An concentrated cattle feed ( CAFO ), as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is an animal feeding operation (AFO) - a farm in which animals are raised in confinement - which has more than 1000 "animal units" is limited for more than 45 days a year. Animal unit is "an animal equivalent to 1,000 pounds of live weight and equivalent to 1,000 head of beef cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2500 pigs weighing more than 55 lbs, 125 thousand broilers, or 82 thousand laying chickens or pullets".
CAFO is also an animal feeding operation of any size that discharges its waste into aqueducts. For the most part, there are regulations that limit how much can be distributed and to what quality materials should be. By 2016 there are about 212,000 AFOs in the United States, 19,496 of whom are CAFOS.
Livestock production has become increasingly dominated by CAFO in the United States and other parts of the world. Most of the birds were raised in CAFO from the 1950s, and mostly cattle and pigs in the 1970s and 1980s. In the mid-2000s, CAFO dominated poultry farming and production in the United States, and the scope of their market share continued to increase. In 1966, it took a million farms to accommodate 57 million pigs; in 2001, it took only 80,000 farms to accommodate the same amount.
Video Concentrated animal feeding operation
Definisi
There are approximately 212,000 AFOs in the United States, of which 19,496 meet the narrower CAFO criteria by 2016. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has described the three CAFO categories , ordered in capacity: large, medium and small. The relevant animal units for each category vary depending on species and capacity. For example, a large CAFO house of 1,000 or more cattle, medium CAFOs can have 300-999 cows, and a small CAFO has no more than 300 cattle.
The table below provides some examples of size limits for CAFO:
Categorization CAFOs affect whether a facility is subject to regulations under the Clean Water Act (CWA). According to the 2008 rules adopted by the EPA, "Large CAFOs are automatically subject to EPA regulations; the medium CAFO must also meet either of the two criteria of 'discharge method' to be defined as CAFO (or may be defined as such); and a small CAFO can only be created subject to EPA regulations on a case by case basis. "A small CAFO will also be designated as CAFO for CWA purposes if it removes pollutants into US waterways through manmade transportation such as roads, gutters or pipes. Alternatively, small CAFOs may be designated as regular animal feeding operations (AFOs) after the animal waste management system is certified on site.
Since first creating the term, EPA has changed the definitions (and regulations applicable) to CAFOs on several occasions. Private groups and individuals using the term CAFO on a daily basis mean many types of regulated and unregulated facilities, both within and outside the United States. The definitions used in everyday conversations can vary greatly from the definition of the law in the CWA. CAFO is generally characterized as having a large number of animals crammed into an enclosed space, a situation that results in a concentration of impurities in a small area.
Maps Concentrated animal feeding operation
Main issues
Environmental impact
The EPA has focused on setting up CAFO because they generate millions of tons of dirt every year. When managed incorrectly, manure can pose a huge risk to the environment and public health. To manage their wastes, CAFO operators have developed an agricultural wastewater treatment plan. The most common type of facility used in this plan, anaerobic lagoons, has contributed significantly to environmental and health issues associated with CAFO.
Water quality
Large amounts of animal waste from CAFOs pose risks to water quality and aquatic ecosystems. According to the EPA, countries with a high concentration of CAFO experience average 20 to 30 serious water quality problems per year as a result of manure management issues.
Animal waste includes a number of harmful pollutants. According to the EPA, pollutants associated with CAFO wastes mainly include:
- nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus;
- organic matter;
- solid, including the dirt itself and other elements mixed with it such as feed spills, sleeping mats and waste materials, hair, feathers and corpses of animals;
- pathogens (disease-causing organisms such as bacteria and viruses);
- salt;
- trace elements like arsenic;
- volatile compounds such as carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia;
- antibiotics;
- pesticides and hormones.
The two main contributors to water pollution caused by CAFO are the dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus compounds. Eutrophication of water bodies from such waste is harmful to wildlife and water quality in aquatic systems such as rivers, lakes, and oceans.
Since groundwater and surface water are closely related, water pollution from CAFO can affect both sources if one or another is contaminated. Surface water can be contaminated by CAFO wastes through nutrient runoff, organic, and pathogens from fields and storage. Waste can be transmitted to groundwater through leaching pollutants. Some facility designs, such as lagoons, can reduce the risk of groundwater contamination, but microbial pathogens from animal waste can still contaminate the surface and ground water, causing adverse effects on wildlife and human health.
CAFO is responsible for one of the largest environmental spills in US history. In 1995, a 120,000-square-foot lagoon (11,000 m 2 ) broke out in North Carolina, releasing 25.8 million tonnes of US (98,000 m 3 ) effluvium into the New River. The spill resulted in the killing of 10 million fish in the local waters. Spills also contribute to the Pfiesteria piscicida outbreak, which causes health problems for humans in the area including skin irritation and short-term cognitive problems.
Air quality
CAFO contributes to the reduction of ambient air quality. CAFO releases several types of emissions of gases - ammonia, hydrogen sulfide, methane, and particulate matter - all of which bear various human health risks. The amount of gas emissions depends heavily on the size of CAFO. The main cause of gas emissions from CAFO is the decomposition of animal waste that is stored in large quantities. In addition, CAFO emits antibiotic-resistant bacterial strains into the surrounding air, particularly against the wind direction of the facility. The degree of antibiotics measured against the wind direction of CAFO pigs is three times higher than that measured against the wind. While it is not widely known what sources of emissions are, animal feed is suspected.
Globally, ruminant livestock is responsible for about 115 Tg/a of 330 Tg/a (35%) of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions released per year. Livestock operations account for about 18% of global greenhouse gas emissions and more than 7% of greenhouse gas emissions in the US Methane is a second concentrated greenhouse gas that contributes to global climate change, with livestock contributing nearly 30% of methane emissions anthropogenic. Only 17% of livestock emissions are due to dirt management, with the majority being generated from enteric fermentation, or gas produced during the digestion process. In association with antibiotic-resistant bacteria, Staphylococcus Aureus accounts for 76% of the bacteria that grow inside CAFO pigs. Group A Streptococci, and Coliform Fecal are the next two most common bacteria that grow in ambient air within CAFO pigs.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recognizes the significant impact of livestock on methane emissions, antibiotic resistance, and climate change, and thus recommends removing environmental stress and modifying feeding strategies, including feed grain sources, forage amounts, and nutrient quantities which can be digested as a strategy to reduce emissions. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) advises to minimize the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics, especially those widely used in human medicine, on the advice of more than 350 organizations including the American Medical Association. If no changes are made and methane emissions continue to increase in direct proportion to the number of livestock, global methane production is expected to increase by 60% by 2030. Greenhouse gases and climate change affect air quality with adverse health effects including respiratory disturbances, - new damage, and allergies. Reducing the increase in greenhouse gas emissions from farms can quickly curb global warming. In addition, people living near CAFO often complain of odors, derived from a mixture of ammonia complexes, hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds.
Economic impact
Improved role in the market
CAFO's economic role has expanded significantly in the US in recent decades, and there is clear evidence that CAFOs have dominated the animal production industry. The rise in large-scale animal agriculture began in the 1930s with the modern mechanization of pig slaughter operations.
The growth of corporate contracts has also contributed to the transition from small-scale farming systems to one of the relatively small industrial-scale farms. This has dramatically changed the agricultural sector of animals in the United States. According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service, "By the 1930s, there were nearly 7 million farms in the United States and in the 2002 census, only over 2 million farms remained." From 1969 to 2002, the number of family farms decreased by 39%, but the percentage of family farms remained high. As of 2004, 98% of all US farms are family owned and operated. Most meat and dairy products are now produced on large farms with single species buildings or open pens.
CAFO can be very useful when placed, managed, and monitored properly. Due to their increased efficiency, CAFO provides a source of cheap animal products: meat, milk and eggs. CAFOs can also stimulate the local economy through increased employment and the use of local materials in their production. The development of modern animal agriculture has increased efficiency in raising meat and dairy products. Improvements in animal breeding, mechanical innovation, and the introduction of specially formulated feed (as well as veterinary medicines) have contributed to the decline in the cost of animal products to consumers. The development of new technologies also helps CAFO owners reduce their production costs and increase business profits by consuming fewer resources. CAFOs growth corresponds to increased consumption of animal products in the United States. According to author Christopher L. Delgado, "milk production doubled, meat production increased threefold, and egg production has quadrupled since 1960" in the United States.
Along with the benefits noted, there are also critics about the impact of CAFO on the economy. Many farmers in the United States find it difficult to earn high income because of the low market price of animal products. Such market factors often lead to low profit margins for production methods and competitive losses to CAFO. Alternative animal production methods, such as "free range" or "family farm" operations lose their ability to compete, even if they present only some of the environmental and health risks associated with CAFO.
Negative production externalities
Critics have long argued that "the retail price of industrial meats, milk, and egg products eliminates major impacts on human health, the environment, and other shared public assets." The externalities of the production of CAFOs have been described as including "the amount of massive waste with the potential to heat the atmosphere, dirty fisheries, pollute drinking water, spread disease, pollute the soil, and damage recreation areas" that is not reflected in the price of meat products. Environmental experts argue that "citizens ultimately pay bills with hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, medical expenses, insurance premiums, property degradation, and cleaning costs." Some economists agree that CAFO "operates on an inefficient scale." It has been argued, for example, that "the rapidly diminishing scale causes the cost of animal confinement to overwhelm every CAFO benefit." These economists claim that CAFOs are in an unjust competitive advantage because they shift the cost of animal waste from CAFO to the surrounding region (the unknown "externalities").
Evidence suggests that CAFO may contribute to impairment of nearby property values. There are many reasons for property degradation, such as loss of facilities, potential risks of water contamination, odor, air pollution, and other health related problems. One study showed that the average property value decreased by 6.6% within a 3 mile (4.8 km) radius of CAFO and by 88% within 1/10 mile of CAFO. CAFO supporters, including those working in the livestock industry, responded by stating that the negative externalities of CAFO are limited. An executive in the pork industry, for example, claims that any smell or noise from CAFO is limited to an area within a quarter mile of the facility. The supporters also pointed out the positive effect that they believe CAFO has on the local economy and tax base. CAFO buys feed from and provides fertilizer to local farmers. And the same executive claims that farmers near CAFO can save $ 20 per acre by using waste from CAFO as fertilizer.
Environmentalists argue that "sustainable livestock operations" presents a "cheaper alternative." This operation, it says, "addresses the potential health and environmental impacts through their production methods." And although "sustainably produced food may cost a little more, many of the potential environmental and social impacts that benefit them are included in the price." In other words, it can be said that if CAFO operators are required to internalize all production costs, some CAFOs may be less efficient than the smaller farms they replace.
Other economic criticism
Critics of CAFO also maintain that CAFO benefits from the availability of industrial/agricultural taxes/subsidies and "vertical integration of the giant agribusiness company." The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), for example, spends an average of $ 16 billion annually between FY 1996 and FY 2002 on commodity-based subsidies. Some argue that enforcement of weak anti-competitive practices may contribute to the formulation of market monopolies. Critics also argue that CAFO reduces costs and maximizes profits through excessive use of antibiotics.
Public health issues
Direct sewage from CAFO and its accompanying pollutants (including nutrients, antibiotics, pathogens, and arsenic) are serious public health risks. Groundwater contamination with pathogenic organisms from CAFOs may threaten drinking water resources, and the transfer of pathogens through drinking water contamination can lead to widespread outbreaks of disease. The EPA estimates that about 53% of people in the United States depend on groundwater resources for drinking water.
There are many effects on human health due to water contaminated by CAFO. Sometimes ingestion of contaminated water can cause diarrhea or other gastrointestinal diseases and skin exposure can cause irritation and infection of the skin, eyes or ears. High nitrate levels are also a threat to high-risk populations such as young children, pregnant women or the elderly. Several studies have shown that high levels of nitrate in drinking water are associated with an increased risk of hyperthyroidism, insulin-dependent diabetes and central nervous system malformations.
Exposure to chemical pollutants, such as antibiotics, in drinking water also creates problems for public health. To maximize animal production, CAFO has used an increase in the number of antibiotics, which, in turn, increases bacterial resistance. This resistance threatens the efficiency of medical care for humans against bacterial infections. Contaminated surface and ground water are very alarming, because of its role as a pathway for the spread of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Because various antibiotics and pharmaceutical drugs are found at high densities in contaminated water, antibiotic resistance can occur due to DNA mutations, transformations and conjugations.
Antibiotics are used very much in CAFO to treat and prevent disease in individual animals and groups. The close proximity within CAFO promotes the division of pathogens among animals and thus, the rapid spread of disease. Even if their supplies do not hurt, CAFO will insert low-dose antibiotics into the feed "to reduce the likelihood of infection and to eliminate the animal's need to expend energy against bacteria, assuming that stored energy will translate into growth". This practice is an example of the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics. The use of such antibiotics is considered to allow animals to grow faster and larger, thus maximizing production for the CAFO. Regardless, the World Health Organization has recommended that the use of non-therapeutic antibiotics in farms should be re-evaluated, as it contributes to the excessive use of antibiotics and thus the emergence of resistant bacteria that can spread to humans. When naturally occurring bacteria in the environment and/or animal body are exposed to antibiotics, the results of natural selection on bacteria, which have genetic variations that protect them from drugs, to survive and spread their highly resistant properties to other bacteria that exist in the ecosystem. This is how the problem of antimicrobial resistance increases with the continuous use of antibiotics by CAFOs. This worries public health because the resistant bacteria produced by CAFOs can spread to the environment and surrounding communities through waste water disposal or particle aerosolization.
The consequences of air pollution caused by CAFO emissions include asthma, headache, respiratory problems, eye irritation, nausea, weakness, and chest tightness. This health effect is felt by agricultural workers and residents nearby, including children. Risks to nearby residents are highlighted in studies evaluating the health outcomes of more than 100,000 people living in areas with high CAFO densities, finding higher prevalence of pneumonia and non-specific infectious disease in those with high exposure compared with controls. Furthermore, a Dutch cross-sectional study involving 2,308 adults found a decline in lung function of the population to correlate with increased particle emissions by nearby farms. In terms of the worker, some respiratory consequences should be noted. Although "in many large CAFOs, it only takes a few workers to run a facility that houses thousands of animals," long exposure and close contact with animals put CAFO employees at increased risk. These include the risk of contracting diseases like the novel H1N1 flu, which erupted globally in the spring of 2009, or MRSA, an antibiotic resistant bacterial strain. For example, livestock-related MRSAs have been found in the nasal passages of CAFO workers, on the walls of the facility where they work, and in the animals they wear. In addition, individuals working in CAFOs are at risk for chronic respiratory inflammatory diseases secondary to dust exposure, with studies showing possible benefits to utilize inhaler treatment empirically. Studies conducted by the University of Iowa show that the asthma rate of children of CAFO operators is higher than children from other farms.
Animal health and welfare issues
The practice of CAFO has raised concerns about animal welfare from an ethical point of view. Some people see such conditions as not paying attention to basic animal welfare. Many people believe that damage to animals before their massacre must be overcome through public policy. The animal welfare legislation in CAFO has been ratified in the United States. For example, in 2002, the state of Florida passed an amendment to the country's constitution prohibiting the confinement of pregnant pigs in the coffin. As a source of comparison, the use of battery cages for laying hens and battery cage breeding methods has been completely banned in the EU since 2012.
While some people are concerned with animal welfare as an end in itself, others are concerned about animal welfare because of the influence of living conditions on consumer safety. Animals in CAFOs have a life that is not similar to animals found in the wild. Although CAFO helps secure a reliable supply of animal products, the quality of the items produced is debatable, with many reasons that the resulting food is unnatural. For example, restricting animals to small areas requires the use of large amounts of antibiotics to prevent the spread of disease. There is a debate whether the use of antibiotics in meat production is harmful to humans.
Rules under the Clean Water Act
The basic structure of CAFO regulation under CWA
The command structure structure and control of the Clean Water Act (CWA) provide the basis for almost all CAFO regulations in the United States. In general, CWA prohibits the disposal of pollution to "US waters" from any "point source", unless the debit is authorized by the National Elimination Elimination Elimination Permit (NPDES) permit issued by the EPA (or country delegated by EPA). CAFO is explicitly listed as a point source in CWA. Unauthorized discharge made from CAFO (and other point sources) violates CWA, even if the disposal is "unplanned or unintentional." CAFOs that do not apply to NPDES permits "operate at their own risk as any disposal from uncontaminated CAFO (other than agricultural stormwater) is a violation of CWA subject to enforcement action, including third-party suits."
The benefit of NPDES permission is that it provides some degree of certainty to the owners and operators of CAFO. "Compliance with permits is considered in accordance with CWA... and thus acts as a shield against EPA or CWA State enforcement or against clothing of citizens under... CWA." Additionally, the provision of "disruption and cutting" permission may grant permission of the CAFO owner of a legal defense when "an emergency or natural disaster causes discharge beyond reasonable control."
Under CWA, the EPA determines the maximum amount of pollution that can be disposed of by facilities in industry categories (such as CAFO). This general "waste restriction guide" (ELG) then dictates the requirements for specific waste limitations found in individual NPDES permits. The limits are based on the performance of certain technologies, but EPA generally does not require industry to use this technology. Instead, industry can use "any effective alternative to meet the pollutant limit."
The EPA places the minimum requirements of ELG to each permit issued to CAFO. Requirements may include both numerical debit limits (the amount of pollutants that can be released into US waters) and other requirements related to ELGs (such as management practices, including technology standards).
Regulatory history
Major CAFO regulatory developments occurred in the 1970s and in the 2000s. The first EPA enacted ELGs for CAFOs in 1976. The 2003 rules issued by the EPA are updated and modified ELGs applicable to CAFO, among others. In 2005, a court decision at Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA (see below) attacked part of the 2003 rules. The EPA responded by issuing revised rules in 2008.
The complete history of EPA CAFO regulation is provided on the CAFO Rules History page.
Background law
The 1948 Federal Water Pollution Act was one of the first major efforts by the US federal government to establish a comprehensive program to reduce pollution by public water. The authors of the law aim to improve water quality for aquatic life circulation, industrial use, and recreation. Since 1948, the Act has been amended several times to extend programming, procedures, and standards.
President Richard Nixon's executive order, Reorganization Plans no. 3, created the EPA in 1970. The EPA's creation is an attempt to create a more comprehensive approach to pollution management. As noted in the sequence, a single polluter can simultaneously lower the air, water, and soil of the local environment. President Nixon noted that a single government entity should monitor and reduce pollution and consider all effects. Because it is relevant to CAFO regulations, the EPA is a major federal authority on pollution monitoring and CAFO mitigation.
Congress passed the CWA in 1972 when it reprocessed the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendment. Specifically defines CAFOs as pollutants of point sources and required operating managers and/or owners to obtain NPDES permits to legally dispose of wastewater from facilities.
Initial rule (1970s)
The EPA began regulating water pollution from CAFO beginning in the 1970s. The EPA first created waste restriction guidance (ELGs) for fattening operations in 1974, placing an emphasis on the best technology available in the industry at the time. In 1976, under ELGs, the EPA began requiring all CAFOs to be first defined as AFO. From that point, if a specific AFO meets the appropriate criteria, it will be classified as CAFO and subject to the appropriate rules. In the same year, EPA defines CAFO's livestock and poultry facilities and creates a special licensing program. The NPDES allows specifications for CAFOs also enacted by the EPA in 1976.
Prior to 1976, size had become the main criterion of CAFO. However, after the 1976 rule came into force, the EPA set several exceptions. Operations identified as particularly hazardous to federal waterways can be classified as CAFO, even if facility size falls below the AFO standard. In addition, some CAFOs are not required to apply for waste water discharge if they meet two large operational-based exceptions. The first exceptions were applied to operations that discharged wastewater for only 25 years, a 24-hour storm event. (The operation only throws away during the 24 hour period of rainfall that occurs every 25 years or more on average.) The second exception is when operations apply animal waste to farmland.
Developments in the 1990s
In 1989, the Natural Resources and Citizen Defense Council filed a lawsuit against the EPA (and EPA Administrator William Reilly). The plaintiffs claim that the EPA does not comply with the CWA with respect to CAFO. The lawsuit, Natural Resources Defense Council v. Reilly (D.D.C. 1991), produced a court order requiring the EPA to update its rules. They do so in what will become the Final Rule of 2003.
In 1995, the EPA released the "Guide Guidance on NPDES Regulations for Concentrated Animal Feed Operations" to provide more clarity to the public about NPDES regulations after the EPA report "Case Study Feedlots from Selected Countries" revealed uncertainty in the community regarding CAFO. terminology and regulatory criteria. Although the document is not a rule, it does offer further insight and public understanding of the preceding rules.
In its 1998 Clean Water Action Plan, President Bill Clinton directed the USDA and EPA to join in developing a framework for future action to improve national water quality standards for public health. The specific responsibility of both federal agencies is to improve the management of an abundance of animal waste from agricultural activities. In 1998, the USDA and EPA hosted eleven public meetings across the country to discuss animal feeding operations (AFO).
On March 9, 1999, the institutions released a framework titled United National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations . Within the framework, the agency recommends six key activities to be included in the 'Comprehensive Nutrition Management Plan' (CNMPs) operation:
- feed management
- handling and storage of dirt
- fertilizer soil application
- land management
- record keeping
- activities that use dirt.
The framework also outlines two types of related programs. First, the "voluntary program" is designed to assist AFO operators by addressing public health and water quality issues. This framework outlines three types of voluntary programs available: "locally led conservation," "environmental education," and "financial and technical assistance." The framework explains that those who participate in the voluntary program are not required to have a comprehensive nutritional management plan (CNMP). The second type of program outlined by the framework is rules , which include command and control rules with NPDES permissions.
EPA end rule (2003)
According to the EPA, the goal of the 2003 rule is to update decades-old policies to reflect new technological advances and improve the expected pollution mitigation from CAFO. The EPA also responded to a 1991 court order under a district court ruling in the Natural Resources Defense Council v. Reilly . The last rule came into effect on 14 April 2003 and responded to public comments received after the publication of proposed rules in 2000. The EPA allowed the official NPDES countries to February 2005 to update their programs and develop technical standards.
The 2003 Rules stipulate "best non-numerical management practices" (BMPs) for CAFO applicable to both "production areas" (eg animal enclosure and storage areas) and, for the first time, to "soil" application areas "(soil where other dirt and faeces are used as fertilizers.) The standard for BMPs in the 2003 rules varies depending on the area set by CAFO:
- Production Area : Disposal from production areas must meet performance standards requiring CAFOs to "maintain a waste detention structure that generally prohibits disposal unless an overflow or runoff results from 25 years, rain 24 hours. "New sources are required to meet the standard" no debit "except in the event of rainfall for 100 years, 24 hours.
- Land Application Area : BMP for land application areas includes different requirements, such as vegetative buffer strips and water regeneration thresholds.
The 2003 Rules also require CAFO to submit an annual performance report to the EPA and to develop and implement a comprehensive nutrition management plan (NMP) to address animal waste. Finally, in an effort to expand the scope of the regulated facility, the 2003 rules expand the number of CAFOs required to apply for NPDES permission by making it mandatory for all CAFOs (not just those who actually issue pollutants into waters of the United States). Many rule conditions are influenced by Second Circuit decisions issued at Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA.
Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA (2nd Cir. 2005)
EPA issued a revised law that addresses the decision of the Second Circuit Court at Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA on November 20, 2008 (effective December 22, 2008). The final rule of 2008 revised and amended the final rule of 2003.
The 2008 Rule discusses each point of a court decision at Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA. Specifically, the EPA adopted the following steps:
- The EPA replaces the "obligation to apply" standard with one that requires NPDES permission scopes for any CAFO that "issues or proposes to be discarded." The 2008 Rules stipulates that "CAFO proposes to be disposed of if it is designed, built, operated, or maintained in such a way that the discharge will occur." On May 28, 2010, the EPA issued a guideline "designed to help permit authorities to implement [CAFO rules] by determining the types of operations and expected factual circumstances. EPAs can trigger the obligation to apply for permission." On March 15, 2011, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals at the Board of National Pig Producers v. EPA re-invaded the EPA rules on this issue, arguing that the "propose to discharge" standard exceeds the EPA authority under CWA. After the Fifth Circuit decision, CAFO can not be requested to apply for NPDES permission unless it is actually thrown into the water in the United States.
- The EPA modifies the requirements associated with a nutritional management plan (NMP). In accordance with the court decision in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA , the EPA specifies the requirement that the licensing authority (either EPA or State) enter the "NMP provisions" that may be enforced into the actual permit.. The "NMP Terms" include "information, protocols, best management practices (BMPs) and other conditions in NMP required to meet NMP requirements of the 2003 rules." EPA must make NMP in the application submitted by CAFO publicly available.
- The EPA reaffirms that in order to take advantage of the "stormwater farm" exclusion (enforced by the court at Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA ), the uncontaminated CAFO should continue to implement "location-specific nutrition management practices which ensures proper utilization of the agriculture of nutrients as defined previously under the 2003 rules. "Uncompulsory facilities should retain the documentation of such practices and make them available to the permitting authorities in cases of deposition-related releases.
- The EPA discusses the Second Circuit decision on waste restriction guidelines (ELGs) for CAFO. The agency abolished a provision allowing a new CAFO source to meet the 100-year, 24-hour rainfall standard, replacing it with a "non-empty" standard through the establishment of best management practices. The EPA also clarifies and defends its previous position on (1) the availability of water quality-based effluent constraints (WQBEL) and (2) the best conformity of the technology control (BCT) standard for fecal coliform. Firstly, the 2008 regulation "explicitly recognizes" that permissible authorities may impose WQBEL on all production area disposal and all land disposal (other than those that fulfill "agricultural stormwater clearance" if technology-limited waste constraints are deemed insufficient to meet water quality standards of particular water bodies.In particular, the EPA notes that case-by-case reviews should be adopted in cases where CAFOs are discharged into US waters via direct hydrological connections to groundwater.Second, the EPA announces that they will not impose stricter standards for fecal coliform than in the 2003 rule as it reaches the conclusion there is "unavailable, achievable, and reasonable technological costs to base such restrictions."
The final rule of 2008 also sets out two approaches that CAFO can use to identify "the maximum annual rate of application of fertilizer, waste, and treating wastewater with fields and crops for each year of permit scopes." linear approximation states the rate in terms of "the amount of nitrogen and phosphorus from the waste, waste, and wastewater processes that are permitted to be applied." The narrative level approach states the number in "the narrative level that determines how to count the amount of dirt, waste, and treating wastewater permitted to apply.EPA believes that the narrative approach gives the CAFO operator Normally, CAFO operators are subject to permit terms they are for a period of 5 years.Based on the narrative approach, CAFO operators can use "real time" data to determine application level.As a result, CAFO operators can more easily "alter the rotation of their crops, the shape and source of sewage, waste, and waste water processes, as well as time and method of application "without having to search for revisions to their NPDES permission requirements.
Government assistance for compliance
The EPA points to some of the tools available to assist CAFO operators in fulfilling their obligations under the CWA. First, the EPA provides a federal grant to provide technical assistance to livestock operators to prevent the discharge of water pollution (and reduce air pollution). The EPA claims that CAFO can obtain free NMP under this grant. Recently, the annual amount of grants reached $ 8 million. Second, the Manure Management Planner Management (MMP) software program has been developed by Purdue University in conjunction with funding by federal grants. The MMP is tailored to the technical standards of each country (including the Phosphor Index and other assessment tools). The MMP program provides free assistance to CAFO licensing authorities and operators and can be found on the Purdue University website. Finally, the EPA notes that the USDA offers "a variety of support services," including long-term programs aimed at assisting CAFO with NMP.
Debate on EPA policy
Environmentalists argue that standards under CWA are not strong enough. Researchers have identified areas in countries that have weak enforcement and are, therefore, a popular location for CAFO developers who want to reduce costs and expand operations without strict supervision from the government. Even when law is enforced, there is a risk of environmental accidents. Massive 1995 dirt spills in North Carolina highlight the fact that contamination can occur even when it is not done with evil. The question of whether such spills can be avoided is a factor that contributes to the debate for policy reform.
Environmental groups have criticized EPA regulations on CAFO for several specific reasons, including the following.
- Size threshold for "CAFO" : Environmentalists support the reduction of size limits required to qualify as CAFO; this will expand the EPA's regulatory coverage of CAFO to include more industrial farming operations (currently classified as AFO).
- Obligation to apply : Environmentalists have strongly criticized part of the Court's decision in the Waterkeeper Alliance which abolished EPA 2003 rules that all CAFOs must apply for NPDES permission. The revised EPA revised policy is now too reactive, environmentalists say, because "it allows CAFO operators to decide whether their situation has a substantial risk of being caught having the release to guarantee the investment of time and resources in obtaining permits." It is said that CAFO has very little incentive to seek NPDES permission under the new rules.
- Requirements for agencies that permit individuals who engage in "substantial operational control" of CAFOs : Environmental groups fail to petition the EPA to request "joint permission from both farmers who rear cattle and large companies that actually own animals and contract with farmers. "Modifications to this EPA regulation will keep companies legally liable for waste generated on the farms they contract.
- Requirements of zero discharges to groundwater when hydrological connections go directly to the water surface : The EPA omits the provisions of the 2003 rules that will hold CAFO to the zero-discharge limit of the CAFO production area to "Groundwater direct hydrological connection to surface water. " Environmentalists criticize the EPA's decision to remove this provision on the grounds that groundwater is often a source of drinking in rural areas, where most of the CAFOs are located.
- Specific performance standards : Environmentalists are urging the EPA to stop using lagoons (holding animal faeces in structures like ponds) and sprays (spraying waste into plants). Environmentalists argue that techniques for dealing with animal waste are outdated and present "unacceptable risks to public health and the environment" because of their ability to contaminate surface and groundwater following "weather events, human errors, and system failures. " Environmentalists suggest that whenever fertilizer is applied to the soil, it must be injected into the soil (and not sprayed).
- Lack of air pollution regulation : Revised EPA rules under CWA do not address air pollution. Environmentalists contend that air pollutants from CAFO - which include ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, methane, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matter - must comply with EPA regulations.
Instead, industry groups criticized the EPA's rules as being too strict. Industrial groups have voted against requirements in the 2008 rules (since being hit by the Fifth Circuit) that require CAFOs to seek permission if they "propose to be disposed" into US waters. In general, the agricultural industry debates the notion that CAFO discharges pollutants and therefore rejects the EPA's pressure on CAFO to voluntarily seek NPDES licenses. As a starting point, agricultural industry groups "emphasize that most farmers are sincere environmentalists, as they depend on the land, water, and air resources for their livelihoods and they, too, are directly experiencing negative impacts on water and air. quality." Some agricultural industry groups continue to maintain that the EPA should not have the authority to regulate any runoff from the land application area because they believe it is a source not a point that is beyond the scope of CWA. According to this viewpoint, voluntary programs adequately address the problem with excess dirt.
The role of the federal government in environmental issues is generally to establish national guidelines and the role of state governments is to address certain issues. The federal objective framework is such that the responsibility to prevent, mitigate and eliminate pollution is the responsibility of the state.
The management of water and air standards follows this authoritative structure. Countries that have been authorized by the EPA to issue licenses directly under the NPDES (also known as "State NPDES") have accepted the jurisdiction over CAFO. As a result of delegation of authority from the EPA, CAFO enables procedures and standards to vary from state to state.
Particularly for water pollution, the federal government sets federal standards for waste water disposal and the state authorities have developed their own waste water policy to fall into compliance. More specifically, what a country does to CAFO individuals to be dismissed must be as strict or strict as the federal government's standards. This protection covers all waterways, whether water bodies can safely support aquatic life or home public recreation activities. Higher standards are enforced in some cases of publicly owned, publicly-owned waterways, such as parks. They maintain a higher standard for maintaining the nature of the environment for conservation and recreation. Exceptions apply to lower water quality standards in certain waters if economically considered significant. These policy patterns are significant when considering the role of state governments in allowing CAFO.
Issuing state versus federal permissions
The federal law requires CAFO to obtain NPDES permission before wastewater can be disposed of from the facility. The state agency responsible for approving licenses to CAFO in certain states depends on the authorization of the country. The licensing process is divided into two main methods based on state authorization status. By 2017, the EPA has authorized 46 countries to issue NPDES licenses. Although they have their own country specific licensing standards, allowing the requirements in the competent country to be at least as strict as the federal standards. In the remaining states and territories, the EPA regional office issues NPDES licenses.
Permission process
State authorities and the state environmental regulatory framework will determine the licensing process and the state offices involved. Below are two examples of state licensing organizations.
Authorized country case study: Arizona
The Arizona issue allows through a general licensing process. CAFO must obtain a general license for the Arizona Pollution Disturbance Cleaning System (AZPDES) and Common Aquifer Protection Permits. The Arizona State Agency assigned to manage permissions is Arizona's Arizona Environmental Quality Department (ADEQ).
For Aquifer Protection Permits, CAFOs are automatically allowed if they comply with the country BMPs outlined in the relevant state rules, listed on the ADEQ website. Their compliance is evaluated through an inspection review of CAFO Inspection Program agents. If a facility is found to be unlawful, the agency may issue a warning and, if necessary, file a lawsuit against the facility. For AZPDES permission, CAFOs are required to submit a Notice of Intent to ADEQ. In addition, they must complete and submit a Nutrition Management Plan (NMP) for the country's annual report.
Even under official circumstances, the EPA maintains oversight of state licensing programs. This is most likely to happen if a complaint is filed with the EPA by a third party. For example, in 2008, Illinois Citizens for Clean Air & amp; Water filed a complaint with the EPA on the grounds that the state did not implement the CAFO licensing program correctly. The EPA responded with an "informal" investigation. In a report released in 2010, the agency sided with environmental organizations and provided a list of recommendations and actions needed for countries to meet.
In an unauthorized country, the EPA has the authority to issue NPDES permissions. In these countries, such as Massachusetts, CAFOs communicate and document the necessary documentation through the EPA regional office. In Massachusetts, the EPA issued a state-wide permit. The state Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR) has an agreement with the EPA for the implementation of the CAFO rules. MDAR's primary responsibility is education. Agencies assist operators in determining whether their facilities qualify as CAFO. In particular they evaluate on-site facilities, provide advice on best practices, and provide information and technical assistance.
If a country has additional state-specific rules for water quality standards, the state government maintains the authority to allow. For example, New Mexico, also illegitimate, requires CAFO and AFO to obtain Groundwater Permits if facilities dispose of waste in a way that could affect local groundwater. The EPA is not involved in issuing this state permit. Massachusetts, however, does not have additional state permit requirements.
Zoning procedure
State planning laws and local zoning regulations are the main policy tool for regulating land use. Many countries have adopted laws that specifically exempt CAFO (and other agricultural entities) from zoning regulations. The enactment of the "agrarian rights" law has provided, in some cases, a shield of responsibility for CAFO (and other potential disturbances in agriculture). More specifically, the right-to-farm law seeks to "limit the circumstances under which agricultural operations can be regarded as a nuisance."
The history of this agricultural exclusion dates back to the 1950s. The rights-to-farm law was expanded in the 1970s when state legislatures became increasingly sensitive to the disappearance of rural agricultural land for urban expansion. The law was passed at the time of the CAFO and "modern confinement operations do not take into account the legislators' perception of the beneficiaries of the generosity" of the law. Forty-three (43) states now have some sort of legal protection for farmers from harassment. Some of these countries (such as Iowa, Oklahoma, Wyoming, Tennessee, and Kansas) also provide special protection for animal feeding operations (AFO) and CAFO. The rights-to-farm law varies in form. Some states, for example, require that agricultural operations be located "within approved and approved agricultural districts" for protection; other states do not.
Opponents of CAFOs have challenged the rights-to-farm law in court, and the constitutionality of the law is not entirely clear. The Supreme Court of Iowa, for example, imposed a right-to-farm law as "taking" (violating the 5th Amendment and 14 of the US Constitution) because it stripped the neighboring landowners of property without compensation.
Rules under Clean Air Act
CAFOs are potentially subject to regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA), but emissions from CAFOs generally do not exceed specified legal thresholds. In addition, EPA regulations do not provide a clear methodology for measuring emissions from CAFO, which has "irritated both regulators and industry." The negotiations between the EPA and the agricultural industry, however, resulted in the Air Compliance Agreement in January 2005. Under the agreement, certain animal feeding operations (AFO) received a no-demand agreement from the EPA in exchange for penalty payments for CAA violations in the past and agreements to allow their facilities are monitored for the study of air pollution emissions in the agricultural sector. The results and analysis of the EPA study are scheduled to be released late in 2011.
Environmental groups have formally proposed to tighten EPA air pollution regulations from CAFOs. A coalition of environmental groups petitioned the EPA on April 6, 2011 to establish ammonia as "pollutant criteria" and set the National Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ammonia from CAFOs. The petition alleges that "CAFOs are a major contributor to the nation's ammonia inventory, by which one EPA estimates livestock accounts for about 80 percent of total emissions, CAFO also emits a large proportion of disproportionate ammonia in certain countries and societies." If the EPA adopts a petition, CAFO and other ammonia sources will be subject to the CAA licensing requirements.
See also
- Animal feeding operation
- Intensive animal farming
- Intensive pig farm
Notelist
References
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments