Legislative Issues & Policies
Written Statement of American Horse Council to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure - May 16, 2001

September 30, 2003

Introduction
The American Horse Council (AHC) appreciates the opportunity to present this statement about existing and proposed Clean Water Act regulations for animal feeding operations. This is a very important issue to the horse industry and we commend the Committee for convening these oversight hearings to focus on existing rules and the potential impact of the Environmental Protection Agencies proposed rules.

The AHC is the national representative body for the U.S. horse industry in Washington, D.C. AHC membership includes just under 200 separate equine related associations which, in turn, represent several hundred thousand individual horse owners of all breeds and disciplines, ranging from racing to showing to recreation. Included in the membership of the AHC are the various national breed registries, state breeders’ associations, organizations representing race tracks, horsemen, horse shows, veterinarians and numerous other equine related stakeholders.

The US horse industry involves more than 7 million participants, including nearly 2 million horse owners. The industry has an annual impact on the U.S. economy of $112 billion and supports 1.4 million full-time jobs with approximately $1.9 million paid in taxes at each level. Thousands of breeding and training farms supply the horses to provide the foundation upon which the industry is built. These farms also provide open envelopes of “green space” in otherwise heavily-urbanized areas. In addition, there are some 250-horse racetracks plus hundreds of facilities which host horse shows and expositions. These activities contribute beneficially to the entertainment, recreation and youth education within the communities they serve. Unfortunately, virtually all of these facilities either are or will soon be negatively impacted by the Clean Water Act and the EPA/CAFO proposals, which are presently before us for comment.

General Comments
As the Committee is aware, on January 12, 2001 the Environmental Protection Agency proposed changes to its regulations defining Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and the guidelines limiting CAFO effluents. Under current regulations, an operation qualifies as a CAFO if it generally consists of 500 horses (the equivalent under the regulations of 1,000 cattle); operations of smaller size may qualify if they meet certain criteria.

The horse industry recognizes that the Clean Water Act (Act) and its associated regulations technically apply to horse operations. In addition, the horse industry, like any other agricultural or business entity, recognizes the need to properly manage manure from feedlots and accepts its responsibility of being good community citizens and stewards of the environment including the protection of our waterways.

Nonetheless, the horse community has significant concerns that the proposed regulations fail to factor in the diversity of the livestock industry and various operations, climates, and geography. We believe that the rules, both existing and proposed, do not recognize and differentiate between the how the horse industry operates versus the necessarily more production-intensive concentrated animal feeding operations commonly utilized by other livestock producers dealing with food animals. It is this overriding concern that leads the horse industry to fear that even more of its facilities and farms will get caught up in certain unnecessary and unreasonable regulatory nets at much cost and little benefit.

Much of the current as well as proposed regulations and enforcement efforts associated with the Act are, again, based primarily on the regulatory writers’ knowledge or experience with the non-horse agricultural industries. Understandably, preparing livestock or livestock products for processing and consumption is one form of agricultural production; breeding, raising, selling, training, competing and caring for horses is another and different form of agriculture. Unfortunately, countless horse facilities such as tracks, farms, training centers and fairgrounds have been caught in the web of the Act and EPA CAFO definitions and many more would be ensnared improvidently by the new proposal.

Differentiating the Horse Industry’s Operations
Underlying many of the horse industry’s concerns is that there are a number of material differences between horse and livestock operations. A few of these differences include:

·Many horses spend a good part of their day within the protected and covered enclosure of a stall or barn versus the open air/open ground environment of a feedlot operation.

·While other livestock may deposit waste material throughout the day in open areas continually exposed to the elements on uncovered land, horses typically feed and defecate within the confines of a covered stall while standing on dry organic bedding.

·Unlike other livestock operations, horse facilities have the soiled bedding changed at least once per day with such material then placed in canisters or floored bunkers for removal from the horse property on either a daily or weekly basis.

Nonetheless, the current and proposed regulations do not take these fundamental differences into consideration and place additional economic and operational burdens on the entire horse industry. Although much of the negative impact may not be ‘intended” to target the horse industry, nonetheless, it is being significantly impacted economically and harmed.

For example, if adopted as proposed, the new proposals will radically change the following:

·The definition of a CAFO will be changed and will include even more equine facilities.

·The definition of an AFO will be tightened, again increasing the number of impacted facilities.

·The potential exemptions and discretionary powers of permitting authorities, which allowed some differentiation of horse facilities in the past at the state level, will be eliminated. This will cause virtually any significant horse operation to apply for a permit.

·The “25-year/24-hour” storm flood permit exemption will be eliminated, thus making even more facilities a CAFO.

·The “mixed animal” calculation will be eliminated, which will adversely affect equine related activities like farming, expositions, shows, rodeos and fairs.

·The rules will require “processors” that exercise substantial operational control over “contract growers” to be co-permitted. This is the perfect example of a livestock provision that has no basis for application to the horse industry. This provision cannot have any impact on the ultimate compliance of a facility with NPDES requirements and could have a tremendously-negative bureaurocratic impact on the 2 million individuals who are the participants and stakeholders in our industry.

Specific Concerns
Specific concerns resulting from the proposed changes to the existing regulations include, but are not limited to, the following.

·We question the logic and historical reasoning as to the calculation of animal units (AU’s) which presently define one horse as equaling two cattle. We have yet to find a satisfactory answer for this material and frustrating difference. This formula continually puts the horse industry at a disadvantage with respect to the CWA and the EPA rules. With each proposed revision to CAFO definitions and animal unit thresholds the horse industry is forced further down this path with no chance to differentiate itself from other operations.

·The proposals as presently worded will, ultimately, cause even more horse facilities to be impacted and required to obtain a permit.

·The elimination of exemptions will tie the permit writer’s hands from being able to exercise any common sense-based judgments when trying to consider a horse facility as something not totally identical to a feedlot operation.

·By dropping the “25-year/24-hour” storm exemption even more horse facilities will become CAFOs. This seems to be an unnecessary modification.

·The frightening thought of applying co-permitting to the horse industry is a particularly threatening premise. Under the current proposed regulations, thousands upon thousands of individual horse owners and trainers of horses at race tracks, shows and fairs could be subjected to a whole new level of federal and state regulatory intrusion and potential liability simply because they own one horse, or even a share of a horse. Co-permitting would have a potentially devastating impact on the entire industry causing not only existing horse owners to become discouraged and leave the business but also discouraging new owners from entering. With fewer owners there will be a rapid erosion of the infrastructure and stakeholders upon which the entire industry is built.

·Our industry has its own set of issues in dealing with this situation which are uniquely its own and not necessarily common with how other agricultural operations might deal with EPA matters. For example, (a) the amount of acreage is not considered; (b) naturally-occurring phosphorous levels are not considered; (c) crop removal for nutrient management is not an option for horse property since the horse is our “crop” and the pasture legumes are what our “crop” eats.

·The economic and operational impacts of not only the new proposals, but of the current regulations and enforcement activities have already taken a tremendous toll on our industry. Already, certain facilities have invested millions of dollars each in order to attempt to bring their horse properties up to livestock feedlot standards. Frustratingly enough, even some of those facility owners who have invested significantly still find that they struggle to comply with feedlot standards while never being able to truly receive any clear regulatory assurance or certification of compliance at any stage.

·The already fragile economic base associated with the ownership of horses and horse facilities will not allow for that level of expenditure industry-wide. Many equine facilities are struggling economically now. Some are being sold for non-horse purposes and green-space is lost. The onerous additional costs that will be imposed by these proposed regulations on even more facilities may speed up that unfortunate process.

Conclusion
The horse industry believes that with respect to the Clean Water Act and its related proposals there must be some discretion and differentiation under the rules so that the differences of the industry and our concerns can be considered. The unique aspects of the horse environment and operations must be reviewed. Furthermore, there needs to be exemptions applied as well as a willingness to understand and differentiate the horse business from the other mainstream agri-business endeavors.

Along these lines, the horse industry stands ready to cooperate with the Subcommittee and the EPA in crafting an appropriate approach for the horse industry in this area. As an industry and proud contributing force in today’s society we fully understand and appreciate the need for fair and reasonable regulation when it comes to clean water and our environment. We do appreciate and recognize our responsibilities and obligations as concerned community citizens. We simply want to be understood and regulated for what we are not for what we are not, animal feeding operations as that term is generally understood.

Towards that end perhaps the solution lies in undertaking an effort of EPA /Act guidelines redefinition followed by some special designation of horse facilities as “non producing” CAFOs.

Please note that this testimony represents positions that are still preliminary in nature as we continue to gather comments and information for the more voluminous and detailed comments we will be submitting officially to the EPA prior to the closure on July 30, 2001 of the public comment period. Thank you for your interest and consideration.