ANR, Agriculture Agency work to align corrective action plan with EPA over farm discharges

The Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) told the Senate Natural Resources Committee that it will submit a revised corrective action plan to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to address alleged Clean Water Act violations tied to farm discharges, and that the agency is coordinating with the Agency of Agriculture to align legislative language in the committee bill with S.100.

Julie Moore, secretary of the Agency of Natural Resources, told the committee that the Conservation Law Foundation filed a petition with EPA in March 2022 and EPA spent roughly two years reviewing permit files and conducting inspections before asking parties to enter settlement discussions in summer 2024. Moore said EPA’s subsequent letter alleges ANR is not complying with the Clean Water Act and requires a corrective action plan (CAP).

Moore said ANR submitted an initial CAP in December and received two formal communications from EPA; the agency must provide a revised CAP with additional detail by March 18. “This appears to be headed in the right direction,” Moore said of EPA’s feedback, but she added EPA asked for more specificity on staffing, roles and responsibilities, and how ANR will determine whether a farm requires a CAFO permit.

The nut of the disagreement, committee members were told, concerns who makes legal determinations about point-source discharges. Moore said ANR must be the lead authority for deciding whether a farm’s operations constitute a point source that requires coverage under a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permit. She described planned changes to inspections: ANR will send one ANR inspector and one Agriculture Agency staff member together, with the ANR inspector leading determinations about whether CAFO permitting is required.

Moore said the CAP is organized around several pillars: clarifying roles and responsibilities; linking permitting and inspection work to the Agriculture Agency’s farm database; updating nutrient management plans and CAFO permitting rules to match current federal regulations; reporting key performance indicators such as numbers of inspections and permits; and a staffing proposal included in the governor’s recommended budget.

Moore described the governor’s request as including two new ANR positions and $850,000 in one-time funding to build the program. She said $250,000 of that one-time money is allocated for IT work to interface ANR systems with the Agriculture Agency database and the remaining $600,000 is flexible for seasonal employees or contracts. Moore also said there is $300,000 in base budget increases recommended for ANR; ANR envisions the two positions as permanent. She noted EPA has told ANR that two new positions alone likely will not satisfy EPA’s staffing expectations.

Steve Cogman, Agency of Agriculture representative, told the committee the two agencies are aligned on combining statutory changes and program steps. “It makes perfect sense to me to combine that,” Cogman said, referring to working the Title 10 changes in S.100 together with the committee bill language so the state presents a consistent package to EPA and the Legislature.

Committee members discussed timing and jurisdiction. Moore and committee members said some Title 10 changes in S.100 are integral to demonstrating progress to EPA; those changes would give ANR additional authorities to access farms and to align state definitions with the Code of Federal Regulations. Moore said S.100 also includes an agricultural stakeholder process with reports due in September and January.

Committee members asked for concrete language edits. ANR and Agency of Agriculture staff agreed to draft suggested edits to the committee bill and to consider lifting specific language from S.100 into the committee bill so the committee can act before crossover deadlines. Moore said EPA asked that the existing interagency memorandum of understanding be replaced with a different form of agreement; EPA explicitly asked that the arrangement not be a simple MOU and requested the opportunity to review any interagency agreement before it is finalized.

Committee members and agency staff described the CAP and statutory changes as work in progress rather than final actions: the CAP must be revised and resubmitted to EPA, and legislative action on Title 10 or committee bill language remains pending. The agencies said they will continue interagency drafting; Moore agreed to provide suggested committee-bill edits to the committee by the end of the day and to work with Agency of Agriculture counsel on final language for committee review.

The hearing also noted a Senate Natural Resources hearing on S.100 scheduled for Thursday, at which stakeholders including the Conservation Law Foundation were expected to testify.

Ending

The committee did not take a formal vote on legislation at the session. Agency staff said they will deliver revised language for committee review and will submit ANR’s revised corrective action plan to EPA by March 18; further legislative or administrative steps will follow based on EPA’s response and the outcome of the S.100 hearing.