OKLAHOMA

• Oklahoma is experiencing an influx of massive swine factory farms that threaten to foul the state's scarce water supplies.
  
  
• Poultry contract growers are supposed to follow best management practices and create waste management plans, but it is the large corporations not the state agencies who do the inspections.

In 1991 there were only 200,000 hogs in the state of Oklahoma, but in the past decade their numbers have grown exponentially.¹ Oklahoma amended its anti-corporate farming law seven years ago, allowing foreign and corporate ownership of agricultural land.²

In 1993 Oklahoma passed a so-called "Right to Farm" law. This protects licensed concentrated animal feeding operations against nuisance suits from residents who live three miles or more outside an incorporated city limit and have fewer than ten occupied homes per square mile.³ These and other regulatory changes demonstrated the willingness of the state to weaken controls on factory farms. Additionally, these changes helped facilitate growth in industrial-sized hog operations. The state's hog population now stands at approximately two million head.⁴ And although the state now appears to many to be saturated with factory farms, hog populations in some of the counties may increase by 50 to 100 percent. For example, Tyson Foods has announced 40 new "projects" for Hughes, Okfuskee and Seminole counties.⁵

Most of the water-hungry hog facilities are in the dry western half of the state where surface water is sparse. The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture's database of licensed concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) shows that approximately 90 percent of the state's hogs in licensed feeding operations are raised in western Oklahoma. In the Oklahoma Panhandle, site of the most dense hog concentration, the Ogallala aquifer is a sole source water supply.⁶ While some parts of the aquifer still contain many years worth of water supply, other areas are running dry.⁷

The cattle industry has historically been part of the foundation of Oklahoma's economy and remains so to this day. Although cattle feedlots are not required to get state licenses, the state Department of Agriculture reports that virtually all have voluntarily obtained licenses. According to the department, the state has 71 licensed cattle feedlots.⁸ Feedlot owners usually seek state licenses to protect themselves from nuisance suits. Under state law, holding a state license is considered evidence in itself that an agricultural operation is not a nuisance.⁹ Up to now, only a handful of poultry operations -- 15 according to the Agriculture Department -- have obtained licenses.¹⁰

Pollution Problems

Forty percent of Oklahoma's streams are classified "impaired" by the state due to polluted runoff. The state reports that agriculture is the primary source of the runoff.¹¹

Several studies have documented that lakes in the eastern part of the state, including some important sources of drinking water, have been polluted by nutrient-rich runoff from poultry litter.¹² Poultry litter is particularly rich in the nutrient phosphorus. Phosphorus pollution has been measured in Beaty Creek, a creek that feeds into Lake Eucha, an important source of drinking water for the for the city of Tulsa. The city of Tulsa will be required to invest millions of dollars to upgrade its water treatment system as a result of pollution upstream. The cost of poultry pollution to the city of Tulsa helped put political pressure on the state legislature in the 1998 session to pass new legislation regulating poultry operations. (See "Regulatory Climate" below.) At Lake Spavinaw and Lake Wister, polluted runoff from poultry operations has led to eutrophication -- the proliferation of algae from a nutrient glut that can be extremely harmful to aquatic life. Poultry operations have contaminated many of the tributaries on the north and northeastern side of the Grand Lake O' the Cherokees.¹³

In the western part of the state, runoff from one swine operation's waste sprayfield threatens a nearby delicate wetland near Canton Lake, which is supplied by the North Canadian River system.¹⁴

Despite the harmful impact on the environment attributed to factory farms in Oklahoma, the state is considering allowing Seaboard Farms Corporation, one of the nation's largest pork producers, to expand its facilities on a massive scale. Seaboard Farms Corporation has requested that it be allowed to establish a 27,000-sow farm in Beaver County, known as the Dorman sow site. Originally the State Board of Agriculture held that the facility was unopposed, though concerns were raised by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, which is responsible for the Beaver River Wildlife Management Area, and by an adjacent neighbor.¹⁵ However, after neighbors petitioned the State Board of Agriculture, a hearing on the Dorman sow operation was granted.¹⁶ At a nearly identical Seaboard facility further west in Beaver County, engineer Jay Clapp, an adjacent landowner, discovered mathematical errors that led to faulty lagoon design by Seaboard's consultants. The same errors had been repeated in the design for the Dorman site.¹⁷ Seaboard counters that the site is nearly completed and that the company already has contracts for sows to fill the three barns.¹⁸

According to Suzette Hatfield of the Oklahoma Family Farm Alliance, an organization representing family farmers and rural residents, neighbors of the facility are concerned about the effect on their local water quality should the facility be allowed to operate. Together with Seaboard's other equally big hog farm in the Earl Hatley county, Seaboard's new operation could pave the way for the production of as many as one million hogs yearly in Beaver County, counting the piglets produced each year. The proposed site for the Dorman hog farm is adjacent to the Beaver River in a region of sandy, alluvial soil, increasing the possibility that polluted runoff from the hog farm will foul the Beaver River. An inspection of the site by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture warned of grave environmental risks, stating "the potential for runoff down gulleys to Beaver River is too great. Topography is all sloped towards gulleys to run to [the] River."¹⁹ The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation's (ODWC) evaluation concludes, "due to close proximity of the primary [manure] lagoons and land application site to deep ravines, plus the undersized lagoons system, ODWC suggests that there exists a significant potential for surface and ground water contamination."²⁰

Oklahoma has to contend with more than its own factory feedlot pollution. It is downstream from other feedlot-polluted states including Missouri and Arkansas. Pollutants from Simmons Foods' processing plant, across the border in Missouri eventually find their way into Honey Creek, a tributary to Grand Lake O' the Cherokees at Grove, Oklahoma. (See Missouri story.)²¹

Regulatory Climate

Oklahoma's Department of Agriculture issues licenses, not permits, to CAFOs. Because of the recent explosion of the swine industry in Oklahoma, the State Board of Agriculture has passed a series of rules defining the timing for construction and licensing of swine facilities.²²

A one-year moratorium on swine factory farms that commenced March 9, 1998, was removed August 1, 1998, in connection with the passage of a new law (SB1175) aimed at toughening regulation of such operations. Under SB 1175, CAFOs must obtain licenses, which include a requirement for waste management plans, if the animals are housed primarily in a covered barn, utilize a liquid waste management system and confine 1,000 animal units or more -- the equivalent of 2,500 adult pigs or 10,000 weaned swine under 55 pounds.²³ The law is aimed at large hog farms that typically keep hogs tightly confined indoors and that spray liquid manure onto fields. It is intentionally written so as not to cover family farms, in which pigs are typically pastured outdoors and make only occasional use of a covered barn.

The bill ensured that water quality will be monitored through requirements for installation of wells to test water quality that will be installed next to manure lagoons. However, there is still no water monitoring required to check pollution caused by spraying liquid manure onto fields. The legislation does require soil testing, but it is pegged to nitrogen, not phosphorus, which is more likely to accumulate in soil and result in polluted runoff. Another weakness of best management practices required by the Oklahoma law is that farmers can base their application of manure on the maximum uptake of the crop rather than the average uptake of the crop.²⁴

Under present law, a new confined swine operation must have a pre-site inspection from a Department of Agriculture official, lagoon inspections during construction and annual inspections of the licensed facility. If the application is protested, an administrative hearing process must be completed before construction may commence.²⁵

The state has only eight inspectors for licensed CAFOs.²⁶

Cattle feedlots and dry litter poultry operations do not fall under this new law. Another new law passed this session (SB 1170) requires dry litter poultry operations to register with the state. Registration is nothing more than a statement with the farmer's address and information about the size of the poultry operation and the name of the corporation to which the farmer is under contract.

Under SB 1170, poultry contract growers are supposed to follow best management practices and create waste management plans for handling dry litter. However, the farmer's practices are policed not by the state but by the corporations -- frequently poultry processing corporations -- with whom the farmer has contracted to grow the chickens. Most of the state's poultry farmers are under contract to large poultry processing corporations. The corporation or vertical integrator (so-called because it usually owns a slaughterhouse as well as the chickens) is responsible for arranging inspections for the poultry operation annually to insure that the farmer is following recommended practices for handling animal waste and for reporting any environmental violations to the state.

The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture's interpretation of the Clean Water Act is that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency does not require livestock operations to have Clean Water Act permits unless they discharge wastewater directly into waterways. Thus, it does not require confined livestock operations that dispose of waste through land irrigation systems rather than waterway discharges to apply for Clean Water Act permits. Even with the operations that are covered by the Clean Water Act, Region Six general permits only have to file "a finding of no significant impact on water pollution" to obtain a permit.²⁷

The resolve of the state to fully implement the new swine factory farm law is already being tested. In July 1998, Tyson Foods announced its intention to vastly expand its operations in three counties by adding 40 new swine production facilities.²⁸ Though the company has kept the location of these new facilities secret, residents have identified some of the new operations and, so far, most of the facilities appear to be designed to hold fewer than 1,000 animal units, the threshold for a license. One facility is a 10,000-head swine nursery with 11 barns holding nearly 1,000 pigs each. The nursery is sited on land about a mile from the South Canadian River, a major source of drinking and recreational water. On both sides of the river are parcels of land on which manure may be applied, posing serious risk of polluted runoff into the river. Tyson recently declared its intent to apply for a license for this one facility.²⁹ Another factory farm planned by Tyson, including two double sow barns and a nursery, is within a mile of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation's Deep Fork Wildlife Management Area in Okfuskee County near Welty.³⁰

The state's new swine law prohibits animal waste handling or management that is likely to contaminate public or private drinking water supplies or to create an environmental hazard. Also, the State Board of Agriculture is authorized to designate an animal feeding operation as a CAFO, which must abide by buffer zones to protect the environment and neighbors, if it is determined to be a significant contributor of pollution to the waters of the state.³¹ New siting restrictions established that as of March 9, 1998, no new licensed swine CAFO may be built within three miles of a nonprofit recreational site.³² Activists believe that Deep Fork Wildlife area qualifies as a recreational site because it allows hunting, among other recreational activities. The Oklahoma Family Farm Alliance and other organizations may petition the Board of Agriculture to designate some of the 40 Tyson facilities as CAFOs if they do not apply for licenses. This would force the facilities to come under licensure and be subject to setbacks, monitoring, inspection and other regulations.

Local Control

An "affected property owner" who wishes to protest an application for a new swine facility in his neighborhood may file a letter of protest with the state Department of Agriculture and request a hearing. For the most part, landowners adjacent to a proposed facility and within one mile of the operation are considered affected property owners. For larger facilities, affected landowners can include those up to two miles from a hog operation.³³ The state's definition of affected landowners is so narrow that property owners downstream from a proposed hog factory farm who are concerned about resulting pollution may have no opportunity to present their views on the proposed facility if they live more than one or two miles away.

Primary interviewee for this chapter:

Suzette Hatfield
Oklahoma Family Farm Alliance
P.O. Box 25461
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
Phone: 405-557-1649
Fax: 405-525-4112
e-mail: hatfieldokc@compuserve.com

Notes

1. U.S. Department of Agriculture Livestock Reports, statistics available on the Internet.

2. SB 518, passed in April, 1991.

3. SB 147, passed 1993.

4. Quarterly numbers, published in June by the U.S. Department of Agriculture put the number of Oklahoma hogs at 1.7 million. As noted by Dan Parrish (Director of the Water Quality, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture) to the Joint Legislative Task Force on Animal Waste and Water Quality (February 1998), that count is largely from licensed facilities. When you add unlicensed facilities, the number of swine jumps to about 2 million head.

5. "The Pork Group to Expand Operations in Local Area," Holdenville Daily News (July 12, 1998), vol. 91, no. 89, p. 1.

6. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas, HA-450.

7. Erla Zwingle, "Ogallala Aquifer: Wellspring of the High Plains," National Geographic Magazine (March 1993), Vol. 183, No. 3, pp. 83-109.

8. Licensed Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Water Quality database.

9. SB 147, passed 1993.

10. Licensed Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Water Quality database.

11. Report commissioned by the City of Tulsa and requoted by J.D.Strong, assistant to the Secretary of the Environment (Oklahoma) (September 3, 1998), TulsaWorld (online version _ http://www.tulsaworld.com).

12. Kevin Wagner and Scott Woodruff, Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Water Quality Division, "Phase I, Clean Lake Project: The Diagnostic and Feasibility Study of Lake Eucha, Okla.," Final Report (February 1997).

13. Report commissioned by the City of Tulsa and requoted by J.D.Strong, assistant to the Secretary of the Environment (Oklahoma) (September 3, 1998), TulsaWorld (online version _ http://www.tulsaworld.com).

14. Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, ongoing study and monitoring of wells at the Canton Lake Wildlife Management Area. Reports from 1997 and 1998.

15. Agenda of State Board of Agriculture, August 26, 1998, Hinton, Oklahoma listed Seaboard's application for the Dorman Sow Site as unopposed. The neighbor who had filed a protest, Jake Slatten, had provided a correct legal description, but had erroneously named the facility. His letter ended up archived in the basement of the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. The letter by the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation was not considered by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture to be either a protest letter or a hearing request.

16. Meeting of State Board of Agriculture (August 26, 1998).

17. Facsimile from Jay Clapp to Dennis Howard, Commissioner of Agriculture (August 24, 1998).

18. Statement by Thomas Lay, Attorney for Seaboard Farms Corporation at prehearing meeting before the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture's administrative law judge as recorded in the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture's Proceedings (September 4, 1998).

19. Dan Parrish and David Jett, Water Quality Division, Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Presite Inspection Checklist of Dorman Sow Site, Seaboard Farms Corporation (September 9, 1997).

20. Letter from Greg Duffy, Director, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation to the State Board of Agriculture (August 21, 1998).

21. "Groups Issue Health Warning," Neosho Daily News (August 21, 1998).

22. HB 1522, SB 1175 and Oklahoma Department of Agriculture permanent rules.

23. SB 1175, passed by Oklahoma Legislature, May 29, 1998.

24. SB 1175, passed by Oklahoma Legislature, May 29, 1998.

25. SB 1175 and Oklahoma Department of Agriculture permanent rules.

26. Dan Parrish, Director, Oklahoma Department of Agriclture, Water Quality Division, multiple public statements (1998).

27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Information Sheet, "EPA Region 6 General Permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) (February 1993).

28. "The Pork Group to Expand Operations in Local Area," Holdenville Daily News (July 12, 1998), p. 1.

29. Testimony from adjacent neighbors, "Save Our State" meeting, Wetumka, Oklahoma (September 5, 1998).

30. Testimony from adjacent neighbors, "Save Our State" meeting, Wetumka, Oklahoma (September 5, 1998).

31. 2 O.S. Supp. 1997, Sections 9-205.3 and 9-204.1.

32. 2 O.S. Supp 1997, Section 9-210.2.

33. The status of affected property owners was changed by SB 1175. Most affected property owners are adjacent landowners who have occupied residences within one mile of swine CAFOs. However, if an applicant for a license intends to confine more than 2,000 animal units (swine), affected property owners are those who have occupied residences within two miles.