November 2, 1971
Page 38816
Mr. DOLE. ... I address the following questions to the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE). As I point out in my statement, the agricultural sector of the economy has made substantial progress in adapting technology to the reduction of pollution. Commercial cattle feeding operations – of which there are some 1,350 in Kansas – have made outstanding progress in reducing the environmental impact resulting from the operation of their facilities; however, it is felt that while progress has been made there are some limits on what can be achieved within the bounds of reason and practicality. This point is of considerable importance in the consideration of feedlot runoff prevention, because, while normal precipitation conditions can be anticipated and guarded against, it is extremely difficult if not impossible, to construct an absolutely fail-safe system for the prevention of feedlot runoff.
If zero discharge is to be insisted upon under the terms of this bill, an important question is raised as to whether a requirement is going to be established for the construction of systems which provide for zero probability of any runoff ever escaping.
Retention basins and other devices can be employed to accommodate any normal runoff from feedlots, but as a practical matter it is impossible to construct retention structures to handle the runoff from extreme rainfall conditions which could statistically be expected to occur. For instance, in Kansas the maximum probable precipitation resulting from a storm occurring in a 24-hour period within a 10-square-mile area is 24 to 28 inches. Such a torrential downpour has never occurred, but the statistical probability of its happening shows that it is entirely impractical and unfeasible to expect a feedlot operator to contain all the runoff associated with it. But the bill would seem to set such a requirement.
The question which I pose is: To what extent does the zero discharge requirement of the pending bill impose on feedlot operators a requirement for providing for containment of runoff resulting from the maximum probable. 24-hour storm?
Mr. MUSKIE. As we understand the application of the zero discharge requirement as it relates to runoff from feedlots, containment facilities must be provided for feedlots which would provide complete control for the runoff resulting from the 24-hour storm to be experienced once in a 10-year period.
This would involve 3 inches of runoff water over the area concerned.
Mr. DOLE. Another question of real concern to many farmers, stockmen and others in agriculture involves the terms "point source" and "nonpoint source."
In my statement and in the supplemental views which I filed I mentioned that most sources of agricultural pollution are generally considered to be nonpoint sources. But would seem to be conceivable that some questions could arise, depending on the factual situations involved.
My question is, Simply, to what sources of guidance are we to look for further clarification of the terms "point source" and "nonpoint source?" – especially as related to agriculture.
Mr. MUSKIE. Guidance with respect to the identification of "point sources" and "nonpoint sources," especially as related to agriculture, will be provided in regulations and guidelines of the Administrator. The present policy with respect to the identification of agricultural point sources is generally as follows:
First. If a man-made drainage, ditch, flushing system or other such device is involved and if measurable waste results and is discharged into water, it is considered a "point source."
Second. Natural runoff from confined livestock and poultry operations are not considered a "point source" unless the following concentrations of animals are exceeded: 1,000 beef cattle; 700 dairy cows; 290,000 broiler chickens; 180,000 laying hens; 55,000 turkeys; 4,500 slaughter hogs; 35,000 feeder pigs; 12,000 sheep or lambs; 145,000 ducks.
Third. Any feedlot operation which results in the direct discharge of wastes into a stream which traverses the feedlot are considered point sources without regard to the number of animals involved.