The Future of Animal Agriculture in North America - Farm Foundation

100
regulated federally by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
(EPCRA) and the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), a federal agency dealing with worker
safety. While CERCLA and EPCRA have not been applied to
animal agriculture in the past, current litigation is challenging
this view of the law (Sierra Club v. Seaboard Farms Inc., State of
Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods). Air emissions from AFOs have
traditionally been a local issue, but states and the federal
government have become more active in this area. EPA has
initiated research through the Air Quality Compliance
Agreement of January 21, 2005, which reflects the intent of
EPA to address air quality concerns with respect to animal
production, with the goal of developing federal emission
standards for livestock and poultry. Specifically, the agreement
focuses on nitrogen oxides (NOx), hydrogen sulfide (H2S),
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), or particulate matter
(PM), which are covered under the Clean Air Act, and which
may or may not be released from CAFOs.
Responsibility for implementing the federal CAFO program has
been assumed by all but about five states. From a national
perspective, the implementation of the CAFO program was
perceived to be slow and uneven, prompting an environmental
group to sue EPA to force implementation of the rules and
improve the program. EPA lost the case and, in response,
released final revised CAFO regulations in 2003. States were
given two years to bring CAFO-permitting programs into
conformity. EPA was then sued again by environmental and
agricultural interests regarding changes in the revised CAFO
regulations. This has delayed implementation of the regulatory
changes as EPA is developing new regulations in response to the
decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Waterkeeper
Alliance et al. v. EPA, (2nd Cir. 2005). A number of states also
have policies and regulations for water quality. In the 1990s,
some states’ regulations began surpassing federal regulation in
stringency. Each state has policies and regulations for water
quality, and most have CAFO-permitting programs. The
regulations and policies vary in what they address, including
nutrient management and application plans, facility designs,
and, in some cases, protections for producers from nuisance
suits, exemptions from local authorities, and provision for
mediation in conflicts (Animal Confinement Policy National
Task Force, 1998).
The increasing use of litigation as means of changing
environmental regulatory frameworks and enforcing
implementation of existing laws has emerged as a new tool in
ongoing water quality debates (Cushman, 1998). There are
substantial concerns related to the use of litigation, including
the length of time before court decisions are made, cost of
litigation as a tool and risk that the court process may not
include stakeholders (Boggess et al., 1997; Batie, 2003).
Environmental Issues
Litigation has also created a check on federal progress, as in the
case against EPA’s final 2003 CAFO regulations. However,
litigation has also created an uncertain environment in which
businesses must operate, making investment decisions difficult.
The U.S. Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 required EPA to
establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
for pollutants considered harmful to human health. These
standards are applicable to all industries. Under the federal
CERCLA and EPCRA, ammonia and particulate matter are
reportable compounds if emissions exceed 100 lbs. per day.
OSHA has established Permissible Exposure Limits (PELs) for
specific compounds inside AFOs. EPA is beginning to examine
the need to establish federal emission standards for livestock
and poultry, and the courts are hearing arguments concerning
the applicability of CERCLA and EPCRA to CAFO
operations. These issues are not resolved.
A few states are developing air quality regulations. Odor issues
have historically been addressed through local zoning and
setback ordinances directing facility siting decisions. Most state
regulatory discussions regarding air emissions from animal
agriculture have focused on odor concerns. Odor is usually
considered a common law nuisance, but there is ongoing
research to determine potential human health effects.
Current Situation—
Environmental and Related Issues
Water Quality
How animal production and manure interact with the
environment are issues for industry, government, interest groups
and the public, especially rural residents. Producers and
agribusinesses have concern for their future in light of changing
regulatory environments. In the United States, events such as a
spill in the mid-1990s of the contents of a 25-million-gallon
lagoon have put animal manure management issues into the
reform spotlight.
Livestock and poultry farms generate manure, bedding, milking
house wash water, spilled feed and dead animals that can
impact water quality if not properly managed. Manure, bedding
and other byproducts from livestock can be recycled as an
energy source (through methane production or burning),
compost, heat source and most commonly by application to
land as a nutrient for crops.
Animal manure and related byproducts contain elements that,
under certain circumstances, might reach surface or ground
water and cause pollution. Surface water contamination from
manure and other animal production byproducts usually is
due to organic matter, nutrients and fecal bacteria. Sediment
transferred from outdoor livestock operations can also
affect surface water. The location of an AFO plays a role
in how pollutants may reach water and the magnitude of