http://www.kemplog.com/2006/02/01/federal-epa-trading-fines-on-cafos-for-research/ Life and law in Eastern Indiana Tue, 06 Jan 2009 20:27:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 http://www.kemplog.com/2006/02/01/federal-epa-trading-fines-on-cafos-for-research/#comment-171 Kemplog » Blog Archive » Appropriate Local CAFO regulations Sun, 05 Feb 2006 14:03:12 +0000 http://www.kemplog.com/2006/02/01/federal-epa-trading-fines-on-cafos-for-research/#comment-171 [...] Marshall County is considering passage of changes in its zoning code to address issues related to CAFO’s: A draft of the new language in a proposed amendment discussed Thursday night included requiring an odor control plan to minimize impact on the area, information regarding noise production and hours of operation, traffic generation, a general site plan layout relating to surroundings, local water quality assurance and data showing roads are designed in that area to handle traffic from the operation. Link (South Bend Tribune)But those opposed to the opening of an 8,000 head pig farm in Marshall County complain that the proposed regulations are meaningless because they contain no specific standards.  Those opposed to local regulations are unhappy with the proposed regulation because they doubt that local officials have sufficient knowledge to determine the issues involved.  Plus, they point out, IDEM is already regulating CAFO’s: Plan Commission members then questioned why they should not rely upon IDEM, and asked if Ralph Booker, county plan director and zoning administrator, would then need to become an expert in all matters relating to confined animal feeding operations because Booker is an inspector for Marshall County.Farmer Dennis Thornton referred to the public hearing held a week prior to Thursday’s. He reminded everyone that IDEM has 14 inspectors overseeing some 2,200 large animal feeding operations statewide.Of course, this position makes me wonder what Tom Easterly, IDEM’s commissioner, meant when he told pig farmers earlier this week that IDEM was suspending enforcement of confined feeding operation permits until the feds clear up issues surrounding the rules, which is not set to occur until the research project is wrapped up, about three years from now. What he actually meant by that comment still needs clarification. If IDEM is truly going to step aside from its enforcement role on CAFO’s, the reliance by local officials on IDEM is questionable: Officials in Randolph County have decided not to adopt any local zoning ordinances to regulate the feeding operations. “We’re just going to let the state take care of it,” said Randolph County Commissioner Ron Chalfant, a farmer. “A number of farmers said they were just overburdened now with state regulations. If the county adds to those, it makes it difficult to entice livestock entities.” Link (Indiana Ag Connection)Even when IDEM is enforcing the state’s environmental laws, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness, as noted by Tom Neltner of the Indiana.Sierra Club: Based on this analysis, it is clear that IDEM fell far short of its claims. Instead of resolving 90 cases that were more than two years old, the new administration resolved only 27 cases, including one case “resolved” by a dismissal without explanation. Instead of resolving 90 cases between March 1, 2005, and June 6, 2005, only 66 cases were resolved and 8 of these cases were “resolved” when IDEM unilaterally dismissed the enforcement action.Link. [...] [...] Marshall County is considering passage of changes in its zoning code to address issues related to CAFO’s: A draft of the new language in a proposed amendment discussed Thursday night included requiring an odor control plan to minimize impact on the area, information regarding noise production and hours of operation, traffic generation, a general site plan layout relating to surroundings, local water quality assurance and data showing roads are designed in that area to handle traffic from the operation. Link (South Bend Tribune)But those opposed to the opening of an 8,000 head pig farm in Marshall County complain that the proposed regulations are meaningless because they contain no specific standards.  Those opposed to local regulations are unhappy with the proposed regulation because they doubt that local officials have sufficient knowledge to determine the issues involved.  Plus, they point out, IDEM is already regulating CAFO’s: Plan Commission members then questioned why they should not rely upon IDEM, and asked if Ralph Booker, county plan director and zoning administrator, would then need to become an expert in all matters relating to confined animal feeding operations because Booker is an inspector for Marshall County.Farmer Dennis Thornton referred to the public hearing held a week prior to Thursday’s. He reminded everyone that IDEM has 14 inspectors overseeing some 2,200 large animal feeding operations statewide.Of course, this position makes me wonder what Tom Easterly, IDEM’s commissioner, meant when he told pig farmers earlier this week that IDEM was suspending enforcement of confined feeding operation permits until the feds clear up issues surrounding the rules, which is not set to occur until the research project is wrapped up, about three years from now. What he actually meant by that comment still needs clarification. If IDEM is truly going to step aside from its enforcement role on CAFO’s, the reliance by local officials on IDEM is questionable: Officials in Randolph County have decided not to adopt any local zoning ordinances to regulate the feeding operations. “We’re just going to let the state take care of it,” said Randolph County Commissioner Ron Chalfant, a farmer. “A number of farmers said they were just overburdened now with state regulations. If the county adds to those, it makes it difficult to entice livestock entities.” Link (Indiana Ag Connection)Even when IDEM is enforcing the state’s environmental laws, there are plenty of reasons to question its effectiveness, as noted by Tom Neltner of the Indiana.Sierra Club: Based on this analysis, it is clear that IDEM fell far short of its claims. Instead of resolving 90 cases that were more than two years old, the new administration resolved only 27 cases, including one case “resolved” by a dismissal without explanation. Instead of resolving 90 cases between March 1, 2005, and June 6, 2005, only 66 cases were resolved and 8 of these cases were “resolved” when IDEM unilaterally dismissed the enforcement action.Link. [...]

]]>