Legislative Fiscal Bureau
One East Main, Suite 301 • Madison, WI 53703 • (608) 266-3847 • Fax: (608) 267-6873
Email: fiscal.bureau@legis.wisconsin.gov • Website: http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lfb

May, 2019

Joint Committee on Finance

Paper #529

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Fees and Regulatory Positions
(Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality)
[LFB 2019-21 Budget Summary: Page 304, #6 and Page 305, #7]

CURRENT LAW
The federal Clean Water Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
regulate point source dischargers of pollutants into waters of the United States. Under a 1974
memorandum of understanding with EPA, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is
delegated regulatory authority to enforce national water pollution standards in Wisconsin. Under
this authority, DNR regulates concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as point sources
of discharges with Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permits issued
under s. 283.31 of the statutes. CAFOs are defined as large-scale animal feeding operations of
1,000 animal units or more and some smaller operations with certain discharges of pollutants into
state waters. Measurement in animal units adjusts for the relative size and manure production of
different animals, with 700 dairy cows, 1,000 beef cattle, and 125,000 broiler chickens each
approximating 1,000 animal units.
CAFO permittees currently pay a fee of $345 annually. Of this amount, $250 is deposited
into the general fund as general purpose revenue (GPR) and $95 is deposited into a program
revenue (PR) appropriation for management of the state's water resources. DNR is required to
report annually to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Legislature's agricultural and
environmental standing committees on how these PR funds are used. Permits are issued with fiveyear terms, and DNR reports 305 permitted CAFOs as of April 1, 2019.
In 2018-19, CAFO permitting oversight is budgeted 22.0 positions and $2,168,700,
consisting of 8.5 GPR, 9.5 segregated (SEG) environmental fund (nonpoint account), 2.0
environmental improvement fund (EIF) SEG, and 2.0 federal (FED) positions, with associated
funding of $861,300 GPR, $913,800 nonpoint SEG, $174,800 EIF SEG, and $218,800 FED.

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

Page 1

 GOVERNOR
Increase the fee paid by WPDES permit holders that operate CAFOs from $345 annually to
$660 annually, and establish a fee of $3,270 upon initial issuance of a permit and every five years
thereafter. Create a PR continuing appropriation within the Division of External Services to receive
the five-year $3,270 fee and $315 of the annual $660 fee. Provide 5.0 positions within this
continuing appropriation, and estimate its expenditures at $425,000 each year during the biennium.
Modify the current requirement that $95 of the annual CAFO permit fee be deposited into a
PR appropriation within the Division of Environmental Management, and instead require its
deposit into a Division of External Services PR appropriation separate from the PR appropriation
created under the bill.
DISCUSSION POINTS
A.

Regulatory Positions

1.
DNR reports that on January 1, 2019, there were 304 permitted CAFOs in Wisconsin.
Since 2000, the Department reports that each year an average of 15 new CAFO permits were issued,
and one was discontinued, and it expects this trend to continue. Thus, it is anticipated there will be
approximately 318 active permits at the end of 2019, and 332 at the end of 2020.
2.
Table 1 shows permitted CAFOs and the resulting staff ratio since 2005. Permit data in
the table reflects active permits as of January 1 each year. Historically, DNR has not comprehensively
tracked positions dedicated to CAFO regulation. The data provided in the table reflects approximate
allocations of staff based on available internal DNR tracking of staffing assignments, generally
reflecting calendar year totals. Staff levels since 2016 reflect officially designated staff by fiscal year.
3.
Regulatory staffing dedicated to CAFOs was last increased under 2017 Wisconsin Act
59, which provided an additional 2.0 EIF SEG positions. The Governor's proposal provides an
additional 5.0 PR positions for CAFO regulation. DNR reports it would allocate the positions as
follows: (a) 0.5 hydrogeologist and 0.5 compliance enforcement coordinator as central office staff,
expanding existing 0.5 hydrogeologist and 0.5 compliance enforcement coordinator to full-time; (b)
1.0 central intake position in the central office; (c) 1.0 spills response coordinator split into four 0.25
positions associated with field staff in each of the regional offices; and (d) 2.0 field staff.
4.
In response to the Legislative Audit Bureau's 2016 audit of wastewater permitting and
enforcement at the DNR, the Department reported that in order to accomplish required work related
to CAFO regulation, it would require a permit-to-field-staff ratio of 20:1. The Department reports this
number continues to be its goal for CAFO regulatory staff levels. The proposed allocation of three
field staff would result in a permit-to-staff ratio of approximately 20:1 during the 2019-21 biennium.
The administration indicates the proposed amount of 5.0 staff was chosen to accomplish this goal.
DNR reports that additional field staff would allow it to more frequently inspect operations, increase
interactions with permittees, proactively address issues, and avoid permit noncompliance and
resulting enforcement actions. DNR also notes that hiring additional staff would allow for workloads

Page 2

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

 that are more manageable and improve staff retention, allowing it to reduce costs associated with
recruitment, training, and managing new staff. DNR expects greater staff retention would improve
program consistency.
TABLE 1
CAFO Positions and Permits by Year
Regulatory Staff
Year

Active
Permitsa

Central
Office

Field

Total

2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021

135
147
159
169
180
189
212
248
251
262
267
279
289
298
304
318c
332c

3.0
3.0
3.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
6.0
6.5
6.5
7.5
7.5
8.5
8.5
10.5d
10.5d

8.0
8.0
9.0
10.0
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.0
10.5
10.5
12.5
12.5
13.5
13.5
16.5d
16.5d

11.0
11.0
12.0
15.0
15.5
15.5
15.5
15.0
16.0
17.0
17.0
20.0b
20.0b
22.0b
22.0b
27.0b
27.0b

Ratio of Permits
to Field Staff
16.9
18.4
17.7
16.9
17.1
18.0
20.2
23.6
25.1
25.0
25.4
22.3
23.1
22.1
22.5
19.3
20.1

a

Permits totals are as of January 1.
Fiscal year actual and proposed staffing. Staff totals prior to 2016 approximately reflect calendar years.
c
Estimated permitted CAFOs.
d
DNR anticipated allocation.
b

5.
The Department reports that increasing its hydrogeologist from half-time to full-time
would allow it to increase its efforts to evaluate and avoid potential groundwater impacts associated
with CAFOs. Similarly, expanding the compliance enforcement coordinator to full-time would
increase the Department's capacity to standardize and improve CAFO compliance efforts across
regions.
6.
DNR intends for the 1.0 spills response coordinator to be split into four 0.25 positions
housed in each field office. DNR reports this would give each office the technical skills and expertise
to lead manure spill response within each district, including outside regular business hours. Housing
staff in each field office would allow faster and more robust responses to manure spill events, and
reduce the impact of spills on water quality and public health. Further, additional staff would address
increased need to respond to spills, which have occurred more frequently in recent years, as shown in

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

Page 3

 Table 2. DNR tracks data related to spill volume as it is available. Thus, the third column of the table
represents known spill volume measured in gallons, but is not intended to be comprehensive.
TABLE 2
Reported Manure Spills
Year
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Total

Spills
38
49
41
54
52
37
60
85
49
68
92
101
726

Gallons*
302,900
895,500
550,400
329,800
383,900
204,500
1,378,300
2,175,800
83,100
2,447,600
869,300
380,000
10,001,100

*Reflects known spill volumes and is not intended to be comprehensive.

7.
The 1.0 central intake position would facilitate and improve DNR review of permit
applications, including ensuring that required materials are submitted and properly completed,
collaborating with permittees and their consultants, and assisting technical staff in reviewing
applications to limit delays in the permitting process. DNR reports that central intake efforts are
currently split among four positions that experience frequent turnover, which requires continued
training of staff on these duties. Consolidating these duties and centralizing them could allow DNR
more continuity in permit review, reduce its permit backlog by providing faster review of permits,
and provide permittees with more consistency in their interactions with DNR.
8.
EPA staff have noted that the size of a state's permit backlog is one indicator of how well
its wastewater permit program is administered. In its audit, LAB reported that DNR has established a
goal of a permit backlog of no more than 15% of CAFO permits, and EPA staff believe that the 15%
goal is reasonable. Table 3 shows the Department's CAFO permit backlog since 2005. The permit
backlog has grown in recent years to 20.3% as of May, 2019. DNR reports that the following factors
affect the variation in the permit backlog: (a) number of permits expiring in a year; (b) availability of
staff to review permits; (c) the number of existing facilities not in substantial compliance, meaning
they do not meet current permit conditions, which prevents DNR from reissuing their permit.
Additional office staff dedicated to permit review would be expected to reduce the permit backlog.

Page 4

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

 TABLE 3
CAFO Permit Backlog
Year*
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019

Backlog
13.6%
13.2
10.4
13.6
11.9
13.5
13.7
15.1
15.4
9.9
9.9
17.2
24.9
21.8
20.3

*As of July, except 2019, which is as of May.

9.
DNR argues that investment in spills coordination, hydrogeology, permit compliance
and intake, and field staff are necessary for its CAFO program and its efforts to protect water quality.
By increasing staffing for water impacts evaluation, spills mitigation, and permit noncompliance, the
Department argues it would be able to provide adequate oversight of CAFOs. Additionally, it argues
that additional permit intake and field staff would improve its ability to meet the regulated
community's need for responsiveness to permit applications and compliance issues.
10. As the number of permitted CAFOs in Wisconsin increases, DNR regulatory staff
become responsible for increased volume of inspections, permit reviews, and enforcement actions.
DNR reports that this results in: (a) reduced frequency of compliance inspections, and a reduction or
elimination of manure hauling compliance checks; (b) reduced maintenance-of-compliance efforts,
which allow permittees to proactively address issues and reduce the need to impose enforcement
actions; (c) reduced review of annual reports submitted by permitted operations; (d) reduced
information and education efforts, such as DNR staff involvement in annual CAFO workshops; and
(e) increased permit backlogs. Thus, DNR argues, continued supplementation of field and central
office staff allows the Department to proactively address compliance issues, reduce the need for
enforcement actions, and reduce its backlog of permits.
11. The 2016 LAB audit provided DNR a number of recommendations relating to CAFO
regulation and permitting. Among other recommendations, LAB recommended that the Department:
(a) reduce its permit review backlog; (b) improve the frequency of its inspections; and (c) assess
regional variation in CAFO enforcement and train staff to increase enforcement consistency. The
expected duties of proposed staff, as outlined by DNR, would intend to address these

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

Page 5

 recommendations.
12. Currently, the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) is
charged with providing farmers assistance in implementing soil and water conservation standards. As
part of this duty, it provides county land and water conservation departments annual grants to cover
costs associated with county conservation staff. During the 2017-19 biennium, DATCP was provided
$8,964,100 annually, consisting of $5,936,900 nonpoint SEG and $3,027,200 GPR, for these
purposes. DATCP reports that in 2018, county conservation staff totaled 364. Of these 364, 112 were
funded by DATCP, 211 were funded by counties, and 41 were funded by other sources. The
Governor's proposal increases funding for county conservation staffing grants, as discussed in a
separate issue paper entitled "County Conservation Staffing."
13. One of the eligible activities for county conservation staff funding is conservation
practice engineering, design, and installation. County conservation staff provide technical support to
farmers seeking to construct conservation projects, such as manure storage facilities, barnyard runoff
control systems, and other agricultural best management practices. At the statewide level, DATCP's
Bureau of Land and Water Resources supports these staff. DATCP employs 10 engineers and
specialists to: (a) help local staff design and install structures; (b) train local staff to review plans; (c)
develop and maintain best management practice standards; (d) develop standard designs for
structures; and (e) train and certify local staff to be conservation engineering practitioners.
14. DNR reports that it regularly collaborates with county conservation staff on issues
related to CAFOs. DNR staff tasked with review of engineering plans and permits work with county
staff during permit review, although DNR notes the extent and type of interaction varies depending
on the expertise and capacity of local staff. Further, county staff are involved in on-site oversight of
construction projects at CAFOs. DNR also works with county staff in event of emergencies, like
manure spills. DNR reports it has seen a significant decrease in recent years in assistance provided by
county conservation staff to CAFOs, noting that most CAFOs rely on private consultants for
engineering, design, and planning related to CAFO permitting requirements.
15. While DATCP and local conservation staff provide support related to engineering of
agricultural best management practices and implementation of nonpoint standards, DNR's federally
delegated regulatory authority require it to lead enforcement activities related to CAFOs. Activities
related to review of permit applications, facility inspection, and enforcement actions are based on
DNR administrative rules and statutory authority developed to meet federal standards and approved
by EPA for that purpose.
16. Considering the growing number of permitted CAFOs in Wisconsin, the increasing rate
and volumes of manure spills, a permit backlog above EPA accepted levels, and deficiencies in CAFO
permitting activities identified by LAB, the Committee could consider adopting the Governor's
proposal to provide an additional 5.0 CAFO regulatory staff supported by PR (Alternative A1), or a
variety of other fund sources (Alternative A2). Given that the Governor's proposal provides funding
sufficient to support only 4.0 positions, as discussed in a subsequent section, the Committee could
consider providing 4.0 CAFO regulatory staff from PR (Alternative A3), or a variety of other fund
sources (Alternative A4). Given concerns about availability of funding, as discussed in the next
section, the Committee could also consider taking no action (Alternative A5).

Page 6

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

 B.

Fees and Funding Structure

17. The Governor's proposal would increase the annual CAFO permit fee from $345 to
$660, and establish a five-year fee of $3,270 paid upon issuance and renewal of permits (Alternative
B1a). The administration indicates that the proposed fee levels for annual and five-year fees were
chosen to generally reflect an equal balance in revenues between total annual fees ($660) and the fiveyear fee (an average of $654 annually). Further, the administration indicates it proposed a five-year
initial issuance and renewal fee to reflect the additional work associated with (re)issuing a permit,
which can include review of permits for completeness, compliance with design specifications,
environmental analysis, and administration of public notice and comment. The Committee could
consider a five-year and annual fee (Alternative B1a or B2a).
18. Although a five-year fee captures initial costs of issuing permits, periodic permit fees
could result in additional complexity for permittees, with payments varying year to year. If the
Committee wished to assess a consistent annual fee, it could consider establishing an annual fee that
smooths these fee amounts (Alternative B1b or B2b).
19. As part of their permit, CAFOs are required to report the number of animal units they
keep. As of May, 2019, DNR reports CAFO facilities kept approximately 900,000 animal units, with
the average CAFO keeping approximately 2,900 units, and the median CAFO keeping approximately
2,000 units. Due to their size and complexity, CAFOs with more animal units would be expected to
require more staff time associated with both permit application review, and inspection and
enforcement activities. Establishing a fee based on animal units would result in fees that are more
proportional to the cost of regulating each entity. Further, as CAFOs increase in size, the amount of
manure and wastewater produced also increases. Because measurement in animal units reflects the
relative size and manure production of different animals, a fee per animal unit would allow DNR to
link fees to the expected manure production and wastewater discharge of an operation, and thus the
expected environmental impact of the operation. As a result, operations with larger potential
environmental impacts would contribute more towards DNR regulatory efforts intended to prevent
and reduce any environmental impacts of CAFOs. Given the relatively increased regulatory cost and
potential environmental impact of CAFOs with more animal units, the Committee could consider
assessing CAFO fees based on animal unit size on the date of (re)issuance of a permit (Alternatives
under B1c or B2c).
20. It is estimated the Governor's proposed fee increases would produce an additional
$315,000 annually during the biennium (Alternatives under B1). Thus, revenues under the Governor's
proposal would not cover the proposed 5.0 PR positions and $425,000 PR annually, although they
could support 4.0 positions. If the Committee wished to cover the cost of the proposed 5.0 positions,
it could consider establishing revenues of $425,000 annually (Alternatives under B2).
21. Regulatory fees are often assessed on regulated entities to cover the state's costs
associated with their oversight and regulation. For example, the Department of Safety and
Professional Services, Department of Financial Institutions, and Public Service Commission are all
largely funded by program revenue assessments on the entities that they are charged with regulating.
While the Governor's proposal intends to fund additional CAFO staff entirely with increased fees,
CAFOs are not currently charged fees that cover their cost of regulation. As noted previously, staff

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

Page 7

 costs associated with directly with CAFO regulation, excluding administrative and other
Departmental supplies and services costs associated with staff, totaled $2,168,700 in 2018-19 from
GPR, PR, SEG, and FED sources. A fee structure sufficient to raise the approximately $2,600,000
annually necessary to fully fund current and proposed CAFO staff would require an annual fee of
$8,000 or $2.90 annually per animal unit.
22. Conversely, given that CAFOs do not currently cover their cost of regulation, the
Committee could consider providing an alternative source of funding for proposed increases to
regulatory staff. Most CAFO regulatory staff are supported by either GPR (8.5 positions) or nonpoint
SEG (9.5 positions). The Committee could consider providing proposed staff as GPR (Alternative
B3a or B4a), nonpoint SEG (Alternative B3b or B4b), or half of each (Alternative B3c or B4c).
23. While the Committee could consider using nonpoint account SEG to cover some or all
of proposed costs associated with the proposed positions, without other action by the Committee, the
nonpoint account balance would not be sufficient to support such expenditures. Under the bill, it is
expected the nonpoint account of the environmental fund would have authorized expenditures that
exceed anticipated revenues by approximately $7.7 million annually during the 2019-21 biennium.
Further, on June 30, 2018, the account had a closing cash balance of $11.1 million and an available
(unencumbered) balance of $5.9 million. Thus, under the Governor's proposal it is expected the
nonpoint account would have an estimated closing cash balance of -$5.3 million and an available
balance of -$10.8 million on June 30, 2021.
24. In addition to other fee changes, the Committee could consider incorporating 2019
Assembly Bill 69/Senate Bill 31, which would specify that the current $250 from each annual CAFO
permit fee deposited into the general fund be deposited into a separate PR account dedicated to CAFO
regulation. The bill is intended to allow fees paid by CAFOs to support regulatory efforts associated
with CAFOs. Proponents argue the bill would support additional staff and regulatory activities at
DNR related to CAFOs, in order to reduce permit backlogs and improve inspection efforts. If the
Committee wished to specify that existing CAFO fee revenue be directed for use in regulating
CAFOs, it could convert the GPR portion of the fee to PR (Alternatives under B5).
25. As written, the bill does not specify the initial applicability of the five-year fee for
CAFOs. The administration reports that for existing CAFOs, it intended that DNR assess the fee upon
reissuance of their permit. However, bill language could be construed to allow DNR to assess the fee
on all CAFOs upon the effective date of the bill, and every five years thereafter. The Committee could
consider specifying that the five-year fee apply upon renewal of a CAFO's permit for existing
operations, which would avoid unanticipated costs for existing operations. (This language is
incorporated as part of alternatives offering a five-year fee.)
C.

Appropriation Structure and Reporting Requirements

26. Current law specifies that of the $345 annual CAFO fee, $250 be deposited into the
general fund and $95 be deposited into a program revenue appropriation [s. 20.370 (4)(mi)] under the
Division of Environmental Management dedicated to environmental quality and management of the
state's water resources. Further, current law requires DNR report annually to the Joint Committee on
Finance and the Legislature's agricultural and environmental standing committees on how these PR

Page 8

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

 funds are used.
27. The bill would create a new PR continuing appropriation [s. 20.370(9)(ag)] within the
Division of External Services for receipt of the newly proposed and increased fees. At the same time,
it would transfer deposit of the existing $95 PR fee from its appropriation in the Division of
Environmental Management [(4)(mi)] to the equivalent appropriation in the Division of External
Services [s. 20.370(9)(mi)]. DNR transferred CAFO regulatory duties to the Division of External
Services under its 2017 reorganization, and transfer of this $95 fee to the Division of External Services
is considered a technical fix related to this transfer. However, the bill omits transfer of reporting
requirements related to the $95 fee to the Division of External Services appropriation [(9)(mi)]. The
administration reports it intended to transfer this reporting requirement as well.
28. Under the bill, the appropriation receiving the $95 annual CAFO fee in the Division of
External Services [(9)(mi)] receives other miscellaneous PR funding, and has broad authorization for
expenditure of moneys received. While not expected, it is possible that DNR could expend CAFO
fees from this appropriation on other Division of External Services activities.
29. The bill would result in deposits of CAFO fees into two separate PR appropriations
[(9)(mi) and (9)(ag)], and it would delete requirements related to reporting of expenditures on PR
CAFO fees [assigned to (4)(mi)]. If the Committee wished to simplify administration of CAFO PR
fees and restrict use of CAFO PR solely to regulation of CAFOs, it could create a new PR continuing
appropriation within the Division of External Services, and specify that all program revenue received
from CAFO fees be deposited into the appropriation (Alternative C2). The Committee could also
consider adopting the Governor's proposed appropriation structure for PR fees (Alternative C1).
Further, if the Committee wished to retain the reporting requirement associated with use of these fees,
it could require DNR to report annually to the Committee, and other standing committees concerned
with agriculture and the environment, on the use of PR fees received from CAFO permittees
(Alternatives under C4).
30. The bill transfers 9.5 nonpoint SEG positions and $864,300 annually associated with
CAFO regulation within the Division of External Services from its nonpoint source general program
operations appropriation [s. 20.370(9)(mr)] to its environmental fund general program operations
appropriation [s. 20.370(9)(mv)]. Funding was provided in the current appropriation as part of the
2017 reorganization, but subsequent review identified the appropriation does not have authorizing
language sufficient to allow expenditure of funds for CAFO regulation. Thus, DNR reports it
requested the transfer of funding to an appropriation [(9)(mv)] with language sufficiently broad to
support the intended use of these funds. The environmental fund general program operations
appropriation [(9)(mv)] generally supports administrative and management staff associated with
environmental fund programs, and is not intended to support program staff. Further, increased
activities, and resulting staff and funding, associated with CAFO regulation in recent years arguably
justifies delineating CAFO regulation from other nonpoint general operations activities currently
housed in the existing appropriation [(9)(mr)].
31. If the Committee wished to better align appropriation of the 9.5 nonpoint SEG positions
and $864,300 annually with their existing duties, and increase transparency related to CAFO
regulatory funding, it could create a new nonpoint SEG appropriation, and transfer the funding and

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

Page 9

 positions to that appropriation (Alternative C3). The Committee could also consider adopting the
Governor's proposal to transfer staff and funding to environmental fund general operations [(9)(mv)],
and house CAFO staff with administrative and managerial staff (Alternative C1). In addition to either
alternative, the Committee could also consider requiring DNR to report annually to the Committee,
and other standing committees concerned with agriculture and the environment, on the expenditure
of nonpoint SEG funds from the appropriation (Alternative C4c or C4d).
ALTERNATIVES
(Funding of alternatives below related to nonpoint SEG are dependent upon Committee action
under paper #525 entitled "Environmental Fund Overview." The paper provides a number of
alternatives related to revenue that would address the condition of the nonpoint account.)
A.

Regulatory Positions

1.
Provide 5.0 positions for CAFO regulatory staff, supported by PR. (This would adopt
the Governor's proposal.)
ALT A1

PR

2.

Positions Change to
Base
Bill
5.00

0.00

Modify the Governor's proposal to instead support positions with:
ALT A2

Specify Below
PR
Total

Positions Change to
Base
Bill
5.00
0.00
5.00

a.

GPR.

b.

Nonpoint SEG.

c.

50% GPR and 50% nonpoint SEG.

5.00
- 5.00
0.00

3.
Provide 4.0 positions for CAFO regulatory staff, supported by PR. (This amount
would be supported by increased fee revenue proposed under the bill.)
ALT A3

PR

Page 10

Positions Change to
Base
Bill
4.00

- 1.00

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

 4.

Modify Alternative A3 above to instead support positions with:
ALT A4

Positions Change to
Base
Bill

Specify Below
PR
Total

4.00
0.00
4.00

a.

GPR.

b.

Nonpoint SEG.

c.

50% GPR and 50% nonpoint SEG.

5.

Take no action.
ALT A5

PR

B.

4.00
- 5.00
- 1.00

Positions Change to
Base
Bill
0.00

- 5.00

Fees and Funding Structure

1.
Authorize expenditures of $315,000 PR annually, and establish revenues to generate
the same amount, structured as one of the following. (This would produce the same revenue as
proposed by the Governor and be sufficient to fund 4.0 positions.)
ALT B1

Change to Base
Revenue
Funding

Change to Bill
Revenue
Funding

$630,000

- $220,000

PR
PR-REV

$630,000

$0

a.
$315 annually, and $3,270 upon issuance of a permit and every five years thereafter.
(This would adopt the Governor's proposal.) Further, specify that the five-year fee apply upon the
next renewal of existing CAFO permits.
b.

$970 annually.

c.
35¢ per animal unit, based on the number of animal units authorized upon (re)issuance
of the permit.

2.
Authorize expenditures of $425,000 PR annually, and establish revenues to generate
the same amount, structured as one of the following. (This would produce revenue sufficient to

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

Page 11

 support the proposed 5.0 positions.)
ALT B2

Change to Base
Revenue
Funding

PR
PR-REV

Change to Bill
Revenue
Funding

$850,000
$850,000

$0
$220,000

a.
$480 annually, and $4,130 upon issuance of a permit and every five years thereafter.
Further, specify that the five-year fee apply upon the next renewal of existing CAFO permits.
b.

$1,305 annually.

c.
47¢ per animal unit, based on the number of animal units authorized upon (re)issuance
of the permit.

3.

Do not increase fees. Provide funding of $425,000 annually consisting of:
ALT B3

Change to Base
Revenue
Funding

Change to Bill
Revenue
Funding

$850,000
0
$850,000

$0
- 850,000
$0

Specify Below
PR
Total
PR-REV

a.

GPR.

b.

Nonpoint SEG.

$0

- $630,000

c.
$212,500 GPR and $212,500 nonpoint SEG, with positions split equally between
GPR and nonpoint SEG.

4.

Do not increase fees. Provide funding of $315,000 annually consisting of:
ALT B4

Change to Base
Revenue
Funding

Change to Bill
Revenue
Funding

$630,000
0
$630,000

$630,000
- 850,000
- $220,000

Specify Below
PR
Total
PR-REV

Page 12

$0

- $630,000

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

 a.

GPR.

b.

Nonpoint SEG.

c.

$157,500 GPR and $157,500 nonpoint SEG.

5.

In addition to any of the above alternatives:

a.
Delete the current law $250 annual GPR fee. (When paired with alternatives under
B1 or B2, this would have the effect of converting the fee to PR.)
ALT B5a

GPR-REV

Change to
Base
Bill
- $81,300

- $81,300

b.
Convert the current law $250 GPR fee to PR. (This could be moved in addition to
alternatives B3 or B4.)
ALT B5b

GPR-REV
PR-REV
Total

6.

Change to
Base
Bill
- $81,300
81,300
0

- $81,300
81,300
0

Take no action. Fees would remain at $345 annually, consisting of $250 GPR and $95

PR.
ALT B6

Change to
Base
Bill

PR-REV

C.

$0

- $630,000

Appropriation Structure and Reporting Requirements

1.
Adopt the Governor's proposal to create a PR continuing appropriation [s.
20.370(9)(ag)] within the Division of External Services to receive newly proposed fees and
increased fees under the bill, and transfer current law PR fees to the Division of External Services
miscellaneous program revenue appropriation [s. 20.370(9)(mi)]. (This would not transfer
reporting requirements on current law PR fees.)
2.
Create a program revenue continuing appropriation within the Division of External
Services for the purposes of regulating animal feeding operations under Chapters 281 and 283 of
the statutes, and to receive PR fees paid by animal feeding operations under Chapter 283 of the

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)

Page 13

 statutes. Specify that current law PR fees and any fee increase adopted in alternatives above be
deposited into this appropriation.
3.
Create a nonpoint SEG annual appropriation within the Division of External Services
for the purposes of regulating animal feeding operations under Chapters 281 and 283 of the
statutes.
4.
Require the Department of Natural Resources to report annually to the Joint
Committee on Finance, and other standing committees concerned with agriculture and the
environment, on the expenditure of funds from any of the following appropriations. (This
alternative could be moved into any other alternatives.)
a.
The appropriation [s. 20.370(9)(ag)] created under Alternative C1, and the
appropriation [s. 20.370(9)(mi)] proposed under the bill to receive existing CAFO PR fees.
b.

The PR appropriation created under Alternative C2.

c.

The nonpoint SEG appropriation created under Alternative C3.

d.

The PR and nonpoint SEG appropriations created under Alternatives C2 and C3.

Prepared by: Rory Tikalsky

Page 14

Natural Resources -- Environmental Quality (Paper #529)