animal open lagoons or piles. today’s animalconsumersunion.org/pdf/cafoforweb.pdffive or six...

factoriesGrain elevators in downtown Perryton, Texas in rural Ochiltree County where factory hog corporations have been expanding their operations forseveral years. Local citizens organized and fought back, suing to overturn Texas regulations that opened the door for these operations while limitingpublic input.

pollution and healththreats to rural

Texas

For generations, Texans have raisedcattle, poultry and hogs on the state’sabundant land. But in recent decades,market forces and new technologicaladvances have changed livestock pro-duction. According to the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) andthe Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), since the 1970s the number ofanimals produced in the US has in-creased while the number of animalfeeding operations has decreased,indicating significant consolidation withinthe industry.1 Concentrated animalfeeding operations (CAFOs) now raisehogs and chickens, densely stocked, inconfinement from birth to slaughter.

More like factories than farms, thesemeat producers confine thousands ofanimals in long rows, supplying themwith feed and collecting the manure inopen lagoons or piles. Today’s animalani

mal

Consumers Union SWRO animal factories: pollution and health threats to rural Texas, May 2000

production facilities dwarf theirpredecessors in size and output.In the Texas cattle industry,small operations (less than 50animals on site) still make upapproximately 65% of allfarms, but they only account forapproximately 12% of totalproduction. In contrast, thestate’s largest operations (thosethat house 500+ animals)comprise less than 5% of allfarms, yet they now dominatethe industry by controllingalmost half of the state’s totalcattle production.2

These large facilities aregeographically concentrated aswell—almost 80% of thelargest Texas feedlots arelocated in the Panhandle.Almost one third of the cattleproduced in confinement in theU.S. are fed within a 150 mileradius of Amarillo.3 Likewise,almost 75% of all hogs pro-duced in Texas are also raisedin the Panhandle,4 concentrat-ing enormous quantities ofanimal waste in one geographi-cal area.

The new technologies andmass production promote anunsustainable farming systemwith too much waste fordisposal, too many animals in asmall space, and too much dust,gas, and bacteria for a healthyneighborhood and workingenvironment. Industrial animalproducers use antibiotics topromote growth and preventdisease even though studiesfind that such antibiotic useresults in the spread of drug

resistant bacteria. Factoryanimal production creates largequantities of industrial wastewhich may threaten the qualityof local waters and the air aswell as affect public health.The risks posed by CAFOsinclude environmental contami-nation with nitrogen, phospho-rous, pathogenic bacteria,hormones, antibiotics, andammonia; noxious odor; habitatloss; and groundwater deple-tion.5

A sustainable animalproduction system, by contrast,integrates human, animal andenvironmental requirements ina holistic way, substitutinghuman labor and resources forcapital and commercial inputs,weighing the costs of pollutionagainst the economic benefits(i.e. profit) of the facility, andstrengthening rural communi-ties. Given the commitmentand the will, livestock produc-ers have the resources andknowledge to begin a transitionto sustainability today. But untilsustainable meat production caneffectively compete withindustrial producers, Texansalso need strong environmentalprotections for air and water inthe parts of the state whereanimal production is concen-trated.

The Industrial Processeedlots are relativelysimple operations.Animals eat fooddelivered directly tothem and then defecate

where they stand. They may bein enclosed barns or yards, andthe manure may be piled up(dry system) or fall into awater-flushed channel whichflows into a lagoon (wetsystem).

roducers bring beefcattle to feedlotswhen they weighapproximately 500pounds. Operators uselow dose antibiotics ona regular basis as afeed additive to

enhance growth. Meanwhile,crowded and unsanitaryconditions lead to a highincidence of death and disease,so operators again use antibiot-ics in higher doses to combatdiseases in the herd. Thisstrategy fails to adequatelyaddress animal health concerns,since cattle operations in Texasstill lose over half a millioncattle and calves to death eachyear.6

In these facilities, cowsstand in pens on piles of theirown manure and eat, putting on3 or more pounds a day, forfive or six months. Each animalthat is fattened produces almostone ton of dry manure solids inan average 150-day feedlotcycle.7 Every few days aworkman enters the pen andpiles manure into the middle todiscourage cattle from churningit up with their hooves. Eventu-ally the feedlot operator bringsin a bulldozer to scoop the pileout of the pen and onto an evenbigger stockpile—often near a

lagoon—where stormwaterrunoff from the pile collects.Contractors haul the manure tofarmers, while wastewaterrunoff either evaporates or ispiped over crops for irrigation.8

Pigs, by contrast, areraised in closed barns, oftenfrom birth. They stand onslotted floors which allow theirwaste to drop below into ashallow tank which is flushedout with water. Below the floor,waste mixed with water flowseither to a “separator” (separat-ing liquid waste from solidwaste) or directly to a lagoon.This is called a liquid wastesystem. As with cattle, closeconfinement in unsanitary pensleads to frequent illness anddeath, and workers must dragthe dead pigs from the pensregularly. Texas hog producersreport as many as 60,000animal deaths per year or about5% of pigs marketed from theirfacilities.9

Some dairy facilitiesoperate both dry waste andliquid waste systems. Dairycattle may be raised in open lotswhere manure is scraped andpiled about twice a week andthen hauled to farmland fordisposal. Run-off from themanure piles is channeled to alagoon system. Dairies may alsokeep cattle in small stalls linedwith bedding. On one endmanure is deposited into a wastegutter which is flushed withwater and sent to a lagoon.Dairy systems usually have asecond waste gutter in the

Pigs are raised in closed barns, often from birth. They stand on slotted floors whichallow waste to drop below into a tank which is flushed through a separator then intolagoons.

Chickens are raised together in batches,with as many as 32,000 birds in eachwindowless house.

F

P

animal factories: pollution and health threats to rural Texas, May 2000 Consumers Union SWRO

milking parlors, where manure isalso flushed through with waterto a lagoon or first to a receptionpit for solids separation.10

Large broiler farms mayhouse close to 200,000 birds ata time, with as many as 32,000chickens located in eachwindowless building.11 Hang-ing heaters control the tempera-ture and electric fans blow theaccumulating ammonia andsulfide gases outdoors. Thechickens eat from self-fillingfeeders and waterers. Mostfacilities use an ‘all in, all out’stocking procedure, wherethousands of chicks are rearedtogether on a “litter” ofaccumulating manure andbedding material, such as ricehulls, straw, or sawdust, fromone day old until slaughter atsix weeks.12 (In the case ofegg production, laying hensare kept virtually immobile inindividual cages until they nolonger lay enough eggs toremain profitable.) During thistime the birds are fed low-doseantibiotics in their feed toenhance growth and controldisease.

At the end of each 6-weekproduction cycle, workersremove the dirty litter, washand disinfect the house andequipment, and bring in a newbatch of chicks. Broilersgenerate about 5.8 tons ofmanure and litter per year per1,000 birds,13 while each layinghen will excrete up to 18pounds of manure per year.14

The litter contains high levels

of bacteria and pathogens,including E. coli and Salmo-nella, as well as metals likearsenic, copper and zinc. Afterit is removed from the house,the dirty litter and manure areusually spread as fertilizer onagricultural land.15 In fact up to10 tons of litter per acre may bespread on Texas farm land inany given year.16 According toa survey of its operationsconducted by Pilgrim’s Pride,growers raised about99,000,000 birds in the CypressCreek basin alone in 1997,generating 132,720 tons oflitter. Growers applied 114,511tons of this waste over 42,363acres as fertilizer and sold theremaining litter as a cattle feedsupplement.17

Waste Generationach year livestockfacilities create astaggering amountof animal wastewhich is stored inearthen lagoons,piled up in theopen air, orsprayed overagricultural land.Due to the

concentration of facilities anddense stocking of animals, thewaste produced may exceed thesurrounding environment’scapacity to safely reintegratethe nutrients and waste prod-ucts.

Texas ranks as the #1 statein the country for total animalwaste production, creating

twice as much manure as the #2 ranked state (see Table 1).18

Overall, the state’s animalproduction facilities arecreating an estimated 280billion pounds of manure eachyear.19 If improperly managed,this waste output threatens theintegrity of the state’s air andwater resources and endangersthe health and quality of life ofTexas residents.

Texas ranks first in thenation for cattle production,with as many as 14.3 millionhead of cattle on site in Texasat a given time,20 and cattleaccount for 88% of the state’stotal animal waste production.Each animal may produce up to47.3 pounds of feces and urineper day.21 Therefore, on a givenday, Texas’ 14.3 million headof cattle produce approximately676 million pounds of freshmanure. This translates into anestimated 247 billion pounds ofwaste per year that must behandled by Texas cattlefacilities.

Waste generation by thestate’s hogs and chickens adds

to the disposal burden. Texas ishome to approximately 755,000hogs,22 each of which producesapproximately 11.3 pounds ofmanure per day.23 In one yearthese animals generate anestimated 3.11 billion poundsof waste in Texas.

Finally, the Texas egg andbroiler chicken industries—concentrated primarily in EastTexas—further enhance thewaste problem. Texas poultryfacilities produced an average of480 million broilers in 1998 aswell as housed approximately17.4 million laying hens. Witheach broiler and layer producingapproximately 62 pounds and 95pounds of fresh manure per year,respectively,24 the Texas poultryindustry generates almost 31.4billion pounds of chicken wasteeach year. Most of thesefacilities use a dry waste system,which exempts them frompermitting under Texas law.Therefore, East Texans may findtheir farmlands, air, and water-ways at risk from the unregulateddisposal of billions of pounds ofpoultry waste each year.

Table 1: Top TenAnimal Waste Producing States

Rank/State Pounds of waste(in billions)

1. Texas 220

2. California 110

3. Iowa 102

4. Nebraska 94

5. Kansas 92

6. Wisconsin 78

7. Oklahoma 72

8. Missouri 70

9. Minnesota 66

10. North Carolina 62

Cows in feedlots stand on piles of manure,eating and defacating while they gainhundreds of pounds before slaughter.

E

(Source for comparison: Environmental Defense, http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/aw/rank-states.tcl?drop_down_name=Total+animal+waste. ED figuresbased on 1997 data. CU calculates waste production to be 280billion pounds based on 1998 and 1999 animal inventory data.)


Airattle in feedlots stand onpiles of manure. In thehot, dry West Texassummer evenings, as thecattle rise and move in

their pens, plumes of manuredust lift from under theirhooves and travel miles in thewind.25 Thousands of tons ofmanure dust fill the air in thePanhandle each year. Onerecent study estimated thatTexas cattle feedyards withcapacity over 1000 headproduced 7,300 tons ofinhalable small particulates(PM

10 regulated under the

National Ambient Air QualityStandards) in 1998, largely inthe Panhandle. This is a lowestimate because the studyexcluded all late afternoon andevening particulate test data.Using EPA standard assump-tions, actual 1998 particulate

emissions may have been fourtimes this amount. Studiesaround individual feedlots havefound particulate levelssignificantly above state andfederal (US EPA) standards.26

Dust from CAFOs mayaffect the health of nearbyresidents. When Koch Beefproposed to expand its HaleCenter, Texas feedlot to 80,000head, a number of neighborsopposed the expansion becausethe existing feedlot dust alreadycaused health problems. “Welive about…one mile north ofthe office of the Hale Centerfeedlot,” Elizabeth Jimenez toldthe Texas Natural Resource andConservation Commission(TNRCC). “When my childrenand myself move here (sic)…the cattle were quite faraway. And we still had a lot oftrouble adjusting to the smelland our allergies…the watery

burning eyes, the nose drainageand the burning of thethroat…(T)here’s the cloud thatpicks up, you can see it comingbecause of the size of the cloudand the thickness of thecloud.”27 Other residents notethat the evening is the worst. “Ilive two miles north of thefeedlot and at times in theafternoon the dust and the smellis so bad we have to leave thehouse for a while,” said John L.Ray, also of Hale Center.29 Atanother feedlot, members of anearby family developed suchserious sinus and respiratoryproblems that their young sonwas hospitalized for respiratorydistress before the family wasfinally forced to move from itshomestead of 100 years (seesidebar, next page).

People who live nearby orwork in animal confinementbuildings have reported health

problems such as respiratoryirritation, chest tightness,headaches, sore throat, diar-rhea, and more related to thedust and gas, especially fromswine operations.30 Thesesymptoms could affect resi-dents as well as nearly 17,000people who are occupationallyexposed in animal confinementbuildings in Texas.31 Andbecause the dust from feedlotsand animal housing unitscontains biologically activeorganisms such as bacteria,mold, and fungi from the fecesand feed, this dust poses agreater health hazard than doesgeneral “nuisance” dust.32 Forexample, about 20 percent ofswine confinement workerssuffer from organic dust toxicsyndrome (ODTS), “an acuteinfluenza-like illness thatfollows four to six hours ofintense exposure to agriculturaldusts.”33 Acute ODTS may lastfrom twelve hours to 3 daysand is characterized by flu-likesymptoms such as fatigue,muscle aches, headaches, fever,dizziness, and shortness ofbreath.34

In addition to dust, theodors from cattle, poultry andswine operations can beoverwhelming. Animal manureodor is composed of, amongother things, ammonia andsulfides (including hydrogensulfide)35 —and swine manureodor is a combination of at least121 different compounds.36

Swine odors emanate fromFeedlot operators pile manure in heaps in the pens to prevent cows from kicking it up under their hooves. But cows make themselvescomfortable on top of the manure heaps in the afternoon, and walk on them in the evenings.

Dean Paul #2 hog facility lagoon in Ochiltree County. Photo by ACCORD, 1996.

C


barns, waste lagoons, deadanimal disposal areas, andwastewater during fieldapplications.37

Odors create healthproblems in both the animalsand humans. For example,bacterial action in manure pitsunderneath confinementbuildings releases ammonia,hydrogen sulfide, carbondioxide, and methane, amongother gases. Every year animalconfinement workers reportillnesses caused by exposure tothese gases.38 In swineproduction facilities aircontaminants such as ammonia,carbon dioxide, dust, andmicrobes have been associatedwith animal disease, lowproductivity, and even death.Pneumonia, arthritis, andabscesses are not uncommon inswine raised in CAFOs andthese diseases may be attribut-able in part to the presence ofgas and dust contaminants inthe air.39 Furthermore, airborneammonia can be detecteddownwind of swine facilitiesand may lead to psychologicaland physical distress in nearbycommunities.40

Neighbors particularlynotice the smell from barns. Pigbarns and chicken houses havea large fan at one end whichdraws out the ammonia andsulfide soaked air. The heavyodor spreads on the wind.

“When they put the fans onthe pigs [in the barns], there’snothing like it,” said Elmer

Feedlots can control dust plumes by spraying water from a water truck over the pens. And whilesprinkling over feedlots on a regular basis may reduce dust emissions by at least half,1 the procedure isonly as good as its implementation. After years of negotiation over the water needed to adequatelyreduce fecal dust from Palo Duro Feeders in Hansford County in the High Plains, the Bergin familymoved from its homestead of more than 100 years when two year old David Bergin developed severerespiratory problems.

Palo Duro Feeders opened in 1965 as a locally owned feedlot and operated with no complaintsfrom nearby residents for almost two decades.2 However, the Bergin family’s trouble began when theTexas Beef Group purchased the 19,000 head capacity feedlot in 1982. Over the next five years, thenew operators illegally expanded operations to 32,000 head without getting an air permit and theBergin family and others began complaining about the nuisance dust and odor.3 These complaints ledto an investigation by the Texas Air Control Board (TACB--later a part of TNRCC). In March 1991,TACB found Palo Duro Feeders had expanded without a permit in clear violation of the Texas Health andSafety Code.4 By this time nearby residents were already beginning to suffer physically from thenuisance dust emitted by the expanded facility. Mrs. Bergin developed chronic sinus and respiratoryproblems due to the feedlot dust and by 1991 had spent at least six months under doctor’s care for herailments.5

In May 1991, the company finally applied for an air permit to operate at its current 32,000 headcapacity. As part of its permit application, the company calculated that it should apply 180,000gallons of water daily to the lot from two tank trucks to keep the dust down.6 But the Bergins andseveral neighboring families asked TACB to deny the permit and asked for a contested case hearing toinvestigate the company’s dust control procedures.7 However, through negotiations with TACB and theneighbors, the company promised to pump the necessary water to control the dust and the familieswithdrew their protest.8

In March 1992, TACB issued a permit to the feedlot to operate at a maximum capacity of 32,000head, with a special provision calling for sprinkling of the lot to control dust.9 Although the lot pur-chased equipment, it did not consistently water the yard as promised.

In February 1995, David Bergin again wrote the company about the effects of the dust on hisfamily’s health, but the problem continued.10 According to well data for 1995 obtained by an attorneyfor the Bergin family, the lot did not pump any water from April 17 through May 10, although rainfallwas light (less than an inch for the month).11 On May 3, 1995, two year old John David Bergin wasadmitted to the hospital for respiratory problems and later that day he was air-lifted to Northwest TexasHospital in Amarillo in severe respiratory distress.12

That same day the owners of Palo Duro Feeders filed a lawsuit against the Bergin family, claimingthat Texas’ “Right to Farm Act” precluded the family from seeking damages from the feedlot and askingthe court to bar the Bergins from suing them for nuisance conditions.13 And within days the companyalso asked TNRCC to further expand its permitted feedlot capacity to 37,000 head, against continuedopposition from local residents.14

No longer willing to risk the lives of his family members, in June 1995, David Bergin moved hisfamily away from their homestead,15 while the dust plumes continued through the summer months.TNRCC’s air program inspector confirmed a dust problem on July 14 and again on September 13,1995, and recommended that the agency issue a notice of violation to the company because they werenot applying enough water to affect the dust.16

“My family had lived in that Valley for over 100 years,” said T.J. Bergin, the young boy’s grandfa-ther, “and we looked forward to completing 200 years. This turned out not to be an option if we wantedlittle John David to survive—the David Bergin family must move to get away from the fecal dustemitted from Palo Duro Feeders.”17

Feedlot Dust Drives Family from West Texas Homestead


Koch Industries is a giant commodities corporation involvedin oil, gas, and chemical operations, as well as mining, grainmilling, and cattle feedlots. The Koch Beef Company is the 10thlargest cattle feeder in the US and the 9th largest rancher, withmany of its facilities located in Texas.1

Koch Beef Company of Hale Center, Texas bought a cattlefeedlot from Texzona Cattle Feeders in July 1996.2 In January1997, Koch filed for a Subchapter K permit to increase theirfeedlot capacity from 60,000 to 80,000 head. In response,citizens and companies of the area wrote to the TNRCC tooppose the expansion.3

Some businesses and farm owners expressed concernsover the health of their employees, some of whom would behoused within 300 feet of Koch’s cattle pens.4 Other neighborscited concerns over the potential for groundwater pollution, theamount of dirt, insects, and odors added to the area contributingto health problems, a decrease in quality of life for nearbyresidents, and the possible devaluation of land.5 (See main text).

On May 8, 1997, TNRCC declared that the comments bycitizens did not demonstrate “technical merit” and the processof granting the permit would continue.6 Undeterred, certaincitizens wrote to TNRCC challenging the “technical merit”response to previous letters. On June 20, 1997, TNRCCrepeated its “lack of technical merit” stance and authorized theSubchapter K permit the same day.7

In 1998 Koch purchased Purina Mills, an acquisition whichincluded six feed-making plants and a bulk feed-blendingstation—all in Texas.8 But Koch’s investment soon turned sourwhen Purina Mills filed for bankruptcy in October 1999.9 Otherfinancial considerations have caused Koch to begin re-evaluat-ing its strategy for vertical integration of its feedlot and ranchingoperations.10 In March 1999, the company sold the Hale Centerfeedlot to Cactus Feeders, another corporate agriculturecompany, and the nation’s (and Texas’) largest cattle-feedingcompany.11

Koch Expands atHale Center then Sells Facility

Schoenhals of Perryton,Texas.41

“Chicken houses have fans,the same as swine. Fansblowing out,” said Dr. JohnSweeten of Texas A&M, thestate’s leading expert on animalfeedlot odor. “One thing youcan do is erect a barrier, evenplant some trees. But better,you set up a wet or dry scrub-ber. It can be water, or chemi-cal, or packed beds. Like youhave for a rendering plant. Ifyou are located on a big tract ofland with neighbors a long wayoff, there’s no problem.”42

However, operators do notalways voluntarily agree to usethe best available technology—like aerobic rather than anaero-bic lagoons, composting, orlagoon covers—to reduce thesmell and ammonia emissions.43

“In many ways, theindustry has designed facilitiesto meet minimum regulatorystandards. They have notadopted the best technologyappropriate for a given site,”said Sweeten. On the otherhand, Sweeten argues thatimproved regulations driveconsolidation and force outsmaller operators. “The oneswho are in jeopardy are thefamily farmers. If you have oneset of standards that apply to a1000 head feedlot and a 100,000head feedlot, it’s not realistic.”44

Some neighbors finally sell

out, often to the animaloperation itself, rather than livein the constant smell. “This isour place, right here,” said BillPletcher of Perryton, standingin front of his abandonedhomestead. “My daughter soldit to Texas Farms...I was raisedin this place. All we sold wasthe house. I’m still out hereevery day. Some days [thesmell] is worse than others.”Mildred Pletcher added, “Theyjust got started. Wait ‘til it’sbeen out here a few years.”45

The Amarillo regionaloffice of the TNRCC conductedambient air monitoring nearhog farms, feedlots, andslaughterhouses in 1998 and1999. Sampling teams mea-sured hydrogen sulfide andammonia emissions downwindfrom the facilities. Oneammonia sample was collecteddownwind from a Texas Farm,Inc. swine operation at theborder between the hog farmand the neighboring property.The investigators found that theammonia concentration in theair was almost nine timeshigher than TNRCC’s “health-based effects screening level”or ESL. Sampling teams alsomeasured ammonia concentra-tions over ESL guidelinesdownwind of a cattle feedlotand a broiler farm.46

The agency uses an ESL asa benchmark for possible health

Bill Pletcher sold his house rather than live with the smell of a large pig grow-outoperation that moved in next door.

Barbara Philipps of Ochiltree County nowlives near a large hog operation andfrequently cannot go outside to work hergarden or enjoy her home.


effects rather than as a strictlyenforced standard. In the caseof Texas Farms, the TNRCCconcluded that “(e)xposure tothe measured ammoniaconcentration may causerespiratory irritation...insensitive individuals.”47

For hydrogen sulfide, statelaw does limit emissions, andexisting tests did not find H

2S

levels in excess of the legallimit at CAFOs.48 TNRCC alsoassesses hydrogen sulfide basedon a lower “odor threshold”range—a level which does notexceed the state emissionstandard but at which “themajority of exposed individualscan discern an odor.”49 TNRCCpersonnel reported offensiveodors downwind from anaero-bic lagoons ranging from therotten egg odors characteristicof H

2S to “strong fecal odor”

and “strong dead animalodor.”50 The investigatorsfound that another Texas Farmsfacility and a Dean Paul Farmsswine facility both exceededthe odor threshold range forhydrogen sulfide. The surveyteam found that the strength ofseptic odors from the wastelagoons correlated withincreased hydrogen sulfidelevels. The investigators alsonoted in their report that “theCAFOs may not have beenoperating at maximum permit-ted capacity during the collec-

tion of these monitoring data,”thus implying that the odoreffects might have been evenstronger if the facilities werestocked to capacity.51

In August 1999, investiga-tors found strong hydrogensulfide emissions downwind ofrendering plants and slaughter-houses owned by IBP, Inc.,Excel Corp., and CavinessPacking Co. that significantlyexceeded the state’s emissionstandard.52 Ammonia emis-sions were also high downwindof feedlots. Ammonia emis-sions at Stratford Feedyard,Circle C Cattle (cattle CAFOs),Top of Texas, (a relativelysmall—2500 head— swineCAFO), as well as IBP, Excel,Caviness, and Hereford Bi-Products, all exceeded thehealth-based ESL.53 Despitethese findings, TNRCC has nomechanism in place to penalizethe offending facilities becausethe health-based ESL is merelya benchmark for monitoringpossible health impacts.

Slaughtering/renderingfacilities are subject to compli-ance with the state hydrogensulfide emission standard,however TNRCC does notregularly monitor CAFOs foremissions. While somerendering plants have beencited for exceedances, noCAFO has ever been subject toan enforcement action for

violating the state emissionstandard for hydrogen sulfide.54

WaterAnimal operations produce

waste in industrial proportions,and seepage, spills, and‘accidental’ pollution intowaterways from barns, lagoons,feedlots and meat processingfacilities is not uncommon.

Feedlots, dairies, swine andpoultry growing operations alsopollute indirectly as a result oftheir regular farm managementpractices. They spray or applymanure and wastewater ontofields to be absorbed asfertilizer by crops. But becauseCAFOs often have moremanure to distribute than cropscan readily absorb, the excessnutrients can seep from fieldsinto the state’s waterways.

According to the EPA,agricultural practices contributeto the degradation of 60 percent

of the nation’s surveyed riversand streams, 50 percent of thenation’s surveyed lakes, pondsand reservoirs, and 34 percentof the nation’s surveyedestuaries.55 Feedlots adverselyeffect 16 percent of the riversand streams impaired byagricultural practices overall.56

In Texas the Gulf ofMexico already suffers fromexcessive nutrient levels.Nutrients from farm run-off,including animal waste, arelinked to the formation of aseven thousand square mile“dead zone” of hypoxia (lowoxygen) that cannot supportmost aquatic life.57 As Table 2shows, by 1998 animal confine-ment activities had causedsignificant pollution damage toat least 388 miles of Texasstreams and rivers and over23,700 acres of lakes,58 largelyin east and north-central Texaswhere dairies and poultry

Members of ACCORD, a local grouporganized to advocate for better air andwater safeguards as the hog industrygrows in Ochiltree County, Texas.

Accord hires a helicopter to take arialphotographs of the developing hogindustry and its waste lagoons.

Table 2. Texas WaterwaysImpaired by CAFO Facilities

ydoBretaW aerAderiapmI tcapmI

namtaPthgirWekaL

serca000,5 efilcitauqastroppusregnoloN

seniPeht'OekaL serca707,81citauqagnitroppusyllaitrapylnO

efil

sserpyCgiBwoleb(keerC

boBekaL)nildnaS

selim55hsifstroppusregnoloN

yllaitrapylnO;noitpmusnocefilcitauqastroppus

uoyaBkcalB selim42 efilcitauqastroppusregnoloN

reviRnoeLrotcorPwoleb(

)ekaLselim811

tcatnocstroppusregnoloN)esunamuh(noitaercer

euqsoBhtroNreviR

selim871tcatnocstroppusregnoloN

noitaercer

htroNreppUreviReuqsoB

selim31;efilcitauqastroppusregnoloN

tcatnocstroppusregnoloNnoitaercer

deriapmilatoTselimmaerts

selim883

deriapmilatoTsercaekal

serca707,32

tnemeganaMdnatropeRtnemssessAnoitulloPecruoStnioP-noNsaxeT:ecruoS)9991,CCRNT(margorP


operations dominate.A study conducted by

TNRCC for the Texas legisla-ture in 1999 found that certaincreeks running through areaswith many poultry houses showhigher fecal coliform andnutrient concentrations thanreference creeks. “That thedifferences among the studystreams are real, and do havesome relation to poultryproduction activities, issuggested by several lines ofevidence,” the report states.“…The more intensivelyutilized sub-watershedsconsistently exhibit elevated,but not always statisticallysignificant, nutrient and oxygendemanding parameters.”59

While the study fell short ofconfirming a direct linkbetween the application ofpoultry litter and the degrada-tion of Big Cypress Creek or

Lake O’ the Pines, the authorsnote that “the downstreamportions of the basin (BigCypress Creek, Lake O’ thePines, Caddo Lake) wouldcontinue to experience increas-ing nutrient loads if additionaldevelopment [poultry produc-tion activities] employs today’smanagement practices.”60

Erath and surroundingcounties support a large dairyindustry. Waste from ErathCounty dairies has significantlydegraded the Upper BosqueRiver and the creeks of theUpper Bosque, which showincreased microbe levels andincreased phosphorus. TheTexas Institute for AppliedEnvironmental Research(TIAER) at Tarleton StateUniversity began to test sites inthe North Bosque Riverwatershed above Hico, Texasfor fecal coliform in 1995.

TIAER found that substantiallyelevated fecal coliform levelswere correlated with theapplication of dairy manure tothe fields.61 This may pose athreat to drinking watersupplies in cities such as Waco,which receives water from theBosque at Lake Waco.

Over several years, TIAERconducted in-depth studies ofinstream water quality duringstorm events on the UpperNorth Bosque river watershedand also found that “the dairyindustry emerges as the majorcontributor to nutrient load-ing.”62 In particular, TIAERscientists found elevatedphosphorus levels specificallyassociated with fields whereanimal waste had been ap-plied.63

Texas regulations limitapplication of manure andlagoon effluent to land based

primarily on the nitrogenrequirements of the crop.64 Butapplication that meets cropnitrogen needs results in over-application of phosphorus.“When manure is applied at thenitrogen rate for plant uptake,phosphorus is typically over-applied by a factor of 2 1/2 to 3times crop requirements, if notmore,” TIAER reported.65

CAFOs must conduct an annualsoil sampling analysis todetermine, among other things,whether phosphorus levels arewithin an acceptable range (lessthan 200 parts per million).66

However Texas regulations donot necessarily prohibit the landapplication of manure in caseswhere the phosphorus bench-mark has been exceeded. Ifthat occurs, a CAFO maycontinue to apply manure as

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 washersand long forgotten oil and water well test holes throughout the region mean that hog lagoons could pollute area waters.

...continued on 11


Smith Farms, Inc., is a large egg-layer poultry CAFO that has operated inFlatonia, Texas for several decades. In1984 Smith Farms proposed a plan to theTexas Department of Water Resources (anagency which later became part of theTexas Water Commission and then theTNRCC) to house up to 228,000 layinghens in six buildings and utilize a liquid(lagoon) waste system.1 Under depart-mental policy at that time, such facilitiesrequired no formal approval or permit tooperate and Smith Farms was advised tocontinue with their plan.2

However, when Smith Farms pro-posed an expansion of their facilities in1987, the agency notified the CAFO thatregulatory changes now required thecompany to apply for a permit. Theagency asked Smith Farms to submit anapplication and also provided a copy ofthe rules, a permit application, and otherinformational materials to the company.3

The agency did not follow-up itsrequest until May 1989, when the TexasWater Commission (TWC) conducted aninspection of Smith Farms in response toa citizen complaint about a discharge fromthe lagoon.4 TWC sent another copy ofthe rules to Smith Farms and gave theCAFO a deadline of October 1, 1989 tosubmit the application.5 Smith Farms didnot reply.

The agency did not take action on thedelinquent permit until four years later, onMarch 2, 1993, when it investigated yetanother illegal discharge complaint.Inspectors found the facility in violation ofregulations, discharging excess waste intoa second unlined pond which wasoverflowing manure waste onto neighbor-ing property.6 The TWC issued a Noticeof Violation to Smith Farms on May 3,1993 and requested that corrective actionbe taken, as well as a permit applicationbe filed, by June 4, 1993.7

Smith Farms did not honor that date tomake a formal written response. Insteadrepresentatives from Smith Farms and theTWC met on June 24, 1993. During themeeting Smith Farms promised to correctthe violations, however the company arguedthat it was not required to obtain a permitbecause of its exemption from permittingunder the 1984 rules. It requested that thepermit requirement be rescinded in lieu of aWaste Management Plan which the companypromised to submit by October 1, 1993.8

Smith Farms did not keep its promiseand the Plan was never submitted. Theagency did not act again until April 1994,when TNRCC (having replaced TWC as theregulatory agency) revisited Smith Farms.Inspectors noted illegal waste dischargesoff-site, a pile of improperly disposed deadchickens on the property, and offensiveodors.9 The same month, TNRCC investi-gated anothercomplaint at thefacility anddiscoveredillegal dis-charges ontoadjacentproperty as wellas noxiousodors.10

On June 1,1994, a requestfor enforcementaction was madeagainst SmithFarms. Theenforcementaction requestcited threemajor violations and detailed Smith Farms’history of non-compliance. However, theformal enforcement order was not issueduntil May 12, 1995—almost a full yearlater.11 After operating illegally for almost adecade, Smith Farms finally agreed to apply

for its first permit and paid a $10,000 finefor water quality violations to the TNRCC.12

Although this outcome satisfied theTNRCC, the Texas Department of Health senta letter to TNRCC during the public com-ment period for the permit application,warning of the outstanding health-relatedissues to the operation of Smith Farms.13

Community members from Flatonia alsofiled their concerns with the TNRCC.

The Commission replied to both theTexas Department of Health and the citizensthat their comments had not demonstrated“technical merit” and that the Smith Farmspermit application met all the requirementsfor issuance.14 Unknown to the public,however, was that TNRCC facilitated theapproval of the permit despite the fact thatSmith Farms had submitted an incompleteapplication.

According to TNRCC documents, SmithFarms “failed tosubmit theminimum informa-tion required forprocessing underthe new rules”(Subchapter K).15

But rather thanreturn the applica-tion as incomplete,the agency“decided…we willprocess [theapplication] underthe old rules whichallow for a longerperiod of time forreview as well asallows more

flexibility on the part of the applicantdocumentation.”16 On November 1, 1996,TNRCC authorized the air and water qualitypermit for Smith Farms.17

Texas Agencies Slow to Demand thatSmith Farms Egg Facility Get Proper Permits to Pollute

Chicken truck hauls its load across East Texas backroads.


A sustainable animal production operation isone that maintains an environmentally andeconomically sound balance between theresources it uses, the output it produces, andthe waste that results. In other words, in asustainable livestock production system,success is not measured simply by profit.Rather, the operator also considers quality oflife issues, environmental issues, and animalwelfare issues when making productiondecisions.

Sustainable livestock production is an alternative tostandard production methods which provides a reason-able rate of return to the farmer while taking into accountthe impacts that livestock operations have on localcommunities and the environment. To be sustainable, anintensive livestock operation must consider the availabil-ity of resources (feed, land, water), the ability of theenvironment to safely absorb wastes, human and animalhealth concerns, and the direct effect that the operationwill have on the local community.

In its current form, the CAFO industry is not sustain-able. Here are some reasons why:

Overstocking and envirOverstocking and envirOverstocking and envirOverstocking and envirOverstocking and environmental contaminationonmental contaminationonmental contaminationonmental contaminationonmental contamination: Inthe days of small “Mom and Pop” farms, it was natural tolet animals dispose of their waste on farm land as a wayto supply cheap fertilizer to the soil. Now, however, thehigher concentration of animals in CAFOs means waste(especially nitrogen and phosphorus) is generated andcycled in excess through the air, water, and land,overburdening the ecosystem’s capacity to utilize it. Forexample, the amount of land needed to efficientlydistribute the manure generated in a typical intensivecattle feedlot is 1000 times larger than the feedlot itself.1

Most CAFOs do not have this much land available formanure application, so the excess may be over-applied toa smaller area. To make matters worse, there are fewnational and state regulations that set specific require-ments for applying manure on land.2 Texas regulationsstate that land application of wastewater from lagoons“shall not exceed the nutrient uptake of the crop cover-age,” however this amount is calculated on a case-by-case basis.3 And waste application may still exceed croprequirements if a CAFO submits a “Nutrient UtilizationPlan” which justifies its waste management practices.4

Human health impactsHuman health impactsHuman health impactsHuman health impactsHuman health impacts: Industries that posesignificant threats to human health are not sustainable.The health impacts of CAFOs can be seen at many levels.Dust and odors contribute to respiratory problems inworkers and nearby residents. Contamination from runoffor lagoon leakage degrades water resources and can

contribute to illness by exposing people to wastes andpathogens in their drinking water. Finally, the misuse ofantibiotics in animal production systems results in thedevelopment of antibiotic-resistant pathogens which maybe passed through the food chain to humans.

Negative impact on local communitiesNegative impact on local communitiesNegative impact on local communitiesNegative impact on local communitiesNegative impact on local communities: CAFOs thatcontaminate air and water resources have a direct impacton the health and well-being of nearby communities. Atthe same time, odors from CAFOs can drive down propertyvalues5 and force some long-time residents to leave, asnoted in this report. And the evidence is unclear whetherCAFOs really do enhance the local economy. Larger, moremechanized farms may actually worsen communityconditions because they may hire migratory agriculturalworkers for low wages6 (and with no promise of adequatehousing), purchase feed and supplies outside of the localarea (thereby draining economic resources away from thecommunity), and eventually drive out family farms that canno longer compete.7

What could be expected from a sustainable livestockproduction system? It can be envisioned as an integratedand holistic approach: human labor and resources aresubstituted for capital and commercial inputs; externalitiessuch as pollution ‘costs’ are considered and weighedagainst the economic benefits (i.e. profit) of the facility;stocking densities do not compromise animal health andwell-being; waste production does not exceed the nutrient-absorbing capacity of the surrounding land or jeopardizewater quality; forage crops are grown on-site or nearby topromote self-sufficiency and less reliance on outside feedshipments; and rural communities are strengthened andempowered. Given the commitment and the will, livestockproducers have the resources and knowledge to begin thistransition to sustainability today.


long as it submits a nutrientutilization plan “to assure thatthe beneficial use of manure isconducted in a manner thatprevents phosphorus impacts towater quality…”67 In otherwords, the current regulatorymechanism for controllingnitrogen and phosphorus runofffrom CAFOs into Texaswaterways is sufficiently weakas to permit ongoing phospho-rus contamination even in areasthat already exceed the state’sphosphorus benchmark.

The Ogallala Aquifereedlots and hogoperations frequentlylocate near the numer-ous “playa” lakes thatdot the High Plains.Playa lakes are large,circular naturaldepressions where

water collects and seeps slowlydown into the Ogallala Aquifer,the major source of bothdrinking and irrigation watersfor the region.68 Until 1993,operators could use the playalakes as retention ponds forwastewater, and those who

started operations beforeSeptember 1, 1993 may still doso.69 The land throughout thePanhandle is also perforatedwith incompletely pluggedwells, test holes, oil and gaswells, and other borings. Theseact as man-made rechargefeatures for the Ogallala.

There have been fewstudies of groundwater in theHigh Plains. One studyconducted for the feedlotindustry found nitrate-nitrogenconcentrations beneath feedlotsthat ranged from 0.25 to 9.1milligrams per liter, all belowstate and federal standards forpublic drinking water (10 mg/L). While the study found thewell water to be generallygood, it noted “potentialelevated nitrate from possibleseepage from a playa used forrunoff collection” into watersupply wells between 100 and200 feet of the aquifer sur-face.70 In a follow-up study,J.M. Sweeten found no statisti-cally significant evidence ofcontamination beneath twocattle feedlots located 270-320feet above the water table.71

In general, industry studiesemphasize that the quality ofwater in the Ogallala remains

high, but residents throughoutthe Panhandle believe manmade holes, soil cracking, andseepage from the playa lakesrepresent a significant threat tothe aquifer. “The playa lakesystem up here recharges theOgallala,” said JeanneGramstorff of ACCORD.Gramstorff worries aboutseepage into the aquifer fromcracking in the playa reservoirs.“When that soil cracks there isno bottom. When the claycracks, it cracks all the way,”potentially allowing waste toseep down into the Ogallala.

In addition, members ofACCORD have reported wasterunoff from hog barns flowinginto a local drainage ditch.“[Dean Paul] had a pipedumping into a ditch runningalongside the road,” said PatPeckenpaugh, another AC-CORD member. “We tested itand it was full of feces. Whenhe applied to expand [hisfacilities], we protested. Mr.Vasquez [one of the Commis-sioners] stood up for thisviolation, and he took the pipeout. But there’s an erosionthere now and water still runsdown from the barns.”72

The lagoons themselves are

typically lined with compactedlocal clay, which may also besubject to cracking. “A claylined lagoon is nothing butpacked dirt they pulled out ofthe hole,” said BarbaraPhilipps.73 Members ofACCORD have asked thatCAFOs build lagoons to amuch higher standard, withsynthetic (rather than in situclay) liners, leak detection andground water monitoring.74

Regulatory Environmenthe most importantenvironmental controlsthat apply to industrialmeat producers arise outof the 1972 Federal CleanWater Act, which requires

a National Pollution DischargeElimination System (NPDES)permit for all “point source”polluters. Confined animalfeeding operations, includingbeef feedlots are regulated bythe Environmental ProtectionAgency as “point source”polluters under the CleanWater Act.75 Traditionally,federal and state regulatorshave implemented this Act byrequiring permits for the on-site waste containment system

Hog barns on the high plains.

F

...continued from 8

...continued on 13

T


There is growing concern over the consequences of over-use ofantibiotics in livestock operations. Persistent use of antibiotics leadsto the development of resistance in bacterial populations. Once aparticular type of bacteria has developed resistance to an antibiotic,that antibiotic can no longer be used to combat the infectiousorganism.

In livestock industries, farm operators not only treat theiranimals with antibiotics for disease, but they also add antibiotics tothe feed to promote growth. This long-term overuse of antibiotics inlivestock production is now contributing to the development ofresistant pathogens. This poses a problem for managing animalhealth, and it also may impact human health—antibiotic resistance can be passed betweendifferent types of bacteria and may therefore createresistance to antibiotics that humans depend on.

The US produces approximately 50 millionpounds of antibiotics each year and 40% of that isgiven to animals, usually as a feed additive topromote growth.1 More and more evidence shows,however, that infectious bacteria are quicklydeveloping resistance to even the newest, mostpowerful antibiotics. Researchers have publisheddisturbing reports that antibiotic resistance inSalmonella and Campylobacter, two humanpathogens, is on the rise2 and evidence is mount-ing that these resistant bacteria can be passed fromchickens and pigs to humans through the foodchain.3 This poses a great health risk to the humanpopulation because it makes it easier for humansto become infected with resistant pathogens forwhich there are few effective treatment options.

It takes years to develop, test and gain approval for newantibiotic drugs. So while pharmaceutical companies are slowlydeveloping potent new classes of antibiotics, resistance is develop-ing at a rate faster than the drug companies can develop replace-ments. For example, within the last few years there has been anemergence of bacteria resistant to vancomycin—a last defense drugfor some illnesses, including deadly blood infections and pneumo-nia caused by Staphylococcus bacteria4 —and there is evidence thatresistant bacteria may have been passed to humans in the meatproducts from livestock who were fed a similar antibiotic for growthpurposes.5 Likewise, a rise in antibiotic-resistant Campylobacterinfections in humans has occurred in conjunction with the increaseduse of new classes of antibiotics such as the fluoroquinolones inanimal production.6

As early as 1969, policy makers in other countries were callingfor an end to the use of certain antibiotics as growth promoters inlivestock.7 In 1997, the World Health Organization issued a reportre-emphasizing those recommendations,8 yet livestock regulatory

agencies failed to respond. In January 1999 the US Food and DrugAdministration (FDA) proposed a policy for addressing the growingconcern over antibiotic use in food animals.9 Unfortunately, theproposed framework was weak on two key points:

! It focused mainly on evaluating new drug approvals whileignoring the millions of pounds of approved antibiotics that arealready used for livestock production on a regular basis.

! It did not sufficiently address the risk of antibiotic resis-tance.

The FDA proposed a category and ranking system for antibioticsbased in part on each drug’s relative importance in human medi-

cine. The most important drugs are those which treat seriousdiseases in humans and for which there is no alternative cure—these are listed as “Category 1” antibiotics. However, the FDA’sproposal would allow even some Category 1 antibiotics to be usedin livestock as long as the level of resistance that develops does notexceed a given “threshold” level.10 Many people fear that even alimited use of Class 1 antibiotics will increase the chance thatbacteria will develop resistance. When that happens, it may be toolate to preserve the effectiveness of these important life-savingdrugs in human medicine.

As an alternative, the National Research Council has reportedthat adopting simple production changes such as lowering stockingdensities (less overcrowding), controlling stress, and improvinghygiene could reduce the need for antibiotics without affectingoutput.11 And now a broad coalition of environmental, farm, andpublic health groups are endorsing a new bill introduced to the USCongress (H.R. 3266) which would limit the sub-therapeutic use ofcertain antibiotics in livestock.12

antibioticresistance

Researchers have publisheddisturbing reports that antibioticresistance in Salmonella andCampylobacter, two humanpathogens, is on the rise. Evidencemounts that these resistantbacteria can be passed fromchickens and pigs to humansthrough the food chain.


of CAFOs above a certain size,but not for small operations oroff-site land application ofwaste even if that applicationmay result in increased nutrientload or other contamination oflocal waterways. Yet manycommunity and environmentalgroups say that these layers ofregulation fail to protect eitherthe environment or humanhealth because enforcement islax, water quality monitoring israre, and states have little staffto devote to feedlot programs.76

Technically speaking,Texas environmental lawsprohibit the direct discharge ofany animal waste into Texaswaterways except during achronic or catastrophic rainevent. If these regulations wereadequate in scope and strictlymonitored, Texans shouldexpect to see little CAFO-related contamination in thestate’s water sources.

The regulations do not,however, ensure that CAFOswill discharge only duringchronic or catastrophic rainfallevents. Standard manuremanagement practices can leadto discharges and subsequentwater contamination undernormal operating circum-stances. The TNRCC implicitlyacknowledged this fact when itestimated that its 1999 enforce-ment actions reduced watercontamination from illegallydischarged manure waste by at

least 1,056,151 pounds.77

This does not take intoaccount other illegally dis-charging CAFO facilities forwhich TNRCC has not takenenforcement action. And inone case of an illegally operat-ing poultry CAFO in CentralEast Texas, TNRCC’s failure toact swiftly and severely—despite its knowledge of thefacility’s violations—allowedthe CAFO to pollute nearbyproperty for almost a decadewithout penalty (see sidebar,page 15).

Elimination of Common LawNuisance Actions

Because CAFO operatingguidelines are inadequate inTexas, CAFOs often adverselyaffect their neighbors bycausing severe odors, manuredust plumes, and surface watercontamination. Traditionally,these neighbors could havebrought a common law nui-sance action to try to recovermoney damages or to get acourt order requiring the CAFOto stop causing the nuisance.As a further hindrance toenvironmental protection,however, the state legislaturepassed a “Right to Farm” bill in1981, which virtually elimi-nates the nuisance liability ofagricultural operations, includ-ing CAFOs, for nuisances afterthe facilities have been permit-ted for a year. It also requiresthe complainant to pay allattorney fees and other legalcosts incurred by the CAFO

owner for his defense againstthe lawsuit—even if the ownerloses.78

In 1997 the Texas Legisla-ture passed an amendment tothe law which shielded CAFOsfrom nuisance suits even if theyexpand their facilities. Itdefined certain expansions(addition of pens, barns, etc.) as“agricultural improvements”and declared that “[s]uch animprovement does not consti-tute a nuisance.”79 Because theRight to Farm Act eliminatesneighbors’ ability to bring anuisance action to protect theirrights to use and enjoy theirown property, neighbors mustrely upon the TNRCC toprotect their rights. TheTNRCC’s failure to requireCAFOs to operate in compli-ance with the law and withrespect for their neighbors istherefore even more egregious.

Threats to Public Participationin Decision-making

Until 1995, Texas requiredeach new CAFO above acertain size to obtain separateindividual water and airpollution permits from the state.As part of this permit process,people affected by the newfacility (usually neighbors)could formally contest thepermit and ask for a quasi-judicial hearing before animpartial judge. During such ahearing, members of the publiccould directly question appli-cants and negotiate changes tothe permit to reduce odors or

ensure the safety of localdrinking water sources.

But in 1995, Texas“streamlined” the state permitprocess. The TNRCC passednew CAFO regulations (theSubchapter K rules) thatconsolidated air and waterpermits and created a “moreefficient and objective publicnotice and comment procedurebased on consideration of onlyqualified issues that have‘technical merit.’”80 Thischange effectively eliminatedthe ability of local communitiesto contest permits for new hog,chicken and feedlot operationsspringing up around them byrequiring members of thepublic to demonstrate the“technical merit” of their casebefore they could even begin topursue such a case. It alsoinstituted a “permit-by-rule”system rather than individualpermits. “Permit-by-rule”generally allows a facility to geta permit if it meets the require-ments set out in the rule. Thereis no consideration of site-specific issues or local protestsfor individual facilities.

Shortly after enactment ofSubchapter K, Texas Farm Inc.,a subsidiary of Nippon MeatPackers Inc. of Osaka, Japan,sought authorization of a new249,600 head hog operation inOchiltree County. ActiveCitizens Concerned OverResource Development(ACCORD) attempted tocontest the permit under thenew rule.

...continued from 11


ACCORD members, manyof them farmers, and otherresidents of the county sentdozens of letters to TNRCCprotesting the permit based onconcerns about the noxioussmells, increased flies andairborne diseases, depletion ofthe Ogallala Aquifer andcontamination of Kiowa,Gilhula and Wolf Creeks,problems with the proposedlagoon system (includingconcerns that the lagoons weretoo small), inadequacy of theproposed buffer zone, anddecreased land values adjoiningthe facility. Many people alsofelt that this facility would onlycompound the problemsassociated with existing hogfacilities in the area.81

TNRCC respondedthat all the complaints in theletters lacked “technical merit”under Subchapter K, andauthorized the hog facility.ACCORD appealed theTNRCC’s grant of the permit indistrict court. A judge ruled forACCORD and declared thispermit “invalid.” The DistrictJudge found that the commis-sion lacked “reasoned justifica-tion” to adopt Subchapter K.82

Specifically, the Judge ex-pressed concern about the newrules’ elimination of contestedcase hearings. The six specificpermits-by-rule mentioned inthe lawsuit were invalidated bythe judgment. The status of theapproximately 60 otherSubchapter K permits-by-rulethat were issued prior to theJudge’s ruling is unclear.

Shortly after the ruling, theTNRCC enacted new revisionsto the existing CAFO regula-tions, known as Subchapter Brules, which essentiallysidestepped the court ruling byoffering “authorization byindividual permit or by regis-tration under a permit-by-rule”

[emphasis added].83 Therevisions allow CAFOs to“register” with TNRCC as longas they meet the requirementsof the Subchapter B rules. Ingeneral, individual permits arenot required unless a CAFOcannot meet the provisions ofthe permit-by-rule registra-tion.84 TNRCC made thisrevision, as well as others,despite much public oppositionto the new rules.

The Greenbelt Municipaland Industrial Water Authority(Greenbelt) submitted lengthycomments to TNRCC regardingthe proposed rule changes.Greenbelt is located atGreenbelt Lake in the Pan-handle, near the convergence ofseveral creeks which providethe sole source of potable waterto five member cities.85 Largemanure lagoons at CAFOsupstream of these drinkingwater sources and wildlife areasthreaten public health and theenvironment if the lagoons leakor spill. Expressing fears thatthe current regulations were tooweak, Greenbelt asked theTNRCC to modify its proposedrules to create water qualitybuffer zones to protect surfacewater used for a municipalwater supply.

“The provision that therequired retention system bedesigned to contain the runofffrom a twenty-five year,twenty-four hour rainfall eventvirtually assures that there will

be rainfall events that exceedthe capacity of the retentionsystem. For us, this wouldresult in pollution of KellyCreek and GreenbeltLake…Pollution could alsooccur as a result of the cata-strophic failure of the lagoon,particularly during dry weatherseasons when a highly concen-trated stream of pollutantswould then enter the surfacewater body resulting inpollution of the drinking watersupply.”86 Despite theAuthority’s concerns, theTNRCC’s adopted final rulesdid not include provisions forsurface water quality bufferzones. The commissiondetermined that to considersuch a request, it would have tosubstantially change theproposed rules. Rather than dothat, it elected to have theexecutive director “study” theissue and “provide a recom-mendation to the commission”after the adoption of therules.87 Later, TNRCCsuggested that its implementa-tion of Texas House Bill 801(1999)—requiring individualpermits for CAFOs locatednear sole source drinking watersupplies—would addressGreenbelt’s concerns.88

TNRCC IgnoresCumulative Impacts

Opposition to TNRCC’sproposed regulatory changesextended beyond Texas. The

US Fish and Wildlife Servicealso submitted comments onthe rules, expressing concernthat “the proposed rules do notappear to consider the potentialcumulative impacts on waterswithin the state from multipleCAFOs permitted within thesame watershed.”89

TNRCC does not have astrong record of addressing thecumulative impacts of multipleCAFOs. Several years earlier,TNRCC began designatingDairy Outreach Program Areas(DOPAs) in eight counties ofthe state, including the Bosqueand Lake Fork watersheds—areas where water qualitydegradation has already beenlinked to CAFO operations—inan attempt to address the‘cumulative impacts’ of dairies.However, the program has donelittle to limit the expansion ofnew or existing dairies in theimpacted areas. Instead, itmerely requires that smallerdairies (300 to 1000+ head)obtain permits to operate andthat owner/operators complete8 hours of animal wastemanagement training every twoyears.90

US Fish and Wildlifeexpressed particular concernabout Tierra Blanca Creek, anintermittent waterway in thePanhandle, which flows intoBuffalo Lake National WildlifeRefuge in Randall County—and is also home to a largenumber of cattle feedlots.During the 1960s and 1970sseveral fish kills, attributed tosurface water runoff from cattlefeedlots upstream, occurred atBuffalo Lake within theRefuge.91 According to US Fishand Wildlife, poor water qualityand reduction in flow in TierraBlanca Creek resulted in theeventual disappearance of the

...continued on 16

Texas rules allow hog and other CAFOs to dispose of waste by spray irrigation ontocrops, a system which neighbors believe creates heavy odor problems andenvironmentalists believe encourages runnoff into surface waters.


asked if these products were truly natural and producedwithout antibiotics or hormones, we were told that theywere. In fact, Pilgrim’s Pride and Sanderson Farmsoperate large, vertically integrated, conventionallymanaged CAFOs in Texas and do not make any antibioticor hormone claims for their products. Two other clerksinformed us that they sold a Morningstar Farms frozenorganic meat product when in fact they were referring toMorningstar’s veggie burgers which are neither organicnor contain any meat at all. Neighborhood supermarketsclearly are not providing many options or adequate factson existing sustainably-produced meat for consumers tomake informed decisions.

On the other hand, specialty stores such as WholeFoods or local co-operative markets do tend to carry oneor more types of “natural” meat such as Laura’s Lean Beef,Peterson’s Pork, or Buddy’s Chicken, all of which makeclaims of limited or no antibiotic and hormone use duringproduction. However, the employees at these stores arejust as likely to be misinformed about the various productsand production methods as their chain supermarketcounterparts. For example, two stores informed usincorrectly that they sold organic meats when in fact theydo not. In one case, a Fort Worth store specializing inorganic produce and “natural meats” told us they soldorganic beef. When we asked if the cattle had been fedonly organic grain (as is generally required for “organic”status), they assured us that the meat—Spring Creek Beeffrom northeast Texas—was organic. A trip to thecompany’s webpage, however, shows that while the cattleare produced without antibiotics and hormones (i.e.“natural”), they are not fed organic feed and therefore donot produce organic meat. In the other case, a specialtystore clerk in San Antonio assured us that they carried abrand of organic beef. However, the product sold, B3RBeef, is not organically produced and the company makesno claim to do so. Finally, a specialty store in CorpusChristi initially told us that they sold organic meat, but,upon further questioning, conceded that they sold only“natural” meat products. In addition, the clerk incorrectlylisted Pilgrim’s Pride chicken among the availableantibiotic- and hormone-free products sold at the store.

So while consumers with access to specialty stores insome cities may be able to purchase sustainably producedmeats, there is no guarantee that they will receive thecorrect information about the products they are buying.Consumers need clearer meat labeling and more accurateinformation from grocery providers before they can benefitfully from the meat choices available.

‘natural’what is meat?

Consumers Union SWRO conducted a phone surveyof 28 major chain grocery stores and specialty food storesthroughout Texas to determine whether organic and/orsustainably-produced meat1 is readily available in Texassupermarkets. We found that while nationwide consumerinterest in sustainably-produced meat is growing, very fewstores in Texas (other than “natural foods” specialtystores) carry it, and no stores currently sell “certifiedorganic (by)” meat.2

Consumers Union phoned major supermarket chainstores (supermarkets) and local or chain “natural foods”specialty stores (specialty stores) in ten Texas cities to askwhether they carried organic or “natural” meats.Sustainably-produced pork was not available in any of themajor supermarket stores that we surveyed. Only fourmajor supermarkets carried any other “natural,” antibiotic-and hormone-free meat, and choices were limited to eitherLaura’s Lean Beef or Buddy’s Natural Chicken. In addition,in three of these stores we were mistakenly told that theycarried “organic” beef when in fact the clerks werereferring to various brands of “natural” (antibiotic/hormone-free)—but not organic—beef.

We found that most supermarket employees weremisinformed about organic and natural meat products.Several meat department clerks incorrectly informed usthat they sold “natural” meats in their stores, namelyPilgrim’s Pride and Sanderson Farms chicken. When

alternativesto the factory

farm


lake, but the watershed stillsupports an endangered species,the bald eagle. “If a stormoccurs in this watershed thatexceeds current wastewaterretention system designs, itwould be expected that thestream would receive inflow ofuntreated wastewater frommultiple CAFOs. In turn, basedon the language of the proposedgeneral permit, the NationalWildlife Refuge could possiblyreceive up to 22,000,000gallons of raw, untreatedwastewater in a given 24-hour

period.”92 US Fish andWildlife recommended that theagency adopt stricter capacityrequirements for wastewaterretention systems that arelocated in watersheds withmultiple CAFOs.93 TNRCCfailed to address the cumulativeimpacts issue in the finaladopted rules.

In September of 1998,EPA officially delegatedNPDES permit authority toTexas regulators as part of anational program designed tostreamline the permit process

and eliminate duplicationbetween Federal and Staterequirements. Finalized in Juneof 1999, the CAFO regulationsin Texas now implement bothfederal and state environmentallaws in a single permit process.

The new rules require fewchanges to the operation ofexisting facilities, unless theywant to expand or otherwisemake a major change to theoperation.94 Despite EPA’sdelegation of permit authorityto Texas, the federal agency“expressed concerns that the

cumulative or individualpermitted discharges fromCAFOs might result in orcontribute to violations of statewater quality standards.”95

TNRCC responded that “forthose Texas waters that arecurrently maintaining theirapproved water quality stan-dards, there is little, if any,verifiable evidence that CAFOmanagement practices anddischarges…permitted underexisting EPA and Texasrules…have caused or contrib-uted to impairment of aquatic

Consumers today cannot readily discern from the label if freshcuts of beef, chicken or pork come from a farm that uses sustainablegrowing methods. Although the FDA recently began to allow meatproducers to seek certification as “organic” from a number ofcertifying agencies, Consumers Union SWRO found that “organic”-labeled meat is rarely available on the grocery store shelves (Seesidebar). Instead, many producers who have rejected or moved awayfrom industrial meat practices label their meat “natural,” a term thathas little or no real meaning. In order to create and support a viablemarket for meat produced in a sustainable manner, Texas needssignificant labeling reforms, as well as the expansion of alternativemarkets where producers can sell directly to consumers.

With concerns about the environment and the sustainability ofour food system, more consumers are demanding organicallyproduced vegetables and meat. Over the past 2 decades, total retailorganic food sales have risen from $178 million in 1980 to $6billion in 1999.1 In 1990, Congress passed the Organic FoodsProduction Act (OFPA), which established a National OrganicStandards Board to address issues related to crop and livestockstandards, labeling and packaging, certifier accreditation andinternational issues. After lengthy consideration, the Board maderecommendations to the USDA in 1996. When the USDA publisheda substantially weaker national organic standards rule in December1997, over 275,000 comments, largely critical, were submitted andUSDA postponed finalizing the rule.2 USDA did not act again untilMarch 2000 when it announced its revised proposal for nationalorganic standards.3 Unlike the 1997 version, the new proposal moreclosely follows the recommendations of the National OrganicStandards Board, including prohibiting antibiotic use, requiring100% organic feed, and providing for more spacious and sustainablerearing conditions (i.e. no continual confinement).4 However, until

the federal organic rule is formally adopted, meat productioncontinues to be regulated, if at all, by state law or voluntarily throughorganic certification agencies.

Currently, 33 private and 11 state certifying entities, includingTexas’ Department of Agriculture (TDA), provide organic certificationfor grain and produce.5 Texas law requires that organic producersobtain certification through the state or a private certifying entity.6

Currently, two private organic certifiers are accredited in Texas7 andthey may certify Texas organic producers as long as their certifica-tion standards meet, at a minimum, the TDA standards.8 ThereforeTexas consumers can be reasonably assured that when they buy“organic”-labeled grain and produce, they are getting a “certifiedorganic” product.

However, the certification and marketing of organic animalproducts (meat, poultry, eggs, dairy, etc.) is not as well-defined.Without any state or federal organic livestock rules in place, animalproducts have not been allowed to use the word “organic” in theirlabel. This has impeded the marketing of alternatively-producedmeat and dairy products to conscientious consumers, many ofwhom are willing to pay a price premium for “organic”-labeled food.

In the face of this restriction, a complicated and confusingalternative—the “natural” meat label—has come into use. Unfortu-nately for consumers, the term “natural” is so loosely defined byUSDA that virtually all fresh cuts of meat and poultry qualify as“natural.” Specifically, the Food Safety and Inspection Service(FSIS) of the USDA defines a “natural” meat product as one that“contains no artificial ingredients” and is “not more than minimallyprocessed.”9 This would apply to most fresh meat and eggs,whether they have been produced conventionally, organically, orthrough sustainable practices. In fact, “natural” meat producers mayregularly use antibiotics and hormones for all aspects of production

Texas to introduce organic meat standards

...continued from 14


life uses.”96

However, TNRCC agreedto conduct a “comprehensivestudy” in cooperation with theEPA, Texas Parks and WildlifeDepartment, and the UnitedStates Fish and Wildlife Servicein which they would performdata analysis, modeling, andinstream sampling of at leasttwo distinct areas of Texas.TNRCC would then use theresults to determine “whatchanges, if any, should be madein Subchapter B at its re-newal.”97 As of March 2000,

however, no research has beencompleted and the studyremains in the planning stages.

The new rules do takesome small steps towardimproving CAFO regulation.They require applicants tosubmit a pollution preventionplan, require short bufferdistances between facilities andwell water supplies, and restrictthe night-time application ofmanure.98

Many residents andenvironmental groups feel thatthe rules do not go far enough

in protecting Texas’ naturalresources. The rules still allowoperators to dispose of liquidwaste by spray irrigation ontocrops, a system which manyenvironmentalists believeencourages run-off, and theycontinue to use nitrogen as thelimiting nutrient.99 The rules donot require lagoons to becovered or require filters forbarns that blow hog andchicken odors out into thecommunity. Despite thepossibility that high levels ofmanure dust or organic com-

yet still legally market their meat as “natural” under this definition.As a result, producers who adhere to a variety of alternativeproduction practices have come up with even more label claims todistinguish their products from conventionally produced meat. Forexample, claims such as “raised without added hormones,” “noantibiotics used in raising,” and “no subtherapeutic antibioticsused in feeds” are commonly used by producers to describe the“naturalness” of their products.10

Such varied claims make it difficult for consumers to makeinformed decisions at the supermarket. Further complicating thematter, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sets residuelimits which must be met by all producers, regardless of productionmethods. Strictly speaking, producers can meet the FDA standardfor allowable residue limits whether they raise their animalsconventionally (regular antibiotic use), organically (no antibioticuse), or with limited antibiotic use.

What matters to many consumers is whether the meat they buyis produced sustainably in a way that minimizes drug and hormoneadditives. Consumers who wish to support sustainable foodproduction practices may find themselves mislead into buyingproducts that do little to address these sustainability issues. Forexample, a “natural” cut of meat labeled, “No antibiotics adminis-tered 120 days prior to finishing,” means that the producer couldstill administer antibiotics to the animal on a routine basis frombirth until the last 120 days of the animal’s life. While this mayassure the consumer that the meat carries no detectable antibioticresidue at slaughter, the growing practices still allow antibiotic usefor much of the production cycle. Therefore, “natural” label claimsdo not necessarily provide consumers with sufficient details tomake informed decisions at the supermarket.

In January 1999, the Secretary of Agriculture and the FSIS

announced that until a national standard for organic meat and poultryproduction is established, it will allow certified organic meatproducers to market and label their products as “certified organic by(a certifying entity).”11 This is a first step in providing consumersmore choices in the meat products they buy, although “organic”-labeled meat has yet to appear in the supermarket.

In October 1999, the Organic Trade Association (OTA)—a1000-member business association of organic growers, processors,certifiers, and others—adopted the American Organic Standards, amodel to provide guidance to the industry. USDA then used OTA’sstandards as one of its references in developing its new proposedorganic rules.12 In December 1999, the Texas Department ofAgriculture also proposed standards for organic livestock productionin the state.13 The Texas proposal adheres to many of the sameguidelines as the national proposed standards, including therequirement for 100% organic feed and prohibition of sub-therapeu-tic antibiotic use. And under the proposed national organic rules, astate’s standards cannot be less restrictive than the federal stan-dards.14 Therefore, the state’s standards will have to comply with thefederal regulations once those are in place. Texans will then beassured that the organic animal products they buy are certified to thehighest standard.

The adoption of a unifying national standard for organic produc-tion would demonstrate a commitment on behalf of government andthe organic industry to expand and promote sustainable livestockproduction practices. A strong, standardized “certified organic”meat label would boost consumer confidence in alternative meatproducts and allow for more informed purchasing. Without such astandard, conscientious consumers will continue to secondguessthe meaning of the labels on the meat products they buy.


pounds from manure gases mayequally affect people’s healthand well being,100 TNRCC doesnot describe or require anyspecific odor abatementpractices, except to declare thatCAFOs should operate “in sucha manner as to prevent thecreation of a nuisance or acondition of air pollution” asdescribed by the state’s Healthand Safety Code.101 Nor doTNRCC rules address theconcern expressed by manyadjacent landowners that thesmell and flies significantlydevalue their property.

Enforcement: IgnoringOdors and Pollution

TNRCC does investigateodor complaints, however“nuisance” conditions aredifficult to document becausethe assessment of odor iscompletely subjective. Aninvestigator responding to acomplaint has no tools tomeasure odor intensity—otherthan his own nose—which heuses to quantify the odor on ascale of 1 to 5. In order to issuea violation, the odor must fallunder category 5, which isdescribed as an odor that is badenough to make peoplenauseous or force nearbyresidents to stay inside theirhomes. One TNRCC investiga-tor in the Panhandle told aNational Public Radio reporterthat he only issues violations ifthe odor is strong enough tomake him sick, and that hasnever happened.102 Thesubjective nature of theseinvestigations makes it difficultto document nuisance condi-tions and “even more difficultto litigate successfully except inthe most severe and persistentcases.”103 For example, poultryfacilities owned by Tyson FoodCorp. were investigated at leastfour times between 1997 and1999 for possible odor viola-

tions. In one case, the TNRCCcomplaint report listed theinitial problem as “horrendousodors” which caused the officeworkers to become “nause-ated.”104 In another case, theinitial problem was described as“nauseating gas odors andsmoke.”105 In two cases, odorswere detected but did notconstitute “nuisance condi-tions” in the opinion of theinspectors.106 In another case,the odors were unconfirmed,but “inspection of the facilityidicated (sic) the potential forodor does exist.”107 No formalaction was taken in any of theinvestigated cases becauseTexas air quality regulations donot provide enforceable,quantified standards to addressthese kinds of complaints.

Compounding this problemare other TNRCC policieswhich hinder investigation andresponse to odor complaints.Because odors are variable anddependent upon climacticconditions and operatingprocedures, a quick response isnecessary to document theproblem. In the instanceswhere TNRCC does investigateodor complaints, however,inspection may take place daysor even weeks after the com-plaint.108 Because of thevariable nature of odors, it isunlikely that the odors which aneighbor complains about will

still be present when theinspector arrives.

No matter how manyneighbors call in complaints,TNRCC will not act on an odorproblem unless it is docu-mented by one of its inspectors.On the other hand, if aninspector personally observesnuisance level odors at aCAFO, he or she cannot cite aviolation unless a privatecomplaint has been filed.109 Inother words, the agency willknowingly ignore odor viola-tions until a complaint has beenfiled but then demand strictverification once a complainthas been made. Yet TNRCC’spolicy discourages neighborsfrom making repeat complaintsif inspectors cannot confirm thecomplaint. Agency policystates that “[i]f a regional officeconcludes that such repeatcomplaints are withoutmerit…it may forward arecommendation to Austinrequesting that response tocomplaints by that individualagainst that entity be discontin-ued.”110

And, unlike investigationsfor all other industries, TNRCCpolicy does not allow inspec-tors to cite a CAFO nuisanceviolation in the field. Instead,the agency has created aseparate procedure for process-ing CAFO odor complaintswhich requires the investigator

to first submit a report to anagency “screening committee”in Austin. The committee, notthe investigator, then deter-mines whether to cite theviolation or send a warningletter to the CAFO.111 Takentogether, these policies severelyhinder the agency’s ability toeffectively respond to citizencomplaints against CAFOodors.

National Ambient AirQuality Standards limitparticulate emissions into theair. If particulate levels in aregion of the state often exceedthe standard, it can be desig-nated a nonattainment area andmust implement procedures toreduce pollution. The standardsmay also be used to estimatedownwind emissions from afeedlot during the permitprocess. Although the particu-late standards apply to feedlots,TNRCC rarely tests the airaround feedlots for compliance,and when it has the results havebeen inconclusive in partbecause the dust events aresporadic and vary with weatherconditions.

To further complicate theregulatory framework, TNRCCdoes not consider the manuredust kicked up under thehooves of cattle to be anemission for purposes offeedlot compliance with thefederal Clean Air Act. Thefederal Clean Air Act requires a“major source” of pollution toget a federal permit, but eachstate determines what kinds ofemissions will used to define a“major source.” Currently inTexas fugitive emissions fromthe feedlot surface are notincluded. If they were,feedyards as small as 8000 headcould be considered “majorsources” of particulates.

Texas Regulations Lag

Small, intermittant creek with noticable foam on surface near Pilgrim’s Pittsburg grainelevator in 1999.


Behind Other StatesIn contrast to Texas, other

states have implemented morestringent rules. Recent regula-tory changes in the State ofWashington authorized theenvironmental agency toinclude fugitive emissions fromfeedyards in the emissionsinventory for federal Clean AirAct compliance.112 TheGeorgia Department of NaturalResources recently adoptednew rules for large swineoperations that include air tightlagoon covers for largerfacilities, topsoil injection ofwastewater rather than sprayirrigation, ground watermonitoring, and financialresponsibility provisions tocover the costs of closure andcleanup of the facilities as wellas any fines that may beimposed.113 And in NorthCarolina the state legislaturepassed a bill in 1997 whichdirected the state’s Departmentof Agriculture to develop a planto phase out the use of anaero-bic lagoons and sprayfields atswine farms.114 Iowa alsorecently passed a law requiringinjection or incorporation ofmanure when applied within750 feet of residences.115

Kansas requires CAFOs toapply waste based on thephosphorus needs of the cropsif soil samples indicate thatphosphorus levels will exceedthe holding capacity of the soilwithin five years.116 And whenVall Inc., a multinational hogcompany, tried to set upfacilities in Kentucky in 1997,local officials requested—andreceived—a moratorium onnew CAFOs until the legisla-ture could meet to review thestate’s environmental regula-tions.117

Several other states havefound the health and environ-mental threats posed by CAFOsso overwhelming that they have

imposed a moratorium on anynew operations. The Missis-sippi state legislature enacted amoratorium on new hogCAFOs in June 1998, and inNovember 1999, the stateDepartment of Health recom-mended an extension of themoratorium.118 North Carolinafirst enacted a moratorium onCAFOs in August 1997,119 anda subsequent bill continued themoratorium.120 Georgia’sBoard of Natural Resourcesimposed a moratorium on hogCAFOs in January 1999 to givethe state an opportunity tostrengthen its regulations.121

Now that the state has adoptednew rules requiring lagooncovers and subsoil injection ofwaste, the Board has lifted themoratorium.

Unlike these states, Texaswelcomes corporate agriculture.In contrast to Kentucky, forexample, Texas opened itsdoors to Vall, Inc. in 1997 andissued permits for three hogfacilities that would house up to54,000 swine in ShermanCounty in the Panhandle.122 In1999 Vall, Inc. applied for twoadditional permits for facilitiesin Sherman County to houseanother 97,200 hogs. A nearbytourist ranch submitted publiccomments opposing one of thefacilities and the US Fish andWildlife Service expressedconcerns over the impact of

Vall, Inc.’s waste managementpractices on threatened bird andfish species in the area. TheOffice of Public InterestCounsel (OPIC) of the TNRCCrecommended that a contestedcase hearing be granted on oneof the permits, but theTNRCC’s Executive Directorrecommended that the agencydeny the hearing request. Bothpermits were approved inAugust of 1999, within threemonths of posting notice to thepublic.123

This is not surprising giventhat the TNRCC had alreadyestablished a willingness towelcome large hog producers tothe state—in 1994 the agencyextended a permit to PremiumStandard Farms to house up to925,000 hogs in one site inDallam County. In 1996 itissued a permit to Texas FarmInc. for its 249,600 head facilityin Ochiltree County. And a fewmonths after approving the VallInc. permits in 1997, theTNRCC permitted anotherPremium Standard facility inDallam County to house almosta quarter million pigs.124

While Minnesota has takenaction to safeguard CAFOs’neighbors from hydrogensulfide emissions by applyingstrict ambient air standards forhydrogen sulfide to CAFOs,Texas continues to monitor thesituation.125 The Minesota

Department of Health isdeveloping even more stringentambient air standards to protecthealth and quality of life.126

Kentucky has taken the veryimportant step of makinglivestock corporations jointlyliable for the environmentalperformance of the contractorswho raise the animals andmanage the waste. In February2000, the Kentucky Governorsigned emergency regulationsthat require both the animalowner and the contract operatorto obtain Clean Water Actpermits.127 In Texas, theindividual contract growers, notthe large corporate farms, areheld responsible for pollutionviolations, even if the animalsare the property of the largecorporation. Similarly, TexasCAFOs are not responsible forcontamination caused bymanure and waste if it has beensold or given away for off-siteapplication.

The 76th Legislature—inHB 2—stated that agriculture,including livestock production,“renews the natural resourcesof this state” and is a vital partof the state economy. HB 2directed the state to assess thecondition of agriculture and therole of government, keeping inmind several state prioritiesincluding the promotion ofTexas agriculture, protection ofproperty rights and the “right tofarm,” and infrastructuredevelopment. Supported by theTexas Farm Bureau, the newlaw did not specify thatsustainable agriculturalproduction is a state priority,nor did it direct the interimcommittee to balance the needsof factory farming with theneeds of neighboring propertyowners or the environment. Theinterim study will be draftedthis summer with input fromthe public.

In addition to the lack of

A neighbor by the intermittant creek has repeatedly complained to the city about thequality of the creek’s water, but told CU that she has seen no improvement.


strong environmental regulationof livestock facilities, the 75thTexas legislature authorizedTNRCC to implement a newpermitting process in which theagency could authorize one“general permit” for a region orfor the whole state.128 In thiscase, most CAFOs would nolonger be permitted or regu-lated individually—instead theycould simply file a “notice ofintent to operate” under thegeneral permit that applies tothe whole state, stating theirintention to comply with thegeneral conditions set out inthat ‘permit.’ There would beno opportunity to include site-specific conditions for aparticular facility as is nowpossible with an individualpermit. There also would belittle opportunity for publiccomment or a contested casehearing for general permitfacilities. Instead, publiccomment would only besolicited every five years at thetime that the general permitexpires.

On March 6, 1998,TNRCC issued public notice ofa proposed general permit, afirst step in implementing thisprocess.129 Many concernedcitizens and environmentalgroups submitted comments inopposition to the proposal.TNRCC has left the matterpending but is expected toeventually act on its authorityto issue the general permitRecommendations

Vertically integrated,multi-national agriculturalcorporations must balance localpublic health and environmen-tal issues against the demands

of the shareholders andcorporate profit.

US Senator Tom Harkin ofIowa, who has supportedlegislation to restore fairnessand competition in the livestockindustry, has said, “Theconsolidation of our foodsystem into fewer and fewerhands also poses serious risksto the security and well-beingof consumers.”130 ConsumersUnion supports efforts to moveaway from a consolidatedcorporate food structure andtoward sustainable foodproduction.

Moving toward sustainablepractices in the meat and dairyindustries will require a re-thinking of current intensiveanimal production practices.The necessary changes inproduction methods andphilosophy will not occurovernight. However, there areshort- and long-term measuresthat CAFO owners and govern-ment agencies such as TNRCC,USDA, and EPA can begintaking which will make theindustry more accountable forpublic health and environmen-tal protection.

ShortShortShortShortShort-term-term-term-term-termRRRRRecommendationsecommendationsecommendationsecommendationsecommendations:

Address WaterQuality Concerns

Surface and ground waterquality is at risk wheneverCAFOs are creating more wastethan the ecosystem can absorb.There are several ways inwhich this risk can be lessened:

! TNRCC should setmore stringent standards forfacilities, including minimumbuffer zone requirements

(setbacks) based on proximityto watersheds, recharge zones,drinking water sources,residential areas, and pristine orprotected habitats. For largerCAFOs, setbacks should be atleast 2 miles.

! No new CAFOs orexpansions should be allowedin areas that have water bodiesthat have already been nega-tively impacted by CAFO-related pollution (i.e. CleanWater Act 303(d) listedwaters—see Table 2).

131

! TNRCC should alsoimplement requirements forgroundwater monitoring,recordkeeping of monitoringresults, and regular inspectionsof lagoon structures to locatepossible leakages. Surfacewaters should also be regularlymonitored for bacteria andpathogens that are carried inrunoff.

! The cumulative effectsof multiple CAFOs located inone watershed should beconsidered when determininghow and where CAFOs mayoperate. We recommend thatTNRCC more stringentlyregulate watersheds that containmultiple CAFOs before waterquality is negatively impactedand actively reduce the concen-tration of CAFOs in areaswhere the environmentaldamage has already been done.

! All waste lagoonsshould be lined to preventseepage. Although lagoons canself-seal, cracks and pores maydevelop over time and increasethe risk of groundwatercontamination.

132 Liner

inspection should be included


as part of an annual lagoonevaluation since the periodiclowering of the waste levelresults in dry cracks that maynot reseal properly.

! In the case of drymanure systems such as thoseused in beef cattle feedlots, thedry manure should be coveredand stored in non-permeablestructures to prevent runoff.

Address Air Quality Concernsand Odor Problems

Farm managers shouldimplement simple technologiesto improve air quality andodors near CAFOs.

! Regular sprinkling offeedlots with water cansignificantly diminish theamount of particulate contami-nation in the air withoutaffecting animal growth andperformance.133

! A layer of straw on topof a lagoon absorbs odors untila more permanent lagoon covercan be fitted.

! An air “scrubber” orfilter, in which dust andodorous compounds areremoved from the air byforcing it through a shaft ofwater or soil can decreaseammonia concentrations in theair by 97-99% and odorintensity by 30-80%.134

! Eliminate aerialspraying of liquid manure toapplication fields tp reduceodor.

! Direct waste injectioninto the soil or application witha spreader, turning it in, limitspotential dispersion to water-ways and surrounding areaswhile reducing odors.

TNRCC Permitsand Enforcement

TNRCC should implementstronger regulations.

! Reduce hydrogensulfide and ammonia emissionlimits at CAFOs, slaughter-houses, and rendering plantsand conduct regular monitoringto ensure compliance.

! Reauthorize fieldinvestigators to issue nuisanceodor Notices of Violation ifthey confirm a complaint.

! Refuse to implement ageneral permit for all CAFOoperations.

! Take into accountcumulative pollution effects(from multiple CAFOs in onearea), prior violations by thefacility in question, andproximity to residential andenvironmentally sensitive areaswhen making permit decisions.

! Require individualpermits for all facilities housing1,000 or more animal units andfor smaller facilities if they arelocated in impaired watersheds,have a history of dischargingpollutants, or have been thesubject of numerous com-plaints.

! Follow the lead ofother states and hold corporateanimal owners jointly respon-sible with their contractgrowers for the pollutioncreated by CAFOs.

! Direct more attentionto monitoring and enforcingexisting laws, including swiftresponse to evidence of non-compliance and illegal pollu-tion discharges and assessmentof adequate penalties againstnon-compliant facilities.

! Eliminate the criteriathat members of the publicaffected by a new permit orexpansion of an existing permitmust show the “technical merit”of their issues before TNRCCwill grant them standing topresent these issues to animpartial adjudicator.135

! Give affected neigh-bors opportunity for contestedcase hearings, especially fornew facilities or significantexpansions which pose risks tohealth, the environment, andthe use and enjoyment ofadjacent property.

Long-termLong-termLong-termLong-termLong-termrecommendationsrecommendationsrecommendationsrecommendationsrecommendations:

Prioritize and promote re-search on innovative and sustain-able alternatives to current live-stock production methods inTexas, including environmen-tally responsible waste disposal.

! Develop new statewideagricultural priorities that includespecial emphasis on sustainablemethods for growing animals andutilizing livestock waste.

! Prioritize economic de-velopment of the state’s growingorganic farming industry, includ-ing organic meat production.

! Investigate new meth-ods to reduce the amonia levelsin livestock waste and decreaseammonia released into the atmo-

sphere.136

! Encourage the develop-ment and use of composting sys-tems that help eliminate odor andbreak down animal waste into asafe and useful agricultural prod-uct.137

! Investigate systems that

reuse animal waste for energy orfertilizer production.138

! Promote alternatives toantibiotics, with the eventualgoal of eliminating the use ofantibiotic feed additives inlivestock production.

! Develop educationalstrategies to promote alterna-tives to antibiotic use, such asimproved animal hygiene andless overcrowding, which canenhance animal growth andwell-being without the need forintensive drug therapy.

! Develop a standard,consumer-friendly label forsustainably produced meat anddairy products that may not be“organic” but representsignificant production reformsover the industrial model (forexample, animals that may haveingested some non-organic feedbut ingested no antibiotics anddid not grow in close confine-ment). Such an “eco-label”might include a checklist ofwell-defined sustainableproduction practices—forexample “no antibiotics usedever”—which would easilyinform the consumer about thespecific production practicesthat were utilized on the farm.

Endnotes1 U.S. Environmental Pro-

tection Agency and U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, Unified Na-tional Strategy for Animal Feed-ing Operations (March 9, 1999),Sec. 2(1), p. 6.

2 Texas Agricultural Statis-tics Service, “Texas Cattle Op-erations by Size 1999.” Internetsource: http://www.io.com/~tass/size.gif (printed March 27,2000).

3 Texas Agricultural Statis-


tics Service, “Texas Cattle andCalves on Feed in 1,000+ Capac-ity Feedlots,” (March 17, 2000).Internet source: http://www.io.com/~tass/tcatcofd.htm.Auvermann, Brent, T. andArturo Romanillos, Effect ofStocking Density Manipulationon Fugitive PM

10 Emisions

from Cattle Feedyards, TexasAgricultural ExperimentStation, unpublished paper forconference presentation June,2000.

4 Texas AgriculturalStatistics Service, “1998 Hog &Pig District Estimates.”Internet source: http://www.io.com/~tass/ctyhogs.htm(printed March 27, 2000).

5 U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency and U.S.Department of Agriculture,Unified National Strategy forAnimal Feeding Operations(March 9, 1999), Sec. 2(2), p. 7.

6 Texas AgriculturalStatistics Service, “Texas Cattleand Calves: Inventory, CalfCrop and Disposition, 1994-99,” in: 1998 Texas Agricul-tural Statistics Bulletin, p. 32(Compiled by Texas Agricul-tural Statistics Service).

7 Sweeten, John M., “Odorand Dust from LivestockFeedlots,” Texas AgriculturalExtension Service Report B-5011 (June 1991), p. 1.

8 Sweeten, John M.,“Cattle Feedlot Manure andWastewater ManagementPractices,” in: Animal WasteUtilization: Effective Use ofManure as a Soil Resource, ed.J.L. Hatfield and B.A. Stewart(Ann Arbor Press: Ann Arbor,1998), p. 134, 143-145.

9 Texas AgriculturalStatistics Service, “Texas Hogs:Inventory, Pig Crop andDisposition, 1994-99,” in: 1998Texas Agricultural StatisticsBulletin, p. 64 (Compiled byTexas Agricultural Statistics

Service).10 McFarland, Anne M.S.

and John M. Sweeten, “OdorAssessment of Open LotDairies,” Presented at the 1993International Winter Meeting ofthe ASAE, Paper No. 934553(ASAE: St. Joseph, Michigan,December 14-17, 1993), p. 2.

11 Texas Natural Resourceand Conservation Commission,Office of Water ResourceManagement, Water QualityDivision, Poultry OperationsStudy: Report to the 76th Sessionof the Texas Legislature (Publication SFR-65, January 15,1999), Appendix B: pp. 60-61.

12 Bremner, Alan and MacJohnston, ed., Poultry MeatHygiene and Inspection (WBSaunders Company Ltd.:London, 1996), pp. 5-7, 10.

13 Barker, J.C., S. C.Hodges, and C. R. Campbell,“Livestock Manure ProductionRates and Nutrient Content,”in: 2000 North CarolinaAgricultural ChemicalsManual, Chapter 10 (NorthCarolina State University,2000), p. 2.

14 Poultry Water QualityConsortium, Poultry WaterQuality Handbook (1994).Cited in: Texas NaturalResource and ConservationCommission, Office of WaterResource Management, WaterQuality Division, PoultryOperations Study: Report tothe 76th Session of the TexasLegislature (Publication SFR-65, January 15, 1999), p. 5.

15 Bremner and Johnson,Poultry Meat Hygiene andInspection (1996), pp. 11-12;TNRCC Poultry OperationsStudy (1999), p. 8. TexasNatural Resource ConservationCommission (TNRCC), PoultryOperations Study (1999), p. 7;Young, J.L., M. Chang, M.C.Chochran, & L.L. Whiteside,Poultry Litter Land Application

Rate Study Final Report—Executive Summary (Stephen F.Austin State University andAngelina & Neches RiverAuthority, 1996), pp. 8-10.

16 TNRCC, PoultryOperations Study (1999), p. 7;Young, J.L., M. Chang, M.C.Chochran, & L.L. Whiteside,Poultry Litter Land ApplicationRate Study Final Report—Executive Summary (Stephen F.Austin State University andAngelina & Neches RiverAuthority, 1996), p. 5.

17 TNRCC, PoultryOperations Study (1999),Appendix C, p. 4.

18 Environmental Defense,“Environmental DefenseScorecard” (2000). Internetsource: http://www.scorecard.org/env-releases/aw/rank-states.tcl?drop_down_name=Total+animal+waste.

19 Based on most recent(1998-1999) animal inventorydata from the Texas Agricul-tural Statistics Service andmanure production estimates in2000 North Carolina Agricul-tural Chemicals Manual. Toobtain the total pounds pro-duced, the total number ofanimals in Texas in eachlivestock category was multi-plied by the amount of manureproduced by each class oflivestock and summed over allclasses of animals (see text forfigures used). The totalpresented in Table 1 is slightlylower than the text calculationbecause EnvironmentalDefense used older (1997)animal inventory data in itscalculations.

20 Texas AgriculturalStatistics Service, “Texas Cattleand Calves: Inventory, CalfCrop and Disposition, 1994-99,” in: 1998 Texas Agricul-tural Statistics, p. 32 (Compiledby Texas Agricultural Statistics

Service).21 Barker, J.C., S. C.

Hodges, and C.R. Campbell,“Livestock Manure ProductionRates and Nutrient Content,”in: 2000 North CarolinaAgricultural ChemicalsManual, Chapter 10 (NorthCarolina State University,2000), p. 1. (Based on outputby an average weight—800pound—beef animal.)

22 Texas Agricultural Statis-tics Service, “Hogs and Pigs: In-ventory of All Hogs Breedingand Market, December 1, 1998-99.” Internet source: http://www.io.com/~tass/thoginv.htm.(Average of January 1998 andJanuary 1999 inventories.)

23 Barker, J.C., Hodges,S.C., and Campbell, C.R. 2000.“Livestock Manure ProductionRates and Nutrient Content,”in: 2000 North CarolinaAgricultural ChemicalsManual, Chapter 10, NorthCarolina State University, p. 1.

24 Barker, J.C., Hodges,S.C., and Campbell, C.R. 2000.“Livestock Manure ProductionRates and Nutrient Content,”in: 2000 North CarolinaAgricultural ChemicalsManual, Chapter 10, NorthCarolina State University, p. 1.

25 Letter to Gerald Hudson,Regional Director, Texas AirControl Board from David L.Bergin (July 14, 1991); Citizenpetition to TNRCC (March 6,1997), re: Expansion of KochBeef Company; TNRCCComplaint InvestigationReport, Complaint No.029000020 (February 7, 1990);TNRCC, Complaint Investiga-tion Report, Complaint No.029100031 (March 11, 1991);TNRCC, Complaint Investiga-tion Report, Complaint No.029100036 (March 19, 1991).

26 Parnell, Charles, BryanShaw and Brent Auvermann,Agricultural Air Quality FineParticle Project, Task 1 Final


Report, December, 1999. Phoneconversation with BrentAuvermann, May 4, 2000confirming that estimate is lowdue to exclusion of eveningdata. Sweeten, John M., CalvinB. Parnell, Robert S. Etheredge,and Dana Osborne, “DustEmissions in Cattle Feedlots,”Veterinary Clinics of NorthAmerica: Food Animal Prac-tice, Vol.4, No. 3 (November1988), pp. 558, 577.

27 Letter to TRNCC fromElizabeth Jimenez, May 28,1997, re: Koch Beef.

29 Letter to TNRCC fromJohn L. Ray, May 27, 1997, re:Koch Beef expansion.

30 Wing, Steve andSusanne Wolf, “IntensiveLivestock Operations, Healthand Quality of Life AmongEastern North Carolina Resi-dents,” Environmental HealthPerspectives, Vol. 108, No. 3(March 2000), p. 233; Donham,Kelley J., “Potential HealthHazards to AgriculturalWorkers in Swine ConfinementBuildings,” Journal of Occupa-tional Medicine, Vol. 19(1977), pp. 385-386; Donham,Kelley J. and Kim E.Gustafson, “Human Occupa-tional Hazards from SwineConfinement,” Annals of theAmerican Conference ofGovernmental IndustrialHygienists, Vol. 2 (1982), p.139.

31 Texas WorkforceCommission, “CoveredEmployment and Wages byIndustry: 1994-1999, 1st

Quarter Selected Texas PrivateAnimal Agriculture,” (Com-piled by Texas WorkforceCommission, Labor MarketInformation Department, March1, 2000).

32 Donham, Kelley J.,“Association of EnvironmentalAir Contaminants with Diseaseand Productivity in Swine,”

American Journalof VeterinaryResearch, Vol. 52,No. 10 (1991), p.1723.

33 Donham,Kelley J., “TheImpact of Indus-trial SwineProduction onHuman Health,”in: Pigs, Profits,and Rural Commu-nities, ed. KendallM. Thu and E.Paul Durrenberger(State Universityof New YorkPress: New York,1998), p. 80.

34 Ibid., Donham, Kelly J.(1998), p. 80.

35 Sweeten, J.M., “OdorControl from Poultry ManureComposting Plant Using a SoilFilter,” American Society ofAgricultural Engineers, Vol. 7,No. 4 (July 1991), p. 439.

36 Sweeten, John M.,“Odor Abatement: Progressand Concerns,” NationalPoultry Waste ManagementSymposium (Harrisburg,Pennsylvania, October 21-23,1996).

37 Miner, Ronald, “AReview of the Literature on theNature and Control of Odorsfrom Pork Production Facili-ties,” Paper for the OdorSubcommittee of the Environ-mental Committee of theNational Pork ProducersCouncil (September 1, 1995),p. 4.

38 Donham, Kelley J., et al.“Acute Toxic Exposure toGases from Liquid Manure,”Journal of OccupationalMedicine, Vol. 24, No. 2(February 1982), p. 142;Lorimor, Jeff, Charles V.Schwab, and Laura Miller,“Manure Storage PosesInvisible Risks,” ISU Extension

Publication # Pm-1518k(February 1994); Chapin, Amy,Charlotte Boulind, and AmandaMoore, Controlling Odor andGaseous Emission Problemsfrom Industrial Swine Facili-ties: A Handbook for AllInterested Parties (YaleEnvironmental ProtectionClinic, Spring 1998), Section2.3.1.

39 Donham, Kelley J.,“Association of environmentalair contaminants with diseaseand productivity in swine,”American Journal of VeterinaryResearch, Vol. 52, No. 10(October 1991), p. 1727.

40 Reynolds, Stephen J., etal, “Air quality assessments inthe vicinity of swine productionfacilities,” Journal ofAgromedicine, Vol. 4, No. 1/2(1997), pp. 41-42.

41 Interview with ElmerSchoenhals, Perryton, Texas,August 18, 1998.

42 Interview with John M.Sweeten, Amarillo, Texas,August 19, 1998.

43 Ledbetter, Kay, “Swineraisers employ numerous odoreaters, with varying degrees ofsuccess,” Amarillo Globe-News, May 28, 1998. Internet

source: http://www.amarillonet.com.

44 Interview with John M.Sweeten, Amarillo, Texas,August 19, 1998.

45 Interview with Bill andMildred Pletcher, Perryton,Texas, August 18, 1999.

46 TNRCC InterofficeMemorandum from LaurelCarlisle, Toxicology & RiskAssessment Section, ChiefEngineer’s Office to BradJones, Director, TNRCCRegion 1, Amarillo, re:“Toxicological Evaluation ofAir Monitoring Results,Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammo-nia, Concentrated FeedingOperations, Ochiltree County,August 13-18, 1998,” Novem-ber 19, 1998, p. 1; TNRCCInteroffice Memorandum fromJanet Pichette, Toxicology &Risk Assessment Section, toBrad Jones, Director, TNRCCRegion 1, Amarillo, re:“Toxicological Evaluation ofMobile Air Monitoring Results,Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammo-nia, Amarillo and LubbockRegions, August 9-17, 1999,”December 2, 1999, p. 2;TNRCC Interoffice Memoran-dum to JoAnn Wiersema,Toxicology and Risk Assess-

Texas Farm Inc. #3 spreads across Ochiltree County in the Texas High Plains. A finishing facilitypermitted for 249,000 head of hogs, Texas Farm #3 was about 60 percent built out at the time this arialphoto was taken by Mr. Barnett of Canadian, Texas. The home in the foreground belonged to Mr. BillPletcher until his family sold it to Texas Farm. The nearest lagoon was 1/4 mile away from the home,meeting minimum TNRCC requirements.


ment Section, from DavidCarmichael, Laboratory andMobile Monitoring Section, Re:Correction to Reported Ammo-nia Sampling Results, February1, 2000. TNRCC InterofficeMemorandum to Zoe Rascoe,Director TNRCC Region 9,from Vincent Leopold, “Toxi-cological Evaluation of Resultsof Air Monitoring...SandersonFarms, Leon County, Septem-ber 15,-16, 1999,” November16, 1999, p. 3.

47 TNRCC InterofficeMemorandum from LaurelCarlisle, Toxicology & RiskAssessment Section, ChiefEngineer’s Office to BradJones, Director, TNRCCRegion 1, Amarillo, re:“Toxicological Evaluation ofAir Monitoring Results,Hydrogen Sulfide and Ammo-nia, Concentrated FeedingOperations, Ochiltree County,August 13-18, 1998,” Novem-ber 19, 1998, p. 1.

48 30 T.A.C. §112.31(effective January 1, 1976).The law states that hydrogensulfide emissions may notexceed 0.08 parts per millionaveraged over any 30-minuteperiod near property used forresidential, business, orcommercial purposes. Forother property, the standard isslightly higher at 0.12 parts permillion (30 TAC §112.32).


50 TNRCC Memo to JoAnn

Wiersema, Toxicology andRisk Assessment Section, fromDavid Carmichael & EdwardRagsdale, Laboratory andMobile Monitoring Section, Re:Hydrogen Sulfide sampling,August 13-18, 1998, datedOctober 14, 1998.


52 TNRCC InterofficeMemorandum to Brad Jones,Director, Region 1, Amarillo,and Jim Estes, Director, Region2, Lubbock, from JanetPichette, Toxicology and RiskSection, Re: “ToxicologicalEvaluation of Mobile AirMonitoring Results, HydrogenSulfide and Ammonia Sam-pling and Analysis Project,Amarillo and Lubbuck Re-gions, August 9-17, 1999,”December 2, 1999.

53 Ibid.54 Phone conversation with

David Henrichs, TNRCC, AirEnforcement Division TeamLeader, March 29, 2000.

55 U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Office ofWater, “National Water QualityInventory: 1994 Report toCongress.” (Washington, D.C.:1995), pp. ES-15, ES18, ES-25.

56 U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, “NationalWater Quality Inventory: 1994Report to Congress” (Washing-ton, D.C., 1995), p. 35.

57 Minority Staff of theU.S. Senate Committee onAgriculture, Nutrition and

Forestry, “Animal WastePollution in America: AnEmerging National Problem”(December 1997), p. 2.

58 TNRCC, Texas Non-Point Source Pollution Assess-ment Report and ManagementProgram, (October 1999, SFR-68/99), Appendix F, pp. 2-4, 9-10.

59 TNRCC, PoultryOperations Study (January1999), Appendix C, p. 48 andAppendix A, pp. 12-14.

60 TNRCC, PoultryOperations Study (January1999), Appendix C, p. 51.

61 Hauck, Larry, “FecalColiforms: Their Presence &Meaning,” in: Bosque RiverAdvisory Committee, BriefingPapers (Stephenville, Texas,January 23, 1996), pp. D-3, D-4.

62 McFarland, Ann andLarry Hauck, Livestock and theEnvironment: ScientificUnderpinnings for PolicyAnalysis (Texas Institute forApplied EnvironmentalResearch: Tarleton StateUniversity, September 1995), p.iii.

63 McFarland, Ann andLarry Hauck, Livestock and theEnvironment: A National PilotProject, Report on StreamWater Quality in the UpperNorth Bosque River Watershed(Texas Institute for AppliedEnvironmental Research:Tarleton State University, June1997), pp.69-70.

64 30 T.A.C.§321.39(f)(19)(B).

65 McFarland and Hauck(1997), p. 70.

66 30 T.A.C.§321.39(f)(28).

67 30 T.A.C.§321.39(f)(28)(G).

68 Sweeten, J.M., T.H.Marek and D. McReynolds,“Groundwater Quality NearTwo Cattle Feedlots in Texas

High Plains: A Case Study,”American Society of Agricul-tural Engineers, Vol. 11, No. 6(November 1995), p. 845.

69 Sweeten, John M.,“Cattle Feedlot Manure andWastewater ManagementPractices,” in: Animal WasteUtilization: Effective Use ofManure as a Soil Resource, ed.J.L. Hatfield and B.A. Stewart(Ann Arbor Press: Ann Arbor,1998), p. 129-130.

70 Sweeten, John M., et al.,“Well Water Analysis from 26Cattle Feedyards in Castro,Deaf Smith, Parmer, andRandall Counties, Texas,January-February, 1990”(October 15, 1990), p. 5

71 Sweeten, Marek andMcReynolds (1995), p. 846.

72 Interviews with JeannieGramstorff and PatPeckenpaugh, Perryton, Texas,August 18, 1998.

73 Interview with BarbaraPhilipps, Perryton, Texas,August 18, 1998.

74 Letter to TNRCC fromJohn J. Vay (representinglandowners in Ochiltree andJohnson Counties), re: CAFORules/General Permit, April 13,1998; Letter to TNRCC fromDavid Hale, Mayor, City ofPerryton, re: CommentsRegarding TNRCC’s ProposedGeneral Permit and Amend-ments to Chapter 321, Subchap-ter B 30 T.A.C., March 26,1998; Hale, David, “Commentsto Warren Chisum & theEnvironmental RegulationsCommittee: CAFO Concerns,”April 10, 1998.

75 40 C.F.R. §122.23(a).76 Clean Water Network

and Natural Resources DefenseCouncil, America’s AnimalFactories: How States Fail toPrevent Pollution from Live-stock Waste (December 1998),pp. ix-xi.

77 TNRCC, “TNRCC Final


Annual Enforcement Report –Fiscal Year 1999,” p. 10.

78 8 T.A.C. §251.004.79 Texas House Bill 2945

(1997), codified at 8 T.A.C.§251.006.

80 TNRCC, “CommonQuestions and Answers Concern-ing Subchapter K,” April 28,1997. Internet source: http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/water/quality/agri/kqqqs.html, (printed6/1/99).

81 Letter to Donnie Dendyfrom Darrell Williams, TNRCC,RE: Texas Farm, Inc., Applica-tion for Permit-by-Rule No.03876, Ochiltree County, De-cember 28, 1995 (incl. attach-ment: “Summary of Commentsand Responses for Texas Farm,Inc., Subchapter K ApplicationNo. 03876”).

82 Krishna, Hari andClifton Wise, “Update on StateRules for Animal WasteManagement,” Texas AnimalManure Management Confer-ence (Austin, Texas, September9-11, 1999), pp. 3-4. Internetsource: http://www.agen.tamu.edu/projects/tammi/Krishna2.htm.

83 Ibid. (Krishna and Wise,1999), p. 4.

84 A measure passed by the1999 Texas Legislature (HB801) did make changes to theTexas Water Code whichrequires TNRCC to issueindividual permits to CAFOswhich are located near a solesource drinking water supply.In February 2000, TNRCCissued a draft of proposed newrules to implement this legisla-tive mandate. (Letter toInterested Persons Mailing Listfrom TNRCC, Office of LegalServices, February 11, 2000.)

85 Letter to TNRCC fromWilliam Allensworth (repre-senting Greenbelt Municipaland Industrial Water Author-ity), re: “Greenbelt Municipal

and Industrial WaterAuthority’s Comments onProposed Revisions to 30T.A.C. Chapter 321, Subchap-ter B,” April 13, 1998, p. 1.

86 Ibid., Letter to TNRCCfrom William Allensworth(representing GreenbeltMunicipal and Industrial WaterAuthority), April 13, 1998, p. 3.

87 Texas Register, Volume23, No. 37 (September 11,1998), p. 9366.

88 Texas Register, Volume24, Number 30, July 23, 1999, p.5731.

89 Letter to TNRCC fromRobert Short (US Fish andWildlife Service), April 10,1998, p. 1.

90 30 T.A.C. §321.33(g);30 T.A.C. §321.41(a)(1).

91 Letter to TNRCC fromRobert Short (US Fish andWildlife Service), April 10,1998, p. 1.

92 Ibid., Letter to TNRCCfrom Robert Short, p. 2.

93 Ibid., Letter to TNRCCfrom Robert Short, p. 2.

94 30 TAC §321.23(l).95 Krishna and Wise

(1999), p. 5.96 Texas Register, Vol. 24,

No. 30, July 23, 1999, p. 5723.TNRCC did not comment onimpaired waterways.

97 Krishna and Wise(1999), p. 5.

98 30 T.A.C. §321.39; 30T.A.C. §321.40(7); 30 T.A.C.§321.39(f)(24)(H).

99 30 T.A.C.§321.39(19)(B).

100 Schiffman, Susan S., etal., “The effect of environmen-tal odors emanating fromcommercial swine operationson the mood of nearby resi-dents,” Brain ResearchBulletin, Volume 37, No. 4(1995), pp. 369-375.

101 30 T.A.C. §321.31(c).102 TNRCC, “Categoriza-

tion of Odors,” attachment to

Interoffice Memorandum toField Operations Air ProgramManagers, from Debra Barber,Air Program Director, Re:“Odor Complaint HandlingProcedures,” December 14,1993; National Public Radio:Texas Hogs (transcript of radiobroadcast on All ThingsConsidered, March 8, 2000).

103 Auvermann, Brent W.,“Suppressing Fugitive DustEmissions From CattleFeedyards,” Texas AnnualManure Management Confer-ence (Austin, Texas, September9-10, 1999), p. 2.

104 TNRCC ComplaintPrintout, Complaint No:100000050, 9/22/1999. Dataprovided by TNRCC, 3/13/2000.


106 TNRCC Complaint Print-out, Complaint No: 100000050,9/22/1999 and Complaint No.109800164. Data provided byTNRCC, 3/13/2000.


108 TNRCC, “OdorComplaint PrioritizationCriteria,” attachment toInteroffice Memorandum toField Operations Air ProgramManagers, from Debra Barber,Air Program Director, Re:“Odor Complaint HandlingProcedures,” December 14,1993. TNRCC utilizes four“Odor Complaint PrioritizationCriteria” to determine howquickly to respond to com-plaints. Only “Priority 1”complaints warrant an immedi-ate response. CAFO nuisanceodor complaints generally fallunder “Priority 3,” to be

investigated within 30 calendardays.

109 Letter to Charles C.Ross, Director of Field Opera-tions, Railroad Commission ofTexas, from TNRCC, October16, 1996, p. 2. Specifically,TNRCC states: “The agencyhas always held that an investi-gator should not (typically) citea nuisance violation basedexclusively on personalobservation of emissions of anuisance character. Suchviolations should result from aninvestigation initiated by acomplaint from a private citizenalleging nuisance odor condi-tions.”

110 TNRCC, “AlternativeOdor Complaint HandlingProcedures,” attachment toInteroffice Memorandum to JoeVogel, Deputy Director, Officeof Compliance and Enforce-ment, from Debra Barber, AirProgram Director, Re: “Alter-native Odor Complaint Han-dling Procedures,” April 24,1996, p. 4 (attachment).

111 Interoffice Memoran-dum to Regional Managers, AirProgram Managers, TNRCC,from Debra Barber, AirProgram Director, FieldOperations, Re: “Investigations/Violations at CAFOs,” March22, 1994.

112 Parnell, Charles, BryanShaw and Brent Auvermann,Agricultural Air Quality FineParticle Project, Task 1 FinalReport, December, 1999 andWashington AdministrativeCode 173-400-105.

113 Rules of the GeorgiaDepartment of Natural Re-sources, EnvironmentalProtection Division, Chapter391-6.20(5)(i); 391-6.20(8)(n)(2); 391-6.20(8)(o);391-6.20(8)(p); 391-6.20(11).

114 General Assembly ofNorth Carolina, House Bill 515(1997).


115 Iowa HJ 2344, 1998, AnAct Providing for AgriculturalProduction, Including Regulat-ing Animal Feeding Operationsand Making Penalties Appli-cable and Providing EffectiveDates.

116 Kansas, SH 2950, 1998.117 Lucas, John, “Kentucky

Ponders Hog Plan,” The Evans-ville Courier, July 15, 1997.Internet source: http://courier.evansville.net/news/97/Ken071597.html; Thompson,Nancy, “What’s Happening? AState-by-State Summary,” Cen-ter for Rural Affairs, p. 4.Internet source: http://w w w . s a l a m a n d e r . c o m /~manyhogs/thompson.html.

118 Mississippi Senate Bill2895 (1998); Letter to CharlesChisolm, Mississippi Depart-ment of Environmental Qualityfrom F.E. Thompson, Jr., M.D.,M.P.H., State Health Officer,November 17, 1999, p. 5.

119 General Assembly ofNorth Carolina, House Bill 515(The Clean Water Responsibil-ity and Environmentally SoundPolicy Act, 1997).

120 General Assembly ofNorth Carolina, House Bill1480 (1997).

121 Georgia Board ofNatural Resources, “ResolutionRegarding Large Hog Produc-ing Operations in Georgia,”January 27, 1999.

122 TNRCC, CAFO permitsdatabase printout. Dataprovided by TNRCC, March 8,2000.

123 TNRCC, “ExecutiveDirector’s Response to PublicComments,” Application byVall, Inc. for Permit No. 04087,Docket No. 1999-0859-AGR,July 30, 1999; TNRCC, “TheOffice of Public InterestCounsel’s Response to Requestfor Hearing in the Matter of theApplication by Vall, Inc. forTPDES Permit No. 04087,”

TNRCC Docket No. 1999-0859-AGR; TNRCC, “Execu-tive Director’s Response toHearing Requests,” Applicationby Vall, Inc. for Permit No.04087, Docket No. 1999-0859-AGR, July 22, 1999; TNRCC,“CAFO Inventory by SICCode,” permit database com-piled by TNRCC, March 7,2000. Letter to TNRCC fromThomas J. Cloud Jr., U.S. Fishand Wildlife Service, June 29,1999. Public Notice, StratfordStar, June 17, 1999, p. 8.TPDES Permit for ConcentratedAnimal Feeding Operations,Permit No. 04087, August 12,1999. TPDES Permit forConcentrated Animal FeedingOperations, Permit No. 04105,August 24, 1999.

124 TNRCC, CAFO permitsdatabase printout. Dataprovided by TNRCC, March 8,2000.

125 Minnesota Rules7009.0080.

126 Memo to Greg Ruff,Minnesota Pollution ControlAgency, from Kathy Norlien,Minnesota Department ofHealth, February 15, 2000.

127 Statement of Emergencyfrom Governor Paul E. Patton,February 11, 2000; 401 Ken-tucky Administrative Rules5:072E.

128 75th Texas StateLegislature, House Bill 1542(1997).

129 Texas Register, “TexasNatural Resource ConservationCommission: Notice of aProposed General Permit,” Vol.23 (March 6, 1998), pp. 2597-2598; Texas Water Code§26.040.

130 Penny Loeb, “Do theBig Guys Play Fair?” U.S. Newsand World Report, May 24,1999, p. 26.

131 Recommendations basedin part on Clean WaterNetwork’s Feedlot Work Group“Clean Water Network General

Recommendations for EPA’sModel Individual NPDESPermit for CAFOs,” CleanWater Network, Washington,D.C., 1999.

132 Huffman, R.L. and P.W.Westerman, “Estimated seepagelosses from established swinewaste lagoons in the lowercoastal plain of North Carolina,”Transactions of the AmericanSociety of Agricultural Engi-neers, Vol. 38, No. 2 (1995), pp.449-453; McCurdy, M. and K.McSweeney, “The origin andidentification of macropores inan earthen-lined dairy manurestorage basin,” Journal of Envi-ronmental Quality, Vol. 22(1993), pp. 148-154.

133 Carroll, J.J., J. R.Dunbar, R. L. Givens, et al.,“Sprinkling for dust suppres-sion in a cattle feedlot,”California Agriculture (March1974), pp. 12-14.

134 Sweeten, J.M., et al.,“Odor control from poultrymanure composting plant usinga soil filter,” Applied Engineer-ing in Agriculture, Vol. 7, No.4(1991), pp. 439-449.

135 Thu, Kendall M, LauraDeLind, et al., “Social Issues,”in: Understanding the Impactsof Large-Scale Swine Produc-tion: Proceedings from anInterdisciplinary ScientificWorkshop (Des Moines, Iowa,June 29-30, 1995).

136 Vanotti, M.B. and P.G.Hunt, “Solids and nutrientremoval from flushed swinemanure usingpolyacrylamides,” Transactionsof the ASAE, Vol. 42, No. 6(1999), pp. 1833-1840. Vanotti,M.B., et al., “EncapsulatedNitrifiers Research,” USDAresearch summary at internetlocation: http://www.florence.ars.usda.gov/efd_1/vanotti/mtv13a.htm(printed April 7, 1999).

137 Environmental Products& Technologies, “EPTC’s

Agricultural Waste TreatmentTechnology Well Received atInternational EquipmentShow,” News release, February16, 1999. Internet location:http://eptcorp.com/nr990216.html.

138 Harper, Scott, “PerdueFarms to Reform Chicken-Manure Disposal Practices,”Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, March10, 1999 (LEXIS-NEXISonline news service). InVirginia, the state’s director ofsoil and water conservationissued an invitation to thelargest chicken producers todiscuss waste innovations forthe industry. The cooperativeeffort resulted in a joint venturebetween Perdue Farms and arecycling business to build a $6million complex that willconvert chicken waste intofertilizer pellets. The stateexpects to convert up to120,000 tons of manure ayear—almost half of what theregion’s farms generate—andeven pay growers for each loadof manure that they bring to thecomplex.


1 Carroll, J.J., J. R. Dunbar, R. L. Givens, etal., “Sprinkling for dust suppression in acattle feedlot,” California Agriculture(March 1974), pp. 12-13.2 Stone, Nancy, “Bergin Family MediationBrochure: TJ Bergin - Third Generation,”May 1998.3 Texas Air Control Board (TACB),Complaint Investigation Form, ComplaintNo. 029000029, February 7, 1990 (“BerginFamily Mediation Brochure: Exhibit 1”);TACB, Complaint Investigation Form,Complaint No. 029100031, March 11,1991 (“Bergin Family Mediation Brochure:Exhibit 2”).4 Letter to Dwayne Thompson, Manager,Palo Duro Feedyard, from TACB, re:Notice of Violation, Feedlot Expansion,Palo Duro Feedyard, March 27, 1991.(“Bergin Family Mediation Brochure:Exhibit 3”).5 Letter from Dr. Romeo B. Sangalang, re:Erin Bergin, January 18, 1991.6 Letter to Dwayne Thompson, Palo DuroFeedyard, from TACB, March 27, 1991;Palo Duro Feeders Permit Application tothe Texas Air Control Board, May 9, 1991.7 Letter to Gerald Hudson, Texas AirControl Board, from David W. Bergin, July14, 1991 and attached petition fromneighboring families (“Bergin FamilyMediation Brochure: Exhibit 5”).8 Texas Air Control Board (TACB)Memorandum from Debra Barber, Direc-tor, Enforcement and Field Operations, re:Palo Duro Feeders (Acct. No. HD-0036-F),September 26, 1991(“Bergin FamilyMediation Brochure: Exhibit 7”); Letter toMark Gibbs, TACB, from Craig Clyburn,Palo Duro Feedyard, November 1, 1991(“Bergin Family Mediation Brochure:Exhibit 7A”); Letter to Gerald Hudson,TACB, from David Bergin, January 10,1992 (“Bergin Family Mediation Brochure:Exhibit 8”).9 Letter to David Bergin from Steve Spaw,Executive Director, TACB, re: Permit No.20822, Palo Duro Feeders, March 18, 1992(“Bergin Family Mediation Brochure: Exhibit9”); TACB, Air Permit No. 20822 for PaloDuro Feeders, March 18, 1992 (“Bergin Fam-ily Mediation Brochure: Exhibit 10”).10 Letter to W. H. O’Brian, Texas Beef Group,from David Bergin, February 20, 1995 (BerginFamily Mediation Brochure: Exhibit 12).

11 Palo Duro Feedyard Well Pumping Reportfor January 16, 1995 through July 26, 1995;Palo Duro Feedyard Weather Report Listing,November 13, 1997 for period April 3, 1995through May 17, 1995.12 Letter from S. Shawn Stephens to RickCosta, TNRCC Air Program Manager, RE:Palo Duro Feeders, May 11, 1995; David W.Bergin and Erin Bergin v. Texas Beef Group,Case No. 4102 (84th Judicial District Court,Hansford Co., Texas), Plaintiff’s OriginalPetition (June 8, 1995).13 Texas Beef Group v. Bergin, Case No. 41,330-C (21st Judicial District Court, RandallCo. Texas), Plaintiff’s Original Petition forDeclaratory Judgment (May 4, 1995); TexasBeef Group v. Bergin, Case No. 41, 330-C(21st Judicial District Court, Randall Co.Texas), Citation (May 4, 1995); Texas BeefGroup v. Bergin, Case No. 41, 330-C (21st

Judicial District Court, Randall Co. Texas),Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition for De-claratory Judgment (September 28, 1995).As of the date of publication of this report,the action against the Bergins is still pendingin court.14 Letter to Gary Wallin, TNRCC, from BradWieck, Enviro-Ag Engineering, re: Palo DuroFeeders Air Quality Permit #C-20822, May9, 1995; Affidavit of Ed Rafferty in Opposi-tion to Revised Application of Palo DuroFeedyard, February 12, 1996.15 Bergin, T.J., “Saga of Fecal Dust from PaloDuro Feedlot: as experienced by T.J. Bergin,”in: Stone, Nancy, “Bergin Family MediationBrochure,” May 1998.16 Complaint investigation #054236A, July4, 1995 and Complaint Investigation#058536A, September 13, 1995.17 Bergin, T.J., “Saga”, May 1998.

Footnotes to Bergin, page 9

1 New York Times, “Koch to Sell someCattle Assets,” December 4, 1998, SectionC, p. 24.2 TNRCC, “Transfer of Texas NaturalResource Conservation Commission PermitNo. 01551 From Texzona Cattle FeedersGeneral Partnership to Koch Beef Com-pany,” July 2, 1996.3 Letter to TNRCC from Danny Stroope/Mayfield Coop Gin, re: Koch Beef Com-pany, Application to Amend Permit-by-Rule No. 01551, February 24, 1997; Letterto TNRCC from Lowell Ray, re: Koch BeefCo. Application for Enlargement of

Footnotes to Koch, page 10

Feedyard, March 6, 1997; Letter toTNRCC from Mayfield Farms, re: KochBeef Cattle Company Expansion, February20, 1997; Citizen petition to TNRCC, re:Opposition to expanding of Koch BeefCompany, March 6, 1997; Letter toTNRCC from Simon and ElizabethJimenez, re: Request for denial of permitapplication for expansion of Koch BeefCompany, March 10, 1997.4 Ibid. (Letter from Danny Stroope/Mayfield Cooperative Gin, February 24,1997)5 Op. cit.; TNRCC, “Revised Summary ofComments and Responses for KochAgriculture Company, dba Koch BeefCompany, Subchapter K, Application No.01551.”6 Letter to Danny Stroope from TNRCC, re:Koch Agriculture Company, dba KochBeef Company, Application to AmendPermit-by-Rule No. 01551, May 8, 1997.7 Letter to Simon and Elizabeth Jimenezfrom TNRCC, re: Koch AgricultureCompany/Permit No. 01551, June 20,1997; Letter to John L. Ray from TNRCC,re: Koch Agriculture Company/Permit No.01551, June 20, 1997; TNRCC, “Air andWater Quality Permit-by-Rule to Operate aConcentrated Animal Feeding Operation,”for Koch Agriculture Company, Permit No.01551, June 20, 1997.8 Wren, Worth Jr., “Purina Mills sold forthird time in 12 years,” Fort Worth Star-Telegram, March 18, 1998 (LEXIS-NEXISinternet news service).9 The Times-Picayune, “Purina Mills Filesfor Bankruptcy; Top Animal Feed MakerMisses Loan Payment,” October 29, 1999,p. 3C (LEXIS-NEXIS internet newsservice).10 New York Times, “Koch to Sell someCattle Assets,” December 4, 1998, SectionC, p. 24.11 Associated Press State and Local Wire,“Koch sells Kansas, Texas feedlots,”March 4, 1999 (LEXIS-NEXIS internetnews service).


Footnotes to Pilgrim, page 12-13

1 Rich, Jan, “State squawks foul over fowlempire, pollution,” Houston Chronicle,September 27, 1985, p. 1.2 Ibid.3 Memorandum to Dennis Palafox fromVictor Palma, “Fish Kill in TankerslyCreek,” May 23, 1985.4 Rich, Houston Chronicle, September 27,1985; Pasztor, David, “Bo? Hell No!”Dallas Observer, February 22, 1996, p. 21.5 Jacobs, Janet, “Pilgrim’s admits to waterviolations,” Longview Journal, March 24,1996.6 Letter to Ms. Lola Barrett from AnthonyGrigsby, Texas Water Commission, nodate.7 Jacobs, Longview Journal, March 24,1996; City of Mt. Pleasant, Texas, South-west Sewer Plant Operating and PermittingAgreement, May 4, 1988.8 Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, SouthwestWastewater Treatment Plant, Notices ofNoncompliance, July 1994 to December1996; Letter to John Witherspoon, TNRCC,from Tim Weir, Pilgrim’s Pride, RE:Annual Compliance Inspection, April 14,1995; TNRCC Wastewater Site Assessmentfor Permit Action, April 10, 1996; Letter toTNRCC from Timothy Phy on behalf ofthe Lake O’ The Pines Civic Association,August 15, 1996.9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Region 6, Proceedings to Assess a CivilPenalty under Sec. 309(g) of the CleanWater Act, Administrative Complaint, May10, 1999.10 Texas Air Control Board, Notice ofViolation to Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation,December 3, 1985, Account No. NA-0026-V, Permit No. 16722; Texas Air ControlBoard, Agreed Board Order No. 90-04(i),Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation, May 18, 1990;Texas Air Control Board, Notice ofViolation to Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation,September 12, 1986, Account No.CE0012B; Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation,Letter to Gary Wallin, Permits Section,Texas Air Control Board, September 22,1986 (received).11 TNRCC, Agreed Order assessingadministrative penalties and requiringactions, July 26, 1999.12 Texas Air Control Board, Board OrderNo. 87-09(t), November 13, 1987; TexasAir Control Board Interoffice Memo fromRichard Leard to James Myers, Formal

Enforcement Conference with PilgrimsPride Corporation, August 7, 1987; Letterto Mr. Burgess, TACB, from Mrs. MarieStephens, July 25, 1987.13 Complaint investigation form, March 10,1988.14 Executive Director’s Response to PublicComment on the Draft Waste DisposalWell Permit, Appendix I “Summary ofPilgrim’s Pride Compliance History.”15 TNRCC, Agreed Order AssessingAdministrative Penalties and RequiringCertain Actions of Pilgrim’s Pride Corpora-tion, Randee Corporation, Winston Landand Cattle Company, and John R. WinstonJr. under the Authority of the Texas WaterCode, Chapters 5 and 26, and the TexasHealth and Safety Code, Chapters 361 and382, Docket No. 94-0378-IWD-E, July 27,1995 (received).16 US EPA, Region 6, Water ManagementDivision, “Notice of Proposed Administra-tive Penalty Assessment,” Docket No. VI-94-1621, NPDES Facility No.TXU000211, August 12, 1994; U.S. EPA,Region 6, Water Management Division,“Administrative Order,” Docket No. VI-95-1023, NPDES Facility No. TXU000211,May 23, 1995.17 Pasztor, David, “Bo? Hell No!” DallasObserver, February 22, 1996.18 Ibid.19 Jacobs, Janet, “Hearing planned Mondayon Pilgrim’s water permit application,”Longview News, March 24, 1996.20 Copy of advertisement, Mt. PleasantDaily Tribune, February 23, 1997, suppliedto Consumers Union by Mr. Jerry Boatner.21 “Bo Pilgrim: Christian Businessman,”Texas Lake Country (Spring/Summer1999), p. 11.22 Jacobs, Longview News, March 24, 1996.23 The City of Longview’s Reply toResponses from Pilgrim’s Pride Corpora-tion and the Executive Director Concerningthe City of Longview’s Request forContested Case Hearing, TNRCC DocketNo. 1999-0421-UIC, April 23, 1999.24 Letter to LaDonna Castanuela, ChiefClerk, TNRCC from Jim Mathews, City ofLongview, March 5, 1999; D.W. Garrettfor East Texans for a Better Tomorrow,Reply to Applicant’s and ExecutiveDirector’s Responses to Request forContested Case Hearings, April 20, 1999;TNRCC Interim Order concerning theapplication by Pilgrim’s Pride Corporationfor six underground injection wells, May

12, 1999.25 TNRCC Interim Order, May 12, 1999.26 TNRCC, Executive Director’s Responseto Public Comment on the Draft WasteDisposal Well Permit Nos. WDW-352,WDW-353, WDW-354, WDW-355,WDW-356, and WDW-357, Docket No.1999-0421-UIC.

1 Letter to Texas Department of WaterResources from Bryan Berger, SmithFarms, Inc., February 15, 1984.2 Letter to Bryan Berger, Smith Farms, Inc.,from Texas Department of Water Re-sources, February 27, 1984.3 Letter to Bryan Berger, Smith Farms, Inc,.from Texas Water Commission, August 26,1987.4 Letter to Bryan Berger, Smith Farms, Inc.,from Texas Water Commission, August 21,1989.5 Ibid.6 Texas Water Commission, InvestigationReport EF# 930300736, Smith Farms, Inc.,March 2, 1993.7 Ibid. (1993); Letter to Bryan Berger,Smith Farms, Inc., from Texas WaterCommission, re: Complaints concerningegg laying facility, May 3, 1993.8 Texas Water Commission, EnforcementAction Request Memo re: Smith Farms,Inc., to Mark McFarland, Manger, Permit-ting and Enforcement Section, Agricultural& Rural Assistance Division, June 1, 1994;Vernon D. Rowe, Rowe Environmental,letter to Diana L. Bell, TWC, re: SmithFarms, Inc., June 24, 1993.9 Texas Water Commission, EnforcementAction Request Memo re: Smith Farms,Inc., to Mark McFarland, Manger, Permit-ting and Enforcement Section, Agricultural& Rural Assistance Division, June 1, 1994(including Picture Set #2).10 TNRCC, Investigation ReportEF#940600505, Smith Farms, Inc., April28, 1994.11 Letter to Bryan Berger, Smith Farms,Inc., from TNRCC, September 20, 1995.12 TNRCC, Deposit User Report, DepositVoucher #: 401737, September 5, 1995.13 Letter to TNRCC from Elias Briseno,Texas Department of Health, re: Air andWater Permit-By-Rule for Smith Farms,Inc., July 23, 1996.14 Letter to Elias Briseno, Texas Depart-ment of Public Health, from TNRCC, re:Smith Farms, Inc., Application for Permit-By-Rule No. 03866, September 27, 1996.

Footnotes to Smith, page 15


1 Carpenter, Stephen, et al., “Nonpointpollution of surface waters with phospho-rus and nitrogen,” Ecological Applications,Vol. 8, No. 3 (August 1998), p. 563.2 Corpus Christi Caller Times, “Manureproblem growing: Animal waste a healthconcern,” April 26, 1998.3 30 T.A.C. §321.39(f)(19)(B).4 30 T.A.C. §321.39(f)(28)(G).5 Palmquist, Raymond B., et al., “Hogoperations, environmental effects, andresidential property values,” Land Econom-ics, Vol. 73, No. 1 (February 1997),pp.114-124; Mubarak, Hamed, Thomas G.Johnson, and Kathleen K. Miller, “TheImpacts of Animal Feeding Operations onRural Land Values,” Report Presented tothe Saline County Study Steering Commit-tee (Community Policy Analysis Center,Report R-99-02, May 1999); Seipel,Michael, Mubarak Hamed, J. SanfordRikoon, and Anna M. Kleiner, “The Impactof Large-Scale Hog Confinement FacilitySitings on Rural Property Values,” AnimalProduction Systems and the Environment:1998 Conference Proceedings, pp. 413-318.6 The median wage for livestock farmworkers in Texas is approximately $6.56per hour. Texas Workforce Commission,“Statewide Wages – 1997.” Internet source:http://www.twc.state.tx.us/lmi/lfs/type/wages/wagesstatewide.html.7 MacCannell, Dean, “Industrial agricultureand rural community degradation,” in:Agriculture and Community Change in theU.S.: The Congressional Research Reports,Louis E. Swanson, ed. (Westview Press:Boulder, CO, 1988), pp. 43-75.

15 Interoffice Memorandum to KerryHoward, TNRCC Agriculture PermittingTeam, from Desiderio Mora, PermittingTeam Leader, re: Smith Farms ProcessingUnder Subchapter B, September 20, 1995.16 Ibid.17 TNRCC, Air and Water Quality Permit-By-Rule to Operate A ConcentratedAnimal Feeding Operation, Smith Farms,Inc., Permit No. 03866, November 1, 1996.

Footnotes to Sustainable, page 16

1 Grady, Denise, “A Move to LimitAntibiotic Use in Animal Feed: FewerHardy Bacteria in People is U.S. Goal,”New York Times, March 8, 1999, pp. A1,A13.

Footnotes to Antibiotics, page 18

2 Grady (1999), p. A13 ; Endtz, HubertPh., Gijs J. Ruijs, et al., “QuinoloneResistance in Campylobacter Isolated fromMan and Poultry Following the Introduc-tion of Fluroquinolones in VeterinaryMedicine,” Journal of AntimicrobialChemotherapy, Vol. 27 (1991), pp. 199,200; Seyfarth, Anne Mette, et al., “Antimi-crobial Resistance in Salmonella entericasubsp. enterica serovar typhimurium fromhumans and production animals,” Journalof Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, Vol. 40(1997), p. 67.3 Seyfarth et al. (1997), p. 74; Endtz et al.(1991), pp. 199, 206; Hawkes, Nigel,“Antibiotics in Cattle Feed Linked toSuperbug,” The Times of London, March24, 1998, Internet source: http://www.enviroweb.org/hecweb/archive/farm/antibiotics.htm.4 Smith, Theresa L., et al., “Emergence ofVancomycin Resistance in Staphylococcusaureus,” The New England Journal ofMedicine, Vol. 340, No. 7 (February 18,1999), pp. 493-501.; Levy, Stuart B., “TheChallenge of Antibiotic Resistance,”Scientific American (March 1998), pp. 46-53.5 Bates, Janice, et al., “Farm Animals as aPutative Reservoir for Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcal Infection in Man,”Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy,Vol. 34 (1994), pp. 507, 510; Wegener,Henrik Caspar, et al., “Isolation of Vanco-mycin Resistant Enterococcus faeciumfrom Food,” International Journal of FoodMicrobiology, Vol. 35 (1997), pp. 58, 64;Bager, F., et al., “Avoparcin Used as aGrowth Promoter is Associated with theOccurrence of Vancomycin-resistantEnterococcus faecium on Danish Poultryand Pig Farms,” Preventive VeterinaryMedicine, Vol. 31 (1997), pp. 95, 109-111.6 Endtz et al. (1991), p. 199.7 Witte, Wolfgang, “Medical Consequencesof Antibiotic Use in Agriculture,” Science279 (February 13, 1998), p. 996.8 World Health Organization, The MedicalImpact of the Use of Antimicrobials inFood Animals: Report of a WHO Meeting(WHO: Berlin, Germany, October 13-17,1997), p. 1.9 Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 3 (January6, 1999).10 A Proposed Framework for Evaluatingand Assuring the Human Safety of theMicrobial Effects of Antimicrobial NewAnimal Drugs Intended for Use in FoodProducing Animal (FDA Discussion Paper,

January 6, 1999), pp. 8-9, 14-17.11 National Research Council, “Approachesto Minimizing Antibiotic Use in Food-animal Production,” in: The Use of Drugsin Food Animals: Benefits and Risks(National Academy Press: Washington,D.C., 1999), pp. 189-193.12 H.R. 3266 (Rep. Sherrod Brown), ThePreservation of Essential Antibiotics forHuman Diseases Act of 1999.

1 Palmer, Eric, “Ranchers, Farmers Strivingto End Business Consolidation,” KansasCity Star, August 25, 1998. Internetsource: http: //www.kcstar.com.;Heffernan, William D., “Agriculturalprofits: Who Gets Them Now, and WhoWill in the Future?” Sustainable Agricul-ture: People, Products, and Profits,Leopold Center For Sustainable Agricul-ture, 1994 Annual Conference Proceed-ings, pp. 13-18.2 Casey, Jean Anne and Colleen Hobbs,“Lean Times on the Hog Farm,” New YorkTimes, January 29, 1999, p. A19;3 MacDonald, James M. and MichaelOllinger, “U.S. Meat Slaughter Consolidat-ing Rapidly,” Food Review (May-August1997), p. 22; also Palmer, Eric, KansasCity Star, August 25, 1998.4 Hoover’s Handbook of Private Compa-nies (Hoover’s Business Press: Austin, TX,1997), p. 94.5 Hoover’s Handbook of Private Compa-nies (Hoover’s Business Press: Austin, TX,1997), pp. 78-79.6 Hoover’s Handbook of Private Compa-nies (Hoover’s Business Press: Austin, TX,1997), p. 201.7 ConAgra Form 8-K, Securities andExchange Commission, “OperationOverdrive” Restructuring Announcement,May 12, 1999.8 Swenson, Leland (President, NationalFarmers Union), “Agricultural Concentra-tion,” Testimony presented to the UnitedStates House Agriculture Committee,February 11, 1999, p. 5.9 Martinez, Steve W., “Vertical Coordina-tion in the Pork and Broiler Industries:Implications for Pork and Chicken Prod-ucts,” Agricultural Economic Report, No.777 (Economic Research Service, U.S.Department of Agriculture, April, 1999), p.5-6.10 Martin, Laura L. and Kelly D. Zerig,“Relationships Between IndustrializedAgriculture and Environmental Conse-

Footnotes to Vertical, page 20


quences: The Case of Vertical Coordina-tion in Broilers and Hogs,” Journal ofAgriculture and Applied Economics, Vol.29, No. 1 (July 1997), pp. 46-47.11 Phone conversation with James Grim,Texas Poultry Federation, March 7, 2000.12 “Pilgrim’s Pride Corporation ReportsRecord Net Sales for the First Quarter ofFiscal 2000,” PR Newswire, January 18,2000 (Lexis Nexis article).13 Pilgrim’s Pride SEC Annual Report(online SEC Form 10-K405), December14, 1998, SEC file No. 001-09273.14 Pilgrim’s Pride SEC Annual Report(online SEC Form 10-K405), December14, 1998, SEC file No. 001-09273.15 Pilgrim’s Pride SEC Annual Report(online SEC Form 10-K405), December14, 1998, SEC file No. 001-09273.16 Ibid, and Exhibit 10.49, Pilgrim’s PrideCorporation Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ending March 29,1997. Broiler Grower Contract dated May6, 1997 between Pilgrim’s Pride Corpora-tion and Lonnie “Bo” Pilgrim, Farm 30.17 Pilgrim’s Pride SEC Schedule 14A(online SEC form DEF 14A), December22, 1998, SEC file No. 001-9273.18 Pilgrim’s Pride SEC Schedule 14A(online SEC form DEF 14A), December22, 1998, SEC file No. 001-9273.19 National Pork Producers Council, “1999/2000 Pork Facts,” p. 12. Internet source:http://www.nppc.org/PorkFacts/2000PORKFA.pdf.20 Drabenstott, Mark, “This Little PiggyWent to Market: Will the New PorkIndustry Call the Heartland Home?”Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City,Economic Review (Third Quarter 1998), p.79.21 National Pork Producers Council, “1999/2000 Pork Facts,” p. 12. Internet source:http://www.nppc.org/PorkFacts/2000PORKFA.pdf.22 National Pork Producers Council, “1999/2000 Pork Facts,” p. 12. Internet source:http://www.nppc.org/PorkFacts/2000PORKFA.pdf.

1 Vandeman, Ann M. and Beth Hayden,“New Law Paves Way for ExpandingOrganic Market,” Food Review (May-August 1997), p. 28; United States Depart-ment of Agriculture, “Glickman An-nounces New Proposal for NationalOrganic Standards,” USDA Press ReleaseNo. 0074.00, March 7, 2000.2 USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service,“National Organic Standards Board to MeetJune 8-10,” AMS News Release No. AMS-127-99, May 21, 1999.3 United States Department of Agriculture,“Glickman Announces New Proposal forNational Organic Standards,” USDA PressRelease No. 0074.00, March 7, 2000.4 USDA, Agricultural Marketing Service,National Organic Program Proposed Rule,7 CFR 205.236-205.239, March 7, 2000.5 USDA, Food Safety and InspectionService (FSIS), “Organic Labeling ClaimAllowed on Meat and Poultry Products,”FSIS Press Release, January 14, 1999.6 4 T.A.C. §18.27 According to the TDA, Quality AssuranceInternational and International CertificationServices, Inc. are currently accredited inTexas (Texas Department of Agriculture,“Private Organic Certification CompaniesRegistered in Texas,” January 31, 2000).8 4 T.A.C. §18.49 USDA, Food Safety and InspectionService, “Natural Claims,” Policy Memo055, November 22, 1982; Letter to Produc-ers from Robert C. Post, Labeling andAdditives Policy Division, USDA, March8, 1999.10, USDA, Food Standards and LabelingPolicy Book (August 1996). Note: TheUSDA refers to these types of claims as

Footnotes to Organic, page 24-25

“negative labeling” and considers themdistinct from the “natural” label (USDA,“Negative Ingredient Labeling,” PolicyMemo 019B, August 18, 1994.)11 USDA, Food Safety and InspectionService, “Organic Labeling Claim Allowedon Meat and Poultry Products,” PressRelease No. 0015.99, January 14, 1999;Federal Register, “’Certified Organic By’Labeling on Meat and Poultry Products,”Vol. 64, No. 69 (April 12, 1999).12 Organic Trade Association, “OrganicTrade Association Adopts AmericanOrganic Standards,” Press Release, October20, 1999; Organic Trade Association,“OTA Cautiously Optimistic AboutProposed Organic Regulations,” PressRelease, March 7, 2000.13Texas Register, “Chapter 18. OrganicStandards and Certification,” Volume 26,No. 49 (December 3, 1999) pp. 10638-10653.14USDA, “National Organic ProgramRevised Proposed Rule: State OrganicCertification Programs.” Internet source:http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/facts/statenew.htm, printed 4/10/2000.

1 “Organic” meat refers to meat producedunder the general standards proposed bythe Organic Trade Association and includespractices such as the prohibition of antibi-otics and hormones in production, the useof 100% organic feed, and no continualconfinement. If available, these productswould appear with a “certified organic(by)” label. “Sustainably-produced” meatrefers to meat produced using any alterna-tive management practices, such as limitedor prohibited antibiotic and hormone use,limited confinement, etc. These products, ifavailable, would generally appear with a“natural” or “negative claim” label.2 Phone survey conducted July 21-22, 1999to 27 Texas grocery stores in Austin, ElPaso, San Antonio, Tyler, Lubbock, CorpusChristi, Amarillo, Houston, Dallas, andFort Worth.

Footnotes to Survey, page 23

23 Drabenstott, p. 81.24 National Pork Producers Council, “1999/2000 Pork Facts,” p. 13. Internet source:http://www.nppc.org/PorkFacts/2000PORKFA.pdf.25 Interview with Jeannie Gramstorff,Farnsworth, Texas, August 18, 1998.

READw w w . c o n s u m e r s u n i o n . o r gw w w . c o n s u m e r r e p o r t s . o r g

animal open lagoons or piles. today’s animalconsumersunion.org/pdf/cafoforweb.pdffive or six...

Documents