The U.S. EPA’s new Animal Agriculture and Water Quality (AAWQ) Subcommittee met Dec. 6. The virtual meeting was the third since its formal start last May. The AAWQ is a subcommittee of EPA’s Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Federal Advisory Committee.

The 21-member AAWQ is to provide recommendations to EPA about how to best control runoff from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). This is a set of issues set within the federal Clean Water Act. New CAFO regulations could present extensive ramifications for some farmers.

In August 2023, EPA convened the AAWQ in response to two petitions from “environmental and community groups” requesting that EPA revise its CAFO oversight. Rather than jumping right into rulemaking, EPA decided to look at the CAFO program and then decide about next steps, if any. AAWQ is charged with this review and, when complete, will present recommendations about moving forward. Then, EPA may consider a regulatory approach or whether the issues raised by the environmental and community groups could be more effectively addressed with non-regulatory programs.

AAWQ members represent a range of agricultural interests. The chair is James Pritchett, vice president for engagement and extension at Colorado State University. Rebecca Joniskan, president of the Indiana State Poultry Association, housed at Purdue University, is the only member who hails from the Midwest.

The December agenda centered around reports from three Subcommittee workgroups. Each workgroup reported on its work so far and EPA asked members to list the topics they would focus on going forward. The Subcommittee addressed three broad areas:

Workgroup 1 – Nutrient Management Plans;

Workgroup 2 – Manure Management Systems; and

Workgroup 3 – NPDES Permitting Implementation.

(NPDES is the acronym for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, a basic pollution prevention concept within the federal Clean Water Act. Central to this system is that facilities such as a manufacturing plant, or a sewage treatment plant or a CAFO (depending on size) must have a permit that allows the facility to discharge water to a river or lake, as long as the discharge doesn’t degrade the receiving water. If the compounds in the discharge water exceed permitted levels, EPA can start an enforcement action).

Additionally, there were three extensive presentations by guest speakers. The first was by Keeve Nachman, Ph.D., with Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, who proposed that the scope of related health risks from CAFO runoff should be expanded.

Nachman said it has been decades since health risks from nitrates and phosphorous – two central pollutants from CAFOs – were updated. And he noted that manure can contain veterinary medicines and other compounds that could eventually end up in public supplies of drinking water.

A second report – by Katie Vallis, U.S. EPA – summarized a successful watershed restoration project in Minnesota, focused on Lake Shakatan, a 995-acre lake in the southwestern part of the state. The lake was placed on the state’s impaired waters list in 2002 because it no longer met water quality designations for aquatic life and recreation. A recovery plan was started, a plan covering a range of entities – farms, septic systems, campgrounds and some residential areas. Agricultural changes included fencing to keep cattle out of the water and feedlot upgrades and relocations. These efforts paid off. The lake was removed from the impaired waters list in 2018. Vallis commented that “this project was successful due in large part to dedicated, willing and engaged partnerships.” Total cost: $994,000 from various sources, including $119,900 from local landowners.

The third report looked at the trade-offs for farmers regarding a formal regulatory and permitting process and system versus a less formal one such as a program overseen by a state. The speaker was attorney and law professor Craig Johnston from the Lewis & Clark Law School at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Ore. Johnston said that an EPA permitting system offers a strong defense to CAFO operators. His comments, though, were largely based on experience with industrial permits, not agricultural operations. Still, a facility with an EPA permit, he noted, if it keeps operations within the limits of the permit, is shielded from challenges and lawsuits from neighbors or environmental groups or state and local environmental officials.

Except for the cost references for Lake Shakatan, there was just one other reference to costs and CAFO regs and implementation. This was during a discussion on some of the barriers to nutrient management plans and manure disposal and possible permits.

Mike Callicrate is a Subcommittee member and a rancher from Colorado. During one workgroup session, he said it was noted that many CAFO operators are “some of the poorest people in America, or at least in the farming community.” Consequently, “they don’t have the financial capacity to do a whole lot more than what they are already doing.” More broadly, he noted that, yes, there is some grant funding for feedlot controls but, he added, these frequently require a match, which many farmers don’t have.

One idea was for cost-sharing, shifting payment responsibility, Callicrate said, “over to where the where the actual money is, and the profits are being generated. That is, put it onto the integrator to make the improvements that are going to be required.”

(An integrator is defined as a company that manages and coordinates all stages of production for a livestock product by providing the animals, feed, veterinary care, transportation, and processing, while contracting with individual farmers to raise the animals on their land, essentially controlling the entire production process from start to finish).

In response to Callicrate’s comments, Steven Goans, with the Nebraska Department of Environment and Energy, noted that smaller facilities “can’t handle the $250,000 cost,” and that right now there isn’t a good programmatic funding mechanism.” Goan did not provide details about the $250,000 figure.

Subcommittee members were asked about which issues should carry forward for further discussion or additional focus. Indeed, many questions were raised during discussions, but didn’t conclude with a list of upcoming work. After Nachman’s presentation, for example, there were questions about how expansive the Subcommittee’s purview is and whether it could take on topics related to chemical contamination and drinking water standards. Others commented that chemicals found in lakes and rivers could have come from many sources, not just farms and CAFOs.

Additionally, Subcommittee members raised questions about possible federal EPA initiatives versus benefits from programs undertaken by state agencies. One person commented that there is no “one size fits all” regarding CAFO issues and that very local environmental issues, from soil types to mineral composition, can impact CAFO planning.

Another concern was the degree to which state programs, and related expertise, can vary. Joniskan brought this up, commenting that her Workgroup quickly recognized the need to “get a better sense of how (these programs) work across states and the country.” Her group has asked for additional support on these topics.

The final portion of the meeting was opened for public comments. Many comments were from environmental groups asking the Subcommittee – and EPA – to take on an urgent timeline. The date of the next meeting was not announced but it will be listed on the AAWQ website.