Colorado appeals court hears CAFO permit monitoring challenge

The Colorado Court of Appeals heard oral argument October 13, 2026, in an appeal over whether the state’s general permit for concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, must require representative monitoring for underground discharges from production areas. Food & Water Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity are appealing after a Larimer County District Court upheld the state agency’s decision to leave out the monitoring provisions they seek.

Contemporaneous accounts reported no appellate ruling, and the hearing itself did not change the permit.

From administrative challenge to appeal

The dispute began with an administrative challenge to Colorado’s CAFO permit. An administrative law judge ruled for the environmental groups in 2023. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, or CDPHE, reversed that decision in a final agency order dated April 23, 2024. The Larimer County District Court later upheld the agency’s decision in 2025, and the groups appealed that judgment in case 2025CA1546.

The appeal’s filed opening brief identifies the Center for Biological Diversity and Food & Water Watch as appellants. It names CDPHE, two of its divisions, department Executive Director Jill Hunsaker Ryan in her official capacity, and the Colorado Livestock Association as appellees. The association defended the existing permit and is a party to the appeal.

What the groups want the permit to require

The dispute centers on whether representative monitoring is required for underground discharges from CAFO production areas, including to assess compliance with the permit’s discharge limits. Food & Water Watch and the Center for Biological Diversity argue that the permit lacks monitoring needed to make that assessment. Their position is an argument in the appeal, not a finding by the court that a particular facility violated its permit.

The state agency’s position, as described in contemporaneous reporting, was that leak monitoring was unnecessary because there was no evidence that manure pits leak. That is the agency’s argument in the dispute. The Colorado Livestock Association has also defended the permit.

In their brief, the environmental groups ask the appeals court to declare the permit unlawful, set aside CDPHE’s final order and send the matter back to the department to add representative monitoring provisions. Those are requested remedies; the appeals court has not granted them in the oral argument itself.

If the court ultimately orders a change to the permit’s monitoring provisions, CAFO operators covered by the general permit could be affected. The appeal asks the court to review the district court’s decision upholding CDPHE’s order and determine whether the permit must include the monitoring the groups seek.