Time for new look at CAFO issue (3/23/09)

The CAFO debate has gone on so long in Jay County that it's hard to think of anything new to say about it.

By rough reckoning, the issue goes back 10 to 15 years.

The newspaper weighed in early on. Concerned about the rapid growth of confined animal feeding operations, an editorial proposed a moratorium until proper controls could be put in place.

For some reason, that opinion was voiced during Jay County Fair week. You can imagine the reaction from the farm community; the 4-H livestock auction was particularly memorable for the glares of hostility. There's nothing quite like being a pariah in your hometown.

Over the past decade or so, there have been dozens, maybe scores, of meetings as county planning officials tried to figure out how to balance concerns about the environment and the rights of adjoining property owners with the rights of farmers trying to make a living.

For a while, it seemed there was a ping-pong game between the county and the state, with each side bouncing the tough questions back to the other.

In the end, the zoning regulations were drafted in a way that shifts most of the onus onto IDEM. If the state says it meets their standards, local zoning folks aren't going to put up much of an argument.

That happened, in part, because the agricultural interests and CAFO operators were better organized than those who might oppose them. Opposition tended to be on a NIMBY (not in my back yard) basis, aimed at one particular CAFO proposal or another rather than at any overriding environmental concern.

Ag interests, meanwhile, did an excellent job of making their case.

That case boils down to this argument: Agriculture in the 21st century is significantly different from the 20th and 19th centuries, large-scale operations offer farmers opportunities for more stable incomes, large-scale operations by their very nature will be more closely regulated by the state, and - aside from environmental issues that are handled by regulation - why should things like aesthetics and odor deny someone a right to make a living.

You can accept or reject that argument, but that's pretty much the case that was made.

Working in favor of those making that argument were a couple of things.

For one, most environmental problems relating to livestock have tended to come from small operators, rather than large operators. Large operators are regulated; farmers with small herds are not. Most of the manure spills into creeks have come on farms with small operators and limited resources. One persistent problem in the Wabash watershed has been Amish farmers who let their small herds of livestock graze right up to the edge of streams, ditches, and rivers. The livestock also defecates there, and the runoff is a cause of pollution downstream.

Another was that the state has never developed quantifiable standards for measuring odor as an air pollution problem.

Particulate matter can be easy to measure; odor tends to rely too much on the subjectivity of the senses.

Another factor, reflecting the fact that the agricultural interests were better organized than those who might not want a CAFO in their backyard, was that those involved in writing the regulations tended to be those with a vested financial interest in CAFOs. That continues to this day. - J.R.

Tuesday, are dairy operations different?

[[In-content Ad]]