Fellow Paddlers,
Googling for "factory farm" or "CAFO" will bring up lots of information, much of it not pleasant, as well as links to onging research/monitoring of factory farms. But while the research is ongoing, the EPA still has to write regulations that govern the operations of CAFOs. Right now there are two opportunities for public comment on proposed regulations - one water-related, and one air-related. The article below was written in large part due to the proposed CAFO in Benton County, and with the intent of publishing in the CWA newsletter, but is being shared with a larger audience, as it is pertinent to outdoor enthusiasts - and especially those who paddle on Big Pine - and is somewhat time-sensitive in nature.

Discussion is welcome, as is participation in the rulemaking process.

Erik Sprenne
Advocacy Chairman
Chicago Whitewater Association

===========================
CAFOs – Not Good Business for Paddlers


The acronym CAFO means ‘Confined Animal Feeding Operation’ or ‘Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation’, more commonly known as factory farms. Those reading local paddling message boards have probably seen some discussion of CAFOs related to regional rivers – the Apple River in northwest Illinois , and Big Pine Creek in northwest Indiana.

Without even considering other issues (air pollution, groundwater contamination potential, animal welfare, and meat quality of animals raised in such conditions), perhaps the question of most pertinence to paddlers is what happens to all the crap generated by thousands of animals living in a very small footprint, and the effect of potential run-off on rivers and streams? It’s probably a safe bet that no one wants to paddle in a stream contaminated with animal waste, but it’s hard to imagine that the waste from thousands of animals in large CAFOs can be kept out of the rivers.

The Clean Water Act is supposed to protect the environment. Quoted from a recent legal decision “The Clean Water Act ….. is a cornerstone of the federal effort to protect the environment…. [and] ....formally prohibits the ‘discharge of a pollutant’ by ‘any person’ from any ‘point source’ to navigable waters except when authorized by a permit issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342. This means, as a practical matter, that the EPA primarily advances the Act’s objectives – including the ambitious goal that water pollution be not only reduced, but eliminated, see 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1) – through the use of NPDES permits that, while authorizing some water pollution, place important restrictions on the quality and character of that licit pollution.” But as is most often the case, the devil is in the details of how the laws and regulations are interpreted and implemented.

The quote and link above are from a Feb 2005 legal decision (Waterkeeper Alliance vs EPA) which found that the EPA was not specific enough in a 2003 Ruling on NPDES regulations for CAFO operations. In response to this legal decision, the EPA, in 2006, drafted a proposed rule to address the requirements set forth in the legal decision. Just recently, the EPA has proposed an update to the 2006 proposed rule, and this update is currently open for public comment until April 7, 2008. For more information, click here.

While it is hard to follow all of the language and cross-references of existing and proposed regulations regarding CAFOs, this most recent amendment proposes that CAFO operators can avoid preparing a NPDES permit application and an attendant Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) by certifying that they do not discharge, or propose to discharge any wastes from their operations. What a sweet deal for CAFO owners – write a certification statement, avoid lots of work, public review, and the legal process! One has to wonder about what would happen if/when a subsequent ‘accident’ or ‘act of God’ causes a discharge from a CAFO? Would the penalty be severe enough to make the CAFO operator think thrice before writing a ‘no discharge’ certification, or would it amount to a mere slap on the wrist? It seems reasonable to me that all CAFOs should, at minimum, be required to draft a NMP that is open to public review, and must be approved by either State or Federal EPA experts.

Readers who have a strong opinion about this are invited to review the proposed amendment and submit comments. The EPA is sponsoring an informative webcast on this topic on March 14 (click here), and comments are to be received by April 7 (click here for instructions on commenting, as well as the full text of the proposed amendment).

It’s not hard to imagine that CAFO operators want to maximize profits by minimizing regulatory obligations, while the average person of ‘the public’ wants not only a clean environment, but also low-cost quality goods. CAFO owners have the wherewithal to lobby the rule-making agencies as well as legislators in order to minimize their regulatory burden, while the common man typically trusts that either environmental organizations or government watchdog groups will speak for him. The only other alternative is for residents to take some time to learn the issues, and get involved in legal processes.

Looking at the entire issue of CAFOs very simplistically, it seems funny that crap generated by humans must be treated, but that crap generated by animals – even in quantities larger than that generated by small towns – can be applied to farm fields without any treatment. There’s got to be a reasonable balance point between big business and the environment, but it seems that the scales are currently tipped too much in favor of CAFOs, and, sadly, the EPA is not carrying out the mandate of the Clean Water Act to protect the environment.

==============================

Besides water-related issues mentioned in the article above, there is now a public comment period open, until the end of the month, for a CAFO-related air quality issue - which is described here (click on the Proposed Rule pdf document). The proposal is to exempt CAFOs from reporting requirements for release of hazardous substances (mainly ammonia and hydrogen sulfide) found in animal manure contained in CAFO lagoons. Here again, because it's animal crap instead of people crap, the EPA seems to be willing to ignore the mandates of existing legislation and/or provide loopholes for CAFO owners.