CAFO Comments - July 20, 2001
DRAFT
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Proposed Rule
USEPA Office of Water
Engineering and Analysis Division, Mail Code 4303
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20460
RE: Comments on the "Proposed" National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulations and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs)
July 29, 2001
The undersigned agricultural organizations submit these comments on issues presented in the "Proposed" National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulations and Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001.
We represent a vast array of agricultural interests, all of which have genuine concerns about our environment and a long history of supporting implementation of conservation systems. Agriculture has made substantial investments and achieved significant accomplishments in protecting the environment. Many of our members have made these accomplishments through voluntary, incentive-based programs, while others have been regulated under both state and federal Clean Water Act provisions. These programs have led to many successes in improvement of our nation's environmental quality. It is important to note that many of these successes are either directly or indirectly the result of agricultural conservation programs currently authorized. It is essential that future agricultural policy authorization and appropriation processes expand the technical and financial assistance available to those who care for the land to expand further the environmental accomplishments we enjoy today.
We must state at the outset that we have grave concerns about the devastating effect these proposed regulations pose to American agriculture. We firmly believe that increased federal regulation of animal feeding operations (AFOs) as proposed by USEPA in this document is not needed nor is it justified by reliable water quality data. We feel states are best situated to address most of the issues identified in the proposed regulations and, as written, these regulations clearly pose a significant burden that will only serve as an impediment to the future accomplishments. There are numerous instances in which the proposed regulations clearly exceed congressional authority and intent as stated in the Clean Water Act (i.e. regulation of AFOs, regulation of non-end-of-pipe discharges such as land application of manure, requiring permits on nonpoint sources of pollution, etc.). We must emphasize these are significant issues to the agricultural community which must be addressed.
While many of the undersigned organizations will be submitting comments of greater detail under separate cover, as a group we wish to express support for:
- USEPA staying within the limits of clearly recognized undisputed authorities regarding implementation of the Clean Water Act;
- Practicing responsible environmental stewardship, retention of the U.S. animal agriculture sector of our industry, utilization of a voluntary incentive based approach to environmental issues, and adherence to NPDES permits issued under current regulation;
- Retaining the current method of defining a CAFO and full implementation of current rules before expanding the scope of the regulated community;
- Retaining the 25-year, 24-hour exemption and one standard for all animal species;
- USEPA actively supporting the availability of adequate technical and financial assistance available "to producers" for planning and implementation of voluntary conservation systems;
- Assuring nutrient management plans are considered Confidential Business Information and not interpreted as "effluent data" to the extent they are a part of the future regulation;
- Not placing the burden of proof on producers to demonstrate no hydrologic linkage to surface waters ;
- Clarifying that CAFOs may obtain permit coverage under a general permit;
- USEPA conducting additional data gathering to more accurately identify the economic costs associated with implementation of the proposed regulations;
- CAFOs being permitted on their own merits and not extending responsibility to others with whom they have a business relationship (i.e. co-permitting);
- Permitting authorities having the burden of proof to show a discharge potential exists rather than a CAFO having the burden of proof that no potential exists.
We appreciate USEPA granting an extension of time for the comment period. It is obvious USEPA has invested extensive resources to develop this proposal and it certainly requires an extensive commitment of resources to develop comments. We welcome the opportunity to be actively involved as this issue develops further.
Sincerely,