VIRGINIA

• Hog factory farms in Virginia are expanding and are regulated too leniently.
  
  
• Virginia's poultry operations, which produce more than one billion pounds a year of manure, are unregulated.

Hog factory feedlots are an emerging problem in Virginia. Citizens and environmental organizations are working to develop regulatory controls before pollution problems become more severe. Currently, Virginia has issued 72 permits for feedlots that have more than 750 swine or 200 dairy cattle. Fifty-two of these permits are for swine operations; 20 are for dairy facilities. A few of the swine facilities also have some confined beef cattle. Only a few poultry operations classified as "layer" facilities have permits.¹ The remaining poultry feedlots are unregulated.

Aided by studies by Virginia Tech and a welcome by Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services officials, the hog industry is targeting the "southside" of Virginia,² the area of the state south of Richmond and reaching west from the Tidewater area to Danville in south-central Virginia. This is a rural, economically depressed area, making it vulnerable to the lure of jobs and tax dollars presented by factory-scale farms seeking as little regulation as possible. Environmentalists fear that Virginia's lax regulatory environment could attract hog operators from neighboring North Carolina,³ which last year adopted toughened regulations for hog factory farms.

Southern Virginia has many rivers and streams that are susceptible to pollution. Two regions of the state with active factory-scale farming are particularly vulnerable to groundwater contamination from animal waste: the southside of Virginia because of its high water table and the Shenandoah Valley because of its karst topography -- a type of geology characterized by a porous imestone layer just above groundwater.

Pollution Problems

Virginia's more than 1,300 unregulated poultry operations produce more than one billion pounds of manure each year from more than 280 million birds.⁴ The chicken droppings, known as "litter," generated by Virginia's poultry industry have a nutrient content equivalent to the human sewage from 1,800 towns of 6,000 people each. In Virginia's Shenandoah and Potomac River basins alone, poultry produces one and a half times as much nutrient pollution as is generated by human waste in the same area.⁵

Researchers at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University calculate that poultry farmers annually generate 159,000 tons more poultry waste than can be properly applied to the land in certain areas.⁶ Applying more waste to farmland than the crops can safely take-up inevitably contributes to polluted runoff into nearby bodies of water.

Years of data indicate that animal waste has polluted rivers and streams favored for recreation and contaminated drinking water supplies from groundwater and surface water. In fact, Virginia has classified 712 miles of state waters as "impaired" due to diffuse sources of agricultural pollution.⁷ According to Virginia Tech, "Soils in some parts of the Shenandoah Valley contain as much as eight times the phosphorus needed by crops, the result of years of over-application."⁸ On Virginia's Eastern Shore, close to one third of the nitrogen and two-fifths of the phosphorus nutrients entering the Chesapeake from that region are attributed to animal waste pollution.⁹

In order to cope with the manure produced by 2,700 hogs -- the most common size for Virginia's confined feeding operations -- operators generally store the waste in one or more manure lagoons at each facility. Leaks and overflows from these lagoons have occurred, threatening some of Virginia's most environmentally vulnerable regions. In the early 1990s, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) inspection reports documented several waste overflows from hog houses and a manure lagoon at Smithfield-Carroll's Farms' hog factory in Surry County. The reports cited signs that some of the waste discharged had reached state waters. However, no enforcement action was taken. Inspections at a number of other hog operations have revealed evidence of improper disposal of manure. In one instance, a Virginia Beach hog feedlot constructed in a wetlands area was supposed to ship its waste to another site. Instead, the waste was left next to the wetlands where rainwater washed polluted runoff into the environmentally fragile area.¹⁰

Regulatory Climate

Despite the increasing number of poultry operations in the state and the substantial potential for these operations to harm water quality, poultry facilities remain unregulated. The rationale is that poultry facilities generate dry litter and therefore pose no threat of polluted liquid discharge to state waters. In reality, the waste generated by poultry farms poses significant threats to water quality. Poultry litter, left uncovered or applied to land as fertilizer, can wash into rivers and streams during rainstorms and contribute to nutrient pollution of waterways if it is spread too generously, or at inappropriate times.

Until 1993, the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued site-specific permits to hog, beef and dairy operations. Because it took 12 to 18 months to permit an operation, large producers criticized the system as too burdensome, and lobbied successfully for a weaker general permit system.¹¹ During the 1998 session of the Virginia General Assembly, the general permit system was strengthened slightly. The new regulations under the law become effective December 1, 1998.¹²

A major weakness of the general permit authorized under the 1998 law is its one-size-fits-all approach to environmental regulation. Although larger operations obviously have more potential to pollute state waters than do smaller ones, the law treats them the same, whether they contain 750 hogs or 50,000 hogs. Under the new legislation, DEQ will continue to issue general permits for all feeding operations of 300 or more animal units -- equivalent to 300 beef cattle, 200 mature dairy cattle, 750 swine weighing over 55 pounds, 150 horses or 3,000 sheep. Under the permit, an operator must file a registration statement describing the facility and include a letter of approval from the state Department of Conservation and Recreation for a nutrient management plan for handling animal waste.¹³

Another major weakness of the new general permit is its failure to address the phosphorus content in manure. Even though most crops require much less phosphorus than nitrogen, both nutrients found in fertilizers and manure, waste management plans typically base their recommendations for manure-spreading on manure's nitrogen content. This approach can over-enrich soil with phosphorus and lead to the pollution of nearby waterways.

The state's 1998 legislation requires that all facilities greater than 300 animal units must be registered by July 1, 2000.¹⁴ According to research by the Virginia office of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a significant number of hog facilities were not registered and are operating without a general permit. Also, prior to the 1998 legislation, there was a loophole that did not require nutrient management plans (NMPs) for facilities continuing to operate under an individual permit. The new law closed that loophole and now facilities with individual permits will need NMPs.¹⁵

The new program fails to require buffer zones to separate animal waste lagoons from adjoining neighbors, groundwater, streams and rivers. Some minimum buffers are mandated, however, between fields sprayed with manure and occupied dwellings, wells and surface water. Under the new amendments passed by the General Assembly, the lagoon design and construction must be certified by a professional engineer prior to startup.¹⁶

Under the system used prior to the new legislation DEQ was required to inspect operations once every five years. DEQ claimed to inspect annually, but the inspections were inadequate since inspectors from DEQ had not been trained in the operation of nutrient management plans. The new legislation provides for annual inspections, requires that DEQ personnel be trained in nutrient management and requires farm operators to be in trained in all aspects of CAFO management.¹⁷

Historically, the general permit system has allowed no opportunity for the public to comment on permits prior to issuance. Counties were notified of permit applications, but only to check if a livestock operation met zoning requirements; there was no requirement that the county notify citizens. The recently-enacted legislation requires that notice be given to adjoining landowners prior to construction or permit issuance and that the public have the opportunity to comment. Citizens can also comment on an enforcement order if they learn about it through the newspaper.¹⁸

The state has minimal monitoring requirements. The general permit requires livestock operators to monitor animal waste every year and the soil every three years for nutrient content. As an alternative to prohibiting manure lagoons in areas with high water tables, the general permit requires groundwater monitoring at facilities where the bottom of the lagoon is constructed within one foot of the seasonable high water table. Under the new law, DEQ and the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation may increase the frequency of monitoring if they deem it necessary. However, the new law still does not require monitoring reports to be submitted to DEQ. All records are the property of the farmer and therefore are not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. DEQ does not monitor air quality.¹⁹

Despite spotty enforcement of the general permit program, problems have been identified. For example, this past winter, the State Water Control Board took action against SJB Farms in connection with one of its hog feedlots in Brunswick County. The DEQ found that SJB Farms violated the requirements of its nutrient management plan by over-applying 2,000 gallons per acre more of liquid manure than was allowed under the plan. DEQ also found that liquid manure was to have been applied to soybeans on another site, but soybeans had not been planted. In a consent agreement with the state that admitted no responsibility, SJB Farms paid only a $3,000 fine for these problems.²⁰ A consent order in September 1998 imposed a mere $1,000 fine on a separate Southampton County hog feedlot that had situated a discharge pipe at its manure pond so that swine waste from the pond reached state waters.²¹

Local Control

Several counties have passed strict zoning ordinances specifically aimed at animal feedlots. Brunswick County, which enacted the strictest ordinance, has been sued by two large hog producers, Smithfield-Carroll and SJB Farms, on the grounds that its zoning violates Virginia's Right to Farm Act, a law aimed at protecting farmers.²²

Primary interviewees for this chapter:

Kay Slaughter
Southern Environmental Law Center
201 West Main Street, Suite 14
Charlottesville, VA 22902
Phone: 804-977-4090
Fax: 804-977-1483
e-mail: kslaughter@selcva.org

Jeff Corbin Chesapeake Bay Foundation
1001 East Main Street, Suite 710
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: 804-780-1392
Fax: 804-648-4011
e-mail: jcorbin@savethebay.cbf.org

Notes

1. Southern Environmental Law Center, information received under Virginia Freedom of Information Act; request to Richard Ayers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

2. Letter to unnamed swine company from Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (November 17, 1995); Suzanne Thornsbury, et al., The Economic Impact of Increased Swine Production in a Rural Virginia County, Virginia's Rural Economic Analysis Program, Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Life Services, Virginia Tech; Lauren Harper, et al., The Financial Feasibility of Finishing Feeder Pigs Under Production Contract in Virginia, Virginia's Rural Economic Analysis Program, Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Life Services, Virginia Tech.

3. Tim Davis, "Huge Hog Farm Eyes County Site," Star Tribune (July 2, 1997).

4. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, "The Need to Regulate Poultry: What Science and the Experts Say" Fact Sheet.

5. Based on calculations from: Minority Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Foresty, Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging Problem, Washington D.C. (December 1997).

6. Presentations by Dr. James Pease, Dr. Marcus Alley, and Dr. Saied Mostghimi, Virginia Tech College of Agriculture and Life Sciences on the Relationships between Poultry Production and Water Quality, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Senate Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, Special Subcommittee Studying HB 1207, Richmond, Virginia (September 22, 1998).

7. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Conservation and Recreation, "303(d) Total Maximum Daily Load Priority List and Report" (1998), Table 2.

8. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, "The Need to Regulate Poultry: What Science and the Experts Say" Fact Sheet.

9. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, "The Need to Regulate Poultry: What Science and the Experts Say" Fact Sheet.

10. Southern Environmental Law Center, information received under Virginia Freedom of Information Act; request to Richard Ayers, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality.

11. David Kenyon, "Developing Permits: A Virginia Case Study for Confined Animal Feeding Operations," Virginia Cooperative Extension Publication 448-225/Reap RO27 (1997).

12. Virginia Code section 62.1-44.17:1.

13. Virginia Code section 62.1-44.17:1.

14. Virginia Code section 62.1-44.17.1.

15. Virginia Code section 62.1-44.17.1.

16. Virginia Code section 62.1-44.17.1.

17. Virginia Code section 62.1-44.17.1.

18. Virginia Code section 62.1-44.17.1.

19. Virginia Code section 62.1-44.17.1.

20. Consent Order between SJB and Virginia State Water Quality Control Board (February 5, 1998).

21. Notice of Proposed Consent Special Order, J.R. Newsome, Jr. Hog Farm, Virginia Register of Regulations (August 17, 1998), p. 3972 and copy of consent order from Tidewater Region, Department of Environmental Quality, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

22. Sidney J. Brandon, Jr. and SJB Farms, Inc. v. Brunswick County and Board of Supervisors of Brunswick County, #CH97-78 and Carroll's Foods of Virginia, Inc. v. Brunswick County, Virignia and Board of Supervisors of Brunswick County, #CH97-77.