 |
Protect Our
Woods
Working to preserve our rural heritage and quality of life in southern Indiana since 1985 |
Home Site Map Contact Us |
Home News & ALERTS Issues Forum Archives Conservationist's Alternative Klawitter Memorial Downloads Join Us About Us Contact Us Site Map Links |
February 27, 2007: CAFOs in Indiana: Turning up the HeatRecently three "model" agricultural zoning ordinances were created by the Indiana Land Resources Council (ILRC) and posted on the Indiana State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) website. Each of the ordinances takes a different approach to the siting of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The ILRC and ISDA describe the model ordinances as tools that local governments can use "to plan their community's land use," and note that "they will not be required by law." These models would be non-binding but are being established to give local agencies a way to regulate CAFOs. All three models are industry friendly and do little to protect either health or ecosystems. In addition, there was little room for public comment. Protect Our Woods (POW) has commented on these models twice, in the narrow window of opportunity allowed, and we oppose all three models because none of them go far enough. POW commented despite the limited time frame, and our comments included the following: To the Indiana Land Resources Council Regarding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation models None of the model ordinances provide any consideration for the size of the CAFO. For instance, smaller Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations of 500 cows, for example, would receive the same considerations, setbacks, requirements as a much larger CAFO of, say, 8,000 or 10,000 cows. This needs to be tightened considerably. More importantly, none of the model ordinances provide for setbacks from water features, such as off-site wells, waters of the state, county drains, etc. This is of utmost importance. I serve on a steering committe for Patoka River, which is working on ways to decrease the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli) from the Patoka River. Setbacks, riparian strips, consideration of slope, etc. must be features of a good ordinance, not just residential concerns. In addition, none of the model ordinances address design requirements, such as lagoon liners, or operational requirements, such as site maintenance, manure application, disposal of dead animals, etc. Dubois County Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, for instance, generate more manure than can be safely spread within the county. A plan for disposal of manure is a must. Site maintainance is another issue that needs to be addressed. Protecting air and water quality must be hallmarks of any plan. All 3 of the model ordinances grandfather existing CAFOs, and allow for unlimited expansion of existing CAFOs. We need to stop the expansion of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in this state. We need to adopt a model that will prevent the expansion of CAFOs and that will protect the waters of this state. For this reason, I recommend that you work on these models and tighten the requirements to protect the natural resources of Indiana, and then publicize this information in a timely manner so that inidviduals have time to comment. Public hearings in Dubois County, which is # 1 in turkey production, and # 3 in cattle, would be good. These models need significant work to provide guidance to local zoning boards. Even given the compressed comment period, the Indiana State Department of Agriculture and the Indiana Land Resources Council received so many critical and negative comments about the "model" ordinances and short time-line, that they decided that additional clarifications and revisions were necessary, and not to make a final decision on January 31. A "Summary of Comments" from the listening sessions is available here. Comments were grouped according to the nature of the concern related to inadequacies of the process, environmental issues, animal welfare, economic issues, and land use and zoning. Comments based upon ranking included water quality concerns, the necessity of a public hearing for all proposed Confined Feeding Operations (CFOs) and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, the need for increased setbacks from residences and residential districts, protection of a landowner's right to sell property as he/she sees fit, and protection of a citizen's right to sue based upon nuisance. The date for finalizing the rules was moved to Feb. 27, and the public was given only about a week for submitting further comments. Click here for the revised ordinances. POWs second round of comments to the Indiana Land Resources Council Regarding "model" CAFO OrdinancesEven with revision, all of the three CAFO ordinances are unacceptable tools for regulating CAFO’s in this state. The goal of such an ordinance should be to provide for protection of the waters of the state and to insure the health of all Indiana's citizens rather than the goal stated in the executive summary which: "ensures an applicant is successful in capitalizing on a business opportunity". In addition, these models should identify the negative economic consequences of CAFO’s to all the citizens of the state. Clean water, and healthful living conditions for all Indiana residents must supercede an individual’s "right" to make money, which is apparently what these model ordinances are intended to foster.• It is absolutely necessary that setbacks be mandated to protect the waters of this state. None of the model ordinances address the necessity for setbacks from water bodies of all kinds, including rivers, streams, lakes, and wells. This is imperative. In addition, larger operations should also be required to be set back at a greater distance than smaller ones. • Maintenance of facilities must be addressed. None of the three ordinances considered such features as disposal of manure, (a growing problem in many counties who are producing greater quantities than the soil can absorb) disposal of dead animals, liners and maintenance for lagoons. This is absolutely essential as well. • While all three models provide for some amount of residential setback, these are wholly inadequate. Establishing "intensive agricultural zones" is also inadequate, as this is tantamount to destroying large areas of land with no consideration to water quality, air quality, and the possible health problems to the people in a community. Insuring that a few individuals can make money is inconsistent with a long range plan to preserve the quality of life in this state. Because there are already massive and well documented problems with CAFO’s in this state and elsewhere, with the potential for severe threats to the health, to the economy, to our water supply, and to the quality of life of citizens in Indiana, we need to be regulating these potential disasters much more strictly. Please keep me informed of future activities including your final recommendation. Sincerely, Jeanne Melchior, President Protect Our Woods ADDENDUM:The Indiana Senate has looked at several bills as well. Most of these are industry friendly as well. Only one, SB 447 which calls for a three year moratorium on CAFOs, is worth our support. Because the current governor is pushing large animal operations around the state, this is an area we need to stay on top of.Joe Miller, who is fighting CAFO’s in northern Indiana, has compiled a list of resources. We use them here with the author's permission. Reality and extensive research indicate that the industrial Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that are increasingly dominating Indiana and other states are destroying us. While industrial CAFOs may appear to be successful in the short run, such success is illusory, and a function of focusing only on short term profits for owners/investors and short term savings for consumers, while ignoring the larger and longer term costs exacted by such operations. Costs, for example, such as impaired animal, worker, and public health; contaminated water, air, and soil; increased food contamination and decreased quality; diminished property values and quality of life; and lost opportunities to create sustainable food systems and the vibrant farm-community relationships such systems support. The accuracy of the above is well documented, as indicated in the following selected recent presentations and publications: (1) Twelve page testimony of Robert S. Lawrence, M.D., Director of the Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD. Delivered November 16, 2005, to the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C. Attached to the testimony are four pages of recent and high quality references. (2) Presentation: EPA and State Failures to Regulate CAFOs Under Federal Environmental Laws; Outline of Remarks Prepared for the National Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production Meeting on September 11, 2006 by Michele Merkel (3) Environmental Health Impacts of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations: Anticipating Hazards—Searching for Solutions. Environmental Health Perspectives, November, 2006. "A scientific conference and workshop was held March 2004 in Iowa City, Iowa, that brought together environmental scientists from North America and Europe to address major environmental health issues associated with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in large, industrialized livestock production facilities. After one and a half days of plenary sessions, five expert workgroups convened to consider the most relevant research areas, including respiratory health effects, modeling and monitoring of air toxics, water quality issues, influenza pandemics and antibiotic resistance, and community health and socioeconomic issues." (4) Resources: Industrial Animal Production (IAP). Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health - IAP - General Information, IAP - Public Health, IAP - Environment The above research is only a small indication of the extensive documentation of the massive dangers posed by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). This documentation is so voluminous and compelling that formal CAFO moratorium resolutions have been issued by the American Public Health Association, the Michigan State Medical Society, the Canadian Medical Association, and the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, and moratoria have been enacted in several towns, counties, and states. Based upon all of the above and much more, I strongly encourage you in your capacity as members of the Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee to take two actions in your hearings on January 29: Action 1: Please SUPPORT Senate Bill 447, introduced by Senator Allen Paul, which calls for a three-year moratorium on the construction of CAFOs in Indiana. SB 447 will provide the state with time to review all current CAFO practices and statutes to decide if the current direction is sustainable and the direction we want to go. Action 2: Please OPPOSE and REJECT Senate Bill 570, introduced by Senator Robert Jackman, which stipulates that local ordinances regulating confined feeding operations adopted after May 15, 2007, may not exceed the requirements of Indiana control statutes and rules on confined feeding operations. SB 570 is totally undemocratic and unacceptable, and totally preempts the rights of cities and counties to create confined feeding operation ordinances that they judge to be in their best interest. Joseph Miller Ph.D. Department of Psychology 51 Madeleva Saint Mary's College Notre Dame, IN 46556 Protect Our Woods
PO Box 352
Paoli, Indiana 47454
|