with what do we do 

with agriculture runoff for years and years, and folks would clean 

out their chicken houses and simply use the litter as fertilizer on 

their fields. 

What we did on welfare is we brought together a lot of folks who 

received welfare and said: You know this is not a good system. 

What can we do to make it better? 

For teen pregnancy, we brought in teenagers from high schools 

all over our State and asked them to help us figure out what we 

ought to do on teenage pregnancy. 

With respect to reducing agriculture runoff, really from chicken 

litter, we pulled together all kinds of farmers, environmentalists 

from our State. The EPA was good to participate. State offices were 

good to participate, Natural Resources and so forth, Department of 

Ag. 

We said: Help us figure out what to do about this problem. We 

know there is a problem, and we can’t keep going on this way. 

We came up with the idea of requiring nutrient management 

plans to be developed and adopted for most of our significant, actually almost any animal operation of any size, and to train the folks, 

the farmers from those, whose nutrient management plan was 

adopted for their farm, to train them how to use it, how to implement it. 

It is now enforced. It is enforced by the Department of Natural 

Resources, Department of Agriculture, and even the EPA from time 

to time will come by and get after somebody who needs to be gotten 

after. So this is something we have thought a whole lot about. 

We have, in Delaware, 300 chickens for every person who lives 

in my State. So we have a fair amount of chicken litter. We have 

worked very hard for actually the last six or 7 years, and I am real 

proud of what we have done. 

While I am not interested in completing exempting every animal 

feeding operation, certainly in Delaware or other places, from 

Superfund, I am interested in figuring out how do we provide some 

certainty, some protection that I would call the good actors as opposed to the bad actors. 

If we wrote legislation here that clearly defined the normal application of fertilizer to be the use of a certified nutrient management 

plan, would that provide the peace of mind that the good actors are 
84 

looking for and without exempting improper management from 

their liability? 

That is my question. Let me just ask a couple of you to respond 

to it, if you will, starting with Mr. Grumbles, if you would share 

your thoughts on that question. 

Attorney General Edmondson, welcome. We are glad you are 

here. Thanks for coming. 

Mr. Sims, I was interested in asking you what size jacket you 

wear. I mean we would like to sign you up to play football for the 

University of Delaware. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SIMS. Is there a signing bonus? 

Senator CARPER. And Commissioner Blackham, we would like to 

ask you to respond. If the four of you would take a shot at that, 

I would be grateful and just try to be succinct, if you will. Thanks. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Very succinctly, Senator, right now one of EPA’s 

highest enforcement priorities is on the bad actors at CAFOs across 

the Country. That is one of our national priorities, enforcement priorities. So, like you, we want to focus on going after the bad actors 

and also encouraging and working with good actors. 

In terms of the legislation, we are happy to work with you on 

that and look for ways to make progress. 

A key for us is to advance the ball on nutrient management. One 

of the things you mentioned is a very positive one, and that is looking for incentives, which we are also doing with USDA, on getting 

CAFOs and AFOs across the Country to develop comprehensive nutrient management plans and nutrient management plans under 

the Clean Water Act regulatory program. We think that is the key 

to reducing nitrogen, phosphorus and other types of pollutants. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Carper, because of the time, we are really going to have to move on. Do you want to pick one other person 

to be brief on that question? 

Senator CARPER. The attorney general. 

Mr. EDMONDSON. Thank you, Senator Carper, and I will be brief. 

We have best management practices in Oklahoma, and I don’t 

think any farmer is violating those. 

The problem is the other half of the statute says that in no event 

shall surface application result in runoff, and that is what is happening. I think it would be very difficult to craft a statute that says 

you can apply at industrial levels and guarantee no runoff into the 

water. 

Senator CARPER. If I could, Madam Chairman, I would like to 

ask Mr. Sims and Commissioner Blackham to respond for the 

record, please. 

Senator BOXER. Would you do that, respond for the record? 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Barrasso, you have been very patient. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am very pleased to have Olin Sims here today to testify on behalf of the National Association of Conservation Districts. 

Senator Carper, we have a lot more like him at home, and we 

would be happy to find a place on our football schedule for anyone 

from Delaware. 
85 

Senator CARPER. We don’t want to play you guys. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. We did beat the University of Virginia this 

last weekend, 23 to 3, so it was a great weekend in Wyoming. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Cal beat Tennessee, if we really want to 

get into it. I was at the game, but let us go on. 

Senator BARRASSO. That is good. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, Mr. Sims’ family runs a cow-calf operation, Madam Chairman, in south central Wyoming. From his experience on the ranch, as well as from his years of elected service 

on the Conservation District Board, he understands the challenges 

that livestock producers face on a yearly basis. 

Many families in Wyoming run operations and elsewhere. They 

are concerned about how confined animal feeding operation regulations are going to impact their future. So Wyoming ranchers are 

concerned that expanding CAFO regulations are going to change 

their lives forever and not for the better. 

Wyoming ranchers fear that as urban areas encroach upon rural 

communities across the West, that conflicts will grow and well 

funded special interest groups will force them to spend their hardearned money in courtrooms rather than improving their land or 

investing in the future of our State. So they are frustrated by the 

refusal of so many to acknowledge that people who live and rely 

on the land for economic survival are often the best stewards of the 

land as we have seen time and time again in Wyoming. 

After reading Mr. Sims’ testimony, I have to say I am impressed 

by the efforts of our producers and by the conservation districts to 

improve the situation by doing it voluntarily and with incentives. 

I believe that their approach has been extremely successful, and 

their use of EQIP funds has been equally impressive. 

As we listen to the testimony today, I hope all of us will remember that there are a lot of good things that are happening in America’s agriculture community and that pursuing a one size fits all solution is, in fact, not a solution at all. 

Mr. Sims, I would like to ask you to talk about the importance 

of flexibility, allowing States to have more responsibility to build 

their own successful programs and to tailor programs for the 

unique circumstances that each State develops individually. 

Mr. Sims, please. 

Mr. SIMS. Madam Chairman, members of the Committee, Mr. 

Barrasso, thank you very much. 

I completely agree. I think the Federal Government, the regulatory agencies have a responsibility to set the goal, to set the environmental regulation that we need and then allow the States then 

to find the approaches, the best approaches that fit each area because we have got areas of the semi-arid West and Southwest. 

Then we go to the South, the North Carolina folks that are dealing with hurricanes, and we go to New York, the State of New 

York, where they have 300 inches of snow. So we can’t find the 

cookie cutter type regulation that is going to address all of these 

issues. 
86 

Let the Federal Government establish the goal. Let us figure out 

to achieve it. Yes, there needs to be consequences along the line, 

but there is a lot of good work on the ground. 

I don’t know that we need new regulation. We need to better implement what we have right now to look at new technologies. Conservation technical assistance is key. We need to make sure that 

the Federal Government funds NRCS to an appropriate level, to 

have producers out on the ground who work, excuse me, to have 

field technicians out on the ground to work with producers. 

Producers want to do the right thing. Sometimes they just don’t 

know what they need to do. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Sims. 

No further questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator, one thing you said struck me because there already is 

an exemption in the law for the normal application of fertilizer. I 

just want to make sure you were aware of that. 

The next on our list is Senator Lautenberg. 

Welcome, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Coming from a State like New Jersey, these problems aren’t 

quite as apparent. But, of course, we are, in this Committee and 

in this body, very much interested in reducing risks to the population from wherever it comes. 

Oddly enough, the subject of waste removal here today accompanies a statement that was made on television this morning about 

what happens with ship exhausts, one ship producing more in a 

day than 365,000 cars. So we are overwhelmed by excessive pollution coming from all kinds of sources. 

Mr. Edmondson, if we were to exempt factory farms from the authority of Superfund, would that not result in costs being passed 

along to the taxpayers? 

Mr. EDMONDSON. I think it would result not in only costs going 

to the taxpayers. That is assuming that States or the Federal Government engage in cleanup of the mess. The alternative is untreated, uncorrected destruction of our environment and our waters. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. If we did that, it would remove any incentive for these farms to reduce pollution from waste on their own. 

If we took it away from Superfund and had to pass other costs 

along, I don’t know that we would get the cooperation that we need 

to solve some of these problems. 

Madam Chairman, in the interest of time, I am going to ask that 

other questions that I have be able to be submitted for the record. 

The record, I assume, will be kept open for that purpose. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, in fact, it will. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Madam Chair, thank you very much for giving us 

an opportunity in this format. I regret that I have commitments in 

the Intelligence Committee this afternoon and will not be able to 
87 

join you. We have a witness from Missouri on the second panel. I 

will have some questions for her. 

Some of you may know that Missouri is home to extensive beef, 

hog, poultry and dairy farms and ranchers providing the food and 

dairy products for the Nation. We have a comprehensive set of laws 

with which they must abide, and Mr. Blackham’s comment on pollution control through cooperative efforts reflects precisely what is 

going on in Missouri. 

You can be very proud of what you are doing in your State and 

the other States. We have found that that works. I am very proud 

of our Missouri farmers and ranchers who make an honest living 

by playing by the rules to bring us nutritious and affordable beef, 

pork and poultry products. 

As I mentioned, Chris Chinn from Emden, Missouri, will be testifying on the second panel. She is an example of the future of agriculture. I would note that the 2004 Missouri Farm Bureau Young 

Farmers and Ranchers Achievement Award went to Mrs. Chinn, 

and I am grateful for her willingness to come and share with us 

how she and her husband manage their hog farms and their parents’ sow farrow-to-finish operation, respecting the environment 

and providing high quality pork products. 

The Chinns and farmers in Missouri and across the Country 

have to follow a host of Federal and State Clean Water permitting 

nutrient management plan requirements, and they do so with 

pride. Together with their partners at the district, State and Federal level, they ensure adequate storage of manure, litter and 

wastewater. They ensure that clean water is diverted from production areas. They prevent contact between confined animals and waters. 

They ensure that chemicals handled onsite are not disposed of in 

any manure. They identify site-specific conservation practices to 

implement, including buffers and controlled runoff of pollutants 

into waters, and they establish protocols for applying their manure 

in accordance with site-specific nutrient management practices. 

Our universities have been in the lead in helping with the Federal 

agencies, the development of those standards. 

After EPA’s coming CAFO rule is finalized, plans to apply these 

requirements will be open for public comment and contained in enforceable permits. That is an example of working together in partnership, which I support, and I support strongly punishing those 

who violate the law. We have the laws, and we have an obligation 

to protect the environment. When mistake are made, penalties 

must be paid and problems fixed. 

What I do not support are efforts by some in Congress and certain groups to misuse our laws in ways never intended such as applying the Superfund Law intended for toxic industrial waste pollution instead to farmers and agriculture. 

For organic farmers who use manure as a fertilizer, this would 

mean that their food products would come from a Superfund site. 

Would they have to disclose that? 

The result of such a strategy seen here today in Oklahoma’s lawsuit is litigation gridlock with endless court motions and no resolution. They don’t improve the environment. Efforts to pay bounty 

contingency fees to trial lawyers bringing charges of violating the 
88 

public trust and creating conflicts of interest by giving a financial 

interest to lawyers who may have given campaign contributions, 

that is not the way to improve the environment. 

Supporters of Superfund abuse try to deny their efforts will hurt 

farmers. They neglect to mention that Superfund strict liability 

schemes makes anyone who contributes anything to the situation, 

no matter how small, liable for the entire cost of cleanup and, yes, 

it would apply to rodeos and parades. 

Madam Chair, the vote has started. We are out of time. I thank 

you, and I ask unanimous consent to submit the rest of my statement and the questions for Mrs. Chinn for the record. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely, Senator Bond. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Thank you Madame Chairman for holding this hearing on animal feeding operations. You may know that Missouri is home to extensive beef, hog, poultry and 

dairy farms and ranches meeting the needs of families across the Nation. 

I am so proud of our Missouri farmers and ranchers who make an honest living 

playing by the rules to bring us nutritious and affordable beef, pork and poultry 

products. 

Chris Chinn, from Emden, Missouri, is an example of the future of agriculture. 

I am grateful to her for sharing with us how she and her husband manage their 

hog farm and their parents’ sow farrow-to-finish operation with respect for the environment. 

The Chinns and farmers and ranchers across the country must follow a host of 

Federal and State clean water permitting and nutrient management plan requirements, and they do so with pride. Together with their partners at the district, State 

and Federal level they: 

-ensure adequate storage of manure, litter and wastewater, 

-ensure that clean water is diverted from production areas, 

-prevent contact between confined animals and waters, 

-ensure that chemicals handled onsite are not disposed of in any manure, 

-identify site-specific conservation practices to implement including buffers to control runoff of pollutants into waters, and 

-establish protocols for applying their manure in accordance with site-specific nutrient management practices. 

After EPA’s coming CAFO rule is finalized, plans to apply these requirements will 

be open for public comment and contained in enforceable permits. This is an example of working together in partnership to manage the land, which I fully support. 

I also fully support punishing those who violate the law. We all have an obligation 

to protect the environment. When mistakes are made, penalties must be paid and 

problems fixed. 

What I do not support are efforts by some in Congress and certain groups to misuse our laws in ways never intended, such as trying to apply the Superfund law 

intended for toxic waste and industrial pollution instead to farmers and agriculture. 

The results of such a strategy seen here today in Oklahoma’s lawsuit is litigation 

gridlock with endless court motions and no resolution. That does not improve the 

environment. Efforts to pay bounty contingency fees to trial lawyers bring charges 

of violating the public trust and creating conflicts of interest by giving a financial 

interest to lawyers who may have given campaign contributions. That is not the way 

to improve the environment. 

Supporters of Superfund abuse try to deny that their efforts will hurt small farms. 

They neglect to mention that Superfund’s strict liability scheme makes anyone who 

contributed anything to the situation, no matter how small, liable for the entire cost 

of cleanup. 

This provision has already bankrupted countless small businesses caught up in 

toxic dump cases. I refuse to condemn farmers to that fate. 

Supporters of Superfund abuse try to cite provisions of the Superfund law to support extending it to farms. However, they do not recite the provisions they could be 

violating by diverting recovered funds, which the law requires must go solely to 

clean up and restoration, instead to trial lawyers working on contingency they hired 

to pursue their suits. 
89 

We in the Heartland know that farmers overwhelmingly are great stewards of the 

land. They share our commitment to protecting the environment. We thank them 

for their commitment to providing affordable, abundant, and nutritious beef, pork, 

poultry and dairy products. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. I want to put in the record an article from the 

Kansas City Star: Neighbors Say Nearby Dairy Farm Contaminates Their Wells With Manure. I want to put that in because I 

think sometimes we get off into the weeds of jurisdiction and argument. 

[The referenced article can be found on page 150.] 

To me, it has always been what is the real facts on the ground. 

What happens to our people? What is their quality of life? 

I think we need to balance. I come from the largest agricultural 

State in the Union. People seem to forget that. We do have Hollywood and Silicon Valley, but we are the No. 1 ag State. 

So we have to balance all of our needs, but there is no reason 

why we can’t balance a clean and healthy environment with a prosperous, growing industry if people just had some sense of corporate 

responsibility because we are not talking about a few chickens. We 

are talking about some farms that have up to a million animals, 

and these folks don’t live on the land. That is why I think we have 

to make a distinction between the people Senator Barrasso was so 

eloquent about and these huge, large scale operations. 

This panel has been terrific. You have all brought your expertise. 

We will leave the record open, and we look forward at 2 to hearing from panel two. 

Senator CARPER. Madam Chair, just one last thing. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, yes. 

Senator CARPER. Several of our witnesses talked about things we 

can do in a technological way. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator CARPER. One of the things we are proudest of in Delaware—I just visited it recently—is the folks from Perdue, Jim 

Perdue, who is actually a marine biologist and runs the Perdue 

poultry company, and the State of Delaware teamed up in a partnership to take about 10 to 15 percent of all the chicken litter off 

of the DelMarVa Peninsula and to pelletize it and sell it as a fertilizer, organic fertilizer all over the Country. That is the kind of 

solutions that are part of the way out of this as well. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely, Senator, I believe you are right, that 

we can protect the health of the people and still grow our economy. 

That always comes down to where I am at. 

So I thank you very much. 

We stand in recess, actually, until 2. 

[Recess.] 

Senator BOXER. The Committee shall come to order. 

I want to thank Senator Inhofe for his very good suggestion that 

we work on this panel this afternoon. I really do appreciate our terrific witnesses waiting around, and I hope that you had some enjoyable lunch or chat. 

So why don’t we just get started? 

Each of you will have 5 minutes. We will start with Chris Chinn, 

Farmer, American Farm Bureau Federation. 
90 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS CHINN, FARMER, AMERICAN FARM 

BUREAU FEDERATION 

Mrs. CHINN. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, and I would like to 

thank the entire Committee for allowing me to speak today. 

My name is Chris Chinn, and I am the Young Farmers and 

Ranchers Chair for the American Farm Bureau Federation. I also 

serve on the Board of Directors for the American Farm Bureau 

Federation. 

My husband, Kevin, and I are fifth generation farmers, and we 

raise hogs along with other family members in northeastern Missouri. Kevin and I are also raising the sixth generation of family 

farmers. We have two young children. Their names are Conner and 

Rachelle. 

Kevin and I actively support our local Lions Club, our county 

fair, our church, and we are active in our community with other 

civic and youth organizations. I also serve on the Board of Directors for the YMCA, and Kevin and I are both very active in our 

local and State Farm Bureaus. 

Some Americans have a very nostalgic view of what they think 

agriculture should be. They think that we should raise our animals 

the same way that farmers did 50 years ago, but 50 years ago life 

on the farm was a lot harder, harder for the farmer, harder for the 

farm family and harder on our hogs. 

As recently as 30 years ago, my family raised hogs in what people call a traditional manner. Our hogs were not protected from the 

weather, diseases or predators. But, today, our hogs are housed in 

climate-controlled facilities. This allows us to not only raise our 

hogs, but it also allows us to protect our environment. 

Our farm is a family farm. Our parents, our siblings and our 

children live and work there. Many people would say that we are 

big farm. While my family farm may fulfill the perception of a big 

farm in terms of size, my family cares about the environment, we 

care about our community, and we care about our animals. 

We follow and, in fact, many times, often go above and beyond 

Federal and State rules and regulations. My family has a comprehensive nutrient management plan as well as an environmental 

management system in place on our farm. Together, they ensure 

quality continued improvements as well as protecting our environment and our community. 

We monitor daily rainfall, we test our soil, and we use best management practices. This is only a very short list of the many things 

that we do to protect our environment and keep our farm productive. 

In fact, I am so certain that the air and water around my farm 

is clean that Kevin and I recently built a home within 200 yards 

of our water treatment lagoon. Visitors to our farm and my home 

think that the pretty patch of water out back is a pond. They don’t 

know it is my lagoon unless we tell them. 

My kids’ favorite place to be on our farm is inside our hog barns, 

working beside their dad, and I feel that environment is just as 

safe as their schools. When they are in our barn—— 

Senator INHOFE. Let me interrupt to point out to everyone who 

is here that we are showing some of these charts of your farm that 
91 

you are talking about, so it gives a little visual for your presentation. 

Mrs. CHINN. Thank you, Senator. 

As I said, my kids’ favorite place to be is inside the barns, working with their father. They learn great, valuable lessons about how 

to care for our animals and all the intangible ethics that come from 

growing up on a farm. 

I know that that environment inside our buildings, as you can 

see, is just as safe and clean as it can be. We have computer-controlled ventilation systems that ensure healthy air. 

But Kevin and I are not alone in protecting our environment. We 

know many farmers across this Country who care for their land, 

their environment and their animals in the same manner that we 

do. This Country is very diverse with livestock operations, but the 

one thing that we all have in common is our desire to protect our 

environment. 

American farmers and ranchers produce the most safe and abundant supply of food in this world, and I hope that I never, ever see 

a day when the majority of our food comes from China like my children’s toys do today. 

American farmers produce a safe and abundant supply of food, 

and it is dependable from farm to fork, and it is also a system that 

protects our environment. 

Finally, please do not assume that just because my family farm 

may be big, it must be bad. Our farm supports multiple family 

owners representing five different families. We employ 40 people, 

not to mention all the other farmers who we work with in our community. We purchase all of our grain locally from our local farmers. 

That creates another market for their corn. 

When you consider enacting new legislation or rules and regulations upon us, please keep in mind the impact that these rules and 

regulations will have on farmers like me, the communities that we 

represent and the other farmers that we support because without 

farmers, my rural community will die. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Chinn follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS CHINN, FARMER, AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) respectfully submits our views to 

the committee as it reviews the impact of Confined Animal Feeding Operations 

(CAFOs). As the Nation’s largest general farm organization and the representative 

of millions of farmers and ranchers in every State in the Nation, AFBF has a vital 

interest in how animal care issues affecting our members are perceived, examined 

and decided. 

OVERVIEW

Many people outside of agriculture and the livestock industry have concerns about 

the environmental and health impacts of livestock operations. Some have gone so 

far as to demonize livestock operations, calling them factory farms and industrial 

livestock production. In fact, many of these livestock farms continue to be family 

owned and operated. Contrary to anti-livestock rhetoric, this nation’s livestock industry is proficient at producing safe and abundant food while protecting our natural resources. The industry is highly regulated and farmers often surpass requirements when fulfilling their roles as caretakers of the environment and good citizens 

of their communities. 

It is often overlooked, but the vast majority of farmers who operate CAFOs are 

involved in a family based business, are highly educated college graduates, commu-
92 

nity leaders, and experts in science and technology. Most are trained in humane 

animal husbandry and environmental sciences and spend great amounts of time, 

money and other resources ensuring that their operations do not harm the environment. More good news is that the efficiency of livestock production in the United 

States ensures Americans can purchase beef, pork, eggs, turkey, chicken and milk 

that is safe, nutritious and affordable. Providing meat to the United States and 

international markets also supports hundreds of thousands of jobs on farms, in 

rural communities, and in value-added food chain facilities nationwide. 

Livestock production helps drive our bedrock agricultural economy in the United 

States with receipts annually on par with crop receipts. This means that the total 

value of cattle, hog, sheep, broiler, turkey, egg, milk, butter, cheese, honey, and 

farm-raised fish sales is roughly equivalent to the dollars generated from selling 

wheat, corn, rice, hay, cotton, soybeans, peanuts, tobacco, fruits, nuts, vegetables, 

and greenhouse/nursery crops. Typically, cattle and sheep production has been located in areas where crop production is not economically practical, thus making efficient use of land resources that would otherwise lack an economic use. Hog, dairy, 

poultry, and egg production has historically been co-located with crop production to 

make the most efficient use of crop production and crop aftermath. This co-location 

continues today, with livestock operations locating near biofuels production and 

making highly efficient use of the by-products of ethanol production. 

Livestock farms and ranches employ hundreds of thousands of workers, providing 

rural residents with jobs and benefits that would otherwise not exist. In the hog 

business alone, Iowa State University researchers estimate more than 34,000 fulltime jobs are directly attributable to farm-level production, with more than 110,000 

additional jobs in the processing/packing sector. In the cattle industry, the American 

Farm Bureau Federation estimates more than 23,000 employees work in feedyards 

alone. America’s livestock producers work hard, not only to feed their own families, 

but the families of thousands of others whose livelihoods depend on producing and 

processing livestock and meat products. By virtue of feed they purchase for their 

livestock, these farmers also are supporting farmers involved in crop production. 

America’s livestock producers face generally low profit margins. They must watch 

expenses closely, so economics as well as science ensures they make judicious decisions when it comes to the use of livestock inputs. They consider carefully the impact of their activities on not only the quality of the end product, but on the quality 

of life of the livestock under their care. 

America’s livestock producers are the most efficient producers in the world, providing safe and wholesome meat, poultry, egg, and milk products despite regulatory 

burdens that far exceed those faced by their competitors in Asia and South America. 

Here in the United States, feed and other inputs cost more, labor costs more and 

is less available, yet despite this, our nation’s innovative farmers and ranchers still 

produce among the best and safest all-around product in the world. That being said, 

this cannot continue indefinitely. Many operations are near the tipping point where 

needless regulation that accomplishes no real environmental or food safety goal will 

drive them out of business. Additional regulation means dollars out of the pockets 

of farmers and ranchers, pure and simple. While other facets of our economy simply 

pass along costs such as these, farmers—independent livestock producers in particular—do not have this option. The vast majority of farmers are price-takers, rather than price-setters, in our economic system. While America’s livestock producers 

recognize the need for adequate regulations to ensure environmental quality, food 

safety and other science-based endeavors, they increasingly find their livelihoods 

threatened by government regulations that cross the threshold of common sense in 

attempts to address any number of perceived societal ills. 

The population of the United States passed 300 million people in 2006. Many demographers predict that number will exceed 400 million by 2040. A sober question 

that must be asked is ‘‘how will we feed one-third more people in just 35 more 

years?’’ A short and equally sober answer would be ‘‘not from domestic food production if irrational regulations shift production of meat, milk, poultry, and eggs outside the United States.’’ 

If Americans are concerned about the environmental impacts of agricultural production and the safety of their foods and beverages, the Nation would be well-served 

to preserve food production here at home. Our nation has the best environmental 

and food safety protocols in the world. Recent concerns about the safety of imported 

foods point out the simple fact that if we make it so hard and cost-prohibitive for 

America’s farmers and ranchers to stay in business, our nation will be forced to import a larger portion of our food. We will import most of that food from nations 

which have significantly fewer environmental, food safety and labor safeguards. 

Simply put, in a misguided effort to stamp out problems here at home that are ei-
93 

ther marginal or do not exist, we will create larger problems that are arguably more 

serious. 

CLEAN WATER ACT

CAFOs are regulated by the Clean Water Act. They must either have zero discharges, or obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Contrary to the assertions of some, it would be incorrect to presume that all 

or even most CAFOs experience actual discharges to navigable waters. The evidence 

clearly demonstrates that CAFOs as a class cannot be presumed to be discharging, 

that the vast majority of CAFOs do not discharge, and that the probability is extremely high that a majority of CAFOs will never have a discharge in the future. 

Livestock producers whose operations are classified as CAFOs, however, are highly regulated with some of the most stringent fines and enforcement actions available 

under the Clean Water Act. As with any regulated group, there are events and actors that cause a catastrophic failure of the regulatory system, and they must always be dealt with swiftly and in full accordance with the law. Spills and discharges 

can occur, but in spite of the rhetoric of anti-livestock groups, they are not the norm 

and do not represent the practices of the overwhelming majority of livestock producers. 

In particular, we note that any animal feeding operation (pork, poultry, beef, 

dairy or horse) of almost any size faces potential enforcement and severe penalties 

for even a single discharge from the operation to waters of the United States. This 

was not the case (and was certainly not perceived to be the case) prior to EPA’s 

2003 CAFO rule. Perhaps even more important is that the 2003 rule extended CWA 

protections to the application of manure to CAFO lands. Under this change, the application of manure to these lands without appropriate and documented agronomic 

and conservation best management practices would make any resulting storm water 

runoff of pollutants to waters of the United States a CWA ‘‘discharge’’ potentially 

subject to substantial penalties. 

These changes are monumental shifts in the Federal policies and regulations that 

govern animal feeding operations. They have created substantial and effective incentives for CAFOs to prevent any discharge from CAFO production areas and to use 

sound and effective manure application practices in land application areas. They 

represent substantial improvements in water quality protection. Moreover, these 

benefits will be realized even for CAFOs that do not need a Federal NPDES permit. 

This is a sound policy outcome because certain aspects of the Second Circuit Court 

of Appeals Waterkeeper ruling will make the permitting process for CAFOs that do 

seek permit coverage more bureaucratic, more cumbersome, and less adaptable to 

changing operational circumstances. 

NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANS

EPA’s CAFO rule will require every permit to include a nutrient management 

plan. These plans contain management practices and procedures necessary to implement applicable effluent limitations and standards. NMPs will: 

• Ensure adequate storage of manure, litter, and process wastewater, including 

procedures to ensure proper operation and maintenance of the storage facilities; 

• Ensure proper management of mortalities (i.e., dead animals) . . . ; 

• Ensure that clean water is diverted, as appropriate, from the production area; 

• Prevent direct contact of confined animals with waters of the United States; 

• Ensure that chemicals and other contaminants handled onsite are not disposed 

of in any manure, litter, [or] process wastewater . . . ; 

• Identify appropriate site-specific conservation practices to be implemented, including as appropriate buffers or equivalent practices, to control runoff of pollutants 

to waters of the United States; 

• Identify protocols for appropriate testing of manure, litter, process wastewater, 

and soil; 

• Establish protocols to land apply manure, litter or process wastewater in accordance with site specific nutrient management practices that ensure appropriate 

agricultural utilization of the nutrients in the manure, litter or process wastewater; 

and 

• Identify specific records that will be maintained to document the implementation and management of the minimum elements. 

These provisions require (1) minimization of phosphorus and nitrogen transport 

from the field to surface waters through land application rates; (2) annual testing 

of manure for nitrogen and phosphorus content and 5-year testing of soil for phos-
94 

1See Centner (126–7) for a fuller explanation of recent changes in the AFO industry. 

2National Research Council. Air Emissions from Animal Feeding Operations: Current Knowledge, Future Needs. 2003. Washington, DC. National Academies Press. 

phorus content; (3) periodic inspection of land application equipment; and (4) land 

application setbacks from waters or vegetated buffers. 

INNOVATION

Beyond design and engineering of adequate structures to perform waste management, livestock producers today are employing new methods to reduce nutrients in 

a CAFO’s internal waste stream. Modifying animal diets to reduce nutrient excretion and improvements in biological, physical, and chemical treatment processes for 

manure and wastewaters can reduce the acres of land needed to utilize manure nutrients. Furthermore, byproduct recovery processes are being developed that can 

transform waste into energy and other value-added products to be marketed off the 

farm. Additional management practices include costly and burdensome requirements like the daily inspections of water lines, weekly inspections of storm water 

and runoff diversion devices, and manure, litter or process wastewater impoundments, and maintenance of records documenting these daily and weekly inspections. 

TWO-TIERED ASSURANCE

Existing data have established the fact that the vast majority of CAFOs do not 

discharge and should not be presumed to discharge. 

The major livestock, poultry and egg producing states have State regulatory programs that involve permitting requirements. Under these programs, many states 

keep records of manure releases or discharges from livestock operations. Some also 

have strict requirements that CAFOs report not only ‘‘discharges’’ to the waters of 

the State or U.S., but also other types of permit violations, as well as manure spills, 

releases, or other incidents regardless of whether they involve waters of the U.S. 

Some of these states actively accept and act on public complaints about incidents, 

releases, or violations and they record the complaints and the actions taken in response. Some of these states require each regulated CAFO to have a periodic visit 

from a State regulator/inspector to check compliance. 

The scope, extent and consistency of these publicly available release or discharge 

records have grown extensively since the late 1990’s. While there are differences in 

the information collected and reported; there is a sufficient quantity and quality of 

information available to indicate just how rare CAFO discharges to waters of the 

U.S. really are. Professor Terence Centner of the University of Georgia argues: 

‘‘To assume that data from 10 years ago reasonably describes the current water 

quality conditions requires that the locations and practices of AFOs have not undergone any significant changes. It also assumes that if any changes have occurred due 

to the expansion or demise of operations, they have not markedly altered the pollution reported in the early 1990’s. Furthermore, reliance on this data assumes polluters of the 1990’s are engaged in the same activities today and that they have not 

implemented new pollution-prevention practices. Given the available data on current AFO practices, these assumptions are simply not realistic’’ (4).1

PROTECTING AIR QUALITY

The vast majority of farmers and ranchers live on or near their livestock operations. This means they and their families breathe the same air as their neighbors. 

Most livestock farms are proactively instituting practices to reduce air quality concerns for the welfare or their workers, neighbors, animals, and their own families. 

Most operations are now using natural barriers such as tree screens to help mitigate 

air quality issues. These screens help to direct air flow from our barns and lagoons 

away from other rural residences. Modern facilities are now being built with computer controlled ventilation systems to ensure healthy indoor air. Although these 

common management practices help reduce emissions of odors, air particles, and 

gases, such as ammonia, there is much more that we do not understand about animal facilities and air emissions. A 2003 study conducted by the National Research 

Council of the National Academy of Sciences2 and commissioned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency determined that there is insufficient data to fully understand the environmental and health impacts of large animal operations. In response to the NAS study, U.S. EPA is partnering with agricultural operations and 

land grant universities to measure air emissions from various types of livestock fa-
95 

3http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/?odor/NAEMS/ 

4http://www.airquality.nrcs.usda.gov/AAQTF/ 

cilities. The aims of the National Air Emissions Monitoring3 study are to collect accurate data and develop procedures to better estimate emissions from livestock facilities. It is important to note that over 2,500 livestock farmers are helping to share 

the cost of this study though voluntary participation. The USDA Air Quality Task 

Force4 has brought more attention to agricultural air quality research needs; however, funding and support has fallen short. Scientific studies currently available 

have only scratched the surface, and the current patchwork of air regulations does 

not make sense for agriculture. 

While the Clean Air Act sets national standards for criteria pollutants—such as 

nitrous oxides and fine and coarse particulate matter (PM), each State is charged 

with developing its own implementation plan to meet these standards in areas that 

have been given a non-attainment designation by U.S. EPA. EPA often offers guidance to states to reduce emissions, but this does not insure uniform treatment of 

agricultural operations across all states. As national air quality standards continue 

to be tightened, states with large agricultural production will be more apt to regulate agricultural sources in order to meet the Federal emissions mandates. Because 

air quality reviews are conducted every 5 years, it is difficult to deal with regulations that are constantly changing. In addition to Federal standards, individual 

states often impose additional air quality regulations and permitting requirements. 

In Missouri, State regulations set limits on odor emissions and require odor control 

plans separate of any Federal standards. Missouri also has optional programs to 

prevent pollution from agricultural feeding operations. This fragmented approach to 

air quality creates an uncertain environment for producers. 

THE OVERKILL OF CERCLA

In addition to all the Federal and State laws that already regulate agriculture, 

livestock and poultry producers, and anyone else who uses or transports animal manure have yet another looming concern. Recent lawsuits from activists and local and 

State municipalities seek to expand Superfund liability to animal manure. Collectively, the litigation argues that manure should be considered a hazardous substance—just like radioactive and toxic waste—under the Superfund laws. 

The Superfund laws—the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation 

and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Rightto-Know Act (EPCRA)—were crafted to address toxic or abandoned waste situations 

such as the notorious Three Mile Island and Love Canal sites. Animal manure has 

not been regulated under these laws, nor do we think that the congressional record 

indicates that Congress ever intended for a natural substance like manure to be regulated under such a strict liability scheme. 

Compounds are typically regulated under Superfund without regard to facility 

size. Further, the threshold amounts of compound triggering clean-up requirements 

are from a business perspective, very small. Superfund was designed to mandate 

cleanup of compounds that are very harmful even in small amounts—manure is a 

beneficial and natural product that does not fit that description. Proper production 

use, storage and disposal of manure is certainly not harmful to human health or 

the environment. Numerous Federal and State laws are in place to regulate farms 

when and where manure is found in areas and quantities that could pose an environmental or health risk if handled improperly. If the courts do eventually classify 

manure as a hazardous substance under Superfund, then the liability and consequences to farmers and ranchers will negatively alter the viability and structure 

of American livestock and poultry production. 

Most farms with animals could be exposed to severe liabilities and penalties as 

a result of being brought under the Superfund laws. Farmers may lose the option 

of using manure and be forced to rely on commercial fertilizer at three or more 

times its cost. And, ironically, manure and commercial fertilizer pose similar risks 

to the environment from over-application, runoff and air emissions. Congress did exclude the normal application of ‘‘commercial fertilizers’’ from Superfund liability, so 

it seems only reasonable that land application of manure as fertilizer should be afforded the same status. 

Superfund already has a legacy of bankrupting small businesses caught in its 

path. If manure is determined to be a hazardous substance, the cost of technical 

monitoring and compliance will drastically affect small-and medium-sized farmers 

the most, while large producers with far greater financial resources would be better 

able to absorb the compliance and cleanup costs. 
96 

The risk of potential liability under the Superfund laws has compelled companies 

in other industries to relocate or significantly shift their facilities out of the U.S. 

American animal production is integrated, and future relocation decisions could result in the loss of animal-production contracts for farmers, leaving thousands of 

folks in financial ruin with empty barns. 

The organic foods industry would be affected by any decision to classify as hazardous the use of manure as fertilizer. It is unclear how farmers who use organic 

methods would be allowed to continue applying manure to their crops, just as it is 

uncertain whether any effective, alternative fertilizer would be certified for use 

under organic standards. 

Farmers and ranchers support research into new uses for manure. Using manure 

as a fuel source to generate energy shows great promise and Federal, State and private investment is being made into research. Moreover, hazardous substances simply are not used for energy generation. Which is precisely why petroleum based 

fuels are exempted from Superfund liability. Superfund liability would stifle innovation just as the promise of developing renewable energy from manure is getting 

under way. If manure is classified as hazardous waste under Superfund, using manure to generate energy—through methane digesters, for instance—could result in 

entrepreneurs and scientists being held liable for cleanup costs under CERCLA 

which would preclude the use of manure as a potential energy source. 

CONCLUSION

Farmers and ranchers understand their roles in improving and maintaining the 

health and safety of the nations’ environmental resources. Farmers are sensitive to 

the environment because they own and manage two-thirds of the nation’s land. They 

are doing their part to promote the principles of environmental stewardship by 

being good caretakers of the nation’s soil, air and water resources. But the cost of 

this stewardship is not cheap. Meeting the demand for food, feed and fuel as well 

as society’s demands for improved environment quality requires farmers and ranchers to balance, and often individually bear, the cost of achieving many competing 

goals and objectives. 

Agriculture’s impacts on the environment are closely intertwined with countless 

human activities that yield a higher quality of life for all Americans. Our ability 

to increase agricultural productivity—with the use of modern crop production tools 

like fertilizers—has enabled our nation’s farmers and ranchers to increase the production of food, feed and fuel without increasing the acreage of cropland. Our productive capacity is unprecedented in the world’s history and allows our farmers and 

ranchers to meet the demands of our nation’s growing population as well as growing 

world populations and markets abroad. On top of this unprecedented productivity, 

there is little doubt that farmers and ranchers have made great strides in improving 

our environment over the last three decades. By nearly every measure, our environment and natural resources are in better condition than any other time in recent 

history. 

Last, we ask members to seek a balanced policy that will avoid business as usual, 

and steers way from classic command and control approaches. Agriculture is a delicate and interdependent economic activity and the originating link in the nations’ 

food chain. Livestock production in the United States must survive and profit. It is 

essential to the health and livelihoods of many related aspects of agriculture, such 

as feed grain production, and many support sectors of our rural economies. If animal 

agriculture loses its economic sustainability due to overregulation, American consumers would be left to depend on foreign food imports, likely grown with less regard for food safety. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Chris. 

Nick Nemec, and let me say Farmer, Western Organization of 

Resource Councils and Dakota Rural Action. 

STATEMENT OF NICK NEMEC, FARMER, WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS AND DAKOTA RURAL ACTION 

Mr. NEMEC. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Committee for giving me this opportunity to testify. 

My name is Nicholas Nemec, and I farm and ranch on 4,100 

acres in Hyde County, South Dakota. From 1993 to 1996, I represented my area in our State Legislature. 
97 

I am here today as a member of the Western Organization of Resource Councils and Dakota Rural Action, two non-profit organizations with over 9,700 members in 7 western States. 

My roots in agriculture in South Dakota run deep. My greatgreat-grandparents and great-grandparents immigrated to America 

from Eastern Europe early in the last century and homestead in 

South Dakota in 1907. 

Those roots were threatened in early 1997 when Tyson Foods approached our county commissioners with a plan to construct over 

100 hog confinement barns that would feed over a half million hogs 

each year and plans to build more barns in future years. With the 

endorsement of the county commissioners and city council in hand, 

Tyson Foods thought the door was open for a major expansion into 

South Dakota. Little did they know that the South Dakota State 

motto is Under God, the People Rule, and in Hyde County, the people eventually did rule. 

My wife and I and our neighbors were worried because we knew 

that our county had no zoning ordinances of any kind of even a requirement for building permits. We were worried that we might 

wake up some day and find a large hog barn being built across the 

fence or down the road from our farms. 

Hyde County is an area with tens of thousands of acres of shallow lakes and wetlands and many intermittent streams. People 

were concerned about the pollution that could be caused if the 

dikes around one of the manure cesspools at the proposed hog 

farms would fail. The manure would run into our lakes and 

streams, killing wildlife and vegetation and contaminating our 

shallow aquifers. These kinds of failures occurred in North Carolina. 

We were also concerned about runoff from fields where manure 

had been applied at rates greater than the crops could use. 

We are rural people and are used to and not afraid of the smell 

of a little manure, but promises by Tyson Foods to be a good neighbor and glowing testimonials from Hughes County, Oklahoma, 

where Tyson had a similar operation, did not allay our concerns 

about odor and pollution. 

We were able to contact citizens of Hughes County, who told a 

very different story. They told of being prisoners in their own 

homes and being unable to open the windows because the stench 

of manure cesspools permeated everything. They told of being unable to enjoy the outdoors because the stench was so overwhelming 

that it made their eyes water and gave them headaches. In short, 

their quality of life was what we feared ours would become. 

My oldest daughter has asthma. My wife and I had read that 

particulate matter in the air around large hog confinement barns 

and the stench from the manure cesspools triggers asthma attacks 

in some people. Watching your child fight to get air during an asthma attack and rushing her to a hospital is a scary experience that 

we didn’t want to ever have to go through again. 

With the help of Dakota Rural Action, we began drafting an ordinance that prohibited locating a manure management system for 

livestock housed in barns closer than four miles from any existing 

residential structure. The ordinance passed by a margin of 56 to 43 

percent. 
98 

The rural vote of 75 percent in favor versus the town vote of 46 

percent of the ordinance reveals the divisive nature this issue had 

on our small community, pitting urban against rural with the rural 

residents, mainly ag producers, supporting stricter controls. 

It also illustrates the distinction that many of us in agriculture 

make between this new model of livestock production and the family farm model that is traditional in our rural communities. I call 

these new operations, factory farms, to distinguish them from traditional family farms. 

The factory farm model is often promoted as the next logical step 

in the modernization and industrialization of agriculture. It is, in 

fact, bringing with it a host of new concerns. Communities are suddenly dealing with regulating and permitting operations that are 

touted as agriculture when, in fact, they are more similar to industrial production facilities than traditional family farms. The result 

is that factory farms have proven to have many unanticipated consequences to the environment and the high quality of life that sets 

our rural communities apart. 

Townships, counties and even States across the Nation are struggling to handle the impacts of these factory farms. Many have established moratoriums in an attempt to put in place adequate laws 

and regulations to protect their citizens, natural resources and 

their quality of life from the unintended consequences of factory 

farm development. 

While we in Hyde County have tried to protect our local environment, we also knew that a local county zoning ordinance couldn’t 

protect us from manure spills in counties upstream. Water, creeks 

and, for that matter, manure run downhill and don’t respect county 

or State lines. 

In closing, I understand that there are proposals to exempt factory farms from some of our Federal environmental laws, and I 

urge you to oppose these efforts and to preserve the clean air and 

water standards we have for factory farms and all of agriculture 

as well as those to ensure that toxic waste sites are cleaned up and 

that the public is given information about emissions of pollutants 

and contaminants. 

As a farmer and rancher, I do not feel threatened by these laws. 

They are not designed to punish responsible farmers of any size or 

type, and I am not aware of a single instance where they have been 

used to do so. These laws are designed to ensure the health and 

well being of my family, my land and my downstream and downwind neighbors. Today, more than ever, we need to maintain and 

even strengthen them to protect the communities in which factory 

farms are operating. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nemec follows:] 

STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS NEMEC, FARMER, WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE

COUNCILS AND DAKOTA RURAL ACTION

Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the Committee for giving me this opportunity to testify. My name is Nicholas Nemec. I am a farmer and rancher from 

central South Dakota where I raise cattle, wheat, sunflowers, corn, and hay on 

4,100 acres in Hyde County. From 1993–1996, I represented six central South Dakota counties in the State legislature. 

I am here today representing the Western Organization of Resource Councils 

(WORC) and Dakota Rural Action (DRA), two non-profit organizations that have 
99 

worked proactively for family farm agriculture in the West for nearly 30 years. 

WORC is a network of grassroots organizations from seven western states that includes 9,700 members and 44 local community groups. About a third of WORC’s 

members are family farmers and ranchers. WORC has many members who are affected by or could be affected by large factory farms and are working on the issue 

in local, state, and Federal Government settings. 

My roots in agriculture and South Dakota run deep. My great-great-grandparents 

and great-grandparents immigrated to America from Eastern Europe early in the 

last century. They homesteaded in South Dakota in 1907 and in their struggle to 

establish a foothold in this country and a future life for our family they experienced 

all the hardships that were so common to homesteaders, including the death of my 

great-great-grandmother, who was bitten by a rattlesnake at the door of her sod 

house. That original homestead is now owned by my uncle and last week, at the 

South Dakota State Fair, was recognized as a Century Farm. 

Those roots were threatened in early 1997, when Tyson Foods approached our 

county commissioners with a plan to construct over 100 hog confinement barns that 

would feed nearly 520,000 hogs each year and plans to build more barns in future 

years. All this would happen that spring in a small county of only 860 square miles 

and 1,600 people. The county commissioners and the city council both passed resolutions welcoming Tyson Foods and their hogs to our county under the guise of ‘‘economic development’’. With the endorsement of the two local governing bodies in 

hand, Tyson Foods thought the door was open for a major expansion into South Dakota. Little did they know that the South Dakota State motto is ‘‘Under God the 

People Rule’’ and in Hyde County the people would eventually rule. 

My wife and I and our neighbors were very worried because we knew that our 

county had no zoning ordinances of any kind or even a requirement for building permits. We were worried that we might wake up someday and find a large hog barn 

being built across the fence or down the road from our farms. Hyde County is in 

the Prairie Pothole region of South Dakota. It is an area with tens of thousands of 

acres of shallow lakes and wetlands and many intermittent streams. This area is 

one of the premier duck nesting areas in North America. One of those streams, 

South Medicine Knoll Creek, meanders for two miles through my farm. I have several shallow wells on the banks of the creek that I use to water cattle. I have 

watched this creek grow from a few isolated fishing holes to a river 100 yards wide 

and 8 feet deep in less than a day. Our county was experiencing severe flooding that 

spring. The creeks were high and the lakes were full. People were concerned about 

the pollution that could be caused if the dikes around one of the manure cesspools 

at the proposed hog barns would fail. That manure would run into our lakes and 

streams, killing wildlife and vegetation and contaminating our shallow aquifers. 

Those kinds of failures had occurred in North Carolina. We were also concerned 

about runoff from fields where manure had been applied at rates greater than the 

crops could use. 

We are rural people and are used to and not afraid of the smell of a little manure. 

But we also know that the more manure you have the worse it smells and we didn’t 

want to wake up every morning and spend everyday smelling hog manure. Promises 

by Tyson Foods to be a good neighbor and glowing testimonials from Hughes County, Oklahoma, where Tyson had a similar operation did not allay our concerns. With 

very little difficulty we were able to contact citizens of Hughes County who told a 

very different story about living amongst tens of thousands of hogs. They told of 

being prisoners in their own homes, unable to open the windows because the stench 

of manure cesspools permeated everything. They told of being unable to enjoy the 

outdoors because the stench was so overwhelming that it made their eyes water and 

gave them headaches. In short, their quality of life was what we feared ours would 

become. 

Our oldest daughter has asthma. My wife and I had read that particulate matter 

in the air around large hog confinement barns and the stench from the manure cesspools triggered asthma attacks in some people. Watching your child fight to get air 

during an asthma attack and rushing her to a hospital is a scary experience that 

we didn’t want to go through ever again that I wish no other parent has to go 

through. 

The opponents to the Tyson plan began meeting and formed an ad hoc group to 

determine what, if anything, could be done to slow or stop Tyson Foods. We contacted several lawyers and learned that in our State the citizens of a county have 

the right to circulate petitions to force a special election on an initiated measure. 

With the help of Dakota Rural Action, we began drafting an ordinance to require 

a setback from residential structures. We also set up several informational meetings 

to gauge the level of concern. Eventually an ordinance was written that prohibited 
100 

locating a manure management system for livestock housed in barns closer than 

four miles from any existing residential structure. 

The hard fought election divided our county with the rural residents, farmers, and 

ranchers supporting the proposed ordinance and the local business community in 

town opposing it. Tyson Foods’ purchase of multiple full page ads in the local eight 

page newspaper was seen as another heavy-handed attempt to sway the election. 

The ordinance passed by a margin of 56 percent–43 percent. The rural vote of 75 

percent–25 percent versus the town vote of 46 percent–54 percent reveals the divisive effect this issue had on our small community pitting urban against rural, with 

the rural residents, mainly ag producers, supporting stricter controls. 

It also illustrates the distinction that many of us in agriculture make between 

this new model of livestock production and the family farm model that is traditional 

in our rural communities, and that I still believe is the most sustainable for our 

rural communities. 

I call these new operations ‘‘factory farms’’ to distinguish them from traditional 

family farms. When neighboring landowners challenged a huge pork feeding facility 

in Grand Forks County, North Dakota, District Judge Bruce Bohlmann hit the nail 

on the head when he said the facility was ‘‘not a farming operation’’ but a ‘‘pig factory.’’ 

This term refers to the model of production only. I do not use it as a negative 

term to pass judgment on the individual owners or farmers who are developing 

these large-scale farming operations. I know that there are many responsible, conscientious farmers who work diligently to prevent their factory farming operations 

from having the environmental consequences that my neighbors and I are so concerned about. However, I also know that, regardless of these efforts by some factory 

farm operators, these operations inherently have impacts and pose risks that traditional family farms do not. 

For this reason, factory farms have become an extremely polarizing issue in our 

rural communities as an aging population of farmers struggles to provide financially 

successful options to bring young farmers back to rural areas, while weighing the 

inherent impacts and risks of the factory farm model of production. 

The factory farm model is often promoted and presented as an essential shift for 

the future of our rural economy, and the logical next step in the modernization and 

industrialization of agriculture. It is, in fact, bringing with it a host of new concerns, 

never before presented by traditional family farms. Communities are suddenly dealing with regulating and permitting operations that are touted as agriculture, when 

in fact, they are more similar to industrial production facilities than traditional family farms. 

The reality is that factory farms have proven to have many unanticipated consequences to clean air, pristine landscapes, precious water resources, and the high 

quality of life that sets our rural communities apart. What’s more, the promises of 

jobs, income and prosperity remain largely unfulfilled. 

The unplanned, unregulated expansion of these operations threatens the very 

communities that their proponents claim they will enhance, yet they have expanded 

dramatically over the past 30 years, and are continuing to do so. 

• South Dakota Ag statistics show that by 2002, our State lost more than 80 percent of the dairy farms and more than 83 percent of the hog farms that were operating in 1982. However, over the same time period, we only lost 20 percent of our 

hogs and half of our dairy cows. In other words, South Dakota’s remaining dairy 

farms are two and a half times larger than they were 25 years ago, and our hog 

farms nearly five times larger than they were 25 years ago. 

• In Iowa the average inventory of hogs per farm increased from 250 in 1980 to 

1,430 in 2000—over five times larger. 

• In Missouri, while the total number of hogs stayed the same, the average size 

of an operation grew from 180 in 1985 to 1,227 in 2005—nearly seven times larger. 

This shift in farming methods is recent and far-reaching enough to have swamped 

many local and State governing bodies with ballooning costs to school districts, road 

maintenance, and environmental costs. 

Townships, counties and even states across the Nation are struggling to handle 

these impacts. Many have established moratoriums as they attempt to put into 

place adequate, comprehensive laws and regulations to protect their citizens, natural resources, and their quality of life from the unintended and often accidental 

consequences of factory farm development. 

Hyde County, South Dakota, is not unique in setting tough standards for factory 

farms. Throughout the network of WORC chapters in seven western states, we can 

point out numerous examples of agricultural leaders and communities standing up 
101 

to the industrial scale feedlots and attempting to protect their natural resources and 

quality of life. 

In Hyde County and elsewhere, we are protecting our local environment, but 

stronger State and national rules are needed. Pollution doesn’t know or care about 

State lines. While we in Hyde County have tried to protect our local environment, 

we also knew that we couldn’t protect ourselves from manure spills in counties upstream with a county zoning ordinance. Water, creeks and for that matter manure 

run downhill and don’t respect county or State lines. 

I understand that there are proposals to exempt factory farms from some of our 

Federal environmental laws, and I urge you to oppose these efforts, and to preserve 

the clean air and water standards we have for factory farms and all of agriculture, 

as well as those that ensure that toxic waste sites are cleaned up, and that the public is given information about emissions of pollutants and contaminants. 

As a farmer and rancher, I do not feel threatened by these laws, and I do not 

believe that any factory farm operator need fear them either. They are not designed 

to punish responsible farmers of any size or type, and I am not aware of a single 

instance when they have been used to do so. 

These laws were designed to insure the health and well-being of my family, my 

land, and my downstream and downwind neighbors. Today more than ever, we need 

to maintain and even strengthen them to protect the communities in which factory 

farms are operating. If factory farm operators are going to manage large numbers 

of livestock in small, confined units, let them do so by internalizing the full costs 

of their operations by managing and treating the wastes, and containing harmful 

emissions, and by receiving an appropriate penalty if they fail to do so. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. Dicks from Oklahoma State University, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DICKS, OKLAHOMA 

STATE UNIVERSITY 

Mr. DICKS. Good afternoon. My name is Mike Dicks, and I am 

a professor of agricultural economics. 

Thank you. I want to thank the Committee for holding this hearing and for providing me with an opportunity to provide input. 

I provided written testimony to include in the record and want 

to focus my time here on just a specific few points. I listened to the 

comments this morning, and I think these points are interesting to 

be sure. 

My main point is that we need to stop dealing with the waste, 

with animal manure as a waste and start dealing with it and viewing it as a natural resource, as a valuable natural resource. By 

treating it as a waste, we have employed all efforts and resources 

to contain and eliminate rather than collect and utilize. 

The animal industry implements the best manure management 

strategies provided by public and private research efforts. To demand that an industry continue to adopt cost-effective BMPs is not 

unreasonable, but to be unhappy with the result of that implementation and then pose new regulations or restrictions on the industry without either the available technologies or financial ability to 

implement those technologies would seem unreasonable. 

I also don’t know of a single study that has actually measured 

the benefits and the costs of implement known BMPs in the Nation’s CAFOs. Few studies have attempted to evaluate the benefits 

and costs of discharge abatement in specific watersheds and most 

are loaded with assumptions where scientific data is unknown or 

uncertain. For the most part, Federal, State and local actions have 

been taken to contain and eliminate animal manure under the assumption that the damages, real or perceived, exceed the abatement costs. 
102 

Environmental regulation of CAFOs should only impose costs 

where the value of corresponding benefits is greater. Considering 

all available abatement technologies, only those that have the costs 

for specific operations where the value of corresponding benefits is 

greater should be implemented. Otherwise, individuals, communities, regions and societies have lower welfare than before the 

abatement technologies were implemented. 

Most States are implementing animal manure and water quality 

standards that exceed those established in Federal law. We have 

heard that this morning. 

These tighter standards are in response to environmental conditions unique to specific area and the public’s perception of problems. Certainly, Oklahoma is no exception and has been actively 

engaged in addressing air and water quality concerns associated 

with animal manure 

The current focus of BMPs is on containment and elimination. 

The most obvious forms of containment are manure ponds, lagoons 

and holding pits. 

Examples of successful alternative manure management strategies that stress collection and utilization include the Mason-Dixon 

Dairy in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, S&S Aqua Farms in West 

Plains, Missouri, the Solar Aqua Farms in Sun City, California, 

and there are many more that I could list. 

These farms incorporate animal manure into a production system 

to produce energy, fertilizer, chemical-free quality food, bedding 

and fresh water. These are all examples of farms that have moved 

from monoculture production schemes to multiple product systems. 

These farms have incorporated animal manure into the production 

process. They collect and utilize. 

There are many of these new types of farming systems developing throughout the world, but they are still far outside the mainstream thinking. 

In addition, considerable research efforts are underway at private and public universities and businesses. Some examples of 

these research thrusts include improving nutrient content of foods 

and better animal genetics to reduce the total quantity of manure, 

new collection systems to move manure from feed pens to storage 

facilities and new storage facilities that actively process manure for 

incorporation into new products. 

On average, CAFOs have funds available for the adoption of new 

technologies. However, the amount of funds in a given year are 

highly variable. Because of the return to investment in these operations are often below the returns to limited risk investments, the 

decision to implement new technology in these operations is frequently not a good business decision. 

The contain and eliminate paradigm has led to environmental 

issues of great concern to those individuals and communities near 

and downstream from the animal feeding operations. In response, 

new State and Federal Government regulations have been promulgated to address these concerns and have not, as yet, been fully implemented. 

The new regulations require many operations to make major investment in plant or operational changes that are not part of their 

original operation plans. We are currently unsure of the costs of 
103 

implementing these strategies is exceeded by the benefits of doing 

so. 

BMPs developed to incorporate animal manure into food and fuel 

production may provide added benefits and increase the economic 

feasibility of both private and public support of adoption. CAFO initial operation plans contain the best technologies of the time. As 

we learn more about how animal manure interacts with the environment through different operations and unique ecological systems, the best management practices today will be changed. 

The animal feeding operations have limited funds to incorporate 

new technology and, of course, technological economies of size exist 

in this industry. Thus, a requirement to adopt new technologies 

puts a greater burden on smaller operations. In response to financial constraints, Federal and State Government have provided costshare assistance and adequate timelines and consideration for financial burden. 

The industry is engaged in developing nutrient management 

plans and implementing BMPs, but these efforts won’t be fully realized for several years. After full implementation of the new EPA 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permitting requirements and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards 

rule, we can revisit the environmental concerns related to animal 

feeding operations and determine a future course of action. 

However, until we change to a paradigm of collect and utilize, we 

will never fully address the issues surrounding animal manure. 

Thank you for your time, and I will be open to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dicks follows:] 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DICKS, OKLAHOMA STATE UNIVERSITY

Animal manure management has always been a major component of the design 

and operation of confined animal production facilities but has certainly increased in 

importance over the last 30 years. I have been involved with animal production and 

manure utilization for more than 35 years and been part of the design and implementation of manure utilization technologies in the U.S. and Africa. I am currently 

a Professor of Agricultural Economics at Oklahoma State University and specialize 

in the areas of agricultural policy and farm and ranch management. The issues surrounding animal manure are important and I thank the Senate Public Works and 

Environment Committee for holding this hearing and providing me the opportunity 

to bring a new perspective to the debate on animal manure management. I am going 

to focus my remarks on public and private efforts too minimize the adverse impacts 

of animal manure on human health and the environment. 

Oklahoma has 799 registered poultry feeding operations, 220 licensed confined 

swine feeding operations, 66 licensed confined cattle feeding operations and 12 licensed confined dairy operations. These represent only those operations with actual 

or potential discharge that are large enough to be required to be licensed or registered under current State or Federal statues and thus there are certainly more 

animal feeding operations in the state. These Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) 

are spread throughout the State but tend to be lumped by species in specific regions 

of the state. 

Oklahoma also contains approximately 11,611 miles of shoreline, (slightly less 

than the estimated combined general coastline of the Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, and 

Arctic Coasts) and approximately 78,578 miles of rivers/streams. From 1996 through 

2007 roughly 1,000 complaints have been received by the Oklahoma Department of 

Agriculture Food and Forestry (ODAFF) related to animal manure concerns from 

cattle, swine, horse, rabbit, poultry, goat, and dog confined production operations. 

These complaints dealt with potential or actual water quality problems, odor, dust 

and noise. 

The combination of abundant AFOs, number of water bodies and concerned citizens in Oklahoma provides an excellent opportunity to study the interaction of the 

three. To assert there are no problems in animal manure management in the State 
104 

of Oklahoma would be nothing short of ridiculous, but to assume that the owners 

of livestock production, feeding and processing firms are not actively engaged in 

pursuing changes to meet new standards and implement the latest ‘‘Best Management Practices’’ (BMPs) would also be ridiculous. The management of animal manure is just one complicated issue in a very complex industry. Few understand either and even fewer understand both. 

My main message is the need to change from dealing with animal manure as a 

waste and place more focus on fully utilizing this valuable resource through greater 

support of research and development. By treating manure as a waste we employ all 

efforts and resources to contain and eliminate rather than collect and utilize. We 

seem to have abandoned this resource, valuable for energy and food production, in 

favor of other less efficient sources such as chemical fertilizers and ethanol. The demand for cheap food and international competition from countries with cheaper capital assets has induced the proliferation of the large CAFOs over the last four decades. These facilities were initially constructed to efficiently provide abundant and 

cheap sources of animal protein with little thought toward their combined environmental impact. As we have become aware of this impact the industry has changed 

and devoted a considerable amount of their net earnings to meeting the problem. 

The industry has and continues to implement the strategies provided by public and 

private research efforts. To demand that an industry continue to adopt cost effective 

BMPs is not unreasonable but to be unhappy with the result of implementation of 

these BMPs and then pose new regulations or restrictions without either the available technologies or the financial ability to implement those technologies is unreasonable. And, the continued promulgation of new regulations here and not abroad 

will eventually shift the industry abroad. 

Some view regulation and litigation as the answer to problems and others seek 

innovation and incentives. Solutions that are profitable and adaptable will be readily adopted by industry. These facts support the idea that our scarce resources are 

best spent not on forcing change through regulation and litigation but rather inducing change through research and education. 

DO WE NEED NEW CAFO REGULATIONS?

The purpose for this hearing is to address the impacts of CAFOs on human health 

and water quality to determine the need for increased regulation in an attempt to 

mitigate any adverse impacts from animal manure. The nutrients in animal manure 

have found their way into natural waters and the odor and dust from CAFOs has 

found its way into the air we breathe. However, I do not know of a single study 

that has actually measured the benefits and costs of implementing known BMPs in 

the nations CAFOs. Few studies have attempted to evaluate the benefits and costs 

of discharge abatement in specific watersheds and most are loaded with assumptions where scientific data is unknown or uncertain. For the most part, Federal, 

State and local actions have been taken to contain and eliminate animal manure 

under the assumption that the damages, real or perceived, exceed the costs. In theory, environmental regulation of CAFOs should only impose costs where the value 

of corresponding benefits is greater. In considering all available abatement technologies, only those that have costs for specific operations, where the value of corresponding benefits is greater should be implemented. Otherwise, individuals, communities, regions and society have lower welfare than before the abatement technologies were implemented. To impose this restriction would end the debate pending 

a benefit/cost assessment. However, to move us beyond this point we will assume 

that the implementation of nutrient management plans that choose from amongst 

a set of best management practices is accomplished such that the costs do not exceed the benefits of this implementation. 

To induce a change in current behavior we can employee either the stick or the 

carrot approach. In terms of Federal policy, we have used, and continue to use both 

approaches. The most commonly known carrot approaches include technical and 

cost-share assistance, subsidies and the less commonly included approaches of research and education. On the stick approach we have Federal, state, and local regulations, taxes, and permits that pose constraints on behavior. In either the stick or 

the carrot approach there are two conditions required to induce or force behavior 

change. First, there must be clear, cost effective alternatives to current behavior and 

second the targeted party must have the ability to adopt the alternatives. Of course 

this presumes that with respect to the CAFOs, we wish to change their behavior 

regarding manure management rather than eliminate them all together. If the purpose of the debate regarding the further regulation of CAFOs is an indirect attempt 

to deal with issues of structure in the animal production and processing industry 
105 

1Note that there is no scientific basis for this phosphorus constraint. No upper limit on phosphorus has been found that limits plant growth potential. 

then I would submit that the attempt is misguided and likely to lead to more concentration rather than less. 

Current Efforts—Most states are implementing animal manure and water quality 

standards that exceed those established in Federal law. These tighter standards are 

in response to environmental conditions unique to areas within the state. Certainly 

Oklahoma is no exception and has been actively engaged in addressing issues specific to air and water quality concerns resulting from animal manure. For instance; 

• In 1998, the Oklahoma USDA-NRCS revised their Conservation Practice Standard, Waste Utilization (Code 633), with a provision specifically for the Eucha/ 

Spavinaw Watershed to restrict poultry litter application on land with a phosphorus 

index of 300 lbs/acre or greater. 

• In 2000, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board required poultry producers in 

nutrient limited watersheds and nutrient limited groundwater areas to test their 

soil prior to litter application every year, rather than every 3 years as is required 

for non-nutrient limited watersheds. 

• In 2001, the Oklahoma USDA NRCS published the Nutrient Management 

standard (Code 590), replacing the Waste Utilization (Code 633) standard from 1995 

and 1998. The new standard made phosphorus, rather than nitrogen, the limiting 

factor in all nutrient management plans. In non-nutrient limited watersheds, the 

phosphorus index has an upper limit of 400 lbs/acre, after which no additional litter 

may be applied. In nutrient limited watersheds, 300 lbs/acre is the threshold. The 

standard is applicable statewide.1

• The Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 extended and expanded 

funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The program 

called for 60 percent of funding to be spent on livestock operations. In order to reach 

this goal, NRCS has developed the National Animal Agriculture Conservation 

Framework (December 2003). This National Framework is built from State and 

Basin Area efforts and presents a vision for voluntary, proactive efforts to foster environmentally sound and economically viable livestock and poultry production. It envisions collaboration among Federal, State, tribal, and local governments; producers; 

the public; and the private sector to bring the initiative, resources, and commitment 

to support environmental stewardship in animal agriculture. 

• In 2003, The Office of the Secretary of Environment issued a Coordinated watershed Restoration and protection Strategy for Oklahoma’s Impaired Scenic Rivers’’. 

• In 2003, Oklahoma and Arkansas signed a ‘‘Statement of Joint Principles and 

Actions,’’ outlining how the states would work together to improve water quality in 

Oklahoma’s scenic rivers. The pact calls for ‘‘The states of Arkansas and Oklahoma, 

acting through their environmental agencies, to work together in partnership with 

the Arkansas-Oklahoma Arkansas River Compact Commission toward the goal of 

producing a Watershed Plan. 

• In 2007, Oklahoma signed a $20.6 million cooperative conservation partnership 

agreement between USDA and Oklahoma that will create up to 9,000 acres (or 370 

miles) of riparian buffers and filter strips under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program or CREP. 

In 2005 and 2006 NRCS spent just over 60 percent of the EQIP funds on livestock 

operations but less than 20 percent on CAFOs. However, the 20 percent includes 

transportation subsidies and other cost-share assistance not directly tied to changes 

in the operation of the CAFOs. This is important as the impacts of animal manure 

more frequently occur at the land applicationsite than at the CAFO. With both the 

Oklahoma CREP and EQIP, funds have been targeted to produce buffers and filter 

strip and to fence livestock out of these areas. Because phosphorous readily attaches 

to soil particles most phosphorous contamination of water is the result of soil erosion. Reducing this erosion or reducing the ability of eroded soil particles from entering the water will reduce phosphorous induced water quality degradation. These 

fenced buffers and filter strips offer the additional benefits of wildlife nesting habitat and stockpiled forage for emergency use. 
106 

In Oklahoma, about 16 percent of the 2006 EQIP funds were spent on storage, 

composting, sprinkler systems and other practices for CAFOs and another 8 percent 

was spent on transport and application of manure. Another large portion of the 

funds were used to produce and fence buffers and filter strips. 
107 
108 

2http://www.epa.state.il.us/water/cafo/publications/pork-bmp.pdf 

Source: USDA/NRCS 

These actions represent a timeline of involvement of CAFO operators, State and 

Federal agencies, and conservation and community groups in an attempt to pursue 

solutions to local water quality problems posed by animal manure. Also important 

are the education, research and extension efforts of the State agencies and Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station in addressing animal manure issues. This is 

not an exhaustive list of all the activities of Federal, state, and local governments, 

community groups and private and public research and education efforts dealing 

with CAFOs in this decade. To list all these efforts would fill several hundred pages. 

But these efforts symbolize the engagement of the industry and community in dealing with manure management issues. 

Clearly, CAFOs are actively implementing the nutrient management practices as 

per the NRCS technical guides. The EQIP practices are provided with 50–75 percent 

cost share and the transportation subsidies of $4 to $12.50/ton depending on the distance between production and use sites. Current farm bill proposals however, seek 

to reduce eligibility to EQIP cost share assistance based on producer’s gross income. 

As I will show later, because of the low profit margins in many animal feeding operations (particularly cattle) large gross incomes are needed. The cost ?shared practices that NRCS provides through EQIP are frequently part of other changes that 

must be implemented simultaneously. Thus, the total cost of implementing the practice often exceeds the cost-share. Restrictions on payments based on income will reduce the ability of EQIP to induce change. 

ARE THERE CLEAR ALTERNATIVES?

The current emphasis is on containment and elimination of animal manure from 

animal feeding operations. The most obvious forms of containment are the manure 

ponds, lagoons, and holding pits for manure storage and the elimination through 

land application. Increased efficiency in land application would alone solve many of 

the water quality issues. But as I stated previously the current paradigm of contain 

and eliminate is at the core of the problem. Are there alternatives for collection and 

use? 

This question can be broken into 1) are the technologies available and 2) can they 

be implemented. Let’s first consider whether there are clear alternatives to current 

behavior. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS) is charged with providing technical assistance to agribusiness to both improve production and minimize the impacts of the production activities on the environment. The NRCS has been active in assisting animal agricultural by providing 

technical guides for every type of production agriculture. With respect to the 

CAFOs, the USDA/NRCS has a national technical guide for developing a comprehensive nutrient management plan. According to the NRCS National Planning 

Procedures Handbook (Subpart B, Part 600.51 Draft Comprehensive Nutrient Management Planning Technical Guidance) ‘‘a CNMP is a conservation plan that is 

unique to animal feeding operations. It is a grouping of conservation practices and 

management activities which, when implemented as part of a conservation system, 

will help to ensure that both production and natural resource protection goals are 

achieved. A CNMP incorporates practices to utilize animal manure and organic byproducts as a beneficial resource. A CNMP addresses natural resource concerns 

dealing with soil erosion, manure, and organic by-products and their potential impacts on water quality, which may derive from an AFO. A CNMP is developed to 

assist an AFO owner/operator in meeting all applicable local, tribal, State, and Federal water quality goals or regulations. For nutrient impaired stream segments or 

water bodies, additional management activities or conservation practices may be required to meet local, tribal, State, or Federal water quality goals or regulations.’’ 

Many States have their own set of BMPs that are more restrictive, have been in 

place longer, and provide their own programs to assist in implementation. As we 

have more experience with the management of animal manure in the various feeding structures, in unique environments these BMPs may change. A list of common 

list of BMPs is provided below, divided into four categories, covering a specific operation or management task: grounds, buildings, lagoons, settling basins and holding 

ponds, and land application2. 
109 

Grounds—BMPs involving the grounds at pork production facilities are basically 

common sense and being considerate of your neighbors. Below are examples of BMP 

activities that you may be able to implement at your facility: • locating the facility as far as possible from surface water bodies • locating the facility in an area with sufficient soil drainage • having wind breaks and buffer strips around the facility • diverting rain water away from areas where it could become contaminated • maintaining proper gravel cover and landscape gradient so that water does not 

stand in access roads and around the production facility • scraping away manure in open feed lots to reduce buildup of solids and to control odor and fly production • collecting runoff from lots through settling basins for subsequent land application • immediately loading manure into a manure spreader and directly applying to 

the field • removing spilled feed promptly • keeping feeder equipment in good repair • keeping watering devices in good repair 

Buildings—Routine maintenance and good housekeeping practices are the two 

easiest ways to prevent pollution in buildings. Some ways that you can use BMPs 

in buildings are: 

• constructing interior surfaces with smooth materials to reduce dust and grime 

accumulation and facilitate cleaning 

• maintaining adequate ventilation in the building to prevent buildup of dusts, 

gases, moisture and heat 

• preventing liquids from collecting under animals and watering equipment by 

using slotted floors or other technologies 

• repairing leaking water lines immediately 

• maintaining clean and dry buildings 

• installing an under floor ventilation system in confinement buildings where 

below floor manure storage is used 

• using a power washer when hosing down walls, dividers and floors in order to 

reduce water usage 

• covering feeders and extending feed downspouts to minimize dust 

• scraping off or flushing away manure in confinement areas on a frequency 

which is adequate to minimize odors 

• covering sumps at lift stations 

• pumping manure from accumulation areas to storage areas on a frequency 

which is adequate to prevent odors and overflow 

Lagoons, settling basins and holding ponds—Undersized or poorly designed lagoons, settling basins and holding ponds can cause pollution. Below are some examples of ways to improve your lagoons, settling basins and holding ponds: 

• locating lagoons, settling basins and holding ponds away from valleys which can 

trap odors in low lying areas 

• constructing lagoons, settling basins and holding ponds so that wastes do not 

overflow or leach into groundwater and so that odor is minimized 

• covering the lagoon, settling basin or holding pond to reduce surface odors being 

released 

• adding aeration 

• pumping or draining manure to a lagoon in small enough quantities to avoid 

slug loadings, maintaining a stable microbial population within the lagoon 

• maintaining sufficient storage capacity to prevent overflow of lagoons, settling 

basins and holding ponds 

• using a pump and a solids separator to lower solids loading 

• removing sludge from the primary lagoon frequently enough to prevent overloading or carryover of solids to a second stage lagoon 

• equipping lagoons and holding ponds with a free board gauge that shows when 

it is time to pump out and land apply supernatant, preventing overflows 

• dewatering lagoons only down to the minimum treatment volume level as indicated on the lagoon marker 

• filling new or emptied lagoons with water to the minimum treatment level before manure is introduced 

Land application—Manure as a fertilizer can be environmentally beneficial. However, there are additional opportunities for reducing pollution when applying the 

manure to the land. Some examples of BMPs in land application practices are: 

• developing a manure management plan 

• scheduling application times that are compatible with crop rotations 
110 

• having sufficient land available to apply during various times of the year so 

that the rate of application will be at or below agronomic rates 

• applying manure early in the morning until early afternoon 

• applying manure on days with low humidity and little or no wind 

• applying manure at a site remote for neighboring residences if manure is not 

injected or immediately incorporated into the soil 

• applying manure on land which is not frozen or snow-covered 

• preventing contaminated runoff by not applying manure to land which is saturated or contains ponded water 

• preventing contaminated runoff by not applying manure near a creek or river 

• preventing contaminated runoff by not applying manure during precipitation or 

when precipitation is imminent 

• injecting manure 

• determining the necessary application rate and properly calibrating your equipment 

• using injection equipment which leaves crop residue intact and creates a level 

surface to plant crops without further tillage 

• applying liquid waste at low pressure with little agitation if spreaders or sprayers are used to land apply 

• fixing leaks in over-the-road manure hauling equipment and cleaning tillage 

equipment used to incorporate manure if travel on public roads is necessary 

This list is both complete and reflective of the current ‘‘contain and eliminate’’ manure management paradigm. This list is what the industry is being asked to implement and is engaged in implementing. However, there are other less known alternatives and research is underway to minimize the amount of nutrients in the manure and the quantity of manure, transportation and storage of manure, and more 

efficient utilization of the manure in the production of alternative products from fuel 

to food. Examples of successful alternative manure management strategies include 

the Mason-Dixon Dairy in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, S&S Aqua farms in West 

Plains, Missouri and the Solar Aqua Farms in Sun City, California. 

The Mason-Dixon operation produces 80,000 quarts of milk daily from over 2,000 

cows, designs and manufacturers its own innovative equipment, producing energy, 

fertilizer and bedding from the dairy cow manure in a nearly self contained operation. 

Solar Aqua Farms raises 5 million pounds of tilapia in the middle of the desert, 

in tanks under greenhouses. A patented treatment and recycling system purifies the 

water and converts fish waste to organic fertilizers. The process was developed from 

efforts to turn human sewage into edible outputs and fresh water. 

S&S Aqua farms also uses a closed cycle, self balancing system and the natural 

nutrients from a biological source to grow safe, chemical-free, quality food. 

These are all examples of farms that have moved from monoculture production 

schemes to multiple product systems. These farms have incorporated animal manure into the production process— ‘‘collect and utilize’’. There are many of these 

new types of farming systems developing throughout the world but they are still far 

outside mainstream thinking. 

In addition, considerable research efforts are underway at private and public universities and businesses. Some examples of these research thrusts include; 

• Improving nutrient content of feeds (e.g. high oil corn) and better animal genetics will reduce the total quantity of manure while improved feed additives may enable more efficient uptake of feed nutrient. 

• New collection systems to move manure from feed pens to storage facilities. 

• New storage facilities that actively process manure for incorporation into new 

products (e.g. feed, fertilizer, soil additives, fuel) 

• Use of manure as an input into fuel production (e.g. heat, methane, ethanol), 

food production (e.g. aquatic plants and animals, land based crops) 

Prior to the 1980’s research in all these areas received a great deal of Federal 

support but today are almost exclusively funded through private industry. Currently, some $7.5 billion is provided to the ethanol industry through the $0.52 per 

gallon ethanol subsidy. Perhaps this level of funding on manure management could 

also induce more efficient use of the resource. 

CAN THE ALTERNATIVES BE IMPLEMENTED?

The animal feeding industry is actively seeking new technologies for manure management and use, and implementing the currently available BMPs. However, they 

face financial constraints in the adoption of new technologies. 
111 

Livestock producers typically exhibit extremely high levels of gross profitability 

although recent increases in energy and feed prices has severely reduced the profitability of poultry and hog production enterprises. Except in drought areas beef and 

dairy producers have been somewhat successful in maintaining high levels of gross 

profitability through the substitution of forage for feed. Gross profitability, defined 

as cash sales less cash expenses divided by cash sales (profit margin) has been consistently maintained at 15–30 percent from 2000 to 2005. However, because the 

amount of sales generated per dollar of fixed assets has been low (due to land 

prices), the return on investment has been low relative to other businesses with 

equal risk. 

The beef feedlots, poultry processors and other similar downstream agribusinesses 

tend to have similar returns on investment. However, the low return on investment 

is the result of low profitability and high rates of sales per dollar of assets (Asset 

Turnover). The return on investment represents the potential income available to 

management for salaries and new investment, the funds available for constructing 

new structures and adopting new practices. The numbers provided below are averages and do not reflect the variation between years or within the industry. For example, the typical 30,000 head feedlot had losses of nearly $1 million and profits 

of $600 thousand over a 10 year period from 1997 to 2006. Poultry production operations had negative incomes over the last 2 years as a result of the high energy 

costs associated with heating and cooling and higher than normal feed costs. 
112 
113 

Thus, while some funds are available for the adoption of new technologies, the 

amount of funds in a given year are highly variable and will reduce ownership’s income. Because the return to investment is often below the returns to limited risk 

investments such as Certificate of Deposits, the decision to continue the operation 

is frequently not a good business decision but rather a decision that includes nonbusiness factors such as desired lifestyle. Increased regulations that required the 

adoption of costly new technologies may lead to a relocation of the firm (to avoid 

the regulations) or exit from the industry. In most cases the exit is by smaller firms 

less able to spread the cost of new technologies over larger numbers of production 

units. The smaller operations assets are then acquired by larger firms, increasing 

industry concentration. 

SHOULD NEW REGULATIONS BE IMPOSED?

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Final rule: 40 CFR Parts 122 and 

412) extended certain compliance dates in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as a result 

of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Waterkeeper 

Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005). 

The final rule revised the dates established in the 2003 CAFO rule by which facilities; 

• newly defined as CAFOs 

• defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003, due to operational changes 

• and permitted CAFO’s required to develop and implement NMPs 

must seek permit coverage and develop and implement their nutrient management plans from July 31, 2007, to February 27, 2009 

Major changes made by EPA in its revised CAFO Rule include: 

• All large CAFOs must apply for an NPDES permit, or demonstrate that they 

have no potential to discharge into waters of the United States. 

• Large poultry operations using dry waste management systems are now covered 

by the CAFO Rule. 

• New source poultry, swine, and veal operations, as defined by EPA in the Rule, 

must meet a ‘‘no discharge’’ standard. This standard only allows for discharge from 

the production area in the event of a 100-year, 24-hour storm or greater. 

EPA proposed to require only owners or operators of those CAFOs that discharge 

or propose to discharge to seek authorization to discharge under a permit. Second, 

EPA proposed to require CAFOs seeking authorization to discharge under individual 

permits to submit their NMPs with their permit applications or, under general permits, with their notices of intent. Permitting authorities would be required to review 

the NMP and provide the public with an opportunity for meaningful public review 

and comment. Permitting authorities would also be required to incorporate terms 

of the NMP as NPDES permit conditions. 

This rule follows the 1999 USDA/EPA United National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations. This National Strategy is based on a national performance expectation that all Animal Feeding Operations should develop and implement technically 

sound, economically feasible, and site-specific CNMPs to minimize impacts on water 

quality and public health. 

This regulation requires that CAFOs have NMPs in place by 2009 and that these 

NMPs will incorporate the best management practices as indicated in the NRCS National Technical Guide. Thus, by 2009, CAFOs will have plans in place for implementing best available technology. 

Some have suggested that we move animal manure under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Will this 

improve upon the results obtainable under the EPA NPDES rule? 

CERCLA Overview: 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, was enacted by Congress on December 

11, 1980. This law created a tax on the chemical and petroleum industries and provided broad Federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases 

of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment. Over 

5 years, $1.6 billion was collected and the tax went to a trust fund for cleaning up 

abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. 

CERCLA: 

• established prohibitions and requirements concerning closed and abandoned 

hazardous waste sites; 
114 

• provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at 

these sites; and 

• established a trust fund to provide for cleanup when no responsible party could 

be identified. 

The law authorizes two kinds of response actions: 

• Short-term removals, where actions may be taken to address releases or threatened releases requiring prompt response. 

• Long-term remedial response actions, that permanently and significantly reduce 

the dangers associated with releases or threats of releases of hazardous substances 

that are serious, but not immediately life threatening. These actions can be conducted only at sites listed on EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL). 

CERCLA also enabled the revision of the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The 

NCP provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and 

threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The NCP 

also established the NPL. 

Does the suggestion to move animal manure under CERCLA mean that a tax will 

be levied on the animal feeding industry, the animal industry, or agriculture in general? Do the proponents of this move intend that we fund the oversight agency with 

personnel sufficient to define manage each CAFO in the United States as a hazardous waste site? 

Are we prepared to fund the economic assessment of implement such a far reaching policy as required by statute? While the answers to these questions are important to determine the feasibility of redefining animal manure as a hazardous material, that fact that we already have regulations that have yet to be fully implemented makes the questions moot. 

SUMMARY

The fact that we are here today discussing the animal manure issue conveys the 

importance of the issue. Animal manure has too long been treated as a waste to 

be contained and eliminated rather than as a valuable resource that should be collected and utilized. The ‘‘contain and eliminate’’ paradigm has led to environmental 

issues of great concern to those individuals and communities near and downstream 

from the animal feeding operations. In response, State and Federal Government regulations have been promulgated to address these concerns and have not as yet been 

fully implemented. 

The new regulations will require many operations to make major investments in 

plant and operational changes that were not part of the original operation plans. 

We are currently unsure if the costs of implementing these strategies is exceeding 

by the benefits of doing so. BMPs developed to incorporate animal manure into fuel 

and food production may provide added benefits and increase the economic feasibility of both private and public support of adoption. 

CAFO initial operation plans contained the best technologies of the time. As we 

learn more about how animal manure interacts with the environment through different operations and in unique ecological systems, the best management practices 

of today will be changed. The animal feeding operations have limited funds to incorporate new technology and of course technological economies of size exist in the industry. Thus, requirements to adopt new technologies puts a greater burden on 

smaller operations. In response to financial constraints Federal and State governments have provided cost-share assistance and adequate timelines and consideration 

for financial burden. 

The industry is engaged in developing NMPs and implementing BMPs but these 

efforts won’t be fully realized for several years. After full implementation of the new 

EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards rule we can revisit the 

environmental concerns related to animal feeding operations and determine a future 

course of action. However, until we change to a paradigm of collect and utilize we 

will never truly address the issues surrounding animal manure. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

Our last speaker is Rick Dove who is a community representative 

from North Carolina, who works as a volunteer for Waterkeepers 

is my understanding, and other clean water organizations. 

Welcome, sir. 
115 

STATEMENT OF RICK DOVE, COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE 

Mr. DOVE. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Committee 

members. It is a pleasure to be here today. 

I am from North Carolina. I am here, as you stated, as an individual representing my family, my grandchildren and the many 

citizens of North Carolina who share my thoughts on the matter 

before this committee. 

When I retired from the Marine Corps in 1987, I walked out the 

front gate of Camp Lejeune, North Carolina and headed for my 

home on the Neuse River in North Carolina just below New Bern. 

I immediately traded my uniform and spit-shined shoes for a pair 

of waterman’s boots and some old clothes. Then, with my son, 

Todd, I became a waterman, a fisherman, on the Neuse River. 

It was a childhood dream that I had to be a fisherman. For the 

first few years on the Neuse, things were fine. We were having a 

great time. My son and I owned a seafood store, three boats and 

800 crab pots; life was good. 

Then, all of sudden, things changed. The fish began to die. My 

son and I began to get sick. We had sores on our bodies. I began 

to suffer memory loss. We didn’t know at the time that all of what 

was happening to us was attributed to working on the river, but 

we knew was not healthy. 

My dream had turned into a nightmare. We had to walk away 

from the seafood business. 

During the next 8 years, the environmental transition in North 

Carolina was dramatic. In 1991, 1 billion fish in a 40-square-mile 

area died in the Neuse River. Most had open, bleeding sores all 

over their bodies. Pictures of this are in my written statement, a 

copy of which I ask to be attached to the record. 

It wasn’t just the dead fish. Algae was also covering the streams 

and creeks to the point where people couldn’t get out on the water 

and use their boats. Some of these people lived on these waters in 

multi-million dollar homes. 

In 1995, another 20 to 200 million more fish died. And the algae 

continued to be a problem. I don’t have time to cover all the bad 

things that were happening but it’s all discussed in my prepared 

statement. 

Eventually, a large portion of the river was shut down. Signs 

were posted warning people not to go near the river. Some fishermen working on the water were breathing neurotoxins present in 

the air. As a result, they suffered memory loss and were unable to 

find their way back to the dock. When they got out of the water, 

they couldn’t find their way home. These stories were all documented in North Carolina. Very similar accounts were reported 

and documented on the Pocomoke River in Maryland. 

We knew what was causing these problems and so did State authorities. It was nutrient pollution; too much fertilizer being discharged in the rivers. The Neuse River and many of the other waters in North Carolina were so polluted with nutrients they were 

declared nutrient-sensitive beginning as far back as 1993 or 1994. 

After being driven from the river, I was fortunate to get a job 

with the Neuse River Foundation. I was hired as their Riverkeeper. 

For the next 7 years, I patrolled the Neuse to find and eliminate 

all sources of pollution. After my Riverkeeper assignment ended in 
116 

2000, I continued working as a volunteer for the Neuse River Foundation and its umbrella organization, the Waterkeeper Alliance. 

Working on the Neuse River, I got the chance to find out exactly 

what had happened to the river and who was polluting it. Many 

contributed but none more than the swine industry. When I got in 

an airplane and viewed the watershed from the air at a thousand 

feet, I could count 100 lagoons. At 2,000 feet, I could often smell 

the hog waste. There were so many hog lagoons. They were everywhere next to wetlands, streams, creeks and rivers. 

Often, especially during periods of heavy rain, the lagoons were 

full and the fields where they sprayed the waste were ditched. 

Most of these fields have pipes under them to carry the swine 

waste and rainwater directly to ditches and streams. The bottom 

line was that often this hog waste was being applied to fields not 

to grow crops, but to simply get rid of it by dumping. 

Let me give you an idea of just how much waste is produced in 

eastern North Carolina. Imagine I–95 cuts down through the State 

and divides the State. East of I–95 is the coastal plain of North 

Carolina. In the coastal plain of North Carolina, an environmentally sensitive area, there are 10 million hogs producing more 

fecal waste each and every day than would be produced by all the 

people in the States of North Carolina, New York, California, 

Texas, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and North Dakota. 

It is stored in eastern pits called lagoons. Imagine if that were 

human waste. There is not a lot of difference between pig waste 

and human waste. Fecal waste is fecal waste regardless of where 

it comes from, and it is being slopped on fields under the pretext 

of growing crops. 

In North Carolina, when it rains, everything just goes crazy. The 

lagoons fill with rain and swine waste. Often, the fields are so wet 

they shouldn’t be spraying but they do it anyway. 

Waste management plans are suppose to prevent this, but those 

plans are not worth the paper they are written on. Once the rain 

starts filling those lagoons, the pig waste is applied regardless of 

the weather. 

In North Carolina, some fear these sprayfields are so poorly suited, and you are going to have a hard time believing this, many 

swine producers simply turn their lagoons into fountains. They 

spray their waste into the air for the purpose of lowering the lagoon by misting the swine waste into surrounding communities 

where people live. 

I ask you to please play this little DVD, entitled, . . . the Rest 

of the Story. It is a14-minute video produced by the Environmental 

Justice of North Carolina. This video can be viewed on at http:// 

www.riverlaw.us/healthissues.html In this video, you will see the 

suffering of the people in North Carolina. Listen to the people 

whose kids are breathing these harmful gases, people who live near 

these facilities. Most of these people were there before the swine 

factories moved in around them. 

My time is running out. I want to move along. 

Senator BOXER. You are going to need to just summarize in 10 

seconds. I know that is terrible. 

Mr. DOVE. OK, in 10 seconds, I will. Senator, thank you. 
117 

1http://www.abe.msstate.edu/csd/references/pfiester.htm 

What is the hurry in addressing the exemption? We have had the 

CERCLA and EPCRA laws on the books for 30 years, and it has 

not impacted the CAFO industry. Why is the industry, now, all of 

a sudden, worried about this? Why is a preemptive strike necessary? 

The Congress does not have to be in a hurry to address this. In 

the testimony before this committee or in the record overall, is that 

any evidence that CERCLA or EPCRA has ever been misused so 

far as the CAFO industry is concerned? Why should relief be given 

if there is no misuse of the law? We need this law in North Carolina to help protect the people. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dove follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RICK DOVE, COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Committee on Environment 

and Public Works for the opportunity to testify today. 

INTRODUCTION

My name is Rick Dove. I reside at 427 Boros Road, New Bern, NC 28560. I am 

a thirty-two year resident of North Carolina. I am here today speaking on behalf 

of myself, my family, especially my four grandchildren, and the many other citizens 

of North Carolina who share my view on the present and imminent dangers posed 

by industrial meat production in Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). My 

short biographical sketch is attached as Exhibit 1. 

BACKGROUND

After retiring as a Colonel from the Marine Corps in 1987, I settled down with 

my family in eastern North Carolina on the south shore of the Neuse River below 

the city of New Bern. There, I worked to fulfill a childhood dream of becoming a 

commercial fisherman. At first, my business flourished, and with a small fleet of 

boats my son and I crabbed and fished a forty square mile area of the Neuse estuary. Part of our catch was sold at a local seafood store we owned. The remainder 

was sold on the wholesale market. 

In the mid 1980’s, the Neuse was a much different river than it is today. The fish 

were healthy and plentiful. There were some water quality problems caused by failing waste water treatment plants and unsustainable development, but water quality 

was more than sufficient to safely support a high level of fishing and recreation. By 

the mid 1990’s, this all had changed. 

In September 1991, more than a billion fish died in the area where my son and 

I fished. These dead and dying fish were covered with open, bleeding lesions on 

their bodies. Some fish, both alive and dead, had holes completely through their 

bodies. The stench was unbearable. There were so many dead fish that at one place 

on the north shore, the fish had to be buried with a bulldozer.1 Historically, small 

numbers of fish had always died on the Neuse during the hot summer months. But 

this fish kill was different. Never before had so many fish died in this manner. 

At the same time as the fish were dying, my son and I both suffered the same 

type of lesions on our bodies that appeared on the fish. There were other symptoms. 

I experienced memory loss and respiratory problems. It would take years for doctors 

and scientists to medically link those symptoms to river pollution. Nevertheless, for 

my son and me, the consequence of what surrounded us was immediate. We had 

to stop fishing. Giving up on this long held dream was a tough decision, but there 

was no other choice. Not only did we have serious concerns for our health, we also 

worried about the safety of what we were catching and selling. 

Since 1991, fish have continued to perish in large numbers in the Neuse and other 

coastal waters of eastern North Carolina. Depending on conditions, such as when 

rainfall causes runoff, these kills quickly climb into the millions. In the Neuse, nearly all these kills were located in an area near New Bern. This area is the receiving 

and settling place for upstream waters, much of which originates and flows from 

the state’s farmlands and cities. 
118 

2http://www.riverlaw.us/fishkills.html 

3http://www.ncagr.com/stats/livestock/hoginv.htm 

4http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/agoutlook/sep2000/ao274g.pdf 

5hhttp:// www.unc.edu/news/archives/mar99/wing2.htm 

6http://www.riverlaw.us/consequences.html; http://www.enr.state.nc.us/files/hogs/hogplan.htm 

7http://www.riverlaw.us/ 

By the mid 1990’s, the cause of these fish kills on the Neuse and other coastal 

rivers of North Carolina was identified by State officials as resulting from nutrient 

pollution, much of which, according to State officials, was coming from CAFOs. In 

fact, by 1993, the entire Neuse River watershed was listed by the State as nutrient 

sensitive, a designation it richly deserved. Normally, nutrient pollution simply deprives the water of oxygen and the fish suffocate. However, in 1995, nutrient pollution led to another, far more dangerous, consequence—Pfiesteria. Pfiesteria is a onecelled animal so tiny 100,000 could fit on the head of a pin. It produces a neurotoxin 

that paralyzes fish and sloughs their skin in order to devour the fish’s blood cells. 

Simply put, it is a vampire organism. Once the news of these fish kills reached the 

public, the economic consequences that followed were swift and severe. After the 

1995 fish kill, the tourism and fishing industries suffered substantial financial 

losses. So too did the real eState and development sectors of our community. Many 

of these consequences linger today.2

From April 1993 until July 2000, I served as the Neuse Riverkeeper. This was 

a full time, paid position funded by the Neuse River Foundation, a grassroots, nonprofit environmental group. As the Neuse Riverkeeper, it was my responsibility, assisted by a corps of more than 300 citizen volunteers, to patrol the 6,100 square mile 

Neuse watershed by water, land and air. Importantly, it was our job to find, investigate, document and eliminate sources of river pollution. Over that period, more 

than 30,000 pictures and hundreds of hours of video were taken. In addition to boat 

and boot patrols, I personally spent more than 1,000 hours in the air locating and 

documenting non-point sources of pollution, most of which involved CAFOs. During 

this period, I also had the good fortune of working with a number of dedicated State 

officials and renowned scientists whose peer reviewed research into water quality 

and CAFO related issues were extensively published. These include but are not limited to Drs. JoAnn Burkholder and Viney Aneja of North Carolina State University; 

Lawrence Cahoon and Michael Mallin of the University of North Carolina, Wilmington; Stanley Riggs of East Carolina University and Steve Wing of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Since stepping down as the Neuse Riverkeeper 

in 2000, I have stayed current on CAFO issues by volunteering my time with environmental and community groups monitoring CAFO issues. 

INDUSTRIAL ANIMAL PRODUCTION IN EASTERN NORTH CAROLINA

Nationally, North Carolina is the No. 2 producer of swine.3 Two eastern North 

Carolina Counties, Duplin and Sampson, rank one and two as having the highest 

concentrations of swine to be found anywhere in the United States.4 Other counties 

in eastern North Carolina rank in the top ten. Most of these CAFOs are located in 

poor communities, often of African-American descent. CAFO confinement buildings, 

lagoons and sprayfields are routinely situated within a few feet of the houses of 

local residents. In most cases, these residents were there first. It was the CAFOs 

that moved into their neighborhoods.5 Overall, in the coastal plain of North Carolina, a tiny area located east of where I–95 divides the State, there are now approximately 2,500 industrial swine facilities with approximately 4,000 lagoons raising 

10,000,000 hogs.6 These lagoons are so concentrated that from an airplane flying at 

1,000 feet over Duplin and other counties, more than 100 lagoons can be counted 

from a single spot in the air. 

This is a radical change from conditions that existed prior to the mid 80’s. Then, 

there were 24,000 family farmers raising 2.000,000 swine.7 It was a time in North 

Carolina’s history when family farmers raised their livestock in close proximity to 

their neighbors without complaint. It was also a time when the waters and air of 

North Carolina safely supported the needs of its citizens. 

That situation changed in the late 1980’s, when North Carolina State senator, 

Wendell Murphy, along with the Smithfield Foods’ slaughterhouse operations, 

helped invent a new way to produce pork. Thousands of genetically enhanced hogs 

would be shoehorned into pens and tiny cages in giant metal warehouses, dosed 

with sub therapeutic antibiotics and force-fed growth enhancers in their imported 

feeds. Their prodigious waste would be dumped, sprayed, spilled and discharged 

onto adjacent landscapes, waterways and into the air. 
119 

8http://www.riverlaw.us/realhogfacts.html 

9Impacts of Waste from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations on Water Quality Volume 

115 number 2, February 2007, Environmental Health Perspective 10http://www.ncagr.com/stats/livestock/broilerprod.htm 

The amount of fecal matter produced by industrial swine in eastern North Carolina is staggering. Based upon a study by Dr. Mark Sobsey, professor of environmental sciences and engineering at the University of North Carolina School of Public Health8 that compared hog to human waste, the 10,000,000 hogs in eastern 

North Carolina produce more fecal waste each day than is produced by all the citizens (combined) in North Carolina, California, Pennsylvania, New York, Texas, New 

Hampshire, and North Dakota. 

In North Carolina, this incredible amount of fecal matter is constantly being 

flushed from the confinement buildings where these animals are kept. Once flushed, 

the feces and urine from these animals is stored in the open environment in huge 

earthen sewage pits called lagoons. These lagoons constantly discharge to the surrounding environment by leaking into the groundwater and vaporizing their compounds through the air. As the lagoons fill up, the waste is sprayed onto fields frequently tiled with drainage pipes that promote direct runoff to nearby ditches. Most 

all of these ditches are connected to public trust waterways.9 Since many CAFO 

sprayfields are located in areas with extremely high water tables and sandy soil, 

applied swine waste to fields at agronomical rates is literally ‘‘thrown to the wind.’’ 

Under these conditions the swine waste is not used to fertilize crops. Instead, CAFO 

owners simply spray the liquefied swine feces and urine into the air in order to 

lower lagoon levels through vaporization. It is a process that breaks the liquefied 

swine waste into small particles so it can be misted into surrounding areas. CAFO 

owners have no control over this swine waste as it is indiscriminately deposited 

throughout the surrounding community. This practice is growing in popularity 

among CAFO owners in North Carolina. State officials are aware of the process. 

They have advised me that they can find nothing in the law to prevent this from 

happening. 

The lagoon and sprayfield method of swine waste disposal is best characterized 

as an ‘‘outhouse’’ system. It causes substantial runoff to the public trust waters and 

pollution of the air in neighboring communities. It is especially problematic during 

periods of above average rainfall, which occur approximately one-half the time. It 

is a major polluter of both air and water through the release of ammonia, hydrogen 

sulfide and methane gases. 

North Carolina is also heavily populated with poultry operations. Each year, in 

CAFOs, more than 700,000,000 chickens and 40,000,000 turkeys are produced.10

Like swine waste, the feces and urine produced by these animals is overwhelming. 

It is also disposed of in a similar manner, except that there are usually no lagoons. 

Instead, poultry waste is composted prior to being applied to fields. As with swine 

CAFOs, most of the fields where poultry waste is applied contain drain tiles (pipes) 

and ditches to promote runoff to surface waters. 

Please see Exhibit 2 for pictures that pertain to the testimony provided above. 
120 
121 

11Community Health and Socioeconomic Issues Surrounding Concentrated Animal Feeding 

Operations Environmental Health Perspective, Volume 115 number 2, February 2007 12 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12840743/porks—dirty—secret—the—nations— 

top—hog—producer—is—also—one—of—americas—worst—polluters/4 13For information on these pollutants and the human health impacts identified in this paragraph see the following: Iowa State University and The University of Iowa Study Group, Iowa 

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Air Quality Study, Final Report (2002) (‘‘Iowa Air 

Quality Study’’), http://www.publichealth.uiowa.edu/ehsrc/CAFOstudy.htm; Minnesota Planning 

Agency Environmental Quality Board, Final Animal Agriculture Generic Environmental Impact 

Statement (2002), (‘‘Minnesota EIS for Animal Agriculture’’), http://www.eqb.state.mn.us/geis/ for 

information concerning health impacts of particular AFO air pollutants; North Carolina Residents, 108 Envtl. Health Persp. 223–38 (2000); S. Wing & S. Wolf, Intensive Livestock Operations, Health, and Quality of Life Among Eastern K. Thu et al., A Control Study of the Physical and Mental Health of Residents Living Near a Large-Scale Swine Operation, 3 J. Agric. 

Safety & Health 1, 13–26 (1997) 

BROKEN PROMISES—LESSONS LEARNED

In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, as the swine industry was busy setting up 

its CAFOs in eastern North Carolina, industry leaders told concerned citizens and 

political leaders that there would be no problems resulting from the use of lagoons 

and sprayfields. They claimed that as swine CAFOs were built, everyone would 

prosper; that new, good, high paying jobs would be created; and that local crop 

farmers would benefit as they produced crops needed for animal feed. They also 

calmed neighbors’ fears by stating that the odors would be nonexistent or minimal 

and that infestation of flying insects, such as black flies would not occur. When 

health concerns were raised, swine CAFO promoters were quick to deny any possible link between human illnesses and hog waste, including the gasses emitted 

from that waste. They also boldly claimed that their operations would not adversely 

impact the environment because they were regulated as ‘‘Zero Discharge Waste Facilities.’’ These were claims and promises that could not and would not be kept. This 

is what followed: 

JOBS: 

The new jobs that were promised turned out to be low paying and undesirable. 

Moreover, it is an absolute falsehood that converting from traditional farming practices to CAFOs creates jobs. In fact, it destroys them. The very basis of CAFO production is to produce meat by reducing cost. Everything is consolidated and concentrated. CAFOs employ the fewest possible workers. The number of hog producers 

in the United States was more than 1,000,000 in the 1960’s. By 2005, it had 

dropped to 67,000.11 While some new jobs may have been created in North Carolina 

as the industry consolidated its production in the state, those gains clearly came at 

the expense of traditional family farmers throughout the United States. New jobs 

are not being added due to the need for increases in hog production. According to 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the number of hogs in the U.S. inventory today 

is nearly the same as it was in 1915. 

ODOR AND INSECTS: 

Of all the statements made by CAFO owners, the one that claimed that there 

would be no offensive odors and no increase in flying insects, like black flies, is most 

reprehensible. Citizens throughout eastern North Carolina where CAFOs are located have complained about these problems since the CAFOs first arrived. Today, 

when questioned about the problem, the best swine industry officials offer is that 

‘‘odor is in the nose of the beholder.’’ While the problem with odor and insects is 

well documented in scientific reports and the complaints of citizens, nothing of real 

substance has been done to alleviate the problem.12

THE HUMAN HEALTH COSTS OF CAFOs: 

Like similar operations across the country, North Carolina swine and poultry 

CAFOs emit significant amounts of particulate matter (fecal matter, feed materials, 

volatile organic compounds, skin cells, bioaerosols,etc.), ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, 

sulfur dioxide and other harmful contaminants into the air. Air pollution from 

CAFOs has been directly linked to increased respiratory diseases (such as asthma, 

hypersensitivity pneumonitis, industrial bronchitis) cardiovascular events (sudden 

death associated with particulate air pollution), and neuropsychiatric conditions 

(due to odor as well as delayed effects of toxic inhalations). People working in and 

near CAFOs have experienced increased headaches, sore throats, excessive 

coughing, diarrhea, burning eyes and reduced quality of life compared to more distant residents. CAFO air pollution is especially problematic, because residents close 

to these facilities are exposed on a near constant basis.13
122 

14http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/mera/ilocontamination.html 15http://H2O.enr.state.nc.us/list—303d/listnar.pdf 

Ever since the hog industry established CAFOs in North Carolina, citizens have 

been complaining and expressing their health concerns as hog waste was being 

sprayed on their persons and property, odors and black flies invaded their houses 

and their wells became contaminated. They also complained about the lack of redress on these matters from State officials and CAFO owners. Recently, a number 

of these citizens from across eastern North Carolina recorded their concerns and 

feelings in a locally produced documentary entitled:. . . .the Rest of the Story: Corporate Hog Farming in North Carolina. This 14 minute documentary more appropriately presents the environmental injustice these citizens suffer far better than I 

could possibly do through my testimony. A copy is attached as Exhibit 3. Your review of this material is highly encouraged. 

THE SAD TRUTH: 

In North Carolina, like the rest of the country, none of the air pollution emitted 

by CAFOs is regulated or controlled by State or Federal agencies. None of these operations has Clean Air Permits or anything equivalent under North Carolina law. 

As a result, there are few, if any, regulatory requirements to address air and odor 

pollution from swine and poultry factories and citizens have little legal recourse 

when they experience these afflictions. As Pickle Robins, a local farmer living next 

to a swine CAFO once told me, ‘‘They can just put the stink on you and there isn’t 

anything you can do about it and that’s the sad truth.’’ 

DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION: 

Throughout eastern North Carolina, residents depend heavily on private wells to 

supply drinking water for their families. Due to widespread concerns voiced by these 

citizens that their wells might be contaminated with nitrates from animal waste, 

in his second term, Governor James B. Hunt, Jr., made free well water testing for 

nitrates available to all North Carolina citizens living adjacent to industrial swine 

facilities. During the next 2 years, a total of 1,595 wells in 57 counties which were 

adjacent to swine facilities had been tested for nitrates. The results were alarming. 

Of the tested wells, 163 (10.2 percent) showed nitrate contamination at or above the 

drinking water standard of 10 mg/L. In some counties, the percentage of contaminated wells was near 50 percent.14 Contaminated wells continue to be discovered 

and the North Carolina General Assembly has been pressed by local citizens to address the problem 

CAFOs POLLUTE OUR WATERWAYS: 

Nutrient pollution from swine CAFOs has been scientifically linked to the fish 

kills previously mentioned in this testimony and the growth of algae and other 

aquatic vegetation that clogged North Carolina waterways. Along the Trent River, 

a major tributary of the Neuse, more than 71 miles of waterway was identified as 

impaired by State officials as a direct result of nutrient pollution from CAFOs.15 As 

a result of these fish kills and the dangers presented by Pfiesteria outbreaks, State 

officials posted the Neuse River estuary with signs warning citizens not to go in or 

near the water when fish are distressed and/or dying. 

What impact has pollution from swine and other CAFOs had on the Neuse River? 

In 1995, 1996 and 1997, due to nutrient pollution from CAFOs and other sources, 

the Neuse was listed as one of the most threatened rivers in North America. That 

listing, coupled with media attention and lawsuits brought by the Neuse River 

Foundation, forced State officials to take affirmative action aimed at reducing nutrient loading to the Neuse. Unfortunately, these efforts have only been partially effective. What success has been achieved in nutrient reduction has been credited more 

to drought conditions and the corresponding lack of runoff than anything the State 

has done, especially as it relates to pollution from CAFOs. 

In 2006, a number of internationally renowned North Carolina scientists (Dickey, 

Burkholder, Reed, Mallin, Cahoon et al) released the results of a 10-year data collection and analysis project undertaken for the purpose of determining water quality 

trends in the Neuse River estuary. The study period was from May 1993 to June 

2003. All sampling and analytical procedures were recognized by both State and 

Federal regulatory agencies, and any modifications were sanctioned by the Environmental Protection Agency. The study found that the loading of nutrients, especially 

nitrogen, should have been substantially reduced over the period due to a reduction 

goal legislated by the North Carolina General Assembly. This goal of attaining a 30 

percent reduction in nitrogen arriving at the Neuse estuary required major adjustments by nearly all major contributors. Based upon the actions taken, a substantial 

reduction should have resulted. Many crop farms have ceased production and those 

remaining have cut their use of fertilizer by as much as 40 percent. Industrial and 
123 

16http://www.enr.state.nc.us/files/hogs/hogplan.htm (originally publish at this site—no longer 

available) Excerpts available at www.riverlaw.us 17Burkholder, J.M., D.A. Dickey, C. Kinder, R.E. Reed, M.A. Mallin, G. Melia, M.R. McIver, 

L.B. Cahoon, C. Brownie, N. Deamer, J. Springer, H. Glasgow, D. Toms and J. Smith (2006) 

Comprehensive trend analysis of nutrients and related variables in a large eutrophic estuary: 

A decadal study of anthropogenic and climatic influences. Limnology and Oceanography, volume 

51, pp. 463–487. 18http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1995/vp950626/06260030.htm 19http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/Fishkill/fishkill.htm 20http://www.americanrivers.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AR7—MER2007—Neuse 21http://www.riverlaw.us/hurricanefloyd/hurricaneisabel.html 22http://www.riverlaw.us/hurricanefloyd.html http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es—map/articles/article—53.mhtml 

municipal wastewater treatment plants substantially upgraded their facilities to reduce nutrient discharges. At the Neuse estuary and upstream to Goldsboro, 11 

wastewater dischargers committed to the removal of their river discharges (most 

now removed). Additionally, mandatory buffer protections were enacted along with 

rules substantially restricting the discharge of sediments and stormwater. Unfortunately, there was no reduction. To everyone’s dismay, the report noted an alarming 

increase in ammonia levels found in the Neuse estuary. It also revealed that concentrations of ammonium, the most destructive form of nitrogen, dramatically increased by 500 percent. Ammonia not only stimulates prolific alga blooms, it is also 

the agent that promotes fish kills. Where is all that ammonia coming from? According to State authorities, ‘‘Approximately 2/3 of the nitrogen in the swine excretions 

is emitted to the air in accordance with the design of a lagoon and sprayfield system. A DENR study estimates that swine facilities produce 20 percent of North 

Carolina’s total atmospheric nitrogen compounds which react with other constituents in the air and is deposited to land, vegetation, and water bodies. This figure 

is 53 percent for just Eastern North Carolina’’16

The Neuse is not alone in the degradation suffered from CAFO pollution. In a related set of trend analyses, a significant increasing trend in ammonium concentrations was also found for an adjacent, more rapidly flushed system, the Cape Fear 

Estuary.17

Millions of fish died in other rivers as well. Many had open, bleeding lesions on 

their bodies similar to those in the Neuse. In 1995, the New River near Jacksonville, 

North Carolina was severely impacted when a CAFO lagoon broke through its 

earthen wall. More than 20,000,000 gallons of swine waste spilled into the river killing millions of fish.18 Large fish kills related to nutrient pollution have also been 

reported in the Tar-Pamlico River and the Pamlico Sound and in other waters 

across North Carolina.19

It is not surprising that in 2007, in large measure due to CAFO pollution, the 

Neuse was placed back on the list of the 10 Most Endangered Rivers in America.20

WIND, RAIN AND FLOODS: 

When hurricanes, tropical storms and heavy rains routinely threaten to flood 

North Carolina, pollution discharges from CAFOs substantially increase. In aerial 

flights over swine CAFOs immediately preceding heavy rain events, large numbers 

of CAFOs are observed dumping animal waste just hours before the storm’s scheduled arrival. The number of CAFOs spraying waste under these conditions far exceeds what would be observed on a normal day. Clearly, these operators understand 

that what they are applying on their fields will, for the most part, be washed into 

the wetlands, streams and rivers once the heavy rains arrive. For these operators, 

it doesn’t matter. Their only objective is to do everything they can to lower their 

lagoon levels in advance of the storm.21 North Carolina is often referred to as ‘‘hurricane alley.’’ It is a well deserved label. Unfortunately, the swine lagoons in eastern 

North Carolina lay directly in the path of these storms. The results are often catastrophic. In 1999, when hurricane Floyd made its way across North Carolina’s coastal plain, more than 50 lagoons were flooded. So much hog waste was spilled that 

its pinkish color could be clearly observed running down the river. Thousands of 

hogs, both alive and dead, were also observed in the river, on the tops of flooded 

confinement buildings and in piles waiting to be buried. Estimates of dead hogs 

ranged widely between 30,000 and 400,000. The correct number may never be 

verified. After the storm, Governor Hunt promised that all of the flooded lagoons 

as well as those in the flood plain, would be shut down. Later, he changed his mind 

and proclaimed that only those CAFOs that were damaged by more than 50 percent 

would be eliminated. In the end, only a handful were shut down. Most still remain 

in harms way waiting for the next storm and new promises of corrective action.22

Some years the State experiences excessive rainfall. This last occurred in 2003 

when rainfall exceeded 100 year record levels. The rains began in January and con-
124 

23http://www.riverlaw.us/enforcement.html 1NRDC, Cesspools of Shame, How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health, 2001. 2http://www.factoryfarm.org/docs/CivEngSeminarPresentation.pdf 

tinued through October. The fields were so saturated that farm tractors were unable 

to plow many of the fields. On many farm fields, what crop was able to be planted, 

drowned under the onslaught of water. Meanwhile, the rains continued to fill the 

lagoons. This situation was exacerbated by the inability of swine CAFO operators 

to apply swine waste to fields at agronomical rates as required by law and their 

waste management plans. As the hogs kept eating and defecating, the lagoons filled 

even faster. One solution would have been to reduce the size of the swine herd. That 

didn’t happen. The swine inventory at the beginning of the year was reported at 

9,000,000. At year’s end, it was recorded at 10,000,000. Under these conditions, it 

was impossible for most CAFOs to follow the law and apply their swine waste at 

agronomical rates. So where did all that waste go? No doubt—it went down the 

river. This is clearly documented in the pictures and video that were taken during 

the year.23

As a result of the developing problems in CAFO operations, since 1997, the North 

Carolina General Assembly has imposed a moratorium on the construction of new 

hog lagoons and sprayfields (except for those obtaining permits before the effective 

date of the moratorium). 

ANTIBIOTICS AND CAFOs: 

Industrial meat producers routinely dose their animals with sub-therapeutic antibiotics for non-medical purposes, primarily to stimulate unnaturally rapid growth in 

hogs. The excessive use of antibiotics is an integral part of the production system 

both to bring them to market faster and to keep them alive in otherwise unlivable 

conditions. Many of the antibiotics given to livestock, such as tetracycline, penicillin, 

and erythromycin, are important human medicines. Up to 80 percent of antibiotics 

administered to hogs pass unchanged through the animal to bacteria rich waste lagoons. This soup is then spread on sprayfields, allowing the antibiotics to enter 

groundwater and run off into surface waters. 

Routine administration of sub-therapeutic antibiotics endangers public health by 

contributing to drug-resistant pathogens with which humans and animals may come 

in contact through groundwater, surface water, soil, air, or food products. Once antibiotics have entered hog factory effluents, they can enter waterways and spread 

through the environment in low concentrations—killing susceptible bacteria and 

leaving resistant survivors to multiply. Resistant bacteria can then infect people 

who swim in lakes and rivers or drink well water. The Environmental Protection 

Agency has found antibiotics administered to swine, in lagoons, groundwater, air 

above sprayfields, adjacent waterways and the main stream of the Neuse River. 

In January 2001, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a report that included 

the following shocking statistic: 84 percent of all antibiotics consumed are used in 

livestock, the vast majority for non therapeutic purposes! The hog industry uses 11 

million pounds of antibiotics annually while a comparatively modest three million 

pounds are used in human medicine.1

Antibiotics administered to hogs are now making their way into the air, groundwater and our rivers and streams .At one North Carolina CAFO, swine antibiotics 

have been found in the tap water. The EPA has also reported finding antibiotics 

used in swine production in the main stream of the Neuse River.2

THE GOVERNORS SPEAK OUT

Having credibility on CAFO issues is critically important. The industry works 

hard and spends a great deal of money on lawyers and lobbyists who attack critics 

in an effort to confuse the issues. While there are countless peer reviewed scientific 

studies that clearly support my testimony, some of the strongest support for what 

I have stated comes from two of North Carolina’s leading State officials who served 

as Governor during the establishment of CAFOs and the aftermath that followed. 

These were: Governors Hunt (1993—2001) and Easley (2001—). Their positions on 

swine CAFOs are set forth below: 

Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. (1993—2001) 

In the late 1990’s, then North Carolina Governor James B. Hunt, Jr’s administration strongly condemned the pollution practices of swine CAFOs. 
125 

3http://www.enr.state.nc.us/files/hogs/hogplan.htm (originally publish at this site—no longer 

available) Excerpts available at www.riverlaw.us 4http://www.riverlaw.us/thegovernors.html 

Here are some excerpts from his State sponsored website:3

‘‘Background’’ 

Swine production has mushroomed over the last decade. Despite a decreasing 

number of swine facilities, the number of hogs has increased threefold to ten million. . . .There are approximately 2,400 major swine facilities in North Carolina 

with approximately 4,000 active anaerobic lagoons, and there are about 650 inactive 

swine lagoons. . . .. 

Economic Impacts 

. . . .swine production in North Carolina can produce significant odor, reduce 

neighboring property value, and harm tourism. 

Environmental and Public Health Impacts 

. . . .the environmental and public impacts of the swine industry demand further 

action by the State and the swine industry. Swine production impacts to the environment and public health are listed below. 

• Surface Water. Surface water can be contaminated by discharges from the lagoons or run-off from sprayfields. In 1998, there were 107 documented discharges 

from swine facilities with 31 of these reaching the surface waters. 

• Groundwater. Groundwater can be contaminated either through leaking lagoons 

or leaching of sprayfield applied waste. An NCSU study showed that waste from 38 

percent of older, unlined anaerobic lagoons leaked nitrogen compounds into the 

groundwater at ‘‘strong’’ or ‘‘very strong’’ levels, while preliminary estimates of a Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) study indicate that 25 

percent of lined facilities may leak to contaminate groundwater. DENR data show 

that conventional sprayfields seem to be just as problematic as lagoons. 

• Odor. Odors are generated from lagoons, sprayfields, or swine houses. When 

odors are not confined to the property of the operations, they have the potential to 

cause health problems, heightened community tensions, and losses in property values. . . . 

• Atmospheric Deposition. Approximately 2/3 of the nitrogen in the swine excretions is emitted to the air in accordance with the design of a lagoon and sprayfield 

system. A DENR study estimates that swine facilities produce 20 percent of North 

Carolina’s total atmospheric nitrogen compounds which react with other constituents in the air and is deposited to land, vegetation, and water bodies. This figure 

is 53 percent for just Eastern North Carolina. 

• Nutrient Imbalance. The rapid growth of the swine industry has resulted in a 

nutrient imbalance in parts of North Carolina. The feed imported to swine facilities 

generates more nutrients than receiving plants, land, and waters can absorb. For 

example, 95 percent of the nitrogen in manure produced in the Neuse River Basin 

is imported from outside the basin. 

• Public Health. Swine waste is a source of nitrates in groundwater and pathogens in the ground and surface waters which can directly impact human health. 

Odors too can adversely impact human health as they can cause coughing, nausea, 

dizziness, headaches, and burning eyes as well as psychological effects. . . .’’ 

Governor Michael F. Easley 

In 2000, while campaigning for Governor, Michael Easley, the current Governor 

of North Carolina, published a White Paper containing the following commitments 

to rid the State of swine CAFO lagoons and their pollution.4

‘‘My comprehensive clean water plan starts with the obvious point that the anaerobic swine waste lagoon and spray field system has proved to be too risky. It must 

go. As Governor, I will lead a broad, consistent effort to address the environmental 

degradation caused by large-scale, factory hog farming. Certainly, the companies 

that own and profit from the hog industry must bear their fair share of legal liability when the people they hire break our water quality laws. Those who enjoy direct 

financial benefits from hog production must have an economic incentive to promote 

compliance with State environmental rules. Therefore, my Administration will make 

sure that major hog companies, and other ‘‘integrators’’ of small farmers into largescale hog operations, share liability for water quality violations at their contract 

farms. 

Moreover, a lagoon phase-out, starting with those abandoned and in flood plains 

or other at-risk locations, is also critical. Hog lagoons have spilled into our water-
126 

5http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2007&BillID=s1465 

ways too often, and the issue of damage from atmospheric nitrogen and ammonia 

falling as rain is too serious to continue with ‘‘business-as-usual.’’ 

As a result, the phaseout of hog waste lagoons must begin immediately, and be 

subject to a strict timetable. Demanding compliance with this timetable will force 

the development of new, environmentally friendly technologies to control hog waste. 

As such technologies develop, the timetable can be accelerated. But mandatory 

deadlines are necessary to continue the pace of research and development, and to 

force implementation. Specifically, as Governor, I will insist on the following timetable: 

(1) Large scale, on-farm installation of testing and new technologies, at the expense of integrators, to begin immediately; 

(2) Testing, evaluation, and oversight of new waste facilities, by independent scientists, beginning in year one; 

(3) Full scale installation of the technologies found most effective, no later than 

years three and four; and 

(4) Completion of phaseout and total elimination of the lagoon system no later 

than year five, and substantially sooner if the independent scientists determine that 

faster implementation is possible. 

Whether by the initiative of the elected branches or by court order, the outmoded 

lagoon system will be replaced. The real question is what will take its place. Converting to cleaner, safer waste technologies will come at a price. We must be sensitive to independent family farms, so many of which have attempted to operate responsibly. These farmers simply played by the rules set by the General Assembly. 

Still, they must convert and, as Governor, I will see that they do so. While the conversion is underway, large-scale farms must make operational improvements, including buffers, biocovers, and windbreak walls, to minimize dangers to our waters, 

as well as our air’’ 

NORTH CAROLINA 2007—HOPE TURNS TO DESPAIR

In 2007, the North Carolina General Assembly was poised to pass legislation 

mandating a plan to rid the State of the lagoons and sprayfields used by CAFOs 

. Several pending bills would have accomplished the following:5

• Set a date certain after which the use of lagoons and sprayfields would no 

longer be authorized for use by swine CAFOs. 

• Ban the construction of new lagoons 

• Establish new standards required for the treatment of swine waste 

• Provide some State funding to help small swine producers make the transition 

from lagoons to the newly approved technologies. 

• Provide some limited funding to help private citizens with contaminated wells 

obtain other sources of drinking water. 

By the time the legislative session ended in August 2007, little remained of what 

was originally proposed. The date certain legislation was turned into a study bill 

and the legislation to prohibit new lagoons was totally compromised. A bill was 

passed that did ban the construction of lagoons on newly constructed facilities. However, through intense lobbying of the swine CAFO industry, a compromise brokered 

by Governor Easley provided for the repair of existing lagoons and replacement of 

those lagoons with new lagoons when they could no longer be repaired and imminently threatened public health. Swine lagoons have a useful life of approximately 

20—25 years and at some point they will all have to be replaced. In this regard, 

there is little doubt of where the industry is headed. Lagoons and sprayfields represent the cheapest method for disposing of hog waste. Regardless of their harm, 

operating lagoons is profitable and that is the industry’s bottom line. 

Making matters worse was another amendment that encouraged the continued 

use of existing lagoons and sprayfields by swine CAFOs through the capture of 

methane gas. What this legislation authorized was the partial covering of existing 

lagoons with a tarp to capture methane gas. The intended outcome is for CAFO 

owners to be able to sell that methane to utility companies for up to four times its 

true market value. Utility companies participating in the methane capture program 

would be permitted to pass these additional costs to their ratepayers. The capture 

of methane gas is a laudable objective, but it must incorporate the newly approved 

technologies that move the industry away from lagoons and sprayfields that massively pollute. 
127 

6www.riverlaw.us; http://www.senate.gov/?gov—affairs/031302dove.htm 

WHY CAFO POLLUTION MUST BE BROUGHT UNDER CONTROL

By illegally polluting, industrial hog producers gained a critical advantage over 

their competitors—the traditional family farmer—in the marketplace. These are not 

businessmen making an ‘‘honest buck.’’ Instead, they are lawbreakers who make 

money by polluting our air and water and violating the laws with which other 

Americans must comply. 

Environmental lawbreaking is an integral component of factory pork production. 

Records of State environmental agencies in over a dozen states demonstrate that 

factory hog producers are chronic violators of State and Federal law. For example, 

North Carolina’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources (‘‘NCDENR’’) 

records show thousands of violations of State environmental laws by Smithfield’s facilities During periods of above average rainfall, violations are significantly increased. NCDENR officials readily admit that at critical times they do not have the 

resources to enforce the law. As a result, enforcement is virtually non-existent except for what private citizens are able to do pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act. The number of violations is believed to be considerably greater since, prior to 1995, the environmental agency was not even allowed to know the 

locations of the hog factories, or to inspect them unless ‘invited’ to do so by the operators or owners. Even today, State water quality inspectors and State and local 

county health officials are not permitted to go inside swine CAFO confinement 

buildings. That is the sole responsibility of the State Veterinarian who works under 

the North Carolina Department of Agriculture—a CAFO friendly agency. The massive and persistent drumbeat of violations recorded in these documents prove that 

hog factories and their facilities are chronic, deliberate and habitual violators of 

State laws designed to protect the environment and minimize discharges of swine 

waste. 

Indeed, without breaking the law, pork factories cannot make money and produce 

hogs as efficiently or cheaply as family farmers. Industrial pork producers instead 

rely on rare inspections and small fines by State regulators. The rare penalties and 

small dollar amounts occasionally dispensed by State enforcers never provide sufficient incentive for the industrial pork barons to stop their lawbreaking. These fines 

amount only to a trivial cost of doing business.6

ALTERNATIVES

There are myriad alternatives to the CAFO lagoon and sprayfield system, but the 

industrial hog producers refuse to adopt innovations that might cut profit margins. 

In 2000, Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest pork producer, entered into an agreement with the Attorney General of North Carolina that funded the evaluation of environmentally superior waste management technologies for use on North Carolina 

swine farms owned by them. Later, Premium Standard Farms and Front Line 

Farmers, joined in the agreement. Smithfield and Premium Standard provided all 

the funding for this effort.. Dr. Mike Williams, Director of the Animal and Poultry 

Waste Management Center at North Carolina State University was designated to 

oversee the project. As a result of this effort, a number of technologies were developed that would, when fully implemented, eliminate the use of CAFO lagoons and 

sprayfields. One approved system was, Super Soils. Unfortunately, the Smithfield 

Agreement provided that any new technology had to be economically feasible. This 

provision, by measuring the cheap cost of constructing and operating a lagoon system against any new technology, made it impossible to meet economical objections 

from swine CAFO owners. However, one study concluded that while costs were higher for Super Soils systems, there were benefits that dramatically outweigh these 

costs. 

The result of one study reported by the Charlotte Observer on July 15, 2007, stated: 

‘‘our State could gain the economic equivalent of 7,000 jobs and enjoy a $10 billion 

economic boost if the industry adopted technology that produced usable by-products 

from hog wastes. The Super Soils technology identified by researchers at N.C. State 

University would provide one effective alternative. Farmers could produce container 

mix for use in nurseries and other plant growers and boost employment. Over a 20- 

year period that could generate thousands of jobs and produce up to $1.1 billion in 

farm revenue. It also would reduce air pollution and dangers to health and avoid 

accidental lagoon breaches that can pollute waterways’’ 
128 

7http://www.changetowin.org/why-organize/corporate-hall-of-shame/smithfield-foods.html 

So why would CAFO industry leaders refuse to give these new technologies a 

chance in North Carolina where they are so desperately needed? The answer to that 

question probably has less to do with North Carolina than it does with the swine 

industry’s operations across the rest of America’s farmlands. When new innovative 

technologies are successfully adopted and proven to work in this state, their use will 

be demanded wherever lagoons and sprayfields are in use. The record of this industry clearly reflects that regardless of the public need and benefit, industrial bottom 

line financial considerations will always prevail. 

Does the industry have the financial ability to make the switch to cleaner technologies? They do! Smithfield Foods, the world’s largest swine producer and owner 

of most all hogs in North Carolina, has doubled its net earnings over the past 5 

years to 11.5 billion dollars. Their CEO and other top executives are rewarded annually with millions in bonuses.7

Another alternative to swine and other CAFO production is traditional family 

farming where hogs and other livestock are raised without lagoons and confinement 

buildings. No one has ever stood in line to buy pork in America. Traditional family 

farmers have always been able to keep the shelves full. Industrial farming practices 

do have a serious downside. Too often, corporate profits take precedence over all 

other considerations, including animal welfare, environmental protection, social responsibility and the safety of residents living of neighboring communities. CAFOs 

represent a race to the bottom. It is not sustainable and it will fail. Clearly, these 

facilities operate outside the laws of nature. To believe that raw animal waste can 

be safely contained in 4,000 thousand earthen pits left baking under the hot summer sun in a concentrated and environmentally sensitive area of the state—is nothing short of insane. There will be consequences. The question is—how bad and 

when? 

CONCLUSION: 

North Carolina’s experience shows that the environmental laws which limit pollution from factory farms need to be strengthened, not weakened. Any effort to amend 

CERCLA and EPCRKA to exempt CAFOs would be a significant reversal, eliminating much needed protection for our communities and the environment while rewarding known polluters with an ill-deserved amnesty. CAFO owners, especially the 

large integrators, contend that they are not a part of the problem. After all, it’s just 

manure. And if, as they claim, there is no problem, why are they seeking relief from 

laws that support public safety and protect our air and water? 

Farm industry lobbyists and supporters claim that CAFOs are already extensively 

regulated under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and that CERCLA and 

EPCRKA add unnecessary regulatory burdens. In fact, no swine or poultry operations in North Carolina are regulated under the Clean Air Act, and only swine operations are covered by Clean Water Act NPDES permits. In the wake of the 2002 

Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA court decision, the North Carolina poultry operation 

successfully lobbied State agencies to exempt most poultry CAFOs from the requirement to obtain an NPDES permit. As a result, in North Carolina an entire industry, 

one now seeking an exemption from CERCLA, is unregulated by any environmental 

law. 

North Carolina’s NPDES permits, like nearly every other CAFO permit in the Nation, rely on the calculation of agronomic rates that let swine producers apply as 

much waste to fields as crops can take up. Unfortunately, this method has failed 

to prevent discharges of excess nutrients to our streams and rivers, and of course, 

there is no agronomic rate for pollutants such as fecal coliform and other pathogens. 

In short, current research indicates that the Clean Water Act regulatory program 

is insufficient to protect our surface waters and groundwater drinking supplies. 

It is important to recognize that the solution to many of the pollution problems 

caused by factory-style livestock operations may be solved by sustainable family 

farmers. These farmers, historically the bedrock of American agriculture, are not 

subject to the requirements of CERCLA and EPCRKA and would not benefit from 

the proposed exemption. Indeed, Congress had this community in mind in 1986 

when it originally drafted CERCLA to have an exemption for the ‘‘normal field application of fertilizer.’’ The proposed changes to CERCLA and ECPRKA amount to 

a legislative bail-out that would only aid large factory farm operators who are unable to manage responsibly the large quantities of manure they produce. Some operations have polluted groundwater and surface water with excess nutrients and dangerous pathogens, arsenic and other toxic metal compounds and antibiotics. 
129 

1Letter from Tom Lindley on behalf of Threemile Canyon Farms to EPA Region X, April 18, 

2005 2United States v. Buckeye Egg Farm, L.P. et al, Civil Action No.3:03 VC7681, 

The scale of this pollution can be truly shocking. There is evidence that some 

large animal confinements can release enormous quantities of toxic chemicals—comparable to pollution from the nation’s largest manufacturing plants. For example: 

• Threemile Canyon Farms in Boardman, Oregon, reported that its 52,300 dairy 

cow operation emits 15,500 pounds of ammonia per day, more than 5,675,000 

pounds per year.1 That’s 75,000 pounds more than the nation’s No. one manufacturing source of ammonia air pollution (CF Industries of Donaldson, Louisiana) reported according to the 2003 Toxics Release Inventory. 

• Buckeye Egg’s facility in Croton, Ohio, had ammonia emissions of 1,600,000 

pounds in 2003.2 This amount corresponds to roughly 4,400 pounds per day, or 

about 44 times the reporting threshold that EPA set based on health considerations. 

CERCLA currently provides a much needed avenue of response for community officials. In an often-cited example, the city of Waco, Texas is spending more than $54 

million for capital improvements specifically to deal with taste and odor problems 

caused by excessive phosphorus pollution from dairy cow waste. Facing what appeared to be ever-increasing water treatment expenditures to eliminate ever-increasing nutrient loadings from agricultural operations, the City urged upstream 

feeding operations to adopt better manure management techniques. When that effort failed, they used the most effective legal tool available: a CERCLA cost recovery 

suit. The suit—against 14 operations that had a history of problems—was used not 

to shut down dairies or collect moneys from farmers, but to leverage new, enforceable agreements for better manure management at these facilities. 

If Congress amends Superfund with a special exemption for livestock waste, it 

will deny the city of Waco and others American communities a critical legal tool for 

protecting their invaluable water supplies from pollution by large-scale agricultural 

operations that fail to properly manage their waste. Such an amendment would declare that water users, not polluters, must bear the burdens of pollution, a radical 

shift from the ‘‘polluter pays’’ principle enshrined in CERCLA and in our common 

sense of right and wrong. 

Another impact of the proposed exemptions would be to prevent Federal, State 

and local emergency responders from accessing information about toxic releases 

from these facilities. As discussed above, many of the large feeding operations release large volumes of hazardous air pollutants, such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide and an increasing number of studies have found a variety of health problems 

among animal feeding operation workers and residents who live near these operations, including bronchitis, asthma, and antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. 

These findings are of great concern to many rural communities, and action by Congress to ban reporting by these facilities would do a great disservice to those who 

are working hard to develop a better understanding of the full impacts of these releases. 

Representatives of some large-scale agriculture operations have argued to Members of Congress and to farming communities that such an amendment is urgently 

needed to protect family farms from frivolous lawsuits and allow farmers to continue 

to use manure as fertilizer for crop production. These assertions are simply untrue, 

and grossly misrepresent both remedies available under the statute and current 

legal trends. There are three key points correcting this misinformation. First, as indicated above, CERCLA’s cost recovery and reporting requirements do not threaten 

responsible operators who manage manure as a valuable fertilizer. Second, neither 

CERCLA nor EPCRKA contain ‘‘citizen suit’’ provisions similar to those in the Clean 

Water Act or Clean Air Act. In fact, only municipal, State and tribal governments 

can bring the type of cost-recovery actions brought by the city of Waco and State 

of Oklahoma. Third, there is no rash of frivolous lawsuits currently clogging the 

courtrooms of America and forcing farmers into bankruptcy. In fact, in the 25-year 

history of CERCLA, there have been only 3 cost-recovery lawsuits against animal 

feeding operations to address manure-related contamination. 

• City of Tulsa v Tyson Foods targeted several large chicken operations and attempted to recover costs for water treatment incurred by the City and the Tulsa 

water utility. The case was settled in 2003. 

• In 2004, the city of Waco sued 14 dairy operations for water quality problems 

with Lake Waco, the City’s drinking water supply. Settlements were reached with 

all 14 defendants. 
130 

3Civil Action No. 4:05-cv–000329 JOESAJ, United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma. 

• In 2005, the State of Oklahoma sued large-scale poultry producers for redress 

of water quality problems in the Illinois River watershed. This case is still pending.3

These lawsuits involved large-scale animal operations or operations that had a 

history of problems with manure management. In each case, the lawsuit followed 

long controversy and attempted negotiations regarding waste management practices. Lawsuits were filed after previous negotiations failed and water quality conditions worsened. Settlements involved plans for improved manure management, not 

penalties. 

As indicated by the scope of the pollution problem caused by factory farms, we 

need strong, broad, and effective environmental laws to protect natural and human 

resources from the ill effects of industrial-scale livestock pollution. 

While CERCLA’s cost recovery provisions are important for governmental responses to hazardous conditions, for advocates like myself, the real value of the law, 

and of EPCRKA’s parallel provisions, lies in the right-to-know reporting provisions 

of CERCLA Section 103 and EPCRKA Section 304. Information about chemical releases enables citizens to hold companies and local governments accountable in 

terms of how toxic chemicals are managed. Transparency also often spurs companies 

to focus on their chemical management practices since they are being measured and 

made public. In addition, the data serves as a rough indicator of environmental 

progress over time. The amendment proposed by the livestock industry’s allies 

would deprive Americans of this much needed resource, and prevent them from 

playing meaningful roles in the democratic process. 

The answer to the current situation, one in which rural residents are forced to 

endure sickness and nuisances, is more reporting of air emissions as required by 

CERCLA and EPCRKA, not a reprieve for those responsible for creating such misery. CERCLA and EPCRKA create an obligation for large livestock producers to 

share information with their neighbors, information that is vital for identifying, 

treating, and preventing illnesses; information that allows community leaders and 

health officials to develop protective placement and response plans; information that 

reveals the truth about this industry and inspires reforms in its practices. In North 

Carolina and across the Nation, we need more of this information, not less. 

Very respectfully submitted 

Rick Dove 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Let me take my 5 minutes. I think I’d like to take 7 minutes, 

then give 7 minutes to Senator Inhofe. 

Let me just say, Mr. Dove, I thank you so much for your testimony because you speak for me here. We are not asking to pass 

new regulations or anything of that sort. When I say we, those of 

us who believe that we shouldn’t make an exemption for this kind 

of waste. 

We are just saying keep the law the way it is. The clean actors, 

and I would ask Mrs. Chinn, you have not been sued, have you, 

under this law? 

Mrs. CHINN. It is my understanding that my farm does not fall 

underneath CERCLA. 

Senator BOXER. Right, good. 

Mrs. CHINN. But my family has a comprehensive nutrient management—— 

Senator BOXER. Whoa, whoa, whoa. I don’t have time. You have 

never been sued under the laws, right? 

Mrs. CHINN. No, because we abide by the laws. There are bad actors, and they should—— 

Senator BOXER. That is my point, Mrs. Chinn, if you might. You 

were very eloquent. I need some time here to make my point. 

I think that is the point. There are wonderful good actors, families like yours, that we all support. 

Look, I come from the largest ag State in the union. Our ag industry is not only a plus; it is our heritage. It is our heritage. So 

our people want to keep it that way, and they want to keep a good 

name for ag. That is why our attorney general along with many 

others have stated, please don’t exempt these big concentrated animal farm organizations from the law. 

What is happening, just to put it on the table, is there are those 

who are trying to do that in the Farm Bill. The reason I called this 

hearing is my concern. I certainly don’t speak for everybody on the 

Committee. I haven’t even polled the Committee, but I wanted to 

have this hearing to make the point. 

Now, Mr. Dove spoke about the bad actors, what is happening. 

We have a picture. We actually took it off your website. We will 

show you. 

First of all, if we could put up again the beautiful of Mrs. Chinn’s 

operation which speaks for itself, and we will show you a lagoon 

in one of these bad actors’ back yards. There you go. You can see 

the holding ponds, how clean they are, right? 

Well, take a look at this. This is from a concentrated animal feed 

operation. It is not a family farm. It is industrialized agriculture, 

and the color pink comes about from the combinations of the bacteria and the poisons here. Indeed, the spraying, you can see the 

sprays going on. 

Why, in God’s name, would we ever want to expose the people 

to this kind of situation? It is just terrible. 

The beautiful, idyllic picture that was painted by Mrs. Chinn is 

one I agree with. I have seen it in farm after farm, in operation 

after operation in my State, the good actors. God bless them, and 

we will protect them from any damaging kind of regulation. 
137 

But these bad guys or these corporate farms that have no heart 

and soul, that could care less, let me tell you what happened in the 

Midwest, your neck of the woods. At least 24 people in the Midwest 

have died. 

I quoted you. It was a very beautiful quote about how from the 

farm to the fork, I think you said, it is the greatest. 

Well, it is usually the greatest, but it isn’t the greatest here. 

Twenty-four people in the Midwest died from inhaling hydrogen 

sulfide and methane from manure since the seventies including 

fifth generation Michigan dairy farmer, Carl Theuerkauf, and four 

members of his family who collapsed one by one in 1989 after 

breathing methane gas. 

But the death toll from manure may be much higher. 

Cryptosporidium, a microorganism found in animal waste, killed 

104 people and sickened 403,000 in Milwaukee in 1993 in an outbreak, some blamed on manure from nearby livestock farms. 

A local health department and the Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention suspected manure caused seven miscarriages in a 

small farming community in Indiana between 1991 and 1993 by 

contaminating wells. ‘‘I thought the water I was drinking was good 

water,’’ said Melissa Dickerson, who was 22 and pregnant at the 

time. 

So, from my standpoint, we have a problem here. We have the 

supersizing of America’s livestock farms. 

We have a good law that says for the normal application of manure, you are fine. You just do that. But when it gets to be 25,000 

animals, 1,000,000 animals, it causes a different situation, and people are dying. 

This isn’t some romantic notion about let our farmers farm. This 

is about big corporate industrial size farms. No one wants to go 

after the good actors. 

Professor Dicks, my question for you is because I agree with you 

very much that we need to treat manure as a valuable resource. 

I think methane digesters are one great example of this type of 

technology that helps to reduce pollution while increasing a farm’s 

bottom line. 

Do you agree that CAFOs should be making better use of manure as a resource and should stop treating manure like a waste 

and disposing of it by simply dumping it on the ground? 

You said it shouldn’t be looked at as a waste, and I agree with 

you. Don’t you think they should stop dumping on the ground in 

excess amounts so that it contaminates our lakes, our rivers, our 

streams and our groundwater? 

Wouldn’t that be the solution to all of this, sir? 

Mr. DICKS. Well, Senator, I am not going to agree or disagree 

with you. What I will say is that—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, I quoted you. You said it should be treated 

as a resource. 

Mr. DICKS. I will say that most of these operations are going to 

do what is in their best interest, and they are going to go the universities. They are going to go to the government, and they are 

going to look to them for guidelines on what they should do. 

They are going to ask the Natural Resource Conservation Service 

what they should be doing with the nutrient. If the best manage-
138 

ment plan that they give them is to spread it or to land applicate 

it, that is what they are going to do. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, and if it winds up looking like this and getting people sick, that may not be the right thing, and that is why 

we need this law, this Federal law to underscore that we hold people accountable. This Superfund is not a regulation. It simply gives 

people the right to know and the right to take action if a member 

of their family dies or they get sick. 

For the life of me, I don’t get how people who say they are fans 

of agriculture could be against that when it could undermine the 

faith that this Country has in its food. 

The last thing I want to do is put into the record an editorial 

from the Idaho Statesman. This is a part of our Country that 

couldn’t be more conservative. The Barbara Boxers of the world 

simply don’t seem to get many votes in that part of the world. 

Let me tell you what they said. As the dairy industry continues 

to grow, the U.S. Department of Ag estimated the June dairy cow 

count at 486,000. The larger operations should be required to report their environmental impacts. 

They quote a woman, Courtney Washburn of the Idaho Conservation League: Public health doesn’t distinguish between the source 

of the pollution. Large livestock operations described by critics, accurately enough, as factory farms—and this is the paper talking— 

can release tons of ammonia among other pollutants. 

This very conservative part of the Country, in the Idaho Statesman’s words, says: Critics rightly want ag operations covered by 

the comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act, known as Superfund and the Emergency Planning and 

Community Right to Know Act which require large industries to report pollution to Federal and local agencies. 

[The referenced material can be found on page 147.] 

Senator BOXER. For me, this hearing has been tremendous because I have heard the opponents of keeping the law the way it is; 

I have heard the proponents. 

In my view, I have always said, the best road to follow is protecting public health because when you do that, everybody wins. 

Agriculture wins. The people win. We don’t have stories like yours, 

Mr. Dove, of sadness in families that can no longer use the resources. 

So I thank you very much, and I would add a couple minutes on, 

giving Senator Inhofe 9 minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. That is fine. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

You know one thing about this Country, there is such a plethora 

of publications around that you can always find extreme examples 

to use. I have done it myself. 

But I look upon these hearings as more hearings, hearing from 

you guys. So that is why I am pleased that we are having this second panel. Again, I thank you for your patients in coming back. 

Mrs. Chinn, Mr. Dove raises questions about property values, 

and you heard his testimony. I think Mr. Nemec spent about 5 

minutes talking about how lousy some of the life is in some of 

these areas. 

I would ask you first, do you live on your farm? 
139 

Mrs. CHINN. Yes, sir. All of my family lives on our farm, and we 

are proud of that. 

Senator INHOFE. I saw in the picture there, you have a boy and 

a girl? 

Mrs. CHINN. I have a son and a daughter. 

Senator INHOFE. A son and a daughter, OK. Well, that is a boy 

and a girl, yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. I would like to know. It sounds to me like that 

you are a very conscientious person. 

Now you are using land application, I would assume, aren’t you? 

Mrs. CHINN. Yes, we do, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. What about property values? You are in northeastern Missouri? 

Mrs. CHINN. Yes, we are in northeastern Missouri. In the last 5 

years around our farm, there have been six brand new homes built, 

and these are people who have lived there all of their lives. They 

know we are there. They are not afraid of us. 

The farm that adjoins the farm you see in that picture was up 

for sale last year. It sold for $300 an acre over the appraised value, 

which was 18 percent above appraised value. The farm that adjoins 

that one sold this last summer for over $650 per acre over the appraised value, which was 33 percent above appraised value. So we 

are not seeing property values go down in our area because of our 

livestock farm. 

The house that you see in that picture is where my husband was 

raised. This year alone, the property value increased $25,000 on 

that house. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. 

You just heard Professor Dicks talk about the return on investment for farmers and how at some point the costs of complying 

with regulations will outweigh the income derived from farming. 

Farmers, unlike many U.S. workers, have to invest in their business and spend a great deal of their working lives in debt, paying 

for their capital assets. 

Without asking you to go into any detail about your personal finances, can you speak about the return on investment for farmers 

and how much of their income is actually invested in their facility? 

Do you have anything off the top of your head? 

Mrs. CHINN. We have a very small return on our investment, and 

everything that we have goes directly back into our farm. The only 

thing we take out is what it costs us to live, to feed our children 

and to provide a roof over their heads and clothes on their backs. 

Our entire life is what you see there in that picture, and our 

dream is to some day be able to give that to my children. So we 

invest everything that we have back into that operation, but our 

operating margin is extremely small. It is tight. 

Senator INHOFE. Professor Dicks, you have probably heard this 

before, but you brought up something when talking about the cost 

of regulations. You have heard my story of one of the reasons I am 

here today is I spent 30 years out in the real world, getting beat 

up. 

Some of the over-regulation, I think it is very costly but makes 

us non-competitive. I remember one time I was doing a develop-
140 

ment in south Texas and I had to go to 26 different governmental 

agencies to get a dock permit, and this is the information age. 

Do you have anything you would like to share with us? Let us 

start off with the cost of regulations, anything you have come here 

with? 

Mr. DICKS. No. No, sir, I haven’t in specific. I will tell you that 

the cost of regulations is a major component of most agricultural 

operations, whether it is with respect to time and filling out forms. 

Senator INHOFE. It is, and I think the best evidence of that is 

that when I became Chairman of this Committee—before the 

Democrats took control in January, I was Chairman of this Committee for 4 years—most of the ag community would come in and 

say what happens in this Committee is more significant than what 

happens in the Ag Committee because this is where they have a 

lot of these things. 

I remember one time they were trying to make propane a hazardous material. We would have another layer of bureaucrats 

crawling all over every farm in my State of Oklahoma. The cost is 

just unbelievable. In fact, there was testimony as to what the cost 

would be to each family at that time just on that one bill. It was 

$700 a year, oddly enough. 

Is the group that you have represented, Chris, associated with ag 

leadership? 

Mrs. CHINN. Yes, we are. We do develop leaders in agriculture. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. I remember in this very room, a bunch of 

people coming in, wearing red coats—I didn’t know who they 

were—just about the time that we killed the bill in the Committee 

that would have had that application to propane, and they stood 

up and they cheered. 

Afterwards, they said, this is the first time we realized what you 

are up against here in Washington. 

Well, let me get to another thing. Professor Dicks, I am very, 

very proud of OSU and all the research they have done, what they 

are doing with sorghum and biomass, and you guys are just light 

years ahead of many other research operations. 

If you look past the manure as a waste product and you were to 

eliminate as a land application, what would be the initial consequences? 

Mr. DICKS. Well, I think it would be devastating. There simply 

isn’t an option right now that is economical other than land application. 

You understand the problem is that we have developed all these 

systems with that end in mind. So all the systems, all the facilities 

have been designed and developed so that we can eliminate that 

waste through land application. In order to move to the next stage, 

we have to totally redesign those systems and how we collect the 

manure. 

Senator INHOFE. When you look at something like this, the pink 

water up here, why is it that I don’t see that in Oklahoma? 

Mr. DICKS. It has to do with how they manage that lagoon, and 

it has probably not been managed well. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, and that can happen. It can happen in 

Oklahoma. It could happen anywhere else. Maybe we are blessed 
141 

with people who are more concerned about their property and the 

environment than maybe some of the others are. 

Have you seen anything that extreme, Mrs. Chinn? 

Mrs. CHINN. No, I have not. In Missouri, we have strict rules and 

regulations that we must follow. Often, our State rules are more 

restrictive than the Federal regulations upon us. 

Senator INHOFE. So you can continue to use a land application 

of manure. 

Mrs. CHINN. Yes, we do. 

Senator INHOFE. And still have that level of pristine results that 

you are getting. 

Mrs. CHINN. Yes, we do. We follow all of our DNR rules and regulations and our guidelines. We use best management practices, 

and we don’t have a problem like that. 

Senator INHOFE. You use land application yourself and you probably, with your operation, sell it to others too, is that correct? 

Mrs. CHINN. Actually, we are not fortunate enough to sell it. We 

give it away to be a good neighbor because it is important to us 

to reinvest in our community. If our row crop farmers can’t afford 

to produce corn, we can’t afford to feed our hogs. So we work in 

close partnership with all of our local farmers, and we give that nutrient away to be a good neighbor because we are in this together 

as a team. 

The cost for labor in our area is high. We have 40 employees, and 

the average salary for our employees is $36,000 a year. The median 

salary in my county for a male is $25,900. 

We have long term employee retention. We do not use immigrant 

labor. It is all local community. 

Senator INHOFE. What would you use to substitute the land application of manure if that were taken away? 

Mrs. CHINN. What would we use if we couldn’t use manure? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Mrs. CHINN. Well, our grain farmers would be forced to buy commercial fertilizers, and I have no idea what would happen to my 

family farm if we couldn’t do that anymore, what we would do with 

our nutrients. Probably, we couldn’t afford. I know we couldn’t afford to relocate to a foreign country, so we would more than likely 

go out of business. 

Senator INHOFE. Of course, about 90 percent of the cost of fertilizer is natural gas. We see what is happening there. 

Mrs. CHINN. Correct. 

Senator INHOFE. Therefore, it gets passed on ultimately, I suppose, to the customer. 

Mrs. CHINN. Right, but we can’t pass it on to our customer. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate very much your coming all the way 

from OSU. That is where I enjoyed an evening 6 days ago. 

Dr. Dicks, is there anything else that you can think of that you 

feel you would like to share in this hearing, perhaps that was in 

your written statement that you didn’t get a chance to talk about? 

Mr. DICKS. I think two things I want to touch on briefly. One is 

this idea of the structure of agriculture that Senator Boxer has 

brought up. If we have a problem with the size and concentration 

of the industry, we should attack that head-on. 
142 

To have a regulation about waste or to have payment limitations 

or any other means to try to deal with the structure of the agriculture problem, that is going to produce lots of downstream impacts that probably are unintended. If we have a problem with the 

structure of agriculture, we need to approach that problem directly 

and not through some sidebar. 

My problem with having animal manure classified as a hazardous material is exactly what Senator Bond said. Once you do 

that, it puts stops on every other type of utilization of that product. 

I am all about trying to figure out how to utilize that, how to collect it, how to utilize it, how to make valuable products out of it. 

You make that a hazardous waste; you have a real problem with 

doing that. 

Senator INHOFE. That is a very good statement. 

I appreciate the time of all of you. 

Mr. Dove, I thank you for your service in the United State Marines. I hope you are watching the successes we have had in 

Fallujah where the Marines went door to door, World War II style, 

and it is now totally under the ISR security right now. Your Marines are still performing. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe, I am going to make some closing 

statements. I am going to take about 5 minutes. Would you like to 

make some additional closing statements? 

Senator INHOFE. No, I don’t think so. I do have a commitment, 

that I have got to make a live address in 7 minutes. 

Yes, I do have one last request here. 

Senator BOXER. Go ahead, please. 

Senator INHOFE. For the record, we have four things to ask to be 

included in the record. One is a brief filed by the State of Texas 

in the city of Waco lawsuit; second, a letter sent to the Committee 

last year by a farmer sued by the city of Waco; third, an executive 

summary of a study done by Lake Waco; and, last, descriptions of 

agriculture programs in New York and California. 

I ask unanimous consent they be made a part of the record of 

this Committee hearing. 

Senator BOXER. They will be made part of the record, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

[The referenced material can be found on pages 153, 183, 240, 

and 214.] 

Senator BOXER. All right, so we are going to bring this to a close, 

and I have a final statement. 

I think that, Mrs. Chinn, of all of our witnesses, you proved my 

point which is that the good actors aren’t troubled by our laws and 

shouldn’t be. They go right ahead, doing the right thing, and everyone is happy around them. 

But the bad actors are troubled. They are troubled. Now they can 

hide behind the good actors all they want, but we are going to tell 

the truth about the situation. The truth will be told, and it will be 

told here as I make sure that this record is complete. It will be told 

to the members of the Ag Committee, who may want to take some 

of our jurisdiction and weaken our laws. 

It will be told on the U.S. Senate floor, and if I have to stand 

there through the night, telling the stories about this, I will. So 

those people who want to weaken these laws, I hate to say it, but 
143 

I am ready. I am ready to take this on, and I will have a lot of 

friends with me. 

Some of those friends are the U.S. Conference of Mayors who say 

don’t weaken our laws, the National Association of Counties who 

say don’t weaken our laws, the National Association of City and 

County Health Officials who say don’t weaken our laws, the American Public Health Association, the National League of Cities, the 

American Waterworks Association, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, the city of Waco, the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma, the 

Institute for Ag and Trade Policy, the National Environmental 

Trust, the Sustainable Ag Coalition, Food and Water Watch, attorneys general from eight States, the National Association of Clean 

Air Agencies, the American Metropolitan Water Agencies, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Integrity Project, Earth Justice, 

the Humane Society of the U.S., U.S. PIRG Environmental Working Group, Western Organization of Resource Councils, 

Waterkeeper Alliance who I think we heard a good voice from 

them, the Walton League of America. 

Here is the point. There are lots more, but this is just what I 

have been able to pt together for today. This is going to be a fight. 

The hearing that I heard, the witnesses I heard from today, all 

helped me and gave me information, starting with Mrs. Chinn, the 

first panel and going through. All of you, wonderful witnesses, really helped me today, and for that I am grateful. 

This morning, I didn’t have time to share with you an article 

that appeared in the Kansas City Star. So I am going to go and 

read some of that to you and for the record. This is not 10 years 

ago or 5 years ago or 1 year ago. This is August 3d, 2007, this article. 

One winter day this year, Sandra Heasley was taking a shower 

and suddenly the water turned to dark brown and a revolting smell 

filled the bathroom. 

I want everyone to think of this as a family. It turns out her 

home in West Plains in southern Missouri is across the road from 

a large indoor dairy farm where manure was piled several feet 

deep outside. 

The experience was a nightmare for Heasley who said she took 

to her bed for a week. 

Can you imagine getting in a shower and having cow manure 

come through the shower head, the 62-year-old woman asked. 

This week, Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon filed a lawsuit 

against the owners of the dairy, alleging violations of the State’s 

Clean Water Law. The lawsuit comes after years of complaints 

from neighbors. 

Manure was being stacked several feet deep in pastures and 

dumped along Route K in a creek bed, according to the Missouri 

Department of Natural Resources. 

The farm used what is known as a traveling gun. This is what 

you described to us, Mr. Dove. 

This is all new to me. I am a city kid. I represent an ag State, 

but I admit I grew up in the city. 

They used a traveling gun to shoot the manure up into the trees, 

the report says. 
144 

The flies are so terrible here. They line up on a wire in the barn 

just solid, said Larry Swendener, a neighbor who says his well is 

contaminated. 

It is atrocious. These are good families too. 

Neighbors soon complained to the Natural Resources Department 

about the pungent odor of cow excrement and swarms of flies. At 

least two neighbors told the State their wells were contaminated. 

Several neighbors said they didn’t want to see the farm go out 

of business, but they wonder why it has taken so long to protect 

their health and their property values. 

The Howard County Health Department says there is no doubt 

the Heasley well is contaminated with E. coli. 

Safe from the farm to the fork? E. coli and coliform, bacteria that 

comes from fecal matter. 

Justin Frazier, the Health Department’s Environmental Supervisor, tested Heasley’s water in early February. 

This story goes on and on. If anyone is interested, they can finish 

reading it. 

Then you have the Salt Lake Tribune, another area that is not 

known for its Democrats. I don’t think we have seen a Democrat 

from that State in the Senate in a long time. This is what they say. 

Manure Factories Don’t Rate Protection, Politics Stink, Salt Lake 

Tribune: When is the fecal matter produced by thousands of cows, 

pigs or chickens not an environmental hazard? When Congress 

says it isn’t, which is exactly what will happen if the bill with the 

sickeningly sweet title of the Ag Protection and Prosperity Act becomes law. 

Always watch out when you see those titles. 

While things like stopping nuclear waste in Utah draw the press, 

environmentally destructive nonsense like this Cow Poop Is Good 

For You Law move quietly forward. 

The 1980 law known as Superfund scares the owners of giant 

animal feeding operations because it allows government to go after 

polluters after the fact and hold them responsible for the stinking 

mess they or their corporate ancestors make. 

Saying that manure isn’t a pollutant is part of the usual agribusiness scam, pretending that they are engaged in benign animal 

husbandry and shouldn’t be micromanaged by government. But the 

stuff isn’t supposed to flow out of huge protein factors, but sometimes it does. 

It is not fertilizer for the garden. It is an industrial scale pollutant reeking with ammonia, nitrogen and phosphorus, carrying antibiotics and synthetic hormones, fouling water supplies and creating 

giant dead zones in coastal waters. 

The environmental credentials of anyone who would exempt this 

from environmental regulations are hardly credible. 

So I am going to put that in the record, the Idaho Statesman article in the record and there is the Plain Dealer called Looking Out 

for the Farmer Who Lieth and the Register-Guard, Unlovely Lagoons. I am putting that all in the record for you to read. 

[The referenced material can be found on pages 146 and 148:] 

Senator BOXER. I think that the die is cast here. We have a law 

that is working. It could work better. We certainly don’t want to 

weaken it. 
145 

We need to protect the public health and safety. If there is one 

thing I care about, it is that. You know who is the most impacted 

when we do the wrong thing, our children, because of who they are, 

because their bodies are changing and they are very sensitive. That 

is where they are like the canary in the coal mine, and that is why 

you see asthma in our kids. It is clear: they are impacted first. 

What kind of people are we to turn away from what has to be 

done which is making sure that our farms thrive but they do it in 

an environmentally responsible way? 

Look, I come from a State that is on the cutting edge of environmental protection. Guess what? We are the most prosperous State. 

Guess what? We have grown the most. 

Guess what? We have a great ag industry, more specialty crops 

than anybody, 200, 300 hundred different crops in our State. We 

do fine. We have tough laws. We have tough rules. Our attorney 

general says keep the Federal law. It is important. 

So I would just urge all of you who have come out today, who 

have said weaken these laws, to rethink what you are doing. Ask 

yourself, deep in your heart, if you are doing it for the right reason 

or you are doing it for the wrong reason. 

The wrong reason is to exempt a whole industry for a reason that 

makes no sense by redefining what a dangerous waste is. That is 

not the way to go. 

I had a hearing on infrastructure in my State. Actually, there 

was an expert there who said: I have a way out of the problem. Let 

us just change the language. Let us just say these bridges we said 

are structurally deficient. Just change the language and don’t call 

them that anymore, and the problem will go ahead. 

I don’t think so. I don’t think if you call that bridge in Minnesota 

something else, it wouldn’t have collapsed. 

Well, I don’t think you stop people from getting sick, some even 

dying and taking a shower in brown water and that is going to go 

away if we suddenly redefine ourselves out of this problem by saying, oh, well, yes this is a waste over here, but it is not really a 

waste over there. This is dangerous when it is over here, but it is 

not dangerous over there. We need to be just frank and honest with 

each other here. 

This is going to be a battle. I wanted to have this hearing today 

to draw the lines of that battle. I hope maybe they will go away, 

and they won’t try to weaken these laws. 

But I ask each and every one of you to think to yourself: What 

would you do if you were in my shoes and your first priority was 

to protect the health and safety of the people? What would you do? 

Think about that and know that all four of you have added immeasurably to this debate, and I thank you all from the bottom of 

my heart, and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 

Æ