An Alternative to Lagoons

EPA uses the Clean Water Act and the CAFO rules to control feedlot runoff. The research contractor EPA hired to study the feedlot industry and define those rules was not an entity experienced in agriculture, but was known mostly for manufacturing airplane propellers. They surveyed the beef feeding industry and defined two different levels of pollution control performance.

1) The Best Practical Technology (BPT)
2) Best Available Technology (BAT)

These were rolled into what was called Effluent Limitations Guidance (ELG). Such Effluent Limitations were required for every category of entities which discharged into U.S. waters. For feedlots, EPA and their contractor focused their study on the high plains where feedlots typically discharge only under extremely large precipitation events. EPA defined the two levels of ELG and associated performance in the context of a high moisture deficit, low rainfall and high evaporation region of the country where the performance achieved is often “zero discharge.”

By erroneously presuming the same high level of performance in areas of higher rainfall and lower moisture deficit, EPA and many state environmental agencies have for three decades now effectively precluded the use of treatment systems which could often provide equivalent or higher levels of environmental protection more economically.

Natural treatment systems such as grass filters, vegetated infiltration basins, wetlands, and other alternative treatment systems were all being successfully researched and demonstrated on CAFO sized and smaller facilities when the Clean Water Act was passed. However, the widespread mis-representation of the ELG performance as “zero discharge” regardless of climactic and site specific variables resulted in the rapid dissipation of all funding support for such research and demonstration efforts.

Although we at Agriculture Engineering Associates have successfully designed and permitted vegetated treatments systems (VTS) for feedlot runoff control in several states, EPA and most state environmental agencies have often refused to permit such alternatives, as they aren’t usually mis-represented as “zero discharge” technologies. Since very few people in the industry, academia, politics, and the controlling environmental entities understand the various subtleties and substance of this conundrum, it has taken 30 years to get the EPA to allow alternative technologies to be considered for feedlots, I believe.

The new CAFO rules initiated in 2003 finally provide specific acknowledgement that any technology that provides equivalent or better performance to that resulting from the baseline ELG at a specific climactic location is allowable.

If a producer proposes to use an alternative to the typical runoff retention pond, he and his consultant face the task of proving to EPA that the alternative system will work before it will be approved. Since EPA effectively shut off all on-going research and on farm demonstration of alternative technologies for the last three decades, this is a difficult task. Therefore, I wrote a proposal to pull together a national task force of ag waste experts to study alternative technologies.

Based upon that proposal, the Iowa Cattlemen’s Association was provided several grants totaling over $600,000 to pull together what is known about alternative technologies, compile a guidance document with the collaboration of USDA NRCS and many other entities, and design and study at least half a dozen pilot alternative technology feedlot pollution control projects. The final guidance document has just recently been issued. A lot of progress has been made towards supporting the use of alternative technologies for feedlots in climactic regions that don’t have a 30 to 40 inch moisture deficit.

In the whole of new CAFO rules this is the most meaningful opportunity for feedlots to help themselves. They could have an opportunity to deal with their pollution control burden with less capital, lower operating expense, and a more environmentally friendly technology than just lagoons. ©

John George is an engineer who’s company, Agricultural Engineering Associates, has for the past 30 plus years provided clients with services in all areas of agriculture production.

Agricultural Engineering Associates specialize in a variety of services before construction begins. Services such as: Site surveying and geologic investigation, planning and designing new and expanding facilities, permitting, livestock waste management plans and construction management. A large part of their work is permitting. They are not part of a government agency or an organization set up of former Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) employees. They are a totally independent organization and focus on maintaining the independent posture to represent the best interest of each individual client.