Lots of thoughtful feedback received as we update the CAFO permit

By Heather Bartlett, Water Quality Program Manager

We appreciate that so many citizens, producers, groups and organizations took a considerable amount of their time to give us thoughtful comments on the permit we’re updating for concentrated animal feeding operations, the CAFO permit.


Ecology listening session in Zillah in April 2015.

This permit covers animal feeding operations that confine large numbers of animals in a small area, creating lots of manure. CAFOs are one of many sources that pose a pollution risk to the health of our waters, our shellfish beaches, and the groundwater we drink.

Public input is essential in helping us update the permit with meaningful protection for water quality that is manageable for livestock producers to implement.

At the moment, the permit is a preliminary draft. This is a step we added to the process so that we could share our goals and initial thoughts and receive feedback before starting to write the permit.

CAFO permit is important to many
As you can imagine, this permit update is important to a lot of people. That’s why we’ve spent months meeting with livestock producers, dairies, businesses, environmental organizations and other stakeholders to learn what’s important to them and understand how they’d like to see the permit crafted.

Thousands of pages of comments
We received 91 letters signed by 168 people and groups, amounting to about 5,000 pages of comments and material. We’re reading through all of it, and will use it to inform our decisions as we develop the next permit draft.

We value the agriculture and dairy industries
One of our guiding principles throughout this process is believing that Washington’s agriculture and dairy industries are vitally important to our state. At the same time, we also believe that livestock, agriculture and clean water can co-exist and even thrive together.




Agriculture and dairy industries are vitally important to our state.

Working to avoid impacts on small dairies
We understand that dairies, especially small and medium-sized dairies, are under tremendous competitive pressure. The trend in the dairy industry has been toward fewer but larger dairies. As we update the permit, we are committed to doing what we can to mitigate the impact on small dairies.

Partnering with Department of Agriculture
Today, the Washington Department of Agriculture and Ecology both have roles in overseeing animal agriculture. Both agencies believe that the current regulatory framework should continue as it is, but that it can be improved for better water quality protections. The Department of Agriculture will continue to play an important role as we update the permit.

Concerns shared with us
Here is a sampling of concerns we received:

• Requiring a permit for all producers with unlined lagoons is not necessary or warranted. Others believe permits should be required for all medium and large CAFOs. 
• This permit should not be required unless the producer is proven to be causing pollution.
• The current dairy nutrient management program protects water quality. Others believe it does not protect waters. 
• The proposed permit is Ecology’s attempt to bring the regulation of dairies back under their control. 
• The proposed permit needlessly adds regulatory burdens for little or no environmental benefit. Others believe environmental protections in the proposed permit are inadequate and need to be made significantly more protective.

Responding to some of the concerns
We appreciate the opportunity during this stage of the permit process to hear, share and respond to concerns that we have received. Two areas we wanted to respond to directly are the role of a permit and the pace for changes at facilities when a new permit goes into effect.

1. Permit coverage does not automatically mean an operation is polluting. 
Comments we received through the preliminary draft suggest that some perceive coverage under a CAFO permit means they have polluted. Both state and federal law require a water quality discharge permit for a discharge that reaches water or groundwater. They are not required because pollution is happening.

Our preliminary draft permit concluded that unlined manure lagoons seep and that seepage results in discharges to groundwater. Having CAFO permit coverage feels new for livestock operations, but the requirement to have a permit due to a discharge to water is not unique. In fact, more than 6,000 industries in Washington have to have discharge permits.

2. Permit coverage would not require changes to manure lagoons.
Under our preliminary proposal, all operations with manure lagoons would need to obtain CAFO permit coverage. However, we are not requiring lagoons to be retrofitted with synthetic liners during the permit term. There are prudent reasons for operations to consider modernizing their manure lagoon liners, but that would be a decision for the producer.

We’ll incorporate your feedback as we update the draft permit
We are still receiving comments, but we already know we have more work to do in a few areas, including:

• When and why a CAFO permit is required
• Addressing rainfall differences between eastern and western Washington
• Manure and soil sampling requirements
• Manure application restrictions and buffers

We are keeping an open mind 
The comments we received raised a lot of great questions and points. We are keeping an open mind as we update the permit. There will be another public comment period on a draft permit in the coming months. We look forward to continuing our dialogue with all who are touched by this permit.

We invite you to visit our website to see all of the comments we received.

Working together in Whatcom County to understand the manure-groundwater connection

By Sandy Howard, communications manager, Water Quality and Environmental Assessment Programs


Grass field in Whatcom County, site of the study

This is a story about a gracious landowner who was willing to work with us so we could better understand connections between the use of manure on land and nitrate in groundwater.

Right off the top, we want to thank the landowner. Thanks to his hospitality, our state has some new-found science that will help both agriculture and water quality.

Why it matters

We think Washington’s agricultural industry is incredibly valuable and important to our state. We believe that livestock and agricultural production can co-exist and thrive along with clean water in our rivers and streams.

However, livestock manure can be a threat to our underground water supplies. Manure contains nitrogen which converts to nitrate in the soil. When nitrate gets into drinking water, it is a health risk, especially for babies and pregnant women.

Our study

For nearly five years through 2009, this dairy landowner in Whatcom County voluntarily agreed to allow scientists Barb Carey of the Department of Ecology and Dr. Joe Harrison from Washington State University to monitor and measure the amount of manure he applied to a 22-acre grass crop field in Whatcom County.

The work included measuring soil, crop, and groundwater to track where the nitrogen from the manure went.

Other partners in this work included the state departments of Agriculture and Health.

Why this location?

We selected this study location because the land sits over the Sumas-Blaine Aquifer

The aquifer – an underground water supply – is the main drinking water source for 18,000 to 27,000 people in northern Whatcom County. It has some of the most widespread and elevated nitrate concentrations in the state. It is relatively shallow, making it vulnerable to pollution from activities above ground.

Over the last 30 years, 29 percent of the wells tested in the Sumas-Blaine Aquifer have failed to meet the nitrate drinking water standard at least once.

Aerator adding manure to field

This landowner, like all dairy landowners, works hard to manage the manure his cows produce. It contains nutrients needed by crops, so the common practice is to spread it onto grass crop fields. The crop is later harvested and fed to the cows.

Here are some more we took during the study.

What our study found

We have shared our study findings not only with the landowner, but also with the Washington Dairy Federation, and with legislators, the Whatcom Conservation District, and other agricultural partners. We have asked others to read and weigh in on our findings – in fact that’s why it took us a while to get this report finished. Our key findings:

• We found that the major source of nitrate in groundwater at the study site was from manure applied for grass production. The amount and timing of manure applied each year to the field were the overriding factors that affected nitrate levels in the shallow (less than 11 feet) groundwater. When manure was applied at the recommended amounts and times of the year, nitrate concentrations in groundwater were low enough to meet safe drinking water levels.


• Most of the annual precipitation in the area occurs during the period of limited crop growth (October through March), when rain carries available nitrate in the soil to the water table. Late fall application in 2006 followed by heavy rain resulted in a significant increase in the groundwater nitrate concentration.


• The study found that it is not possible to accurately predict actual groundwater nitrate concentrations based on the amount of nitrogen applied. Neither the post-harvest soil nitrate test nor the nitrogen mass balance methods that we evaluated was a good predictor of resulting shallow nitrate concentrations in groundwater.


• Among the report’s recommendations is continued collaboration between state and local organizations in partnership with universities, dairies, and other agricultural producers to improve the efficiency of nitrogen use and protect groundwater quality.

What our partners are saying

“This project was designed to look at how we manage the complex system of the nitrogen cycle on a farm field,” said study partner Dr. Joe Harrison of Washington State University. “It is a dynamic cycle affected by rain, temperature, tillage practices, manure application, fertilizer application, weed control, and irrigation management.”

Harrison’s advice to landowners:“Keep good records of manure application rates; have your manure tested multiple times during the year; and have reliable estimates of crop yield, as well as a forage test. This data will allow one to accurately estimate the nitrogen balance on the field.”

He added that the landowner who allowed access for the study “…deserves a pat on the back for providing and creating a safe learning environment and the opportunity for the Washington dairy industry, Ecology, the Department of Agriculture, Whatcom Conservation District and WSU to collaborate on such a project. His commitment to environmental stewardship is appreciated.”
Clark Halvorson, director of the Office of Drinking Water said: “Collaborations with dairymen like this will help us identify new management practices that better protect our drinking water supplies and strengthen our vital agricultural industries.”
Added Virginia Prest, manager of the Washington State Department of Agriculture Dairy Nutrient Management Program “The majority of our state’s 400 dairies work hard to manage their manure to protect water quality in their communities. This study offers some key information that can help with that important effort.”

You can read our report “Nitrogen Dynamics at a Manured Grass Field Overlying the Sumas-Blaine Aquifer in Whatcom County" online. Follow our work with the agricultural community at Clean Water on Agricultural Lands.

---