Farm Sustainability and Animal Feedlot Enforcement Act
Referred to the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.
Congressional Research Service
Official summary
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 10, 1999
Farm Sustainability and Animal Feedlot Enforcement Act - Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to make it unlawful, except in compliance with a permit issued under this Act, to discharge pollutants from concentrated animal feeding operations. Requires permits, at a minimum, to specify the surface water and groundwater monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements necessary to ensure that no discharge of pollutants is occurring from such operations. Provides that permits shall require operation in conformance with: (1) applicable effluent limitations and standards of performance under the Act; and (2) an approved nutrient management plan. Directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to publish guidance on the preparation and implementation of nutrient management plans for concentrated animal feeding operations. Lists minimum required elements of such plans. Provides for submission of plans by operators to the Administrator for approval. Requires revision of guidance at least every five years. Directs the Administrator to revise regulations to ensure that concentrated animal feeding operations employ the best available technology economically achievable or, in the case of new or expanded operations, the best available demonstrated technology necessary to achieve no pollutant discharge. Requires effluent limitations and pretreatment standards for new and existing operations and standards of performance for new operations to, at a minimum and within specified time frames: (1) require that new containment structures and waste application systems be sited and constructed to minimize the risk of pollutant discharges to water; (2) prohibit the use of unlined containment structures or those that pose a significant risk of water pollution; (3) eliminate open-air lagoons for the storage of animal waste; (4) eliminate discharges of pollutants to surface water and groundwater; (5) eliminate the atmospheric deposition of nutrients derived from such operations to water; (6) significantly reduce the liquid content of wastes; and (7) promote technologies and production practices that minimize the need for large-scale storage of animal waste. Sets forth provisions regarding joint liability of owners of animals confined at operations in violation of the Act. Sets forth conditions under which the application of animal waste to land shall be considered to be a discharge of pollutants for purposes of this Act. Requires the Administrator to establish minimum distances from residences and environmentally sensitive locations within which animal waste shall not be applied by aerial spraying. Requires containment structures for animal waste to retain all waste produced by the operation between applications, including runoff that runs through or into any area or structure in which such waste is present. Sets forth requirements for containment systems for wet waste operations. Directs animal owners and operators, before applying waste from an operation on land other than their own, to execute an agreement that includes terms necessary to ensure that the waste is applied in accordance with this Act.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Explore the bill from different angles
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Neutral evidence review
Objective
Analyze H.R.684 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
View full prompt & sources
Fairness and public impact
Progressive lens
Examine H.R.684 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
View full prompt & sources
Institutions and government scope
Conservative lens
Examine H.R.684 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
View full prompt & sources
Individual rights and government power
Liberty lens
Examine H.R.684 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.