Source: https://www.crowell.com/NewsEvents/Publications/Articles/Waterkeeper-Alliance-Inc-v-EPA-A-View-From-The-Farm-Groups-Perspective-Water-Quality-and-Wetlands-Committee-Newsletter-Vol-6-No-2
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 09:10:43+00:00

Document:
Co-Authors: Ellen Steen, Richard E. Schwartz and Kirsten Nathanson.
Note: The authors represented the National Pork Producers Council in the Waterkeeper litigation.
Which CAFOs Should Seek NPDES Permit Coverage?
EPA’s generally applicable NPDES regulations require the submission of a permit application by “[a]ny person who discharges or proposes to discharge pollutants . . ..” 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(a) (emphasis added). The regulations exclude from permitting requirements, however, stormwater discharges that have not been expressly designated for regulation through NPDES permitting. See id. § 122.26(a)(1), (a)(9)(i), (b)(14) (designating regulated stormwater discharges, such as those from “industrial activity,” municipal separate storm sewers, and construction activities disturbing one or more acres). CAFO operators, like operators of any other source or activity, must evaluate the likelihood of a regulated point source discharge of pollutants to navigable waters and determine whether they need permit coverage. Any regulated discharge that occurs in the absence of permit authorization, of course, would be a violation of the CWA subject to possible enforcement and penalties.
The most obvious regulated discharge that CAFO operators should consider in this assessment is a possible overflow discharge from lagoons or other production area waste containment structures to navigable waters in the event of an extreme rain event. Such discharges may be unavoidable for some operations, but they will be lawful only if the CAFO is operating in accordance with an NPDES permit (which would include the requirement that the CAFO production area be designed and operated in accordance with the regulations’ 25-year, 24-hour storm event standard). CAFOs without NPDES permit coverage that experience an overflow discharge to navigable waters, even one caused by an extreme storm event, will be in violation of the CWA and may be subjected to up to $32,500 per day of unlawful discharge.
In assessing their need for permit coverage (i.e., their risk of regulated discharges), CAFO operators should also evaluate the potential for regulated stormwater discharges from their operations. This should include an assessment of: (1) whether stormwater runoff from the production area or from land application areas will enter navigable waters (which can be very broadly defined to include small streams, wetland areas and even ditches that ultimately connect to rivers or streams); and (2) whether any such discharge would be regulated (subject to NPDES permitting) under the CWA.
A full discussion of the regulated and unregulated status of various types of stormwater discharges is beyond the issues addressed in the Waterkeeper decision and beyond the scope of this article. Waterkeeper did confirm, however, the exempt status of stormwater discharges from CAFO land application areas where nutrients have been “applied in accordance with site specific nutrient management practices that ensure appropriate agricultural utilization . . . .” 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(e). Thus, for example, where a CAFO captures production area stormwater and conducts land application in accordance with the practices identified in the 2003 regulation, the operator may reasonably anticipate that no regulated stormwater discharge will occur. If, on the other hand, stormwater discharges are anticipated from CAFO production areas or from land application areas where appropriate nutrient management practices are not in place, then the operator (with assistance from legal counsel) should evaluate whether those discharges would be regulated under the CWA, whether NPDES permit coverage is available for the discharges and, presumably, whether the discharges can simply be prevented.
At least until EPA and authorized states have more clearly defined the benefits and burdens of NPDES permit coverage post-Waterkeeper, rational CAFO operators can hardly be blamed for opting to avoid certain regulated discharges rather than seeking permit coverage for them. Where certain regulated discharges – such as land application area discharges associated with inadequate nutrient management practices – can be prevented by strictly conforming to practices that would be required under a permit in any case – there may be little need to seek permit coverage for those discharges. Operators should also consider whether their circumstances call for preventing some discharges (e.g. preventing non-exempt land application discharges by implementing appropriate nutrient management and recordkeeping practices), but seeking permit coverage for others (e.g. possible production area overflow discharges caused by extreme rainfall).
The Waterkeeper ruling upholding EPA’s agricultural stormwater interpretation creates an unusual quasiregulated status for CAFO operators who engage in land application but who do not have or seek NPDES permit coverage for possible land application area discharges. To maintain the exempt status of their land application area stormwater discharges pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(e), even operators who do not obtain NPDES permit coverage must comply with the various site-specific nutrient management practices as specified at § 122.42(e)(1)(vi)-(ix).
Identify specific records that will be maintained to document the implementation and management of the above requirements.
The court’s decision that NMPs must be incorporated into NPDES permits – and requiring agency review and public participation on NMPs prior to permit issuance – creates strong pressure for EPA to redouble its efforts to develop an administratively workable mechanism for permitting CAFOs. Just when the “duty to apply” ruling has eliminated the mandatory permitting obligation for all CAFOs, the NMP rulings threaten a degree of red tape and micromanagement that renders permitting even less palatable. Any attempts to lure, cajole or strong-arm CAFOs into seeking permit coverage – which was, after all, the primary objective of the 2003 rule – will only benefit from administrative solutions that minimize the delay, cost and potential for harassment associated with permit issuance.
Even assuming that large numbers of operators will seek permit coverage notwithstanding the need for site-by-site agency and public NMP oversight, new solutions are essential to manage the burden of CAFO permitting from an agency resource perspective. If thousands of CAFOs seek permit coverage as originally expected by the agency, EPA or delegated state review and public comment on each site-specific CAFO NMP will almost certainly overwhelm an already backlogged NPDES permitting queue. Similarly daunting will be the task of approving revisions to NMPs – which operators have customarily crafted as detailed, organic planning documents – if those revisions are viewed as “permit modifications” under EPA’s current NPDES regulations. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.62-63. In short, innovative thinking, clear guidance and perhaps regulatory revision are necessary if large numbers of CAFOs are to be comprehensively regulated through NPDES permits.
Precisely what type of (actual) discharges create a need for CAFO operators to seek NPDES permit coverage?
Exactly what procedures and documentation must be followed to establish the agricultural stormwater exemption for CAFO land application area discharges?
How can agency review and public comment on NMPs for permitted CAFOs be reconciled with the need for site specific, flexible nutrient management practices?
Careful analysis and clear guidance from EPA on these questions and others is critical if CAFOs are to be regulated effectively and efficiently through the NPDES program.
Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or downloaded or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association.

References: § 122
 § 122
 § 122
 § 122
 § 122
 § 122