Rule revisions necessary to keep lakes manure free

• Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and manure spreading
• How does manure runoff effect my lake?
• How big is Wisconsin's manure problem?
• Important elements of the new rule.
• Potential rollbacks to the new rule.
• Talking points for citizens
• Sample letter to the Assembly and Senate Agricultural Committees and your legislators
• Tips on effectively communicating with your representatives

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and manure spreading

It is important all our agribusiness neighbors practice sound manure management to protect our watersheds and lakes. Wisconsin’s largest farms produce disproportionately more manure and can therefore cause more severe impacts in the event of a spill. Updating manure standards for our largest farms is necessary to address public health and natural resource damage caused by manure spills.

Of Wisconsin’s 30,000 farms with livestock, 140 operations have enough manure producing animals to be considered Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO). The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes that CAFOs can be a significant source of water pollution. Like other businesses whose activities may impact our public waters, CAFOs must get discharge permits under the federal Clean Water Act. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has been following the federal government’s lead, and has issued permits for CAFO operations since 1984.

• Of Wisconsin’s 30,000 farms with livestock, 150 are CAFOs
• CAFOs make up less than 1% of Wisconsin’s farms, but produce more than 10% of the manure.
• Each CAFO can generate up to 6 million gallons of manure a year plus other wastes
• A single cow generates as much organic pollution as 18 people, so a 1,000 animal farm would generate as much organic pollution as the City of Wisconsin Rapids

Top

How does manure runoff effect my lake

Keeping many animals in a limited amount of space concentrates the pollution they generate. The volume of manure produced can exceed the land’s storage capacity. Manure runoff from detention ponds and/or saturated land can have disastrous effects on our groundwater and drinking water supplies, lakes, and rivers.

Immediate consequences of manure spills include fish kills, and an influx of nutrients that can trigger smelly algae blooms. Spreading manure on saturated lake watershed soils leads to reoccurring and long- term negative impacts on our lakes by contributing to chronic phosphorus loading.

Manure pollution undermines the private and public investment property owners and taxpayers are making to keep our lakes clean, safe, and healthy. Property owners bear an undue burden when their lake quality and property values decline because of pollution elsewhere in the watershed.

Top

How big is Wisconsin’s manure pollution problem?

Wisconsin’s existing Manure Discharge Rules (NR- 243) attempt to protect public health and waters from manure spills; unfortunately the current manure application standards are insufficient.

• Many of the manure spills that caused habitat destruction and contaminated wells were from manure applications that appear to comply with the current standards.
• Manure spills have severely impacted lake and river habitat. After taxpayers spent over $1M in stream restoration work in the Upper Sugar River Watershed, the rejuvenated trout fishery was decimated by a manure spill.
• Fifty-two manure spills that reached surface and groundwater were reported between June 2004 and July 2005. It is estimated many manure spills are unreported.
• Of these 52 spills many were caused by medium and large CAFOs; most spills resulted from manure spreading on frozen and snow covered ground.
• Manure spills contaminated at least 70 wells in Brown County in 2006. Polluted drinking water has caused people to become ill and many have had to incur the cost of drilling a new, deeper well ($10- $15,000 per well) with no guarantee their new well will not become contaminated again.

Manure spills harm public health and cost taxpayers money (PDF 424 KB)

Top

Addressing Wisconsin’s manure pollution problem

The Department of Natural Resources is responding to the public health and natural resource concerns by revising the Manure Discharge Rules (NR- 243) for CAFOs. Large CAFOs make up less than 1% of Wisconsin’s farms, but produce more than 10% of the manure. Updating manure standards for this small percentage of farms will help reduce the public health and natural resource damage caused by manure spills.

Important elements of the new rule

1. A ban on spreading liquid manure in February and March, and any time the ground is frozen or snow covered – unless it can be incorporated into the soil. Based on data collected at the UW Extension’s Discovery Farms project, this is when the risk of runoff into surface and groundwater is highest.
2. A requirement for 6 months of manure storage capacity, to accommodate the manure produced during the months when spreading is banned. Nearly 80% of the existing CAFOs already have this.
3. A list of additional groundwater protections, such as setbacks for spreading from wells and geological features that allow rapid movement into groundwater.

To allow time for farmers to construct their storage facilities, the spreading ban and storage requirement will not be enforced until 2010.

Potential rollbacks

There are three areas where agribusiness concerns are pressing for a rollback in requirements.

Prevent pollution before it happens

Some agribusiness interests argue that CAFOs shouldn’t have to get a discharge permit, and therefore shouldn’t have to meet the requirements in NR 243, unless they’ve actually had a documented runoff event. All Large CAFOs currently must apply for Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit because of actual groundwater contamination, and the risk of surface water contamination. This is a long standing practice – since 1984 – that works, is used by other states, and needs to be continued.

EPA has allowed some manure runoff events that occurred after heavy rains to be exempt from enforcement. Most runoff events can easily be prevented by avoiding manure spreading when rain is forecast or when the ground if frozen or snow-covered. The DNR should remove the agricultural stormwater exemption, a confusing provision that exempts manure spills from enforcement when those spills were caused by rain - and the CAFO complied with its manure management plan and DNR rules. That means a CAFO’s compliance with the law will depend, in part, on the weather. Anyone who knows Wisconsin weather also knows that this could make compliance and enforcement a confusing and uncertain process for the public, the DNR, and CAFOs.

Keep what works for Wisconsin

EPA has recognized that CAFOs are a significant source of water pollition and has required discharge permits under the Clean Water Act.EPA has changed the way they count how many animal units comprise a CAFO.EPA’s method of counting animals considers each type of animal separately – a farm would have to have 1000 units of at least one type of animal to be considered a CAFO. Using EPA’s counting method, a farm with 500 steers and 500 cows would therefore not be a CAFO.

DNR’s current method accounts for the cumulative impact of all animals producing manure – 500 steers plus 500 cows is a CAFO, and therefore a discharge permit is required. Refusing to count some cows and not others makes no sense, disregards almost 25 years of experience by the state, and ignores Wisconsin’s uniquely diverse farms and water resources.

Talking points for citizens to make with the Senate and Assemby Agricultural Committee chairs and their legislators.

Sample letter

Top