WASHINGTON, D.C. and AUSTIN, TX -- A trend away from small-family owned farms and into large-scale animal production operations has paved the way for Texas' dubious honor as the number one producer of animal waste in the U.S. -- totaling 220 billion pounds a year -- taking a heavy toll on the state's air and water quality and creating a formidable public health hazard, a report released today concludes.

The report by the Sierra Club and Consumers Union's Southwest Regional Office says the waste burden has impaired at least 388 miles of Texas streams and over 23,000 acres of lakes. Air testing near cattle feedlots shows sporadic, high particulate levels above state and federal standards. Air testing downwind of hog, cattle and broiler operations indicate strong, offensive odors and ammonia levels in excess of the state's "health based effects screening level" or ESL. Neighbors also testify that odors and dust have led many to sell their homesteads and move away.

Once known primarily as a beef cattle state, Texas is now also home to thriving dairy, chicken, egg, and hog production facilities, ranking among the top 10-15 states for each category of production.

"Our public officials have been negligent in their duty to keep factory farm waste out of Texas' air and waterways," said Reggie James, director of CU's Southwest Regional Office. "While other states have addressed environmental concerns and implemented effective solutions, Texas has stood still and even regressed."

For example, officials in both Mississippi and North Carolina have placed moratoria on all new industrial livestock production facilities, known as confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). Kansas, Iowa, and Georgia have all adopted new rules regarding waste application. In Minnesota, the state has applied air standards to safeguard neighbors from health-threatening emissions. Meanwhile, Texas is still at the drawing board, allowing hog, chicken, and cattle waste to pollute the state's air and water.

"Weak existing state environmental regulations and lax enforcement allow Texas' factory farms to pollute, often for years, before any enforcement action is taken," the report states. However, according to the state's own environmental agency -- the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission (TNRCC) -- simply enforcing existing laws reduced water pollution from illegally discharged manure by more than 1 million pounds in 1999.

The report lists several problem areas:

· In 1995, Texas regulators streamlined the permit process for CAFOs, limiting the ability of neighboring property owners to contest new permits or major expansions through the contested case hearing process.

· TNRCC does not consider the cumulative impact that a new CAFO will have when sited near many existing CAFOs, nor does it prohibit many of the practices that contribute to odor and water problems.

· Lax enforcement allows CAFOs to pollute, sometimes for years, before action is taken.

· Texas' recently amended "right to farm" law virtually eliminates neighbors' ability to bring a nuisance action against most CAFOs to protect their rights to use and enjoy their own property.

· Despite the enormity of Texas' animal waste disposal burden, the state's environmental regulations lag behind what other CAFO-intensive states have done to protect their resources.

"In Texas, we're doing exactly the opposite of what common sense dictates," James said. "For example, while several states have placed moratoria on new CAFOs, Texas continues to welcome more facilities-particularly hog producers-to the state."

Other states have begun to make corporate farms jointly liable for pollution at their contract grower sites, but Texas has not done so. Some states have begun addressing air quality issues by applying stricter ambient hydrogen sulfide emissions standards to CAFOs, or defining feedlot dust as an emission for purposes of the Federal Clean Air Act, while Texas has not.

Among the report's key recommendations are:

· State leaders and regulators must work with livestock producers and the general public to bring more efficient and effective regulation to the industry.

· State agencies and government leaders must promote greater public participation in decision-making by providing ample opportunity for public comment and contested case hearings on CAFO permitting decisions.

· TNRCC must actively work to protect the state's water resources by strictly regulating waste management and discharges by CAFOs, addressing the cumulative impacts of multiple CAFOs in a single watershed, and prohibiting new CAFO activity near environmentally sensitive or impaired waterways of the state.

· TNRCC must recognize and address the air quality impacts of CAFOs on the health and quality of life

of Texas citizens. The agency should establish stricter guidelines for particulates, hydrogen sulfide and ammonia emissions at CAFOs and conduct regular monitoring to ensure compliance. It should also revise its nuisance odor investigation protocol to allow quick and effective response to odor complaints from neighbors.

· State officials should promote research and implementation of innovative and sustainable alternatives to current intensive livestock production methods. For example, the state should phase out the use of open lagoons and the spray-field application of animal waste and fund research on technologies to replace them. Animal producers should also be encouraged to eliminate the use of sub-therapeutic antibiotics, hormones, and other feed additives which may have environmental or health impacts.

· Texas lawmakers and regulators should develop a long-term plan to encourage the development of organic meat production and support all sustainable methods of livestock production that protect the state's natural resources and the well-being of Texas citizens.