Livestock Agriculture
Increased EPA Oversight Will Improve Environmental Program for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Gao ID: GAO-03-285 January 16, 2003Congress is concerned that waste from animal feeding operations continues to threaten water quality. In light of this concern, GAO was asked to review the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) administration of its regulatory program for animal feeding operations and to determine the potential challenges states and EPA may face when they begin to implement the revisions to this program. GAO surveyed all EPA regional offices and four states with large numbers of animal feeding operations that may be subject to EPA regulations.
Until the mid-1990s, EPA placed little emphasis on and had directed few resources to its animal feeding operations permit program because it gave higher priority to other sources of water pollution. In addition, regulatory exemptions have allowed many large operations to avoid regulation. As a result of these problems, many operations that EPA believes are polluting the nation's waters remain unregulated. Implementation of revised regulations raise management and resource challenges for the states and the agency. For example, because the number of animal feeding operations subject to the regulations will increase dramatically, states will need to increase their efforts to identify, permit, and inspect facilities and take appropriate enforcement actions against those in noncompliance. For its part, EPA will need to increase its oversight of state programs to ensure that the new requirements are adopted and implemented. Neither the states nor EPA have determined how they will meet these challenges.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-03-285, Livestock Agriculture: Increased EPA Oversight Will Improve Environmental Program for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-285
entitled 'Livestock Agriculture: Increased EPA Oversight Will Improve
Environmental Program for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations' which
was released on January 28, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry, U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
January 2003:
LIVESTOCK AGRICULTURE:
Increased EPA Oversight Will Improve Environmental Program for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations:
GAO-03-285:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-285, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee
on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, U.S. Senate:
January 2003:
LIVESTOCK AGRICULTURE:
Increased EPA Oversight Will Improve Environmental Program for
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Congress is concerned that waste from animal feeding operations
continues
to threaten water quality. In light of this concern, GAO was asked
to review
the Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA) administration of its
regulatory
program for animal feeding operations and to determine the
potential
challenges states and EPA may face when they begin to implement
the revisions
to this program. GAO surveyed all EPA regional offices and four
states with
large numbers of animal feeding operations that may be subject
to EPA
regulations.
What GAO Found:
Until the mid-1990s, EPA placed little emphasis on and had
directed few
resources to its animal feeding operations permit program because
it gave
higher priority to other sources of water pollution. In addition,
regulatory
exemptions have allowed many large operations to avoid regulation.
As a
result of these problems, many operations that EPA believes are
polluting the
nation‘s waters remain unregulated.
Implementation of revised regulations raise management and
resource
challenges for the states and the agency. For example, because
the number
of animal feeding operations subject to the regulations will
increase
dramatically, states will need to increase their efforts to
identify,
permit, and inspect facilities and take appropriate enforcement
actions
against those in noncompliance. For its part, EPA will need to
increase its
oversight of state programs to ensure that the new requirements
are adopted
and implemented. Neither the states nor EPA have determined how
they will
meet these challenges.
Figure: Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations:
[See PDF for image]
Source: USDA:
A concentrated animal feeding facility that discharges animal
wastes to
surfact waters under certain conditions and is, therefore,
subject to
regulation.
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that EPA;
* develop and implement a comprehensive tactical plan that
identifies
resource requirements and how the agency will carry out its
increased
oversight responsibilities under the revised program; and
* work with authorized states to develop and implement their
own plans
that will identify resource needs and how they intend to
carry out their
increased permitting, inspection, and enforcement
responsibilities within
specified time frames.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-285.
To view the full report, including the scope and methodology,
click
on the link above. For more information, contact Larry
Dyckman at (202)
512-3841 or dyckmanl@gao.gov.
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Shortcomings in Regulatory Approach and Oversight Problems Have Limited
Effectiveness of the CAFO Program:
EPA‘s Revised Regulations Offer Potential to Improve the CAFO Program,
but States and EPA Will Face Implementation Challenges:
USDA‘s Role in Developing Revised Regulations Increased Over Time:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection
Agency:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Figures:
Figure 1: Uncovered Operation:
Figure 2: Covered Operation:
Figure 3: EPA Full-Time Equivalent Positions Assigned to Its
NPDES Permit Program in Four EPA Regions, 1997-2001:
Abbreviations:
CAFO: concentrated animal feeding operation:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System:
USDAU.S. Department of Agriculture:
United States General Accounting Office:
Letter:
The Honorable Tom Harkin
Ranking Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition
and Forestry
United States Senate:
Dear Senator Harkin:
Livestock production generated $106 billion in farm revenue, or more
than one-half of all farm revenue in 2001. Intensive livestock
production--in which large numbers of poultry, swine, and dairy and
beef cattle are held in confinement facilities--accounted for about
$80 billion of this revenue. These confinement facilities raise
concerns about water quality because the animals produce large
quantities of waste--many times more waste than humans annually--and
these wastes contribute to impairment of the nation‘s waterways. To
minimize environmental problems, animal feeding operations contain
these wastes in storage facilities and periodically dispose of them,
usually by spreading them on the land as fertilizer. Despite these
efforts, animal feeding operations are significant contributors to
impaired water quality in the nation‘s rivers and lakes, according to
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Because wastes from animal feeding operations may degrade water
quality, the Clean Water Act requires EPA and authorized states to
regulate these operations similar to the way they regulate municipal
and industrial waste treatment facilities. Specifically, EPA developed
effluent guidelines for establishing limits on the discharge of
pollutants from these operations into surface waters. As stipulated in
the act, the agency and authorized states enforce these limits through
permits issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit program.
Animal feeding operations that discharge wastes to surface waters
under certain conditions are called concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFO) and are required to obtain discharge permits.
CAFOs are generally defined as animal feeding operations that have more
than 1,000 animal units[Footnote 1] but also include smaller operations
that discharge directly into surface waters. EPA has authorized 44
states and the U.S. Virgin Islands to administer the discharge permit
program for CAFOs since passage of the act in 1972.[Footnote 2] To
become an authorized state, the state must have discharge permit
requirements that are at least as stringent as the requirements imposed
under the federal program and must contain several key provisions such
as public participation in issuing permits. The act provides for EPA‘s
withdrawal of a state‘s authorization if the state has not adequately
administered its program. EPA‘s 10 regional offices oversee the
44 authorized states and the U.S. Virgin Islands and administer the
program directly in the remaining states.[Footnote 3] EPA also provides
grants to authorized states to help them implement the permit program.
In fiscal year 2002, $145 million were appropriated for these grants.
Although it has regulated waste discharges since the mid-1970s, EPA
continues to report serious impairment to the nation‘s waters from
these discharges. On October 30, 1989, the Natural Resources Defense
Council and Public Citizen sued EPA,[Footnote 4] alleging that the
agency had failed to comply with the Clean Water Act.[Footnote 5] In
the ensuing settlement, EPA agreed to, among other things, revise its
effluent limitation guidelines and permitting regulations for
CAFOs.[Footnote 6] As agreed, EPA published proposed revisions to the
regulations for public comment in January 2001 and issued its final
regulations on December 15, 2002.
You asked us to (1) identify the key shortcomings of the of CAFO
program, (2) assess the potential challenges the states and EPA may
face when implementing revisions to the CAFO regulations, and
(3) determine the extent of U.S. Department of Agriculture‘s (USDA)
involvement in developing the proposed revisions to EPA‘s regulations.
To address the first and second objectives, we, among other things,
surveyed all 10 EPA regional offices and interviewed EPA officials in
four of the regions. These four regions oversee the 23 states that have
an estimated 70 percent of large animal feeding operations that could
be defined as CAFOs under the revised regulations. We also interviewed
state officials in four states--Iowa, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin--that have large numbers of confined poultry, swine, dairy,
and beef cattle operations. To address the third objective, we
interviewed agency officials, reviewed relevant documents, and observed
meetings between the agencies. Appendix I contains further details of
our scope and methodology.
Results in Brief:
The CAFO program has had two major shortcomings. First, exemptions
in EPA‘s regulations allowed an estimated 60 percent of animal feeding
operations with more than 1,000 animal units to avoid regulation.
Specifically, animal feeding operations that discharged waste into
waterways only during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event--the amount
of rainfall during a 24-hour period that occurs on average once every
25 years--or greater were not explicitly defined as CAFOs and did not
require permits. Additionally, chicken operations with dry manure-
handling systems were not generally required to obtain permits.
Finally, animal wastes applied to crop and pastureland were generally
not regulated under the CAFO program.
Second, EPA‘s limited oversight of the states has contributed to
inadequate implementation by some authorized states. For example,
our surveys show that 11 authorized states with over 1,000 large animal
feeding operations do not issue discharge permits that contain all
required elements. Three of these states have not issued any discharge
permits to their operations, thereby leaving these facilities and their
wastes essentially unregulated by the CAFO program. EPA officials
acknowledge that they have historically paid little attention to the
state CAFO programs because they gave higher priority to other sources
of pollution, such as industrial and municipal waste treatment
facilities, considered the major sources of water impairment. In
addition, EPA officials stated that the agency‘s only leverage to
compel states to implement the program with all federal requirements is
to either withhold the grant funding to states for program operations
or retract the state‘s authority to run the entire NPDES permit
program--including the components that regulate industrial and
municipal waste treatment facilities. EPA is reluctant to use these
tools because it maintains that withholding grant funding would further
hamper the states‘ ability to effectively implement their programs, and
EPA does not have the resources to directly implement the entire permit
program in additional states. However, EPA has recently devoted more
attention and resources to the CAFO program and, as a result, has had
some limited success in persuading authorized states to improve their
programs without resorting to these tools. For example, in 2002, EPA
persuaded several states to begin to issue discharge permits that meet
all EPA requirements.
EPA recently issued revisions to its regulations that would
(1) eliminate the 25-year, 24-hour storm discharge exemption,
(2) require chicken operations that use dry manure-handling systems to
obtain permits, and (3) subject wastes applied to crop and pastureland
under the control of the CAFO operator to permit requirements. Although
the revised regulations address some of the key shortcomings of the
program, they raise even greater management challenges for the states
and EPA. By extending coverage to previously exempt animal feeding
operations, we estimate that the revised regulations could increase the
number of operations required to obtain permits by an estimated 7,000-
-from the about 4,500 permits currently issued to about 11,500. These
changes, along with extending permit coverage to the application of
animal waste to crop and pastureland controlled by the CAFO operator,
will create a resource and administrative challenge for the states.
Specifically, states will need to increase their efforts to identify,
permit, and inspect CAFOs and take appropriate enforcement actions
against those in noncompliance. For its part, EPA will need to increase
its oversight of state programs to ensure that the new requirements are
adopted and implemented. This oversight effort will be significant in
light of the large number of animal feeding operations that will need
permits under the revised regulations. However, neither EPA nor the
states we reviewed have developed plans--including the identification
of resource requirements--for carrying out their increased
responsibilities. We are making recommendations to EPA designed to
increase the probability that the new program will be effective.
EPA did not formally consult with USDA when developing the proposed
CAFO regulations, but USDA was increasingly involved in developing
the revised regulations. EPA published the proposed regulations in
January 2001 without allowing sufficient time for USDA to fully assess
the proposed revisions. In June 2001, to help address USDA‘s concerns,
EPA and USDA established a collaborative interagency working group.
USDA‘s role in the working group was to provide technical information
that identified how the regulations might adversely affect the
livestock industry and to suggest alternative approaches that would
mitigate these effects, such as allowing states greater flexibility in
regulating smaller animal feeding operations. EPA and USDA officials
said this arrangement has worked well.
To help ensure that the potential benefits of the CAFO program are
realized, we are recommending that EPA develop and implement a
comprehensive tactical plan that identifies how the agency will carry
out its increased oversight responsibilities under the revised program.
In addition, we are recommending that EPA work with authorized states
to develop and implement their own plans that identify how they intend
to carry out their increased permitting, inspection, and enforcement
responsibilities within specified time frames.
We provided EPA and USDA with a draft of this report for review and
comment. Both EPA and USDA provided technical comments that we
incorporated into the report as appropriate. EPA and USDA agreed with
our findings and recommendations. EPA provided written comments that
are presented in appendix II; USDA provided oral comments.
Background:
Discharge permits establish limits on the amounts and types of
pollutants that can be released into waterways. Under the Clean Water
Act, concentrated animal feeding operations that discharge pollutants
to surface waters must obtain permits from EPA or authorized states.
However, unlike municipal and most industrial facilities that are
allowed to discharge some waste, concentrated animal feeding operations
are required to construct and operate facilities that do not release
any waste to surface waters, except in extraordinary circumstances.
Under EPA‘s prior regulations, animal feeding operations could be
defined as CAFOs and require discharge permits if they, among other
things:
* had more than 1,000 animal units,
* had more than 300 animal units and either discharged through a man-
made device into navigable waters or directly into waters of the United
States that originate outside the facility, or:
* were of any size but had been determined by EPA or the state
permitting authority to contribute significantly to water pollution.
Under these regulations, a large animal feeding operation did not need
a permit if it only discharged during a 25-year, 24-hour storm event--
the amount of rainfall during a 24-hour period that occurs on average
once every 25 years or more. In addition, the regulations did not
generally require permits for chicken operations that use dry manure-
handling systems--that is, systems that do not use water to handle
their waste. Further, animal wastes that were applied to crop and
pastureland were generally not regulated.
EPA has authorized 44 states and the U.S. Virgin Islands to administer
the discharge permit program for CAFOs. To become an authorized state,
the state must have discharge permit requirements that are at least as
stringent as the requirements imposed under the federal program and
must contain several key provisions. These provisions include allowing
for public participation in issuing permits; issuing permits that must
be renewed every 5 years; including authority for EPA and authorized
states to take enforcement action against those who violate permit
conditions; and providing for public participation in the state
enforcement process by either allowing the public to participate in any
civil or administrative action or by providing assurance that the state
will investigate citizen complaints. According to EPA, public
participation in the permitting and enforcement process is critical
because it allows the public to express its views on the proposed
operations and to assist EPA and state authorities in ensuring that
permitted operations remain in compliance.
Shortcomings in Regulatory Approach and Oversight Problems Have Limited
Effectiveness of the CAFO Program:
The CAFO program has had two major shortcomings that have led to
inconsistent and inadequate implementation by the authorized states.
These shortcomings include (1) exemptions in EPA‘s regulations that
have allowed as many as 60 percent of the largest animal feeding
operations to avoid obtaining permits and (2) minimal oversight of
state CAFO programs by EPA. Although EPA maintains that it has limited
tools to compel states to properly implement the CAFO program, it
recently has had limited success in persuading some authorized states
to begin issuing discharge permits that include all
program requirements.
Exemptions in EPA‘s Rules Allowed Most Animal Feeding Operations to
Avoid Regulation:
Two exemptions in CAFO regulations have allowed large numbers of animal
feeding operations to avoid obtaining discharge permits. However, EPA
believes that many of these operations may degrade water quality. The
first exemption allowed operations to avoid obtaining discharge permits
if they discharge waste only during 25-year, 24-hour rainstorm events.
However, based on its compliance and enforcement experience, EPA
believes that many of the operations using this exemption should, in
fact, have a discharge permit because they are likely discharging more
frequently. For example, when EPA proposed changes to the CAFO
regulations, it stated that operations using this exemption were not
taking into consideration discharges that may occur as a result of
overfilling the waste storage facility, accidental spills, or improper
land application of manure and wastewater. The second exemption allowed
about 3,000 confined chicken operations that use dry manure-handling
systems to avoid obtaining permits. EPA believes that chicken
operations using dry manure-handling systems should obtain permits
because EPA and state water quality assessments found that nutrients
from confined chicken operations, similar to other large livestock
operations, contaminate waters through improper storage, accidental
spills, and land application.
As a result of these exemptions, we estimate that only about 40 percent
(4,500 of 11,500) of confined animal feeding operations currently have
discharge permits.[Footnote 7] In addition, EPA believes about
4,000 smaller animal feeding operations may threaten water quality and
may also need to be permitted. According to EPA and state officials,
these smaller operations are generally not permitted because federal
and state programs have historically focused their limited resources
dedicated to CAFOs on regulating only the largest operations.
EPA‘s Limited Oversight of States‘ CAFO Programs Has Contributed to
Inconsistent and Inadequate Implementation:
EPA‘s limited oversight of the states has contributed to inconsistent
and inadequate implementation by the authorized states.[Footnote 8] In
particular, our surveys show that 11 authorized states--with a total of
more than 1,000 large animal feeding operations-do not properly issue
discharge permits. Although eight of these states issue some type of
permit to CAFOs, the permits do not meet all EPA requirements, such as
including provisions for public participation in issuing permits. The
remaining three states do not issue any type of permit to CAFOs,
thereby leaving facilities and their wastes essentially unregulated.
EPA officials believe that most large operations either discharge or
have a potential to discharge animal waste to surface waters and should
have discharge permits.
The two states that lead the nation in swine production illustrate how
programs can meet some EPA permit requirements but not others. For
example, while Iowa‘s permits for uncovered operations (see fig. 1)
meet all program requirements, its permits for covered operations
(see fig. 2) do not. Contrary to EPA requirements that permits are
renewed every 5 years, Iowa issues these permits for indefinite periods
of time. While North Carolina issues permits to both covered and
uncovered animal feeding operations, these permits do not include all
EPA requirements, such as provisions for public participation or
allowing for EPA enforcement of the state permit.
Figure 1: Uncovered Operation:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Figure 2: Covered Operation:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Michigan and Wisconsin also illustrate how two authorized states
with a similar number of animal feeding operations differ in program
implementation. According to USDA estimates, both states have over
100 operations with more than 1,000 animal units that could be defined
as CAFOs. While Wisconsin had issued 110 permits to these operations,
Michigan had not issued any, according to our survey.[Footnote 9] As a
result, waste discharges from facilities in Michigan remained
unregulated under the CAFO program.
EPA officials acknowledged that until the mid-1990s the agency had
placed little emphasis on and directed few resources to the CAFO
program and that this inattention has contributed to inconsistent and
inadequate implementation by authorized states. Instead, the agency
gave higher priority and devoted greater resources to its permit
program for the more traditional point sources of pollution--industrial
and municipal waste treatment facilities. However, as EPA‘s and the
states‘ efforts have reduced pollution from these sources, concerns
grew in the 1990s that the increasing number of large concentrated
animal feeding operations could potentially threaten surface water
quality. In response, EPA began placing more emphasis and directing
more resources to the CAFO program. As a result, some states that had
not previously issued discharge permits began to do so.
As shown in figure 3, EPA has historically assigned significantly more
personnel resources to the industrial and municipal portions of the
NPDES permit program. In the four regions we reviewed, the number of
full-time equivalent positions dedicated to the CAFO program has
increased since 1997--from 1 to 6 percent--but this increase has, for
the most part, been at the expense of the industrial and municipal
portions of the permit program. EPA officials told us that due to
budget constraints, any increase in resources in one program area
requires the reduction of resources in others.
Figure 3: EPA Full-Time Equivalent Positions Assigned to Its
NPDES Permit Program in Four EPA Regions, 1997-2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In addition to resource constraints, EPA officials say that the agency
has little leverage to compel states to issue permits with all required
elements because the agency‘s primary recourses in such situations are
to either (1) withhold grant funding it provides to states for program
operations or (2) withdraw the states‘ authority to run the entire
NPDES permit program, including the regulation of industrial and
municipal waste treatment facilities. EPA has been reluctant to use
these tools because it maintains that withholding grant funding would
further weaken the states‘ ability to properly implement the program
and EPA does not have the resources to directly implement the permit
program in additional states. To date, EPA has never withheld grants or
withdrawn a state‘s authority.
However, EPA has had limited success in persuading some authorized
states to begin issuing discharge permits with all EPA requirements.
For example, Michigan has been an authorized state since 1973, but only
agreed in 2002 to begin issuing discharge permits. This agreement
followed an EPA investigation that revealed several unpermitted CAFOs.
Similarly, EPA recently persuaded Iowa to increase the issuance of
discharge permits to uncovered feedlots. However, to date the agency
has not been able to convince the state to issue permits to its covered
operations, even though EPA believes these types of operations should
also have permits. In 2002, EPA was also successful in persuading three
other authorized states--Florida, North Carolina, and South Carolina--
to begin issuing discharge permits that meet all program requirements.
EPA‘s Revised Regulations Offer Potential to Improve the CAFO Program,
but States and EPA Will Face Implementation Challenges:
According to our surveys of the regions and states, EPA‘s revised
regulations--eliminating the 25-year, 24-hour storm exemption;
explicitly including dry-manure chicken operations; and extending
permit coverage to include the land application areas under the control
of CAFO--address some key problems of the CAFO program. However, they
will also increase EPA‘s oversight responsibility and require
authorized states to increase their permitting, inspection, and
enforcement activities. Furthermore, neither EPA nor the states have
planned how they will face these challenges or implement the
revised program.
Revisions Will Help Address Regulatory Problems by Requiring Potential
Dischargers to Obtain Permits:
EPA‘s decision to eliminate regulatory exemptions should strengthen the
permit program because the revised regulations will extend coverage to
more animal feeding operations that have the potential to contaminate
waterways. As previously mentioned, the 25-year, 24-hour storm
exemption has proven particularly problematic for EPA and the states
because it allowed CAFO operators to bypass permitting altogether. By
eliminating this exemption, we estimate that an additional 4,000 large
animal feeding operations will require permits. According to our survey
results, the elimination of this exemption could significantly improve
the program. In addition, EPA‘s decision to also explicitly require
permits for large dry-manure chicken operations will increase the
number of permitted facilities by another 3,000. Lastly, CAFO operators
are, for the first time, required to either (1) apply for a permit or
(2) provide evidence to demonstrate that they have no potential to
discharge to surface waters.
In addition to eliminating regulatory exemptions, EPA also extended
permit coverage to include the application of animal waste to crop and
pastureland controlled by the CAFO. Specifically, CAFO operators who
apply manure to their land will be required to develop and implement
nutrient management plans that, among other things, specify how much
manure can be applied to crop and pastureland to minimize potential
adverse effects on the environment. CAFO operators will need to
maintain the plan on site and, upon request, make it available to the
state permit authority for review.
Authorized States Will Face Challenges Implementing the
Revised Regulations:
Although EPA believes that the revised regulations will improve the
CAFO program, the changes will create resource and administrative
challenges for the authorized states. We estimate that the revised
regulations could increase the number of operations required to obtain
permits by an estimated 7,000--from about 4,500 permits currently
issued, to about 11,500. States will therefore need to increase their
efforts to identify, permit, and inspect animal feeding operations and,
most likely, will have to increase their enforcement actions. However,
many states have not yet identified and permitted CAFOs that EPA
believes should already have been covered by the CAFO program.
Therefore, increased permitting requirements could prove to be a
daunting task. For example, Iowa has only permitted 32 operations out
of more than 1,000 of its animal feeding operations that have more than
1,000 animal units. Furthermore, states may need to identify and permit
an estimated 4,000 operations with fewer than 1,000 animal units that
EPA believes may be discharging. Finally, when states inspect CAFOs,
they will need to determine if the operation‘s nutrient management plan
is being properly implemented.
According to state officials, meeting these demands will require
additional personnel. However, most of the states we visited cannot
hire additional staff and would have to redeploy personnel from other
programs. For example, Iowa and North Carolina, two states with a large
number of potential CAFOs, each have less than one full-time employee
working in the CAFO program.
EPA‘s Oversight of States Will Need to Increase:
While the burden of implementing the revised regulations will fall
primarily on the states, EPA will need to increase its oversight of
state programs to ensure that the states properly adopt and implement
the new requirements. This oversight effort will be especially
important in light of the large number of animal feeding operations
that will need permits under the revised regulations. Although most of
the regions have not determined precisely what additional resources
they will need to adequately carry out their increased
responsibilities, EPA officials told us that, like the states, they
will have to redeploy resources from other programs.
EPA and States Have Not Prepared for Additional Responsibilities:
Despite the challenges that EPA and the states will face in
implementing the revised CAFO program, they have not yet prepared for
their additional responsibilities. According to our survey of 10 EPA
regions, the regions and states have not estimated the resources they
will need to implement the revised CAFO program. EPA, for its part, has
not developed a plan for how it intends to carry out its increased
oversight responsibilities under the revised regulations, such as
ensuring that authorized states properly permit and inspect CAFOs and
take appropriate enforcement action. EPA and state officials told us
they intend to wait until the revised regulations are issued before
they begin planning for their implementation.
USDA‘s Role in Developing Revised Regulations Increased Over Time:
EPA did not formally consult with USDA when it was developing the
proposed CAFO regulations published in January 2001, but the department
has played a greater role in providing input for the revised
regulations. EPA and USDA developed a joint animal feeding operation
strategy in 1998 to address the adverse environmental and public health
effects of animal feeding operations. However, USDA‘s involvement in
developing the proposed CAFO regulations was generally limited to
responding to EPA requests for data. USDA officials told us that they
were asked to provide substantive comments only after the Office of
Management and Budget suggested that EPA solicit USDA‘s views. However,
USDA officials maintained that they did not have sufficient time to
fully assess the proposed regulations and discuss its concerns with EPA
before the proposed regulations were published in January 2001.
In June 2001, to address USDA concerns, EPA and USDA established
an interagency workgroup on the proposed revisions to the CAFO
regulations. Under this arrangement, USDA provided technical
information that identified how the proposed regulations could
adversely affect the livestock industry and suggested alternative
approaches that would mitigate these effects. For example, through this
interagency workgroup, USDA suggested that EPA consider allowing states
greater flexibility in regulating smaller operations. USDA also raised
concerns that EPA‘s proposed nutrient management plan was not entirely
consistent with USDA‘s existing comprehensive nutrient management plan
and would be confusing to operators. EPA agreed to take these concerns
into consideration when it prepared the final revisions to the
regulations.
In July 2001, to further strengthen the cooperative process, EPA and
USDA developed Principles of Collaboration to ensure that the
perspectives of both organizations are realized. In essence, the
principles recognize that USDA and EPA have clear and distinct
missions, authorities, and expertise, yet can work in partnership on
issues on mutual concern. To ensure that both EPA and USDA work
together constructively, the principles call for EPA and USDA to
establish mutually agreeable time frames for joint efforts and provide
adequate opportunities to review and comment on materials developed in
collaboration prior to public release. According to USDA and EPA
officials, this new arrangement has improved the agencies‘ working
relationship.
Conclusions:
Although EPA has historically given the CAFO program relatively low
priority, it has recently placed greater attention on it as a result of
the 1989 lawsuit and the growing recognition of animal feeding
operations‘ contributions to water quality impairment. The
implementation of the CAFO program has been uneven because of
regulatory exemptions and the lower priority EPA and the states have
assigned to it. Although EPA has had some recent success in persuading
states to begin issuing discharge permits that include all program
requirements, agency officials say that their ability to compel states
to do so is limited. While the revised regulations will help address
the regulatory problems, they will also increase states‘ burdens for
permitting, inspecting, and taking enforcement actions. Because several
states have yet to fully implement the previous, more limited, program,
EPA will need to increase its oversight of state programs in order to
ensure that the new requirements are properly adopted and carried out
by the states. EPA and the states have not identified what they will
need to do--or the required resources--to carry out these increased
responsibilities. For example, they have not determined how they intend
to accomplish their expanded roles and responsibilities within current
staff levels.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure that the potential benefits of the revised CAFO program
are realized, we recommend that the Administrator, EPA,
* develop and implement a comprehensive tactical plan that identifies
how the agency will carry out its increased oversight responsibilities
under the revised program. Specifically, this plan should address what
steps the agency will take to ensure that authorized states are
properly permitting and inspecting CAFOs and taking appropriate
enforcement actions against those in noncompliance. In addition, the
plan should identify what, if any, additional resources will be needed
to carry out the plan and how these resources will be obtained; and:
* work with authorized states to develop and implement their own plans
that identify how they intend to carry out their increased permitting,
inspection, and enforcement responsibilities within specified
time frames. These plans should also address what, if any, additional
resources will be needed to properly implement the program and how
these resources will be obtained.
Agency Comments:
We provided EPA and USDA with a draft of this report for review and
comment. The Director of Animal Husbandry and Clean Water Programs,
along with other USDA officials, provided oral comments for USDA. EPA
provided written comments. Both agencies expressed agreement with the
findings and recommendations in the report. EPA and USDA also provided
technical comments that we incorporated into the report as appropriate.
EPA‘s written comments are presented in appendix II.
We are sending copies of this report to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Secretary of Agriculture,
appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties.
We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:/
/www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call
me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are listed in
appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Lawrence J. Dyckman
Director, Natural Resources
and Environment:
Signed by Lawrence J. Dyckman:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To determine the problems EPA faced in administering the CAFO
program and the potential challenges the states and EPA may face
when implementing revisions to its CAFO regulations, we surveyed all
10 EPA regional offices. Our survey asked regional officials to provide
information on program management and oversight of authorized states‘
CAFO programs, resources dedicated to the program, problems EPA has
faced administering the program, and the potential challenges the
states and EPA might face in implementing revisions to the CAFO
program.
In addition, we interviewed EPA officials in 4 of the 10 regions. We
judgmentally selected the 4 regions that represent 23 states with an
estimated 70 percent of large animal feeding operations that could be
designated as CAFOs under the revised regulations. Because EPA and most
states do not know precisely how many animal feeding operations should
have discharge permits, we used USDA‘s estimate of the number of
potential CAFOs based on livestock type and the number of animals on
the farm from the 1997 Census of Agriculture. These regions and their
represented states are:
* Region 3-Philadelphia: Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and West Virginia;
* Region 4-Atlanta: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee;
* Region 5-Chicago: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and
Wisconsin; and:
* Region 7-Kansas City: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.
To determine how the 44 authorized states and the U.S. Virgin Islands
administer the program and to obtain their views on the challenges they
might encounter in implementing the revised regulations, we interviewed
program officials in four authorized states--Iowa, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. We judgmentally selected these states from
among the four regions we visited because they have large numbers of
confined poultry, swine, and dairy and beef cattle operations. We did
not evaluate how EPA directly administers the program in the states and
territories not authorized to implement the CAFO program because these
states contained less than 5 percent of large CAFOs. EPA administers
the program directly because these states have not asked for authority
to administer the program.
To examine the extent of USDA‘s involvement in developing the proposed
revisions to EPA‘s CAFO regulations, we interviewed officials in USDA‘s
Natural Resources Conservation Service and EPA. We also observed an EPA
and USDA Working Group Meeting on Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations.
We conducted our review from January 2002 through October 2002 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460:
JAN 10 2003:
OFFICE OF WATER:
Mr. Lawrence J. Dyckman Director:
Natural Resources and Environment U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G
Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Dyckman:
Thank you for allowing the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
an opportunity to review and comment on the draft of your report
entitled, Livestock Agriculture: Increased EPA Oversight Will Improve
Environmental Program for Concentration Animal Feeding Operations (GAO-
03-285). We understand that our technical edits and suggestions will be
addressed in the final report.
In general, I believe that this report gives a good overview of the
implementation of the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO)
program under the old CAFO rule promulgated in the mid-1970s. We
recognize that the CAFO program was hampered, in part by the outdated
regulations and by incomplete attention by EPA and the States. In the
past two years, however, EPA has seen substantial improvement in
several State CAFO programs and a near doubling of the number of CAFOs
permitted under the Clean Water Act permitting program.
EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman signed the revised final CAFO
rule on December 15, 2002. The new rule addresses many of the concerns
with the CAFO program at the state and federal level that are
identified in this report. The new rule strengthens the CAFO program in
several important ways. The rule removes the permit exemptions for
CAFOs that discharge during large storm events and for large chicken
operations with dry manure handling systems. These improvements in the
regulation will require large operations to apply for a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. This revision
will also remove any ambiguity regarding requirements for States to
issue NPDES permits to CAFOs. The final rule also explicitly requires
CAFOs to address the land application of their manure and wastewater by
developing and implementing nutrient management plans.
We appreciate the acknowledgment of the close working relationship that
existed between EPA and the U.S. Department of Agriculture during the
development of the final rule. This highly constructive interaction has
served as a springboard for several collaborative discussions on abroad
range of environmental and agricultural topics.
EPA generally agrees with the recommendations in this report. I am
committed to the development and implementation of a comprehensive
national plan that ensures that the new regulations are aggressively
implemented. I will work closely with the EPA regions to ensure that
each of the States implement and enforce the final regulations,
including revisions to their current StateNPDES programs, as needed.
I would like to pass along my regards to your evaluation team that
performed this review. My staff enjoyed working with your team of Greg
Kosarin, John Smith, Paul Pansini, and Mary Denigan.
If you have questions about our comments, please call me or have your
staff call Jeff Lape, Chief of the Rural Branch at (202) 564-0712.
Sincerely,
G. Tracy Mehan, Assistant Administrator:
Signed by G. Tracy Mehan:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Greg Kosarin, (202) 512-6526:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Mary Denigan-Macauley,
Oliver Easterwood, Lynn Musser, Paul Pansini, and John C. Smith made
key contributions to this report.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] An animal unit is a representation of size among animal types EPA
uses for permitting purposes. For example, one animal unit is
equivalent to one beef cattle or 2.5 adult swine.
[2] Although Oklahoma is authorized to implement other aspects of the
permit program, it is not authorized to administer the CAFO program.
[3] Alaska, Idaho, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and
Oklahoma are not currently authorized.
[4] Natural Resources Defense Council and Public Citizen are nonprofit
organizations that advocate for environmental and consumer protection,
among other issues.
[5] Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Reilly, Civ. No. 89-2980
(RCL) (D.D.C.), October 30, 1989.
[6] Plaintiffs and EPA agreed to an initial settlement on January 31,
1992, which has been modified several times, to establish a schedule
for EPA to propose and take final action on 18 point source categories,
including CAFOs.
[7] Since EPA and most states do not know precisely how many animal
feeding operations should have discharge permits, USDA estimated the
number of potential CAFOs based on livestock type and the number of
animals on the farm from the 1997 Census of Agriculture. See USDA,
Profile of Farms with Livestock in the United States: A Statistical
Summary (Washington, D.C.: February 2002).
[8] We did not evaluate how EPA administered the program in the states
not authorized to implement the CAFO program because these states
contained fewer than 5 percent of large CAFOs.
[9] On December 13, 2002, Michigan established procedures for issuing
CAFO discharge permits.
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
