Report to the Ranking Member,

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition

and Forestry, U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

January 2003 LIVESTOCK

AGRICULTURE

Increased

EPA Oversight

Will Improve

Environmental

Program for

Concentrated Animal

Feeding Operations

GAO-03-285
Until the mid-1990s, EPA placed little emphasis on and had directed

few resources to its animal feeding operations permit program because

it gave higher priority to other sources of water pollution. In addition,

regulatory exemptions have allowed many large operations to avoid

regulation. As a result of these problems, many operations that EPA

believes are polluting the nation’s waters remain unregulated.

Implementation of revised regulations raise management and resource

challenges for the states and the agency. For example, because the

number of animal feeding operations subject to the regulations will

increase dramatically, states will need to increase their efforts to identify,

permit, and inspect facilities and take appropriate enforcement actions

against those in noncompliance. For its part, EPA will need to increase its

oversight of state programs to ensure that the new requirements are

adopted and implemented. Neither the states nor EPA have determined

how they will meet these challenges.

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation

A concentrated animal feeding operation is a facility that discharges animal wastes to surface

waters under certain conditions and is, therefore, subject to regulation.

LIVESTOCK AGRICULTURE

Increased EPA Oversight Will Improve

Environmental Program for Concentrated

Animal Feeding Operations

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-285.

To view the full report, including the scope

and methodology, click on the link above.

For more information, contact Larry Dyckman

at (202) 512-3841 or dyckmanl@gao.gov.

Highlights of GAO-03-285, a report to

the Ranking Member, Committee on

Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry,

U.S. Senate

January 2003

Congress is concerned that waste

from animal feeding operations

continues to threaten water quality.

In light of this concern, GAO was

asked to review the Environmental

Protection Agency’s (EPA)

administration of its regulatory

program for animal feeding

operations and to determine the

potential challenges states and EPA

may face when they begin to

implement the revisions to this

program. GAO surveyed all EPA

regional offices and four states

with large numbers of animal

feeding operations that may be

subject to EPA regulations.

GAO recommends that EPA

• develop and implement a

comprehensive tactical plan

that identifies resource

requirements and how the

agency will carry out its

increased oversight

responsibilities under the

revised program; and

• work with authorized states

to develop and implement

their own plans that will

identify resource needs and

how they intend to carry out

their increased permitting,

inspection, and enforcement

responsibilities within

specified time frames.
Page i GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Shortcomings in Regulatory Approach and Oversight Problems

Have Limited Effectiveness of the CAFO Program 6

EPA’s Revised Regulations Offer Potential to Improve the

CAFO Program, but States and EPA Will Face Implementation

Challenges 11

USDA’s Role in Developing Revised Regulations Increased

Over Time 13

Conclusions 14

Recommendations for Executive Action 15

Agency Comments 15

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 17

Appendix II Comments from the Environmental Protection

Agency 19

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 21

Figures

Figure 1: Uncovered Operation 8

Figure 2: Covered Operation 9

Figure 3: EPA Full-Time Equivalent Positions Assigned to Its

NPDES Permit Program in Four EPA Regions, 1997-2001 10

Abbreviations

CAFO concentrated animal feeding operation

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

Contents
Page 1 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

January 16, 2003

The Honorable Tom Harkin

Ranking Member

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition

 and Forestry

United States Senate

Dear Senator Harkin:

Livestock production generated $106 billion in farm revenue, or more than

one-half of all farm revenue in 2001. Intensive livestock production—in

which large numbers of poultry, swine, and dairy and beef cattle are held

in confinement facilities—accounted for about $80 billion of this revenue.

These confinement facilities raise concerns about water quality because

the animals produce large quantities of waste—many times more waste

than humans annually—and these wastes contribute to impairment of the

nation’s waterways. To minimize environmental problems, animal feeding

operations contain these wastes in storage facilities and periodically

dispose of them, usually by spreading them on the land as fertilizer.

Despite these efforts, animal feeding operations are significant

contributors to impaired water quality in the nation’s rivers and lakes,

according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Because wastes from animal feeding operations may degrade water

quality, the Clean Water Act requires EPA and authorized states to regulate

these operations similar to the way they regulate municipal and industrial

waste treatment facilities. Specifically, EPA developed effluent guidelines

for establishing limits on the discharge of pollutants from these operations

into surface waters. As stipulated in the act, the agency and authorized

states enforce these limits through permits issued under the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.

Animal feeding operations that discharge wastes to surface waters

under certain conditions are called concentrated animal feeding

operations (CAFO) and are required to obtain discharge permits.

CAFOs are generally defined as animal feeding operations that have more

than 1,000 animal units1

 but also include smaller operations that discharge

 1

 An animal unit is a representation of size among animal types EPA uses for permitting

purposes. For example, one animal unit is equivalent to one beef cattle or 2.5 adult swine.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

directly into surface waters. EPA has authorized 44 states and the

U.S. Virgin Islands to administer the discharge permit program for CAFOs

since passage of the act in 1972.2

 To become an authorized state, the state

must have discharge permit requirements that are at least as stringent as

the requirements imposed under the federal program and must contain

several key provisions such as public participation in issuing permits. The

act provides for EPA’s withdrawal of a state’s authorization if the state has

not adequately administered its program. EPA’s 10 regional offices oversee

the 44 authorized states and the U.S. Virgin Islands and administer the

program directly in the remaining states.3

 EPA also provides grants to

authorized states to help them implement the permit program. In fiscal

year 2002, $145 million were appropriated for these grants.

Although it has regulated waste discharges since the mid-1970s, EPA

continues to report serious impairment to the nation’s waters from these

discharges. On October 30, 1989, the Natural Resources Defense Council

and Public Citizen sued EPA,4

 alleging that the agency had failed to comply

with the Clean Water Act.5

 In the ensuing settlement, EPA agreed to,

among other things, revise its effluent limitation guidelines and permitting

regulations for CAFOs.6

 As agreed, EPA published proposed revisions to

the regulations for public comment in January 2001 and issued its final

regulations on December 15, 2002.

You asked us to (1) identify the key shortcomings of the of CAFO program,

(2) assess the potential challenges the states and EPA may face when

implementing revisions to the CAFO regulations, and (3) determine the

extent of U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) involvement in

developing the proposed revisions to EPA’s regulations. To address the

first and second objectives, we, among other things, surveyed all 10 EPA

 2

 Although Oklahoma is authorized to implement other aspects of the permit program, it is

not authorized to administer the CAFO program.

3

 Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oklahoma are not

currently authorized.

4

 Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Citizen are nonprofit organizations that

advocate for environmental and consumer protection, among other issues.

5 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980 (RCL) (D.D.C.),

October 30, 1989.

6

 Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to an initial settlement on January 31, 1992, which has been

modified several times, to establish a schedule for EPA to propose and take final action on

18 point source categories, including CAFOs.
Page 3 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

regional offices and interviewed EPA officials in four of the regions. These

four regions oversee the 23 states that have an estimated 70 percent of

large animal feeding operations that could be defined as CAFOs under the

revised regulations. We also interviewed state officials in four states—

Iowa, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—that have large

numbers of confined poultry, swine, dairy, and beef cattle operations. To

address the third objective, we interviewed agency officials, reviewed

relevant documents, and observed meetings between the agencies.

Appendix I contains further details of our scope and methodology.

The CAFO program has had two major shortcomings. First, exemptions

in EPA’s regulations allowed an estimated 60 percent of animal feeding

operations with more than 1,000 animal units to avoid regulation.

Specifically, animal feeding operations that discharged waste into

waterways only during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event—the amount

of rainfall during a 24-hour period that occurs on average once every

25 years—or greater were not explicitly defined as CAFOs and did not

require permits. Additionally, chicken operations with dry manurehandling systems were not generally required to obtain permits. Finally,

animal wastes applied to crop and pastureland were generally not

regulated under the CAFO program.

Second, EPA’s limited oversight of the states has contributed to

inadequate implementation by some authorized states. For example,

our surveys show that 11 authorized states with over 1,000 large animal

feeding operations do not issue discharge permits that contain all required

elements. Three of these states have not issued any discharge permits

to their operations, thereby leaving these facilities and their wastes

essentially unregulated by the CAFO program. EPA officials acknowledge

that they have historically paid little attention to the state CAFO programs

because they gave higher priority to other sources of pollution, such as

industrial and municipal waste treatment facilities, considered the major

sources of water impairment. In addition, EPA officials stated that the

agency’s only leverage to compel states to implement the program with all

federal requirements is to either withhold the grant funding to states for

program operations or retract the state’s authority to run the entire

NPDES permit program—including the components that regulate

industrial and municipal waste treatment facilities. EPA is reluctant to use

these tools because it maintains that withholding grant funding would

further hamper the states’ ability to effectively implement their programs,

and EPA does not have the resources to directly implement the entire

permit program in additional states. However, EPA has recently devoted

Results in Brief
Page 4 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

more attention and resources to the CAFO program and, as a result, has

had some limited success in persuading authorized states to improve their

programs without resorting to these tools. For example, in 2002, EPA

persuaded several states to begin to issue discharge permits that meet all

EPA requirements.

EPA recently issued revisions to its regulations that would (1) eliminate

the 25-year, 24-hour storm discharge exemption, (2) require chicken

operations that use dry manure-handling systems to obtain permits, and

(3) subject wastes applied to crop and pastureland under the control of

the CAFO operator to permit requirements. Although the revised

regulations address some of the key shortcomings of the program, they

raise even greater management challenges for the states and EPA. By

extending coverage to previously exempt animal feeding operations, we

estimate that the revised regulations could increase the number of

operations required to obtain permits by an estimated 7,000—from the

about 4,500 permits currently issued to about 11,500. These changes, along

with extending permit coverage to the application of animal waste to crop

and pastureland controlled by the CAFO operator, will create a resource

and administrative challenge for the states. Specifically, states will need to

increase their efforts to identify, permit, and inspect CAFOs and take

appropriate enforcement actions against those in noncompliance. For its

part, EPA will need to increase its oversight of state programs to ensure

that the new requirements are adopted and implemented. This oversight

effort will be significant in light of the large number of animal feeding

operations that will need permits under the revised regulations. However,

neither EPA nor the states we reviewed have developed plans—including

the identification of resource requirements—for carrying out their

increased responsibilities. We are making recommendations to

EPA designed to increase the probability that the new program will

be effective.

EPA did not formally consult with USDA when developing the proposed

CAFO regulations, but USDA was increasingly involved in developing

the revised regulations. EPA published the proposed regulations in

January 2001 without allowing sufficient time for USDA to fully assess the

proposed revisions. In June 2001, to help address USDA’s concerns, EPA

and USDA established a collaborative interagency working group. USDA’s

role in the working group was to provide technical information that

identified how the regulations might adversely affect the livestock industry

and to suggest alternative approaches that would mitigate these effects,

such as allowing states greater flexibility in regulating smaller animal
Page 5 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

feeding operations. EPA and USDA officials said this arrangement has

worked well.

To help ensure that the potential benefits of the CAFO program are

realized, we are recommending that EPA develop and implement a

comprehensive tactical plan that identifies how the agency will carry out

its increased oversight responsibilities under the revised program. In

addition, we are recommending that EPA work with authorized states to

develop and implement their own plans that identify how they intend to

carry out their increased permitting, inspection, and enforcement

responsibilities within specified time frames.

We provided EPA and USDA with a draft of this report for review and

comment. Both EPA and USDA provided technical comments that we

incorporated into the report as appropriate. EPA and USDA agreed with

our findings and recommendations. EPA provided written comments that

are presented in appendix II; USDA provided oral comments.

Discharge permits establish limits on the amounts and types of pollutants

that can be released into waterways. Under the Clean Water Act,

concentrated animal feeding operations that discharge pollutants to

surface waters must obtain permits from EPA or authorized states.

However, unlike municipal and most industrial facilities that are allowed

to discharge some waste, concentrated animal feeding operations are

required to construct and operate facilities that do not release any waste

to surface waters, except in extraordinary circumstances.

Under EPA’s prior regulations, animal feeding operations could be defined

as CAFOs and require discharge permits if they, among other things

• had more than 1,000 animal units,

• had more than 300 animal units and either discharged through a man-made

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

that originate outside the facility, or

• were of any size but had been determined by EPA or the state permitting

authority to contribute significantly to water pollution.

Under these regulations, a large animal feeding operation did not need a

permit if it only discharged during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event—the

amount of rainfall during a 24-hour period that occurs on average once

every 25 years or more. In addition, the regulations did not generally

require permits for chicken operations that use dry manure-handling

Background
Page 6 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

systems—that is, systems that do not use water to handle their waste.

Further, animal wastes that were applied to crop and pastureland were

generally not regulated.

EPA has authorized 44 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands to administer

the discharge permit program for CAFOs. To become an authorized state,

the state must have discharge permit requirements that are at least as

stringent as the requirements imposed under the federal program and must

contain several key provisions. These provisions include allowing for

public participation in issuing permits; issuing permits that must be

renewed every 5 years; including authority for EPA and authorized states

to take enforcement action against those who violate permit conditions;

and providing for public participation in the state enforcement process by

either allowing the public to participate in any civil or administrative

action or by providing assurance that the state will investigate citizen

complaints. According to EPA, public participation in the permitting and

enforcement process is critical because it allows the public to express its

views on the proposed operations and to assist EPA and state authorities

in ensuring that permitted operations remain in compliance.

The CAFO program has had two major shortcomings that have led to

inconsistent and inadequate implementation by the authorized states.

These shortcomings include (1) exemptions in EPA’s regulations that have

allowed as many as 60 percent of the largest animal feeding operations to

avoid obtaining permits and (2) minimal oversight of state CAFO programs

by EPA. Although EPA maintains that it has limited tools to compel states

to properly implement the CAFO program, it recently has had limited

success in persuading some authorized states to begin issuing discharge

permits that include all program requirements.

Two exemptions in CAFO regulations have allowed large numbers of

animal feeding operations to avoid obtaining discharge permits. However,

EPA believes that many of these operations may degrade water quality.

The first exemption allowed operations to avoid obtaining discharge

permits if they discharge waste only during 25-year, 24-hour rainstorm

events. However, based on its compliance and enforcement experience,

EPA believes that many of the operations using this exemption should, in

fact, have a discharge permit because they are likely discharging more

frequently. For example, when EPA proposed changes to the CAFO

regulations, it stated that operations using this exemption were not taking

into consideration discharges that may occur as a result of overfilling the

Shortcomings in

Regulatory Approach

and Oversight

Problems Have

Limited Effectiveness

of the CAFO Program

Exemptions in EPA’s

Rules Allowed Most

Animal Feeding

Operations to Avoid

Regulation
Page 7 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

waste storage facility, accidental spills, or improper land application of

manure and wastewater. The second exemption allowed about 3,000

confined chicken operations that use dry manure-handling systems to

avoid obtaining permits. EPA believes that chicken operations using dry

manure-handling systems should obtain permits because EPA and state

water quality assessments found that nutrients from confined chicken

operations, similar to other large livestock operations, contaminate waters

through improper storage, accidental spills, and land application.

As a result of these exemptions, we estimate that only about 40 percent

(4,500 of 11,500) of confined animal feeding operations currently have

discharge permits.7

 In addition, EPA believes about 4,000 smaller animal

feeding operations may threaten water quality and may also need to be

permitted. According to EPA and state officials, these smaller operations

are generally not permitted because federal and state programs have

historically focused their limited resources dedicated to CAFOs on

regulating only the largest operations.

EPA’s limited oversight of the states has contributed to inconsistent and

inadequate implementation by the authorized states.8

 In particular, our

surveys show that 11 authorized states—with a total of more than

1,000 large animal feeding operations–do not properly issue discharge

permits. Although eight of these states issue some type of permit to

CAFOs, the permits do not meet all EPA requirements, such as including

provisions for public participation in issuing permits. The remaining three

states do not issue any type of permit to CAFOs, thereby leaving facilities

and their wastes essentially unregulated. EPA officials believe that most

large operations either discharge or have a potential to discharge animal

waste to surface waters and should have discharge permits.

 7

 Since EPA and most states do not know precisely how many animal feeding operations

should have discharge permits, USDA estimated the number of potential CAFOs based on

livestock type and the number of animals on the farm from the 1997 Census of Agriculture.

See USDA, Profile of Farms with Livestock in the United States: A Statistical Summary

(Washington, D.C.: February 2002).

8

 We did not evaluate how EPA administered the program in the states not authorized to

implement the CAFO program because these states contained fewer than 5 percent of

large CAFOs.

EPA’s Limited Oversight of

States’ CAFO Programs

Has Contributed to

Inconsistent and

Inadequate

Implementation
Page 8 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

The two states that lead the nation in swine production illustrate how

programs can meet some EPA permit requirements but not others. For

example, while Iowa’s permits for uncovered operations (see fig. 1) meet

all program requirements, its permits for covered operations (see fig. 2) do

not. Contrary to EPA requirements that permits are renewed every 5 years,

Iowa issues these permits for indefinite periods of time. While North

Carolina issues permits to both covered and uncovered animal feeding

operations, these permits do not include all EPA requirements, such as

provisions for public participation or allowing for EPA enforcement of the

state permit.

Figure 1: Uncovered Operation
Page 9 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Figure 2: Covered Operation

Michigan and Wisconsin also illustrate how two authorized states

with a similar number of animal feeding operations differ in program

implementation. According to USDA estimates, both states have over

100 operations with more than 1,000 animal units that could be defined

as CAFOs. While Wisconsin had issued 110 permits to these operations,

Michigan had not issued any, according to our survey.9

 As a result, waste

discharges from facilities in Michigan remained unregulated under the

CAFO program.

EPA officials acknowledged that until the mid-1990s the agency had

placed little emphasis on and directed few resources to the CAFO program

and that this inattention has contributed to inconsistent and inadequate

implementation by authorized states. Instead, the agency gave higher

priority and devoted greater resources to its permit program for the more

traditional point sources of pollution—industrial and municipal waste

 9

 On December 13, 2002, Michigan established procedures for issuing CAFO

discharge permits.
Page 10 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

treatment facilities. However, as EPA’s and the states’ efforts have

reduced pollution from these sources, concerns grew in the 1990s that the

increasing number of large concentrated animal feeding operations could

potentially threaten surface water quality. In response, EPA began placing

more emphasis and directing more resources to the CAFO program. As a

result, some states that had not previously issued discharge permits began

to do so.

As shown in figure 3, EPA has historically assigned significantly more

personnel resources to the industrial and municipal portions of the

NPDES permit program. In the four regions we reviewed, the number of

full-time equivalent positions dedicated to the CAFO program has

increased since 1997—from 1 to 6 percent—but this increase has, for the

most part, been at the expense of the industrial and municipal portions of

the permit program. EPA officials told us that due to budget constraints,

any increase in resources in one program area requires the reduction of

resources in others.

Figure 3: EPA Full-Time Equivalent Positions Assigned to Its NPDES Permit

Program in Four EPA Regions, 1997-2001
Page 11 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

In addition to resource constraints, EPA officials say that the agency has

little leverage to compel states to issue permits with all required elements

because the agency’s primary recourses in such situations are to either

(1) withhold grant funding it provides to states for program operations

or (2) withdraw the states’ authority to run the entire NPDES permit

program, including the regulation of industrial and municipal waste

treatment facilities. EPA has been reluctant to use these tools because it

maintains that withholding grant funding would further weaken the states’

ability to properly implement the program and EPA does not have the

resources to directly implement the permit program in additional states.

To date, EPA has never withheld grants or withdrawn a state’s authority.

However, EPA has had limited success in persuading some authorized

states to begin issuing discharge permits with all EPA requirements. For

example, Michigan has been an authorized state since 1973, but only

agreed in 2002 to begin issuing discharge permits. This agreement

followed an EPA investigation that revealed several unpermitted CAFOs.

Similarly, EPA recently persuaded Iowa to increase the issuance of

discharge permits to uncovered feedlots. However, to date the agency

has not been able to convince the state to issue permits to its covered

operations, even though EPA believes these types of operations should

also have permits. In 2002, EPA was also successful in persuading three

other authorized states—Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina—to

begin issuing discharge permits that meet all program requirements.

According to our surveys of the regions and states, EPA’s revised

regulations—eliminating the 25-year, 24-hour storm exemption; explicitly

including dry-manure chicken operations; and extending permit coverage

to include the land application areas under the control of CAFO—address

some key problems of the CAFO program. However, they will also

increase EPA’s oversight responsibility and require authorized states to

increase their permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities.

Furthermore, neither EPA nor the states have planned how they will face

these challenges or implement the revised program.

EPA’s Revised

Regulations

Offer Potential to

Improve the

CAFO Program, but

States and EPA Will

Face Implementation

Challenges
Page 12 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

EPA’s decision to eliminate regulatory exemptions should strengthen the

permit program because the revised regulations will extend coverage to

more animal feeding operations that have the potential to contaminate

waterways. As previously mentioned, the 25-year, 24-hour storm

exemption has proven particularly problematic for EPA and the states

because it allowed CAFO operators to bypass permitting altogether. By

eliminating this exemption, we estimate that an additional 4,000 large

animal feeding operations will require permits. According to our survey

results, the elimination of this exemption could significantly improve the

program. In addition, EPA’s decision to also explicitly require permits for

large dry-manure chicken operations will increase the number of

permitted facilities by another 3,000. Lastly, CAFO operators are, for the

first time, required to either (1) apply for a permit or (2) provide evidence

to demonstrate that they have no potential to discharge to surface waters.

In addition to eliminating regulatory exemptions, EPA also extended

permit coverage to include the application of animal waste to crop and

pastureland controlled by the CAFO. Specifically, CAFO operators who

apply manure to their land will be required to develop and implement

nutrient management plans that, among other things, specify how much

manure can be applied to crop and pastureland to minimize potential

adverse effects on the environment. CAFO operators will need to maintain

the plan on site and, upon request, make it available to the state permit

authority for review.

Although EPA believes that the revised regulations will improve the

CAFO program, the changes will create resource and administrative

challenges for the authorized states. We estimate that the revised

regulations could increase the number of operations required to obtain

permits by an estimated 7,000—from about 4,500 permits currently issued,

to about 11,500. States will therefore need to increase their efforts to

identify, permit, and inspect animal feeding operations and, most likely,

will have to increase their enforcement actions. However, many states

have not yet identified and permitted CAFOs that EPA believes should

already have been covered by the CAFO program. Therefore, increased

permitting requirements could prove to be a daunting task. For example,

Iowa has only permitted 32 operations out of more than 1,000 of its animal

feeding operations that have more than 1,000 animal units. Furthermore,

states may need to identify and permit an estimated 4,000 operations with

fewer than 1,000 animal units that EPA believes may be discharging.

Finally, when states inspect CAFOs, they will need to determine if the

operation’s nutrient management plan is being properly implemented.

Revisions Will Help

Address Regulatory

Problems by Requiring

Potential Dischargers to

Obtain Permits

Authorized States

Will Face Challenges

Implementing the

Revised Regulations
Page 13 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

According to state officials, meeting these demands will require additional

personnel. However, most of the states we visited cannot hire additional

staff and would have to redeploy personnel from other programs. For

example, Iowa and North Carolina, two states with a large number of

potential CAFOs, each have less than one full-time employee working in

the CAFO program.

While the burden of implementing the revised regulations will fall

primarily on the states, EPA will need to increase its oversight of state

programs to ensure that the states properly adopt and implement the new

requirements. This oversight effort will be especially important in light of

the large number of animal feeding operations that will need permits

under the revised regulations. Although most of the regions have not

determined precisely what additional resources they will need to

adequately carry out their increased responsibilities, EPA officials told

us that, like the states, they will have to redeploy resources from

other programs.

Despite the challenges that EPA and the states will face in implementing

the revised CAFO program, they have not yet prepared for their additional

responsibilities. According to our survey of 10 EPA regions, the regions

and states have not estimated the resources they will need to implement

the revised CAFO program. EPA, for its part, has not developed a plan

for how it intends to carry out its increased oversight responsibilities

under the revised regulations, such as ensuring that authorized states

properly permit and inspect CAFOs and take appropriate enforcement

action. EPA and state officials told us they intend to wait until the revised

regulations are issued before they begin planning for their implementation.

EPA did not formally consult with USDA when it was developing the

proposed CAFO regulations published in January 2001, but the department

has played a greater role in providing input for the revised regulations.

EPA and USDA developed a joint animal feeding operation strategy in 1998

to address the adverse environmental and public health effects of animal

feeding operations. However, USDA’s involvement in developing the

proposed CAFO regulations was generally limited to responding to EPA

requests for data. USDA officials told us that they were asked to provide

substantive comments only after the Office of Management and Budget

suggested that EPA solicit USDA’s views. However, USDA officials

maintained that they did not have sufficient time to fully assess the

EPA’s Oversight of States

Will Need to Increase

EPA and States Have Not

Prepared for Additional

Responsibilities

USDA’s Role in

Developing Revised

Regulations Increased

Over Time
Page 14 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

proposed regulations and discuss its concerns with EPA before the

proposed regulations were published in January 2001.

In June 2001, to address USDA concerns, EPA and USDA established

an interagency workgroup on the proposed revisions to the CAFO

regulations. Under this arrangement, USDA provided technical

information that identified how the proposed regulations could adversely

affect the livestock industry and suggested alternative approaches that

would mitigate these effects. For example, through this interagency

workgroup, USDA suggested that EPA consider allowing states greater

flexibility in regulating smaller operations. USDA also raised concerns that

EPA’s proposed nutrient management plan was not entirely consistent

with USDA’s existing comprehensive nutrient management plan and

would be confusing to operators. EPA agreed to take these concerns into

consideration when it prepared the final revisions to the regulations.

In July 2001, to further strengthen the cooperative process, EPA and USDA

developed Principles of Collaboration to ensure that the perspectives of

both organizations are realized. In essence, the principles recognize that

USDA and EPA have clear and distinct missions, authorities, and

expertise, yet can work in partnership on issues on mutual concern.

To ensure that both EPA and USDA work together constructively, the

principles call for EPA and USDA to establish mutually agreeable time

frames for joint efforts and provide adequate opportunities to review and

comment on materials developed in collaboration prior to public release.

According to USDA and EPA officials, this new arrangement has improved

the agencies’ working relationship.

Although EPA has historically given the CAFO program relatively low

priority, it has recently placed greater attention on it as a result of the

1989 lawsuit and the growing recognition of animal feeding operations’

contributions to water quality impairment. The implementation of the

CAFO program has been uneven because of regulatory exemptions and

the lower priority EPA and the states have assigned to it. Although

EPA has had some recent success in persuading states to begin issuing

discharge permits that include all program requirements, agency officials

say that their ability to compel states to do so is limited. While the revised

regulations will help address the regulatory problems, they will also

increase states’ burdens for permitting, inspecting, and taking enforcement

actions. Because several states have yet to fully implement the previous,

more limited, program, EPA will need to increase its oversight of state

programs in order to ensure that the new requirements are properly

Conclusions
Page 15 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

adopted and carried out by the states. EPA and the states have not

identified what they will need to do—or the required resources—to carry

out these increased responsibilities. For example, they have not

determined how they intend to accomplish their expanded roles and

responsibilities within current staff levels.

To help ensure that the potential benefits of the revised CAFO program are

realized, we recommend that the Administrator, EPA,

• develop and implement a comprehensive tactical plan that identifies how

the agency will carry out its increased oversight responsibilities under the

revised program. Specifically, this plan should address what steps the

agency will take to ensure that authorized states are properly permitting

and inspecting CAFOs and taking appropriate enforcement actions against

those in noncompliance. In addition, the plan should identify what, if any,

additional resources will be needed to carry out the plan and how these

resources will be obtained; and

• work with authorized states to develop and implement their own plans

that identify how they intend to carry out their increased permitting,

inspection, and enforcement responsibilities within specified time frames.

These plans should also address what, if any, additional resources will be

needed to properly implement the program and how these resources will

be obtained.

We provided EPA and USDA with a draft of this report for review and

comment. The Director of Animal Husbandry and Clean Water Programs,

along with other USDA officials, provided oral comments for USDA. EPA

provided written comments. Both agencies expressed agreement with the

findings and recommendations in the report. EPA and USDA also provided

technical comments that we incorporated into the report as appropriate.

EPA’s written comments are presented in appendix II.

We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of the

Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Agriculture,

appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties.

We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,

the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at

http://www.gao.gov.

Recommendations for

Executive Action

Agency Comments
Page 16 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me at

(202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Lawrence J. Dyckman

Director, Natural Resources

 and Environment
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 17 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

To determine the problems EPA faced in administering the CAFO

program and the potential challenges the states and EPA may face

when implementing revisions to its CAFO regulations, we surveyed all

10 EPA regional offices. Our survey asked regional officials to provide

information on program management and oversight of authorized states’

CAFO programs, resources dedicated to the program, problems EPA has

faced administering the program, and the potential challenges the states

and EPA might face in implementing revisions to the CAFO program.

In addition, we interviewed EPA officials in 4 of the 10 regions. We

judgmentally selected the 4 regions that represent 23 states with an

estimated 70 percent of large animal feeding operations that could be

designated as CAFOs under the revised regulations. Because EPA and

most states do not know precisely how many animal feeding operations

should have discharge permits, we used USDA’s estimate of the number of

potential CAFOs based on livestock type and the number of animals on the

farm from the 1997 Census of Agriculture. These regions and their

represented states are

• Region 3–Philadelphia: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and

West Virginia;

• Region 4–Atlanta: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee;

• Region 5–Chicago: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and

Wisconsin; and

• Region 7–Kansas City: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.

To determine how the 44 authorized states and the U.S. Virgin Islands

administer the program and to obtain their views on the challenges they

might encounter in implementing the revised regulations, we interviewed

program officials in four authorized states—Iowa, North Carolina,

Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. We judgmentally selected these states from

among the four regions we visited because they have large numbers of

confined poultry, swine, and dairy and beef cattle operations. We did not

evaluate how EPA directly administers the program in the states and

territories not authorized to implement the CAFO program because these

states contained less than 5 percent of large CAFOs. EPA administers the

program directly because these states have not asked for authority to

administer the program.

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 18 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

To examine the extent of USDA’s involvement in developing the proposed

revisions to EPA’s CAFO regulations, we interviewed officials in USDA’s

Natural Resources Conservation Service and EPA. We also observed an

EPA and USDA Working Group Meeting on Concentrated Animal

Feeding Operations.

We conducted our review from January 2002 through October 2002 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Page 19 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Appendix II: Comments from the

Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Page 20 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 21 GAO-03-285 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Greg Kosarin, (202) 512-6526

In addition to the individual named above, Mary Denigan-Macauley,

Oliver Easterwood, Lynn Musser, Paul Pansini, and John C. Smith made

key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and

Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

(360166)
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, exists to

support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help

improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the

American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding

decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values

of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and

full-text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of

older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate

documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their

entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to daily

E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents.

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000

TDD: (202) 512-2537

Fax: (202) 512-6061

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs

Public Affairs