When Iowa Rep. Mark Kuhn,
D-Charles City, was at the “Smell of Money” livestock forum hosted by
the Globe Gazette and KIMT-TV in January, he predicted that this would
be the year when the Iowa Legislature considers enacting more controls
over livestock confinement operations.
Kuhn — a farmer
himself — last week sponsored a bill that would increase the separation
distances for new confinement buildings from homes, public use
resources, water sources, businesses, schools and churches.
The
law would extend new protections to cities, tourist destinations,
planned housing developments and farrowing operations, according to
coverage of the proposed law by the Globe Gazette’s Des Moines Bureau.
Under
the proposal, confinements could not be built within one mile of a
tourist destination or within two miles of a “high-quality water
resource” such as a tourist destination like Clear Lake.
The
plan would also reduce by half — from 2,500 hogs to 1,250 — the size of
an operation that is required to have a state construction permit.
The
bill passed its first major hurdle Thursday night when the House
Environmental Protection Committee, of which Kuhn is a member, OK’d it
on a party line vote and kept it safe from Friday’s first “funnel”
deadline.
In arguing for the bill, Kuhn said livestock
regulations passed in 2002 have not been effective, pointing to a pile
of statistics, including one that shows the vast majority of livestock
producers are building confinement buildings closer to someone else’s
home than to their own.
“We’re not protecting our air and water and community like we thought we would,” Kuhn said.
As
expected, opposition to the bill is fierce, with most arguing that the
rules would limit livestock growth in the state and prevent some
farmers from starting or expanding livestock operations.
We have
said many times that we agree the livestock industry, especially
including pork, is important to Iowa’s economy. We have said that there
is room in the state for the industry to expand safely.
But that
doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to expand everywhere. And it doesn’t mean
that every farmer has an inalienable right to raise livestock just
because he’s a farmer. We tell other businesses and industries where
they can and can’t locate all the time, based on the environment and
the neighbors. Livestock operations should be treated no differently.
Kuhn’s
bill stops short of giving local governments or local residents veto
power over livestock confinements. He says flat out that he doesn’t
have enough support this year to go that far.
Still, Kuhn’s plan
looks like it would make significant progress in protecting the
environment and protecting neighbors, and we urge the Legislature to
pass it and Gov. Culver to sign it.
The best way to solve
livestock industry problems long-term is through continued research on
ways to minimize the negative impacts of the industry. That means
making sure that farmers aren’t adversely affected by working in the
confinement buildings, making sure the environment isn’t fouled by
either planned or unplanned practices that affect the land, air or
groundwater, and making sure neighbors aren’t unreasonably affected by
nuisance aspects such as odor.
Until those problems can be
solved through new practices or technology, it’s prudent to make sure
the law allows confinement operations to be placed only where they are
appropriate and least likely to hurt the environment or the neighbors.
