RHODES, Iowa — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has accused the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) of not taking proper action against confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) it and environmental activist groups claimed violate the federal Clean Water Act (CWA).

“We need stronger laws, tougher enforcement and a fully-funded IDNR,” charged Larry Ginter, a Rhodes farmer and member of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (ICCI), one of the three environmental groups that initially filed a petition to the EPA against the IDNR.

“It’s time for Governor (Terry) Branstad to embrace our agenda and move away from the failed corporate policies of deregulation and privatization he has set us on.”

In its July 12 preliminary report, entitled Preliminary Results of an Informal Investigation of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program For Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in the State of Iowa, the EPA stated the state’s regulators have about another week to develop a plan to “fix the problems.”

The controversy stemmed from a petition filed in September 2007 with the EPA by three of Iowa’s environmental groups, who complained the IDNR’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting, compliance and enforcement program for CAFOs hasn’t complied with the CWA.

In the report, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, the Environmental Integrity Project and the Sierra Club Iowa Chapter requested the EPA formally withdraw the IDNR’s regulatory authority from managing the NPDES, over what the three groups claimed were “alleged widespread failures to regulate illegal factory farm discharges.”

A joint July 13 letter from the three groups stated although the IDNR has documented more than 800 illegal discharges from CAFOs over the past 15 years and has identified more than 500 polluted waters throughout the state, “it has yet to issue a single Clean Water Act discharge permit to a confinement operation, or even to update its regulations to comply with federal rules for CAFOs that discharge pollution.”

A 2007 study by the Iowa Policy Project also alleged that “factory farm manure may be the largest agricultural polluter of Iowa’s streams and lakes.” In the report’s findings, the EPA charged that the IDNR failed to act on illegal discharges from the state’s CAFOS and doesn’t issue permits to factory farms when required by the CWA.

Moreover, in the report, the EPA also claimed the IDNR: doesn’t have an acceptable system to figure out which factory farms need Clean Water Act permits in the first place, and has an inadequate inspection program; failed to act in response to CAFO Clean Water Act violations or failed to follow its own response policy in nearly half of cases reviewed by the EPA; and doesn’t assess adequate penalties following CAFO violations of the CWA.

The report also said the IDNR’s NPDES permits “are not sufficiently stringent, in that the permits do not include certain requirements contained in the federal CAFO regulations” and the department “fails to permit discharging CAFOs that require NPDES permits.”

In addition, in its preliminary findings, the EPA stated, among other things, that the IDNR should:

•Modify its inspection and enforcement procedures to more consistently and comprehensively document conditions observed during inspections

•Provide clarification, either through a formal legal opinion from the state or through statutory/regulatory changes, that non-CWA state law provisions are an outright discharge prohibition that, at a minimum, allows the state program to meet federal requirements

•Revise its CAFO inspection program to consistently and comprehensively evaluate facilities on a statewide basis to determine: CAFO status; whether the facility is discharging to waters of the United States; whether discharges at unpermitted CAFOs have been permanently remedied; and whether the facility is required to obtain an NPDES permit because of the CAFO discharges

But IDNR spokesman Kevin Baskins told The Cedar Rapids Gazette on July 19 the IDNR “investigates and responds to citizen complaints on manure discharges and requires operators to complete and submit manure land application plans” and has “already addressed 26 of the 31 original deficiencies raised by the three groups.

“Our goal is to work with producers and organizations to protect the environment, particularly water quality,” he added.

In a July 12 letter to INDR Director Chuck Gipp, EPA Regional Administrator Karl Brooks said “the EPA intends to consider any relevant public comments, and those comments may require some modification of the work plan.”