A day after announcing plans to streamline water quality regulation, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources emphatically denied that it will allow large dairy producers to write their own pollution permits.
But DNR leaders do want animal feedlot operators to take more responsibility for drafting pollution discharge permits, the legal documents that spell out standards and techniques aimed at keeping millions of gallons of manure they produce annually out of the state’s lakes, streams and drinking water.
Conservationists say the change is loaded with pitfalls that threaten water quality, while industry representatives say it doesn’t go far enough.
A key to their arguments is something that hasn’t been highlighted: Much of what goes into the permits under current practices is already written by the industry, subject to DNR oversight.
The DNR wants to start a program under which it would review the credentials of the private consultants who are hired by large dairies to write lengthy proposals that eventually form the basis for the permit, then create a list of those the DNR and the dairy operators can be “assured” would do good work that could be approved quickly with less review and revision.
A Dairy Business Association representative praised the DNR plan to give more cursory review to proposals from approved consultants but added that it would be a relatively small additional step to what the industry sees as an even better arrangement involving concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) writing the whole permit.
That would speed permitting and create more efficiently designed CAFOs by giving the consultants who are experts in their fields greater control, while still allowing DNR the last word, association lobbyist John Holevoet said.
It’s important to remember that the consultants can’t risk doing poor work that would make their insurance premiums go up, Holevoet said.
“Sometimes the public thinks they’ll just do whatever the farmer wants,” he said. “That’s not true because they have to have fairly expensive insurance policies, and if something goes wrong the farmer will sue the engineering firm and the insurance company will pay out.”
But conservationists pointed to problems that have surfaced even with the existing level of DNR scrutiny.
With DNR staff stretched thin and under pressure to issue permits quickly, the agency has approved CAFOs whose manure lagoons have overflowed into trout streams and where animal waste was spread on farm fields with thin soil and porous bedrock that allowed drinking water to be tainted, said Sarah Geers of Midwest Environmental Advocates.
“It would be one thing if the process were already working really well, but from what we know about the CAFO program I don’t see how less DNR review will result in better permits,” Geers said.
DNR secretary Cathy Stepp announced plans to change water permitting as part of a broad reorganization aimed at recognizing that the agency’s responsibilities have grown in recent years at the same time that elected officials have cut its staff.
Stepp said she wants to reduce time staff members spend reviewing and seeking revisions in permit applications so they can talk with CAFO operators about best practices and conduct inspections to ensure they are complying with their permits.
Critics say inspections won’t mean much if the DNR isn’t ensuring that the standards written into permits are adequate. Revising a faulty permit is a legal process that takes many months.
But Stepp said a similar “assurance program” reduced staff responsibilities without lowering standards about 10 years ago when the DNR used it to give the private sector more responsibility for mapping sensitive wetlands.
You have free articles remaining.
“So this isn’t about producers writing their own permit, it’s not about them writing their own regulations or standards,” Stepp said in a recent Wisconsin Public Television interview. “This is just about some of the more heavy-duty technical paperwork side of things getting done by professionals who are very well educated and credentialed to do that.”
Water pollution discharge permits include operating conditions. Some, such as required ground water monitoring or leak detection devices in production areas, may be taken from the plans and specifications submitted by the CAFO.
But the bulk of the permit document is hundreds or even thousands of pages describing how, where and under what conditions the CAFO will dispose of manure it produces. The so-called “nutrient management plan” is incorporated into the permit.
The DNR said the best case is that a CAFO submits spotless plans that don’t require the department to request additional information or revisions.
But conservationists who have challenged DNR-approved permits say the agency too often allows CAFOs to operate with inadequate permit restrictions.
State oversight of the waste water discharge permits have become a hot topic as regulatory shortcomings have come to light.
Stepp wants to create lists of approved consultants for the two major portions of a CAFO application — the plans and specifications for structures in milk production areas, and the plans for manure disposal.
Both involve mapping, soil tests and highly technical calculations aimed at ensuring that rain won’t flush manure into the aquifer or surface water.
It’s not entirely clear how closely DNR staff members would review applications from assured consultants, but the idea is that they would spend less time on them so they could spend more time elsewhere.
“We’ll be doing spot audits and regular check-ins to make sure that those calculations are being done correctly,” Stepp said in the television interview.
It’s possible that spot checks would be done on an annual basis to ensure consultants were using the same methodology that DNR staff would insist upon, but details will be worked out in meetings with stakeholders, DNR director of business support and science Mark Aquino told the State Journal.
State law already requires that nutrient management plans be prepared by consultants who have been certified by professional organizations.
The plans describe how manure may be spread over hundreds of acres sometimes involving multiple landowners.
Meanwhile, at least one lawmaker is considering legislation to break up the DNR and divide its functions among three existing and two new agencies. Gov. Scott Walker said the idea should get consideration, while critics raise questions about how the plan would affect environmental protection.
Experience level varies
Engineering companies that design CAFO production areas have varying levels of experience, so a DNR list of assured firms would be useful, said Jennifer Keuning, Green Bay project manager for the international engineering and construction services company GHD.
The company specializes in construction projects involving environmental regulations, and it has handled hundreds of CAFO projects and expansions in Wisconsin, Keuning said. Like Holevoet, she said the industry could write the entire permit if the DNR wanted that.
Even if the assurance program works well, it’s difficult to imagine improvement in the DNR’s performance in protecting water quality unless elected officials stop cutting and start restoring the agency, Midwest Environmental Advocates’ Geers and others have said.