Crawford Stewardship Project

Talking Points for Opposing Wisconsin's Proposed General Permit for Large Factory Dairies

Background

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recently proposed a General Permit scheme for large dairies that qualify as federal Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). These facilities house at least the equivalent of 700 mature dairy cows, and produce massive quantities of solid and liquid waste.

Under federal law, this waste must be disposed of in accordance with a Clean Water Act permit. Wisconsin’s plan will mean a change from requiring large dairy CAFOs to obtain individual Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits to allowing them coverage under one, general, statewide WPDES permit.

The General Permits are the outcome of a 2009 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the DNR signed with the Dairy Business Association, factory dairies' largest lobby group in the state. In the MOU, which also included the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, but which did not include community groups or citizens, the DNR agreed to draft General Permits for large dairy confinements.

Citizens can make statements at a series of public hearings being held around the state, and can also submit written comments to the DNR by April 23, 2010. These comments can include personal experiences with the effects of factory farms in your community, concerns about the proposed General Permit's compliance with state and federal law, concerns about water pollution from factory farms, recommendations for alternative courses of action DNR should consider, or anything else you want the DNR to take into account.

You can submit written comments on the proposed General Permit for Large Dairies by mail to: Gordon Stevenson, Bureau of Watershed Management (WT/3), 101 S. Webster Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921, (608) 267-2759; Or by e-mail to: DNRWTLARGECAFO@wisconsin.gov

The draft General Permit for Large Dairy CAFOs and the public hearing schedule are available at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/runoff/ag/permits.htm Click the "General Permits" tab and see the documents on the right. DNR is also proposing a general permit for small and medium dairies, which these comments do not directly address, though the permit terms and implications for public input are similar.

I. Adopting a General Permit is a Step in the Wrong Direction and Will Open the Floodgates to New Factory Dairies

a. A general permit will limit essential public input

DNR is seeking public support for its General Permit plan, claiming that the cookie-cutter approach to regulating factory farms will "streamline" the DNR's process and free up valuable agency resources. However, the main effect of this "streamlining" will be to limit public input, not to save DNR time and resources.

Currently, DNR provides an opportunity for public input on every CAFO permit – this includes a written public comment period as well as a public hearing upon request of impacted citizens.
Once the General Permit is finalized, there will be no more opportunities to comment on or influence the content of this part of the CAFO permit – this comment period is the first and last chance for public input for at least the permit's five-year lifespan. This will make Wisconsin an even more attractive target for factory farm operators looking to build a new facility.
DNR is completing one generic environmental review for all dairy CAFOs under 5,720 animal units (up to a 4,000 milking cow dairy) as part of the general permit, which will eliminate the opportunity to do an Environmental Assessment for a specific new or expanding dairy CAFO.
The good news: because of federal law requirements, DNR will still be required to allow public notice and comment on each new CAFO’s unique Nutrient Management Plan, which is part of the WPDES permit and says how and where the CAFO will apply manure without polluting waterways.

b. A general permit will make it impossible for DNR to protect unique regional resources

The general permit proposes identical setback distances between manure application fields and waterways, tile inlets, ditches, and wells everywhere in the state, regardless of regional water quality issues.

This means that, even if an area warrants special protection or is uniquely vulnerable, such as in the situations listed below, DNR will typically not require additional setbacks or require application fields to be less vulnerable to phosphorus runoff.

Some features and circumstances warranting individual CAFO permits include:

Karst Regions – areas with fractured bedrock that are vulnerable to groundwater contamination.
Impaired Waters – waters already not meeting state Water Quality Standards for some pollutant; these waters are supposed to be cleaned up, not subjected to more pollution.
Outstanding and Exceptional Waters – those pristine waters with high resource value that are supposed to receive heightened protection.
Watersheds with High Livestock Densities – areas already inundated with factory farms that have inadequate land for waste application and may already have polluted waters.
Very Large CAFOs – larger factory farms have greater potential to cause devastating water pollution, but DNR's size threshold for requiring an individual permit – 5720 animal units – is far too large. The limit should be closer to 2000 animal units.

c. The General Permit process serves only Dairy Business Association's interest in bringing more factory farms into Wisconsin

The DNR's MOU with the factory farm industry undermines the credibility of the General Permit process. In drafting this MOU, the DNR worked behind closed doors with the regulated community's lobby group, making promises – including a promise to draft this general permit – that will weaken environmental protection.
This MOU represents the unprecedented and undue influence that factory farms have at the DNR – the fox truly is guarding the henhouse at our DNR, and this destroys DNR's credibility in crafting a permit scheme that will serve Wisconsin communities, not polluters.
DNR should start from scratch by putting aside the General Permit scheme and instead drafting a Citizens' MOU to restore faith in the agency and re-commit to its mission of protecting natural resources for all Wisconsin citizens. This Citizens' MOU should lay out a plan to strengthen CAFO permits, as well as inspection and enforcement of existing factory farms.

II. The Proposed General Permit Will Not Protect Water Quality From Factory Farm Pollution.

a.The General Permit will not prevent phosphorus runoff.

The General Permit states that CAFOs will not be authorized to discharge pollutants like phosphorus to waters of the state, because manure nutrients should be applied in amounts appropriate for crops to utilize them.
However, the general permit allows manure spreading on many fields with a phosphorus index (p-index) of 6 or lower, even though a p-index of 6 means the potential for phosphorus runoff to surface waters is "high."
This does not go far enough to meet the federal EPA requirement that CAFO permits must "minimize" phosphorus movement to surface waters. See 40 CFR 412.4(c).
DNR should limit manure application to fields with a p-index of 2 or lower – even a "2" index value means there is “moderate” risk for phosphorus runoff to surface waters.

b. The General Permit's Nutrient Management Plan requirements are unworkable

NMPs provide almost all of the real permit requirements for factory farms – they lay out how, when, and where a facility will spread its manure, based on what crops will be grown and the nutrient content of the waste.
DNR's General Permit will continue the practice of allowing CAFOs to apply up to 15% more nutrients than actual crop yield averages indicate can be used by the plants, simply because this practice is indicated in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Standard 590. Because this is permitted, many CAFO NMPs routinely assume that their crop yields will be 15% above average, though this defies science and common sense.
This practice virtually guarantees that excess nutrients will run off into surface and ground water, and should be prohibited in all CAFO permits.
This also fails to satisfy federal requirements to "minimize" runoff.
The General Permit continues DNR’s practice of allowing manure application in circumstances likely to lead to water pollution, including application in fragile karst regions and application of solid manure to frozen or snow-covered ground during much of Winter.
NMPs have become unworkably complicated, to the point that citizens are often unable to interpret the information provided and meaningfully exercise their right to comment on the plans. If DNR is set on "streamlining" its CAFO permit program, it should begin by requiring NMPs to provide all relevant information, but only relevant information. Much of the information operators provide serves only to overwhelm readers and obscure any evidence that the plan will prevent water pollution. Unfortunately, the proposed General Permit does not make any of the needed improvements to the current NMP scheme.

III. DNR's CAFO Regulatory Program is Failing, and the General Permit Will Make it Worse

a. DNR must stand behind demands for increased CAFO enforcement funding through higher permit fees.

DNR is seeking support for the General Permit, claiming the process will "streamline" the CAFO permit program and free up resources needed for inspections and enforcement actions. However, DNR has not provided any concrete information about the resources it will save by adopting the general permit, nor has it laid out a plan for what it would do with further resources to improve CAFO inspections and enforcement.
DNR staff have also indicated that DNR will not finalize the General Permit unless the legislature approves much higher CAFO permit fees and DNR dedicates the additional funds to CAFO inspections and enforcement. DNR must make this commitment public and stand behind it.
The current CAFO permit fee is a mere $345 per year.

b. The current CAFO permit program is failing for lack of DNR inspection and enforcement.

Ron Seely's recent Wisconsin State Journal article series, "Who's Watching the Farm?" cast light on the many problems with the DNR’s regulation of factory farms in Wisconsin. Facts uncovered include:

DNR has never denied a CAFO permit application or revoked the permit of a CAFO that has repeatedly violated state regulations.
While the number of factory farms in Wisconsin has quadrupled in the last ten years, DNR staff resources dedicated to reviewing CAFO permits, inspecting facilities, and taking appropriate enforcement actions have remained virtually the same.
The DNR does not even always manage to inspect each facility once during a five-year permit term.
Many facilities have operated as large CAFOs without first obtaining permits, yet this violation of state and federal law has not prevented facilities from later obtaining permits.
Unless DNR demands additional funding through higher CAFO fees, this bleak situation will not improve. Pursuing a General Permit that will fast-track new factory farms, while existing factory farms violate their permits and state law without fear of enforcement, will be a serious move backwards for environmental protection and rural communities.

			Crawford Stewardship Project works to protect the environment of Crawford County from threats such as those posed by concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and to promote sustainable land use, local control of natural resources, and environmental justice. Crawford Stewardship Project is a nonprofit organization. Donations are tax deductible. Support CSP Send a check to: Crawford Stewardship Project P.O. Box 284 Gays Mills, WI 54631 csp.county@gmail.com
Home News About Us Events Research and Articles Photo Gallery Links
	Ongoing Projects Sand Mining Crawford County CAFOs Water Quality and CAFO Monitoring Karst Geology Sustain Rural Wisconsin Network-SRWN Livestock Siting Law & State CAFO Permitting Crawford Stewardship Project is grateful for the generous support of the Wisconsin Community Fund. Order your Driftless Wisconsin poster today! "CAFOs are only profitable because so much of the cost and damage is externalized onto the environment, neighbors and wildlife. The monitoring, supervision, clean-up, restitution, fines are not happening, thus the true cost of CAFOs never find the way onto the balance books." Talking point from the CAFO Conference.	Talking Points for Opposing Wisconsin's Proposed General Permit for Large Factory Dairies Background The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) recently proposed a General Permit scheme for large dairies that qualify as federal Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). These facilities house at least the equivalent of 700 mature dairy cows, and produce massive quantities of solid and liquid waste. Under federal law, this waste must be disposed of in accordance with a Clean Water Act permit. Wisconsin’s plan will mean a change from requiring large dairy CAFOs to obtain individual Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits to allowing them coverage under one, general, statewide WPDES permit. The General Permits are the outcome of a 2009 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that the DNR signed with the Dairy Business Association, factory dairies' largest lobby group in the state. In the MOU, which also included the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection, but which did not include community groups or citizens, the DNR agreed to draft General Permits for large dairy confinements. Citizens can make statements at a series of public hearings being held around the state, and can also submit written comments to the DNR by April 23, 2010. These comments can include personal experiences with the effects of factory farms in your community, concerns about the proposed General Permit's compliance with state and federal law, concerns about water pollution from factory farms, recommendations for alternative courses of action DNR should consider, or anything else you want the DNR to take into account. You can submit written comments on the proposed General Permit for Large Dairies by mail to: Gordon Stevenson, Bureau of Watershed Management (WT/3), 101 S. Webster Street, PO Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921, (608) 267-2759; Or by e-mail to: DNRWTLARGECAFO@wisconsin.gov The draft General Permit for Large Dairy CAFOs and the public hearing schedule are available at: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/runoff/ag/permits.htm Click the "General Permits" tab and see the documents on the right. DNR is also proposing a general permit for small and medium dairies, which these comments do not directly address, though the permit terms and implications for public input are similar. I. Adopting a General Permit is a Step in the Wrong Direction and Will Open the Floodgates to New Factory Dairies a. A general permit will limit essential public input DNR is seeking public support for its General Permit plan, claiming that the cookie-cutter approach to regulating factory farms will "streamline" the DNR's process and free up valuable agency resources. However, the main effect of this "streamlining" will be to limit public input, not to save DNR time and resources. Currently, DNR provides an opportunity for public input on every CAFO permit – this includes a written public comment period as well as a public hearing upon request of impacted citizens. Once the General Permit is finalized, there will be no more opportunities to comment on or influence the content of this part of the CAFO permit – this comment period is the first and last chance for public input for at least the permit's five-year lifespan. This will make Wisconsin an even more attractive target for factory farm operators looking to build a new facility. DNR is completing one generic environmental review for all dairy CAFOs under 5,720 animal units (up to a 4,000 milking cow dairy) as part of the general permit, which will eliminate the opportunity to do an Environmental Assessment for a specific new or expanding dairy CAFO. The good news: because of federal law requirements, DNR will still be required to allow public notice and comment on each new CAFO’s unique Nutrient Management Plan, which is part of the WPDES permit and says how and where the CAFO will apply manure without polluting waterways. b. A general permit will make it impossible for DNR to protect unique regional resources The general permit proposes identical setback distances between manure application fields and waterways, tile inlets, ditches, and wells everywhere in the state, regardless of regional water quality issues. This means that, even if an area warrants special protection or is uniquely vulnerable, such as in the situations listed below, DNR will typically not require additional setbacks or require application fields to be less vulnerable to phosphorus runoff. Some features and circumstances warranting individual CAFO permits include: Karst Regions – areas with fractured bedrock that are vulnerable to groundwater contamination. Impaired Waters – waters already not meeting state Water Quality Standards for some pollutant; these waters are supposed to be cleaned up, not subjected to more pollution. Outstanding and Exceptional Waters – those pristine waters with high resource value that are supposed to receive heightened protection. Watersheds with High Livestock Densities – areas already inundated with factory farms that have inadequate land for waste application and may already have polluted waters. Very Large CAFOs – larger factory farms have greater potential to cause devastating water pollution, but DNR's size threshold for requiring an individual permit – 5720 animal units – is far too large. The limit should be closer to 2000 animal units. c. The General Permit process serves only Dairy Business Association's interest in bringing more factory farms into Wisconsin The DNR's MOU with the factory farm industry undermines the credibility of the General Permit process. In drafting this MOU, the DNR worked behind closed doors with the regulated community's lobby group, making promises – including a promise to draft this general permit – that will weaken environmental protection. This MOU represents the unprecedented and undue influence that factory farms have at the DNR – the fox truly is guarding the henhouse at our DNR, and this destroys DNR's credibility in crafting a permit scheme that will serve Wisconsin communities, not polluters. DNR should start from scratch by putting aside the General Permit scheme and instead drafting a Citizens' MOU to restore faith in the agency and re-commit to its mission of protecting natural resources for all Wisconsin citizens. This Citizens' MOU should lay out a plan to strengthen CAFO permits, as well as inspection and enforcement of existing factory farms. II. The Proposed General Permit Will Not Protect Water Quality From Factory Farm Pollution. a.The General Permit will not prevent phosphorus runoff. The General Permit states that CAFOs will not be authorized to discharge pollutants like phosphorus to waters of the state, because manure nutrients should be applied in amounts appropriate for crops to utilize them. However, the general permit allows manure spreading on many fields with a phosphorus index (p-index) of 6 or lower, even though a p-index of 6 means the potential for phosphorus runoff to surface waters is "high." This does not go far enough to meet the federal EPA requirement that CAFO permits must "minimize" phosphorus movement to surface waters. See 40 CFR 412.4(c). DNR should limit manure application to fields with a p-index of 2 or lower – even a "2" index value means there is “moderate” risk for phosphorus runoff to surface waters. b. The General Permit's Nutrient Management Plan requirements are unworkable NMPs provide almost all of the real permit requirements for factory farms – they lay out how, when, and where a facility will spread its manure, based on what crops will be grown and the nutrient content of the waste. DNR's General Permit will continue the practice of allowing CAFOs to apply up to 15% more nutrients than actual crop yield averages indicate can be used by the plants, simply because this practice is indicated in the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Standard 590. Because this is permitted, many CAFO NMPs routinely assume that their crop yields will be 15% above average, though this defies science and common sense. This practice virtually guarantees that excess nutrients will run off into surface and ground water, and should be prohibited in all CAFO permits. This also fails to satisfy federal requirements to "minimize" runoff. The General Permit continues DNR’s practice of allowing manure application in circumstances likely to lead to water pollution, including application in fragile karst regions and application of solid manure to frozen or snow-covered ground during much of Winter. NMPs have become unworkably complicated, to the point that citizens are often unable to interpret the information provided and meaningfully exercise their right to comment on the plans. If DNR is set on "streamlining" its CAFO permit program, it should begin by requiring NMPs to provide all relevant information, but only relevant information. Much of the information operators provide serves only to overwhelm readers and obscure any evidence that the plan will prevent water pollution. Unfortunately, the proposed General Permit does not make any of the needed improvements to the current NMP scheme. III. DNR's CAFO Regulatory Program is Failing, and the General Permit Will Make it Worse a. DNR must stand behind demands for increased CAFO enforcement funding through higher permit fees. DNR is seeking support for the General Permit, claiming the process will "streamline" the CAFO permit program and free up resources needed for inspections and enforcement actions. However, DNR has not provided any concrete information about the resources it will save by adopting the general permit, nor has it laid out a plan for what it would do with further resources to improve CAFO inspections and enforcement. DNR staff have also indicated that DNR will not finalize the General Permit unless the legislature approves much higher CAFO permit fees and DNR dedicates the additional funds to CAFO inspections and enforcement. DNR must make this commitment public and stand behind it. The current CAFO permit fee is a mere $345 per year. b. The current CAFO permit program is failing for lack of DNR inspection and enforcement. Ron Seely's recent Wisconsin State Journal article series, "Who's Watching the Farm?" cast light on the many problems with the DNR’s regulation of factory farms in Wisconsin. Facts uncovered include: DNR has never denied a CAFO permit application or revoked the permit of a CAFO that has repeatedly violated state regulations. While the number of factory farms in Wisconsin has quadrupled in the last ten years, DNR staff resources dedicated to reviewing CAFO permits, inspecting facilities, and taking appropriate enforcement actions have remained virtually the same. The DNR does not even always manage to inspect each facility once during a five-year permit term. Many facilities have operated as large CAFOs without first obtaining permits, yet this violation of state and federal law has not prevented facilities from later obtaining permits. Unless DNR demands additional funding through higher CAFO fees, this bleak situation will not improve. Pursuing a General Permit that will fast-track new factory farms, while existing factory farms violate their permits and state law without fear of enforcement, will be a serious move backwards for environmental protection and rural communities.