Clara Son, '27

Spring 2025

PDF available with citations and footnotes here

Background of CAFOs

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) are industrial sized, intensive livestock operations that mass slaughter animals such as cows, hogs, and chickens for meat and dairy products (Sierra Club, 2022). There are currently 450,000 animal feeding operations in the US, producing about 90% of America’s meat and eggs (CDC, 2022). Eighteen thousand of these are CAFOs. CAFOs are so expansive that the largest farms house millions of animals, who are typically confined in boxes or stalls within massive, windowless structures. In addition, these animals produce mass amounts of waste. Even the smallest CAFO in America contains enough waste to equal the amount of urine and feces produced by 16,000 humans (Sierra Club, 2022).

This bacteria infested, pollutant waste manure is typically untreated and released into the environment by ineffective and environmentally destructive forms of waste disposal (DiPalma, 2021). For instance, the waste is sprayed onto land in fertilization attempts or dumped into lagoons, emitting greenhouse gas emissions and polluting ground water sources (Wendee, 2013). As award winning science writer Nicole Wendee articulates, CAFO waste not only contains pathogens, heavy metals, and antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but can reach nearby homes and drinking water sources. Waste emissions can cause mucosal irritation and respiratory ailments (Wendee, 2013). 

Unfortunately, these detrimental environmental and health effects most impact impoverished minority groups. In major CAFO states like Wisconsin and North Carolina, CAFOs tend to be concentrated in impoverished, underprivileged Black and Hispanic communities (Duke, 2016). In fact, CAFOs are seven times more common in high-poverty areas and are roughly five times more likely to be found in majority-nonwhite communities (Wing, et. al.). They are located in these areas because lower income communities of color have less resources and political influence to prevent CAFOs from moving into their area (MCE, 2020). 

Holistically, CAFOs mass produce bacteria infested manure that is destructive to both the environment and human health, polluting America’s most marginalized communities. Thus, it becomes imperative to raise the question: How can the existing practices of American CAFOs be reformed to mitigate pollution through legislative solutions? 

History of CAFOs

Historically, the Industrial Revolution and Green Revolution led to the growth of mass food production and animal feeding operations in the mid twentieth century. CAFOs were originally pioneered by the 1950s poultry industry, then gained larger traction with swine and cattle (Montefiore et. al, 2022). Strong financial pressures accelerated the rapid industrialization of these operations, as it was recognized that larger farms meant “lower costs and higher returns, while coordination among firms at different processing stages can reduce financial risk” (Hribar, 2022). When it became evident that vertically integrated industrial farms were most cost efficient, CAFO numbers expanded significantly. 

Moving forward, CAFOs were first recognized and regulated as point sources of pollutants by the EPA in the early 1970s. They were defined as animal feeding operations (AFOs) when over 1000 animal units were confined for over 45 days a year. Additionally, farms that released manure or wastewater into waterways were deemed AFOs by the Environmental Protection Agency (USDA). In 1976, CAFO regulations began to establish the Clean Water Act and its NPDES permit system to determine which operations could be deemed as CAFOs. 

The Role of Politics and Lobbying 

Agricultural pro-CAFO lobbying groups have pushed back on small towns and environmental activists that have tried to regulate CAFOs and their pollutant emissions, preventing CAFO restrictive legislation from becoming fruitful. In 2021, the Center for Food Safety filed a petition to the EPA that advocated for the use of the Clean Air Act to control CAFO methane emissions–a move that was lobbied against by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and thus never went into full effect (Heavican, 2021). In Wisconsin, the Wisconsin Dairy Alliance lobbied on behalf of the nation’s largest CAFOs, claiming that CAFOs are unfairly blamed for pollution. Wisconsin lobbiers had sent threatening letters to the county, causing activists to back down on their CAFO moratoriums, deeming such action as an unlawful felony. Multiple senate bills, such as Senate Bill 133, 391, and 951, have been directed towards putting more control in favor of CAFO friendly law enforcement and politicians, taking that control away from rural advocates. Senate Bill 951 in particular “lists the state and federal agencies which can inspect the grounds or facilities in Missouri used to produce eggs, milk or other dairy products, livestock, or facilities where dogs or other animals are raised - and the only county official in the list is the sheriff” (Haldiman, 2020). It becomes clear that regulating CAFO emissions and urging them to change their pollutant ways has been largely restricted by local politics, the circumventing of legislation, and ultimately, influential lobbyists. 

Existing CAFO Regulations  

Currently, the U.S. EPA’s sole method of regulating CAFOs is the Clean Water Act (CWA), first established in 1976. The CWA essentially defines farms containing more than 1000 animal units as CAFO point sources of pollution and thus subjects them to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations (EPA, 2014). NPDES permits regulate pollutant discharge into waters of the U.S. and dictate how and where waste should be treated. However, a major historical loophole within the CWA is that these operations are not defined as CAFOs if they discharge only during a 25-year, 24 hour storm, or “a precipitation event of 24-hour duration with a four percent probability of occurring in any given year” (EPA, 2014 and Law Insider). Therefore, only about 2500 of the 12,000 qualifying CAFOs in the U.S. are subject to NPDES regulations, since the majority of CAFOs utilize this loophole (EPA, 2022). Additionally, the CWA fails to address the pollutant, nonpoint agricultural runoff and leakage from large CAFO waste lagoons and manure application, as it only focuses on point source pollution. As a result of the Clean Water Act’s loopholes and lack of clear regulatory enforcement, CAFOs remain largely pollutant. In fact, “half of the country’s rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds are classified as “impaired,” and farm pollution is the primary cause” (Held, 2022). 

Next, CAFOs do not face regulations and emission reporting requirements from the Clean Air Act. This is because in the late 1990’s, the EPA recognized there wasn’t enough data to conclude which CAFOs had to report emissions or obtain Clean Air Act permits–after farm groups came under legal fire due to this lack of data, they struck a deal with the EPA that ensured legal immunity for data (Wertz, 2020). Under this 2005 deal, farmers “paid small fines to fund a new study of air emissions at dairy, egg, hog and poultry operations” and in exchange, “got immunity from enforcement actions over past violations of federal air pollution laws,” all while negotiating a ban on EPA lawsuits (Wertz, 2020). Currently, emission models are incomplete and farms are protected legally by the EPA, remaining insulated from any air pollutant regulations. 

Finally, CAFOs are also exempt from EPCRA and CERCLA reporting requirements. Both acts require reports of air emissions from animal waste, and CERCLA can even work to clean waste from manure dumping operations under their superfund program. However, CAFOs are not covered in either acts and have escaped regulations for the past decades (EPA, 2022). 

Recommended Legislative Solutions

Revising and Enforcing Existing Legislation

After completing extensive legislative research, it is evident that to control and cease water pollution, an organized county specific permit system must be enacted in order for new CAFOs to begin operations. Permits must determine whether a potential CAFO can operate or not, and should only be given to farms that have clear and convincing evidence that their operation will abide by the health and safety of neighboring communities. A prime example of this is in Bayfield County, Wisconsin, in which CAFOs can only obtain a permit if they protect the environment, prevent pollution, preserve quality of life, and protect local livestock agricultural operations (Kottwitz, 2022). Additionally, the Bayfield County also “requires CAFO operators to post a bond to ensure that if they shut down, there are funds to repair damages to the land, and protect the surrounding community,” and outlines steps for waste disposal in regards to pollution (Kottwitz, 2022). Another example of an environmentally protective, organized permit system is in Gooding County, Idaho in which a permit application requires “a detailed site plan, description of the waste management system, and a strategy to mitigate odor, dust, and pests” (Kottwitz, 2022). Existing CAFOs should be made subject to mandated permit regulations as well, and fix their practices to abide by them. Technical solutions can be applied to ensure CAFOs reduce pollutant emissions. 

Measuring and controlling toxic air emissions is crucial to protect the health of those living around CAFOs. The EPA must additionally enforce the Clean Air Act by establishing county specific ambient air quality standards for each CAFO and requiring emission reports that monitor and collect data on air pollution in CAFO areas. Specifically, levels of ammonia, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, volatile compounds, and particulate matter should be observed and mitigated, as these air pollutants are linked to 17,900 US agricultural-linked deaths a year, causing health issues like pneumonia and respiratory disease (Regan, 2022). Twelve thousand-four hundred of those deaths are linked to ammonia, which is a major CAFO pollutant (Regan, 2022). CAFOs should be made subject to EPCRA and CERCLA reporting requirements to ensure transparency regarding air pollution emissions, and CERCLA’s superfund can thus be applied to properly dispose of CAFO waste. Adequate emission models must be completed, and technical solutions must be administered to actually cease air pollution. 

Reflexive law

Furthermore, one way to powerfully address CAFO pollution through legislation is the implementation of reflexive law. As the NYU law review states: “reflexive law policies mandate the public disclosure of information, whether in the form of raw data, hazard warnings, or environmental labels,” which can influentially shame polluters and allow consumers, shareholders, and business partners to “exercise their displeasure with polluting industries and their support for more environmentally responsible companies” (Braunig, 2005). Additionally, reflexive law is fast and cheap to implement, and it is a less politically radical approach than other CAFO restrictive laws. Reflexive law enforces legal self-restraint causing polluting CAFO corporations to adopt new methods and correct their environmentally hazardous ways (Teubner, 2006). Overall, reflexive law is a dynamic solution, effective in sparking change and ensuring transparency within CAFOs. 

Implementing Nutrient Management Plans 

One way to regulate and check on CAFO water pollution is the installation of nutrient management plans (NMPs). These plans eliminate these faulty waste disposal methods by setting and enforcing rates of CAFO nutrient standards to maintain environmental cleanliness within CAFOs. 

Authors Bradford et al. in their esteemed NCBI research article explain that an NMP is a design document that “sets rates for waste application to meet the water and nutrient requirements of the selected crops and soil types,” regulating water quality and ensuring that CAFOs don’t pollute water to an unhealthy extent (NCBI, 2008). Clearly, nutrient management plans are important for regulating CAFO water pollution, especially when manure is haphazardly sprayed as fertilizer and leaks into water sources. A California Waterboards report details the specifics of an NMP, stating that an NMP would entail the identification of “protocols for testing manure, litter, and process wastewater for nitrogen and phosphorus annually” and force CAFOs to undergo the evaluation of soil quality at least every five years. This would keep CAFO environments constantly checked for pollutants and ensure that CAFO wastewater and fertilizer is fully treated before release (Waterboards, 2014). 

Nutrient management plans solve the issue of pollutant CAFO manure-to-fertilizer application. Although the nutrient rich manure produced in CAFOs can be used to fertilize cropland, there are many environmental problems that result from the application of it. Nutrients applied above what the crops require for growth can “accumulate in the soil (especially P), denitrify (in the case of N), or wash off fields and then contaminate surface water” (Long et. al, 2018). This mainly occurs because there may not be enough cropland that actually needs the manure as fertilizer, which is why a nutrient overload may ensue. 

It’s evident that CAFO manure is extremely valuable for soil fertilization as it contains essential nitrogen and phosphorus–it simply needs to be applied correctly. In order to correctly use fertilizer from CAFOs, more land in need of fertilization would have to be available and edged by riparian buffers, which NMP’s would ensure. Notably, NMP’s would require CAFOs to assess and apply manure at the appropriate rate as well as properly use or dispose of excess nutrients.  

In the status quo, there is rarely any CAFO evaluation on soil and water qualities, especially in regards to the wastewater they release into the environment. The implementation of an NMP would enforce such action. Nutrient Management Plans are evidently the most effective way to keep CAFO nutrient and water quality in check, and should be implemented and enforced in each individual county CAFO by the EPA.

Government Credits: The US government can financially incentivize CAFO corporations to decrease pollution. Subsidies such as favorable tax treatment, low-interest loans, and grants can be given to CAFO polluters in exchange for them lowering emission rates. They can also take another angle by making it expensive to pollute–using charges, fees, and increased taxes, or a per unit monetary charge on waste and emissions (EPA, 2021).  Pollution taxes, water user fees, wastewater discharge fees, and solid waste disposal fees are more specific examples (EPA, 2021). 

Additionally, with emission reduction credits, polluters can’t exceed a specified rate of emissions and can even earn monetary credits for reducing pollution below the rate (EPA, 2021). Thus, CAFOs are legally pressured and economically incentivized to keep their pollution at low rates. 

Capped allowance systems are another financial incentive to mitigate pollution. These systems give a certain number of pollutant cap allowances to polluters who must then purchase more allowances from firms that have already emitted below cap rates (EPA, 2021). Therefore, the amount of large pollutant CAFOs are balanced out and decreased, as it is costly to continue purchasing allowances. 

Overall, from incentives and credits, the government must certainly play a role in mitigating the pollution CAFOs produce through financial methods. 

Farm System Reform Act: New Jersey Senator Cory Booker reintroduced the Farm System Reform Act in 2021 in an attempt to regulate and limit the influence of the largest CAFOs after the initial act gained little traction in 2019 and 2020. The act places a moratorium on new and expanding large CAFOs and phases out the largest CAFOs by 2040 (Booker, 2021). It holds “corporate integrators responsible for pollution and other harm caused by CAFOs, provides a voluntary buyout for farmers who want to transition out of operating a CAFO” and also restores accurate and transparent meat label requirements (Booker, 2021). Although just a proposal, legislation like the Farm System Reform Act has the potential to change communities for the greener by holding CAFOs to stricter environmental standards, limiting their expansion, and implementing transparency. It’s clear that more must be done, but this act is a major step towards true and meaningful change.