Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T23:38:07.170Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulatory Responses to Potential Pollutants from Animal Feeding Operations: Opting Out of Costly Permitting Regulations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Terence J. Centner  and
Jeffrey D. Mullen
Terence J. Centner
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Jeffrey D. Mullen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Because of excessive water impairment, federal and state agencies have enacted regulations to reduce water pollution from animal feeding operations. Many of the regulations are based on numbers of animals rather than the potential of an operator to impair water quality. To enhance efficiency, critical production indicators and location screening factors might be used to exempt operations that are not significantly impairing water quality. In this manner, regulations could avoid imposing unnecessary costs on the regulated public and more effectively target monitoring and enforcement resources of the regulatory agency.

Keywords

concentrated animal feeding operationspollutionproduction indicatorsregulationswater impairmentK2K32Q25Q28
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , August 2004 , pp. 287 - 295
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adams, R., Dunn, S.M., Lunn, R., Mackay, R., and O'Callaghan, J.R.. “Assessing the Performance of the NELUP Hydrological Models for River Basin Planning.” Journal of Environmental Planning & Management 38(1996):53–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centner, T.J. “Animal Feeding Operations: Encouraging Sustainable Nutrient Usage Rather Than Restraining and Proscribing Activities.” Land Use Policy 17(2000):233–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centner, T.J. “Regulating Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations to Enhance the Environment.” Environmental Science and Policy 6(2003):433–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centner, T.J. “New Regulations to Minimize Water Impairment from Animals Rely on Management Practices.” Environment International 30(2004):539–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dutzik, T.The State of Environmental Enforcement. Denver: Colorado Public Interest Research Group Foundation, 2002.Google Scholar
Edwards, D.R., Daniel, T.C., Scott, H.D., Murdoch, J.F., Habiger, M.J., and Burks, H.M.. “Stream Quality Impacts of Best Management Practices in a Northwestern Arkansas Basin.” Water Resources Bulletin 32(1996):499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. National Water Quality Inventory: 1998 Report to Congress. Washington: Office of Water, 2000.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations; Proposed Rule.” Federal Register 66(2001a):2960–3145.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. State Compendium: Programs and Regulatory Activities Related to Animal Feeding Operations. Washington: Office of Wastewater Management, 2001b.Google Scholar
Environmental Protection Agency. “National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” Federal Register 68(2003):7176–274.Google Scholar
European Union. “Council Directive of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources.” Official Journal 1991(L375):1–8.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office. Animal Agriculture: Information on Waste Management and Water Quality Issues. Washington: GAO/RCED-95-200BR, 1995.Google Scholar
General Accounting Office. Livestock Agriculture: Increased EPA Oversight Will Improve Environmental Program for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations. Washington: GAO-03-285, 2003.Google Scholar
Georgia Compilation Rules & Regulations. Rules 391-3-6-.20, 391-3-6.21 (2003).Google Scholar
Illinois Administrative Code. Title 35, subtitle E. Sections 506.204, 506.205, 506.206 (2003).Google Scholar
Illinois Compiled Statutes. Chapter 510 (2003). Sections 77/17, 77/30.Google Scholar
Innes, R. “Regulating Livestock Waste: An Economic Perspective.” Choices 2nd Quartern (1999):14–19.Google Scholar
Innes, R. “The Economics of Livestock Waste and Its Regulation.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(2000):97–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iowa Code. Section 459.315 (2003).Google Scholar
Letson, D., Gollehon, N., Breneman, V., Kascak, C., and Mose, C.. “Confined Animal Production and Groundwater Protection.” Review of Agricultural Economics 20(1998):348–64.Google Scholar
Maryland Agriculture Code Annotated. Sections 8802, 8-803.1, 8-803.2 (2003).Google Scholar
Metcalfe, M. “State Legislation Regulating Animal Manure Management.” Review of Agricultural Economics 22(2000):519–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millock, K., Sunding, D., and Zilberman, D.. “Regulating Pollution with Endogenous Monitoring.” Journal of Environmental Economics & Management 44(2002):221–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minnesota Rules. Rules 7020.2005, 7020.0350, 7020.2100 (2003).Google Scholar
Missouri Revised Statutes. Sections 640.745, 640.747 (2003).Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Justice Public Information Service. Easley Announces Landmark Agreement with Largest Hog Producer to Replace Open-Air Lagoons in North Carolina— N.C. State University Takes Lead Role in Technology Development. Raleigh: Department of Justice Public Information Service, 2000.Google Scholar
North Carolina General Statutes. Sections 90A-47.2, 90A-47.3, 143-215.10B (2003).Google Scholar
Ogishi, A., Metcalfe, M., and Zilberman, D.. “Animal Waste Policy: Reforms to Improve Environmental Quality.” Choices 3rd Quarter(2002):15–18.Google Scholar
Oklahoma Administrative Code. Section 35:17-3-6(22) (2003).Google Scholar
Oklahoma Statutes. Title 2, Section 9-209.1 (2003).Google Scholar
Osowski, S.L., Swick, J.D. Jr., Carney, G.R., Pena, H.B., Danielson, J.E., and Parrish, D.A.. “A Watershed-Based Cumulative Risk Impact Analysis: Environmental Vulnerability and Impact Criteria.” Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 66(2001):159–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, K.A., and Frost, J.P.. “Nitrogen Excretion by Farm Livestock with Respect to Land Spreading Requirements and Controlling Nitrogen Losses to Ground and Surface Waters, Part 1: Cattle and Sheep.” Bioresource Technology 71(2000):173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, H. “Nutrients.” Agricultural Resources and Environmental Indicators, 1996—97, at 97–114. USDA Agricultural Handbook 712, 1997.Google Scholar
U.S. Code Annotated. Title 33, Section 1362(14). Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, 2003.Google Scholar