Bitterness between livestock producers and neighbors is a fact of life
in rural Iowa. That's because state law puts few restrictions on where
animal-feeding operations can be located, even prohibiting county
zoning of the industry. Homeowners are stuck with the stench and health
concerns. When a big confinement is proposed near a tourist attraction,
the only recourse is public protest.
Legislators are considering
a bill to address some of these problems, and they should pass it,
while realizing more needs to be done.
Although major farm
groups oppose the legislation, there is little reason to believe it
would create significant hardship in most instances. Iowa has been a
top hog-producing state for more than a century, and this important
industry has flourished in recent years.
House Study Bill 267 simply better balances everyone's interests.
Changes proposed include:
-
Increasing the separation distance between new and expanding livestock
operations and homes, schools, churches and tourist attractions.
Currently, facilities with fewer than 500 animal units - the equivalent
of 1,250 hogs - can be built as close as producers choose. The bill
would establish a separation distance of at least a quarter mile.
Larger
facilities would have to be located a half mile to a mile away,
depending on their size. The greater distances should help reduce odor
objections and the number of manure spills that reach streams.
Farmers
could gain an exception to the new distance requirements if they pass
an odor assessment by Iowa State University. That could mean a lot of
exceptions; how well this works would have to be monitored.
An
attorney for the Iowa Pork Producers Association, Eldon McAfee, called
the bill "very onerous" and disagrees there is an odor problem, based
on a study the state conducted. Iowa Farm Bureau representatives say
mapping they've done shows livestock-industry growth would be
prohibited in much of the state.
There is no doubt the Iowa
Department of Natural Resources would need more staff to administer and
enforce the bill's requirements.
- Providing protection for the
first time to cities designated as "Great Places," cities with a
comprehensive-growth plan and tourism destinations that are a "high
quality water resource," such as the Iowa Great Lakes. They would have
a 2-mile buffer, which might not be enough. Other tourist destinations
would have a 1-mile separation.
In these cases, no exception
would be made for minimum separation distances. That may restrict
growth of the livestock industry in some places, such as Dickinson
County, but it also will safeguard pristine natural resources and major
sources of tourism dollars.
- Requiring that manure be injected into crop fields, or incorporated into the soil right away, rather than spread on top.
That should reduce contamination of Iowa waterways by runoff, particularly from frozen ground.
The
bill fails, however, to deal with some important issues. It does not
give counties authority to zone for the livestock industry - despite
Gov. Chet Culver's support for this during his campaign. It does call
for a study of the master matrix, which counties use to help evaluate
proposed livestock sites. The state still would have the final say
about issuing permits.
State Rep. Mark Kuhn, a Charles City
Democrat sponsoring the bill, acknowledged "local control is the best
form of democracy ... but there are just not enough votes to pass it
right now."
Meanwhile, House Study Bill 267 would be a good step
forward for environmental protection in Iowa. Constituents have urged
legislators to make significant change, and they should listen.
