Update: Previous releases:
November 28, 2007
August 31, 2007
September 21, 2006 (http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/06Oct/RL31851.pdf)
April 11, 2007(http://www.ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/07May/RL31851.pdf)
Abstract: According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the release of waste from
animal feedlots to surface water, groundwater, soil, and air is associated with a range
of human health and ecological impacts and contributes to degradation of the nation’s
surface waters. The most dramatic ecological impacts are massive fish kills. A
variety of pollutants in animal waste can affect human health, including causing
infections of the skin, eye, ear, nose, and throat. Contaminants from manure can also
affect human health by polluting drinking water sources.
Although agricultural activities are generally not subject to requirements of
environmental law, discharges of waste from large concentrated animal feeding
operations (CAFOs) into the nation’s waters are regulated under the Clean Water
Act. In the late 1990s, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated a
review of the Clean Water Act rules that govern these discharges, which had not been
revised since the 1970s, despite structural and technological changes in some
components of the animal agriculture industry that have occurred during the last two
decades. A proposal to revise the existing rules was released by the Clinton
Administration in December 2000. The Bush Administration promulgated final
revised regulations in December 2002; the rules took effect in February 2003.
The final rules were generally viewed as less stringent than the proposal, a fact
that strongly influenced how interest groups have responded to them. Agriculture
groups said that the final rules were workable, and they were pleased that some of the
proposed requirements were scaled back, such as changes that would have made
thousands more CAFOs subject to regulation. However, some continue to question
EPA’s authority to issue portions of the rules. Many states had been seeking more
flexible approaches than EPA had proposed and welcomed the fact that the final rules
retain the status quo to a large extent. Environmentalists contended that the rules
relied too heavily on voluntary measures and fail to require improved technology.
This report provides background on the revised environmental rules, the
previous Clean Water Act rules and the Clinton Administration proposal, and
perspectives of key interest groups on the proposal and final regulations. It also
identifies several issues that could be of congressional interest as implementation of
the revised rules proceeds. Issues include adequacy of funding for implementing the
rules, research needs, oversight of implementation of the rules, and possible need for
legislation.
The revised CAFO rules were challenged by multiple parties, and in February
2005, a federal court issued a ruling that upheld major parts of the rules, vacated
other parts, and remanded still other parts to EPA for clarification. In June 2006,
EPA proposed revisions to the rules in response to the 2005 court decision; for
information on the status of this proposal, see CRS Report RL33656, Animal Waste
and Water Quality: EPA’s Response to the “Waterkeeper Alliance” Court Decision
on Regulation of CAFOs, which will be updated as warranted by developments.
[read report]
Topics: Water, Waste Management, Pollution