Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T02:01:43.839Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reinventing Regulation of Agriculture: Alternative Performance Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

James W. Pease  and
Darrell J. Bosch
James W. Pease
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg, VA
Darrell J. Bosch
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg, VA
Get access

Abstract

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are point sources of pollution and require Clean Water Act permits. The 2003 regulations allow Large CAFOs to propose alternative performance standards (APS) that offer equivalent or better environmental performance than the baseline technology. Principal obstacles to APS success include the complexities of demonstrating superior performance, cost uncertainties for obtaining approval, CAFO risks of participation, inter- and intra-organizational barriers of permitting agencies, and potential lawsuits brought by environmental groups. Despite obstacles, APS offers potential for technology innovations and reduced environmental compliance costs.

Keywords

Clean Water ActConcentrated Animal Feeding Operationperformance standardspermittingregulationL51Q51Q52Q53Q55Q58
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 36 , Issue 2 , August 2004 , pp. 277 - 286
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

Bartram, D., and Brazy, A.. “Methodology for Estimating BAT Overflow from a Liquid Waste Storage Facility.” USEPA Docket OW-00-27, Final Administrative Record 19.6.2, July 16, 2002.Google Scholar
Blackman, A., and Mazurek, J.. “The Cost of Developing Site-Specific Environmental Regulations: Evidence from EPA's Project XL.” Environmental Management 27,1(2001):109–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosch, D., and Pease, J.. “Economic Risk and Water Quality Protection in Agriculture.” Review of Agricultural Economics 22,2(2000):438–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, J.C., Hersh, R., Alicea, A., and Bell, R.. “Reforming Permitting.” Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Internet site: http://www.rff.org (Accessed January 16, 2004).Google Scholar
Foreman, C. “The Civic Sustainability of Reform.” Environmental Governance: A Report on the Next Generation of Environmental Policy. Kettl, D., ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2002.Google Scholar
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). Environment.gov: Transforming Environmental Protection for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Center for the Economy and the Environment, NAPA, Report 00-09, November 2000.Google Scholar
Sweeten, J., Miner, R., and Auvermann, B.. “Can I Implement Alternative Technologies?” Fact Sheet 7, Livestock and Poultry Environmental Stewardship Curriculum, Midwest Plan Service, 2003. Internet site: http://www.mwpshq.org (Accessed January 15, 2004).Google Scholar
Tietenberg, T.Environmental Economics and Policy. 2nd ed. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1998.Google Scholar
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Transforming Environmental Permitting and Compliance Policies to Promote Pollution Prevention: Removing Barriers and Providing Incentives to Foster Technology Innovation, Economic Productivity, and Environmental Protection. Washington, DC: USEPA. Report and Recommendations of the Technology Innovation and Economics Committee, the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology, USEPA EPA 100-R-93-004, April 1993.Google Scholar
Vanatta, B. “Conducting a Whole-farm Audit.” USEPA Docket OW-00-27, Final Administrative Record 19.6.2, Document 300132, July 16, 2002.Google Scholar