Factories: Pollution and Health Threats To Rural Texas

For generations, Texans have raised
animal
cattle, poultry and hogs on the state’s
abundant land. But in recent decades,
market forces and new technological
advances have changed livestock pro-
duction. According to the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), since the 1970s the number of
animals produced in the US has in-
creased while the number of animal
feeding operations has decreased,
indicating significant consolidation within
the industry.1 Concentrated animal
feeding operations (CAFOs) now raise
hogs and chickens, densely stocked, in
factories
confinement from birth to slaughter.
More like factories than farms, these
meat producers confine thousands of
animals in long rows, supplying them
with feed and collecting the manure in
open lagoons or piles. Today’s animal
pollution and health

threats to rural
Grain elevators in downtown Perryton, Texas in rural Ochiltree County where factory hog corporations have been expanding their operations for
Texas
several years. Local citizens organized and fought back, suing to overturn Texas regulations that opened the door for these operations while limiting
public input.
Chickens are raised together in batches, Pigs are raised in closed barns, often from birth. They stand on slotted floors which
with as many as 32,000 birds in each allow waste to drop below into a tank which is flushed through a separator then into
windowless house. lagoons.
production facilities dwarf their resistant bacteria. Factory where they stand. They may be lagoon—where stormwater
predecessors in size and output. animal production creates large in enclosed barns or yards, and runoff from the pile collects.
In the Texas cattle industry, quantities of industrial waste the manure may be piled up Contractors haul the manure to
small operations (less than 50 which may threaten the quality (dry system) or fall into a farmers, while wastewater
animals on site) still make up of local waters and the air as water-flushed channel which runoff either evaporates or is
P
approximately 65% of all well as affect public health. flows into a lagoon (wet piped over crops for irrigation.8
farms, but they only account for The risks posed by CAFOs system). Pigs, by contrast, are
approximately 12% of total include environmental contami- roducers bring beef raised in closed barns, often
production. In contrast, the nation with nitrogen, phospho- cattle to feedlots from birth. They stand on
state’s largest operations (those rous, pathogenic bacteria, when they weigh slotted floors which allow their
that house 500+ animals) hormones, antibiotics, and approximately 500 waste to drop below into a
comprise less than 5% of all ammonia; noxious odor; habitat pounds. Operators use shallow tank which is flushed
farms, yet they now dominate loss; and groundwater deple- low dose antibiotics on out with water. Below the floor,
the industry by controlling tion.5 a regular basis as a waste mixed with water flows
almost half of the state’s total A sustainable animal feed additive to either to a “separator” (separat-
cattle production.2 production system, by contrast, enhance growth. Meanwhile, ing liquid waste from solid
These large facilities are integrates human, animal and crowded and unsanitary waste) or directly to a lagoon.
geographically concentrated as environmental requirements in conditions lead to a high This is called a liquid waste
well—almost 80% of the a holistic way, substituting incidence of death and disease, system. As with cattle, close
largest Texas feedlots are human labor and resources for so operators again use antibiot- confinement in unsanitary pens
located in the Panhandle. capital and commercial inputs, ics in higher doses to combat leads to frequent illness and
Almost one third of the cattle weighing the costs of pollution diseases in the herd. This death, and workers must drag
produced in confinement in the against the economic benefits strategy fails to adequately the dead pigs from the pens
U.S. are fed within a 150 mile (i.e. profit) of the facility, and address animal health concerns, regularly. Texas hog producers
radius of Amarillo.3 Likewise, strengthening rural communi- since cattle operations in Texas report as many as 60,000
almost 75% of all hogs pro- ties. Given the commitment still lose over half a million animal deaths per year or about
duced in Texas are also raised and the will, livestock produc- cattle and calves to death each 5% of pigs marketed from their
in the Panhandle,4 concentrat- ers have the resources and year.6 facilities.9
ing enormous quantities of knowledge to begin a transition In these facilities, cows Some dairy facilities
animal waste in one geographi- to sustainability today. But until stand in pens on piles of their operate both dry waste and
cal area. sustainable meat production can own manure and eat, putting on liquid waste systems. Dairy
The new technologies and effectively compete with 3 or more pounds a day, for cattle may be raised in open lots
mass production promote an industrial producers, Texans five or six months. Each animal where manure is scraped and
unsustainable farming system also need strong environmental that is fattened produces almost piled about twice a week and
with too much waste for protections for air and water in one ton of dry manure solids in then hauled to farmland for
disposal, too many animals in a the parts of the state where an average 150-day feedlot disposal. Run-off from the
small space, and too much dust, animal production is concen- cycle.7 Every few days a manure piles is channeled to a
gas, and bacteria for a healthy trated. workman enters the pen and lagoon system. Dairies may also
neighborhood and working piles manure into the middle to keep cattle in small stalls lined
The Industrial Process
F
environment. Industrial animal discourage cattle from churning with bedding. On one end
producers use antibiotics to eedlots are relatively it up with their hooves. Eventu- manure is deposited into a waste
promote growth and prevent simple operations. ally the feedlot operator brings gutter which is flushed with
disease even though studies Animals eat food in a bulldozer to scoop the pile water and sent to a lagoon.
find that such antibiotic use delivered directly to out of the pen and onto an even Dairy systems usually have a
results in the spread of drug them and then defecate bigger stockpile—often near a second waste gutter in the
Page 2 Consumers Union SWRO animal factories: pollution and health threats to rural Texas, May 2000
Table 1: Top Ten
Animal Waste Producing States
Rank/State Pounds of waste

(in billions)
1. Texas 220
2. California 110
Cows in feedlots stand on piles of manure, 3. Iowa 102
eating and defacating while they gain
hundreds of pounds before slaughter. 4. Nebraska 94
5. Kansas 92
milking parlors, where manure is of bacteria and pathogens, 6. Wisconsin 78
also flushed through with water including E. coli and Salmo- 7. Oklahoma 72
to a lagoon or first to a reception nella, as well as metals like
pit for solids separation.10 arsenic, copper and zinc. After 8. Missouri 70
Large broiler farms may it is removed from the house, 9. Minnesota 66
house close to 200,000 birds at the dirty litter and manure are
10. North Carolina 62
a time, with as many as 32,000 usually spread as fertilizer on
chickens located in each agricultural land.15 In fact up to (Source for comparison: Environmental Defense, http://
windowless building.11 Hang- 10 tons of litter per acre may be www.scorecard.org/env-releases/aw/rank-
ing heaters control the tempera- spread on Texas farm land in states.tcl?drop_down_name=Total+animal+waste. ED figures
based on 1997 data. CU calculates waste production to be 280
ture and electric fans blow the any given year.16 According to
billion pounds based on 1998 and 1999 animal inventory data.)
accumulating ammonia and a survey of its operations
sulfide gases outdoors. The conducted by Pilgrim’s Pride,
chickens eat from self-filling growers raised about twice as much manure as the # to the disposal burden. Texas is
feeders and waterers. Most 99,000,000 birds in the Cypress 2 ranked state (see Table 1).18 home to approximately 755,000
facilities use an ‘all in, all out’ Creek basin alone in 1997, Overall, the state’s animal hogs,22 each of which produces
stocking procedure, where generating 132,720 tons of production facilities are approximately 11.3 pounds of
thousands of chicks are reared litter. Growers applied 114,511 creating an estimated 280 manure per day.23 In one year
together on a “litter” of tons of this waste over 42,363 billion pounds of manure each these animals generate an
accumulating manure and acres as fertilizer and sold the year.19 If improperly managed, estimated 3.11 billion pounds
bedding material, such as rice remaining litter as a cattle feed this waste output threatens the of waste in Texas.
E
hulls, straw, or sawdust, from supplement.17 integrity of the state’s air and Finally, the Texas egg and
one day old until slaughter at water resources and endangers broiler chicken industries—
six weeks.12 (In the case of Waste Generation the health and quality of life of concentrated primarily in East
egg production, laying hens ach year livestock Texas residents. Texas—further enhance the
are kept virtually immobile in facilities create a Texas ranks first in the waste problem. Texas poultry
individual cages until they no staggering amount nation for cattle production, facilities produced an average of
longer lay enough eggs to of animal waste with as many as 14.3 million 480 million broilers in 1998 as
remain profitable.) During this which is stored in head of cattle on site in Texas well as housed approximately
time the birds are fed low-dose earthen lagoons, at a given time,20 and cattle 17.4 million laying hens. With
antibiotics in their feed to piled up in the account for 88% of the state’s each broiler and layer producing
enhance growth and control open air, or total animal waste production. approximately 62 pounds and 95
disease. sprayed over Each animal may produce up to pounds of fresh manure per year,
At the end of each 6-week agricultural land. 47.3 pounds of feces and urine respectively,24 the Texas poultry
production cycle, workers Due to the per day.21 Therefore, on a given industry generates almost 31.4
remove the dirty litter, wash concentration of facilities and day, Texas’ 14.3 million head billion pounds of chicken waste
and disinfect the house and dense stocking of animals, the of cattle produce approximately each year. Most of these
equipment, and bring in a new waste produced may exceed the 676 million pounds of fresh facilities use a dry waste system,
batch of chicks. Broilers surrounding environment’s manure. This translates into an which exempts them from
generate about 5.8 tons of capacity to safely reintegrate estimated 247 billion pounds of permitting under Texas law.
manure and litter per year per the nutrients and waste prod- waste per year that must be Therefore, East Texans may find
1,000 birds,13 while each laying ucts. handled by Texas cattle their farmlands, air, and water-
hen will excrete up to 18 Texas ranks as the #1 state facilities. ways at risk from the unregulated
pounds of manure per year.14 in the country for total animal Waste generation by the disposal of billions of pounds of
The litter contains high levels waste production, creating state’s hogs and chickens adds poultry waste each year.
animal factories: pollution and health threats to rural Texas, May 2000 Consumers Union SWRO Page 3
Dean Paul #2 hog facility lagoon in Ochiltree County. Photo by ACCORD, 1996.
Air
C
emissions may have been four burning eyes, the nose drainage problems such as respiratory
attle in feedlots stand on times this amount. Studies and the burning of the irritation, chest tightness,
piles of manure. In the around individual feedlots have throat…(T)here’s the cloud that headaches, sore throat, diar-
hot, dry West Texas found particulate levels picks up, you can see it coming rhea, and more related to the
summer evenings, as the significantly above state and because of the size of the cloud dust and gas, especially from
cattle rise and move in federal (US EPA) standards.26 and the thickness of the swine operations.30 These
their pens, plumes of manure Dust from CAFOs may cloud.”27 Other residents note symptoms could affect resi-
dust lift from under their affect the health of nearby that the evening is the worst. “I dents as well as nearly 17,000
hooves and travel miles in the residents. When Koch Beef live two miles north of the people who are occupationally
wind.25 Thousands of tons of proposed to expand its Hale feedlot and at times in the exposed in animal confinement
manure dust fill the air in the Center, Texas feedlot to 80,000 afternoon the dust and the smell buildings in Texas.31 And
Panhandle each year. One head, a number of neighbors is so bad we have to leave the because the dust from feedlots
recent study estimated that opposed the expansion because house for a while,” said John L. and animal housing units
Texas cattle feedyards with the existing feedlot dust already Ray, also of Hale Center.29 At contains biologically active
capacity over 1000 head caused health problems. “We another feedlot, members of a organisms such as bacteria,
produced 7,300 tons of live about…one mile north of nearby family developed such mold, and fungi from the feces
inhalable small particulates the office of the Hale Center serious sinus and respiratory and feed, this dust poses a
(PM regulated under the feedlot,” Elizabeth Jimenez told problems that their young son greater health hazard than does
10
National Ambient Air Quality the Texas Natural Resource and was hospitalized for respiratory general “nuisance” dust.32 For
Standards) in 1998, largely in Conservation Commission distress before the family was example, about 20 percent of
the Panhandle. This is a low (TNRCC). “When my children finally forced to move from its swine confinement workers
estimate because the study and myself move here (sic) homestead of 100 years (see suffer from organic dust toxic
excluded all late afternoon and …the cattle were quite far sidebar, next page). syndrome (ODTS), “an acute
evening particulate test data. away. And we still had a lot of People who live nearby or influenza-like illness that
Using EPA standard assump- trouble adjusting to the smell work in animal confinement follows four to six hours of
tions, actual 1998 particulate and our allergies…the watery buildings have reported health intense exposure to agricultural
dusts.”33 Acute ODTS may last
from twelve hours to 3 days
and is characterized by flu-like
symptoms such as fatigue,
muscle aches, headaches, fever,
dizziness, and shortness of
breath.34
In addition to dust, the
odors from cattle, poultry and
swine operations can be
overwhelming. Animal manure
odor is composed of, among
other things, ammonia and
sulfides (including hydrogen
sulfide)35 —and swine manure
odor is a combination of at least
121 different compounds.36
Feedlot operators pile manure in heaps in the pens to prevent cows from kicking it up under their hooves. But cows make themselves
Swine odors emanate from
comfortable on top of the manure heaps in the afternoon, and walk on them in the evenings.
Feedlot Dust Drives Family from West Texas Homestead
Feedlots can control dust plumes by spraying water from a water truck over the pens. And while
sprinkling over feedlots on a regular basis may reduce dust emissions by at least half,1 the procedure is
only as good as its implementation. After years of negotiation over the water needed to adequately
reduce fecal dust from Palo Duro Feeders in Hansford County in the High Plains, the Bergin family
moved from its homestead of more than 100 years when two year old David Bergin developed severe
respiratory problems.
Palo Duro Feeders opened in 1965 as a locally owned feedlot and operated with no complaints
from nearby residents for almost two decades.2 However, the Bergin family’s trouble began when the
Texas Beef Group purchased the 19,000 head capacity feedlot in 1982. Over the next five years, the
new operators illegally expanded operations to 32,000 head without getting an air permit and the
Bergin family and others began complaining about the nuisance dust and odor.3 These complaints led
barns, waste lagoons, dead to an investigation by the Texas Air Control Board (TACB--later a part of TNRCC). In March 1991,
animal disposal areas, and TACB found Palo Duro Feeders had expanded without a permit in clear violation of the Texas Health and
wastewater during field
Safety Code.4 By this time nearby residents were already beginning to suffer physically from the
applications.37
Odors create health nuisance dust emitted by the expanded facility. Mrs. Bergin developed chronic sinus and respiratory
problems in both the animals problems due to the feedlot dust and by 1991 had spent at least six months under doctor’s care for her
and humans. For example, ailments.5
bacterial action in manure pits In May 1991, the company finally applied for an air permit to operate at its current 32,000 head
underneath confinement
capacity. As part of its permit application, the company calculated that it should apply 180,000
buildings releases ammonia,
hydrogen sulfide, carbon gallons of water daily to the lot from two tank trucks to keep the dust down.6 But the Bergins and
dioxide, and methane, among several neighboring families asked TACB to deny the permit and asked for a contested case hearing to
other gases. Every year animal investigate the company’s dust control procedures.7 However, through negotiations with TACB and the
confinement workers report neighbors, the company promised to pump the necessary water to control the dust and the families
illnesses caused by exposure to
withdrew their protest.8
these gases.38 In swine
production facilities air In March 1992, TACB issued a permit to the feedlot to operate at a maximum capacity of 32,000
contaminants such as ammonia, head, with a special provision calling for sprinkling of the lot to control dust.9 Although the lot pur-
carbon dioxide, dust, and chased equipment, it did not consistently water the yard as promised.
microbes have been associated In February 1995, David Bergin again wrote the company about the effects of the dust on his
with animal disease, low
productivity, and even death.
family’s health, but the problem continued.10 According to well data for 1995 obtained by an attorney
Pneumonia, arthritis, and for the Bergin family, the lot did not pump any water from April 17 through May 10, although rainfall
abscesses are not uncommon in was light (less than an inch for the month).11 On May 3, 1995, two year old John David Bergin was
swine raised in CAFOs and admitted to the hospital for respiratory problems and later that day he was air-lifted to Northwest Texas
these diseases may be attribut- Hospital in Amarillo in severe respiratory distress.12
able in part to the presence of
gas and dust contaminants in That same day the owners of Palo Duro Feeders filed a lawsuit against the Bergin family, claiming
the air.39 Furthermore, airborne that Texas’ “Right to Farm Act” precluded the family from seeking damages from the feedlot and asking
ammonia can be detected the court to bar the Bergins from suing them for nuisance conditions.13 And within days the company
downwind of swine facilities also asked TNRCC to further expand its permitted feedlot capacity to 37,000 head, against continued
and may lead to psychological
opposition from local residents.14
and physical distress in nearby
communities.40 No longer willing to risk the lives of his family members, in June 1995, David Bergin moved his
Neighbors particularly family away from their homestead,15 while the dust plumes continued through the summer months.
notice the smell from barns. Pig TNRCC’s air program inspector confirmed a dust problem on July 14 and again on September 13,
barns and chicken houses have 1995, and recommended that the agency issue a notice of violation to the company because they were
a large fan at one end which
not applying enough water to affect the dust.16
draws out the ammonia and
sulfide soaked air. The heavy “My family had lived in that Valley for over 100 years,” said T.J. Bergin, the young boy’s grandfa-
odor spreads on the wind. ther, “and we looked forward to completing 200 years. This turned out not to be an option if we wanted
“When they put the fans on little John David to survive—the David Bergin family must move to get away from the fecal dust
the pigs [in the barns], there’s emitted from Palo Duro Feeders.”17
nothing like it,” said Elmer
Koch Expands at
Hale Center then Sells Facility
Koch Industries is a giant commodities corporation involved
in oil, gas, and chemical operations, as well as mining, grain
milling, and cattle feedlots. The Koch Beef Company is the 10th
largest cattle feeder in the US and the 9th largest rancher, with
many of its facilities located in Texas.1
Koch Beef Company of Hale Center, Texas bought a cattle
feedlot from Texzona Cattle Feeders in July 1996.2 In January Barbara Philipps of Ochiltree County now
1997, Koch filed for a Subchapter K permit to increase their lives near a large hog operation and
frequently cannot go outside to work her
feedlot capacity from 60,000 to 80,000 head. In response, garden or enjoy her home.
citizens and companies of the area wrote to the TNRCC to
oppose the expansion.3
Some businesses and farm owners expressed concerns
over the health of their employees, some of whom would be
Schoenhals of Perryton, out, often to the animal
housed within 300 feet of Koch’s cattle pens.4 Other neighbors
Texas.41 operation itself, rather than live
cited concerns over the potential for groundwater pollution, the “Chicken houses have fans, in the constant smell. “This is
amount of dirt, insects, and odors added to the area contributing the same as swine. Fans our place, right here,” said Bill
to health problems, a decrease in quality of life for nearby blowing out,” said Dr. John Pletcher of Perryton, standing
residents, and the possible devaluation of land.5 (See main text). Sweeten of Texas A&M, the in front of his abandoned
state’s leading expert on animal homestead. “My daughter sold
On May 8, 1997, TNRCC declared that the comments by
feedlot odor. “One thing you it to Texas Farms...I was raised
citizens did not demonstrate “technical merit” and the process can do is erect a barrier, even in this place. All we sold was
of granting the permit would continue.6 Undeterred, certain plant some trees. But better, the house. I’m still out here
citizens wrote to TNRCC challenging the “technical merit” you set up a wet or dry scrub- every day. Some days [the
response to previous letters. On June 20, 1997, TNRCC ber. It can be water, or chemi- smell] is worse than others.”
cal, or packed beds. Like you Mildred Pletcher added, “They
repeated its “lack of technical merit” stance and authorized the have for a rendering plant. If just got started. Wait ‘til it’s
Subchapter K permit the same day.7 you are located on a big tract of been out here a few years.”45
In 1998 Koch purchased Purina Mills, an acquisition which land with neighbors a long way The Amarillo regional
included six feed-making plants and a bulk feed-blending off, there’s no problem.”42 office of the TNRCC conducted
station—all in Texas.8 But Koch’s investment soon turned sour However, operators do not ambient air monitoring near
always voluntarily agree to use hog farms, feedlots, and
when Purina Mills filed for bankruptcy in October 1999.9 Other the best available technology— slaughterhouses in 1998 and
financial considerations have caused Koch to begin re-evaluat- like aerobic rather than anaero- 1999. Sampling teams mea-
ing its strategy for vertical integration of its feedlot and ranching bic lagoons, composting, or sured hydrogen sulfide and
operations.10 In March 1999, the company sold the Hale Center lagoon covers—to reduce the ammonia emissions downwind
smell and ammonia emissions.43 from the facilities. One
feedlot to Cactus Feeders, another corporate agriculture
“In many ways, the ammonia sample was collected
company, and the nation’s (and Texas’) largest cattle-feeding industry has designed facilities downwind from a Texas Farm,
company.11 to meet minimum regulatory Inc. swine operation at the
standards. They have not border between the hog farm
adopted the best technology and the neighboring property.
appropriate for a given site,” The investigators found that the
said Sweeten. On the other ammonia concentration in the
hand, Sweeten argues that air was almost nine times
improved regulations drive higher than TNRCC’s “health-
consolidation and force out based effects screening level”
smaller operators. “The ones or ESL. Sampling teams also
who are in jeopardy are the measured ammonia concentra-
family farmers. If you have one tions over ESL guidelines
set of standards that apply to a downwind of a cattle feedlot
1000 head feedlot and a 100,000 and a broiler farm.46
head feedlot, it’s not realistic.”44 The agency uses an ESL as
Bill Pletcher sold his house rather than live with the smell of a large pig grow-out
operation that moved in next door. Some neighbors finally sell a benchmark for possible health
Table 2. Texas Waterways
Impaired by CAFO Facilities
Water Body Impaired Area Impact

Wrigh t Patman
5,000 acres No lon ger su ppor ts aqu atic life
Lake
On ly par tially su ppor tin g aqu atic
Lake O' th e Pin es 18,707 acres
life
Big Cypress
No lon ger su ppor ts fish
Creek (below
Members of ACCORD, a local group Accord hires a helicopter to take arial 55 miles con su mption ; On ly par tially
Lake Bob
organized to advocate for better air and photographs of the developing hog su ppor ts aqu atic life
San dlin )
water safeguards as the hog industry industry and its waste lagoons.
grows in Ochiltree County, Texas. Black Bayou 24 miles No lon ger su ppor ts aqu atic life
Leon River
No lon ger su ppor ts con tact
(below Proctor 118 miles
recreation (h u man u se)
Lake)
Nor th Bosqu e No lon ger su ppor ts con tact
effects rather than as a strictly tion of these monitoring data,” 178 miles
River recreation
enforced standard. In the case thus implying that the odor
No lon ger su ppor ts aqu atic life;
of Texas Farms, the TNRCC effects might have been even Upper Nor th
13 miles No lon ger su ppor ts con tact
concluded that “(e)xposure to stronger if the facilities were Bosqu e River
recreation
the measured ammonia stocked to capacity.51
concentration may cause In August 1999, investiga-
respiratory irritation...in tors found strong hydrogen Total impaired
388 miles
sensitive individuals.”47 sulfide emissions downwind of stream miles
For hydrogen sulfide, state rendering plants and slaughter- Total impaired
23,707 acres
law does limit emissions, and houses owned by IBP, Inc., lake acres
existing tests did not find H S Excel Corp., and Caviness Sou rce: Texas Non -Poin t Sou rce Pollu tion Assessmen t Repor t an d Man agemen t
2
levels in excess of the legal Packing Co. that significantly Program (TNRCC, 1999)
limit at CAFOs.48 TNRCC also exceeded the state’s emission
assesses hydrogen sulfide based standard.52 Ammonia emis-
violating the state emission of the nation’s surveyed rivers
on a lower “odor threshold” sions were also high downwind
standard for hydrogen sulfide.54 and streams, 50 percent of the
range—a level which does not of feedlots. Ammonia emis-
nation’s surveyed lakes, ponds
exceed the state emission sions at Stratford Feedyard,
standard but at which “the Circle C Cattle (cattle CAFOs),
Water and reservoirs, and 34 percent
Animal operations produce of the nation’s surveyed
majority of exposed individuals Top of Texas, (a relatively
waste in industrial proportions, estuaries.55 Feedlots adversely
can discern an odor.”49 TNRCC small—2500 head— swine
and seepage, spills, and effect 16 percent of the rivers
personnel reported offensive CAFO), as well as IBP, Excel,
‘accidental’ pollution into and streams impaired by
odors downwind from anaero- Caviness, and Hereford Bi-
waterways from barns, lagoons, agricultural practices overall.56
bic lagoons ranging from the Products, all exceeded the
feedlots and meat processing In Texas the Gulf of
rotten egg odors characteristic health-based ESL.53 Despite
facilities is not uncommon. Mexico already suffers from
of H S to “strong fecal odor” these findings, TNRCC has no
2 Feedlots, dairies, swine and excessive nutrient levels.
and “strong dead animal mechanism in place to penalize
poultry growing operations also Nutrients from farm run-off,
odor.”50 The investigators the offending facilities because
pollute indirectly as a result of including animal waste, are
found that another Texas Farms the health-based ESL is merely
their regular farm management linked to the formation of a
facility and a Dean Paul Farms a benchmark for monitoring
practices. They spray or apply seven thousand square mile
swine facility both exceeded possible health impacts.
manure and wastewater onto “dead zone” of hypoxia (low
the odor threshold range for Slaughtering/rendering
fields to be absorbed as oxygen) that cannot support
hydrogen sulfide. The survey facilities are subject to compli-
fertilizer by crops. But because most aquatic life.57 As Table 2
team found that the strength of ance with the state hydrogen
CAFOs often have more shows, by 1998 animal confine-
septic odors from the waste sulfide emission standard,
manure to distribute than crops ment activities had caused
lagoons correlated with however TNRCC does not
can readily absorb, the excess significant pollution damage to
increased hydrogen sulfide regularly monitor CAFOs for
nutrients can seep from fields at least 388 miles of Texas
levels. The investigators also emissions. While some
into the state’s waterways. streams and rivers and over
noted in their report that “the rendering plants have been
According to the EPA, 23,700 acres of lakes,58 largely
CAFOs may not have been cited for exceedances, no
in east and north-central Texas
operating at maximum permit- CAFO has ever been subject to agricultural practices contribute
where dairies and poultry
ted capacity during the collec- an enforcement action for to the degradation of 60 percent
Factory hog producers say the Texas panhandle is perfect for the hog industry because of its wide open spaces and long dry seasons. But locals say that sudden gully washers
and long forgotten oil and water well test holes throughout the region mean that hog lagoons could pollute area waters.
operations dominate. Lake O’ the Pines, the authors TIAER found that substantially primarily on the nitrogen
A study conducted by note that “the downstream elevated fecal coliform levels requirements of the crop.64 But
TNRCC for the Texas legisla- portions of the basin (Big were correlated with the application that meets crop
ture in 1999 found that certain Cypress Creek, Lake O’ the application of dairy manure to nitrogen needs results in over-
creeks running through areas Pines, Caddo Lake) would the fields.61 This may pose a application of phosphorus.
with many poultry houses show continue to experience increas- threat to drinking water “When manure is applied at the
higher fecal coliform and ing nutrient loads if additional supplies in cities such as Waco, nitrogen rate for plant uptake,
nutrient concentrations than development [poultry produc- which receives water from the phosphorus is typically over-
reference creeks. “That the tion activities] employs today’s Bosque at Lake Waco. applied by a factor of 2 1/2 to 3
differences among the study management practices.”60 Over several years, TIAER times crop requirements, if not
streams are real, and do have Erath and surrounding conducted in-depth studies of more,” TIAER reported.65
some relation to poultry counties support a large dairy instream water quality during CAFOs must conduct an annual
production activities, is industry. Waste from Erath storm events on the Upper soil sampling analysis to
suggested by several lines of County dairies has significantly North Bosque river watershed determine, among other things,
evidence,” the report states. degraded the Upper Bosque and also found that “the dairy whether phosphorus levels are
“…The more intensively River and the creeks of the industry emerges as the major within an acceptable range (less
utilized sub-watersheds Upper Bosque, which show contributor to nutrient load- than 200 parts per million).66
consistently exhibit elevated, increased microbe levels and ing.”62 In particular, TIAER However Texas regulations do
but not always statistically increased phosphorus. The scientists found elevated not necessarily prohibit the land
significant, nutrient and oxygen Texas Institute for Applied phosphorus levels specifically application of manure in cases
demanding parameters.”59 Environmental Research associated with fields where where the phosphorus bench-
While the study fell short of (TIAER) at Tarleton State animal waste had been ap- mark has been exceeded. If
confirming a direct link University began to test sites in plied.63 that occurs, a CAFO may
between the application of the North Bosque River Texas regulations limit continue to apply manure as
poultry litter and the degrada- watershed above Hico, Texas application of manure and
tion of Big Cypress Creek or for fecal coliform in 1995. lagoon effluent to land based
...continued on 11
Texas Agencies Slow to Demand that
Smith Farms Egg Facility Get Proper Permits to Pollute
Smith Farms, Inc., is a large egg- Smith Farms did not honor that date to for its first permit and paid a $10,000 fine
layer poultry CAFO that has operated in make a formal written response. Instead for water quality violations to the TNRCC.12
Flatonia, Texas for several decades. In representatives from Smith Farms and the Although this outcome satisfied the
1984 Smith Farms proposed a plan to the TWC met on June 24, 1993. During the TNRCC, the Texas Department of Health sent
Texas Department of Water Resources (an meeting Smith Farms promised to correct a letter to TNRCC during the public com-
agency which later became part of the the violations, however the company argued ment period for the permit application,
Texas Water Commission and then the that it was not required to obtain a permit warning of the outstanding health-related
TNRCC) to house up to 228,000 laying because of its exemption from permitting issues to the operation of Smith Farms.13
hens in six buildings and utilize a liquid under the 1984 rules. It requested that the Community members from Flatonia also
(lagoon) waste system.1 Under depart- permit requirement be rescinded in lieu of a filed their concerns with the TNRCC.
mental policy at that time, such facilities Waste Management Plan which the company The Commission replied to both the
required no formal approval or permit to promised to submit by October 1, 1993. 8
Texas Department of Health and the citizens
operate and Smith Farms was advised to Smith Farms did not keep its promise that their comments had not demonstrated
continue with their plan.2 and the Plan was never submitted. The “technical merit” and that the Smith Farms
However, when Smith Farms pro- agency did not act again until April 1994, permit application met all the requirements
posed an expansion of their facilities in when TNRCC (having replaced TWC as the for issuance.14 Unknown to the public,
1987, the agency notified the CAFO that regulatory agency) revisited Smith Farms. however, was that TNRCC facilitated the
regulatory changes now required the Inspectors noted illegal waste discharges approval of the permit despite the fact that
company to apply for a permit. The off-site, a pile of improperly disposed dead Smith Farms had submitted an incomplete
agency asked Smith Farms to submit an chickens on the property, and offensive application.
application and also provided a copy of odors.9 The same month, TNRCC investi- According to TNRCC documents, Smith
the rules, a permit application, and other gated another Farms “failed to
informational materials to the company.3 complaint at the submit the
The agency did not follow-up its facility and minimum informa-
request until May 1989, when the Texas discovered tion required for
Water Commission (TWC) conducted an illegal dis- processing under
inspection of Smith Farms in response to charges onto the new rules”
a citizen complaint about a discharge from adjacent (Subchapter K).15
the lagoon.4 TWC sent another copy of property as well But rather than
the rules to Smith Farms and gave the as noxious return the applica-
CAFO a deadline of October 1, 1989 to odors. 10
tion as incomplete,
submit the application.5 Smith Farms did On June 1, the agency
not reply. 1994, a request “decided…we will
The agency did not take action on the for enforcement process [the
delinquent permit until four years later, on action was made application] under
March 2, 1993, when it investigated yet against Smith the old rules which
another illegal discharge complaint. Farms. The allow for a longer
Inspectors found the facility in violation of enforcement period of time for
regulations, discharging excess waste into action request review as well as
Chicken truck hauls its load across East Texas backroads.
a second unlined pond which was cited three allows more
overflowing manure waste onto neighbor- major violations and detailed Smith Farms’ flexibility on the part of the applicant
ing property.6 The TWC issued a Notice history of non-compliance. However, the documentation.”16 On November 1, 1996,
of Violation to Smith Farms on May 3, formal enforcement order was not issued TNRCC authorized the air and water quality
1993 and requested that corrective action until May 12, 1995—almost a full year permit for Smith Farms.17
be taken, as well as a permit application later.11 After operating illegally for almost a
be filed, by June 4, 1993.7 decade, Smith Farms finally agreed to apply
A sustainable animal production operation is
one that maintains an environmentally and
economically sound balance between the
resources it uses, the output it produces, and
the waste that results. In other words, in a
sustainable livestock production system,
success is not measured simply by profit.
Sustainable livestock production is an alternative to
standard production methods which provides a reason-
Rather, the operator also considers quality of
able rate of return to the farmer while taking into account life issues, environmental issues, and animal
the impacts that livestock operations have on local welfare issues when making production
communities and the environment. To be sustainable, an decisions.
intensive livestock operation must consider the availabil-
ity of resources (feed, land, water), the ability of the contribute to illness by exposing people to wastes and
environment to safely absorb wastes, human and animal pathogens in their drinking water. Finally, the misuse of
health concerns, and the direct effect that the operation antibiotics in animal production systems results in the
will have on the local community. development of antibiotic-resistant pathogens which may
In its current form, the CAFO industry is not sustain- be passed through the food chain to humans.
able. Here are some reasons why: Negative impact on local communities
communities: CAFOs that
Overstocking and envir onmental contamination
environmental contamination: In contaminate air and water resources have a direct impact
the days of small “Mom and Pop” farms, it was natural to on the health and well-being of nearby communities. At
let animals dispose of their waste on farm land as a way the same time, odors from CAFOs can drive down property
to supply cheap fertilizer to the soil. Now, however, the values5 and force some long-time residents to leave, as
higher concentration of animals in CAFOs means waste noted in this report. And the evidence is unclear whether
(especially nitrogen and phosphorus) is generated and CAFOs really do enhance the local economy. Larger, more
cycled in excess through the air, water, and land, mechanized farms may actually worsen community
overburdening the ecosystem’s capacity to utilize it. For conditions because they may hire migratory agricultural
example, the amount of land needed to efficiently workers for low wages6 (and with no promise of adequate
distribute the manure generated in a typical intensive housing), purchase feed and supplies outside of the local
cattle feedlot is 1000 times larger than the feedlot itself.1 area (thereby draining economic resources away from the
Most CAFOs do not have this much land available for community), and eventually drive out family farms that can
manure application, so the excess may be over-applied to no longer compete.7
a smaller area. To make matters worse, there are few What could be expected from a sustainable livestock
national and state regulations that set specific require- production system? It can be envisioned as an integrated
ments for applying manure on land.2 Texas regulations and holistic approach: human labor and resources are
state that land application of wastewater from lagoons substituted for capital and commercial inputs; externalities
“shall not exceed the nutrient uptake of the crop cover- such as pollution ‘costs’ are considered and weighed
age,” however this amount is calculated on a case-by- against the economic benefits (i.e. profit) of the facility;
case basis.3 And waste application may still exceed crop stocking densities do not compromise animal health and
requirements if a CAFO submits a “Nutrient Utilization well-being; waste production does not exceed the nutrient-
Plan” which justifies its waste management practices.4 absorbing capacity of the surrounding land or jeopardize
Human health impacts
impacts: Industries that pose water quality; forage crops are grown on-site or nearby to
significant threats to human health are not sustainable. promote self-sufficiency and less reliance on outside feed
The health impacts of CAFOs can be seen at many levels. shipments; and rural communities are strengthened and
Dust and odors contribute to respiratory problems in empowered. Given the commitment and the will, livestock
workers and nearby residents. Contamination from runoff producers have the resources and knowledge to begin this
or lagoon leakage degrades water resources and can transition to sustainability today.
Hog barns on the high plains.
...continued from 8 started operations before high, but residents throughout typically lined with compacted
September 1, 1993 may still do the Panhandle believe man local clay, which may also be
so.69 The land throughout the made holes, soil cracking, and subject to cracking. “A clay
long as it submits a nutrient Panhandle is also perforated seepage from the playa lakes lined lagoon is nothing but
utilization plan “to assure that with incompletely plugged represent a significant threat to packed dirt they pulled out of
the beneficial use of manure is wells, test holes, oil and gas the aquifer. “The playa lake the hole,” said Barbara
conducted in a manner that wells, and other borings. These system up here recharges the Philipps.73 Members of
prevents phosphorus impacts to act as man-made recharge Ogallala,” said Jeanne ACCORD have asked that
water quality…”67 In other features for the Ogallala. Gramstorff of ACCORD. CAFOs build lagoons to a
words, the current regulatory There have been few Gramstorff worries about much higher standard, with
mechanism for controlling studies of groundwater in the seepage into the aquifer from synthetic (rather than in situ
nitrogen and phosphorus runoff High Plains. One study cracking in the playa reservoirs. clay) liners, leak detection and
from CAFOs into Texas conducted for the feedlot “When that soil cracks there is ground water monitoring.74
waterways is sufficiently weak industry found nitrate-nitrogen no bottom. When the clay
T
as to permit ongoing phospho- concentrations beneath feedlots cracks, it cracks all the way,” Regulatory Environment
rus contamination even in areas that ranged from 0.25 to 9.1 potentially allowing waste to he most important
that already exceed the state’s milligrams per liter, all below seep down into the Ogallala. environmental controls
phosphorus benchmark. state and federal standards for In addition, members of that apply to industrial
F
public drinking water (10 mg/ ACCORD have reported waste meat producers arise out
The Ogallala Aquifer L). While the study found the runoff from hog barns flowing of the 1972 Federal Clean
eedlots and hog well water to be generally into a local drainage ditch. Water Act, which requires
operations frequently good, it noted “potential “[Dean Paul] had a pipe a National Pollution Discharge
locate near the numer- elevated nitrate from possible dumping into a ditch running Elimination System (NPDES)
ous “playa” lakes that seepage from a playa used for alongside the road,” said Pat permit for all “point source”
dot the High Plains. runoff collection” into water Peckenpaugh, another AC- polluters. Confined animal
Playa lakes are large, supply wells between 100 and CORD member. “We tested it feeding operations, including
circular natural 200 feet of the aquifer sur- and it was full of feces. When beef feedlots are regulated by
depressions where face.70 In a follow-up study, he applied to expand [his the Environmental Protection
water collects and seeps slowly J.M. Sweeten found no statisti- facilities], we protested. Mr. Agency as “point source”
down into the Ogallala Aquifer, cally significant evidence of Vasquez [one of the Commis- polluters under the Clean
the major source of both contamination beneath two sioners] stood up for this Water Act.75 Traditionally,
drinking and irrigation waters cattle feedlots located 270-320 violation, and he took the pipe federal and state regulators
for the region.68 Until 1993, feet above the water table.71 out. But there’s an erosion have implemented this Act by
operators could use the playa In general, industry studies there now and water still runs requiring permits for the on-
lakes as retention ponds for emphasize that the quality of down from the barns.”72 site waste containment system
wastewater, and those who water in the Ogallala remains The lagoons themselves are ...continued on 13
There is growing concern over the consequences of over-use of agencies failed to respond. In January 1999 the US Food and Drug
antibiotics in livestock operations. Persistent use of antibiotics leads Administration (FDA) proposed a policy for addressing the growing
to the development of resistance in bacterial populations. Once a concern over antibiotic use in food animals.9 Unfortunately, the
particular type of bacteria has developed resistance to an antibiotic, proposed framework was weak on two key points:
that antibiotic can no longer be used to combat the infectious ! It focused mainly on evaluating new drug approvals while
organism. ignoring the millions of pounds of approved antibiotics that are
In livestock industries, farm operators not only treat their already used for livestock production on a regular basis.
animals with antibiotics for disease, but they also add antibiotics to ! It did not sufficiently address the risk of antibiotic resis-
the feed to promote growth. This long-term overuse of antibiotics in tance.
livestock production is now contributing to the development of The FDA proposed a category and ranking system for antibiotics
resistant pathogens. This poses a problem for managing animal based in part on each drug’s relative importance in human medi-
health, and it also may impact human health—
antibiotic resistance can be passed between Researchers have published
different types of bacteria and may therefore create disturbing reports that antibiotic
resistance to antibiotics that humans depend on. resistance in Salmonella and
The US produces approximately 50 million Campylobacter, two human
pathogens, is on the rise. Evidence
pounds of antibiotics each year and 40% of that is
mounts that these resistant
given to animals, usually as a feed additive to bacteria can be passed from
promote growth.1 More and more evidence shows, c h i c ke n s a n d p i g s t o h u m a n s
however, that infectious bacteria are quickly through the food chain.
developing resistance to even the newest, most
powerful antibiotics. Researchers have published
disturbing reports that antibiotic resistance in
Salmonella and Campylobacter, two human
antibiotic
pathogens, is on the rise2 and evidence is mount-
ing that these resistant bacteria can be passed from
chickens and pigs to humans through the food
chain.3 This poses a great health risk to the human
population because it makes it easier for humans resistance
to become infected with resistant pathogens for
which there are few effective treatment options. cine. The most important drugs are those which treat serious
It takes years to develop, test and gain approval for new diseases in humans and for which there is no alternative cure—
antibiotic drugs. So while pharmaceutical companies are slowly these are listed as “Category 1” antibiotics. However, the FDA’s
developing potent new classes of antibiotics, resistance is develop- proposal would allow even some Category 1 antibiotics to be used
ing at a rate faster than the drug companies can develop replace- in livestock as long as the level of resistance that develops does not
ments. For example, within the last few years there has been an exceed a given “threshold” level.10 Many people fear that even a
emergence of bacteria resistant to vancomycin—a last defense drug limited use of Class 1 antibiotics will increase the chance that
for some illnesses, including deadly blood infections and pneumo- bacteria will develop resistance. When that happens, it may be too
nia caused by Staphylococcus bacteria4 —and there is evidence that late to preserve the effectiveness of these important life-saving
resistant bacteria may have been passed to humans in the meat drugs in human medicine.
products from livestock who were fed a similar antibiotic for growth As an alternative, the National Research Council has reported
purposes.5 Likewise, a rise in antibiotic-resistant Campylobacter that adopting simple production changes such as lowering stocking
infections in humans has occurred in conjunction with the increased densities (less overcrowding), controlling stress, and improving
use of new classes of antibiotics such as the fluoroquinolones in hygiene could reduce the need for antibiotics without affecting
animal production.6 output.11 And now a broad coalition of environmental, farm, and
As early as 1969, policy makers in other countries were calling public health groups are endorsing a new bill introduced to the US
for an end to the use of certain antibiotics as growth promoters in Congress (H.R. 3266) which would limit the sub-therapeutic use of
livestock.7 In 1997, the World Health Organization issued a report certain antibiotics in livestock.12
re-emphasizing those recommendations,8 yet livestock regulatory
...continued from 11 least 1,056,151 pounds.77 owner for his defense against ensure the safety of local
This does not take into the lawsuit—even if the owner drinking water sources.
account other illegally dis- loses.78 But in 1995, Texas
of CAFOs above a certain size,
charging CAFO facilities for In 1997 the Texas Legisla- “streamlined” the state permit
but not for small operations or
which TNRCC has not taken ture passed an amendment to process. The TNRCC passed
off-site land application of
enforcement action. And in the law which shielded CAFOs new CAFO regulations (the
waste even if that application
one case of an illegally operat- from nuisance suits even if they Subchapter K rules) that
may result in increased nutrient
ing poultry CAFO in Central expand their facilities. It consolidated air and water
load or other contamination of
East Texas, TNRCC’s failure to defined certain expansions permits and created a “more
local waterways. Yet many
act swiftly and severely— (addition of pens, barns, etc.) as efficient and objective public
community and environmental
despite its knowledge of the “agricultural improvements” notice and comment procedure
groups say that these layers of
facility’s violations—allowed and declared that “[s]uch an based on consideration of only
regulation fail to protect either
the CAFO to pollute nearby improvement does not consti- qualified issues that have
the environment or human
property for almost a decade tute a nuisance.”79 Because the ‘technical merit.’”80 This
health because enforcement is
without penalty (see sidebar, Right to Farm Act eliminates change effectively eliminated
lax, water quality monitoring is
page 15). neighbors’ ability to bring a the ability of local communities
rare, and states have little staff
nuisance action to protect their to contest permits for new hog,
to devote to feedlot programs.76
Elimination of Common Law rights to use and enjoy their chicken and feedlot operations
Technically speaking,
Nuisance Actions own property, neighbors must springing up around them by
Texas environmental laws
Because CAFO operating rely upon the TNRCC to requiring members of the
prohibit the direct discharge of
guidelines are inadequate in protect their rights. The public to demonstrate the
any animal waste into Texas
Texas, CAFOs often adversely TNRCC’s failure to require “technical merit” of their case
waterways except during a
affect their neighbors by CAFOs to operate in compli- before they could even begin to
chronic or catastrophic rain
causing severe odors, manure ance with the law and with pursue such a case. It also
event. If these regulations were dust plumes, and surface water respect for their neighbors is instituted a “permit-by-rule”
adequate in scope and strictly contamination. Traditionally, therefore even more egregious. system rather than individual
monitored, Texans should these neighbors could have permits. “Permit-by-rule”
expect to see little CAFO- brought a common law nui- Threats to Public Participation generally allows a facility to get
related contamination in the sance action to try to recover in Decision-making a permit if it meets the require-
state’s water sources. money damages or to get a Until 1995, Texas required ments set out in the rule. There
The regulations do not, court order requiring the CAFO each new CAFO above a is no consideration of site-
however, ensure that CAFOs to stop causing the nuisance. certain size to obtain separate specific issues or local protests
will discharge only during As a further hindrance to individual water and air for individual facilities.
chronic or catastrophic rainfall environmental protection, pollution permits from the state. Shortly after enactment of
events. Standard manure however, the state legislature As part of this permit process, Subchapter K, Texas Farm Inc.,
management practices can lead passed a “Right to Farm” bill in people affected by the new a subsidiary of Nippon Meat
to discharges and subsequent 1981, which virtually elimi- facility (usually neighbors) Packers Inc. of Osaka, Japan,
water contamination under nates the nuisance liability of could formally contest the sought authorization of a new
normal operating circum- agricultural operations, includ- permit and ask for a quasi- 249,600 head hog operation in
stances. The TNRCC implicitly ing CAFOs, for nuisances after judicial hearing before an Ochiltree County. Active
acknowledged this fact when it the facilities have been permit- impartial judge. During such a Citizens Concerned Over
estimated that its 1999 enforce- ted for a year. It also requires hearing, members of the public Resource Development
ment actions reduced water the complainant to pay all could directly question appli- (ACCORD) attempted to
contamination from illegally attorney fees and other legal cants and negotiate changes to contest the permit under the
discharged manure waste by at costs incurred by the CAFO the permit to reduce odors or new rule.
ACCORD members, many US Fish and Wildlife Service
of them farmers, and other also submitted comments on
residents of the county sent the rules, expressing concern
dozens of letters to TNRCC that “the proposed rules do not
protesting the permit based on appear to consider the potential
concerns about the noxious cumulative impacts on waters
smells, increased flies and within the state from multiple
airborne diseases, depletion of CAFOs permitted within the
the Ogallala Aquifer and same watershed.”89
contamination of Kiowa, Texas rules allow hog and other CAFOs to dispose of waste by spray irrigation onto TNRCC does not have a
Gilhula and Wolf Creeks, crops, a system which neighbors believe creates heavy odor problems and strong record of addressing the
problems with the proposed environmentalists believe encourages runnoff into surface waters. cumulative impacts of multiple
lagoon system (including CAFOs. Several years earlier,
concerns that the lagoons were [emphasis added].83 The be rainfall events that exceed
TNRCC began designating
too small), inadequacy of the revisions allow CAFOs to the capacity of the retention
Dairy Outreach Program Areas
proposed buffer zone, and “register” with TNRCC as long system. For us, this would
(DOPAs) in eight counties of
decreased land values adjoining as they meet the requirements result in pollution of Kelly
the state, including the Bosque
the facility. Many people also of the Subchapter B rules. In Creek and Greenbelt
and Lake Fork watersheds—
felt that this facility would only general, individual permits are Lake…Pollution could also
areas where water quality
compound the problems not required unless a CAFO occur as a result of the cata-
degradation has already been
associated with existing hog cannot meet the provisions of strophic failure of the lagoon,
linked to CAFO operations—in
facilities in the area.81 the permit-by-rule registra- particularly during dry weather
an attempt to address the
TNRCC responded tion.84 TNRCC made this seasons when a highly concen-
‘cumulative impacts’ of dairies.
that all the complaints in the revision, as well as others, trated stream of pollutants
However, the program has done
letters lacked “technical merit” despite much public opposition would then enter the surface
little to limit the expansion of
under Subchapter K, and to the new rules. water body resulting in
new or existing dairies in the
authorized the hog facility. The Greenbelt Municipal pollution of the drinking water
impacted areas. Instead, it
ACCORD appealed the and Industrial Water Authority supply.”86 Despite the
merely requires that smaller
TNRCC’s grant of the permit in (Greenbelt) submitted lengthy Authority’s concerns, the
dairies (300 to 1000+ head)
district court. A judge ruled for comments to TNRCC regarding TNRCC’s adopted final rules
obtain permits to operate and
ACCORD and declared this the proposed rule changes. did not include provisions for
that owner/operators complete
permit “invalid.” The District Greenbelt is located at surface water quality buffer
8 hours of animal waste
Judge found that the commis- Greenbelt Lake in the Pan- zones. The commission
management training every two
sion lacked “reasoned justifica- handle, near the convergence of determined that to consider
years.90
tion” to adopt Subchapter K.82 several creeks which provide such a request, it would have to
US Fish and Wildlife
Specifically, the Judge ex- the sole source of potable water substantially change the
expressed particular concern
pressed concern about the new to five member cities.85 Large proposed rules. Rather than do
about Tierra Blanca Creek, an
rules’ elimination of contested manure lagoons at CAFOs that, it elected to have the
intermittent waterway in the
case hearings. The six specific upstream of these drinking executive director “study” the
Panhandle, which flows into
permits-by-rule mentioned in water sources and wildlife areas issue and “provide a recom-
Buffalo Lake National Wildlife
the lawsuit were invalidated by threaten public health and the mendation to the commission”
Refuge in Randall County—
the judgment. The status of the environment if the lagoons leak after the adoption of the
and is also home to a large
approximately 60 other or spill. Expressing fears that rules.87 Later, TNRCC
number of cattle feedlots.
Subchapter K permits-by-rule the current regulations were too suggested that its implementa-
During the 1960s and 1970s
that were issued prior to the weak, Greenbelt asked the tion of Texas House Bill 801
several fish kills, attributed to
Judge’s ruling is unclear. TNRCC to modify its proposed (1999)—requiring individual
surface water runoff from cattle
Shortly after the ruling, the rules to create water quality permits for CAFOs located
feedlots upstream, occurred at
TNRCC enacted new revisions buffer zones to protect surface near sole source drinking water
Buffalo Lake within the
to the existing CAFO regula- water used for a municipal supplies—would address
Refuge.91 According to US Fish
tions, known as Subchapter B water supply. Greenbelt’s concerns.88
and Wildlife, poor water quality
rules, which essentially “The provision that the
and reduction in flow in Tierra
sidestepped the court ruling by required retention system be TNRCC Ignores
Blanca Creek resulted in the
offering “authorization by designed to contain the runoff Cumulative Impacts
eventual disappearance of the
individual permit or by regis- from a twenty-five year, Opposition to TNRCC’s
twenty-four hour rainfall event proposed regulatory changes
tration under a permit-by-rule”
virtually assures that there will extended beyond Texas. The
...continued on 16
asked if these products were truly natural and produced
without antibiotics or hormones, we were told that they
were. In fact, Pilgrim’s Pride and Sanderson Farms
operate large, vertically integrated, conventionally
managed CAFOs in Texas and do not make any antibiotic
or hormone claims for their products. Two other clerks
informed us that they sold a Morningstar Farms frozen
to the factory organic meat product when in fact they were referring to
alternatives farm Morningstar’s veggie burgers which are neither organic
nor contain any meat at all. Neighborhood supermarkets
clearly are not providing many options or adequate facts
on existing sustainably-produced meat for consumers to
make informed decisions.
On the other hand, specialty stores such as Whole
Foods or local co-operative markets do tend to carry one
or more types of “natural” meat such as Laura’s Lean Beef,
what is meat? Peterson’s Pork, or Buddy’s Chicken, all of which make
‘natural’
claims of limited or no antibiotic and hormone use during
production. However, the employees at these stores are
just as likely to be misinformed about the various products
and production methods as their chain supermarket
counterparts. For example, two stores informed us
Consumers Union SWRO conducted a phone survey incorrectly that they sold organic meats when in fact they
of 28 major chain grocery stores and specialty food stores do not. In one case, a Fort Worth store specializing in
throughout Texas to determine whether organic and/or organic produce and “natural meats” told us they sold
sustainably-produced meat1 is readily available in Texas organic beef. When we asked if the cattle had been fed
supermarkets. We found that while nationwide consumer only organic grain (as is generally required for “organic”
interest in sustainably-produced meat is growing, very few status), they assured us that the meat—Spring Creek Beef
stores in Texas (other than “natural foods” specialty from northeast Texas—was organic. A trip to the
stores) carry it, and no stores currently sell “certified company’s webpage, however, shows that while the cattle
organic (by)” meat.2 are produced without antibiotics and hormones (i.e.
Consumers Union phoned major supermarket chain “natural”), they are not fed organic feed and therefore do
stores (supermarkets) and local or chain “natural foods” not produce organic meat. In the other case, a specialty
specialty stores (specialty stores) in ten Texas cities to ask store clerk in San Antonio assured us that they carried a
whether they carried organic or “natural” meats. brand of organic beef. However, the product sold, B3R
Sustainably-produced pork was not available in any of the Beef, is not organically produced and the company makes
major supermarket stores that we surveyed. Only four no claim to do so. Finally, a specialty store in Corpus
major supermarkets carried any other “natural,” antibiotic- Christi initially told us that they sold organic meat, but,
and hormone-free meat, and choices were limited to either upon further questioning, conceded that they sold only
Laura’s Lean Beef or Buddy’s Natural Chicken. In addition, “natural” meat products. In addition, the clerk incorrectly
in three of these stores we were mistakenly told that they listed Pilgrim’s Pride chicken among the available
carried “organic” beef when in fact the clerks were antibiotic- and hormone-free products sold at the store.
referring to various brands of “natural” (antibiotic/ So while consumers with access to specialty stores in
hormone-free)—but not organic—beef. some cities may be able to purchase sustainably produced
We found that most supermarket employees were meats, there is no guarantee that they will receive the
misinformed about organic and natural meat products. correct information about the products they are buying.
Several meat department clerks incorrectly informed us Consumers need clearer meat labeling and more accurate
that they sold “natural” meats in their stores, namely information from grocery providers before they can benefit
Pilgrim’s Pride and Sanderson Farms chicken. When fully from the meat choices available.
...continued from 14
lake, but the watershed still period.”92 US Fish and and eliminate duplication cumulative or individual
supports an endangered species, Wildlife recommended that the between Federal and State permitted discharges from
the bald eagle. “If a storm agency adopt stricter capacity requirements. Finalized in June CAFOs might result in or
occurs in this watershed that requirements for wastewater of 1999, the CAFO regulations contribute to violations of state
exceeds current wastewater retention systems that are in Texas now implement both water quality standards.”95
retention system designs, it located in watersheds with federal and state environmental TNRCC responded that “for
would be expected that the multiple CAFOs.93 TNRCC laws in a single permit process. those Texas waters that are
stream would receive inflow of failed to address the cumulative The new rules require few currently maintaining their
untreated wastewater from impacts issue in the final changes to the operation of approved water quality stan-
multiple CAFOs. In turn, based adopted rules. existing facilities, unless they dards, there is little, if any,
on the language of the proposed In September of 1998, want to expand or otherwise verifiable evidence that CAFO
general permit, the National EPA officially delegated make a major change to the management practices and
Wildlife Refuge could possibly NPDES permit authority to operation.94 Despite EPA’s discharges…permitted under
receive up to 22,000,000 Texas regulators as part of a delegation of permit authority existing EPA and Texas
gallons of raw, untreated national program designed to to Texas, the federal agency rules…have caused or contrib-
wastewater in a given 24-hour streamline the permit process “expressed concerns that the uted to impairment of aquatic
Texas to introduce organic meat standards

Consumers today cannot readily discern from the label if fresh the federal organic rule is formally adopted, meat production
cuts of beef, chicken or pork come from a farm that uses sustainable continues to be regulated, if at all, by state law or voluntarily through
growing methods. Although the FDA recently began to allow meat organic certification agencies.
producers to seek certification as “organic” from a number of Currently, 33 private and 11 state certifying entities, including
certifying agencies, Consumers Union SWRO found that “organic”- Texas’ Department of Agriculture (TDA), provide organic certification
labeled meat is rarely available on the grocery store shelves (See for grain and produce.5 Texas law requires that organic producers
sidebar). Instead, many producers who have rejected or moved away obtain certification through the state or a private certifying entity.6
from industrial meat practices label their meat “natural,” a term that Currently, two private organic certifiers are accredited in Texas7 and
has little or no real meaning. In order to create and support a viable they may certify Texas organic producers as long as their certifica-
market for meat produced in a sustainable manner, Texas needs tion standards meet, at a minimum, the TDA standards.8 Therefore
significant labeling reforms, as well as the expansion of alternative Texas consumers can be reasonably assured that when they buy
markets where producers can sell directly to consumers. “organic”-labeled grain and produce, they are getting a “certified
With concerns about the environment and the sustainability of organic” product.
our food system, more consumers are demanding organically However, the certification and marketing of organic animal
produced vegetables and meat. Over the past 2 decades, total retail products (meat, poultry, eggs, dairy, etc.) is not as well-defined.
organic food sales have risen from $178 million in 1980 to $6 Without any state or federal organic livestock rules in place, animal
billion in 1999.1 In 1990, Congress passed the Organic Foods products have not been allowed to use the word “organic” in their
Production Act (OFPA), which established a National Organic label. This has impeded the marketing of alternatively-produced
Standards Board to address issues related to crop and livestock meat and dairy products to conscientious consumers, many of
standards, labeling and packaging, certifier accreditation and whom are willing to pay a price premium for “organic”-labeled food.
international issues. After lengthy consideration, the Board made In the face of this restriction, a complicated and confusing
recommendations to the USDA in 1996. When the USDA published alternative—the “natural” meat label—has come into use. Unfortu-
a substantially weaker national organic standards rule in December nately for consumers, the term “natural” is so loosely defined by
1997, over 275,000 comments, largely critical, were submitted and USDA that virtually all fresh cuts of meat and poultry qualify as
USDA postponed finalizing the rule.2 USDA did not act again until “natural.” Specifically, the Food Safety and Inspection Service
March 2000 when it announced its revised proposal for national (FSIS) of the USDA defines a “natural” meat product as one that
organic standards.3 Unlike the 1997 version, the new proposal more “contains no artificial ingredients” and is “not more than minimally
closely follows the recommendations of the National Organic processed.”9 This would apply to most fresh meat and eggs,
Standards Board, including prohibiting antibiotic use, requiring whether they have been produced conventionally, organically, or
100% organic feed, and providing for more spacious and sustainable through sustainable practices. In fact, “natural” meat producers may
rearing conditions (i.e. no continual confinement).4 However, until regularly use antibiotics and hormones for all aspects of production
life uses.”96 however, no research has been in protecting Texas’ natural
However, TNRCC agreed completed and the study resources. The rules still allow
to conduct a “comprehensive remains in the planning stages. operators to dispose of liquid
study” in cooperation with the The new rules do take waste by spray irrigation onto
EPA, Texas Parks and Wildlife some small steps toward crops, a system which many
Department, and the United improving CAFO regulation. environmentalists believe
States Fish and Wildlife Service They require applicants to encourages run-off, and they
in which they would perform submit a pollution prevention continue to use nitrogen as the
data analysis, modeling, and plan, require short buffer limiting nutrient.99 The rules do
instream sampling of at least distances between facilities and not require lagoons to be
two distinct areas of Texas. well water supplies, and restrict covered or require filters for
TNRCC would then use the the night-time application of barns that blow hog and
results to determine “what manure.98 chicken odors out into the
changes, if any, should be made Many residents and community. Despite the
in Subchapter B at its re- environmental groups feel that possibility that high levels of
newal.”97 As of March 2000, the rules do not go far enough manure dust or organic com-
yet still legally market their meat as “natural” under this definition. announced that until a national standard for organic meat and poultry
As a result, producers who adhere to a variety of alternative production is established, it will allow certified organic meat
production practices have come up with even more label claims to producers to market and label their products as “certified organic by
distinguish their products from conventionally produced meat. For (a certifying entity).”11 This is a first step in providing consumers
example, claims such as “raised without added hormones,” “no more choices in the meat products they buy, although “organic”-
antibiotics used in raising,” and “no subtherapeutic antibiotics labeled meat has yet to appear in the supermarket.
used in feeds” are commonly used by producers to describe the In October 1999, the Organic Trade Association (OTA)—a
“naturalness” of their products.10 1000-member business association of organic growers, processors,
Such varied claims make it difficult for consumers to make certifiers, and others—adopted the American Organic Standards, a
informed decisions at the supermarket. Further complicating the model to provide guidance to the industry. USDA then used OTA’s
matter, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets residue standards as one of its references in developing its new proposed
limits which must be met by all producers, regardless of production organic rules.12 In December 1999, the Texas Department of
methods. Strictly speaking, producers can meet the FDA standard Agriculture also proposed standards for organic livestock production
for allowable residue limits whether they raise their animals in the state.13 The Texas proposal adheres to many of the same
conventionally (regular antibiotic use), organically (no antibiotic guidelines as the national proposed standards, including the
use), or with limited antibiotic use. requirement for 100% organic feed and prohibition of sub-therapeu-
What matters to many consumers is whether the meat they buy tic antibiotic use. And under the proposed national organic rules, a
is produced sustainably in a way that minimizes drug and hormone state’s standards cannot be less restrictive than the federal stan-
additives. Consumers who wish to support sustainable food dards.14 Therefore, the state’s standards will have to comply with the
production practices may find themselves mislead into buying federal regulations once those are in place. Texans will then be
products that do little to address these sustainability issues. For assured that the organic animal products they buy are certified to the
example, a “natural” cut of meat labeled, “No antibiotics adminis- highest standard.
tered 120 days prior to finishing,” means that the producer could The adoption of a unifying national standard for organic produc-
still administer antibiotics to the animal on a routine basis from tion would demonstrate a commitment on behalf of government and
birth until the last 120 days of the animal’s life. While this may the organic industry to expand and promote sustainable livestock
assure the consumer that the meat carries no detectable antibiotic production practices. A strong, standardized “certified organic”
residue at slaughter, the growing practices still allow antibiotic use meat label would boost consumer confidence in alternative meat
for much of the production cycle. Therefore, “natural” label claims products and allow for more informed purchasing. Without such a
do not necessarily provide consumers with sufficient details to standard, conscientious consumers will continue to secondguess
make informed decisions at the supermarket. the meaning of the labels on the meat products they buy.
In January 1999, the Secretary of Agriculture and the FSIS
pounds from manure gases may to first submit a report to an
equally affect people’s health agency “screening committee”
and well being,100 TNRCC does in Austin. The committee, not
not describe or require any the investigator, then deter-
specific odor abatement mines whether to cite the
practices, except to declare that violation or send a warning
CAFOs should operate “in such letter to the CAFO.111 Taken
a manner as to prevent the together, these policies severely
creation of a nuisance or a hinder the agency’s ability to
condition of air pollution” as effectively respond to citizen
described by the state’s Health complaints against CAFO
and Safety Code.101 Nor do odors.
TNRCC rules address the Small, intermittant creek with noticable foam on surface near Pilgrim’s Pittsburg grain National Ambient Air
concern expressed by many elevator in 1999. Quality Standards limit
adjacent landowners that the particulate emissions into the
smell and flies significantly tions. In one case, the TNRCC still be present when the air. If particulate levels in a
devalue their property. complaint report listed the inspector arrives. region of the state often exceed
initial problem as “horrendous No matter how many the standard, it can be desig-
Enforcement: Ignoring odors” which caused the office neighbors call in complaints, nated a nonattainment area and
Odors and Pollution workers to become “nause- TNRCC will not act on an odor must implement procedures to
TNRCC does investigate ated.”104 In another case, the problem unless it is docu- reduce pollution. The standards
odor complaints, however initial problem was described as mented by one of its inspectors. may also be used to estimate
“nuisance” conditions are “nauseating gas odors and On the other hand, if an downwind emissions from a
difficult to document because smoke.”105 In two cases, odors inspector personally observes feedlot during the permit
the assessment of odor is were detected but did not nuisance level odors at a process. Although the particu-
completely subjective. An constitute “nuisance condi- CAFO, he or she cannot cite a late standards apply to feedlots,
investigator responding to a tions” in the opinion of the violation unless a private TNRCC rarely tests the air
complaint has no tools to inspectors.106 In another case, complaint has been filed.109 In around feedlots for compliance,
measure odor intensity—other the odors were unconfirmed, other words, the agency will and when it has the results have
than his own nose—which he but “inspection of the facility knowingly ignore odor viola- been inconclusive in part
uses to quantify the odor on a idicated (sic) the potential for tions until a complaint has been because the dust events are
scale of 1 to 5. In order to issue odor does exist.”107 No formal filed but then demand strict sporadic and vary with weather
a violation, the odor must fall action was taken in any of the verification once a complaint conditions.
under category 5, which is investigated cases because has been made. Yet TNRCC’s To further complicate the
described as an odor that is bad Texas air quality regulations do policy discourages neighbors regulatory framework, TNRCC
enough to make people not provide enforceable, from making repeat complaints does not consider the manure
nauseous or force nearby quantified standards to address if inspectors cannot confirm the dust kicked up under the
residents to stay inside their these kinds of complaints. complaint. Agency policy hooves of cattle to be an
homes. One TNRCC investiga- Compounding this problem states that “[i]f a regional office emission for purposes of
tor in the Panhandle told a are other TNRCC policies concludes that such repeat feedlot compliance with the
National Public Radio reporter which hinder investigation and complaints are without federal Clean Air Act. The
that he only issues violations if response to odor complaints. merit…it may forward a federal Clean Air Act requires a
the odor is strong enough to Because odors are variable and recommendation to Austin “major source” of pollution to
make him sick, and that has dependent upon climactic requesting that response to get a federal permit, but each
never happened.102 The conditions and operating complaints by that individual state determines what kinds of
subjective nature of these procedures, a quick response is against that entity be discontin- emissions will used to define a
investigations makes it difficult necessary to document the ued.”110 “major source.” Currently in
to document nuisance condi- problem. In the instances And, unlike investigations Texas fugitive emissions from
tions and “even more difficult where TNRCC does investigate for all other industries, TNRCC the feedlot surface are not
to litigate successfully except in odor complaints, however, policy does not allow inspec- included. If they were,
the most severe and persistent inspection may take place days tors to cite a CAFO nuisance feedyards as small as 8000 head
cases.”103 For example, poultry or even weeks after the com- violation in the field. Instead, could be considered “major
facilities owned by Tyson Food plaint.108 Because of the the agency has created a sources” of particulates.
Corp. were investigated at least variable nature of odors, it is separate procedure for process- Texas Regulations Lag
four times between 1997 and unlikely that the odors which a ing CAFO odor complaints
1999 for possible odor viola- neighbor complains about will which requires the investigator
Behind Other States Department of Health is
In contrast to Texas, other developing even more stringent
states have implemented more ambient air standards to protect
stringent rules. Recent regula- health and quality of life.126
tory changes in the State of Kentucky has taken the very
Washington authorized the important step of making
environmental agency to livestock corporations jointly
include fugitive emissions from liable for the environmental
feedyards in the emissions performance of the contractors
inventory for federal Clean Air who raise the animals and
Act compliance.112 The manage the waste. In February
Georgia Department of Natural 2000, the Kentucky Governor
Resources recently adopted A neighbor by the intermittant creek has repeatedly complained to the city about the signed emergency regulations
new rules for large swine quality of the creek’s water, but told CU that she has seen no improvement. that require both the animal
operations that include air tight owner and the contract operator
lagoon covers for larger imposed a moratorium on any Vall, Inc.’s waste management to obtain Clean Water Act
facilities, topsoil injection of new operations. The Missis- practices on threatened bird and permits.127 In Texas, the
wastewater rather than spray sippi state legislature enacted a fish species in the area. The individual contract growers, not
irrigation, ground water moratorium on new hog Office of Public Interest the large corporate farms, are
monitoring, and financial CAFOs in June 1998, and in Counsel (OPIC) of the TNRCC held responsible for pollution
responsibility provisions to November 1999, the state recommended that a contested violations, even if the animals
cover the costs of closure and Department of Health recom- case hearing be granted on one are the property of the large
cleanup of the facilities as well mended an extension of the of the permits, but the corporation. Similarly, Texas
as any fines that may be moratorium.118 North Carolina TNRCC’s Executive Director CAFOs are not responsible for
imposed.113 And in North first enacted a moratorium on recommended that the agency contamination caused by
Carolina the state legislature CAFOs in August 1997,119 and deny the hearing request. Both manure and waste if it has been
passed a bill in 1997 which a subsequent bill continued the permits were approved in sold or given away for off-site
directed the state’s Department moratorium.120 Georgia’s August of 1999, within three application.
of Agriculture to develop a plan Board of Natural Resources months of posting notice to the The 76th Legislature—in
to phase out the use of anaero- imposed a moratorium on hog public.123 HB 2—stated that agriculture,
bic lagoons and sprayfields at CAFOs in January 1999 to give This is not surprising given including livestock production,
swine farms.114 Iowa also the state an opportunity to that the TNRCC had already “renews the natural resources
recently passed a law requiring strengthen its regulations.121 established a willingness to of this state” and is a vital part
injection or incorporation of Now that the state has adopted welcome large hog producers to of the state economy. HB 2
manure when applied within new rules requiring lagoon the state—in 1994 the agency directed the state to assess the
750 feet of residences.115 covers and subsoil injection of extended a permit to Premium condition of agriculture and the
Kansas requires CAFOs to waste, the Board has lifted the Standard Farms to house up to role of government, keeping in
apply waste based on the moratorium. 925,000 hogs in one site in mind several state priorities
phosphorus needs of the crops Unlike these states, Texas Dallam County. In 1996 it including the promotion of
if soil samples indicate that welcomes corporate agriculture. issued a permit to Texas Farm Texas agriculture, protection of
phosphorus levels will exceed In contrast to Kentucky, for Inc. for its 249,600 head facility property rights and the “right to
the holding capacity of the soil example, Texas opened its in Ochiltree County. And a few farm,” and infrastructure
within five years.116 And when doors to Vall, Inc. in 1997 and months after approving the Vall development. Supported by the
Vall Inc., a multinational hog issued permits for three hog Inc. permits in 1997, the Texas Farm Bureau, the new
company, tried to set up facilities that would house up to TNRCC permitted another law did not specify that
facilities in Kentucky in 1997, 54,000 swine in Sherman Premium Standard facility in sustainable agricultural
local officials requested—and County in the Panhandle.122 In Dallam County to house almost production is a state priority,
received—a moratorium on 1999 Vall, Inc. applied for two a quarter million pigs.124 nor did it direct the interim
new CAFOs until the legisla- additional permits for facilities While Minnesota has taken committee to balance the needs
ture could meet to review the in Sherman County to house action to safeguard CAFOs’ of factory farming with the
state’s environmental regula- another 97,200 hogs. A nearby neighbors from hydrogen needs of neighboring property
tions.117 tourist ranch submitted public sulfide emissions by applying owners or the environment. The
Several other states have comments opposing one of the strict ambient air standards for interim study will be drafted
found the health and environ- facilities and the US Fish and hydrogen sulfide to CAFOs, this summer with input from
mental threats posed by CAFOs Wildlife Service expressed Texas continues to monitor the the public.
so overwhelming that they have concerns over the impact of situation.125 The Minesota In addition to the lack of
strong environmental regulation of the shareholders and (setbacks) based on proximity
of livestock facilities, the 75th corporate profit. to watersheds, recharge zones,
Texas legislature authorized US Senator Tom Harkin of drinking water sources,
TNRCC to implement a new Iowa, who has supported residential areas, and pristine or
permitting process in which the legislation to restore fairness protected habitats. For larger
agency could authorize one and competition in the livestock CAFOs, setbacks should be at
“general permit” for a region or industry, has said, “The least 2 miles.
for the whole state.128 In this consolidation of our food ! No new CAFOs or
case, most CAFOs would no system into fewer and fewer expansions should be allowed
longer be permitted or regu- hands also poses serious risks in areas that have water bodies
lated individually—instead they to the security and well-being that have already been nega-
could simply file a “notice of of consumers.”130 Consumers tively impacted by CAFO-
intent to operate” under the Union supports efforts to move related pollution (i.e. Clean
general permit that applies to away from a consolidated Water Act 303(d) listed
131
the whole state, stating their corporate food structure and waters—see Table 2).
intention to comply with the toward sustainable food ! TNRCC should also
general conditions set out in production. implement requirements for
that ‘permit.’ There would be Moving toward sustainable groundwater monitoring,
no opportunity to include site- practices in the meat and dairy recordkeeping of monitoring
specific conditions for a industries will require a re- results, and regular inspections
particular facility as is now thinking of current intensive of lagoon structures to locate
possible with an individual animal production practices. possible leakages. Surface
permit. There also would be The necessary changes in waters should also be regularly
little opportunity for public production methods and monitored for bacteria and
comment or a contested case philosophy will not occur pathogens that are carried in
hearing for general permit overnight. However, there are runoff.
facilities. Instead, public short- and long-term measures
comment would only be that CAFO owners and govern-
! The cumulative effects
solicited every five years at the ment agencies such as TNRCC, of multiple CAFOs located in
time that the general permit USDA, and EPA can begin one watershed should be
expires. taking which will make the considered when determining
On March 6, 1998, industry more accountable for how and where CAFOs may
TNRCC issued public notice of public health and environmen- operate. We recommend that
a proposed general permit, a tal protection. TNRCC more stringently
first step in implementing this regulate watersheds that contain
process.129 Many concerned Short-term
Short-term multiple CAFOs before water
quality is negatively impacted
citizens and environmental Recommendations
ecommendations: and actively reduce the concen-
groups submitted comments in Address Water
opposition to the proposal. tration of CAFOs in areas
Quality Concerns where the environmental
TNRCC has left the matter Surface and ground water
pending but is expected to damage has already been done.
quality is at risk whenever
eventually act on its authority ! All waste lagoons
CAFOs are creating more waste
to issue the general permit should be lined to prevent
than the ecosystem can absorb.
Recommendations There are several ways in
seepage. Although lagoons can
Vertically integrated, self-seal, cracks and pores may
which this risk can be lessened:
multi-national agricultural develop over time and increase
! TNRCC should set the risk of groundwater
corporations must balance local 132
more stringent standards for contamination. Liner
public health and environmen-
facilities, including minimum inspection should be included
tal issues against the demands
buffer zone requirements
as part of an annual lagoon ! Eliminate the criteria reuse animal waste for energy or
evaluation since the periodic TNRCC Permits that members of the public fertilizer production.138
lowering of the waste level and Enforcement affected by a new permit or ! Promote alternatives to
results in dry cracks that may TNRCC should implement expansion of an existing permit antibiotics, with the eventual
not reseal properly. stronger regulations. must show the “technical merit” goal of eliminating the use of
! In the case of dry ! Reduce hydrogen of their issues before TNRCC antibiotic feed additives in
manure systems such as those sulfide and ammonia emission will grant them standing to livestock production.
used in beef cattle feedlots, the limits at CAFOs, slaughter- present these issues to an ! Develop educational
dry manure should be covered houses, and rendering plants impartial adjudicator.135 strategies to promote alterna-
and stored in non-permeable and conduct regular monitoring ! Give affected neigh- tives to antibiotic use, such as
structures to prevent runoff. to ensure compliance. improved animal hygiene and
bors opportunity for contested
! Reauthorize field case hearings, especially for
less overcrowding, which can
Address Air Quality Concerns investigators to issue nuisance enhance animal growth and
new facilities or significant
and Odor Problems odor Notices of Violation if well-being without the need for
expansions which pose risks to
Farm managers should they confirm a complaint. intensive drug therapy.
health, the environment, and
implement simple technologies ! Refuse to implement a ! Develop a standard,
the use and enjoyment of
to improve air quality and general permit for all CAFO consumer-friendly label for
adjacent property.
odors near CAFOs. operations. sustainably produced meat and
! Regular sprinkling of dairy products that may not be
! Take into account Long-term
“organic” but represent
feedlots with water can cumulative pollution effects recommendations
recommendations: significant production reforms
significantly diminish the (from multiple CAFOs in one Prioritize and promote re- over the industrial model (for
amount of particulate contami- area), prior violations by the search on innovative and sustain- example, animals that may have
nation in the air without facility in question, and able alternatives to current live- ingested some non-organic feed
affecting animal growth and proximity to residential and stock production methods in but ingested no antibiotics and
performance.133 environmentally sensitive areas Texas, including environmen- did not grow in close confine-
! A layer of straw on top when making permit decisions. tally responsible waste disposal. ment). Such an “eco-label”
of a lagoon absorbs odors until ! Require individual ! Develop new statewide might include a checklist of
a more permanent lagoon cover permits for all facilities housing agricultural priorities that include well-defined sustainable
can be fitted. 1,000 or more animal units and special emphasis on sustainable production practices—for
! An air “scrubber” or for smaller facilities if they are methods for growing animals and example “no antibiotics used
filter, in which dust and located in impaired watersheds, utilizing livestock waste. ever”—which would easily
odorous compounds are have a history of discharging ! Prioritize economic de- inform the consumer about the
removed from the air by pollutants, or have been the velopment of the state’s growing specific production practices
forcing it through a shaft of subject of numerous com- organic farming industry, includ- that were utilized on the farm.
water or soil can decrease plaints. ing organic meat production.
ammonia concentrations in the ! Follow the lead of ! Investigate new meth- Endnotes
air by 97-99% and odor other states and hold corporate 1
U.S. Environmental Pro-
ods to reduce the amonia levels
intensity by 30-80%.134 animal owners jointly respon- tection Agency and U.S. Depart-
in livestock waste and decrease
! Eliminate aerial sible with their contract ammonia released into the atmo- ment of Agriculture, Unified Na-
spraying of liquid manure to growers for the pollution tional Strategy for Animal Feed-
application fields tp reduce created by CAFOs. sphere.136 ing Operations (March 9, 1999),
odor. ! Direct more attention ! Encourage the develop- Sec. 2(1), p. 6.
! Direct waste injection to monitoring and enforcing ment and use of composting sys-
2
Texas Agricultural Statis-
into the soil or application with existing laws, including swift tems that help eliminate odor and tics Service, “Texas Cattle Op-
a spreader, turning it in, limits response to evidence of non- break down animal waste into a erations by Size 1999.” Internet
potential dispersion to water- compliance and illegal pollu- safe and useful agricultural prod- source: http://www.io.com/~tass/
ways and surrounding areas tion discharges and assessment uct.137 size.gif (printed March 27,
while reducing odors. of adequate penalties against ! Investigate systems that 2000).
3
non-compliant facilities. Texas Agricultural Statis-
tics Service, “Texas Cattle and Service). Rate Study Final Report— Service).
10 21
Calves on Feed in 1,000+ Capac- McFarland, Anne M.S. Executive Summary (Stephen F. Barker, J.C., S. C.
ity Feedlots,” (March 17, 2000). and John M. Sweeten, “Odor Austin State University and Hodges, and C.R. Campbell,
Internet source: http:// Assessment of Open Lot Angelina & Neches River “Livestock Manure Production
www.io.com/~tass/tcatcofd.htm. Dairies,” Presented at the 1993 Authority, 1996), pp. 8-10. Rates and Nutrient Content,”
16
Auvermann, Brent, T. and International Winter Meeting of TNRCC, Poultry in: 2000 North Carolina
Arturo Romanillos, Effect of the ASAE, Paper No. 934553 Operations Study (1999), p. 7; Agricultural Chemicals
Stocking Density Manipulation (ASAE: St. Joseph, Michigan, Young, J.L., M. Chang, M.C. Manual, Chapter 10 (North
on Fugitive PM Emisions December 14-17, 1993), p. 2. Chochran, & L.L. Whiteside, Carolina State University,
10 11
from Cattle Feedyards, Texas Texas Natural Resource Poultry Litter Land Application 2000), p. 1. (Based on output
Agricultural Experiment and Conservation Commission, Rate Study Final Report— by an average weight—800
Station, unpublished paper for Office of Water Resource Executive Summary (Stephen F. pound—beef animal.)
22
conference presentation June, Management, Water Quality Austin State University and Texas Agricultural Statis-
2000. Division, Poultry Operations Angelina & Neches River tics Service, “Hogs and Pigs: In-
4
Texas Agricultural Study: Report to the 76th Session Authority, 1996), p. 5. ventory of All Hogs Breeding
17
Statistics Service, “1998 Hog & of the Texas Legislature ( TNRCC, Poultry and Market, December 1, 1998-
Pig District Estimates.” Publication SFR-65, January 15, Operations Study (1999), 99.” Internet source: http://
Internet source: http:// 1999), Appendix B: pp. 60-61. Appendix C, p. 4. www.io.com/~tass/thoginv.htm.
12 18
www.io.com/~tass/ctyhogs.htm Bremner, Alan and Mac Environmental Defense, (Average of January 1998 and
(printed March 27, 2000). Johnston, ed., Poultry Meat “Environmental Defense January 1999 inventories.)
5 23
U.S. Environmental Hygiene and Inspection (WB Scorecard” (2000). Internet Barker, J.C., Hodges,
Protection Agency and U.S. Saunders Company Ltd.: source: http:// S.C., and Campbell, C.R. 2000.
Department of Agriculture, London, 1996), pp. 5-7, 10. www.scorecard.org/env- “Livestock Manure Production
13
Unified National Strategy for Barker, J.C., S. C. releases/aw/rank- Rates and Nutrient Content,”
Animal Feeding Operations Hodges, and C. R. Campbell, states.tcl?drop_down_name= in: 2000 North Carolina
(March 9, 1999), Sec. 2(2), p. 7. “Livestock Manure Production Total+animal+waste. Agricultural Chemicals
6 19
Texas Agricultural Rates and Nutrient Content,” Based on most recent Manual, Chapter 10, North
Statistics Service, “Texas Cattle in: 2000 North Carolina (1998-1999) animal inventory Carolina State University, p. 1.
24
and Calves: Inventory, Calf Agricultural Chemicals data from the Texas Agricul- Barker, J.C., Hodges,
Crop and Disposition, 1994- Manual, Chapter 10 (North tural Statistics Service and S.C., and Campbell, C.R. 2000.
99,” in: 1998 Texas Agricul- Carolina State University, manure production estimates in “Livestock Manure Production
tural Statistics Bulletin, p. 32 2000), p. 2. 2000 North Carolina Agricul- Rates and Nutrient Content,”
14
(Compiled by Texas Agricul- Poultry Water Quality tural Chemicals Manual. To in: 2000 North Carolina
tural Statistics Service). Consortium, Poultry Water obtain the total pounds pro- Agricultural Chemicals
7
Sweeten, John M., “Odor Quality Handbook (1994). duced, the total number of Manual, Chapter 10, North
and Dust from Livestock Cited in: Texas Natural animals in Texas in each Carolina State University, p. 1.
25
Feedlots,” Texas Agricultural Resource and Conservation livestock category was multi- Letter to Gerald Hudson,
Extension Service Report B- Commission, Office of Water plied by the amount of manure Regional Director, Texas Air
5011 (June 1991), p. 1. Resource Management, Water produced by each class of Control Board from David L.
8
Sweeten, John M., Quality Division, Poultry livestock and summed over all Bergin (July 14, 1991); Citizen
“Cattle Feedlot Manure and Operations Study: Report to classes of animals (see text for petition to TNRCC (March 6,
Wastewater Management the 76th Session of the Texas figures used). The total 1997), re: Expansion of Koch
Practices,” in: Animal Waste Legislature (Publication SFR- presented in Table 1 is slightly Beef Company; TNRCC
Utilization: Effective Use of 65, January 15, 1999), p. 5. lower than the text calculation Complaint Investigation
15
Manure as a Soil Resource, ed. Bremner and Johnson, because Environmental Report, Complaint No.
J.L. Hatfield and B.A. Stewart Poultry Meat Hygiene and Defense used older (1997) 029000020 (February 7, 1990);
(Ann Arbor Press: Ann Arbor, Inspection (1996), pp. 11-12; animal inventory data in its TNRCC, Complaint Investiga-
1998), p. 134, 143-145. TNRCC Poultry Operations calculations. tion Report, Complaint No.
9 20
Texas Agricultural Study (1999), p. 8. Texas Texas Agricultural 029100031 (March 11, 1991);
Statistics Service, “Texas Hogs: Natural Resource Conservation Statistics Service, “Texas Cattle TNRCC, Complaint Investiga-
Inventory, Pig Crop and Commission (TNRCC), Poultry and Calves: Inventory, Calf tion Report, Complaint No.
Disposition, 1994-99,” in: 1998 Operations Study (1999), p. 7; Crop and Disposition, 1994- 029100036 (March 19, 1991).
26
Texas Agricultural Statistics Young, J.L., M. Chang, M.C. 99,” in: 1998 Texas Agricul- Parnell, Charles, Bryan
Bulletin, p. 64 (Compiled by Chochran, & L.L. Whiteside, tural Statistics, p. 32 (Compiled Shaw and Brent Auvermann,
Texas Agricultural Statistics Poultry Litter Land Application by Texas Agricultural Statistics Agricultural Air Quality Fine
Particle Project, Task 1 Final
Report, December, 1999. Phone American Journal
conversation with Brent of Veterinary
Auvermann, May 4, 2000 Research, Vol. 52,
confirming that estimate is low No. 10 (1991), p.
due to exclusion of evening 1723.
data. Sweeten, John M., Calvin 33
Donham,
B. Parnell, Robert S. Etheredge, Kelley J., “The
and Dana Osborne, “Dust Impact of Indus-
Emissions in Cattle Feedlots,” trial Swine
Veterinary Clinics of North Production on
America: Food Animal Prac- Human Health,”
tice, Vol.4, No. 3 (November in: Pigs, Profits,
1988), pp. 558, 577. and Rural Commu-
27
Letter to TRNCC from nities, ed. Kendall
Elizabeth Jimenez, May 28, M. Thu and E. Texas Farm Inc. #3 spreads across Ochiltree County in the Texas High Plains. A finishing facility
1997, re: Koch Beef. Paul Durrenberger permitted for 249,000 head of hogs, Texas Farm #3 was about 60 percent built out at the time this arial
29
Letter to TNRCC from (State University photo was taken by Mr. Barnett of Canadian, Texas. The home in the foreground belonged to Mr. Bill
John L. Ray, May 27, 1997, re: of New York Pletcher until his family sold it to Texas Farm. The nearest lagoon was 1/4 mile away from the home,
Koch Beef expansion. Press: New York, meeting minimum TNRCC requirements.
30
Wing, Steve and 1998), p. 80.
Susanne Wolf, “Intensive 34
Ibid., Donham, Kelly J. Publication # Pm-1518k source: http://
Livestock Operations, Health (1998), p. 80. (February 1994); Chapin, Amy, www.amarillonet.com.
44
and Quality of Life Among 35
Sweeten, J.M., “Odor Charlotte Boulind, and Amanda Interview with John M.
Eastern North Carolina Resi- Control from Poultry Manure Moore, Controlling Odor and Sweeten, Amarillo, Texas,
dents,” Environmental Health Composting Plant Using a Soil Gaseous Emission Problems August 19, 1998.
45
Perspectives, Vol. 108, No. 3 Filter,” American Society of from Industrial Swine Facili- Interview with Bill and
(March 2000), p. 233; Donham, Agricultural Engineers, Vol. 7, ties: A Handbook for All Mildred Pletcher, Perryton,
Kelley J., “Potential Health No. 4 (July 1991), p. 439. Interested Parties (Yale Texas, August 18, 1999.
46
Hazards to Agricultural 36
Sweeten, John M., Environmental Protection TNRCC Interoffice
Workers in Swine Confinement “Odor Abatement: Progress Clinic, Spring 1998), Section Memorandum from Laurel
Buildings,” Journal of Occupa- and Concerns,” National 2.3.1. Carlisle, Toxicology & Risk
39
tional Medicine, Vol. 19 Poultry Waste Management Donham, Kelley J., Assessment Section, Chief
(1977), pp. 385-386; Donham, Symposium (Harrisburg, “Association of environmental Engineer’s Office to Brad
Kelley J. and Kim E. Pennsylvania, October 21-23, air contaminants with disease Jones, Director, TNRCC
Gustafson, “Human Occupa- 1996). and productivity in swine,” Region 1, Amarillo, re:
tional Hazards from Swine 37
Miner, Ronald, “A American Journal of Veterinary “Toxicological Evaluation of
Confinement,” Annals of the Review of the Literature on the Research, Vol. 52, No. 10 Air Monitoring Results,
American Conference of Nature and Control of Odors (October 1991), p. 1727. Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammo-
40
Governmental Industrial from Pork Production Facili- Reynolds, Stephen J., et nia, Concentrated Feeding
Hygienists, Vol. 2 (1982), p. ties,” Paper for the Odor al, “Air quality assessments in Operations, Ochiltree County,
139. Subcommittee of the Environ- the vicinity of swine production August 13-18, 1998,” Novem-
31
Texas Workforce mental Committee of the facilities,” Journal of ber 19, 1998, p. 1; TNRCC
Commission, “Covered National Pork Producers Agromedicine, Vol. 4, No. 1/2 Interoffice Memorandum from
Employment and Wages by Council (September 1, 1995), (1997), pp. 41-42. Janet Pichette, Toxicology &
41
Industry: 1994-1999, 1st p. 4. Interview with Elmer Risk Assessment Section, to
Quarter Selected Texas Private 38
Donham, Kelley J., et al. Schoenhals, Perryton, Texas, Brad Jones, Director, TNRCC
Animal Agriculture,” (Com- “Acute Toxic Exposure to August 18, 1998. Region 1, Amarillo, re:
42
piled by Texas Workforce Gases from Liquid Manure,” Interview with John M. “Toxicological Evaluation of
Commission, Labor Market Journal of Occupational Sweeten, Amarillo, Texas, Mobile Air Monitoring Results,
Information Department, March Medicine, Vol. 24, No. 2 August 19, 1998. Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammo-
43
1, 2000). (February 1982), p. 142; Ledbetter, Kay, “Swine nia, Amarillo and Lubbock
32
Donham, Kelley J., Lorimor, Jeff, Charles V. raisers employ numerous odor Regions, August 9-17, 1999,”
“Association of Environmental Schwab, and Laura Miller, eaters, with varying degrees of December 2, 1999, p. 2;
Air Contaminants with Disease “Manure Storage Poses success,” Amarillo Globe- TNRCC Interoffice Memoran-
and Productivity in Swine,” Invisible Risks,” ISU Extension News, May 28, 1998. Internet dum to JoAnn Wiersema,
Toxicology and Risk Assess-
ment Section, from David Wiersema, Toxicology and Forestry, “Animal Waste High Plains: A Case Study,”
Carmichael, Laboratory and Risk Assessment Section, from Pollution in America: An American Society of Agricul-
Mobile Monitoring Section, Re: David Carmichael & Edward Emerging National Problem” tural Engineers, Vol. 11, No. 6
Correction to Reported Ammo- Ragsdale, Laboratory and (December 1997), p. 2. (November 1995), p. 845.
58 69
nia Sampling Results, February Mobile Monitoring Section, Re: TNRCC, Texas Non- Sweeten, John M.,
1, 2000. TNRCC Interoffice Hydrogen Sulfide sampling, Point Source Pollution Assess- “Cattle Feedlot Manure and
Memorandum to Zoe Rascoe, August 13-18, 1998, dated ment Report and Management Wastewater Management
Director TNRCC Region 9, October 14, 1998. Program, (October 1999, SFR- Practices,” in: Animal Waste
51
from Vincent Leopold, “Toxi- TNRCC Interoffice 68/99), Appendix F, pp. 2-4, 9- Utilization: Effective Use of
cological Evaluation of Results Memorandum from Laurel 10. Manure as a Soil Resource, ed.
59
of Air Monitoring...Sanderson Carlisle, Toxicology & Risk TNRCC, Poultry J.L. Hatfield and B.A. Stewart
Farms, Leon County, Septem- Assessment Section, Chief Operations Study (January (Ann Arbor Press: Ann Arbor,
ber 15,-16, 1999,” November Engineer’s Office to Brad 1999), Appendix C, p. 48 and 1998), p. 129-130.
70
16, 1999, p. 3. Jones, Director, TNRCC Appendix A, pp. 12-14. Sweeten, John M., et al.,
47 60
TNRCC Interoffice Region 1, Amarillo, re: TNRCC, Poultry “Well Water Analysis from 26
Memorandum from Laurel “Toxicological Evaluation of Operations Study (January Cattle Feedyards in Castro,
Carlisle, Toxicology & Risk Air Monitoring Results, 1999), Appendix C, p. 51. Deaf Smith, Parmer, and
61
Assessment Section, Chief Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammo- Hauck, Larry, “Fecal Randall Counties, Texas,
Engineer’s Office to Brad nia, Concentrated Feeding Coliforms: Their Presence & January-February, 1990”
Jones, Director, TNRCC Operations, Ochiltree County, Meaning,” in: Bosque River (October 15, 1990), p. 5
71
Region 1, Amarillo, re: August 13-18, 1998,” Novem- Advisory Committee, Briefing Sweeten, Marek and
“Toxicological Evaluation of ber 19, 1998, p. 2. Papers (Stephenville, Texas, McReynolds (1995), p. 846.
52 72
Air Monitoring Results, TNRCC Interoffice January 23, 1996), pp. D-3, D- Interviews with Jeannie
Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammo- Memorandum to Brad Jones, 4. Gramstorff and Pat
62
nia, Concentrated Feeding Director, Region 1, Amarillo, McFarland, Ann and Peckenpaugh, Perryton, Texas,
Operations, Ochiltree County, and Jim Estes, Director, Region Larry Hauck, Livestock and the August 18, 1998.
73
August 13-18, 1998,” Novem- 2, Lubbock, from Janet Environment: Scientific Interview with Barbara
ber 19, 1998, p. 1. Pichette, Toxicology and Risk Underpinnings for Policy Philipps, Perryton, Texas,
48
30 T.A.C. §112.31 Section, Re: “Toxicological Analysis (Texas Institute for August 18, 1998.
74
(effective January 1, 1976). Evaluation of Mobile Air Applied Environmental Letter to TNRCC from
The law states that hydrogen Monitoring Results, Hydrogen Research: Tarleton State John J. Vay (representing
sulfide emissions may not Sulfide and Ammonia Sam- University, September 1995), p. landowners in Ochiltree and
exceed 0.08 parts per million pling and Analysis Project, iii. Johnson Counties), re: CAFO
63
averaged over any 30-minute Amarillo and Lubbuck Re- McFarland, Ann and Rules/General Permit, April 13,
period near property used for gions, August 9-17, 1999,” Larry Hauck, Livestock and the 1998; Letter to TNRCC from
residential, business, or December 2, 1999. Environment: A National Pilot David Hale, Mayor, City of
53
commercial purposes. For Ibid. Project, Report on Stream Perryton, re: Comments
54
other property, the standard is Phone conversation with Water Quality in the Upper Regarding TNRCC’s Proposed
slightly higher at 0.12 parts per David Henrichs, TNRCC, Air North Bosque River Watershed General Permit and Amend-
million (30 TAC §112.32). Enforcement Division Team (Texas Institute for Applied ments to Chapter 321, Subchap-
49
TNRCC Interoffice Leader, March 29, 2000. Environmental Research: ter B 30 T.A.C., March 26,
55
Memorandum from Laurel U.S. Environmental Tarleton State University, June 1998; Hale, David, “Comments
Carlisle, Toxicology & Risk Protection Agency, Office of 1997), pp.69-70. to Warren Chisum & the
64
Assessment Section, Chief Water, “National Water Quality 30 T.A.C. Environmental Regulations
Engineer’s Office to Brad Inventory: 1994 Report to §321.39(f)(19)(B). Committee: CAFO Concerns,”
65
Jones, Director, TNRCC Congress.” (Washington, D.C.: McFarland and Hauck April 10, 1998.
75
Region 1, Amarillo, re: 1995), pp. ES-15, ES18, ES-25. (1997), p. 70. 40 C.F.R. §122.23(a).
56 66 76
“Toxicological Evaluation of U.S. Environmental 30 T.A.C. Clean Water Network
Air Monitoring Results, Protection Agency, “National §321.39(f)(28). and Natural Resources Defense
67
Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammo- Water Quality Inventory: 1994 30 T.A.C. Council, America’s Animal
nia, Concentrated Feeding Report to Congress” (Washing- §321.39(f)(28)(G). Factories: How States Fail to
68
Operations, Ochiltree County, ton, D.C., 1995), p. 35. Sweeten, J.M., T.H. Prevent Pollution from Live-
57
August 13-18, 1998,” Novem- Minority Staff of the Marek and D. McReynolds, stock Waste (December 1998),
ber 19, 1998, p. 1. U.S. Senate Committee on “Groundwater Quality Near pp. ix-xi.
50 77
TNRCC Memo to JoAnn Agriculture, Nutrition and Two Cattle Feedlots in Texas TNRCC, “TNRCC Final
Annual Enforcement Report – and Industrial Water Interoffice Memorandum to investigated within 30 calendar
Fiscal Year 1999,” p. 10. Authority’s Comments on Field Operations Air Program days.
78
8 T.A.C. §251.004. Proposed Revisions to 30 Managers, from Debra Barber, 109
Letter to Charles C.
79
Texas House Bill 2945 T.A.C. Chapter 321, Subchap- Air Program Director, Re: Ross, Director of Field Opera-
(1997), codified at 8 T.A.C. ter B,” April 13, 1998, p. 1. “Odor Complaint Handling tions, Railroad Commission of
§251.006. 86
Ibid., Letter to TNRCC Procedures,” December 14, Texas, from TNRCC, October
80
TNRCC, “Common from William Allensworth 1993; National Public Radio: 16, 1996, p. 2. Specifically,
Questions and Answers Concern- (representing Greenbelt Texas Hogs (transcript of radio TNRCC states: “The agency
ing Subchapter K,” April 28, Municipal and Industrial Water broadcast on All Things has always held that an investi-
1997. Internet source: http:// Authority), April 13, 1998, p. 3. Considered, March 8, 2000). gator should not (typically) cite
103
www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/ 87
Texas Register, Volume Auvermann, Brent W., a nuisance violation based
quality/agri/kqqqs.html, (printed 23, No. 37 (September 11, “Suppressing Fugitive Dust exclusively on personal
6/1/99). 1998), p. 9366. Emissions From Cattle observation of emissions of a
81
Letter to Donnie Dendy 88
Texas Register, Volume Feedyards,” Texas Annual nuisance character. Such
from Darrell Williams, TNRCC, 24, Number 30, July 23, 1999, p. Manure Management Confer- violations should result from an
RE: Texas Farm, Inc., Applica- 5731. ence (Austin, Texas, September investigation initiated by a
tion for Permit-by-Rule No. 89
Letter to TNRCC from 9-10, 1999), p. 2. complaint from a private citizen
104
03876, Ochiltree County, De- Robert Short (US Fish and TNRCC Complaint alleging nuisance odor condi-
cember 28, 1995 (incl. attach- Wildlife Service), April 10, Printout, Complaint No: tions.”
ment: “Summary of Comments 1998, p. 1. 100000050, 9/22/1999. Data 110
TNRCC, “Alternative
and Responses for Texas Farm, 90
30 T.A.C. §321.33(g); provided by TNRCC, 3/13/ Odor Complaint Handling
Inc., Subchapter K Application 30 T.A.C. §321.41(a)(1). 2000. Procedures,” attachment to
105
No. 03876”). 91
Letter to TNRCC from TNRCC Complaint Interoffice Memorandum to Joe
82
Krishna, Hari and Robert Short (US Fish and Printout, Complaint No: Vogel, Deputy Director, Office
Clifton Wise, “Update on State Wildlife Service), April 10, 109800164, 12/5/1997. Data of Compliance and Enforce-
Rules for Animal Waste 1998, p. 1. provided by TNRCC, 3/13/ ment, from Debra Barber, Air
Management,” Texas Animal 92
Ibid., Letter to TNRCC 2000. Program Director, Re: “Alter-
106
Manure Management Confer- from Robert Short, p. 2. TNRCC Complaint Print- native Odor Complaint Han-
ence (Austin, Texas, September 93
Ibid., Letter to TNRCC out, Complaint No: 100000050, dling Procedures,” April 24,
9-11, 1999), pp. 3-4. Internet from Robert Short, p. 2. 9/22/1999 and Complaint No. 1996, p. 4 (attachment).
source: http:// 94
30 TAC §321.23(l). 109800164. Data provided by 111
Interoffice Memoran-
www.agen.tamu.edu/projects/ 95
Krishna and Wise TNRCC, 3/13/2000. dum to Regional Managers, Air
107
tammi/Krishna2.htm. (1999), p. 5. TNRCC Complaint Program Managers, TNRCC,
83
Ibid. (Krishna and Wise, 96
Texas Register, Vol. 24, Printout, Complaint No: from Debra Barber, Air
1999), p. 4. No. 30, July 23, 1999, p. 5723. 109800526, 12/5/1997. Data Program Director, Field
84
A measure passed by the TNRCC did not comment on provided by TNRCC, 3/13/ Operations, Re: “Investigations/
1999 Texas Legislature (HB impaired waterways. 2000. Violations at CAFOs,” March
108
801) did make changes to the 97
Krishna and Wise TNRCC, “Odor 22, 1994.
Texas Water Code which (1999), p. 5. Complaint Prioritization 112
Parnell, Charles, Bryan
requires TNRCC to issue 98
30 T.A.C. §321.39; 30 Criteria,” attachment to Shaw and Brent Auvermann,
individual permits to CAFOs T.A.C. §321.40(7); 30 T.A.C. Interoffice Memorandum to Agricultural Air Quality Fine
which are located near a sole §321.39(f)(24)(H). Field Operations Air Program Particle Project, Task 1 Final
source drinking water supply. 99
30 T.A.C. Managers, from Debra Barber, Report, December, 1999 and
In February 2000, TNRCC §321.39(19)(B). Air Program Director, Re: Washington Administrative
issued a draft of proposed new 100
Schiffman, Susan S., et “Odor Complaint Handling Code 173-400-105.
rules to implement this legisla- al., “The effect of environmen- Procedures,” December 14, 113
Rules of the Georgia
tive mandate. (Letter to tal odors emanating from 1993. TNRCC utilizes four Department of Natural Re-
Interested Persons Mailing List commercial swine operations “Odor Complaint Prioritization sources, Environmental
from TNRCC, Office of Legal on the mood of nearby resi- Criteria” to determine how Protection Division, Chapter
Services, February 11, 2000.) dents,” Brain Research quickly to respond to com- 391-6.20(5)(i); 391-
85
Letter to TNRCC from Bulletin, Volume 37, No. 4 plaints. Only “Priority 1” 6.20(8)(n)(2); 391-6.20(8)(o);
William Allensworth (repre- (1995), pp. 369-375. complaints warrant an immedi- 391-6.20(8)(p); 391-6.20(11).
senting Greenbelt Municipal 101
30 T.A.C. §321.31(c). ate response. CAFO nuisance 114
General Assembly of
and Industrial Water Author- 102
TNRCC, “Categoriza- odor complaints generally fall North Carolina, House Bill 515
ity), re: “Greenbelt Municipal tion of Odors,” attachment to under “Priority 3,” to be (1997).
115
Iowa HJ 2344, 1998, An TNRCC Docket No. 1999- Recommendations for EPA’s Agricultural Waste Treatment
Act Providing for Agricultural 0859-AGR; TNRCC, “Execu- Model Individual NPDES Technology Well Received at
Production, Including Regulat- tive Director’s Response to Permit for CAFOs,” Clean International Equipment
ing Animal Feeding Operations Hearing Requests,” Application Water Network, Washington, Show,” News release, February
and Making Penalties Appli- by Vall, Inc. for Permit No. D.C., 1999. 16, 1999. Internet location:
132
cable and Providing Effective 04087, Docket No. 1999-0859- Huffman, R.L. and P.W. http://eptcorp.com/
Dates. AGR, July 22, 1999; TNRCC, Westerman, “Estimated seepage nr990216.html.
116
Kansas, SH 2950, 1998. “CAFO Inventory by SIC losses from established swine 138
Harper, Scott, “Perdue
117
Lucas, John, “Kentucky Code,” permit database com- waste lagoons in the lower Farms to Reform Chicken-
Ponders Hog Plan,” The Evans- piled by TNRCC, March 7, coastal plain of North Carolina,” Manure Disposal Practices,”
ville Courier, July 15, 1997. 2000. Letter to TNRCC from Transactions of the American Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, March
Internet source: http:// Thomas J. Cloud Jr., U.S. Fish Society of Agricultural Engi- 10, 1999 (LEXIS-NEXIS
courier.evansville.net/news/97/ and Wildlife Service, June 29, neers, Vol. 38, No. 2 (1995), pp. online news service). In
Ken071597.html; Thompson, 1999. Public Notice, Stratford 449-453; McCurdy, M. and K. Virginia, the state’s director of
Nancy, “What’s Happening? A Star, June 17, 1999, p. 8. McSweeney, “The origin and soil and water conservation
State-by-State Summary,” Cen- TPDES Permit for Concentrated identification of macropores in issued an invitation to the
ter for Rural Affairs, p. 4. Animal Feeding Operations, an earthen-lined dairy manure largest chicken producers to
Internet source: http:// Permit No. 04087, August 12, storage basin,” Journal of Envi- discuss waste innovations for
www.salamander.com/ 1999. TPDES Permit for ronmental Quality, Vol. 22 the industry. The cooperative
~manyhogs/thompson.html. Concentrated Animal Feeding (1993), pp. 148-154. effort resulted in a joint venture
133
118
Mississippi Senate Bill Operations, Permit No. 04105, Carroll, J.J., J. R. between Perdue Farms and a
2895 (1998); Letter to Charles August 24, 1999. Dunbar, R. L. Givens, et al., recycling business to build a $6
124
Chisolm, Mississippi Depart- TNRCC, CAFO permits “Sprinkling for dust suppres- million complex that will
ment of Environmental Quality database printout. Data sion in a cattle feedlot,” convert chicken waste into
from F.E. Thompson, Jr., M.D., provided by TNRCC, March 8, California Agriculture (March fertilizer pellets. The state
M.P.H., State Health Officer, 2000. 1974), pp. 12-14. expects to convert up to
125 134
November 17, 1999, p. 5. Minnesota Rules Sweeten, J.M., et al., 120,000 tons of manure a
119
General Assembly of 7009.0080. “Odor control from poultry year—almost half of what the
126
North Carolina, House Bill 515 Memo to Greg Ruff, manure composting plant using region’s farms generate—and
(The Clean Water Responsibil- Minnesota Pollution Control a soil filter,” Applied Engineer- even pay growers for each load
ity and Environmentally Sound Agency, from Kathy Norlien, ing in Agriculture, Vol. 7, No.4 of manure that they bring to the
Policy Act, 1997). Minnesota Department of (1991), pp. 439-449. complex.
135
120
General Assembly of Health, February 15, 2000. Thu, Kendall M, Laura
127
North Carolina, House Bill Statement of Emergency DeLind, et al., “Social Issues,”
1480 (1997). from Governor Paul E. Patton, in: Understanding the Impacts
121
Georgia Board of February 11, 2000; 401 Ken- of Large-Scale Swine Produc-
Natural Resources, “Resolution tucky Administrative Rules tion: Proceedings from an
Regarding Large Hog Produc- 5:072E. Interdisciplinary Scientific
128
ing Operations in Georgia,” 75th Texas State Workshop (Des Moines, Iowa,
January 27, 1999. Legislature, House Bill 1542 June 29-30, 1995).
136
122
TNRCC, CAFO permits (1997). Vanotti, M.B. and P.G.
129
database printout. Data Texas Register, “Texas Hunt, “Solids and nutrient
provided by TNRCC, March 8, Natural Resource Conservation removal from flushed swine
2000. Commission: Notice of a manure using
123
TNRCC, “Executive Proposed General Permit,” Vol. polyacrylamides,” Transactions
Director’s Response to Public 23 (March 6, 1998), pp. 2597- of the ASAE, Vol. 42, No. 6
Comments,” Application by 2598; Texas Water Code (1999), pp. 1833-1840. Vanotti,
Vall, Inc. for Permit No. 04087, §26.040. M.B., et al., “Encapsulated
130
Docket No. 1999-0859-AGR, Penny Loeb, “Do the Nitrifiers Research,” USDA
July 30, 1999; TNRCC, “The Big Guys Play Fair?” U.S. News research summary at internet
Office of Public Interest and World Report, May 24, location: http://
Counsel’s Response to Request 1999, p. 26. www.florence.ars.usda.gov/
131
for Hearing in the Matter of the Recommendations based efd_1/vanotti/mtv13a.htm
Application by Vall, Inc. for in part on Clean Water (printed April 7, 1999).
137
TPDES Permit No. 04087,” Network’s Feedlot Work Group Environmental Products
“Clean Water Network General & Technologies, “EPTC’s
Footnotes to Bergin, page 9 11
Palo Duro Feedyard Well Pumping Report Feedyard, March 6, 1997; Letter to
for January 16, 1995 through July 26, 1995; TNRCC from Mayfield Farms, re: Koch
1
Carroll, J.J., J. R. Dunbar, R. L. Givens, et Palo Duro Feedyard Weather Report Listing, Beef Cattle Company Expansion, February
al., “Sprinkling for dust suppression in a November 13, 1997 for period April 3, 1995 20, 1997; Citizen petition to TNRCC, re:
cattle feedlot,” California Agriculture through May 17, 1995. Opposition to expanding of Koch Beef
(March 1974), pp. 12-13. 12
Letter from S. Shawn Stephens to Rick Company, March 6, 1997; Letter to
2
Stone, Nancy, “Bergin Family Mediation Costa, TNRCC Air Program Manager, RE: TNRCC from Simon and Elizabeth
Brochure: TJ Bergin - Third Generation,” Palo Duro Feeders, May 11, 1995; David W. Jimenez, re: Request for denial of permit
May 1998. Bergin and Erin Bergin v. Texas Beef Group, application for expansion of Koch Beef
3
Texas Air Control Board (TACB), Case No. 4102 (84th Judicial District Court, Company, March 10, 1997.
4
Complaint Investigation Form, Complaint Hansford Co., Texas), Plaintiff’s Original Ibid. (Letter from Danny Stroope/
No. 029000029, February 7, 1990 (“Bergin Petition (June 8, 1995). Mayfield Cooperative Gin, February 24,
Family Mediation Brochure: Exhibit 1”); 13
Texas Beef Group v. Bergin, Case No. 41, 1997)
5
TACB, Complaint Investigation Form, 330-C (21st Judicial District Court, Randall Op. cit.; TNRCC, “Revised Summary of
Complaint No. 029100031, March 11, Co. Texas), Plaintiff’s Original Petition for Comments and Responses for Koch
1991 (“Bergin Family Mediation Brochure: Declaratory Judgment (May 4, 1995); Texas Agriculture Company, dba Koch Beef
Exhibit 2”). Beef Group v. Bergin, Case No. 41, 330-C Company, Subchapter K, Application No.
4
Letter to Dwayne Thompson, Manager, (21st Judicial District Court, Randall Co. 01551.”
6
Palo Duro Feedyard, from TACB, re: Texas), Citation (May 4, 1995); Texas Beef Letter to Danny Stroope from TNRCC, re:
Notice of Violation, Feedlot Expansion, Group v. Bergin, Case No. 41, 330-C (21st Koch Agriculture Company, dba Koch
Palo Duro Feedyard, March 27, 1991. Judicial District Court, Randall Co. Texas), Beef Company, Application to Amend
(“Bergin Family Mediation Brochure: Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition for De- Permit-by-Rule No. 01551, May 8, 1997.
7
Exhibit 3”). claratory Judgment (September 28, 1995). Letter to Simon and Elizabeth Jimenez
5
Letter from Dr. Romeo B. Sangalang, re: As of the date of publication of this report, from TNRCC, re: Koch Agriculture
Erin Bergin, January 18, 1991. the action against the Bergins is still pending Company/Permit No. 01551, June 20,
6
Letter to Dwayne Thompson, Palo Duro in court. 1997; Letter to John L. Ray from TNRCC,
Feedyard, from TACB, March 27, 1991; 14
Letter to Gary Wallin, TNRCC, from Brad re: Koch Agriculture Company/Permit No.
Palo Duro Feeders Permit Application to Wieck, Enviro-Ag Engineering, re: Palo Duro 01551, June 20, 1997; TNRCC, “Air and
the Texas Air Control Board, May 9, 1991. Feeders Air Quality Permit #C-20822, May Water Quality Permit-by-Rule to Operate a
7
Letter to Gerald Hudson, Texas Air 9, 1995; Affidavit of Ed Rafferty in Opposi- Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation,”
Control Board, from David W. Bergin, July tion to Revised Application of Palo Duro for Koch Agriculture Company, Permit No.
14, 1991 and attached petition from Feedyard, February 12, 1996. 01551, June 20, 1997.
8
neighboring families (“Bergin Family 15
Bergin, T.J., “Saga of Fecal Dust from Palo Wren, Worth Jr., “Purina Mills sold for
Mediation Brochure: Exhibit 5”). Duro Feedlot: as experienced by T.J. Bergin,” third time in 12 years,” Fort Worth Star-
8
Texas Air Control Board (TACB) in: Stone, Nancy, “Bergin Family Mediation Telegram, March 18, 1998 (LEXIS-NEXIS
Memorandum from Debra Barber, Direc- Brochure,” May 1998. internet news service).
9
tor, Enforcement and Field Operations, re: 16
Complaint investigation #054236A, July The Times-Picayune, “Purina Mills Files
Palo Duro Feeders (Acct. No. HD-0036-F), 4, 1995 and Complaint Investigation for Bankruptcy; Top Animal Feed Maker
September 26, 1991(“Bergin Family #058536A, September 13, 1995. Misses Loan Payment,” October 29, 1999,
Mediation Brochure: Exhibit 7”); Letter to 17
Bergin, T.J., “Saga”, May 1998. p. 3C (LEXIS-NEXIS internet news
Mark Gibbs, TACB, from Craig Clyburn, service).
10
Palo Duro Feedyard, November 1, 1991 New York Times, “Koch to Sell some
(“Bergin Family Mediation Brochure: Footnotes to Koch, page 10 Cattle Assets,” December 4, 1998, Section
Exhibit 7A”); Letter to Gerald Hudson, C, p. 24.
1
New York Times, “Koch to Sell some 11
Associated Press State and Local Wire,
TACB, from David Bergin, January 10, Cattle Assets,” December 4, 1998, Section
1992 (“Bergin Family Mediation Brochure: “Koch sells Kansas, Texas feedlots,”
C, p. 24. March 4, 1999 (LEXIS-NEXIS internet
Exhibit 8”). 2
TNRCC, “Transfer of Texas Natural
9
Letter to David Bergin from Steve Spaw, news service).
Resource Conservation Commission Permit
Executive Director, TACB, re: Permit No. No. 01551 From Texzona Cattle Feeders
20822, Palo Duro Feeders, March 18, 1992 General Partnership to Koch Beef Com-
(“Bergin Family Mediation Brochure: Exhibit pany,” July 2, 1996.
9”); TACB, Air Permit No. 20822 for Palo 3
Letter to TNRCC from Danny Stroope/
Duro Feeders, March 18, 1992 (“Bergin Fam- Mayfield Coop Gin, re: Koch Beef Com-
ily Mediation Brochure: Exhibit 10”). pany, Application to Amend Permit-by-
10
Letter to W. H. O’Brian, Texas Beef Group, Rule No. 01551, February 24, 1997; Letter
from David Bergin, February 20, 1995 (Bergin to TNRCC from Lowell Ray, re: Koch Beef
Family Mediation Brochure: Exhibit 12). Co. Application for Enlargement of
Footnotes to Pilgrim, page 12-13 Enforcement Conference with Pilgrims 12, 1999.
25
Pride Corporation, August 7, 1987; Letter TNRCC Interim Order, May 12, 1999.
1 26
Rich, Jan, “State squawks foul over fowl to Mr. Burgess, TACB, from Mrs. Marie TNRCC, Executive Director’s Response
empire, pollution,” Houston Chronicle, Stephens, July 25, 1987. to Public Comment on the Draft Waste
13
September 27, 1985, p. 1. Complaint investigation form, March 10, Disposal Well Permit Nos. WDW-352,
2
Ibid. 1988. WDW-353, WDW-354, WDW-355,
3 14
Memorandum to Dennis Palafox from Executive Director’s Response to Public WDW-356, and WDW-357, Docket No.
Victor Palma, “Fish Kill in Tankersly Comment on the Draft Waste Disposal 1999-0421-UIC.
Creek,” May 23, 1985. Well Permit, Appendix I “Summary of
4
Rich, Houston Chronicle, September 27, Pilgrim’s Pride Compliance History.” Footnotes to Smith, page 15
15
1985; Pasztor, David, “Bo? Hell No!” TNRCC, Agreed Order Assessing 1
Letter to Texas Department of Water
Dallas Observer, February 22, 1996, p. 21. Administrative Penalties and Requiring
5
Resources from Bryan Berger, Smith
Jacobs, Janet, “Pilgrim’s admits to water Certain Actions of Pilgrim’s Pride Corpora-
Farms, Inc., February 15, 1984.
violations,” Longview Journal, March 24, tion, Randee Corporation, Winston Land 2
Letter to Bryan Berger, Smith Farms, Inc.,
1996. and Cattle Company, and John R. Winston from Texas Department of Water Re-
6
Letter to Ms. Lola Barrett from Anthony Jr. under the Authority of the Texas Water sources, February 27, 1984.
Grigsby, Texas Water Commission, no Code, Chapters 5 and 26, and the Texas 3
Letter to Bryan Berger, Smith Farms, Inc,.
date. Health and Safety Code, Chapters 361 and from Texas Water Commission, August 26,
7
Jacobs, Longview Journal, March 24, 382, Docket No. 94-0378-IWD-E, July 27, 1987.
1996; City of Mt. Pleasant, Texas, South- 1995 (received). 4
Letter to Bryan Berger, Smith Farms, Inc.,
16
west Sewer Plant Operating and Permitting US EPA, Region 6, Water Management from Texas Water Commission, August 21,
Agreement, May 4, 1988. Division, “Notice of Proposed Administra- 1989.
8
Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Southwest tive Penalty Assessment,” Docket No. VI- 5
Ibid.
Wastewater Treatment Plant, Notices of 94-1621, NPDES Facility No. 6
Texas Water Commission, Investigation
Noncompliance, July 1994 to December TXU000211, August 12, 1994; U.S. EPA, Report EF# 930300736, Smith Farms, Inc.,
1996; Letter to John Witherspoon, TNRCC, Region 6, Water Management Division, March 2, 1993.
7
from Tim Weir, Pilgrim’s Pride, RE: “Administrative Order,” Docket No. VI-95- Ibid. (1993); Letter to Bryan Berger,
Annual Compliance Inspection, April 14, 1023, NPDES Facility No. TXU000211, Smith Farms, Inc., from Texas Water
1995; TNRCC Wastewater Site Assessment May 23, 1995. Commission, re: Complaints concerning
for Permit Action, April 10, 1996; Letter to 17
Pasztor, David, “Bo? Hell No!” Dallas egg laying facility, May 3, 1993.
8
TNRCC from Timothy Phy on behalf of Observer, February 22, 1996. Texas Water Commission, Enforcement
the Lake O’ The Pines Civic Association, 18
Ibid. Action Request Memo re: Smith Farms,
August 15, 1996. 19
Jacobs, Janet, “Hearing planned Monday Inc., to Mark McFarland, Manger, Permit-
9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, on Pilgrim’s water permit application,” ting and Enforcement Section, Agricultural
Region 6, Proceedings to Assess a Civil Longview News, March 24, 1996. & Rural Assistance Division, June 1, 1994;
Penalty under Sec. 309(g) of the Clean 20
Copy of advertisement, Mt. Pleasant Vernon D. Rowe, Rowe Environmental,
Water Act, Administrative Complaint, May Daily Tribune, February 23, 1997, supplied letter to Diana L. Bell, TWC, re: Smith
10, 1999. to Consumers Union by Mr. Jerry Boatner. Farms, Inc., June 24, 1993.
9
10
Texas Air Control Board, Notice of 21
“Bo Pilgrim: Christian Businessman,” Texas Water Commission, Enforcement
Action Request Memo re: Smith Farms,
Violation to Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, Texas Lake Country (Spring/Summer
Inc., to Mark McFarland, Manger, Permit-
December 3, 1985, Account No. NA-0026- 1999), p. 11.
22 ting and Enforcement Section, Agricultural
V, Permit No. 16722; Texas Air Control Jacobs, Longview News, March 24, 1996.
23
& Rural Assistance Division, June 1, 1994
Board, Agreed Board Order No. 90-04(i), The City of Longview’s Reply to
(including Picture Set #2).
Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, May 18, 1990; Responses from Pilgrim’s Pride Corpora- 10
TNRCC, Investigation Report
Texas Air Control Board, Notice of tion and the Executive Director Concerning EF#940600505, Smith Farms, Inc., April
Violation to Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, the City of Longview’s Request for 28, 1994.
September 12, 1986, Account No. Contested Case Hearing, TNRCC Docket 11
Letter to Bryan Berger, Smith Farms,
CE0012B; Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, No. 1999-0421-UIC, April 23, 1999. Inc., from TNRCC, September 20, 1995.
24
Letter to Gary Wallin, Permits Section, Letter to LaDonna Castanuela, Chief 12
TNRCC, Deposit User Report, Deposit
Texas Air Control Board, September 22, Clerk, TNRCC from Jim Mathews, City of Voucher #: 401737, September 5, 1995.
1986 (received). Longview, March 5, 1999; D.W. Garrett 13
Letter to TNRCC from Elias Briseno,
11
TNRCC, Agreed Order assessing for East Texans for a Better Tomorrow, Texas Department of Health, re: Air and
administrative penalties and requiring Reply to Applicant’s and Executive Water Permit-By-Rule for Smith Farms,
actions, July 26, 1999. Director’s Responses to Request for Inc., July 23, 1996.
12
Texas Air Control Board, Board Order Contested Case Hearings, April 20, 1999; 14
Letter to Elias Briseno, Texas Depart-
No. 87-09(t), November 13, 1987; Texas TNRCC Interim Order concerning the ment of Public Health, from TNRCC, re:
Air Control Board Interoffice Memo from application by Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation Smith Farms, Inc., Application for Permit-
Richard Leard to James Myers, Formal for six underground injection wells, May By-Rule No. 03866, September 27, 1996.
15 2
Interoffice Memorandum to Kerry Grady (1999), p. A13 ; Endtz, Hubert January 6, 1999), pp. 8-9, 14-17.
Howard, TNRCC Agriculture Permitting Ph., Gijs J. Ruijs, et al., “Quinolone 11
National Research Council, “Approaches
Team, from Desiderio Mora, Permitting Resistance in Campylobacter Isolated from to Minimizing Antibiotic Use in Food-
Team Leader, re: Smith Farms Processing Man and Poultry Following the Introduc- animal Production,” in: The Use of Drugs
Under Subchapter B, September 20, 1995. tion of Fluroquinolones in Veterinary in Food Animals: Benefits and Risks
16
Ibid. Medicine,” Journal of Antimicrobial (National Academy Press: Washington,
17
TNRCC, Air and Water Quality Permit- Chemotherapy, Vol. 27 (1991), pp. 199, D.C., 1999), pp. 189-193.
By-Rule to Operate A Concentrated 200; Seyfarth, Anne Mette, et al., “Antimi- 12
H.R. 3266 (Rep. Sherrod Brown), The
Animal Feeding Operation, Smith Farms, crobial Resistance in Salmonella enterica Preservation of Essential Antibiotics for
Inc., Permit No. 03866, November 1, 1996. subsp. enterica serovar typhimurium from Human Diseases Act of 1999.
humans and production animals,” Journal
Footnotes to Sustainable, page 16 of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Vol. 40 Footnotes to Vertical, page 20
(1997), p. 67. 1
1 3
Seyfarth et al. (1997), p. 74; Endtz et al. Palmer, Eric, “Ranchers, Farmers Striving
Carpenter, Stephen, et al., “Nonpoint
(1991), pp. 199, 206; Hawkes, Nigel, to End Business Consolidation,” Kansas
pollution of surface waters with phospho-
“Antibiotics in Cattle Feed Linked to City Star, August 25, 1998. Internet
rus and nitrogen,” Ecological Applications,
Superbug,” The Times of London, March source: http: //www.kcstar.com.;
Vol. 8, No. 3 (August 1998), p. 563.
2 24, 1998, Internet source: http:// Heffernan, William D., “Agricultural
Corpus Christi Caller Times, “Manure
www.enviroweb.org/hecweb/archive/farm/ profits: Who Gets Them Now, and Who
problem growing: Animal waste a health
antibiotics.htm. Will in the Future?” Sustainable Agricul-
concern,” April 26, 1998.
3 4
Smith, Theresa L., et al., “Emergence of ture: People, Products, and Profits,
30 T.A.C. §321.39(f)(19)(B).
4 Vancomycin Resistance in Staphylococcus Leopold Center For Sustainable Agricul-
30 T.A.C. §321.39(f)(28)(G).
5 aureus,” The New England Journal of ture, 1994 Annual Conference Proceed-
Palmquist, Raymond B., et al., “Hog
Medicine, Vol. 340, No. 7 (February 18, ings, pp. 13-18.
operations, environmental effects, and 2
1999), pp. 493-501.; Levy, Stuart B., “The Casey, Jean Anne and Colleen Hobbs,
residential property values,” Land Econom-
Challenge of Antibiotic Resistance,” “Lean Times on the Hog Farm,” New York
ics, Vol. 73, No. 1 (February 1997),
Scientific American (March 1998), pp. 46- Times, January 29, 1999, p. A19;
pp.114-124; Mubarak, Hamed, Thomas G. 3
53. MacDonald, James M. and Michael
Johnson, and Kathleen K. Miller, “The
5
Bates, Janice, et al., “Farm Animals as a Ollinger, “U.S. Meat Slaughter Consolidat-
Impacts of Animal Feeding Operations on
Putative Reservoir for Vancomycin- ing Rapidly,” Food Review (May-August
Rural Land Values,” Report Presented to
resistant Enterococcal Infection in Man,” 1997), p. 22; also Palmer, Eric, Kansas
the Saline County Study Steering Commit-
Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, City Star, August 25, 1998.
tee (Community Policy Analysis Center, 4
Vol. 34 (1994), pp. 507, 510; Wegener, Hoover’s Handbook of Private Compa-
Report R-99-02, May 1999); Seipel,
Henrik Caspar, et al., “Isolation of Vanco- nies (Hoover’s Business Press: Austin, TX,
Michael, Mubarak Hamed, J. Sanford
mycin Resistant Enterococcus faecium 1997), p. 94.
Rikoon, and Anna M. Kleiner, “The Impact 5
from Food,” International Journal of Food Hoover’s Handbook of Private Compa-
of Large-Scale Hog Confinement Facility
Microbiology, Vol. 35 (1997), pp. 58, 64; nies (Hoover’s Business Press: Austin, TX,
Sitings on Rural Property Values,” Animal
Bager, F., et al., “Avoparcin Used as a 1997), pp. 78-79.
Production Systems and the Environment: 6
Growth Promoter is Associated with the Hoover’s Handbook of Private Compa-
1998 Conference Proceedings, pp. 413-
Occurrence of Vancomycin-resistant nies (Hoover’s Business Press: Austin, TX,
318.
6 Enterococcus faecium on Danish Poultry 1997), p. 201.
The median wage for livestock farm 7
and Pig Farms,” Preventive Veterinary ConAgra Form 8-K, Securities and
workers in Texas is approximately $6.56
Medicine, Vol. 31 (1997), pp. 95, 109-111. Exchange Commission, “Operation
per hour. Texas Workforce Commission,
6
Endtz et al. (1991), p. 199. Overdrive” Restructuring Announcement,
“Statewide Wages – 1997.” Internet source:
7
Witte, Wolfgang, “Medical Consequences May 12, 1999.
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/lmi/lfs/type/ 8
of Antibiotic Use in Agriculture,” Science Swenson, Leland (President, National
wages/wagesstatewide.html.
7 279 (February 13, 1998), p. 996. Farmers Union), “Agricultural Concentra-
MacCannell, Dean, “Industrial agriculture
8
World Health Organization, The Medical tion,” Testimony presented to the United
and rural community degradation,” in:
Impact of the Use of Antimicrobials in States House Agriculture Committee,
Agriculture and Community Change in the
Food Animals: Report of a WHO Meeting February 11, 1999, p. 5.
U.S.: The Congressional Research Reports, 9
(WHO: Berlin, Germany, October 13-17, Martinez, Steve W., “Vertical Coordina-
Louis E. Swanson, ed. (Westview Press:
1997), p. 1. tion in the Pork and Broiler Industries:
Boulder, CO, 1988), pp. 43-75.
9
Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 3 (January Implications for Pork and Chicken Prod-
ucts,” Agricultural Economic Report, No.
Footnotes to Antibiotics, page 18 6, 1999).
10
A Proposed Framework for Evaluating 777 (Economic Research Service, U.S.
1
Grady, Denise, “A Move to Limit and Assuring the Human Safety of the Department of Agriculture, April, 1999), p.
Antibiotic Use in Animal Feed: Fewer Microbial Effects of Antimicrobial New 5-6.
10
Hardy Bacteria in People is U.S. Goal,” Animal Drugs Intended for Use in Food Martin, Laura L. and Kelly D. Zerig,
New York Times, March 8, 1999, pp. A1, Producing Animal (FDA Discussion Paper, “Relationships Between Industrialized
A13. Agriculture and Environmental Conse-
23
quences: The Case of Vertical Coordina- Drabenstott, p. 81. “negative labeling” and considers them
24
tion in Broilers and Hogs,” Journal of National Pork Producers Council, “1999/ distinct from the “natural” label (USDA,
Agriculture and Applied Economics, Vol. 2000 Pork Facts,” p. 13. Internet source: “Negative Ingredient Labeling,” Policy
29, No. 1 (July 1997), pp. 46-47. http://www.nppc.org/PorkFacts/ Memo 019B, August 18, 1994.)
11 11
Phone conversation with James Grim, 2000PORKFA.pdf. USDA, Food Safety and Inspection
25
Texas Poultry Federation, March 7, 2000. Interview with Jeannie Gramstorff, Service, “Organic Labeling Claim Allowed
12
“Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation Reports Farnsworth, Texas, August 18, 1998. on Meat and Poultry Products,” Press
Record Net Sales for the First Quarter of Release No. 0015.99, January 14, 1999;
Fiscal 2000,” PR Newswire, January 18, Footnotes to Organic, page 24-25 Federal Register, “’Certified Organic By’
1
2000 (Lexis Nexis article). Vandeman, Ann M. and Beth Hayden, Labeling on Meat and Poultry Products,”
13
Pilgrim’s Pride SEC Annual Report “New Law Paves Way for Expanding Vol. 64, No. 69 (April 12, 1999).
12
(online SEC Form 10-K405), December Organic Market,” Food Review (May- Organic Trade Association, “Organic
14, 1998, SEC file No. 001-09273. August 1997), p. 28; United States Depart- Trade Association Adopts American
14
Pilgrim’s Pride SEC Annual Report ment of Agriculture, “Glickman An- Organic Standards,” Press Release, October
(online SEC Form 10-K405), December nounces New Proposal for National 20, 1999; Organic Trade Association,
14, 1998, SEC file No. 001-09273. Organic Standards,” USDA Press Release “OTA Cautiously Optimistic About
15
Pilgrim’s Pride SEC Annual Report No. 0074.00, March 7, 2000. Proposed Organic Regulations,” Press
2
(online SEC Form 10-K405), December USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, Release, March 7, 2000.
13
14, 1998, SEC file No. 001-09273. “National Organic Standards Board to Meet Texas Register, “Chapter 18. Organic
16
Ibid, and Exhibit 10.49, Pilgrim’s Pride June 8-10,” AMS News Release No. AMS- Standards and Certification,” Volume 26,
Corporation Quarterly Report on Form 10- 127-99, May 21, 1999. No. 49 (December 3, 1999) pp. 10638-
3
Q for the three months ending March 29, United States Department of Agriculture, 10653.
14
1997. Broiler Grower Contract dated May “Glickman Announces New Proposal for USDA, “National Organic Program
6, 1997 between Pilgrim’s Pride Corpora- National Organic Standards,” USDA Press Revised Proposed Rule: State Organic
tion and Lonnie “Bo” Pilgrim, Farm 30. Release No. 0074.00, March 7, 2000. Certification Programs.” Internet source:
17 4
Pilgrim’s Pride SEC Schedule 14A USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service, http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/facts/
(online SEC form DEF 14A), December National Organic Program Proposed Rule, statenew.htm, printed 4/10/2000.
22, 1998, SEC file No. 001-9273. 7 CFR 205.236-205.239, March 7, 2000.
18
Pilgrim’s Pride SEC Schedule 14A 5
USDA, Food Safety and Inspection Footnotes to Survey, page 23
1
(online SEC form DEF 14A), December Service (FSIS), “Organic Labeling Claim “Organic” meat refers to meat produced
22, 1998, SEC file No. 001-9273. Allowed on Meat and Poultry Products,” under the general standards proposed by
19
National Pork Producers Council, “1999/ FSIS Press Release, January 14, 1999. the Organic Trade Association and includes
2000 Pork Facts,” p. 12. Internet source: 6
4 T.A.C. §18.2 practices such as the prohibition of antibi-
http://www.nppc.org/PorkFacts/ 7
According to the TDA, Quality Assurance otics and hormones in production, the use
2000PORKFA.pdf. International and International Certification of 100% organic feed, and no continual
20
Drabenstott, Mark, “This Little Piggy Services, Inc. are currently accredited in confinement. If available, these products
Went to Market: Will the New Pork Texas (Texas Department of Agriculture, would appear with a “certified organic
Industry Call the Heartland Home?” “Private Organic Certification Companies (by)” label. “Sustainably-produced” meat
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Registered in Texas,” January 31, 2000). refers to meat produced using any alterna-
Economic Review (Third Quarter 1998), p. 8
4 T.A.C. §18.4 tive management practices, such as limited
79. 9
USDA, Food Safety and Inspection or prohibited antibiotic and hormone use,
21
National Pork Producers Council, “1999/ Service, “Natural Claims,” Policy Memo limited confinement, etc. These products, if
2000 Pork Facts,” p. 12. Internet source: 055, November 22, 1982; Letter to Produc- available, would generally appear with a
http://www.nppc.org/PorkFacts/ ers from Robert C. Post, Labeling and “natural” or “negative claim” label.
2
2000PORKFA.pdf. Additives Policy Division, USDA, March Phone survey conducted July 21-22, 1999
22
National Pork Producers Council, “1999/ 8, 1999. to 27 Texas grocery stores in Austin, El
2000 Pork Facts,” p. 12. Internet source: 10,
USDA, Food Standards and Labeling Paso, San Antonio, Tyler, Lubbock, Corpus
READ
http://www.nppc.org/PorkFacts/ Policy Book (August 1996). Note: The Christi, Amarillo, Houston, Dallas, and
2000PORKFA.pdf. USDA refers to these types of claims as Fort Worth.
w w w . c o n s u m e r s u n i o n . o r g
w w w . c o n s u m e r r e p o r t s . o r g

Factories: Pollution and Health Threats To Rural Texas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factories: Pollution and Health Threats To Rural Texas

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Factories: Pollution and Health Threats To Rural Texas

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For generations, Texans have raised

pollution and health

Rank/State Pounds of waste

Water Body Impaired Area Impact

Texas to introduce organic meat standards

You might also like