On September 6th, 2007 the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) held a hearing entitled, "An Examination of the Potential Human Health, Water Quality, and Other Impacts of the Confined Animal Feeding Operation Industry."

In her opening statement, EPW Chair Barbara Boxer stated that the purpose of the hearing was to present a “clear picture of the significant environmental and health issues that stem from these facilities [Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations CAFOs].” Specifically the hearing focused on current legislative proposals in Congress which would alter the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) by excluding “manure” from its definition of hazardous substances. The proposals also would eliminate provisions that ensure CAFOs polluters pay to cleanup up their mess.

Essentially the factory farm industry is lobbying hard to amend the Farm Bill, to exempt all the wastes and air emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from the protections of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund") and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Laws (EPCRA). The Network sent out an alert earlier this month on this issue.

States currently can use section 107 of CERCLA to recover expenses paid out when responding to and fixing damage to its natural resources caused by Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). All bodies of water, including rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, even personal wells are susceptible to contamination from the release of large amounts of manure and other hazardous substances. Large-scale livestock and poultry operations are often major sources of water and air pollution. EPA and most states have failed to control their pollution using the Clean Water Act. In 2003, when EPA published its CAFO permitting rules, it said that 29 states had specifically cited livestock and poultry operations as contributing to water quality impairments.

During the hearings, Drew Edmonson, the Oklahoma Attorney General, gave testimony in opposition to the exemptions to CERCLA. Edmonson argued that amending CERCLA to exclude manure would greatly limit the ability of his state and others to respond to environmental problems caused by the release of manure from CAFOs. He went on to site two specific examples of environmental degradation in his own state that resulted from the release of these hazardous substances; Oklahoma’s Illinois River Watershed and Lake Tenkiller. Both of these important natural resources have had their water quality seriously impaired. The elevated levels of phosphorus disrupt the ecosystem by causing algae blooms and pathogenic bacteria that threaten human health.

The American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) not surprisingly argued in favor of the proposed changes to CERCLA. The AFBF argued that CERCLA was intended to address toxic or abandoned waste, not natural byproducts such as manure. They cite recent lawsuits by activists and state and local municipalities as trying to expand CERCLA beyond its intended reach. The AFBF stressed that farmers already face a high amount of regulations and a tough battle to turn a profit.

For more information on the CAFOs issue on Capitol Hill contact Ed Hopkins at Ed.hopkins@sierraclub.org.