Issues: Water

WISCONSIN

• Wisconsin is poised in 1998 to experience the biggest rise in factory-sized farms in its history.
  
  
• Wisconsin has only five inspectors for 65,000 feedlots of all sizes.
  
  
• Wisconsin's cost-sharing program to help farmers prevent environmental pollution has come under scrutiny because of a recent grant to a farmer who converted his farm into an industrial swine operation.

Wisconsin's strict water quality laws may have deterred the factory farming industry from locating in the state in the past. But recently the governor has stepped up efforts to attract feedlots. Two years ago, hoping to promote economic development in the state, Wisconsin's Governor Thompson sent Agriculture Secretary Allen Tracy to California to attract large-scale dairy operations.¹ Meanwhile, the state provides planning grants "to encourage and stimulate the start up, modernization and expansion of Wisconsin dairy farms."²

Wisconsin now has 51 livestock operations with 1,000 or more animal units, and another 19 operations of this size have been proposed in 1998. This 37 percent increase would be the biggest jump in large livestock farms Wisconsin has ever seen. The biggest dairy facility proposed to expand would milk 1,400 cows. The factory-scale dairy farm is still a relatively recent phenomenon in Wisconsin, where a 500-cow herd was considered a large farm a mere two years ago. The largest hog farm facility proposed to expand would have approximately 3,000 hogs, and the largest poultry farm could have as many as two million chickens.³

Of Wisconsin's total 65,000 livestock operations, 3,000 have more than 300 animal units.⁴

Pollution Problems

Animal waste entering streams and rivers has been noted as a "massive water quality problem" by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.⁵ According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 1994 National Water Quality Inventory, polluted runoff is the major water quality problem in Wisconsin rivers near agricultural areas. Agriculture is also a primary source of groundwater pollution.⁶ Groundwater provides 97 percent of Wisconsin communities with their water supply needs. In Wisconsin, there are over 800,000 private wells and 10,000 municipal wells.⁷

Factory farms in Wisconsin have created serious pollution problems throughout the state. Fish kills have been reported on numerous occasions. On June 12, 1998, manure runoff from a large dairy near Cleveland in Manitowoc County created a "dark plume in Lake Michigan stretching one quarter-mile offshore. Hundreds of game fish died, along with thousands of minnows and sculpins, cool water forage fish that provide food for larger fish."⁸ The incident remains under investigation.

Fish kills are not a new phenomenon in Wisconsin and neither is the recalcitrance of farmers causing the pollution. Over a 12-year period, the Department of Natural Resources contacted a large hog farm owner in Grant County 20 times for multiple fish kills in the Sinsinawa River, according to files from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR).⁹

Seven years ago, an Iowa County cattle feedlot operator was pumping liquids out of the bottom of a waste pit and spraying the scum mat on the surface to break it up when the directional device on his irrigation gun broke. The gun sprayed a nearby stream 50 to 100 yards away, with between 20,000 and 30,000 gallons of manure. The spill polluted 13 miles of river and killed tens of thousands of fish.¹⁰ The DNR could have issued a citation. However, by the time the DNR issued a fine the operator had gone out of business, and the public had to suffer the loss of a valuable fishing resource. Since that time, DNR has worked to improve its enforcement methods.¹¹

Regulatory Climate

Wisconsin has one of the oldest programs in the country aimed at controlling polluted runoff from farms. Farmers can receive state grants to pick up most of the cost of implementing measures to reduce environmental pollution. The program is administered jointly by the DNR and the State Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. The program, which is to be used for livestock operations with less than 1,000 animal units, recently became the focus of controversy after a farmer came under suspicion for using cost-share money to expand his farm into a factory-scale hog feedlot.¹²

Under the Priority Watershed Program, as the cost-share program is known, the state develops a watershed plan tailored to the individual farm site that includes best management practices, such as moving feedlots off hillsides, where runoff could pollute a stream, to building concrete and steel manure lagoons.¹³

The state requires operations with more than 1,000 animal units to get a Wisconsin Pollution Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit. Approximately 50 livestock factories and feedlots have a WPDES permit, but approximately 60 percent of these permits have expired.¹⁴ Livestock operators must develop nutrient management plans prior to receiving a permit. The nutrient management plans have been based on the U.S Department of Agriculture's Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) standards.¹⁵ A weakness of the plans includes a failure to require setbacks from ecologically sensitive areas and the lack of inspections to determine compliance.

In 1994, the state Agriculture Department gave a Platteville hog and beef farmer, Jim Schaefer, $205,989 under the state's cost-share program to cover 70 percent of the cost of solving persistent pollution problems. That single grant placed 24 percent of the department's cost-share funds for 1994-1995 into Schaefer's pocket. Before receiving the grant, Schaefer had a persistent record of polluting. Every time it rained, according to DNR officials, polluted runoff would flow from Schaefer's open lots into a nearby creek. The DNR repeatedly measured elevated levels of bacteria and ammonia in the creek, but Schaefer remained recalcitrant about installing equipment to reduce pollution.¹⁶

One condition of Schaefer's grant was that he could not raise more than 2,500 swine or 1,000 beef cattle (1,000 animal units) at his facility. But in December 1997, Schaefer requested release from this condition. Approval was granted by the Department of Agriculture Trade and Consumer Protection. Some DNR staff suspect that he used the grant to convert his farm to an industrial-scale swine operation.¹⁷

"What's outrageous is that he's a known polluter using up taxpayer dollars. We're rewarding a known polluter to expand into a factory hog farm," says Bill Wenzel of the Wisconsin Rural Development Center.

State Senator Alice Clausing, chairwoman of the Senate Agricultural Resources Committee, has said she may seek to restrict the cost-share funds that can be granted to a single farmer.¹⁸

The Schaefer incident could influence rules currently being written under a state law that requires new water quality standards for contaminants from diffuse pollution sources, such as farm runoff,¹⁹ known as nonpoint sources. Citizen activists hope this will be an opportunity to bar farmers from using their cost-share money to expand into factory farms.

Wisconsin's inspections are complaint-based.²⁰ In response to a complaint, the DNR first conducts a pre-investigation. According to a 1994 Legislative Audit, the backlog of pre-investigation complaints rose from 94 complaints in FY 1989-90 to 198 complaints in FY 1992-93.²¹ If a determination is made to respond to the complaint, the DNR, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the local land conservation department, together, make an on-site inspection. If a pollution problem is found, the DNR issues a notice of discharge in a letter to the landowner. The owner then has anywhere from 60 days to two years to correct the problem depending on the severity of the problem and the degree of technology needed.²² To oversee the 65,000 livestock operations, large and small, the DNR has only five animal waste specialists "We are spread thin," animal waste specialist Vollrath conceded in a recent newspaper interview. A Wisconsin State Journal analysis of DNR records showed that deadlines to comply with or submit records pertaining to the land application of manure, are regularly not met. Only approximately six cases involving agricultural pollution have been referred to the Wisconsin Department of Justice by the DNR. All of these cases were settled out of court with penalties of less than $10,000.²³

Inspectors rely heavily on a visual assessment of pollution problems. The DNR uses this type of analysis most frequently to determine if it needs to issue a notice of discharge.²⁴ This type of analysis mainly picks up obvious problems, and not all feedlot pollution is obvious to the naked eye. If the DNR issues a citation to the operation, however, the department will use more sophisticated water analysis and pollution measures. ²⁵

Only a few of the larger livestock operations are required to monitor groundwater. Neither the state nor livestock operators are required to monitor air quality.²⁶

Local Control

At least one county so far, Trempeleau County, has established siting restrictions for CAFOs, but the Wisconsin legislature has restricted local counties' ability to establish stronger protections for bodies of water.²⁷

In Richland County, before a livestock operation can expand to more than 1,000 animal units, it must obtain a local permit, in addition to the state permit.²⁸

Primary interviewees for this chapter:

Bill Wenzel
Wisconsin Rural Development Center
4915 Monona Drive, Suite 304
Monona, WI 53716
Phone: 608-226-0300
Fax: 608-226-0301
e-mail: BillWenzel@aol.com

Eric Uram
Sierra Club-Midwest
214 North Henry Street
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: 608-257-4994
Fax: 608-257-3513
e-mail: eric.uram@sierraclub.org

Notes

1. Associated Press, "California Dairy Farmers Move to Wisconsin: Lure: Dairy State Officials Will Recruit During Fall Trip to Warm Weather State" (October 20, 1996).

2. Wisconsin Department of Commerce, "Dairy 2020 Early Planning Grant Program" Fact Sheet.

3. Rick Barrett, "Part One: Report on Big Farms: Growing Too Fast: Can Regulators Keep Up With Expansions?" Wisconsin State Journal (July 26, 1998).

4. Rick Barrett, "Part One: Report on Big Farms: Growing Too Fast: Can Regulators Keep Up With Expansions?" Wisconsin State Journal (July 26, 1998).

5. Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau, An Evaluation of the Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program (August 1992), p. 2.

6. U.S. EPA, National Water Quality Inventory, 1994 Report to Congress, Office of Water, Washington, D.C. (December 1995), EPA 841-R-95-005.

7. Personal communication between Eric Uram, Sierra Club, and staff of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater (November 18, 1998).

8. Rick Barrett, "Part Two: A Report on Big Farms, More Pollution Caused by Small Farms" Wisconsin State Journal (July 27, 1998).

9. Rick Barrett, "Part Two: A Report on Big Farms, More Pollution Caused by Small Farms" Wisconsin State Journal (July 27, 1998).

10. "Manure Spill Wreaks Havoc on River's Fish," The Wisconsin State Journal (July 6, 1991).

11. Personal communication between Eric Uram, Sierra Club and Mike Vollrath, Animal Waste Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (November 18, 1998).

12. Rick Barrett, "Part One: Report on Big Farms: Growing Too Fast: Can Regulators Keep Up With Expansions?" Wisconsin State Journal (July 26, 1998).

13. Joint Legislative Audit Committee, An Evaluation of Surface Water Programs (April 1994), 94-8, p. 22.

14. Letter from Mary Jo Kopecky, Director, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to Kenneth Fenner, Chief, EPA (Chicago Office) (June 15, 1995).

15. Personal communication between Rebecca Knuffke and Mike Vollrath, Animal Waste Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Spring 1998).

16. Rick Barrett, "Part One: Report on Big Farms: Growing Too Fast: Can Regulators Keep Up With Expansions?" Wisconsin State Journal (July 26, 1998).

17. Rick Barrett, "Part One: Report on Big Farms: Growing Too Fast: Can Regulators Keep Up With Expansions?" Wisconsin State Journal (July 26, 1998).

18. Rick Barrett, "Part One: Report on Big Farms: Growing Too Fast: Can Regulators Keep Up With Expansions?" Wisconsin State Journal (July 26, 1998).

19. 1997 Wisconsin Act 27.

20. Personal communication between Rebecca Knuffke and Mike Vollrath, Animal Waste Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Spring 1998).

21. Joint Legislative Audit Committee, An Evaluation of Surface Water Programs (April 1994), 94-8, p. 22.

22. Personal communication between Rebecca Knuffke and Mike Vollrath, Animal Waste Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Spring 1998).

23. Rick Barrett, "Part One: Report on Big Farms: Growing Too Fast: Can Regulators Keep Up With Expansions?" Wisconsin State Journal (July 26, 1998).

24. Personal communication between Rebecca Knuffke and Mike Vollrath, Animal Waste Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Spring 1998).

25. Personal communication between Rebecca Knuffke and Mike Vollrath, Animal Waste Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Spring 1998).

26. Personal communication between Rebecca Knuffke and Mike Vollrath, Animal Waste Specialist, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Spring 1998).

27. Wisconsin Act 27 (1998).

28. Rick Barrett, "Part One: Report on Big Farms: Growing Too Fast: Can Regulators Keep Up With Expansions?" Wisconsin State Journal (July 26, 1998).