Federal Court Hears AFBF Clean Water Arguments

WASHINGTON, D.C., Dec. 13, 2004 – Oral arguments that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is overreaching its authority in regulating livestock operations were presented today on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation. The arguments were made before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court.

The court case filed by AFBF appeals new EPA rules governing water runoff related to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.

“The latest interpretation by EPA officials for enforcement of the Clean Water Act has the potential to affect far more farmers and ranchers than just those who own large-scale animal feeding operations,” said AFBF President Bob Stallman.

“It was the duty of the Farm Bureau to argue on behalf of our livestock producers that the EPA is overstepping its bounds in requiring many confined livestock operations to obtain a Clean Water Act permit and to do an inordinate amount of recordkeeping,” Stallman said. “Furthermore, we saw the need to contest the EPA’s jurisdiction to impose rules regulating crop land fertilized with manure the same as ‘point sources’ of water pollution.”

The arguments presented in New York City centered on the specific power given the federal government in the Clean Water Act as well as those reserved for the states. AFBF presented its case in conjunction with the National Chicken Council and the National Pork Producers Council.

AFBF’s opening brief says, “What the modern Clean Water Act established in 1972 was the key principle that no one has a right to pollute the waters of the United States. Permission to discharge pollutants became a privilege; that privilege could be won only by obtaining a Clean Water Act permit. The Agency cannot require certain persons to apply for those permits even if they do not discharge pollutants.”

“In their expanded regulations, the EPA is presuming that all large CAFOs are discharging pollutants, and the EPA can impose its oversight arbitrarily,” said Julie Anna Potts, AFBF general counsel.

New EPA oversight would include extensive recordkeeping showing the livestock producer is compliant within effluent limitations and also has an approved nutrient management plan – best management practices and procedures for effluents – even if the livestock facility had negligible potential for water pollution.

AFBF’s written and oral arguments also appealed the legality of EPA assuming power over regulating runoff from croplands fertilized with animal manure, which is contrary to what Congress intended in the Clean Water Act.

“We argued that the EPA cannot regulate discharges to surface waters because the Clean Water Act only regulates discharges to navigable waters,” Potts said. “We also noted it has been clear in congressional legislation that the states and local governments have control over non-point sources of pollution.”

Environmental organizations filed petitions arguing EPA’s rules do not go far enough or are not stringent enough. Their oral opinions were also presented to the court on Monday.

The court has not indicated when an opinion might be issued.

Contacts:

Richard Keller (202) 406-3640 keller@fb.org

Tracy Taylor Grondine (202) 406-3642 tracyg@fb.org