BEFORE THE STATE OF IDAHO

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

IDAHO RURAL COUNCIL, ) Docket No.__________

INC. )
Petitioner. ) PETITION FOR INITIATION
) OF RULEMAKING
)
________________________ )

1. INTRODUCTION
COMES NOW the Idaho Rural Council, Inc. and petitions the Director of the
State of Idaho Department of Agriculture for initiation of rulemaking pursuant to
Idaho Code 22-101 and IDAPA 02.01.01. This Petition requests that the Director
initiate rulemaking by publication in the Idaho Administrative Bulletin of a notice
of proposed rulemaking pursuant to Idaho Code 67-5220.
Petitioner requests that this Petition be acted upon by the Director within 28
days after its submission as required by Idaho Code 67-5230.
The purpose of this Petition is to amend IDAPA 02.04.14, Rules of the
Department of Agriculture Governing Dairy Waste ( the “rules”). This Petition
seeks an amendment of rules that currently define “discharge violations” but do
not specifically address discharges that occur as a result of aerosolization of
dairy lagoon constituents when land applied through pressurized irrigation
systems.
2. PETITIONER’S INTEREST IN THE MATTER
The Idaho Rural Council, Inc. (“IRC”) is a grassroots organization of family
farmers, ranchers and rural residents that has worked since 1986 to preserve the
well being of Idaho’s family farms and rural communities.
Many of our members live in rural Idaho where large dairy facilities have been
built with vast waste water lagoons designed to store liquid and semi- solid waste
produced by the dairy herd for periods as long as 180 days. A routine,
widespread practice for disposing of accumulated lagoon water is to land apply it
to farm fields through pressurized irrigation systems such as pivots or wheel
lines.1 Irrigation systems used for this purpose often discharge their contents on
public roadways and neighboring properties. These events have been reported
frequently by IRC members who live in rural parts of Idaho where large lagoons
are located. Such events are especially common when members are doused with
visible droplets or mists from pivots or wheel lines while driving through southern

1
Photographs of two typical systems used for lagoon wastewater application are included
in Appendix ‘A’.

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING Page-1

Gooding and Jerome Counties, where one of Idaho’s greatest concentrations of
large dairies is situated near popular recreational sites along the Snake River in
the 1000 Springs reach.2
IRC has collected samples of a pivot end-gun discharge from a large dairy in
Twin Falls County. The collection point was across the public roadway from the
field where the pivot was located, within twelve feet of a fenced yard where
children played. The overspray tested at over 20,000 FCU ( fecal coliform units)/
100ml) - almost 10,000 times the level at which human waste must be disinfected
before it might be used for lawn irrigation where children are present.3
While data documenting the total current dairy lagoon storage capacity in
Idaho is not available, a very crude extrapolated estimate of that capacity would
be 383,518,800 cu.ft. 4 or approximately 8,800 acre feet of lagoon storage
capacity needed just for the mature milking cow population of Idaho. That
estimate is based on an extrapolation using:
- Recent industry published population statistics on the milking herd in Idaho
putting the number at 513,000 head; 5
- A lagoon storage capacity calculation from a recently proposed dairy/
replacement heifer facility in Twin Falls County consisting of 3,756 animal units.
The system was engineered( pursuant to Idaho State Dept. of Agriculture
specifications) to store 2,006,872 cu.ft. of liquid waste;6
- The standard accounting of a mature dairy cow as equaling 1.4 “animal
units”.
Either by direct observation or by the very rough calculation described above it
is clear that there is a very significant amount of dairy lagoon effluent capacity in
Idaho, a significant part of which is land applied through pressurized irrigation
systems during the Spring and Fall if not more often. Waste water stored in

2
The Idaho State Department of Agriculture’s “MOU Annual Report” ( April 23, 2007)
reported that at the end of 2006 the milking herd populations of Jerome County and
Gooding County were 70.735 head and 117,758 head respectively. The National
Agricultural Statistics Service puts the numbers at 70,500 head for Jerome Co. and
140,000 head for Gooding Co. as of Jan. 1, 2007. See: www.nass.usda.gov . Many
pressurized irrigation systems operate without the addition of lagoon effluent so it is
impossible to be sure, without sampling, whether these “roadside carwashes” are just a
normal part of country driving or something more serious. However, during Spring and
Fall when lagoons are typically emptied it the presence of lagoon water in the irrigation
systems is readily detected because of the color of the water and its very foul odor.
3
See Appendix ‘C’, Table 4-1.
4
( 534 cu. ft. per a/u) X (718, 200 a/u where a milk cow = 1.4 a/u) = 383,518, 800 cu. ft.
5
Progressive Dairyman, Vo. 22 No.5, (March 25, 2008)
6
That storage capacity includes adequate space for runoff from corrals, roofs, etc. and is
not represented to be the volume of waste the dairy herd excretes.

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING Page-2

lagoons is often diluted with other irrigation water to reduce offensive odors at a
ratio of anywhere from 4:1 to 9:1. In other words, the 8,800 acre foot of capacity
probably represents a small fraction of the volume of lagoon effluent (diluted)
actually land applied.

In addition to the visible droplets associated with these discharges, wind drift
occurs carrying minute, aerosolized wastewater constituents considerable
distances from wastewater application fields. This phenomenon is well
documented in an Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Report titled
“Technical Background Document: Microbial Risk Assessment and Fate and
Transport Modeling of Aerosolized Microorganisms at Wastewater Land
Application Facilities in Idaho” ( Feb., 2006) 7. The study had this to say about
land application of liquid waste from municipal and industrial sources:
“A concern surrounding the land application systems commonly used in Idaho
is the prevention of irrigation wind drift, which includes droplet and aerosol
drift. Wastewater land treatment facilities are often located in close proximity
to dwellings, public parks and schools, rivers and streams, irrigation canals,
roads, and other features that require special management of wastewater to
protect health, safety, and the environment.
Because municipal and food processing wastewaters contain microbial
constituents that could pose a risk to human health when land applied, the
Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) has developed a
preliminary microbial risk assessment (MIRA) methodology to quantify this
risk and to protect public health and safety.” ( Id., at xiii)
There is no reason to think that “microbial constituents” from dairy lagoons
behave any differently from those from other sources when land applied through
pressurized irrigation systems- they too must “drift”. IRC has attempted, through
public information requests to the responsible agencies, to obtain Idaho- specific
studies documenting pathogens and other potential harmful chemical/ biological
constituents of lagoon water. Those efforts have not been successful.8 However,
in 2005, the Environmental Protection Agency released a report titled “Detecting
and Mitigating the Environmental Impact of Fecal Pathogens Originating from
Confined Animal Feeding Operations: Review”.9 That report provides a reliably
scientific basis for believing that pathogens harmful to human health, livestock

7
The report is available at:
http://www.deq.state.id.us/water/assist_business/engineers/guidance/microbial_risk_asses
sment.pdf
8
The Idaho Department of Agriculture responded to such a request from IRC by
acknowledging that it had studied the nutrient values of lagoon water ( because it has
some value as fertilizer) but never analyzed potential harmful constituents.
9
The report is available at: http://www.epa.gov/NRMRL/pubs/600r06021/600r06021.pdf

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING Page-3

health, and crop health are present in dairy lagoon waste water. The Director is
asked to take note of several parts of the report:
- A chart listing zoonotic pathogens that may be of concern near CAFOs
reproduced in Appendix ‘B’ of this Petition;10
- The report’s discussion of the survival of pathogens in manure slurries ( at pp.
18- 21;
- The report’s finding that “Several studies have documented increased
airborne pathogens directly attributable to the spread of human or animal
manure on agricultural lands through spray irrigation with contaminated
waters or deposition of animal placental and fecal wastes and subsequent
distribution to downwind animal or human receptors” ( at pp. 35);
- The report’s finding that “Uncontrolled releases of pathogens may occur via
runoff, aerosolization, or infiltration into soils and groundwater, especially
when manure is spread onto land” ( at p. 42);
- The report’s findings related to the public health risks associated with the
movement of antimicrobial- resistant pathogens from CAFOs:
“The conditions of widespread, prolonged exposure to antimicrobial
compounds at sublethal doses with little dose control in CAFOs may
exacerbate their development. Once established, the movement of
antimicrobial-resistant microorganisms from animal to animal or animal to
animal care worker may be facilitated by the crowding of animals into
confinements, often with suboptimal hygiene. ….. As much as 75-80% of
an antibiotic may pass undigested through an animal, thus its waste may
not only harbor high concentrations of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria, but
also their resistance genes and raw (undigested) antimicrobial compounds.
…….This waste is often stored in open air lagoons and/or spread on fields
where these compounds, resistant organisms, and antimicrobial-resistance
gene reservoirs may move into the environment via aerosolization,
infiltration into the groundwater, or runoff into surface water resources.
Antimicrobial resistance in zoonotic pathogens is a serious threat to
human health. Many of the drugs are used in animal agriculture and
human medicine are the same or very similar including, but not limited to,
betalactams (penicillin, ampicillin, cloxacillin), tetracyclines, sulfonamides
and potentiated sulfonamides, cephalosporins, and fluoroquinolones).
Exposure to zoonotic pathogens harboring resistance to antimicrobials of
clinical importance may lead to diseases with few or no treatment options
in humans. In cases where pathogens are resistant to administered
antimicrobial compounds, vulnerability to infection can increase up to
three-fold, primarily resulting from a transient decrease in an individual’s
resistance to colonization by the pathogen. Antimicrobial-resistant

10
At pp. 6-10 of the report.

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING Page-4

 pathogens tend to be more virulent than their susceptible counterparts,
causing more prolonged or severe illnesses “ ( at p. 17, citations omitted )

While the report does not comprehensively address other chemical

constituents of dairy lagoon waste water that may be a hazard to human health,
livestock or crops, large dairy facilities need to control insect pests and use
potentially toxic chemicals for that, and other purposes . 11 It is very likely that
measurable amounts of those products find their way into lagoons either as part
of the excretia from the herd or from wash water/wastewater diverted to the
lagoons.

Land application of liquid waste from municipal and industrial sources has
been regulated under IDEQ’s “Wastewater Land Application Permit” (WLAP)
program since 1988 under the authority of IDAPA 58.01.17.12As part of that
program IDEQ has promulgated rules and guidance documents designed to
reduce exposure to pathogens. Excerpts from IDEQ’s “Wastewater Land
Application Operators Study and Reference Manual” ( October , 2005) are
included in Appendix “C” to illustrate what experts believe can minimize exposure
to pathogens, including those that might be airborne. The excerpted sections of
the guidance:
- characterize five basic types of effluent ( from municipal sources) that are
differentiated by the end-use to which they are put and the populations that might
be affected by exposure to pathogens;
- describe several methods of wastewater disinfection;
- establish buffer zones to protect the public from exposure to particular levels
of effluent being applied dependent on the exposure risk.

Based on the various IDEQ and EPA references cited above in this petition
IRC believes that lagoon pathogens and possibly other substances harmful to

11
There is some data about insecticide use at Idaho dairies in a report by USDA titled
“Agricultural Chemical Usage: 2006 Dairy and Dairy Facilities Summary” available at:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/AgriChemUsDairy/AgriChemUsDairy
-05-23-2007.pdf It is unknown whether these insecticides are present in lagoon
water as a result of the washing process cows go through before milking.
12
The history of the program is summarized in the preface to IDEQ’s “Guidance for
Reclamation and Reuse of Municipal and Industrial Wastewater” , September
2007. Page xvii, on the web at:
http://www.deq.idaho.gov/water/permits_forms/permitting/guidance.cfm

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING Page-5

human health and livestock health are “aerosolizing” in the same manner as
pathogens from currently regulated sources. Our members and members of the
general public who live near, travel through, or raise livestock or crops within
proximity of farm fields where wind drift occurs as a result of lagoon water land
application through pressurized irrigation systems may be impacted by
pathogenic organisms found in bovine dairy waste and other bio/chemical
constituents of dairy lagoons.
At the time this petition was filed a limited search in other jurisdictions for
regulations similar to those requested had been done. The results were as
follows:
1. California: Most lagoon effluent is applied through flood irrigation systems,
minimizing the potential for aerosolizing pathogens. California has no
regulations specifically focused on the “drift” phenomenon;
2. New York: Response pending;
3. Wisconsin: Response pending:
4. North Carolina: Moratorium on new sprayfields enacted in 1997 targeted at
swine facilities which are prevalent in that state. In 2007 North Carolina
enacted the “Swine Farm Environmental Performance Standards Act” which
bans the construction or expansion of new lagoons or sprayfields.
IRC will attempt to compile a more thorough summary of regulations in other
states for review by the Director at the earliest possible time.

3. REQUESTED AMENDMENTS/ADDITIONS
IRC proposes amendments and additions to the dairy waste discharge rules
that specifically address discharges that occur when lagoon effluent is land
applied through pressurized irrigation systems. IRC proposes to amend the
current discharge rules to incorporate the same risk assessments and protocols
used by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality when issuing permits for
the land application of liquid waste from industrial or municipal sources. ( See
IDAPA 58.01.17 et seq.)

Waste lagoons have been required at confined animal feeding operations

(“CAFOs”) for many years in Idaho to protect our surface and ground water from
pollution. At the same time, land application of lagoon water through pressurized
irrigation systems has been overlooked as a potential threat to air quality. While
current ISDA rules prohibit discharges from dairy facilities, they do not specifically
address discharges that may not be visible such as the “drift” of aerosolized
particles from pressurized irrigation systems. Adverse human health, livestock
health, and crop health effects associated with land application of liquid municipal

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING Page-6

and industrial waste through pressurized irrigation systems have been
recognized for many years as a legitimate basis for regulating that activity. IRC
members believe the lagoon effluent land applied the same way poses similar
risks and should be specifically addressed in ISDA’s discharge rules. The EPA
report cited earlier in this Petition states that “ “livestock CAFO wastes can be as
much as 100 times more concentrated than human wastes, and the treatment of
human wastes is required by law prior to discharge into the environment”.13
Exposure to airborne pathogens or other harmful substances associated with
lagoon water land application poses a risk to the health of our members living in,
and/ or raising livestock, horses, or crops in rural Idaho.

4. REGULATORY BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Idaho Code 22-101 the Director of the Idaho Department of
Agriculture is authorized to adopt rules governing discharges from dairy facilities.

5. CLOSING
IRC appreciates the Director’s consideration of this Petition. IRC will make its
staff and members available at any time convenient to the Director to address
questions or concerns and will similarly help the Department in its review of this
Petition.

Respectfully submitted this __ day of May, 2009.

By: _____________________________
Richard Carlson
IRC Legal Counsel

13
EPA report, p. 1.

PETITION FOR RULEMAKING Page-7

 APPENDIX ‘A’

ABOVE: Pivot along public road- Twin Falls County

BELOW: Wheel line along public road- Twin Falls County
 Table 1. Selected zoonotic pathogens zoonoses that may be of concern for water quality near CAFOs t
Infectious Agent Infectious Incubation Disease Host Range Reservoir
Dose Period Symptoms

Bacterial
Bacillus anthmcis 8000-50000 2-5 days Anthrax, Wool sorter's disease Humans, cattle, Spores remain
(by inhalation) Cutaneous ­ skin lesions, death (5-20%) swine, goats, viab Ie in soil
Inhalation ­ respiratory distress, fever, shock, sheep, horses contaminated by
death animal wastes for
years
Intestinal- abdominal distress, fever,
septicemia, death (rare)
Brucella spp. Unlmown Highly Variable Brucellosis, Undulant Fever, Bang's Disease, Hwnans, cattle, Cattle most
5-60 days Malta Fever, Mediterranean Fever swine, goats, common
Intermittent fever, headache, weakness, profuse
sweating, chills, arthralgia
sheep, deer,
caribou, elk,
»
-C
dogs, coyotes 1J
Campylobacterjejuni :::500 1-10 days Campylobacter enteritis, Vibrionic enteritis, Humans, cattle, Cattle, swine, m
0\ (by ingestion) Traveler's Diarrhea swine, goats, sheep, poultry Z
Diarrhea, abdominal pain, malaise, fever,
nausea, vomiting, septicemia, meningitis,
Guillain-Barre syndrome, death (rare)
sheep, poultry,
rodents, birds,
household pets,
household pets,
rodents, birds -.,
C
><
Clostridium tetani Toxin is 3-21 days Lockjaw, Tetanus Humans, animals Intestine of OJ
'"
extremely Painful muscular contractions, abdominal animals and
potent rigidity, spasm, death (30-90%) humans, soil
contaminated with
animal feces
Coxiella burnetii 10 2-3 weeks Q fever, Query Fever, Rickettsia Humans, cattle, Sheep, cattle,
(by inhalation) Acute febrile disease ­ chills, headache, sheep, goats goats, especially at
weakness, malaise, severe sweats, pneumonitis, parturition
pericarditis, hepatitis
generalized infections ­ endocarditis

t Hazen and Toranaos, 1990; WHO, 1993; DuPont et al., 1995; Morris and Levin, 1995; Geldricb, 1996; ASM, 1998; Haines et al., 2004; PHAC, 2005
 Table 1. Selected pathogenic zoonoses that may be of concern for water quality near CAFOs (Continued)
Infectious Agent Infectious Incubati,on Disease Host Range Reservoir
Dose Period Symptoms

Bacterial (Cont.)
Enterohemorrbagic 5-10 2-8 days EHEC, Verotoxin-produding E. coli, VTEC, Humans, cattle, Humans and
Escherichia coli Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, STEC swine, goats, livestock animals
(E. coli 0157:H7 and Hemorrhagic colitis, abdominal pain, bloody sheep, pouluy
otbers) diarrhea, fever. hemolytic uremic syndrome,
thrombocytopenic pwpura, death (in children)
Enteropathogenic 108 _10 10 in 0.5-3 days Attaching and effacing E. coli, enten)adherant Hwnans (esp. Hwnans and
Escherichia coli adults, E. coli, infantile diarrheal disease infants), cattle, livestock animals
Unknown in Watery diarrhea,fever, cramps, vomiting, bloody swine, goats,
infants stool in some cases, serious disease in infants sheep, poultry
Leptospira spp. Unknown, but 4-19 days Leptospirosis, Weil's Disease, Caoicola fever, Hmnans, cattle, Farm and pet
may be as low Hemorrhagic jaundice, Mud fever, swine, horses, animals, rats and
as 3 Swineherd's disease dogs, rats, wild rodents (wine and
Fever, headache, chills, muscle aches, vomiting, animals abortion products)
-.) meningitis, rash, jaundice death (I-are)
,­ Mammals, birds, Domestic and wild
Listeria mOl1ocytogelles Unknown, but 3-70 days Listeriosis, Listerella
likely less than (mean = 21) Fever, muscle aches, nausea, diarrhea, fish, cms taceCUls, mammals, fowl,
10 3 headache, stiffneck, con/us ion, loss ofbalance, and insects and humans
convulsions miscarriage or stillbirth, premature (aborted fetuses of
delivery, death in about 20% ofall cases livestock animals)
Mycobacterium bovis 10 4-12 weeks Tuberculosis, Tn Humculs, cattle, Humans, diseased
M. tuberculosis (by inhalation) Fatigue, fever, cough, chest pain, hemoptysis swine, other cattle, swine, and
fibrosis, irreversible damage to lungs animals other manunals

Salmonella spp. 100-1000 0.25-3 days Saimouellosis, Acute Gatroeoteritis Humans, cattle, Humculs, cattle,
(non-typhi or paratwhi) (by ingestion) Abdominal pain, diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, swine, poulf:J.y, swine, poultry,
dehydration, septicemia, reactive arthritis horses, rodents, horses, rodents,
household pets domestic pets

Yersinia enterocolitica 106 3-7 days Yersilliosis, enterocolitis, pseudotuberculosis Humans, swine, Primarily swine
Diarrhea, acute mesenteric lymphadenitis household pets
mimicking appendicitis, fever, headache,
anorexia, vomiting, phatyngitis, reactive arthritis
 '.

zoonoses that may be of concern for water near CAFOs

Balantidium coli 4-5 Balantidial

may be as low also rodents
as 10-100 tenesmus,
and mucoid stools
VVlos/Jorimum parvum 132 1-12
and other domestic
animals

Giardia LamiJlia 1-10 3-25 nUlI1i:Ul1", wild wild and

nUIl1<1ll",

,Uld domestic domestic animals

household
00

Unknown 10-23
mostW811n
and rash blooded animals
8l1d birds
alJonwn. newborn
mental
 Table 1. Selected that may be of concern for water nearCAFOs
Reservoir
dose Period

Schistosoma spp. Unknown 14-42 Snail

Swimmer's Itch

S. haematobium
and hematuria

Trichinella Unknown

animals

marine mammals
\D
 ~.

Table 1. Selected pathogenic zoonoses that may be of concern for water quality near CAFOs (Continued)
Infectious Agent Infectious Incubation Disease Host Range Reservoir
dose Period Symptoms
days

Viruses
Hepatitis E Virus
Influenza A virus
Lymphocytic
>-'
o choriomeningitis viI-us
SARS Coronavirns
West Nile Virus
Unlmown 14-63 HEV Humans, swine, Unknown­
Jaundice, anorexia, hepatomegaly, abdominal rodents, chicken possibly in swine
pain, nausea, vomiting, fever, Liver Failure;
most severe hepatitis during pregnancy ofall
hepatitis vintses
2-790 1-4 Flu Humans, swine, Humans, animal
Acute fever, chills, headache, myalgia, weakness, horses, domestic reservoirs
runny nose, sore throat, cough and wild avian (particularly swine)
species are suspected as
sotll"ces of new
htunan subtypes
Unknown 8-21 LCM, Lymphocytic meningitis Htunans, swine, Rodents, swine,
Mild iI!fluenza-like illness or maningeal or household pets, household pets
meningoencephalomyelitic symptoms, Guillain­ rodents
Barre type syndrome, orchitis or parotitis.
In more severe cases, tempormy or permanent
neurological damage, abortion, congenital
hydrocephalus, and mental retardation
Unknown 6.4 (mean) SARS Humans, swine Unknown - but
High fever, dry cough, dyspnoea, myalgia, chickens, ferrets, animal reservoir is
diarrhea, vomiting, death (13.2% for infected cats, macaques suspected
individuals under 60, 43.3%for those over 60)
Unknown 3-14 West Nile Encephalitis, Viral Encephalitis Mammal, Birds are the
Sudden onset offlu-like illness, malaise, reptilian, and amplifying host
anorexia, nausea, vomiting, rash, and avian hosts.
lymphadenopathy. Mrumnals
generally
More severe infections can result in aseptic
considered dead­
meningitis or encephalitis, mental status
changes, seizures, coma, severe neurologic end hosts
disease, and death (4-11 %)
 APPENDIX ‘C’
“Municipal Reclaimed Wastewater Effluent Classes
In the State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality Wastewater Land
Application Permit Rules (IDAPA 58.01.17), various classes (Class A – Class E)
of municipal reclaimed wastewater are defined. Requirements for the “direct use”
of each class of wastewater are also presented in the rules. Wastewater land
application is one type of “direct use.” Partial descriptions of the five effluent
classes are given below.
• Class A effluent is municipal reclaimed wastewater that may be used under
particular circumstances for residential irrigation at individual homes
(controlled only by the system operator), ground water recharge, surface
spreading, seepage ponds, other unlined water features, and other appropriate
uses. Class A effluent shall be oxidized, coagulated, clarified, and filtered, or
treated by an equivalent process and adequately disinfected. Enhanced
filtration approval requirements, nutrient removal requirements, turbidity
limits requirements, monitoring requirements, reliability and redundancy
requirements, and distribution system requirements also apply.
Class A treatment systems are required to be pilot tested at full scale prior to
sewer hookups, lifting of sanitary restrictions, and start-up. Class A effluent
shall be considered adequately disinfected if, at the point of compliance, the
median number of total coliform organisms does not exceed two and two tenths
(2.2) per one hundred (100) milliliters, and does not exceed twenty three
(23) per one hundred (100) milliliters in any confirmed sample, as
determined from the bacteriological results of the last seven (7) days for
which analyses have been completed.
For ground water recharge, surface spreading, seepage ponds, and other
unlined water features, IDAPA 58.01.11, “Ground Water Quality Rule,”
requirements apply. For Class A effluent, analysis shall be based on daily
sampling during periods of use. The point of compliance for Class A effluent
for total coliform shall be in the distribution system following final
treatment, final storage and disinfection contact time. Residual chlorine at the
point of compliance shall be not less than one (1) mg/L free chlorine after a
contact time of thirty (30) minutes at peak flow (or an alternate disinfection
process demonstrated to the satisfaction of DEQ). Class A effluent for
residential irrigation should be applied only during periods of non-use.
Additional Class A effluent requirements include limits for turbidity, total
suspended solids, nitrogen, organics, and pH.
• Class B effluent is municipal reclaimed wastewater that may contact any
edible portion of raw food crops or is used to irrigate golf courses, parks
playgrounds, schoolyards and other areas where children are more likely to
have access or exposure.
Class B effluent shall be oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered, or treated by
an equivalent process and adequately disinfected. Class B treatment systems
are required to be pilot tested at full scale prior to sewer hookups, lifting of
sanitary restrictions, and start-up. Class B effluent shall be considered
adequately disinfected if, at the point of compliance, the median number of
total coliform organisms does not exceed two and two-tenths (2.2) per one
hundred (100) milliliters, and does not exceed twenty-three (23) per one
hundred (100) milliliters in any confirmed sample, as determined from the
bacteriological results of the last seven (7) days for which analyses have been
completed.
For Class B effluent, analysis shall be based on daily sampling during
periods of application. The point of compliance for Class B effluent for total
coliform shall be in the distribution system following final treatment, final
storage and disinfection contact time. Residual chlorine at the point of
compliance shall be not less than one (1) mg/L free chlorine after a contact
time of thirty (30) minutes at peak flow. Class B effluent shall be applied
only during periods of non-use by the public.
• Class C effluent is municipal reclaimed wastewater that will only contact the
inedible portion of raw food crops, or that is used to irrigate orchards and
vineyards during the fruiting season, if no fruit harvested for raw use comes
in contact with the irrigation water or ground or will only contact the inedible
portion of raw food crops, or is used to irrigate cemeteries, roadside
vegetation, and other areas where individuals have access or exposure. Class
C effluent shall be oxidized and adequately disinfected.
Class C effluent shall be considered adequately disinfected if, at the point of
compliance, the median number of total coliform organisms does not exceed
twenty-three (23) per one hundred (100) milliliters, and does not exceed two
hundred thirty (230) per one hundred (100) milliliters in any confirmed
sample as determined from the bacteriological results of the last five (5) days
for which analyses have been completed.
For Class C effluent, analysis shall be based on weekly sampling during
periods of application. The point of compliance for Class C effluent for total
coliform shall be at the entrance to the distribution system following final
treatment and disinfection contact time, but before storage. Class C effluent
shall be applied only during periods of non-use by the public.
• Class D effluent is municipal reclaimed wastewater that is used to irrigate
fodder, seed, or processed food crops and is oxidized and adequately
disinfected.
Class D effluent shall be considered adequately disinfected if, at some
location in the treatment process, the median number of total coliform
organisms does not exceed two hundred thirty (230) per one hundred (100)
milliliters, not to exceed two thousand three hundred (2300) per one hundred
(100) milliliters in any confirmed sample, as determined from the
bacteriological results of the last three (3) days for which analyses have been
completed. For Class D effluent, analysis shall be based on monthly
sampling during periods of application. Animals shall not be grazed on land
where Class D municipal wastewater is applied, and animals shall not be fed
harvested vegetation irrigated in this manner within two (2) weeks of
application.
• Class E effluent is municipal reclaimed wastewater that is used to irrigate
fodder, seed, or processed food crops or forested sites where public access is
restricted and the municipal wastewater shall be of at least primary effluent
quality. Animals shall not be grazed on land where Class E municipal
wastewater is applied, and animals shall not be fed harvested vegetation
irrigated in this manner within four (4) weeks of application.” (See: “Wastewater
Land Application Operators Study and Reference Manual” IDEQ. Oct. 2005
pp1/10-12)

“4.1 Disinfection
Disinfection is generally the last form of pretreatment prior to land application
of wastewater. The purpose of wastewater effluent disinfection is to destroy
disease producing microorganisms or pathogens. As discussed in Section 1,
pathogens can cause many illnesses, such as typhoid fever, amoebic dysentery
and infectious hepatitis.
The disinfection process should be economical, operationally practical and
environmentally acceptable. The three major types of disinfection used are the
following:
• chlorination
• ultraviolet radiation
• ozone.” ( See: “Wastewater Land Application Operators Study and Reference
Manual” IDEQ, Oct. 2005, pp.4/1)

“4.2 Buffer Zones

A buffer zone is the area beyond the perimeter of a wastewater land application
field, which provides the minimum separation needed to reduce the potential for
impacts to public health and the environment as well as minimizing nuisance
conditions and aesthetic concerns. There are three parts that factor into a site’s
buffer zone requirements: buffer zone distances to other land uses of concern,
posting requirements, and fencing requirements.
Land uses of concern for which DEQ has established guideline buffer zone
distances are: areas of public access, surface waters, public or private drinking
water supplies and occupied dwellings. The guideline buffer zone distances are a
function of the following:
• the characteristics of the land applied wastewater (industrial or municipal)
• level of treatment and disinfection designed for land application site (Class A
municipal effluent, industrial)
• location of the land application field (suburban/residential or rural/industrial
or residential)
• mode of irrigation (sprinkler or furrow)
For example, allowing spray mist from a wastewater land application sprinkler
irrigation system to drift onto adjoining properties has the potential to create
aesthetic, nuisance, and public health impacts. General buffer zone distance
recommendations for various land uses of concern are as follows:
• Inhabited dwelling: 300 feet
• Private water supply well: 500 feet
• Public water supply well: 1,000 feet
• Public access areas: 50 feet
• Permanent or intermittent surface water: 100 feet
• Temporary surface water and irrigation ditches and canals: 50 feet
In general, DEQ’s guideline buffer zone distances decrease with greater
disinfection (lower total coliform counts) of the land applied wastewater. In
zoning ordinances.
In Section 1, the disinfection levels of the various classes of municipal
reclaimed wastewater effluent were presented. The disinfection requirements,
with respect to total coliform counts are summarized in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1. Total Coliform Disinfection Requirements for Municipal

Reclaimed Wastewater.

Effluent Total Coliform Disinfection Requirement Compliance Point

Class

Class A The median number of total coliform organisms In the distribution

and does not exceed two and two-tenths (2.2) per system following final
Class B one hundred (100) milliliters, and does not treatment,final
exceed twenty-three (23) per one hundred storage and
(100) milliliters in any confirmed sample, as disinfection contact
determined from the bacteriological results time.
of the last seven (7) days for which analyses
have been completed.

Class C The median number of total coliform organisms At the entrance to

does not exceed twenty-three (23) per one the distribution
hundred (100) milliliters, and does not exceed system, following
two hundred thirty (230) per one hundred (100) final treatment and
milliliters in any confirmed sample as disinfection contact
determined from the bacteriological results of time, but before
the last five (5) days for which analyses have storage.
been completed.

Class D The median number of total coliform organisms Some location in

does not exceed two hundred thirty (230) per the treatment
one hundred (100) milliliters, not to exceed two process.
thousand three hundred (2300) per one hundred
 (100) milliliters in any confirmed sample, as
determined from the bacteriological results of the
last three (3) days for which analyses have been
completed

Class E At least primary effluent quality.

The buffer zone distances specified in a land application permit may vary from
DEQ’s “guideline” distances due to site specific characteristics. For example,
buffer zone distances may be reduced through using mitigation measures,
including the following:
• Establishment of an effective physical or vegetative barrier to reduce drift or
aerosol dispersion
• Utilization of “non-spray” irrigation (drag tubes or equivalent apparatus)
• Managing irrigation systems in a manner which would prevent any spray
drift towards the land use of concern
• Run-off and/or over-spray controls
• Combining Best Management Practices (BMPs) with standard buffer zone
distances to help protect drinking water supplies. Monitoring well buffer
zone distances are typically less that drinking water well buffer zones and
are also dependant on the types of BMPs used. Monitoring well buffer zone
distances may vary from site to site and are specified in the site permit.“
(See: “Wastewater Land Application Operators Study and Reference Manual”
IDEQ, Oct. 2005, pp.4/ 7-9)