|
Reports and Factsheets
PROTECT COMMUNITIES' AIR AND WATER
FROM FACTORY FARM POLLUTION
Stop the Tyson Dirty Water Bailout Bill
Over the last several decades, agriculture has changed dramatically. Small farms have increasingly been replaced by industrial-like facilities that confine thousands, tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of animals in small areas. As a result, factory farms produce an estimated 500 million tons of manure every year - three times the amount of waste the human population of the U.S. produces.(1) Unlike human waste, however, livestock waste is not treated. Dumped into pits and onto the land, manure emits health-threatening quantities of toxic gases into the air as it decomposes. Spills and runoff of manure from factory farms can destroy rivers and contaminate downstream communities' drinking water supplies.
Although health threats and pollution from factory farms are poorly controlled under federal and state environmental laws, agricultural lobby groups and some members of Congress want to exempt factory farms from pollution reporting and cleanup provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA). Legislation that Senator Lincoln (D-AR) is seeking to attach to the Farm Bill (S. 807) would effectively end the State of Oklahoma's litigation to stop Tyson Foods's pollution of the Illinois River watershed and recover cleanup costs.
These laws provide an essential safety net for protecting water supplies from livestock pollution and for understanding the scope of toxic air emissions from factory farms. The protections these statutes give are especially important because the Environmental Protection Agency and the states have failed to carry out key elements of the federal Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act
Who Should Pay to Clean Up Livestock Pollution of Water Supplies?
Within the past two years, the City of Waco, Texas, and the Oklahoma Attorney General have sought to use CERCLA to respond to livestock pollution of drinking water supplies and surface water. These actions seek to ensure that those responsible for causing pollution of water supplies - not downstream drinking water utilities and other water users - assume responsibility for damage they have caused. CERCLA provides the legal tools to uphold the principle that polluters should pay for damages and cleanup.
According to the City of Waco, studies show that dairies in the North Bosque watershed are responsible for polluting Lake Waco, the City's drinking water supply, with phosphorus, which caused algae growth and severe taste and odor problems. The City has spent more than $3.5 million so far to address the contamination. The problems persist, and the City projects that the cost of a more advanced water treatment plant will exceed $80 million. City residents dependant upon Lake Waco should not have to pay the cost to clean up the damage others caused to its drinking water supply. The City took legal action under CERCLA in 2004.(2)
In June 2005, the State of Oklahoma filed suit against Tyson Foods for pollution of the Illinois River Watershed with phosphorus and nitrogen compounds, arsenic, zinc and copper, all of which are hazardous substances under CERCLA. The state's suit seeks restoration of damaged natural resources.(3)
Federal Reporting Requirements for Toxic Chemical Releases Give Government Agencies and the Public the Right-to-Know about Pollution
Section 103 of CERCLA and Section 104 of EPCRA require notification of releases of specified chemicals to local, state and federal agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency has set health-based reporting thresholds of 100 pounds per day for ammonia and hydrogen sulfide - two toxic substances routinely released by large livestock operations. Both of these gases have been measured near livestock operations at concentrations of potential health concern for rural residents.(4) Livestock operations releasing less than 100 pounds per day are not required to report. Facilities need not report every release; if their releases are routine, they can file an annual report.
This reporting requirement provides local, state and federal public health and environmental agencies with critical information about potentially dangerous releases that could affect communities. Without this data, evaluating health risks and recommending actions to minimize the risk is difficult, if not impossible. These provisions require no pollution controls, just notification.
Although these reporting provisions date from 1986, few of the large livestock operations most likely to trigger the requirement have reported their chemical releases. However, there is evidence that some large animal confinements can release enormous quantities of toxic chemicals - comparable to pollution from the nation's largest manufacturing plants. For example:
Threemile Canyon Farms in Boardman, Oregon, reported that its 52,300 dairy cow operation emits 15,500 pounds of ammonia per day, more than 5,675,000 pounds per year.(5) That's 75,000 pounds more than the nation's number one manufacturing source of ammonia air pollution (CF Industries of Donaldson, Louisiana) reported according to the 2003 Toxics Release Inventory.(6)
Buckeye Egg's facility in Croton, Ohio, had ammonia emissions of 1,600,000 pounds in 2003.(7) This amount corresponds to roughly 4,400 pounds per day, or about 44 times the reporting threshold that EPA set based on health considerations.
Other Federal Health and Environmental Laws Provide Inadequate Protection from Factory Farm Pollution
Advocates for exempting factory farms from CERCLA and EPCRA claim that livestock operations are strictly regulated under other environmental laws. In fact, the EPA and the states have failed to control factory farm pollution using federal environmental laws.
Even the largest livestock operations historically have not been regulated under the Clean Air Act, although they should be considered stationary sources under the law. Some states still have laws on the books that specifically exempt agricultural operations from clean air permitting requirements. Under pressure from EPA, the California legislature overturned its exemption and has recently begun to require large animal operations to obtain clean air permits.(8)
Nor has the Clean Water Act effectively controlled factory farm pollution. From 1995 to 1998, 1,000 spills or pollution incidents occurred at livestock feedlots in 10 states and 200 manure-related fish kills resulted in the death of 13 million fish.(9) The Clean Water Act has required large livestock operations to obtain permits for more than 30 years, but noncompliance is widespread. In 2001, the EPA estimated that some 13,000 factory farms require Clean Water Act permits, but permits had been issued to just 2,520 livestock operations.(10)
1. Federal Register, Volume 68, Number 29. February 12, 2003.
2. Testimony of Wiley Stem, Assistant City Manager, City of Waco, Texas, Before the House Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, November 16, 2005.
3. State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc. et. al., Civil Action No. 05CV0329 JOE-SAJ (Northern District of Oklahoma), Complaint (June 18, 2005)
4. Iowa State University and the University of Iowa Study Group, Iowa Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations Air Quality Study, February 2002. Page 7
5. Letter from Tom Lindley on behalf of Threemile Canyon Farms to EPA Region X, April 18, 2005.
6. U.S. EPA, Toxics Release Inventory, 2003. Search performed at: < http://www.epa.gov/triexplorer/>
7. United States v. Buckeye Egg Farm, L.P. et al, Civil Action No.3:03 VC7681, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
8. Congressional Research Service, Air Quality Issues and Animal Agriculture: A Primer. June 10, 2005.
9. Natural Resources Defense Council and Clean Water Network, Cesspools of Shame: How Factory Farm Lagoons and Sprayfields Threaten Environmental and Public Health. July 2001.
10. U.S. EPA, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Proposed Rule. January 2001.
Up to Top
HOME |
Email Signup |
About Us |
Contact Us |
Terms of Use
|
