ANIMAL WASTES
WATER QUALITY
President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
between
ANIMAL WAST
WATER QUALITY
• A Report to the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency of
recent meetings held by the President's
Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
October 1971 and January 1972
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
The President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board was authorized
by Section 9 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956.
The Board's mission is to advise, consult with and make recommendations
to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on matters
of policy relating to water pollution control. Under this authority
the Board regularly examines all phases of the national water pollution
problem and from time to time holds public meetings to hear the views
of individual citizens, various levels of government and private agencies
and groups.
There are nine members, appointed by the President who serve three years
each. The chairman is the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Secretary of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, is an ex officio member. Three of the appointive terms expire
each June 30 or at such time thereafter as successive appointments
become effective. No member may succeed himself within one year of
the date his term ends.
The Advisory Board holds four to six meetings a year. Usually two of
these are held in Washington, D. C. for the purpose of reviewing clean
water plans, policy and progress with the EPA Administrator. The other
meetings are held in various regions of the country at the call of the
Chairman, or at request of individual Board members or a State governor
who feels that a particular water pollution problem should have the
Board's attention. The regional meetings serve, first to inform the
Board members on the various types of water pollution problems and con-
trol programs that exist throughout the Nation. Also, because they are
open to the public, the regional meetings focus public attention on
particular city, State or regional problems and stimulate action for
pollution control in problem areas under review.
-i-
-------
THE PRESIDENT'S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
Chairman
Honorable William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Executive Secretary
Mr. Alan Levin
Office of the Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
Ex Qfficio Member
Honorable Elliot L. Richardson
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
Washington, D. C. 20201
Members
Dr. Melbourne R. Carriker
Director, Systematics-Ecology Program
Marine Biological Laboratory
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Mr. William D. Farr
President
Farr Farms Company
Box 878
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Mr. Ray W. Ferguson
California Water Commissioner
218 Deodar Street
Ontario, California 91762
Mr. Thomas W. Gleason
International President
International Longshoremen's
Association, AFL-CIO
17 Battery Place, Suite 1530
New York, New York 10004
Dr. Wallace W. Harvey, Jr.
Memorial Clinic
Manteo, North Carolina 27954
Mr. Byron P. Jordan
Executive Vice President
French Jordan, Inc.
1010 Common Street, Suite 1065
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112
Mr. Irvan F. Mendenhall
President
Daniel, Mann, Johnson § Mendenhall
3250 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90010
Mr. Parker E. Miller
A-6 Tower Isle Apartments
17400 Gulf Boulevard
N. Redington Beach, Florida 33708
Mrs. Samuel Rome
Environmental Quality Chairman
League of Women Voters of Illinois
1421 Forest Avenue
River Forest, Illinois 60305
5/72
-11-
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
May 16, 1972
Dear Mr. Administrator:
The President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board met
October 26-29, 1971 in Denver, Colorado and at various sites
in Illinois and Indiana, January 24-28, 1972 to review the
relationship between animal wastes and water quality through-
out the United States. The Denver meeting addressed itself
to the problem in the States west of the Mississippi River
while the Illinois-Indiana session covered States east of the
Mississippi. As part of its study, the Board also toured
agricultural areas in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Indiana,
and Illinois and conducted public meetings to receive testi-
mony from experts and interested citizens representing a
cross section of the Nation. In addition, the Board considered
recommendations developed by a National Symposium on Animal
Waste Management at Warrenton, Virginia on September 28-30, 1971
and by workshops conducted by several academic institutions.
Accordingly, the Board's findings and recommendations
(Appendix 4) to you are based upon information from this wide
variety of sources. This report is a summary of the two
meetings held on the animal waste problem. Complete statements
made by the speakers at the public meeting as well as any
additional information may be obtained from the Executive
Secretary of the President's Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board located at 1750 K Street, N.W., Room 1017, Washington, D.C.
20460.
-------
FIRST MEETING, OCTOBER 26-29, 1971, DENVER, COLORADO
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1971
The meeting was convened by Mr. William Erwin, Special Consultant to
the Administrator, EPA on Rural Affairs and Acting Chairman for this
Board meeting. Board members present were: Dr. Melbourne R. Carriker,
Woods Hole, Massachusetts; Mr. William D. Farr, Greeley, Colorado;
Mr. Ray W. Ferguson, Ontario, California; Dr. Wallace W. Harvey, Jr.,
Manteo, North Carolina; Mr. Byron P. Jordan, New Orleans, Louisiana;
Mr. Irvan F. Mendenhall, Los Angeles, California; and Mrs. Samuel Rome,
River Forest, Illinois. Not present were: Mr. Parker E. Miller,
North Redington Beach, Florida and Mr. Thomas W. Gleason, New York,
New York. Acting as special consultant to the Board was former member,
Louis S. Clapper, Conservation Director, National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, D. C.
After introduction o£ guests, Mr. John A. Green, EPA Regional Adminis-
trator, Region VIII, welcomed the Board and presented an overview of
environmental problems resulting from agricultural activities in his
region covering the States of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, and
North and South Dakota. He pointed out that in all of these States
far less than half the population is engaged in agriculture and that
the types of agriculture and resulting environmental problems are very
dependent on geography and climate. Mr. Green briefly summarized the
major types of agricultural impact that can be expected to occur in his
region, as follows:
(1) In the eastern Dakotas where there is more rainfall, the problems
are more typical of those in the east, such as sedimentation and
fertilizer runoff.
(2) In areas where there is extensive irrigation, such as the Souris,
the South Platte, the Arkansas, and the Colorado Rivers, irrigation
return flow and salinity are problems.
(3) Pesticide use is controversial, particularly when it involves
predator control and public lands.
(4) There is a question of overgrazing on public land by sheep where
serious problems can result.
Mr. Carl Clopeck, Assistant for Congressional and Intergovernmental
Relations, EPA Region VII presented an overview of environmental problems
resulting from agricultural activities in that Region. Region VII is
comprised of the States of Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska.
Mr. Clopeck noted that most of the industry in these States is agricul-
turally related and that groundwater plays an extremely important role
in the development of the region. He stated further that sediment with
associated chemical attachments is the most significant stream pollutant
in Region VII. Cattle feedlots are an important pollution source
-2-
-------
especially in the large lots which drain to the tributary streams
emptying into the Missouri River. Mr. Clopeck indicated that Kansas
was a leader in controlling the problem instituting regulations in 1969.
Iowa and Nebraska now have regulations and Missouri is on the verge.
The real problem now is to implement a plan of action and generally
effective control is expected by 1973. Mr. Clopeck concluded by
emphasizing that good research has already been accomplished to find
simple, effective and inexpensive methods; that EPA and USDA have joint
demonstration projects which promote the practice; and that Federal
programs to control agricultural pollution already exist.
Mr. Charles W. Murray, Acting Director, Air and Water Programs Division,
EPA, Region VIII discussed the impact of agricultural activities on water
resources. Mr. Murray said animal wastes have become a growing threat
to clean streams over the past 20 years with the national trend toward
agribusiness, especially in the growth of vast feedlot operations for
cattle. During 1970, he said, 2,242 U. S. cattle feeding operations
had 1,000 or more head of cattle at any one time, and some were so
vast that 1 percent of the nation's feedlots produced 55 percent of the
grain-fed cattle marketed during 1970. The result has been major problems
in management of the large volumes of waste generated. Mr. Murray
emphasized that the river pollution threat is less serious in the arid
west than in the midwest, where frequent cloudbursts wash massive slugs
of organic waste from feedlots into river basins. Rich in ammonia,
bacteria, and the antibiotics and hormones fed to cattle, such feedlot
runoff is 10 to 100 times more concentrated than raw domestic sewage,
Mr. Murray told the Board. Besides the impact this has on flowing
streams, he said there is evidence that runoff percolates into groundwater
under certain conditions. Shallow aquafers in sandy soil near some feed-
lots have been found to contain 100 parts per million of nitrates, much
higher than the 45 parts per million considered a safe maximum for well-
water purposes, Mr. Murray said.
Mr. Lawrence Gazda, Acting Director, Categorical Programs Division, EPA
Region VIII, briefly summarized the non-water related environmental
effects of agricultural activities. Included in these problem areas are
solid waste mangement, air pollution, vector control, pesticides and
land use. During the highlights of Mr. Gazda's presentation he
emphasized that one of the major air pollution problems associated
with agriculture is odors from animal feedlots. This problem is the
one most apt to bring public pressures on the feedlot owner and is
accentuated by poor land use practices, including the inadequacies
of the buffer zones set up by agricultural enterprises, Mr. Gazda stated.
The final presentation of the Board's morning session was a summary of
institutional and legal problems and future trends by Mr. Donald Dubois,
Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region VIII. Mr. Dubois explained
that the agricultural industry is a very diffuse one with millions of
-3-
-------
independent operators and no single organizational entity to work with.
In addition, the farmer maintains a certain mistrust of government inter-
ference with his work. He pointed out that existing environmental
legislation is not geared to diffuse sources like agriculture and the
almost impossible task of identifying various non-point source pollution
problems so as to initiate court action. Mr. Dubois continued by
explaining western water law and the implications that it has in terms
of water pollution control and environmental quality. In the West there
is a water shortage which leads to many environmental conflicts.
Mr. Dubois mentioned the negative aspects of the great growth of
individual farms e.g., with intensive larger operations comes more
water use, more possible groundwater problems, and perhaps, more
salinity, also more intensive use of chemicals and more concentrated
waste sources. On the positive side, he stated bigger operations are
better financed; they are more likely to employ up to date technology;
and are apt to have a better awareness of the problem. On the institu-
tional side, Mr. Dubois mentioned land use as an important aspect and
the question of preserving prime agricultural lands from being used up
for cities, industries, highways, and airports. Mr. Dubois concluded
by suggesting some possible directions to alleviate some of the problems
discussed. First, existing technology might be applied right now and
not wait until all research has been completed; second, environmental
education must be built into the agricultural community; and finally,
it is important that the agricultural agencies, especially those in close
contact with the farmer, such as the extension service emphasize the
importance of erivinronmentai preservation. It is important that EPA
recognize existing organizations and work through them.
INSPECTION TOURS - TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1971
On the afternoon of October 26, the Board conducted a field inspection
tour in the Greeley, Colorado area to view large cattle feedlot
operations at the Farr Farms feedlot and the Monfort feedlot, the
world's biggest cattle feeding facility. At both farms the Boards saw
examples of feedlots employing modern pollution control practices.
For example, at the Farr Farms, 14,000 head of beef cattle are con-
fined in feeding pens on each bank of the Cache La Poudre River. An
extensive system of drainage ditches, pipelines and three retention
lagoons prevent liquid runoff from reaching the Cache La Poudre.
There is also a manure recycling operation, in which solid wastes
are removed from each pen with a road-grader every month and sold to
produce grain for Mr. Farr's cattle-feeding operation. Acting Chairman,
William Erwin, pointed out that such retention lagoons would have to be
considerably larger to work effectively in States with greater rainfall.
-4-
-------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 1971
The Board spent the day observing feedlot operations in Nebraska and
Kansas. The day began with a flyover trip whereby the Board was able
to view hundreds of miles of the South Platte and North Platte River
valleys of Colorado and Nebraska on the way to Omaha. The Board
received a close-up view of the heavily irrigated corn, grain sorghum
and alfalfa areas along the Platte, with a later view of the Kansas
Bluestern ranches and feddlots along the Cottonwood River.
Two lots were visited at Springfield, Nebraska just outside of Omaha.
Dr. W. E. Splinter, Chairman of the University of Nebraska Agricultural
Engineering Department acted as tour guide. He told the Board members
that within the past year, a cooperative feedlot waste program has made
measurable gains in feedlot water pollution. At the first lot visited
Leo Timmerman and Sons, Board members viewed a confinement building in
operation which processes in excess of 40,000 cattle. Of primary interest
was the 304 foot long structure with a slotted floor through which waste
drops into waterpits where solids are decomposed and the resulting liquids
are then funneled into a holding lagoon.
At the Bill Cockerill lot the Board viewed another well controlled
feeding operation consisting of diversion ditches, broad base terracing,
and a holding pond. The wastes from the holding pond are recycled onto
cropland. On the edge of Springfield was the Zinnerman Feed Yard where
housing is apparently destined to completely encircle it and public
pressure likely eventually to force its abandonment. The Advisory Board
was also told by tour offcials, that Nebraska's 19,000 feedlots will be
required by law to halt all pollution runoff from their property by the
end of 1972.
Water pollution control structures were observed as the plane circled
the Flint Hills Feed Yard and other lots enroute to Pratt, Kansas.
There George Chandler and Manager Frank Smith of the Pratt Feed Yards
conducted a tour which revealed the big settling basins for feedlot
runoff and the pumping arrangements draining the basins for irrigation
of nearby land. The problem here was that heavy applications of the
concentrated liquid effluent were shown to actually cut crop production.
The solution planned is to cover more land and to dilute the application
with water.
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 1971
The Board held a day long public hearing in Denver to hear testimony
from Federal and State agencies, conservation groups, agribusiness
representatives, and academic individuals who presented statements
-5-
-------
on the animal waste - water pollution problem. The Board also held an
open public form in the evening to hear statements from interested
citizens and several other organizations.
The morning session was opended by Acting Chairman, Gary H. Baise, who
swore in two new Board members: Mr. Byron P. Jordan, New Orleans,
Louisiana and Mr. Irvan F. Mendenhall, Los Angeles, California.
Mr. Baise then explained the purpose of the meeting emphasizing that
the Board has no preconceived conclusions and is primarily interested
in seeking information and advice on animal wastes as related to water
pollution.
This was followed by a welcome to the Board by Governor John A. Love
of Colorado who stated that Colorado has 4 major river systems where the
quantity and quality of the water are entirely different. He pointed out
potential pollution problems from the increased number of campers and
trailers in the State, and discussed problems caused by industrial
wastes and old mines. He concluded by assuring the Board that Colorado
has assigned importance to agricultural problems, that feedlots present
a potential problem, but can be dealt with by effective programs.
Governor Love was followed by presentations from 19 invited speakers
and 3 statements entered for the record. A list of speakers and the
organizations they represent is attached to this report as Appendix 1.
The evening session included 11 speakers and 6 statements entered for
the record. A list of these speakers is also included in Appendix 1.
Mr. Baise closed the public session by summarizing that based on the
numerous testimony, runoff from feedlots appear to present three
possible major problems:
(1) Oxygen depletion
(2) 'Pathogenic bacteria
(3) Increased nutrients
He continued his summary by stating that there appear to be a few
solutions, but that some are in the primitive stage. One feasible
solution emphasized by some speakers is the return of wastes to the
land. The final point in the summary was that based on the statements
presented before the Board, methods of control may be costly and
difficult.
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 29, 1971
The Board met in executive session convened at 9:00 a.m. by Acting
Chairman William Erwin. The meeting was opened by a presentation by
the General Electric Company on a process the company has developed for
conversion of cattle waste into bacterial protein. The process is one
of several being developed for reuse of cattle wastes.
-6-
-------
During the executive session, several Board members expressed dis-
appointment on the lack of monitoring data in the States visited and
the general dearth of information on the impact of feedlot runoff on
water quality. Accordingly, the Board decided that it could not
develop worthwhile recommendations at this time and should delay such
action and the issuance of a report until completion of its second
meeting on animal wastes. However, the Board reached ten preliminary
conclusions based on its four day study. These conclusions are included
in this report as Appendix 2.
The Board unanimously agreed that the second meeting should be held
at a University which is prominent in the field of agricultural
research and has data available an animal wastes as they relate to
water quality. It was also agreed that more technical experts in
this field be invited to testify before the Board rather than the public
at large. The Board adopted resolutions on strip mining and Federal
support for research (Appendix 3).
The meeting was followed by a press conference where the Board presented
its ten preliminary conclusions. Mr. Erwin adjourned the meeting at
12:00 noon.
-7-
-------
SECOND MEETING, JANUARY 24-28, 1972, ILLINOIS, INDIANA, PURDUE UNIVERSITY
MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 1972
The opening session was held at the Sheraton-Rock Island Motor Inn,
Rock Island, Illinois and was convened by Mr. Gary H. Baise, Acting
Chairman. Board member, Mrs. Louise Rome, was appointed as Vice
Chairman. Mr. Baise opened the meeting by introducing the Board
members. Board members present were: Dr. Melbourne R. Carriker,
Woods Hole, Massachusetts; Mr. William D. Farr, Greeley, Colorado;
Mr. Ray W. Ferguson, Ontario, California; Dr. Wallace W. Harvey, Jr.,
Manteo, North Carolina; Mr. Byron P. Jordan, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Board members not present were: Mr. Thomas W. Gleason, New York, New York;
Mr. Irvan F. Mendenhall, Los Angeles, California; and Mr. Parker E. Miller,
North Redington Beach, Florida.
Mr. Baise explained that this meeting was a follow-up to the first
session held in Denver on the impact of animal wastes on water quality
and will cover the States east of the Mississippi River. He stated
that he hopes results of the two meetings and the tours will enable the
Board to formulate significant recommendations to the Administrator.
The first speaker on Monday morning was Mr. Francis T. Mayo, EPA Regional
Administrator, Region V. Mr. Mayo welcomed the Board and outlined the
differences between the western and eastern United States in the area of
animal agriculture. In summary, these differences are:
1. Land ownership - A majority of the land is Federally
owned in the west.
2. Climate, particularly rainfall.
3. Number of animals and size of farms.
4. Differences in technology and land management practices.
Mr. Mayo pointed out that all of these factors affect the impact of agri-
cultural runoff on water quality.
The second scheduled speaker was Dr. Samuel R. Aldrich, member, Illinois
Pollution Control Board. Dr. Aldrich was taken ill and could not attend
the meeting. However, he entered a prepared statement for the record
which helped the Board recognize the transition from the problems of the
arid region where the previous Board meeting was held to a more humid region
with a different type of agriculture. He explained that (1) the net amount
of water that runs off the soil is 3 to 10 times greater in the central
Cornbelt than in unirrigated areas of the western Great Plains;
(2) the Cornbelt area has far more water to receive and assimulate BOD
material than equal areas in the Great Plains; (3) the western areas
have mainly beef cattle with dairy cattle and sheep important locally,
while in the Cornbelt hogs are the most important livestock, beef cattle
-8-
-------
are second, dairy cattle third (first in the Lake States north of the
Cornbelt), poultry and sheep rank far behind; and (4) the Cornbelt is
characterized by a large number of small operations. Dr. Aldrich, who
is a professor of soil fertility on leave from the University of
Illinois continued by emphasizing that agricultural practices must be
evaluated in terms of (1) effects on long-term soil productivity;
(2) degree of impact on the environment locally, nationally, and inter-
nationally; (3) effects on amount, quality and cost of food; and
(4) economic impact on farmers. Dr. Aldrich's prepared text concluded
by stating that there is a misleading concept that animal wastes are
equivalent to wastes from 10 billion humans. His statement pointed
out that there is a difference in that a high proportion of animal
wastes are either dropped by livestock or are spread on the land.
Thus most of the decomposition of the organic fraction occurs on or
within the soil. The nutrients are largely usetd in plant growth or are
filtered out by the soil. In contrast, a high proportion of human
wastes is intentionally introduced into surface waters following vary-
ing amounts of treatment.
Mr. Don Jedele, Professor of Agricultural Engineering, University of
Illinois Extension Service presented a brief introduction to the tour
sites to be visited by the Board. The Board departed by chartered bus for
three relatively small farms enroute to an afternoon meeting in
Peoria, Illinois.
1. Dale Richmond Farm, Rio, Illinois.
Mr. and Mrs. Richmond are operators of a small confined beef operation.
In 1962, Mr. Richmond received an official complaint from the State's
Attorney's Office regarding manure being flushed from his open feed-
lot into a nearby stream through natural drainage. With technical
assistance from the local and State Extension Service on alternatives,
Mr. Richmond constructed a covered feedlot in 1964 at a cost of
$9,072. This solved the runoff problem, but the system is costly
to maintain. In 1970, he added a totally slotted floor building
with manure handled as a liquid and no bedding required. This
structure cost $93/head capacity. The briefing of the Richmond
operation was presented by Mr. Don Teel, Extension Advisort Knox
County, Galesburg, Illinois who expressed the opinion of the County
Extension Service that Mr. Richomd has had a serious animal wastes
problem regarding stream pollution, but has successfully solved it
at his own expense.
2. Ned S. Brown Farm, Warren County near Galesburg, Illinois.
Mr. Brown operates a hog farm which farrowed 280 litters in 1971 and
marketed 1,730 head. The farm is currently in the process of con-
verting from farrow to finish in the field to total confinement.
The shift is being accomplished in three steps :
-9-
-------
a. Constructed 30 sow farrowing house in 1969. Totally slotted
floors with manure handled as liquid.
b. Nursery building constructed in 1970. Totally slotted floors-
liquid manure.
c. Now in process of studying best way to change finishing facility
to meet today's EPA regulations.
The latter area is where the problem exists. The farm is currently using
buildings and concrete floors formerly utilized by a cattle operation
causing a problem of runoff of semi-solid manure from finish floor.
The farm operator and manager have sought advise from the Department of
Agriculture Rural Environmental Assistance Program (REAP). Their advice
was to construct a 90 ft. by 20 ft. by 6 ft. concrete tank at a cost of
$19,200. This structure is to handle wastes from 500 head of hogs from
approximately 100 pounds to market weight. Maximum cost-sharing through
REAP would be $2,500. This alternative is deemed economically unfeasible
by the farm management. They are presently seeking other alternatives
and expressed the hope that engineers at the University of Illinois would
be able to assist through their research program in animal waste management.
3. Fred Rosenbohm Farm, Peoria, Illinois
This is a dairy farm and was discussed by Mr. George Perisho, Extension
Advisor, Peoria County. A farm pond provides an adequate source of
water for the dairy herd. A terrace was constructed to prevent field
and lot drainage from entering the pond. This has also prevented
siltation. Manure from the loafing barn, paved feedlot, and holding
area is spread on crop acres daily. Gutters on the buildings reduce
the amount of water flowing across the paved lots. Water from the
lots and holding area flows into a natural drainage way. Drainage
from the milk room and milking parlor is handled by septic tank and
disposal field. Some difficulty has been encountered with grain,
straw, and manure from the milking parlor clogging the septic tank and
drainage tile. In summary, this dairy is operated as a family farm
and has not encountered any serious problem to date.
In the afternoon, the Board met at Jumer's Castle Lodge, Peoria, Illinois.
The first speaker was Mr. Carl T. Blomgren, Manager, Standards Section,
Division of Water Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency. Mr. Blomgren said his agency is preparing recommendations on
animal waste standards for the Illinois Pollution Control Board. He
also pointed out that animal wastes constitute a potential water pollution
control problem and that one cow or steer produces as much waste daily
as 16 humans, a hog or sheep as much as two, and seven chickens as much
as one. He explained that unless this concentration of animal wastes on
many farms is handled properly, it can contaminate groundwater supplies
or runoff into streams and lakes. Economic studies indicate that for
many farmers the cost of spreading animal manure on their fields no longer
is competitive in price with chemical fertilizers.
-10-
-------
The second and final speaker on January 24 was Dr. Roy Van Arsdall,
Professor of Farm Management, Department of Agricultural Economics,
University of Illinois. Dr. Van Arsdall stated that more complete and
detailed information on waste management systems is needed before
pollution problems and solutions can be fully evaluated. He outlined
some of the impediments to pollution abatement. Among these are
uncertainty and lack of knowledge, diseconomies of small size of farms
and lack of economic incentives. He pointed out that money lenders are
not too favorably inclined toward the small farms since they feel it is
not a good investment. This means that the small farmer's financial
assistance is derived primarily from the Farmer's Home Administration
and REAP which in Dr. Van Arsdall's opinion is grossly underfunded.
He concluded by offering the following recommendations to minimize
impact of installing pollution control measures on the small farmer:
1. Continuing research and education.
2. Cost sharing.
3. Additional funding for REAP.
In the evening the Board departed by chartered aircraft for Warsaw,
Indiana.
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 1972
Mr. Baise opened the meeting at the Warsaw, Indiana Holiday Inn by
restating that the Board's objectives are to determine whether animal
wastes cause water pollution.
The Board was then welcomed by Dr. R. L. Kohls, Dean, College of
Agriculture, Purdue University, and a pre-tour briefing was provided
by Mr. Robert L. Hogue, Indiana State Poultry Association, Purdue
University. Board member Mr. Irvan F. Mendenhall joined the meeting
at this time.
The Board proceeded to tour three farms in Koscuisko County near
Warsaw to view animal waste disposal systems. The first farm visited
was Ernest Rhodes and Sons, a hog operation. There, the Board observed
new construction of manure containment facilities which have been
approved by the Indiana Water Pollution Board. The second stop was
the Triple "T" Farms to view a poultry operation featuring a high
rise laying hen building with modern exhaust facilities. The final
stop was at Tinkey Farm, Inc., another poultry operation. The Board
learned that due to an equipment accident at the Tinkey Farm on
September 20, 1971, an estimated 145,000 gallons of poultry waste
had runoff into the Tippeconoe River causing a fish kill. It is impor-
tant to note that the Board's primary interest was to study the Tinkey
waste disposal methods not to investigate the fish kill which is a
State responsibility.
-11-
-------
Following the morning tour, the Board met in Mentone, Indiana. The
first afternoon speaker was Mr. Norbert J. Moeller, Dairy Specialist,
Purdue University Extension Service who presented a series of slides
showing three Indiana dairies with potential water quality problems.
However, Mr. Moeller emphasized that the dairy industry does not present
a major problem in Indiana and he views it as a decreasing problem in
the future.
Dr. Alvin C. Dale, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Purdue
University presented a talk on Farm Animal Waste Research and Management
in Indiana. Among the highlights of Dr. Dale's presentation were
recommendations for additional research particularly on the effects
of continuously placing various quantities of wastes on crops and soils,
methods for control of odors of animal production units, and more com-
plete farm animal wastes treatment and disposal systems to demonstrate
how such systems may be adopted to animal production units.
The final speaker was Mr. Oral H. Hert, Director, Division of Water
Pollution Control Indiana State Board of Health. Mr. Hert reviewed
the functions of the Stream Pollution Control Board and pointed out
that Indiana was one of the first two States for which water quality
standards were approved under the Federal Water Quality Act of 1965.
With regard to animal wastes, he acknowledged that it has been difficult
to relate such wastes to the condition of the State's waters, however,
Mr. Hert stated that the potential organic pollution load from confined
animal feeding operations does pose a threat of pollution of receiving
waters, but that with good design, construction, and management
of operations the pollution threat can be minimized. He suggested that
dissemination of information and education of existing and potential
operators can be of much assistance; however, it will be necessary for
regulatory agencies to provide surveillance and contact with the operators
in order to keep them aware of their obligation to maintain waste water
control facilities and operation on a par with regular farm practices.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 26, 1972
The Board met in public session which was convened by Vice Chairman
Mrs. Louise Rome at Purdue University. The entire day was devoted to
testimony before the Board by experts on the relationship between
animal agriculture and water quality.
After a welcome from Purdue's President, Dr. Arthur G. Hansen, the Board
heard from Dr. Patrick G.H.J. Bosley, Balaton, Minnesota, physician and
Lyon County health officer, who showed slides of farms and municipalities
discharging livestock and human waste directly into streams and lakes.
He also showed slides where proper sewage management did not contaminate
water. He told the Board, Minnesota's laws were not strong enough or
-12-
-------
Sufficiently enforced to control pollution and that the money needed for
research and implementation of waste management measures was not available.
Dr, Bos ley said he thought many farmers were at the limit of their
finances to solve the problem and that Federal aid was needed.
Dr. Marvin T. Beatty, Chairman, Environmental Resources Unit, University
of Wisconsin reviewed Wisconsin's proposed regulations and their impli-
cations for small scale farmers. Dr. Beatty said economic studies are
needed at once to define more explicitly the costs which these proposed
rules entail and what kinds of farm enterprises must bear them. He told
the Board research also is needed on several aspects of animal waste
management -- in the animals, in the barns and enclosures, in storage,
on and in the land and in developing new methods of controlling odors
and of recycling and/or other new uses of wastes. Dr. Beatty concluded
by asserting that if the proposed Wisconsin rules are enacted in their
present form and enforced, the quality of the State's waters would bene-
fit substantially.
Dr. E. Paul Taiganides, Professor of Agricultural Engineering at the
Ohio State University told the Board there is a need to develop through
research and demonstration projects, a waste management technology that is
suitable for the size of farming operations that will be observed in the
future. Despite trends towards concentration, the average farming
operation will remain too small to support its own research and develop-
ment program he continued. The EPA therefore should continue to support
and expand these programs, he suggested. Dr. Taiganides further recom-
mended that there be expanded programs of monitoring quality of water
running off land on which large quantities of manure have been spread.
He added that livestock producers should receive direct financial
assistance within the next five or ten years to help them comply with
anti-pollution laws and regulations.
Mr. Lynn R. Shuyler, EPA, Project Leader, National Waste Research Center,
Ada, Oklahoma explained to the Board that the objective of the program
is to provide an array of technically and economically efficient waste
management alternatives for feedlot operators. Major program areas in
the future, based on current trends in the animal feeding industry, plus
completed and continuing research and public environmental awareness,
should be in two principal areas, he asserted:
(1) Research, development and demonstration of waste management
processes applicable to most current feedlot designs.
(2) Research, development and demonstration of waste management
processes applicable to enclosed feedlots with partial and
total environmental control. He made the following recom-
mendations :
(a) Coordination of the animal waste research efforts of all
governmental agencies, universities and private research
groups should be established. Since this research is
primarily pointed at protecting the environment, it would
-13-
-------
appear logical to make this the responsibility of
EPA.
(b) If proposed national environmental goals and deadlines
are enacted into law, massive increases in animal waste
research and demonstration program appropriations will
be necessary.
Dr. Raymond C. Loehr, Professor of Civil and Agricultural Engineering,
Cornell University outlined needs to be considered in establishing
immediate and long range approaches to animal waste problems. No
single treatment system or approach is likely to be satisfactory for
waste management at all animal production operations he said. The land
has and will remain an acceptable disposal point for treated and
untreated animal wastes under good crop or land management practices,
Dr. Loehr added. He concluded by stating that while considerable
research has been conducted delineating characteristics of animal
wastes and the fundamentals of treating these wastes, projects to
demonstrate feasible treatment processes are urgently needed.
Reviewing the animal waste situation in the southeastern United States,
Mr. Lee A. Mulkey, Agricultural Engineer, EPA Southeast Water Laboratory,
Athens, Georgia, described the poultry and catfish industries in that
area and their impact on water quality. Spreading poultry wastes on
land is the most common system of disposal in the southeast, Mr. Mulkey
told the Board. Lagooning has been adopted sparingly and some of the
larger producers have installed dryers, he added. He explained warm
water fish farming is expanding as a result of increases in production
of channel catfish; catfish are grown in ponds, cages, raceways, and tanks,
However, raceways are emerging as the most desirable system; some of
these can produce 100,000 pounds of fish per surface acre. Mr. Mulkey
summarized by emphasizing that the catfish industry offers pollution
control agencies the unique opportunity of developing pollution control
technology around the concept of minimum discharge for an industry in
its infancy.
Dr. J. Ronald Miner, Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering,
Iowa State University suggested that the Board be skeptical of simple
answers which ignore the complexity or exaggerate the magnitude of the
livestock waste problem. Dr. Miner said it seems reasonable to consider
regulation of livestock wastes at the most local level possible (States)
with guidelines and support activities from the Federal government. He
stated that there is evidence that land grant university researchers
supported in part by the solid waste and water quality agencies have been
successful in solving many of the animal waste management problems.
However, Dr. Miner is apprehensive that EPA might curtail funding of
unsolicited research grant applications and exercise additional control
over the type of work to be done. Such moves, Dr. Miner added will
result in a less rapid and less efficient program of improved environ-
mental quality.
-14-
-------
Mr. Will LaVeille, Agricultural Waste Specialist with the EPA Chicago
office praised the efforts of the Cooperative Extension Service in
Illinois and Indiana in helping farmers solve their pollution problems.
However, he noted that the more marginal farmer or the farmer who knows
he has a problem but cannot afford to solve it will probably not contact
the Extension people and they in turn may not know of a potential
pollution situation. The highlight of Mr. LaVeille's testimony was his
assertion that simple remedial measures are now available to abate 95
per cent of the usual animal waste situations and that most water quality
problems could be avoided by simple containment and runoff control
techniques. He termed imperative monitoring of streams in rural water-
sheds and said "surveillance efforts should be stepped up in the outlying
areas." Application of manure to the land should be considered with
great care, he told the Board, since even on relatively flat land a large
amount could be lost through runoff.
The public meeting was concluded by a brief address by the Honorable
Edgar D. Whitcomb, Government of Indiana who welcomed the Board and
emphasized that the State was making significant progress in solving its
water pollution control problems.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1972
The Board met in executive session chaired by Mrs. Rome to formulate
recommendations to the Administrator, EPA as a result of its two
meetings on the relationship between animal wastes and water quality.
Before beginning its deliberations, the Board heard a statement from
Mr. John George, EPA, Office of Solid Wastes Management, Cincinnati,
Ohio. Mr. George asserted that the EPA agricultural waste management
program needs to be given greater priority and is presently understaffed
and underfunded. He made a number of recommendations to improve the
program including a reorganization of the present EPA structure on agri-
cultural waste management.
The Board commended Mr. George for his frank statement, but it was the
concensus that the Board should not inject itself into EPA's internal
organization. However, several of his other thoughts were incorporated
in the Board's final recommendations to the Administrator (Appendix 4).
FRIDAY, JANUARY 28, 1972
The Board held a press conference at Purdue University to present its
findings.
The Board meeting was officially adjourned at 12:00 noon.
-15-
-------
PROGRESS ;
Subsequent to the Board's two meetings, the EPA has implemented the
recommendations wherever possible. However, in most instances
additional resources will be required for full implementation,
particularly in the areas of research, development and demonstration.
The EPA has requested significant increases in funds for these pro-
grams for Fiscal Years 1973 through 1975.
Respectfully submitted,
Alan Levin, Executive Secretary
President's Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board
-16-
-------
APPENDIX 1
PRESIDENT'S WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
October 28, 1971 - Denver, Colorado
SPEAKERS PRESENT FOR PUBLIC MEETING
Governor John A. Love, Colorado
John A. Green, Regional Administrator
Region VIII, EPA
Dr. T. C. Byerly, Assistant Director,
Science £ Education, Office of Secretary
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Dr. Chester E. Evans, Chief
Northern Plains Branch
Agricultural Research Service
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Dr. Raymond Johnson, Chief
Office of Environmental Quality
Fisheries and Wildlife
Department of Interior
Mr. Tom W. Ten Eyck, Chairman
Water Pollution Control Commission
Colorado Department of Health
Mr. Elvie Dreeszen
Iowa Water Pollution Control Commission
Mr. Richard Bueermann, Executive Officer
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Mr. Ted Reeves, Chairman
Nebraska Environmental Control Council
Dr. Frank Baker, Chairman
Animal Science Department
University of Nebraska
Mr. Girdner Crofoot
American National Cattlemen's Assoc.
Mr. A. L. Black
National Assoc. of Conservation Districts
Friona, Texas
Mr. Don F. Magdanz, Executive Secretary-
National Livestock Feeders' Assoc.
-------
-2-
Mrs. Peggy Albers, State Water Chairman
League of Women Voters of Colorado
Mr. Clifford G. Mclntire, Director of Natural Resources
American Farm Bureau Federation
Mr. Dean R. Kittell, Administrative Officer
Colorado Farm Bureau
Mr. Mons Teigen, Executive Director
Montana Stock Growers Association
Mr. Harvey Wilhelm, Mountain Empire
Dairyman's Association
National Milk Producers Federation
Dr. Duane Flack, Manager
Monfort Feedlots, Inc.
Dr. J. D. MacKenzie,
Professor of Engineering
School of Engineering and Applied Science
University of California at Los Angeles
Mr. Virgil Huseman, Director
Cattle Feeders' Service
Kansas Livestock Association
Mr. Neil Skau, Jr,
Executive Vice President
Colorado Cattle Feeders' Association
Mr. Lynn Stalbaum, Assistant to General Manager
Associated Dairymen, Inc.
Mr. Jack K. Smith, Executive Secretary
Missouri Water Pollution Board
Mr. Emory G. Long, Administrative Coordinator
Texas Water Quality Board
Mr. Tom Hovenden, Sec. Manager
Idaho Cattle Feeders' Association
Mr. Myron D. Paine, Regional Extension Specialist
Feedlot Waste Management, Agricultural-Eng. Dept.
Oklahoma State University
Mr. Gerald Clary, Ext. Specialist in Beef Cattle
Kansas State University Extension
-------
-3-
Dr. Dan M. Wells, Director
Texas Technology University
Water Resources Center
Mr. John Madden
Water Resources Institute
South Dakota State University
Ms. Kay Collins, Treasurer
Colorado Open Space Council
SPEAKERS NOT PRESENT, BUT ENTERED STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
Mr. Clyde Bower, Chief
Regulatory Services
Oklahoma Department of Agriculture
Mr. Nicholas Pohlit, Executive Director
National Environmental Health Association
Mr. Robert Steffen
Quality Environment Council of Nebraska
Mr. Ray Obrecht, Master
Colorado State Grange
Mr. Charles Hanavan, Jr.
Vice President
Rocky Mountain Farmers' Union
Mr. Frank H. Lewis, President
Texas £j Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association
Mr. Elton L. Berck, State President
Farmers Union of Nebraska
Dr. Richard E. Marland, Interim Director
Office of Environmental Quality Control
State of Hawaii
Mr. James P. Behlke, Executive Associate Director
Department of Ecology
State of Washington
-------
-------
APPENDIX 2
Preliminary Conclusions
Relationship Between Livestock Animal Wastes and
Water Quality
The President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board
October 29, 1971
The President's Water Pollution Control Advisory Board met October
26-29, 1971, in Denver, Colorado, and took subsidiary tours by motor
bus and aircraft into portions of Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas.
After on-the-ground inspections and from having had the benefit of
the advice and experience of governmental officials, representatives
of agricultural and related industries, and segments of the public,
as expressed in an open meeting, members of the Board have reached
the conclusions which follow with respect to water pollution resulting
form livestock feedlots:
1. Since only eight States have specific feedlot statutes and/or
regulations which require registration of confined feeding
operations, necessary controls and restrictions on feedlot pollution
must be approached at the present time through applicable water
quality standards now in effect in all States. At this time,
confined feeding facilities can be legally constructed in 29
States without prior consent of a State agency if the waters do
not leave the premises under conditions less than an unusual
(10 year) rainstorm.
2. Due to mounting demands, reduction in the numbers of farms, and
smaller numbers of people in the agricultural labor force,
increasing numbers of livestock are being produced on feedlots
which concentrate and consolidate problems of waste disposal and
control of water, air, and odor pollution.
3. In the 17 contiguous western States, feedlot pollution problems
are greatest in the cattle industry, with those involving sheep,
swine, and poultry of lesser magnitude.
4. Potential pollution from these sources affects surface waters
to degrees which vary widely with the amount of precipitation,
grades of land elevation, climatic conditions including temperature,
and other factors, including soil structures and their absorbent
qualities.
-------
5. Pollution originating in livestock feedlots unless properly
controlled, can exhaust oxygen supplies and kill aquatic life,
accelerate eutrophication, contaminate water with public health
hazards, and create insect and odor nuisances. Dust from feed-
lots, under certain conditions, pollutes air resources. Volatile
nitrates can become airborne to affect distant land and water
areas. Animal wastes can be contributors to water-borne pathogens.
6. There are many feedlots which will have to install better runoff
controls and solid waste management to be in compliance with State
laws on feedlot management now in existance or soon to become
effective.
7. In areas of low rainfall some control measures can be reasonably
simple to design and install when compared to controls required
of municipal and industrial pollution sources, through the use
of techniques such as interceptor ditching, lagoons, land and
terracing disposal.
8. Opportunities may exist to use animal waste products for beneficial
purposes such as gasification, recycling or animal feeds, and
conversion to a combustible oil.
9. This Board is in agreement with those principles and objectives
of the U. S. Department of Agriculture Rural Environmental assistance
Program which further water quality objectives in the United States.
10. Formulation of regulations should be as consistant, constant and
durable as possible in view of the evolving technology that demands
some recurring change.
-------
APPENDIX 3
RESOLUTIONS
STRIP MINING
WHEREAS, strip mining methods ravage the lands and frequently result in
significant problems of water pollution, particularly related to siltation
and sedimentation and acid drainage; and
WHEREAS, much of the coal presently being mined by the strip-mining methods
is utilized by the electric industry which is increasing year by year;
and
WHEREAS, the reclamation and rehabilitation of strip mined areas is a. major
problem in many states;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE President's Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board, meeting October 29, 1971, in Denver, Colorado, hereby urges
Federal agencies to support proposals before the Congress which would establish
a Federal system of standards for strip-mining methods which the States would
be required to meet, with operators being required to do an effective job
of reclaiming lands as they mine them; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Board expresses its approval and endorse-
ment of a Federal program whereby the government could acquire and reclaim
lands which have already been ruined, possibly utilizing to the greatest
extent possible, the opportunities to utilize sewage sludge in these efforts.
-------
FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH
WHEREAS, livestock operators urgently need practical processes for the
economical treatment and/or disposal of manures; and
WHEREAS, many poultry farmers are faced with similar problems; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the President's Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board, meeting in Denver, Colorado, October, 29, 1971, hereby
recommends that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
assume the responsibility for insuring that consideration is given to
Federal funding for research into:
1. Developing methods for the economical and practical treatment and/or
disposal of livestock and poultry manures which must fully protect both
surface and ground water from all types of pollution with emphasis on
preventing the release of soluble inorganic minerals into the soil,
including, but not limited to, nitrates, chlorides, total hardness, etc.
-------
APPENDIX 4
STATEMENT ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN ANIMAL WASTES
AND WATER QUALITY
The President's Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board
January 28, 1972
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
In late 1971 and early 1972, the President's Water Pollution Control
Advisory Board undertook a review of problems relating to pollution
of water resources by animal wastes. The Board toured agricultural
areas in Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Illinois, and Indiana and
conducted meetings to receive testimony from experts in related dis-
ciplines and interested citizens representing a cross section of the
Nation. In addition, the Board considered recommendations developed
by a National Symposium on Animal Waste Management and by workshops
conducted by several academic institutions. Therefore, these
observations and conclusions are based upon information from this
wide variety of sources.
Water resources are of incalculable value to the health and well being
of all citizens. They are sources of supply for domestic and indus-
trial purposes, for irrigation and other agricultural uses, for
recreation, for navigation, and for power generation. Pollution
damages or destroys the value of water for many of these beneficial
purposes.
In a broad sense, water resources are polluted by direct discharges
from point sources such as municipal treatment plants and industries,
and by runoffs from land areas which are both point and non-point
sources, and even by airborne contammmants. Animal wastes, resulting
principally from concentrations in confined areas of agriculture-
related operations, are involved in pollution of water resources
mostly through runoffs. In addition, under certain circumstances,
animal production can contribute to air pollution.
Animal wastes constitute both real and potential hazards to public
health, and result in kills to aquatic life as well as damages to
recreational and aesthetic values.
The Water Pollution Control Advisory Board has investigated many
aspects of the overall water pollution situation and considered the
problems associated with animal wastes in comparison to those resulting
from other sources. Consequently, the following conclusions reflect
collective judgments of Board members on animal waste pollution in
relation to the overall national water pollution problem.
-------
I. Severity of the Problem.
While localized difficulties clearly exist, identified animal
waste management problems do not yet approach the scope and
magnitude of water pollution originating from municipal and
industrial sources, or even from soil erosion. However, the
potential pollution from animal waste sources is growing in
magnitude as the number of livestock, poultry, and fish
increase and are fed in greater numbers in confinement
situations which concentrate waste materials. Consequently,
it is urgent that the nation exert major efforts to control
animal waste pollution before the situation becomes critical.
Recommendations
That the Environmental Protection Agency assume a vigorous
leadership role in coordinating major activities of all
Federal, State and local agencies involved in agricultural
waste management with those of educational institutions and
private groups and individuals interested in solving animal
waste disposal problems. To aid in this effort, EPA must
be provided with more funds and expanded staffing to coordi-
nate its own programs in research, training, administration,
and management.
II. Agricultural Concerns.
Anxiety is widespread among members of the agricultural com-
•munity about what may be required of animal producers in
pollution control measures and activities. While some of
this anxiety stems from uncertainties relating to new and
changing requirements and is to some degree unfounded, there
is legitimate concern about costs of installing control systems.
Recommendations
That the Environmental Protection Agency join with the appropriate
Federal and State agencies and education institutions in develop-
ing and implementing a comprehensive public information program
to explain fully the evolving guidelines and means of achieving
effective pollution control measures necessitated by animal
waste disposal problems.
III. Financing Pollution Control.
Some segments of the agricultural community are firm in their
belief that the Federal Government should participate to a
material degree in cost-sharing the financing of projects. As
as matter of principle the Board regards animal producers in the
-------
same light as privately owned industries, or businesses which
must secure their own financing for pollution control facilities
and receive reimbursement through increased prices of foods paid
by the consuming public. However, the Board believes that the
agricultural community should be accorded the full cooperation
and assistance of Federal and State agencies in the form of
technical assistance based upon effective research and development
efforts.
Recommendations
That the Environmental Protection Agency seek added appropriations
for expanded research and development programs, so that these
costs can be held to minimum levels to the farmer. Demonstration
projects are a very effective educational method that should be
increased, which can result in overall reduction in costs to both
producer and consumer. In addition, USDA should use all existing
programs and technical services to help animal producers install
systems that comply with regulations.
IV. Degree of Control.
There appears to be widespread agreement on the general policy that
animal wastes should be returned to the soil in such a way as
to prevent runoff and to utilize fully the nutrients involved.
However, if an animal producer discharges effluents, controlling
regulations must require maintenance or enhancement of the
quality of receiving waters.
Recommendations
That the Environmental Protection Agency encourage the adoption
of State legislation and regulations for animal waste management
based on minimal Federal guidelines which will maintain standards
with a view to enhancing water quality.
V. Uses of Animal Wastes.
The Board believes that recycling animal wastes back onto the
land is the best practicable approach in most situations,
particularly for smaller operators, through the use of catchment
basins, lagooning systems, and/or solid waste handling techniques.
There are also other possible uses which should be given full consider-
ation. Testimony presented to the Board indicates that promising
possibilities exist in converting animal wastes into fuels such
as oil or gas, building materials, dry fertilizer, tires, etc.,
and in recycling back into animal feeds.
-------
Recommendations
That the Environmental Protection Agency give high priority
to funding for research and development projects which may
develop practicable and safe alternate uses for animal wastes.
VI. Public Health.
Testimony presented before the Board reveals a dearth of
information in many critical areas of concern. Not nearly
enough is known about the possible transmittal of viruses,
other pathogens and toxic chemicals, through animal wastes, or
the possible contamination of groundwater supplies, or the
affects of runoff of pesticides or other agricultural chemicals,
or the concentration of pesticides and toxic chemicals in
animals from recycling.
Recommendations
That the Environmental Protection Agency initiate cooperative
long range research projects in centers of excellence which
will result in the collection of reliable data upon possible
less evident ill effects of concentrations of animal wastes.
VII. Monitoring.
Monitoring and tracing noxious substances in surface and ground-
water is grossly inadequate in most States.
Recommendations
That the Environmental Protection Agency, through program grants
or otherwise, encourage State agencies to increase their
monitoring programs so that an adequate profile of State water
quality by stream basins and groundwater would be available in
order to easily identify problem areas.
VIII. Site Selection.
Particularly vexing water quality problems were observed by the
Board, which were related to specific sites used for animal
production. Many of the difficulties could be minimized if
proper site selection criteria, including climatologic and
geologic conditions, were developed for implementation by the
animal production industry. Additional waste management demands
are created by urban encroachment into agricultural production
areas.
-------
Recommendations
That attention be given to the development of national and/or
State site selection guidelines which will determine the best
land areas to be used for animal production to minimize water
pollution.
IX. Training.
The Board is concerned about the critical lack of technically
competent personnel wo have knowledge of not only agricultural
problems but, more importantly, of the environmental systems
as well. The supply of such personnel must be increased to
meet the nation's mounting needs for technical expertise in
various disciplines relating to water pollution^control,
including agricultural sources.
Recommendations
That the Federal Government encourage educational institutions
and State and local agencies through grants and/or other
incentives, to expand their graduate and undergraduate
training programs in the environmental agricultural areas,
which will direct expert manpower into the pollution control
field.
X. Uniformity.
Federal guidelines should be promulgated and applied as minimum
standards to all States, and should be the basis for water
pollution controls and restrictions on animal waste management.
Recommendations
That the Environmental Protection Agency should develop animal waste
guidelines and work as closely as possible with the States to
ensure that these basic minimum requirements be adopted nation-
wide in the interest of uniformity which prevents discrimination
against any particular group or individual.
f U. S CjOXERNMF.NT PRINTING OFFICE 1972 — 48^-^86 (278)
-------
------- |