Search

From an environmental quality standpoint, much of the public and policy interest in animal agriculture has focused on impacts on water resources, because animal waste, if not properly managed, can harm water quality through surface runoff, direct discharges, spills, and leaching into soil and groundwater. A more recent issue is the contribution of emissions from animal feeding operations (AFO), enterprises where animals are raised in confinement, to air pollution. This report provides background on the latter issue. It will be updated as warranted. AFOs can affect air quality through emissions of gases such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide, particulate matter, volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and odor. These pollutants and compounds have a number of environmental and human health effects. Agricultural operations have been treated differently than other businesses under numerous federal and state laws. Some environmental laws specifically exempt agriculture from regulatory provisions, and some are designed so that farms escape most, if not all, of the regulatory impact. The primary regulatory focus on environmental impacts has occurred under the Clean Water Act. In addition, AFOs that emit large quantities of air pollutants may be subject to Clean Air Act regulation. Some livestock operations also may be regulated under the release reporting requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act (EPCRA). Questions about the applicability of these laws to livestock and poultry operations have been controversial and have drawn congressional attention. Enforcement of federal environmental laws requires accurate measurement of emissions to determine whether regulated pollutants are emitted in quantities that exceed specified thresholds. Two reports by the National Research Council evaluated the current scientific knowledge base and approaches for estimating air emissions from AFOs as a guide for future management and regulatory efforts. Stakeholders may find little agreement on these issues, with the exception of agreeing on a need for research to estimate, measure, and characterize emissions, and to develop and evaluate technologies to mitigate and control emissions. In an effort to collect scientifically credible data on air emissions, in January 2005 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a plan negotiated with segments of the animal agriculture industry. Called the Air Compliance Agreement, it is intended to produce air quality monitoring data on AFO emissions, while at the same time protecting participants through a "safe harbor" from liability under certain provisions of federal environmental laws. Issues related to this agreement, which has been controversial among environmental advocates, state and local air quality officials, and some industry groups, are discussed separately in CRS Report RL32947, Air Quality Issues and Animal Agriculture: EPA's Air Compliance Agreement, by Claudia Copeland. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prospects for legislative initiatives to comprehensively amend the Clean Water Act (CWA) have stalled for some time over whether and exactly how to change the law, and Congress has recently focused legislative attention on narrow bills to extend or modify selected CWA programs, rather than taking up comprehensive proposals. For example, in the 108th Congress, the House and Senate have passed legislation to reauthorize the National Estuary Program (H.R. 4731). For several years, the most prominent water quality issue has concerned financial assistance for municipal wastewater treatment projects. In 2002, House and Senate committees approved bills to reauthorize the Act's wastewater infrastructure funding program, but no further action occurred. This issue has again received attention in the 108th Congress. At issue is how the federal government will assist states and cities in meeting needs to rebuild, repair, and upgrade wastewater treatment plants, especially in light of capital costs which are projected to be as much as $390 billion over the next two decades. In October 2004, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported legislation to authorize $20 billion in funding for clean water infrastructure (S. 2550), while in July 2003, a House Transportation and Infrastructure subcommittee also approved a water infrastructure financing bill (H.R. 1560). Still, prospects for further action during the 108th Congress are uncertain. Several other Clean Water Act issues could invite congressional attention, through oversight hearings and possibly in legislative proposals. Among the topics of interest is whether and how the Administration will revise the current program for restoration of pollution-impaired waters (the Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL program), in view of controversy over regulatory changes made during the Clinton Administration and continuing disagreement among states, cities, industry, and environmental advocates about program effectiveness and efficiency. Programs that regulate activities in wetlands, especially CWA Section 404, have been criticized by landowners for intruding on private land-use decisions and imposing excessive economic burdens. Environmentalists view these programs as essential for maintaining the health of wetland ecosystems. These groups are concerned about a 2001 Supreme Court decision that narrowed regulatory protection of wetlands, as well as recent administrative actions which they believe will likewise diminish protection. Also of interest are water pollution problems due to waste discharges from large animal feeding operations, termed Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). Revised clean water rules for management of CAFO waste were issued by EPA in December 2002. Details of these rules and overall efforts to address animal waste management problems could receive congressional attention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pollution of the nation's streams, rivers and lakes has been dramatically reduced sincepassage of the 1972 Clean Water Act and other landmark environmental legislation. But while the most blatant, visible discharges of industrial wastes and sewage have been eliminated, pollution remains a problem. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, up to 40 percent of U.S. waters are still too dirty for swimming or fishing. Today the main culprit is runoff, which occurs when rainwater and snowmelt carry excess nutrients, animal waste and toxic chemicals from farms, city streets and construction sites into nearby streams. The EPA has proposed new rules to curtail water pollution, but critics charge that they are scientifically unsound and unfair to farmers and ranchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports that several percent of the Nation's population lives in urban areas as everyone has a connection to agriculture. Topics include examines agricultural production in the United States supplies a major portion of the Nation's food, feed, and fiber needs and considered agricultural expansion and intensification has led to adverse effects, including changes in water quantity and quality and the health of stream ecosystems.

Clean water is a critical resource not only for drinking but also for agriculture, energy production and high-tech manufacturing. But severe drought — once seen as an issue only for the arid West — has become a fact of life in many parts of the United States. Meanwhile, many cities depend on water mains and sewer pipes more than 100 years old. Environmental laws have sharply cut water pollution and improved drinking-water quality since the 1970s. But experts say the nation needs to spend more than $250 billion in the next several years to modernize water treatment systems, and current investments are falling short. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed new ways to regulate water pollutants, and economists say charging more for water would promote conservation. But whether Americans will pay more for a resource that many view as a basic human right remains to be seen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key water quality issues currently include: actions to implement existing provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), whether additional steps are necessary to achieve overall goals of the Act, and the appropriate federal role in guiding and paying for clean water infrastructure and other activities. In the second session of the 107th Congress, House and Senate committees approved legislation to reauthorize water infrastructure funding programs (H.R. 3930, S. 1961), but no further action occurred. Congress did pass a bill with funding to clean up contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes (H.R. 1070, P.L. 107-303). CWA amendments in 1987, the last comprehensive revision, initiated a program of grants to capitalize State Water Pollution Control Revolving Funds, or SRF loan programs, for wastewater treatment plant construction. States were to have flexibility in exchange for a phaseout of federal assistance after FY1994. However, difficulties that some states and small towns have had in implementing the SRF program, coupled with financing needs that are estimated to exceed $130 billion nationwide, have made wastewater treatment funding an important issue. Congress remains interested in implementation of an existing provision of the Act that requires states to set "total maximum daily loads" (TMDLs) of pollution to ensure that water quality standards are attained. Rules issued by EPA in July 2000 to strengthen the TMDL program have been very controversial. The Bush Administration has decided to review and revise the Clinton rules. Also of interest are EPA and USDA actions during the Clinton Administration to better manage waste discharges from animal feeding operations, which can pollute waterways. Congress has been examining impacts on agricultural producers and how the programs will be funded. Programs that regulate activities in wetlands, such as Section 404 of the CWA, have been criticized by landowners for intruding on private land-use decisions and imposing excessive economic burdens. Environmental groups, who view these programs as essential for maintaining the health of wetland ecosystems, are concerned about a 2001 Supreme Court decision that narrowed regulatory protection of wetlands, as well as recent administrative actions which they believe will likewise diminish protection. Because of continuing wide disagreement about the nature of needed reforms, it has been difficult for policymakers to reach consensus on legislative change. Monitoring data have identified wet weather discharges to rivers and lakes (including urban stormwater and sewer overflows) as a serious threat to water quality. Clean water programs are now focusing on solving these wet weather pollution problems. At issue is whether and how to specify wet weather programs in the Act and how to pay for related pollution control projects. This issue brief will not be updated. For information on legislative activity in the 108th Congress, see CRS Issue Brief IB10108, Clean Water Act Issues in the 108th Congress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on National Wildlife Federation (NWF) conservation initiatives to promote watershed and habitat protection, and to improve water quality. It notes that the Everglades was home to vast community of wildlife and was a critical water resource for the area's expanding human communities. It mentions that Great Lakes basin was the largest surface freshwater system wherein its waters comprise one-fifth of the world's freshwater.

Contamination of Milwaukee's water supply last spring -- the worst outbreak of waterborne disease in U.S. history -- shook public confidence in the nation's drinking water. The unprecedented crisis caused six deaths and nearly 400,000 cases of gastrointestinal illness, sparking demands for measures to prevent similar epidemics. Environmentalists were quick to point out that bacteria are by no means the only threats to drinking-water safety. They noted that many local water systems contain toxic inorganic substances, such as lead, radon and nitrates. The lesson of Milwaukee, environmentalists say, is that federal rules regulating drinking-water safety need strengthening. But water industry officials, citing cost considerations, say the rules should be made more flexible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key water quality issues that may face the 107th Congress include: actions to implement existing provisions of the Clean Water Act, whether additional steps are necessary to achieve overall goals of the Act, and the appropriate federal rule in guiding and paying for clean water activities. This Act is the principal law that deals with polluting activity in the nation's lakes, rivers, and coastal waters and authorizes funds to aid construction of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Legislative prospects for comprehensively amending it have been stalled over whether and exactly how to change the law. If clean water issues receive attention in the 107th Congress, attention could focus on water infrastructure funding, implementation of current programs for developing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) to restore pollution-impaired waters, and impacts of agricultural activities on water quality. The Act's wetlands permit program, a contentious issue in the past, also remains on the legislative agenda for some Members. Consideration of specific issues will depend in part on the CWA policy agenda of the new Bush Administration and on priorities of the key committees that have major jurisdiction over the Act. This report will be updated as developments warrant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Congress most recently enacted amendments to the nationUs water quality law, the Clean Water Act (CWA), in 1987. But national water quality policy has evolved in the intervening years, as a result of implementation of the 1987 amendments and related Administration initiatives intended to fulfill the requirements and meet the goals and objectives of the Act. Agriculture, which has been a relatively minor component of national water quality policies and programs, especially regulatory policies, is now involved in several aspects of three recent initiatives. In the Clean Water Action Plan, a Clinton Administration initiative intended to address the nationUs remaining water quality challenges, several key actions focus on agriculture, federal lands, and forestry as part of the overall goal of the Plan to more effectively control nonpoint source pollution. Specific outcomes, requirements affecting agriculture, if any, and any possible deadlines will be evident as the key actions are set in motion. One of the first Administration actions to carry out the Clean Water Action Plan was a national strategy for addressing waste management by one segment of agriculture, animal feeding operations (AFOs). Under the AFO strategy, all operators of animal feedings operations are expected to develop and implement site-specific comprehensive nutrient management plans, while an estimated 15,000 to 20,000 large AFOs and those contributing to water quality impairments will be priorities for regulatory programs and enforcement. A third policy development, separate from the Clean Water Action Plan, is implementation of existing CWA requirements which concern measures to improve the quality of waters that remain pollutant-impaired even after application of traditional pollution controls by industrial and municipal Rpoint sources.S Most of agriculture is classified as a Rnonpoint sourceS and is not subject to CWA controls. These requirements are the ActUs Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program. As states implement the TMDL program, where agricultural sources are identified as responsible for water quality impairments, they may be required to adopt control actions and/or management measures. Determinations of impairments and required actions will be site-specific and variable. However, there is controversy over whether nonpoint sources of pollution (diffuse runoff that does not come from a pipe, ditch, or similar conveyance) are lawfully covered by the TMDL program. If only point sources are covered, impacts on agriculture would be considerably fewer. Regulatory changes proposed in 1999 to strengthen the TMDL program were widely criticized by agriculture and forestry groups, other industry groups, states and localities, and environmental groups. Final changes, issued in July 2000, dropped provisions that could have directly affected some in agriculture and forestry, but the new rules remain controversial. This report provides background on the Clean Water Action Plan, the Unified National AFO Strategy, and implementation of the TMDL provisions of the Clean Water Act. It includes a glossary of terms and a chronology of key dates and deadlines related to the initiatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In August 1999, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed regulations to clarify and strengthen the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 303(d) requires states to identify surface waters for which wastewater discharge limits are not stringent enough to achieve state-established water quality standards, even after application of required pollution controls. For each of these waterbodies, states are required to set a total maximum daily load of pollutants at a level that ensures that applicable water quality standards can be attamed and maintained and to allocate further required pollutant reductions among sources. EPA is required to take these actions if a state fails to do so. EPA's 1999 proposal was intended to invigorate a program which had languished before a number of lawsuit were brought over EPA's and states' failure to implement section 303(d). The proposed TMDL changes have been widely criticized, and EPA has attempted to explain, clarify, and defend many individual aspects of the proposal. The proposal has few strong supporters, and a number of groups and individuals have urged EPA to withdraw it and start over, yet EPA has indicated that it plans to issue final rules this summer. Recently, EPA has attempted to signal flexibility on some points that have been most contentious. In an April 5 letter to key congressional leaders and a May I Joint Announcement with USDA, EPA announced additional changes intended to address specific criticisms. Through this somewhat unusual procedure of signaling changes to a not-yet-final regulation, EPA is trying to defuse much of the recent criticism. This report discusses the nine parts of the rule that EPA has said it expects to modify. Three of them relate to identification or listing of impaired waters; three relate to TMDL development; one concerns a public petition process; one concerns offsets for new or expanded discharges; and one concerns forestry. While the proposed revisions address some areas that have been most heavily criticized, most of the revisions are not highly significant to EPA's overall proposal. Some of the announced changes are themselves being criticized. Further, so far EPA has not addressed other major parts of the proposed rule that also have been controversial, such as requiring TMDL implementation plans and the form and timing of such plans. Major questions also remain unanswered about what criteria EPA will use to approve state lists of impaired waters, TMDLs developed by states, or measures that states expect will demonstrate progress towards attaining water quality standards. Thus, since ''the devil is in the details,'' affected interest groups and individuals are sure to closely examine EPA's final revisions, when they are published. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]