Appropriate Local CAFO regulations
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.
February 4th, 2006 20:14
If it were’nt so serious, Ron Chalfant’s comment would be amusing. What about the difficulty of enticing anyone to move to/remain a resident of Randolph County if it becomes the land of CAFO’s?
February 5th, 2006 04:57
Pila:
A good question. It reminds me of what Marty Lucas recently posted on his site http://www.bigeastern.com/index.htm:
“One thing that seems missing from the debate is a comparison of the economics or residential development v. CAFO construction. People like having a house in the country and upscale homes and upscale homeowners can contribute much to a community — their owners have money to shop, pay for services, property taxes, income taxes. Owners of upscale homes are often relatively well educated, may possess professional skills and even help spur the spirit of volunteerism as well. To determine the true economic and social impact of a CAFO in an area that has potential for residential development, the ‘opportunity cost’ of foregoing future upscale residential development needs to be considered.
Calling CAFOs ‘agriculture’ doesn’t answer the question: corn fields do not pose a major impediment to residential development of area properties. Vinyards or orchards are agriculture that might even attract upscale development. Giant hog barns at least might reduce opportunities for upscale development. So ‘agriculture’ is just a word; what communities should care about is the future impacts of a particular agricultural operation. Rural areas that opt to limit CAFOs and instead cater to residential development may very well fare better economically in the future.”
February 6th, 2006 07:23
Thank you for the reference. I found that blog through yours and have checked it out a couple of times since. Mr. Lucas makes an excellent point.
If memory serves, he recently posted an entry about a CLE instructor being dismissive of rural residents’ complaints about CAFO’s. The instructor said something about the manure smell being the “smell of money.” The question is (if ones puts aside the environmental issues for a moment) whose money, or rather who prospers when CAFO’s proliferate? Working at a CAFO may be marginally better than working in fast food or retail, but the wages are hardly likely to lead to a surge in income for the average Hoosier, nor in a significant increase in the tax base for the small to mid-population counties CAFO’s want to do business in. So, maybe Hormel or the CAFO companies prosper, but what about Hoosiers and our communities?
February 6th, 2006 08:34
Possible mistake in the comment above. It may have been Masson’s blog that contained the post about the CLE instructor’s “smell of money” comment.
February 6th, 2006 10:45
No, I think you were right the first time, Pila. I remember the remark, and checking Marty’s archive, I found it in an entry from December. He went on to say:
“What gives the CAFO owner the right to trash his neighbors’ property, and ruin their quality of life? Perhaps it is the ’smell of money’ for the CAFO owner, but until they start sending me a check adequate to compensate for my loss, then it’s the smell of lost money to me and the rest of the neighborhood. People choose to live in the country so they can breath fresh, sweet air, and drink pure water, and get together for a nice cookout on a fine summer day. Here’s an idea — put your CAFO in the ‘burbs and you can smell the money and shop at Wal-Mart at the same time!”
February 6th, 2006 14:17
Sorry to keep filling up your comments! Thank you for clearing that up. I’m such a lazy blogger! I read other people’s blogs but rarely update my own. Then I can’t remember where I read something but refuse to go searching through blog archives. It is nice to know I didn’t dream up that post–at least not this time.
February 8th, 2006 19:36
Can anyone send me the Ordinance for Marshall Co. concerning CAFOs? I would like to direct Jackson Co. into considering a CAFO Ordinance. We have Wayne Co. and Jefferson Co. is being sent to us.
February 14th, 2006 09:30
Currently, Marshall County does not have an ordinance regarding CAFOs. The only provision in the current statutes is that they be sited 1320 ft. from any residences.
One interesting thing happened at the last meeting regarding the zoning ordinancees. One of the plan commission members mentioned at a previous meeting that he has a small CFO, and it is good for him for CAFOs to proliferate. At the last meeting he cast the deciding vote to exempt CFOs from this proposed zoning regulation. Nobody called him on it, but our attorney was in attendance and taking notes.