United States General Accounting Office

GAO Briefing Report to the Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry,

U.S. Senate

June 1995 ANIMAL

AGRICULTURE

Information on Waste

Management and Water

Quality Issues

GAO/RCED-95-200BR

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-261629 

June 28, 1995

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar

Chairman

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Agriculture,

 Nutrition, and Forestry

United States Senate

Initiatives to address agricultural sources of water pollution are likely to

receive considerable attention during the debates over the 1995 farm bill.

In preparation for these debates, you requested that we provide

information on the management of animal agriculture waste1

 and related

water quality issues. Specifically, you asked us to provide information on

(1) water quality concerns arising from animal agriculture sources of

nonpoint pollution—pollution not traceable to a specific point of origin,2

(2) consolidation trends and geographical shifts in animal agriculture,

(3) animal agriculture production covered by point source permits,3

(4) commonly used animal waste management practices and their

associated costs, and (5) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cost-share

assistance for animal waste management. In addressing these objectives,

you also asked us to focus on the management of wastes associated with

breeding and feeding operations—generally farms, ranches, and

feedlots—for beef cattle, dairy cows, hogs, broilers, layers (laying hens),

and turkeys. We briefed your offices on this request on June 26, 1995. This

briefing report summarizes the information provided in that briefing.

Results in Brief Nonpoint pollution from animal waste runoff can impair surface water and

groundwater by introducing excess nutrients, organic matter, and

pathogens. In general, impaired waters are those that do not fully support

one or more designated uses, such as providing drinking water, allowing

swimming, or supporting the existence of edible fish and shellfish.

According to water quality assessments prepared by the 50 states,

agricultural nonpoint pollution (from both crop and animal production) is

1

Animal agriculture waste generally refers to manure but also includes urine, animal carcasses,

bedding, poultry litter, and wastewater.

2

Animal agriculture sources of nonpoint pollution include animal waste runoff from animal feeding

operations; cropland where manure has been applied as fertilizer; and livestock feeding and watering

areas on rangeland and pastureland.

3

Point sources discharge into surface water from a discrete point, such as a pipe or other conveyance.

Page 1 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
B-261629 

a major source of impairment in the waters assessed. In addition, 18 states

further reported on agricultural nonpoint pollution by specific

categories—feedlots, rangeland, irrigated cropland, and nonirrigated

cropland. Their information regarding animal waste runoff from feedlots

and rangeland indicates that this runoff is a significant factor in water

quality impairment. (See section I.)

Consolidation (or concentration) of animal production in large,

confinement-type operations has increased since the 1970s for each of the

livestock and poultry sectors studied. For example, in the hog industry’s

top 10 production states, the inventory controlled by the operations in the

largest category (500 or more hogs) increased from about 40 percent of the

inventory of these states in 1978 to about 77 percent in 1994. Also, in the

broiler sector, sales attributable to operations in the largest category

(100,000 or more birds sold) increased from about 70 percent of national

sales in 1974 to about 97 percent in 1992. Over the same period, however,

the top 10 production states for each livestock and poultry sector

remained largely unchanged, although the relative share of production

among these states usually changed. (See section 2.)

Discharges from concentrated feeding operations may be controlled by

point source permits; these permits are issued by the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) or by states delegated permitting authority by

EPA.

4

 Under EPA’s regulations, concentrated animal feeding operations are

generally those that have more than 1,000 animal unit equivalents5

 and that

also discharge to U.S. waters during most storm events. According to EPA,

about 1,987 concentrated animal feeding operations in the livestock and

poultry sectors we examined had point source permits as of April 1995.6

USDA estimates that there are about 6,600 animal feeding operations

nationwide in these sectors that have more than 1,000 animal unit

equivalents. According to EPA, many operations with more than 1,000

animal unit equivalents are not required to have point source permits

because they do not discharge during most storm events; others should

4

Authority for issuing point source permits is contained in Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. This

section establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program to control

discharges to U.S. waters from point sources such as wastewater treatment plants and industrial

facilities. These facilities include concentrated animal feeding operations such as large feedlots.

5

Animal unit equivalents are calculated for each livestock and poultry sector according to estimated

rates of manure production for each species. Thus, the number of animals representing “1,000 animal

unit equivalents” varies by sector.

6

According to EPA, the number of concentrated animal feeding operations with point source permits

in the livestock and poultry sectors we examined may exceed 1,987. EPA officials said that the

agency’s database of permitted operations is incomplete because some states that have been delegated

authority for issuing point source permits by EPA are not regularly reporting permit issuances to EPA.

Page 2 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
B-261629 

have permits but do not because of mistaken exemptions or limited

federal or state resources for identifying operations needing permits. (See

section 3.)

Commonly used animal waste management practices include (1) treatment

lagoons, retention ponds, and other storage structures to hold animal

wastes until they can be used as fertilizer; (2) vegetative filter strips,

constructed wetlands, and other buffers to remove nutrients and organic

matter from animal waste runoff before it reaches surface water; and

(3) nutrient management based on testing the nutrient content of soil,

plant tissue, and manure to ensure proper timing and application rates

when applying manure as fertilizer. The waste management practice

selected depends on site-specific factors such as soil composition and the

proximity of an operation to surface water or groundwater; practice costs

vary depending on the size and type of operation and climatic conditions.

(See section 4.)

USDA generally provides cost-share assistance to farmers for animal waste

management under four conservation programs: Agricultural Conservation

Program; Water Quality Incentives Projects; Small Watershed Program;

and, Rural Clean Water Program. For fiscal years 1992 through 1994, these

programs provided about $89 million in cost-share assistance to farmers to

assist them in financing a variety of waste management practices to

prevent water pollution. Most of this funding (about $65 million) was

provided under the Agricultural Conservation Program. (See section 5.)

Scope and

Methodology

To address our objectives, we analyzed data from various sources,

including USDA’s Consolidated Farm Service Agency, Economic Research

Service, National Agricultural Statistics Service, and Natural Resources

Conservation Service; EPA; the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological

Survey; and the Department of Commerce’s Census of Agriculture.

We conducted our work between December 1994 and June 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We

did not independently verify the data obtained from the agencies

contacted. Appendix I contains further information on our scope and

methodology.

We discussed the contents of this report with officials representing USDA

and EPA. At USDA, these officials included the Assistant Deputy

Administrator, Economic Analysis and Appraisal Staff, Consolidated Farm

Page 3 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
B-261629 

Service Agency; Assistant Director for Economics and Communication,

Resource and Technology Division, Economic Research Service; Chief,

Livestock Branch, Estimates Division, National Agricultural Statistics

Service; and Manager, Water Quality Program, Conservation and

Ecosystem Assistance Division, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

At EPA, these officials included the Chief, Nonpoint Source Control Branch,

Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands,

Oceans, and Watersheds; and the Chief, Pretreatment and Multi-Media

Branch, Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management. These

officials agreed that the positions and data attributed to their agencies

were accurate. They also provided new or clarifying information that we

incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate Senate and House

Committees; interested Members of Congress; the Secretary of

Agriculture; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other

interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at

(202) 512-5138. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.

John W. Harman

Director, Food and

 Agriculture Issues

Page 4 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Page 5 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Contents

Letter 1

Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality

Concerns Related to

Animal Agriculture

Production

8

Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends

and Geographical

Shifts in Animal

Agriculture

Production

28

Briefing Section 3 

Animal Agriculture

Production Subject to

Point Source Permits

58

Briefing Section 4 

Best Management

Practices and

Associated Costs

62

Briefing Section 5 

USDA Conservation

Programs Providing

Cost-Share Assistance

for Animal Waste

Management

72

Page 6 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Contents

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

82

Appendix II 

Major Contributors to

This Report

85

Abbreviations

ACP Agricultural Conservation Program

AU animal unit

BMP best management practice

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ERS Economic Research Service

GAO General Accounting Office

NASS National Agricultural Statistics Service

NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment

RCWP Rural Clean Water Program

SWP Small Watershed Program

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WQIP Water Quality Incentives Projects

Page 7 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

GAO Surface Water Impaired by Agriculture 

According to State Assessments

Nationally, states assessed 18% of river and 

stream miles, 46% of lake acres, and 74% of 

estuary square miles

Rivers and streams: 38% of assessed miles were 

impaired; 72% of these were affected by 

agricultural nonpoint pollution

Lakes: 44% of assessed acres were impaired; 56% 

of these were affected by agricultural nonpoint 

pollution 

Estuaries: 32% of assessed square miles were 

impaired; 43% of these were affected by 

agricultural nonpoint pollution 

Note: According to EPA officials, these state assessment data are generally the best available

information on water quality from a national perspective. However, these officials said the data

have several limitations: water quality assessment methodologies were not consistent across

states; not all surface waters were assessed; and, surface waters assessed do not constitute a

representative sample for projection purposes.

Source: National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to Congress, Environmental Protection

Agency (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1994).

Page 8 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

In 1990 and 1991, each state assessed the condition of its surface water

and reported this information to the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) in accordance with section 305(b) of the Federal Water Pollution

Control Act, as amended,1

 commonly known as the Clean Water Act.

These state assessment data show the following:

• The states assessed about 18 percent of the nation’s river and stream

miles; 46 percent of its lake acres; and 74 percent of its estuary square

miles.2

• About 38 percent of the nation’s assessed river and stream miles,

44 percent of its assessed lake acres, and 32 percent of its assessed estuary

square miles were impaired, meaning that they were not fully supporting

their designated uses, such as providing drinking water, allowing

swimming, or supporting the existence of edible fish or shellfish.

• Crop and animal agriculture nonpoint pollution affected about 72 percent

of impaired river and stream miles, 56 percent of impaired lake acres, and

43 percent of impaired estuary square miles.

• Among five general categories of pollution sources (Municipal Point

Sources; Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers; Agriculture; Industrial Point

Sources; and Natural Sources), agriculture ranked as the number one

cause of impaired rivers and streams and lakes, and the number three

cause of impaired estuaries.

The states also assessed the condition of their groundwater. On the basis

of these assessments, EPA concluded that although the nation’s

groundwater quality is generally good, many local areas have experienced

significant groundwater contamination. According to EPA, agriculture is

one of the main sources of groundwater pollution.

1

33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

2

Estuaries are coastal areas where fresh water and salt water mingle.

Page 9 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

GAO Impaired River and Stream Miles by 

Source of Impairment for 18 States

Source of

impaired miles

As a percent of total 

miles assessed 

As a percent of 

agriculturally

impaired miles

Feedlot 9 26

Rangeland 8 25

Nonirrigated cropland 14 42

Irrigated cropland 10 31

Note: The sum of impaired miles for each source as a percent of agriculturally impaired miles

does not add to 100 percent because impairment may be attributable to multiple sources.

Source: GAO analysis of EPA’s 1992 Section 305(b) data.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

As part of the water quality assessments they performed, 18 states3

collected data on agricultural sources of nonpoint pollution impairing river

and stream miles within their borders. These sources were designated by

four categories—feedlot, rangeland, nonirrigated cropland, and irrigated

cropland. This information showed the following:

• Nonpoint pollution from feedlots impaired about 9 percent of the river and

stream miles assessed and about 26 percent of the miles impaired by

agricultural nonpoint pollution.

• Nonpoint pollution from rangeland impaired about 8 percent of the river

and stream miles assessed and about 25 percent of the miles impaired by

agricultural nonpoint pollution.

• Nonpoint pollution from nonirrigated cropland impaired about 14 percent

of the river and stream miles assessed and about 42 percent of the miles

impaired by agricultural nonpoint pollution.

• Nonpoint pollution from irrigated cropland impaired about 10 percent of

the river and stream miles assessed and about 31 percent of the miles

impaired by agricultural nonpoint pollution.

Feedlots contribute to river and stream impairment as a result of animal

waste runoff. Rangeland contributes to this impairment because of both

animal waste runoff and soil erosion. Animal waste runoff can introduce

excess nutrients (such as nitrogen and phosphorus), organic matter, and

pathogens. Excess nutrient loadings can overstimulate the growth of

algae. The decomposition of organic matter requires oxygen that would

otherwise be available for fish and aquatic animals. Pathogen

contamination can result in restrictions on using waters for drinking

water, fish or shellfish harvesting, or recreation such as swimming and

boating.

Nonirrigated and irrigated cropland contribute to river and stream

impairment as a result of commercial fertilizer and pesticide runoff and

soil erosion that reaches these waters; runoff of manure applied to

cropland as a fertilizer may also be a component of the pollution

associated with these categories.

3

These states are Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi,

Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, and

Wyoming. Collectively, these states (1) contain about 39 percent of the nation’s river and stream miles

and (2) assessed about 20 percent of their river and stream miles.

Page 11 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

GAO Annual Median Inputs of Nitrogen and 

Phosphorus to Watersheds, by Region

Nitrogen Sources Phosphorus Sources

Northeast Southeast Central Western

0

2

4

6

8

metric tons per km

Atmosphere Fertilizer Manure Point

2 2

Northeast Southeast Central Western

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

metric tons per km

Fertilizer Manure Point

Note: Atmospheric inputs are calculated as loadings to the entire land area of a watershed.

Fertilizer and manure inputs are calculated as loadings to the agricultural land in a watershed.

Point source inputs are calculated as loadings to the urban land area of a watershed. According

to the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), calculating loadings in this

manner was necessary to allow comparisons among the watersheds.

Source: USGS’ National Water Quality Assessment data.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

As part of its National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA), USGS found that

manure was a significant source of nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the

land areas of the 114 watersheds it studied using data compiled for these

watersheds between 1980 and 1990.4

 The watersheds studied were in four

geographical regions: Northeast (64 watersheds covering 17 percent of the

region’s land area); Southeast (20 watersheds covering 17 percent of the

region’s land area); Central (11 watersheds covering 11 percent of the

region’s land area); and Western (19 watersheds covering 8 percent of the

region’s land area).

Manure was the primary source of nitrogen inputs in the Northeast region;

it was the second most important source of inputs in the other regions. For

phosphorus, manure was the primary source of inputs in the Northeast

and Southeast regions; it was the second most important source in the

Central and Western regions. According to USGS, the relatively high inputs

of nitrogen and phosphorus from manure in the Northeast correspond to

the high density of confined animal production—especially dairy—in that

region. Similarly, USGS cited confined poultry and hog production in the

Southeast as a reason for relatively high inputs of nitrogen and

phosphorus from manure in this region.

According to USGS, most of the nutrient inputs to the land areas of these

watersheds will not end up in rivers, streams, or other surface waters.

Most of these nutrients will be absorbed by plants or bound up in the soil.

Also, part of the nitrogen will return to the atmosphere as a gas.

Nevertheless, statistical studies of water quality trends indicate that

increases in in-stream loadings of nitrogen and phosphorus are, in part,

strongly correlated with increases in the concentration of the livestock

population in a watershed.

4

USGS’ study delineated nitrogen inputs by four sources: atmospheric deposition (nitrogen constitutes

about 78 percent of the earth’s atmosphere, by volume); fertilizer (commercial fertilizers); manure; and

point sources (primarily wastewater treatment and industrial discharges). Phosphorus sources were

delineated by three sources: fertilizer, manure, and point sources. The 114 watersheds studied do not

constitute a representative sample for projection purposes.

Page 13 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

GAO Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus 

Median Inputs for Northeast Region

Atmosphere Fertilizer Manure Point

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

Nitrogen Phosphorus

Source: GAO analysis of NAWQA data.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

According to NAWQA data, animal manure was a significant source of

nitrogen and the primary source of phosphorus inputs in the watersheds

studied in the Northeast region. Specifically, inputs of these nutrients from

manure accounted for 36 percent of median inputs of nitrogen and

64 percent of median inputs of phosphorus in these watersheds.

Page 15 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

GAO Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus 

Median Inputs for Southeast Region

Atmosphere Fertilizer Manure Point

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

Nitrogen Phosphorus

Source: GAO analysis of NAWQA data.

Page 16 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

NAWQA data indicate that animal manure was a contributing source of

nitrogen and the most significant source of phosphorus inputs in

watersheds studied in the Southeast region. Specifically, manure

accounted for 22 percent of median inputs of nitrogen and 53 percent of

median inputs of phosphorus in these watersheds.

Page 17 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

GAO Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus 

Median Inputs for Central Region

Atmosphere Fertilizer Manure Point

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

Nitrogen Phosphorus

Source: GAO analysis of NAWQA data.

Page 18 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

According to NAWQA data, manure was the second most significant source

of nitrogen and the leading source of phosphorus inputs in the watersheds

studied in the Central region. Specifically, inputs of these nutrients from

manure accounted for 37 percent of median inputs of nitrogen and

65 percent of median inputs of phosphorus in these watersheds.

Page 19 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

GAO Sources of Nitrogen and Phosphorus 

Median Inputs for Western Region

Atmosphere Fertilizer Manure Point

0

20

40

60

80

Percent

Nitrogen Phosphorus

Source: GAO analysis of NAWQA data.

Page 20 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

NAWQA data indicate that manure was the second most important source of

nitrogen and the leading source of phosphorus inputs in the watersheds

studied in the Western region. Specifically, manure accounted for

39 percent of median inputs of nitrogen and 53 percent of median inputs of

phosphorus in the watersheds studied.

Page 21 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

Nonpoint and Point Sources of Nitrogen Inputs in NAWQA Watersheds

Nitrogen source

Atmosphere

Fertilizer

Palouse River, 

Wash. Platte River, 

Nebr.

Red River of 

the North, 

Minn., N. 

Dak.

 

White River, 

Ind.

Susquehanna 

River, Penn.

Connecticut 

River, Conn.

Willamette 

River, Oreg.

Snake River, 

Idaho

San Joaquin 

River, Calif.

Potomac River, 

D.C.

Tar River, 

N.C.

Altamaha River, 

Ga.

Apalachicola River, 

Fla.

White River, 

Ark.

Trinity River, 

Tex.

South Platte 

River, Colo.

 

Manure

Point source

Source: NAWQA data.

Page 22 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

This map depicts nitrogen inputs from nonpoint and point sources to the

land areas of 16 NAWQA watersheds. Nonpoint sources include atmospheric

deposition, commercial fertilizer, and manure. Point sources include

wastewater treatment and industrial discharges. Manure contributes more

than 25 percent of the nitrogen inputs to 10 of these watersheds, and more

than 50 percent of the inputs to 3 other watersheds.

Page 23 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

Nonpoint and Point Sources of In-Stream Nitrogen Loadings in NAWQA Watersheds

Nitrogen source

Point

Nonpoint

Palouse River, 

Wash.

Platte River, 

Nebr.

Red River of 

the North,

Minn., N. Dak.

 

White River, 

Ind.

Susquehanna 

 River, 

Penn.

Connecticut

River, Conn.

Willamette 

River, Oreg.

Snake River, 

Idaho

San Joaquin 

River, Calif.

Potomac 

River, D.C.

Tar River, N.C.

Apalachicola 

River, Fla.

White River, 

Ark.

Trinity River, 

Tex.

South Platte 

River, Colo.

 

Altamaha River, Ga.

Source: NAWQA data.

Page 24 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

This map depicts in-stream loadings (i.e., reaching surface waters) of

nitrogen from point and nonpoint (including manure) sources for 16 NAWQA

watersheds. Nonpoint sources contributed more than 50 percent of

in-stream loadings of nitrogen in all but one of these watersheds (the

South Platte River); in 12 of these watersheds, nonpoint sources

contributed more than 75 percent of the in-stream nitrogen loadings.

Page 25 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

GAO Ratio of Nitrogen From Manure to 

Available Cropland by County

0.0 - 2.04

2.05 - 4.34

4.35 - 8.86

> 8.86

Pounds per Acre

Note: Available cropland refers to the cropland on livestock and poultry farms in each county.

Source: Economic Research Service analysis of 1987 Census of Agriculture data.

Page 26 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 1 

Water Quality Concerns Related to Animal

Agriculture Production

Using 1987 Census of Agriculture data and information from other sources

on manure production and manure nutrient content, the U.S. Department

of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS) estimated and

mapped nitrogen from manure concentrations by county. These

concentrations are expressed as a ratio of the quantity of nitrogen from

manure (in pounds) to the cropland acreage operated by livestock and

poultry producers in each county. The estimates show where nitrogen

from manure is available as a crop nutrient; the estimates are not

necessarily an indication of water quality problems or improper manure

management. These estimates indicate that the counties with the highest

manure nitrogen concentrations per acre are generally located in the

northeastern states; parts of the Southeast; Wisconsin; northeastern

Arizona; and southern California. ERS’ estimates of manure phosphorus

concentrations per acre are distributed similarly to the estimates for

manure nitrogen.

Geographic variation in manure nitrogen concentrations per cropland acre

may be an important consideration in assessing water quality problems,

but a number of other factors must also be considered. According to ERS,

to fully relate nutrient management to water quality, information on

nutrient inputs from chemical fertilizer applications, crop nutrient uptake,

soil leaching and runoff properties, and rainfall patterns is needed. In

addition, livestock and poultry producers with little available cropland

may transfer manure to non-livestock producers within the county who

have greater amounts of land available to utilize the manure nutrients.

Some of this manure may also be used for other purposes such as methane

gas production.

Page 27 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

U.S. Beef Cattle Inventory and Operations (Selected Years)

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

847.3

804.3

759.9 730.5 729

99.3 97.9 102.3 101 102 66.9 66.9 67.9 70.3 72.8

1,013.5 969.1 930.1 901.8 903.8

Operations (000s)

1986 1988 1990 1992 1994

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

12.1 11.6 10.9 10.8 11.3

6.2 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.7

15.4 15.2 15.1 15.8 16.7

33.7 33.2 32.5 33.1

34.7 Inventory (Millions)

Total 

Operations

Total 

Inventory

Ops. with 1-49 cattle

Ops. with 50-99 cattle

Ops. with 100 or more cattle

Source: GAO analysis of National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) data.

Page 28 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1986 to 1994, the beef cattle sector (including ranches and farms but

excluding feedlots) experienced a slight growth in

consolidation—generally, the concentration of production in large,

confinement-type operations. During this period, the inventory controlled

by operations in the largest category (100 or more cattle) increased from

about 46 percent of national inventory in 1986 to about 48 percent in 1994.

Also, the number of operations in this category increased by about

9 percent, while the total number of operations (of all sizes) decreased by

about 11 percent.

Page 29 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

GAO Geographic Shifts in Top 10 Beef Cattle 

Production States From 1986 to 1994

1986

1994

1 - 5 percent

6 - 10 percent

11 percent or more

Percent of National Inventory

Source: GAO analysis of NASS data.

Page 30 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1986 to 1994, the top 10 beef cattle production states (excluding

feedlots) experienced little change; Texas remained the number one

production state, Iowa dropped out of the top 10 states, and Kentucky

joined this group. None of the other states experienced a change of greater

than 1 percent in its share of national inventory. Industry sources expect

little change in terms of geographic shifts or consolidation in the beef

cattle industry over the next few years.

Page 31 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

U.S. Feedlot Cattle Sales and Operations (Selected Years)

1974 1978 1982 1987 1992

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

184.3

230.9

215.5

169.9

131.1

24.2 25.8 22.2 17.8 13.9 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2

210.7

259

240

190

147.2

Operations (000s)

1974 1978 1982 1987 1992

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3.7 3.9 3.4 2.9 2.2

6.1 6.5 5.7 4.7 3.7

16.3

19.3 18.5

20.2 20.5

26.1

29.7

27.6 27.8

26.4

Sales (Millions of cattle)

Total 

Operations

Total Sales

Ops. with 1-99 sold

Ops. with 100-999 sold

Ops. with 1,000 or more sold

Source: GAO analysis of Census of Agriculture data.

Page 32 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1974 to 1992, the feedlot cattle sector experienced a growth in

consolidation. During this period, sales by operations in the largest

category (1,000 or more cattle sold) increased from about 62 percent of

national sales in 1974 to about 78 percent in 1992. Also, the number of

operations in this category decreased by about 2 percent, while the total

number of operations (of all sizes) decreased by 30 percent.

Page 33 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

GAO Geographic Shifts in Top 10 Feedlot Cattle 

Production States From 1974 to 1992

1974

1992

1 - 8 percent

9 - 14 percent

Percent of National Sales

15 percent or more

Source: GAO analysis of Census of Agriculture data.

Page 34 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1974 to 1992, Kansas moved from fourth to first place among the top

10 feedlot cattle states, with its share of national sales increasing from

about 10 percent to about 19 percent. Nebraska and Texas also increased

their share of national sales, while Oklahoma and Idaho joined the list of

the top 10 states. In contrast, Iowa and California lost about 5- and

4-percent shares, respectively, of national sales, while Arizona and

Minnesota dropped off the top 10 list.

Page 35 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

U.S. Dairy Cow Inventory and Operations (Selected Years)

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

239.2

174

120.4

81.4

54.4

114.1 115.2 109.1

91.7

74.1

15.9 18.8 19.7 20.7 21.5

369.2

308

249.2

193.8

150

Operations (000s)

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1.7 1.3 1 0.7 0.5

5.9 5.9 5.9

4.9

4.1

3.3

3.8 4.2 4.4

5

10.9 11 11.1

10 9.6

Inventory (Millions)

Total 

Operations

Total 

Inventory

Ops. with 1-29 cows

Ops. with 30-99 cows

Ops. with 100 or more cows

Source: GAO analysis of NASS data.

Page 36 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1978 to 1994, the dairy cow sector became more consolidated.

During this period, the inventory controlled by operations in the largest

category (100 or more cows) increased from about 30 percent of national

inventory in 1978 to about 52 percent in 1994. Also, the number of

operations in this category increased by about 35 percent, while the total

number of operations (of all sizes) fell by nearly 60 percent.

Page 37 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

GAO Geographic Shifts in Top 10 Dairy 

Production States From 1978 to 1994

1978

1994

11 percent or more

1 - 5 percent

6 - 10 percent

Percent of National Inventory

Source: GAO analysis of NASS data.

Page 38 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1978 to 1994, California moved from fourth to second place among

the top 10 dairy cow production states, increasing its share of the nation’s

dairy cow inventory from about 8 percent to about 13 percent. Washington

State and Texas also increased their shares.1

 Dairy cow inventories

dropped in the traditional dairy production states of Wisconsin,

Minnesota, and New York, while Missouri dropped out of the top 10 states.

According to ERS, California’s rapid population growth increased demand

for locally produced milk, which, in turn, prompted dairy producers in this

state to expand their production.

1

The federal dairy pricing system is a factor in encouraging expanded dairy production in areas outside

the Upper Midwest and the Northeast. For example, the distance differential paid under the Milk

Marketing Order Program increases the guaranteed price for milk used for fluid consumption and is

generally based on the distance of a plant from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. See our report, Federal Dairy

Programs: Information on Dairy Pricing and Related 1995 Farm Bill Issues (GAO/RCED-95-97BR,

Mar. 27, 1995).

Page 39 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

Hog Inventory and Operations for the Top 10 Hog Production States (Selected Years)

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

320

201.4

138.8

89.6

68.6 51.7

90.7 73.7 56.4 51.4 39.8

19.4 20.8 19.9 24.4 25.3

311.5

233.3

165.9

144.4

116.8

Operations (000s)

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994

0

10

20

30

40

50

5.8

3.8 2.8 2 1.4

22

17.6

14.2 12.4

9.8

18.3

21.5 22.7

28.4

36.6

46.1

42.9

39.7

42.8

47.8

Inventory (Millions)

Total 

Operations

Total 

Inventory

Ops. with 1-99 hogs

Ops. with 100-499 hogs

Ops. with 500 or more hogs

Note: The table shows inventory and operations for the top 10 production states in 1978; data for

subsequent years is for the same 10 states. The actual top 10 states in 1994 differed from the top

10 states in 1978 by only one state. (See also, pp. 44-45.)

Source: GAO analysis of NASS data.

Page 40 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1978 to 1994, the top 10 hog-producing states2 experienced a

dramatic increase in consolidation. During this period, the inventory

controlled by operations in the largest size category (500 or more hogs)

increased from about 40 percent of the top 10 states’ inventory in 1978 to

about 77 percent of this inventory in 1994. Also, the number of operations

in the largest size category increased by about 30 percent, while the total

number of operations decreased by about 63 percent.

2

While USDA reports total hog operations and inventory data for all 50 states, it does so by

size-of-operation categories for the top 10 hog production states only. From 1978 to 1994, the total

number of operations (of all sizes) decreased by about 67 percent—from 635,000 to 209,000—while

national inventory remained virtually the same at about 60 million head.

Page 41 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

Hog Inventory and Operations for the Top 10 Hog Production States From 1988 to 1994

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 0

5

10

15

20

15.4 15.3 15.7 16.1 16.3 15.8 14.8

8 8.6 8.7 9

10.3

Operations (000s)

9.9

10.5

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

10.8 10.3 10.9 11.5 10.8 10.6 10

15.7 16.6 17.5

19.7

22

Inventory (Millions)

23.3

26.5

Ops. with 500-999 hogs

Ops. with 1,000 or more hogs

Ops. with 1,000-1,999 hogs

Ops. with 2,000 or more hogs

Source: GAO analysis of NASS data.

Page 42 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

Because of the strong consolidation trend in the hog sector, USDA

introduced a new size category in 1988 (1,000 or more hogs) and then split

this category into two categories in 1993 (1,000 to 1,999 and 2,000 or more

hogs) to track production associated with large operations. From 1988 to

1994, the inventory controlled by operations with 1,000 or more hogs

increased from about 36 percent of the top 10 states’ inventory in 1988 to

about 56 percent in 1994. Also, the number of operations in this size

category increased by about 31 percent.

Page 43 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

GAO Geographic Shifts in Top 10 Hog 

Production States From 1978 to 1994

1978

1994

1 - 5 percent

6 - 10 percent

11 percent or more

Percent of National Inventory

Source: GAO analysis of NASS data.

Page 44 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

A number of geographical shifts in the level of hog production occurred

among the top 10 hog-producing states between 1978 and 1994. North

Carolina moved from seventh to second place among these states,

increasing its share of the nation’s hog inventory from about 4 percent to

about 12 percent. Minnesota also experienced an increase in its share of

this inventory, moving from about 7 percent to about 8 percent, while

South Dakota joined the list of the top 10 states and Georgia dropped out.

In addition, hog production fell slightly in the Corn Belt states—Illinois,

Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, and Ohio—although nearly half of the nation’s

hog production continued to be centered in this region. For example,

although Iowa remained the top hog-producing state, its share of the

nation’s inventory dropped from about 25 percent in 1978 to about

24 percent in 1994. Illinois and Missouri experienced similar reductions.

According to USDA and industry sources, the strong consolidation trend in

the hog industry is a factor in both North Carolina’s emergence and the

Corn Belt’s decrease. North Carolina has a tradition of consolidated

poultry production; pork production companies in this state have modeled

themselves after the consolidated poultry sector, which features close

business ties between poultry producers and processors (slaughtering and

packing plants). The result has been a rapid growth in the number of large

hog confinement operations in North Carolina. In contrast, there has been

significant public opposition to the growth of these operations in the Corn

Belt, which has a strong tradition of family farm hog production. An

industry source also cited North Carolina’s proximity to large consumer

markets in the East and mild climate as other reasons for this state’s hog

production gains.

Hog industry sources generally believe that the consolidation trends in the

hog sector are likely to continue over the next few years.

Page 45 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

U.S. Broiler Sales and Operations (Selected Years)

1974 1978 1982 1987 1992

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

8

11.7 10.4

7.9

5.3

7.6

5

2.9 2.4 1.4

6.6 5.4

3.7 2.9 1.8

9.3

12.3 13.2 14.5 15.5

31.5

34.4

30.2

27.7

24

Operations (000s)

1974 1978 1982 1987 1992

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

1.4 1.5 1.3 1.2 0.8

258.9 167.3 97 77.8 42.9

495 409.3 283.5 226.6 140.1

1,762.5

2,557.4

3,134.8

4,056.4

5,244.8

2,517.8

3,135.5

3,516.6

4,362

5,428.6 Sales (Millions of birds) Total Sales

Total 

Operations

Ops. with 1-1,999 sold

Ops. with 2,000-59,999 sold

Ops. with 60,000-99,000 sold

Ops. with 100,000 or more sold

Source: GAO analysis of Census of Agriculture data.

Page 46 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1974 to 1992, the broiler sector experienced a steady increase in

consolidation. During this period, sales attributable to operations in the

largest category (100,000 or more broilers sold) increased from about

70 percent of national sales in 1974 to about 97 percent in 1992. Also, the

number of operations in the largest size category increased by nearly

67 percent, while the total number of operations (of all sizes) decreased by

about 24 percent.

Page 47 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

GAO Geographic Shifts in Top 10 Broiler Production 

States by Sales From 1974 to 1992

1974

1992

1 - 5 percent

6 - 10 percent

11 percent or more

Percent of National Sales

Source: GAO analysis of Census of Agriculture data.

Page 48 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1974 to 1992, the top 10 states in broiler sales remained the same,

with only minor fluctuations in their percentage of sales. While Virginia

gained about 1 percent of the nation’s sales, Arkansas, Delaware, and

Maryland each lost approximately 1 percent; Texas lost about a half

percent.

According to ERS, broiler production developed and expanded in the

Southeast because of this region’s relatively low production and

processing costs. For example, broiler housing costs are lower in the

Southeast because of its warm climate. Processing costs are lower

because of the region’s relatively low labor costs. In addition, the

Southeast has a strong infrastructure to support the broiler industry.

Page 49 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

U.S. Layer Inventory and Operations (Selected Years)

1974 1978 1982 1987 1992 0

50

100

150

200

250

300

144.9

199.3 185.9

125.2

75.9

50.4 34.2 23.2 13.8 8 2.9 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.5 3.2 3 2.3 1.8

198.6

237.1

212.6

141.9

86.2

Operations (000s)

1974 1978 1982 1987 1992

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

4.2 4.7 4.2 2.6 1.5

86.3 77.9

61.3

46 36.9

104.3

120.6 120.1

97

77.5 85.8 97

124.9

170.9

185.5

280.6

300.2 310.5 316.5

301.4

Inventory (Millions)

Total 

Operations

Total 

Inventory

Ops. with 1-99 layers

Ops. with 100-19,999 layers

Ops. with 20,000-99,999 layers

Ops. with 100,000 or more layers

Note: This analysis includes data for all layers. The layer flock consists of hens producing eggs

for human consumption (table eggs) and hens producing eggs for broiler industry hatcheries

(hatching eggs).

Source: GAO analysis of Census of Agriculture data.

Page 50 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

The layer sector experienced an increase in consolidation from 1974 to

1992. During this period, the inventory controlled by operations in the

largest category (100,000 or more layers) increased from about 31 percent

of national inventory in 1974 to about 62 percent in 1992. In addition, the

number of operations in the largest category increased by about

50 percent, while the total number of operations (of all sizes) decreased by

about 57 percent.

Page 51 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

GAO Geographic Shifts in Top 10 Layer 

Production States From 1974 to 1992

1974

1992

1 - 5 percent

6 - 10 percent

11 percent or more

Percent of National Inventory

Source: GAO analysis of Census of Agriculture data.

Page 52 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1974 to 1992, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Texas each increased its

share of the nation’s layer inventory by about 1 to 4 percent. Ohio and

Minnesota also joined the list of the top 10 layer states. California

experienced the largest loss of inventory—about 4 percent—although it

maintained its status as the leading layer inventory state; Mississippi and

Florida dropped out of the top 10 category.

According to ERS, new technology has caused some relocation of the layer

industry for table egg production to the Midwest in order to be near

grain-producing areas. This technology includes the construction of large

complexes (e.g., 1 million or more layers) that include both egg production

and processing facilities. In addition, greater demand for egg products has

resulted in construction of specialized facilities in the Midwest that

produce dried, liquid, and frozen egg products for shipment across the

nation.

Page 53 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

U.S. Turkey Sales and Operations (Selected Years)

1974 1978 1982 1987 1992

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2.6

5.3 5.4

4.6

3.4

1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.4

0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7

0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7

4.3

7.2 7.5 7.3

6.2

Operations (000s)

1974 1978 1982 1987 1992

0

40

80

120

160

200

240

280

10.5 7.3 5.6 5.3 4.3

38.7 40.7 43.3 53.5 52.4

21.5 28.7 32.2

44.1 54 54.1 64.7

90.9

140.4

168.4

124.7

141.4

172

243.3

279.2 Sales (millions of birds)

Total 

Operations

Total Sales

Ops. with 1-15,999 sold

Ops. with 16,000-59,999 sold

Ops. with 60,000-99,000 sold

Ops. with 100,000 or more sold

Source: GAO analysis of Census of Agriculture data.

Page 54 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1974 to 1992, the turkey sector experienced an increase in

consolidation. During this period, sales by operations in the largest size

category (100,000 or more turkeys sold) increased from about 43 percent

of national sales in 1974 to about 60 percent in 1992. Also, the number of

operations in the largest size category increased by over 200 percent, while

the total number of operations (of all sizes) increased by 42 percent.

Page 55 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

GAO Geographic Shifts in Top 10 Turkey 

Production States From 1974 to 1992

1974

1992

1 - 6 percent

7 - 12 percent

13 percent or more

Percent of National Sales

Source: GAO analysis of Census of Agriculture data.

Page 56 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 2 

Consolidation Trends and Geographical

Shifts in Animal Agriculture Production

From 1974 to 1992, North Carolina moved from third to first place among

the top 10 states in turkey sales, increasing its share of national sales from

about 11 percent to about 20 percent. Arkansas, Virginia, and Indiana also

increased their shares of national sales, while Pennsylvania joined the list

of the top 10 states. California, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Texas each

experienced a loss of about 1 to 3 percent of national sales. Wisconsin

dropped out of the top 10 group.

Page 57 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 3 

Animal Agriculture Production Subject to

Point Source Permits

GAO Livestock and Poultry Operations With 

Point Source Permits

Livestock or

poultry sector

Operations as 

of April 1995

Beef feedlot 632

Broiler 5

Dairy 992

Hog 324

Layer 24

Turkey 10

Total 1,987

Notes: (1) EPA does not track the inventories of livestock and poultry production operations that

have been issued point source permits. Therefore, we cannot report the number of animals

covered by these permits. (2) EPA reported permitted operations in three other livestock and

poultry categories: beef cattle (not including cattle on feedlots); general livestock (mixed livestock

operations, except dairy and poultry); and poultry hatcheries. A total of 326 operations in these

categories had point source permits as of April 1995.

Source: EPA permit data.

Page 58 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 3 

Animal Agriculture Production Subject to

Point Source Permits

Section 402 of the Clean Water Act establishes the National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System permit program to control discharges from

point sources1

 such as treatment plants and industrial facilities, including

certain animal feeding operations.2

 As of April 1995, 1,987 animal feeding

operations in the livestock and poultry sectors we examined (excluding

beef cattle not on feedlots) had point source permits issued either by EPA

or by states delegated permitting authority by EPA. Most of these

operations were in the beef cattle on feedlots and dairy sectors.

Under EPA regulations, point source permits are required for animal

feeding operations that discharge to U.S. waters during most storm events

and are “concentrated.” These operations

• have more than 1,000 animal units (AU);3 or

• have more than 300 AUs and either discharge through a man-made device

into navigable waters or directly into waters of the United States that

originate outside the facility; or

• are of any size but have been determined by EPA or the state permitting

authority, on a case-by-case basis, to significantly contribute to water

pollution, taking into account such factors as location and terrain. If there

are fewer than 300 AUs, one of the factors concerning discharge cited

above must also be present for an animal feeding operation to fall within

this category.

1

Section 502 of the Clean Water Act defines point sources as discernable, confined, and discrete

conveyances from which pollutants are or may be discharged.

2

Under EPA regulations, “animal feeding operations” are those that confine livestock or poultry for 45

days or more in a 12-month period in a facility that has no vegetative ground cover. Animal feeding

operations that are “concentrated” because of their size and other factors may be required to obtain a

point source permit.

3

The 1,000 AU equivalents for the animal sectors we were asked to examine are the following: 700

mature dairy cattle; 1,000 slaughter and feeder cattle; 2,500 hogs (over 55 pounds); 30,000 broilers or

layers (liquid manure system); 55,000 turkeys or 100,000 broilers or layers (continuous watering

system).

Page 59 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 3 

Animal Agriculture Production Subject to

Point Source Permits

GAO Confined Operations With More Than 

1,000 AU Equivalents By Sector 

Livestock 

or poultry 

sector

Total 

number of 

operations

Estimated 

animals 

on site 

(000's hd)

Number of 

operations 

with >1,000 

AU 

equivalents

Estimated 

animals on 

site on 

operations 

with >1,000 

AU 

equivalents 

(000's hd)

Percent of 

estimated 

animals on 

site on 

operations 

with >1,000 

AU 

equivalents

Beef feedlot 147,201 10,034 943 7,098 71%

Broiler 35,759 933,368 1,398 246,667 26%

Dairy 155,339 9,492 939 1,252 13%

Hog 206,450 57,343 2,578 15,270 27%

Layer 88,235 351,310 599 209,911 60%

Turkey 10,566 86,614 102 21,703 25%

Notes: (1) Confined operations include feedlots or other operations where animals are

concentrated in a small area. (2) According to ERS, the columns in this table generally should not

be totaled because of potential double-counting, i.e., some operations (farms) have more than

one type of animal production. However, ERS officials said that the number of operations with

more than 1,000 AU equivalents could be totaled. According to these officials, this total, about

6,600 operations, is a reasonable estimate because very few of these operations will have more

than 1,000 AU equivalents for more than one type of livestock or poultry.

Source: ERS estimates based on 1992 Census of Agriculture data.

Page 60 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 3 

Animal Agriculture Production Subject to

Point Source Permits

According to ERS’ analysis of 1992 Census of Agriculture data, about 6,600

operations (farms) in the livestock and poultry sectors we examined

(excluding beef cattle not on feedlots) have more than 1,000 AU

equivalents. This represents about 1.5 percent of the 450,000 operations

nationwide with confined livestock or poultry production.4 ERS also

estimated that the percent of animals on site5

 for operations with more

than 1,000 AU equivalents ranges from about 13 percent for dairy to about

71 percent for beef cattle on feedlots.

The number of operations with more than 1,000 AU equivalents—about

6,600—exceeds the number of permitted operations in the corresponding

livestock and poultry sectors—1,987. According to EPA, a number of

factors account for this difference. For example, many operations with

more than 1,000 AU equivalents are not required to obtain point source

permits because they do not discharge into U.S. waters during most storm

events.6

 Also, some confined animal operations that should have point

source permits do not because of limited federal and state resources for

identifying these operations or inappropriate permit exemptions.

Furthermore, according to EPA, the number of operations having point

source permits in the livestock and poultry sectors we examined may

exceed 1,987. EPA officials said the agency’s data base of permitted

operations is incomplete because some states that have been delegated

authority to issue these permits are not regularly reporting these issuances

to EPA.

4

According to ERS officials, the 1992 Census of Agriculture reported that there were about 450,000

operations nationwide with confined livestock and/or poultry production.

5

ERS’ methodology for calculating animals on site varies by sector. ERS used annual sales and

inventory data for the broiler, turkey, and hog sectors to account for seasonal production variations;

sales data adjusted for the production cycle for the beef feedlot sector; and inventory data for the dairy

cattle and layer sectors.

6

Point source permits are generally required only for operations that discharge into U.S. waters during

storm events less severe than a 24-hour heavy precipitation event expected to occur only once every

25 years.

Page 61 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 4 

Best Management Practices and Associated

Costs

GAO Examples of BMPs for Confined and 

Nonconfined Operations and Manure Application 

BMP

Confined 

operations

Nonconfined 

operations

Manure 

application

Treatment lagoon X

Retention pond X

Storage structure X

Irrigation X

Composting X

Filter strips X X X

Fencing X X

Nutrient management X

Diet manipulation X X

Note: Confined operations include feedlots or other operations that concentrate animals in a small

area. Nonconfined operations include pasture and rangeland where animals are allowed to roam

over a large area.

Source: USDA.

Page 62 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 4 

Best Management Practices and Associated

Costs

According to USDA, a variety of animal waste management practices,

generally referred to as best management practices (BMP), are available to

manage wastes and minimize their potential effects on water quality. In

general, the approaches encompassed by these BMPs include

(1) minimizing the discharge of animal wastes by storing them until they

can be used as fertilizer or to increase the organic content of soil,

(2) preventing manure runoff from reaching surface waters, and

(3) incorporating nutrient management practices when applying manure to

cropland as a fertilizer. BMP selection depends on site-specific factors such

as soil composition and the proximity of an operation to surface water or

groundwater.

BMPs such as treatment lagoons, retention ponds, and other storage

structures are used to store animal waste and prevent runoff from

confined operations. Irrigation equipment pumps liquid animal waste from

the storage structures onto agricultural land. Some confined

operations—especially poultry operations—use composting systems to

dispose of dead animals and manure. Composting reduces the volume and

weight of waste and produces an end product that can be used as

fertilizer.

Vegetated filter strips and constructed wetlands remove nutrients and

suspended solids from the runoff of confined operations. Filter strips and

wetlands also serve as buffers between range or pastureland and surface

water bodies; they perform a similar function for agricultural land to

which manure has been applied as fertilizer. Fencing restricts livestock

access to surface water bodies, preventing animals from depositing wastes

directly into these waters.

Nutrient management encompasses testing the nutrient content of soil,

plant tissues, and manure to determine the proper timing and rates of

application when applying manure as a fertilizer. Diet or feed manipulation

reduces the amount of waste generated by livestock or reduces the

nutrient content of this manure.

Page 63 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 4 

Best Management Practices and Associated

Costs

GAO EPA Estimates of BMP Investment Costs 

for Small and Medium Operations

Livestock 

category

Size of 

operation

Retention

pond &

irrigation option

($000s)

Filter strip 

option

($000s)

Beef 50 head

750 head

 $ 4.4 - 10.3

35.6 - 74.1

$ 2.2 - 6.1

 17.3 - 57.0

Dairy 35 head

540 head

 5.3 - 11.6

40.2 - 82.5

 3.1 - 7.2

 21.4 - 65.5

Hog 140 head

2,000 head

 1.4 - 3.2

 7.5 - 23.6

0.9 - 1.8

4.6 - 12.1

Note: Ranges depicted represent total investment costs and are extremes in terms of anticipated

storm water volume and temperature. Low-end costs assume storm water volumes of up to 4

inches of rain in a 24-hour period and a non-northern location. High-end costs assume storm

water volumes of up to 10 inches of rain in a 24-hour period and a northern location. Also, EPA’s

cost estimates assume that no waste management practices are in place under baseline

conditions.

Source: EPA data.

Page 64 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 4 

Best Management Practices and Associated

Costs

EPA has estimated the range of investment costs for employing various

BMPs for typical small- and medium-sized livestock confinement

operations; these BMPs include the retention pond and irrigation system

and vegetative filter strip options. According to EPA’s analysis, BMP

investment costs vary by operation, depending on the BMP selected and the

operation’s size and type. The retention pond and irrigation system option,

for example, is more costly than the filter strip option. In addition, as

operation size increases, total investment costs for a particular BMP

generally increase; however, investment costs calculated on a per animal

basis may decrease. The type of operation—e.g., dairy versus beef

cattle—will also affect costs; a dairy cow generally produces significantly

more manure than a beef feedlot animal because dairy cows are usually

larger and are fed a diet high in roughage.

According to EPA, investment costs may also be greater if climatic

conditions, such as periodically large storm water volumes or prolonged

periods of subfreezing temperatures, require additional manure storage

capacity. Investment costs for manure storage capacity, for example, are

significantly higher for operations in locations expected to experience

high storm water volumes than in locations expected to experience low

storm water volumes.1

 Similarly, storage costs are higher in northern

states, which generally experience longer periods of subfreezing

temperatures than other parts of the country; manure must be stored for

longer periods of time to preclude its application to frozen cropland, from

which it might easily be washed off into surface waters during thaws.

1

EPA’s analysis separates locations into four categories for expected storm water volumes in a 24-hour

period: 4 inches; 6 inches; 8 inches; and 10 inches. These are the storm water volumes that are

expected to occur once every 25 years; the 25-year criterion is provided for in USDA’s design standards

for waste management systems.

Page 65 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 4 

Best Management Practices and Associated

Costs

GAO Projected BMP Costs for Livestock: 

Retention Pond/Irrigation Option 

BMP

Beef feedlot 

(750 head)

Dairy

(540 head)

Hog

(2000 head)

Diking $ 2,683 $ 0 $ 0

Gutter & diking 0 5,763 2,307

Settling basin 14,148 15,044 2,372

Retention pond 23,712 25,016 5,000

Irrigation 6,072 6,114 0

Total investment $ 46,616 $ 51,937 $ 9,679

Annualized 

investment 5,562 6,188 1,137

Manure handling 6,564 11,290 2,342

Effluent disposal 457 472 325

Facility O&M 1,763 1,983 411

Total annual cost $ 14,347 $ 19,933 $ 4,216

Source: EPA data.

Page 66 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 4 

Best Management Practices and Associated

Costs

This table depicts EPA’s estimated investment and annual operations costs

for use of the retention pond and irrigation system option on

medium-sized feedlot, dairy, and hog operations. This option involves

storing wastes until they can be spread on fields as fertilizer. The

estimates assume (1) a settling basin and retention pond large enough to

handle runoff associated with storms of up to 6 inches of rain in 24 hours

and (2) a non-northern location.2

2

Estimates for the hog operation also assume that irrigation equipment would not be purchased

because the retention pond for this operation would be relatively small. Accordingly, it would be

cheaper to pay a commercial service to periodically drain the pond than to purchase irrigation

equipment to pump the pond’s contents onto fields as fertilizer.

Page 67 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 4 

Best Management Practices and Associated

Costs

GAO Projected BMP Costs for Livestock: 

Filter Strip Option

BMP

Beef feedlot 

(750 head)

Dairy

(540 head)

Hog

(2000 head)

Diking $ 2,683 $ 0 $ 0

Gutter & diking 0 5,763 2,307

Settling basin 14,148 15,044 2,372

Filter strip 7,149 7,720 763

Total investment $ 23,980 $ 28,528 $ 5,442

Annualized 

investment 2,818 3,352 639

Manure hauling 6,564 11,290 2,342

Facility O&M 1,101 1,292 241

Total annual cost $ 10,482 $ 15,934 $ 3,223

Source: EPA data.

Page 68 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 4 

Best Management Practices and Associated

Costs

This table depicts EPA’s estimated investment and annual operations costs

for use of the filter strip option on medium-sized feedlot, dairy, and hog

operations. This option involves disposal of liquid wastes on a vegetated

strip where nutrients and suspended solids are filtered out and absorbed

into the soil. The estimates assume (1) a vegetated strip large enough to

handle runoff associated with storms of up to 6 inches of rain in 24 hours

and (2) a non-northern location.

Page 69 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 4 

Best Management Practices and Associated

Costs

GAO Projected Costs for Poultry Manure Storage 

and Composting Systems--80,000 Birds 

Poultry 

type

Compost 

facility 

cost

Annual 

compost 

investment

Annual 

compost 

operation 

and 

maintenance

Annual 

manure 

storing 

and 

hauling 

costs

Total 

annual 

cost

Broilers $6,720 $884 $5,793 $4,001 $10,679

Layers 5,040 663 1,621 6,119 8,403

Source: EPA data.

Page 70 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 4 

Best Management Practices and Associated

Costs

This table depicts EPA’s estimated investment and annual operations costs

for a waste storage and composting system used on an 80,000-bird poultry

operation. Under this system, the majority of the poultry bedding and

manure are stored dry and covered for subsequent use as fertilizer. The

remainder of the bedding and manure is placed in aerobic composters

with dead bird carcasses; these composted wastes are also used as

fertilizer.3

3

According to EPA, composting is more expensive for broiler operations than for layer operations of

the same size because broiler mortality rates are higher and broiler operations therefore require larger

composting storage capacity.

Page 71 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 5 

USDA Conservation Programs Providing

Cost-Share Assistance for Animal Waste

Management

GAO

A number of USDA conservation programs provide 

cost-share assistance; most of this assistance has 

been for soil erosion control

Four programs provided about $89 million in 

cost-share assistance for animal waste 

management during 1992-94

Agricultural Conservation Program

Water Quality Incentives Projects

Small Watershed Program

Rural Clean Water Program

USDA Conservation Programs 

Providing Cost-Share Assistance

Page 72 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 5 

USDA Conservation Programs Providing

Cost-Share Assistance for Animal Waste

Management

A number of USDA conservation programs share the cost of implementing

conservation practices with farmers through direct payments.1

 In general,

these cost-share programs address one or more conservation objectives,

including soil erosion control, water pollution abatement for animal

agriculture or crop production, or other (including fish and wildlife

enhancement, flood control, water conservation, and forestry). During

fiscal years 1992 through 1994, about half of the cost-share assistance

provided under these programs was for soil erosion control. However,

many conservation measures may have secondary conservation purposes

and result in multiple environmental benefits.

Four USDA conservation programs—Agricultural Conservation Program

(ACP), Water Quality Incentives Projects (WQIP), Small Watershed Program

(SWP), and Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP)—account for most of USDA’s

cost-share assistance to abate water pollution resulting from animal

agriculture. For fiscal years 1992 through 1994, these programs provided

about $89 million for this purpose, according to USDA program activity data

for ACP, WQIP, and RCWP and estimated expenditures for SWP.

1

These programs include the Agricultural Conservation Program, Colorado River Basin Salinity

Control Program, Emergency Conservation Program, Forestry Incentives Program, Great Plains

Conservation Program, Rural Clean Water Program, Stewardship Incentive Program, Small Watershed

Program, and Water Quality Incentives Projects. Detailed information on the goals and funding for

these and other USDA conservation programs is contained in our report entitled Agricultural

Conservation: Status of Programs That Provide Financial Incentives (GAO/RCED-95-169, Apr. 28,

1995).

Page 73 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 5 

USDA Conservation Programs Providing

Cost-Share Assistance for Animal Waste

Management

GAO Agricultural Conservation Program 

Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1992-94

1992 1993 1994

0

50

100

150

200

Dollars (Millions)

Water Quality - Animal Water Quality-Crop Erosion Other

Source: GAO analysis of USDA program activity data.

Page 74 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 5 

USDA Conservation Programs Providing

Cost-Share Assistance for Animal Waste

Management

For fiscal years 1992 through 1994, ACP provided approximately $65 million

in cost-share assistance for animal waste management; this represented

about 12 percent of the cost-share funds available under the program. This

assistance was provided for a variety of waste management practices,

including treatment lagoons and storage facilities, constructed wetlands

systems, and composting facilities. Under ACP, cost-share assistance is

generally limited to 50 percent of the total cost of the financed activity; the

maximum assistance level per participant is $3,500 annually or $35,000

under 10-year agreements.

Page 75 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 5 

USDA Conservation Programs Providing

Cost-Share Assistance for Animal Waste

Management

GAO Water Quality Incentives Projects 

Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1992-94

1992 1993 1994

0

1

2

3

4

5

Dollars (Millions)

Water Quality - Animal Water Quality-Crop

Source: GAO analysis of USDA program activity data.

Page 76 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 5 

USDA Conservation Programs Providing

Cost-Share Assistance for Animal Waste

Management

For fiscal years 1992 through 1994, WQIP provided about $2 million in

cost-share assistance for animal waste management; this represented

about 26 percent of the cost-share funds available under the program. WQIP

cost-share assistance may only be used for management practices such as

waste utilization and nutrient management; it may not be used for

structural practices such as waste storage facilities.2

 Under WQIP,

cost-share assistance is limited to $3,500 annually per participant for up to

5 years.

2

Technically, WQIP provides “incentive payments” to encourage farmers to use improved waste

management practices, rather than cost-share assistance for the construction of storage facilities.

However, WQIP has been funded through ACP’s appropriation; ACP is a cost-share program. Also,

assistance available to a farmer under WQIP is limited by any payments made to that farmer under

ACP in the same year.

Page 77 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 5 

USDA Conservation Programs Providing

Cost-Share Assistance for Animal Waste

Management

GAO Small Watershed Program Estimated 

Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1992-94

1992 1993 1994

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Dollars (Millions)

Water Quality - Animal Water Quality-Crop Erosion Other

Source: GAO analysis of USDA estimated expenditures for SWP.

Page 78 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 5 

USDA Conservation Programs Providing

Cost-Share Assistance for Animal Waste

Management

For fiscal years 1992 through 1994, SWP provided an estimated $21 million

in cost-share assistance for animal waste management; this represented

about 15 percent of the cost-share funds available under the program. SWP

cost-share assistance may be used for a variety of waste management

practices, including waste treatment lagoons and storage structures.

Under SWP, cost-share assistance is limited to 50 percent of construction

costs, with a maximum of $100,000 per participant for the life of the

program.

Page 79 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 5 

USDA Conservation Programs Providing

Cost-Share Assistance for Animal Waste

Management

GAO Rural Clean Water Program 

Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1992-94

1992 1993 1994

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Dollars (Thousands)

Water Quality - Animal Water Quality-Crop Erosion

Source: GAO analysis of USDA program activity data.

Page 80 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Briefing Section 5 

USDA Conservation Programs Providing

Cost-Share Assistance for Animal Waste

Management

For fiscal years 1992 through 1994, RCWP provided about $1 million in

cost-share assistance for animal waste management; this represented

about 53 percent of the cost-share funds available under the program.3

This assistance was provided for a variety of waste management measures

in 22 states, including waste storage structures and constructed wetlands

systems. Under RCWP, cost-share assistance is limited to 75 percent of the

total cost of the financed activity, with a maximum of $50,000 per

recipient.

3

According to USDA, funds were last appropriated for RCWP in fiscal year 1981 under long-term

contracts to establish best management practices. The final payment under this program is scheduled

to be made in 1999.

Page 81 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry asked us to provide information on

animal agriculture waste management and related water quality issues.

Specifically, the requesters asked us to provide information on (1) water

quality concerns arising from animal agriculture sources of nonpoint

pollution—pollution not traceable to a specific point of origin,

(2) consolidation trends and geographical shifts in animal agriculture,

(3) animal agricultural production covered by point source permits, (4) the

most commonly used animal waste management practices and associated

costs, and (5) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) cost-share assistance

for animal waste management. In addressing these objectives, the

requesters asked us to focus on the management of wastes associated with

breeding and feeding operations—generally farms, ranches, and

feedlots—for beef cattle, dairy cows, hogs, broilers, layers (laying hens),

and turkeys.

To address the first objective, we analyzed data from the Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA) 1992 inventory of water quality; the Department

of the Interior’s U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Quality

Assessment program; and USDA’s Economic Research Service’s analysis of

counties with high ratios of nutrients from manure to cropland.

To address the second objective, we analyzed data from (1) USDA’s

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) for the years 1978 through

1994 and (2) the Department of Commerce’s Census of Agriculture for

census years 1974, 1978, 1982, 1987, and 1992. For the beef cattle (except

feedlots), dairy cow, and hog sectors, we used NASS inventory data because

they were more current than Census of Agriculture inventory data. For the

layer sector, we used Census of Agriculture inventory data because they

were more complete than the NASS inventory data for this sector. For the

feedlot cattle and broiler sectors, we used Census of Agriculture annual

sales data (number of animals sold) because these data were generally

more complete than either Census of Agriculture or NASS inventory data

for these sectors. We also used Census of Agriculture annual sales data for

the turkey sector because inventory fluctuates seasonally with demand. In

addition, we interviewed USDA and animal producer organization officials

to obtain their views on future consolidation trends and the reasons for

geographical shifts in these sectors.1

1

We contacted the following animal producer organizations: the National Cattlemen’s Association;

National Milk Producers Federation; National Pork Producers Council; National Broiler Council; and

National Turkey Federation.

Page 82 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To address the third objective, we analyzed data from EPA’s Office of

Wastewater Management and Region VII and ERS’ analysis of confined

animal production operations as reported in the 1992 Census of

Agriculture. We also interviewed EPA officials and reviewed relevant

documentation to obtain a better understanding of point source permit

requirements.

To address the fourth objective, we obtained and analyzed information

from a variety of sources, including waste management handbooks

prepared by USDA and the Poultry Water Quality Consortium2

 and EPA’s

analysis of the economic impacts on confined animal operations of waste

management measures specified in the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization

Amendments of 1990.3

 We also interviewed officials from USDA’s Natural

Resource Conservation Service and Agricultural Research Service, the

American Society of Agricultural Engineers, and animal producer

organizations to obtain their views on preferred waste management

practices and associated costs.

To address the fifth objective, we analyzed program activity data for fiscal

years 1992-94 for USDA conservation programs providing cost-share

assistance. We also reviewed prior GAO reports that discuss USDA

conservation programs providing cost-share assistance.

We conducted our work between December 1994 and June 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We

did not independently verify the data obtained from the agencies

contacted.

We discussed the contents of this report with officials representing USDA

and EPA. At USDA, these officials included the Assistant Deputy

Administrator, Economic Analysis and Appraisal Staff, Consolidated Farm

Service Agency; Assistant Director for Economics and Communication,

Resource and Technology Division, Economic Research Service; Chief,

Livestock Branch, Estimates Division, National Agricultural Statistics

Service; and Manager, Water Quality Program, Conservation and

Ecosystem Assistance Division, Natural Resources Conservation Service.

At EPA, these officials included the Chief, Nonpoint Source Control Branch,

2

The Poultry Water Quality Consortium is a cooperative effort involving the Southeastern Poultry and

Egg Association, EPA, USDA, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. The Consortium’s purpose is to

identify and adopt environmentally prudent uses of poultry wastes and by-products.

3

Pub. L. No. 101-508, Title VI, Subtitle C, Nov. 5, 1990, 104 Stat. 1388, 1388-299. Section 6217 of the 1990

act identifying these management measures is codified at 16 U.S.C. 1455b.

Page 83 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, Office of Wetlands,

Oceans, and Watersheds; and the Chief, Pretreatment and Multi-Media

Branch, Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management. These

officials agreed that the positions and data attributed to their agencies

were accurate. They also provided new or clarifying information that we

incorporated as appropriate.

Page 84 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

Food and Agriculture

Issue Area

Luther L. Atkins, Jr., Assistant Director

James R. Jones, Jr., Project Leader

Larry D. Van Sickle, Staff Evaluator

Sara B. Vermillion, Staff Evaluator

Gary T. Brown, Staff Evaluator

Shirley A. Klaudt, Staff Evaluator

Lynne L. Goldfarb, Publishing Advisor

(150540) Page 85 GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/RCED-95-200BR Animal Waste Management and Water Quality Issues