Iowans, please contact legislators on bad CAFO pollution bill

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Feb 10, 2010 at 07:22:32 AM PST

[Department of Natural Resources] has proposed rules that would require existing facilities need to have at least 100 days of storage, in order to qualify for an emergency exemption for winter application because of full storage structures.  But HF 2324 exempts confinement feeding operations constructed before July 1, 2009 from this rule.  Specifically the bill states:

"A confinement feeding operation constructed before July 1, 2009, and not expanded after that date is not required to construct or expand a manure storage structure to comply with this section."  

Lack of adequate manure storage during winter months is a major cause of water pollution in Iowa.  Without adequate storage, farmers apply the manure to frozen or snow-covered farm fields, risking run-off into nearby streams at the first thaw or rain.

More details and contact information are after the jump.

Subsidies vs Price Floors in Farm Bill History

by: Brad Wilson

Sat Jan 02, 2010 at 18:39:51 PM PST

Some Brief History of Subsidy Politics

The policies in the gray box (price floors etc.) came out of the New Deal, Roosevelt, evolving through several farm bills and the Steagall Amendment 1941 (banking committee) for farm parity as an economic stimulus (like we need today, instead of losing money on farm exports and driving down world prices, hurting wealth and jobs creation in farm areas including LDCs).

Prior to Roosevelt, for decades farm prices were usually low with many "panics." Coming from Hoover into Roosevelt in the Depression, my family saw 7¢ corn and lost the farm.  During the 1980s farm crisis my mother recalled this time (young teen then):  " My Uncle Clyde wasn't able to get my dad a job in the creamery or anywhere else.  This was the summer of 1932,  and the depression got even worse.  We couldn't pay the rent, so in the fall we had to move up to Aunt Alice's and move into their upstairs!  I felt terrible that we had to move in with relatives.  Now I realize how my folks must have felt!  The most humiliating thing of all was that my mother had to get Stewart to drive her over to Uncle Bill's and ask to borrow some money!  I imagine he said, 'I told you so!'"  

New Deal policies take it through Truman, with no commodity subsidies except a few on cotton in the early 30s.  We had 100% of parity in agriculture overall 1942-52.  Program costs in one estimate were about $13 million in the black, meaning that the government made money on the program through interest on price floor loans.  So with price floors and effective supply management, and with international implementation as advocated by the Africa Group at WTO (and by EU in the 80s) it can work.  So no subsidies were really needed.

Under Eisenhower price floors were lowered, however, lowering market prices, as the NFO rose up to oppose the drops.  Price floors were lowered further decade by decade (Under Republican and Democratic Presidents, but pushed more by Republicans in congress for big business) until they were ended (dropped to zero) in 1996.  One exception was the price spike during the 70s caused by the secret Russian grain deal ("The Great American Grain Robbery").  

Introducing Subsidies

But in the mean time, subsidies were added to quiet down angry farmers. Subsidies compensated for farmer losses (which is rarely mentioned in most recent subsidy discussions).  

Subsidy compensations were part of Nixon/Butz policy.  With the 70s price spike costs raced upward.  Farmers won a rise in price supports (Carter) to address skyrocketing costs, but not back up to parity and not enough to prevent the 80s farm crisis.  The rise of the devastating crisis, in hindsight, occurred under the better farm bill than we've seen since.

Reagan greatly increased subsidies, but lowered price floors even more.  Farmers got more from the government for a lowering of farm income.  Bush senior continued this.

Clinton slightly raised the price floor, and vetoed Freedom to Farm once before signing it in the Gingrich era.  FtoF called for new "decoupled" (Direct Payment) subsidies for a few years, declining and ending for a free market (Hooverism/think 7¢ corn).  This was quickly seen as a way to destroy farming, and bankers joined farmers to win 4 emergency farm bills which added a second kind of (counter cyclical) subsidy.  I think LDP (3rd kind) was an administrative option that Clinton implemented to address the crisis.  So farmers ended with another big increase in subsidies and a total reduction in farm income, since market prices with no price floors, fell even more.  This was massive dumping on LDC farmers, not caused by subsidies, but by zero price floors/supply management.  So CAFOs and processors got the hidden benefits.

Another trend here is that many farm state Democrats continued to advocate for New Deal style programs over the decades of decline.  During the 1980s when farmers were again activated in a large number of groups such a farm bill was formulated and won quite a few votes in congress.  It was known variously as the Farm Policy Reform Act, The Save the Family Farm Act, and the Harkin-Gephardt Farm Bill (Harkin in Senate, Gephardt in House, both Democrats).  Today it continues as the National Family Farm Coalition's "Food from Family Farms Act."  The main groups supporting this bill or similar concepts include the National Family Farm Coalition and its members, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Food and Water Watch, the American Corn Growers Association (not the National Corn Growers Association), the American Agriculture Movement, and the National Farmers Organization.  

In 2002 when Tom Harkin became chairman of the Senate Ag Committee he switched sides.  He stopped advocating for price floors and supported a greened up version of the worst Republican Farm Bill since Hoover, a green Freedom to Farm.  That goes for 2002 and 2008 farm bills.  In 1996, however, Harkin and the other Democrats (ie. Gephardt, Daschle, Wellstone) totally rejected this kind of a farm bill.  But all of them followed Harkin in a Green Freedom to Farm.

During the 1980s mainline churches also supported this kind of farm bill.  Today they support some version of a Greened up version of the Republican Freedom to Farm, as do most other progressive groups including the food movement, environmental movement and sustainable agriculture movement.

Sustainable and Organic farmers are a special case.  During the 1990s in trying to stop Freedom to Farm, the family farm movement worked hard to bring in sustainable and organic farm coalitions (SAWGs, NCSA, SAC) but failed and they have consistently supported some version of Green Freedom to Farm (big subsidies, no price floors or supply management).  Their policies provide or would continue multibillion dollar below cost gains for CAFOs and even bigger gains for Cargill (beyond billion in CAFO gains) and ADM.  Sustainable/organic folks have won greener subsidies like organic EQIP and CSP, but at those costs.  Likewise, when Michael Pollan, in Food Inc. and Fresh, speaks of cheap junk foods, Green Freedom to Farm Policies, with no price floors, do not raise the prices on corn, etc.  So when Pollan speaks of "subsidized corn" it's misleading.  The low/no price floors caused the low prices and the cheaper high fructose cory syrup and corn/soy transfats, as can be seen historically.  The subsidies prevent the destruction of farmers.  The bigger the farm, the bigger the losses to be compensated by subsidies.  Again, this is rarely mentioned when bashing farm subsidies.  Of course there are some economies of scale with larger farms, which changes their need somewhat.

So ending, greening, and/or capping subsidies are not policies that address the biggest CAFO benefits, processor benefits, ethanol benefits, exporter benefits against LDC farmers.  By the way, "family farm" advocates and their friends (ie. La Via Campesina with 200 million members) lost over and over on the price floor issue (without much food/consumer/environmentalist/organic help, and still today without help).  So some of them invested in ethanol to try to raise prices (and end processor below cost gains, dumping on LDC farmers).  So they lose money on corn, but then make it on ethanol, or in 2008, made money on corn but lost in on ethanol.  No where have I seen this understood in the progressive community outside of NFFC related groups.

(Least Developed Countries are 70% rural.  The US  has long had huge export market shares of some commodities, bigger than the middle East in Oil, but our leaders tried to get low world prices, not high world prices with it's clout, (clout of well above 50% export market share for corn and soybeans, for example, or up to +80%, but less each decade).

Subsidies vs Price Floors for the 2008 Farm Bill

Today these issues appear to be almost totally unknown outside of NFFC and its friends.  EWG listed 477 mainstream media articles supporting their position in support of a Green version of the Republican Freedom to Farm Act.  The Kind Flake Amendment and probably all others amount to the same.

Sometimes Republicans support Hooverism instead of what we have had  since 1996, which is Hooverism (free markets and free trade) with subsidy protection for farmers in rich countries.  Low subsidy caps are a way to force large farms out of business or to force them to break up.  It would probably be a kind of land reform, like forcibly running them out of business or making them illegal.  Note that in the 90s we had a $50,000 cap and called for $25,000, while well meaning progressives have recently called $200,000 cap a good step.  But these measures have nothing to do with price floors, and do not solve any of the big problems.  

Cargill and DAM (and to a lesser degree, Tyson and Smithfield) are the huge beneficiaries of all the diversionary talk about subsidies, with no mention of price floors.  What they've bought in Congress is policy that blames farmers and leads to no mention that the policies are designed primarily to benefit them, even at the expense of America losing money on farm exports of the major commodities virtually every year for a quarter century.  If you look at the EWG 477 editorials, you'll probably find hundreds of criticisms of farmers (who are merely partially compensated for losses caused by the lack of price floors) for every criticism of these real beneficiaries.  Not also that Cargill, DAM, (processors and exporters) Tyson and Smithfield (poultry hog CAFOs) and the others (ie. Kelloggs).

You can find footnotes for much of this in my Zspace blog articles, as well as many links to online sources.  I am also one place that explores this movement crisis online.  I've seen NO other place online that writes much on these issues, especially in reference to mainline churches, hunger groups (Bread for the World and Oxfam are among the worst on the Commodity Title issues I raise), sustainable agriculture, and the food movement.  (I link a few things from IATP on myths and APAC's Daryll Ray on some media/etc. misunderstandings, however.)  

Further Reading and Links

From my blog see especially my "foodie" and food movement pieces, such as my comparison of the National Corn Growers Association with so called progressives that supposedly hold radically different views:  http://www.zmag.org/blog/view/...

My "Farm Bill FACTs: Commodity Title: A Family Farm View" briefly goes right down a list of the main things I hear in the food movement and among the other groups I see as similarly missing the real issue, and then proves them wrong with online links:  http://www.zmag.org/blog/view/...

If you look around at (http://www.zmag.org/zspace/bradwilson) you'll see where I have footnoted pieces.

The Iowa "Three Sisters:" Corn, Soybeans, and Hogs

by: Jill Richardson

Sun Oct 11, 2009 at 09:14:21 AM PDT

Welcome to Iowa

If you'd rather watch instead of read, you can view this video of George Naylor describing why GMOs and corporate giants win (thanks to Andrew Kang Bartlett for shooting and sharing the video).

Republican attacks Thicke as "ultra radical"

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Sep 11, 2009 at 02:28:25 AM PDT

Thicke also stated some facts that are rarely acknowledged in Iowa:

"I think that one of the fundamental problems that is being overlooked is that these markets are no longer competitive markets," he said. "Economists tell us that if more than 40 percent of a market is controlled by four or fewer firms that it begins to act like a monopoly rather than a free market. And, in hog markets, about 65 percent is controlled by four firms. In beef it is about 85 percent that is controlled by four firms. In dairy, one corporation processor controls about 40 percent of all the milk processing. The interesting thing is that while dairy farmers are at record loss levels, that corporation, during the last two quarters, has had record profits."

"Some real trust breaking - like Teddy Roosevelt style trust busting" needs to be done, according to Thicke, in order for the agricultural markets to realign.

A huge number of Iowans will welcome Thicke's perspective, but Republican Party of Iowa Executive Director Jeff Boeyink called Thicke an "ultra radical":

"Agriculture is serious business in Iowa, and now is not the time to experiment with the backbone of Iowa's economy," Boeyink said. [...]

Gov. Chet Culver, a fellow Democrat, did not reappoint Thicke to the commissions, prompting Boeyink to say if Thicke was "so far out of the mainstream for even liberal Governor Culver to stomach, then he is certainly too liberal to be entrusted with leading our state's agricultural community."

Incidentally, Culver's decision not to reappoint Thicke to the Environmental Protection Commission had nothing to do with "mainstream" opinion; it was an embarrassing cave to agribusiness.

Thicke responded to Boeyink's name-calling here. Excerpt:

[M]y campaign focuses on increasing the economic and environmental sustainability of Iowa's family farms. Advocating for conserving our soil, water quality, family farms, and rural communities is not radical. To me that fits the definition of a true conservative.

No kidding. Boeyink's probably desperate to change the subject from the September 1 special election in Iowa House district 90, in which Republicans fell short after going all-in with a highly negative campaign.

Thanks to Jill for adding Thicke to the La Vida Locavore ActBlue page.

No more bailouts for factory farms

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Aug 10, 2009 at 18:06:09 PM PDT

In contrast, if your factory farm contributes to excess production of pork, high-level elected officials will ask the federal government to bail you out. I learned from Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement today that last week nine governors, including Iowa's Chet Culver,

requested $50 million of taxpayer money from the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) to buy over-produced pork off the market.  This follows similar requests made by the National Pork Producers Council in early May and Iowa Secretary of Ag Bill Northey in June.

The hog factory industry, though, has received two recent taxpayer-funded bailouts from USDA -- one for $25 million in March 2009 and the other for $50 million in April 2008 -- to buy over-produced pork off the market. [...]

Ag economists have warned for months that the pork industry must stabilize prices by trimming the fat and reducing the herd size.  But the pork industry has ignored basic economic rules and continues to increase supply as demand goes down.  This is the result of continuous government subsidies and bailouts to the factory farm industry.

"Corporate ag receives government subsidies and guaranteed loans that promote the expansion of factory farms on the front end," said CCI member Lori Nelson of Bayard.  "And then, when they produce too much pork, they ask the government -- that's us -- to bail them out with huge amounts of taxpayer dollars. The factory farm industry is a house of cards that would crumble as soon as you take away taxpayers propping them up."

The governors of Nebraska, Colorado, Michigan, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Illinois and Oklahoma joined Culver in signing the appeal for federal aid. According to DTN/The Progressive Farmer, "Representatives from the Iowa and the National Pork Producers Councils, Tyson Fresh Foods, Hormel Foods and Paragon Economics support the letter's three proposals for aid."

I've posted the full text of Iowa CCI's press release after the jump. There's no reason to exempt corporate agriculture from basic laws of supply and demand. Taxpayers already pay too much to subsidize factory hog farms, not to mention the hidden environmental costs of air and water pollution.

ACTION: Help preserve public input on Iowa CAFOs

by: desmoinesdem

Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 12:14:58 PM PDT

The Iowa Environmental Protection Commission (EPC) is considering new rules that would limit public input during the permit approval process for confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Iowa. Up to now, members of the public have been able to speak before the EPC concerning proposed new CAFOs. Under the new rules, only representatives of the entity applying for the permit, the county board of supervisors, and the Department of Natural Resources would be able to speak at EPC hearings on CAFO permits. People and entities that might be affected by downstream or downwind pollution from the proposed CAFO would not be allowed to speak at such hearings.

The public can submit comments on the new rule through this Thursday, August 6.

After the jump I've posted action alerts sent out by 1000 Friends of Iowa and Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. They contain some talking points for public comments and contact information for the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. Iowa CCI also mentions two points worth preserving in the new rule, which industrial agriculture interests are apparently trying to have removed.

Comments must be received by Thursday, so if you are using the regular mail, please send your letter as soon as possible. There are also three DNR public hearings this week in Spencer, Des Moines and Ainsworth (details below).

I've also posted two pieces containing further background information after the jump. These may help you prepare comments to submit to the DNR. Shearon Elderkin discusses a controversial EPC decision last summer, which prompted the rewriting of the rules on the CAFO permit application process. Elderkin served on the EPC from August 2008 through April 2009. She had to step down when Iowa Senate Republicans blocked her confirmation for the position.

The final document you can find below is by Cedar Rapids attorney David Elderkin, Shearon's husband. He covers the legal issues at hand in more detail.

Please take a few minutes to submit a public comment on this issue by Thursday, August 6. Please forward to any friends or relatives in Iowa who might be willing to comment as well.

New limits on winter manure application take effect in Iowa

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Jul 01, 2009 at 11:35:56 AM PDT

You'll be pleased to know that amendments greatly improved Senate File 432 before the final version passed the Iowa House in April. Governor Chet Culver then signed the bill into law, and it takes effect today along with a bunch of other measures approved during the 2009 Iowa legislative session.

On principle I dislike legislative efforts to interfere with DNR rulemaking. However, knowledgeable people tell me that the new law includes tougher restrictions on liquid manure application than the rules that the DNR would have eventually produced. So, this law is on balance good news for water quality in Iowa and downstream from us.

It's important to note that these restrictions apply only to liquid manure, which comes from hogs. Iowa's cattle farmers face no new limits on spreading solid manure over frozen or snow-covered ground. I've been told that cattle farmers turned out in large numbers for the DNR's public hearings on the winter application rules.

Policy wonks can find the full text of Iowa Senate File 432 and bill history here.

Swine Flu and Factory Farms

by: Ellinorianne

Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 21:20:28 PM PDT

Well, David Kirby makes a connection that seems obvious to me, Swine Flu Outbreak -- Nature Biting Back at Industrial Animal Production? but of course it's better to hold judgment until there's evidence, right?

Follow me...

Last day to help end "factory farm bailout"

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Apr 17, 2009 at 08:03:04 AM PDT

Food Democracy Now sent out an action alert on Thursday reminding supporters that comments on making EQIP work for sustainable and organic farmers must be received by the USDA by the close of business on April 17 (today).

You can fax your letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack (202-720-4265) or submit your comments online (Food Democracy Now has instructions on that process).

Click here and scroll down the page for talking points and a sample letter on this issue. However, it's always better to put these things in your own words if possible. I've posted Food Democracy Now's sample letter after the jump. If you are writing your own letter, make sure it goes to the correct address and says this near the top:

Re: Docket Number NRCS- IFR-08005 Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Final Rules

Organic farmer plans to run for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture (updated)

by: desmoinesdem

Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 13:33:54 PM PDT

Francis Thicke, an organic dairy farmer near Fairfield with a Pd.D. in agronomy and soil fertility, announced yesterday that he has formed an Exploratory Committee to consider running for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture. I've posted the press release from Thicke after the jump. One of his top priorities would be expanding local food networks:

"Growing more of our food in Iowa represents a multi-billion dollar economic development opportunity."  This potential economic activity could "create thousands of new jobs and help revitalize rural communities in Iowa, as well as provide Iowans with fresh, nutritious food," said Thicke.

Thicke would be an outstanding asset to Iowa as Secretary of Agriculture. A working farmer and expert on many agricultural policy issues, he currently serves on Iowa's USDA State Technical Committee and has an impressive list of publications. In the past he has served on the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission, the Iowa Food Policy Council, and the Iowa Organic Standards Board.

He has also won awards including "the Activist Award from the Iowa Chapter of the Sierra Club, the Outstanding Pasture Management award from the Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District and the Friend of the Earth award from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition in Washington, D.C."

Here's an interview Thicke gave in 2003 about his organic dairy operation. He also wrote this piece on the benefits of pasture-based dairies for CounterPunch in 2004. I found a YouTube video of Thicke speaking about livestock farming in Pella last year.

Thicke's relationship with the Culver administration is strained, to put it mildly. He did not go quietly when Culver declined to reappoint him to the Environmental Protection Commission. In addition, Thicke is a strong advocate for "local control" of confined-animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge opposes and Culver has not pursued as governor.

If Thicke runs for Secretary of Agriculture, his campaign is likely to become a focal point for environmentalists who aren't satisfied with our current Democratic leadership in Iowa.

UPDATE: Denise O'Brien, founder of the Women Food and Agriculture Network and Democratic candidate for Iowa Secretary of Agriculture in 2006, responded to my request for a comment on Thicke's candidacy:

I have pledged my support to Francis. He has an excellent background to be a strong leader of our state agriculture department. His depth of knowledge of agriculture and natural resource management gives him credibility when it comes to truly understanding the relationship of agriculture to the rest of the world. It is my intention to work hard to get Francis elected.

About that pig odor earmark

by: desmoinesdem

Fri Mar 13, 2009 at 06:30:00 AM PDT

Although I think concerns about earmarks are exaggerated, I do want to examine the origin of Senator Tom Harkin's $1.8 million earmark for studying odors from large hog confinements (CAFOs) in Iowa. It has become the poster child for Republican taunts about useless earmarks, prompting Harkin to defend himself (see here and here).

Jill posted about this earlier in the week, noting that Harkin's earmark is for research on how to reduce the smell and nuisance from CAFOs. I completely agree with her point that CAFOs (not taxpayers) should fund this kind of research.

I wanted to give the La Vida Locavore community more background on the odor study research that the federal government will fund at Iowa State University. I'm sorry to say that I agree with those who say this research is part of a stalling strategy by CAFOs.

Harkin's earmark has its roots in unfortunate decisions that Iowa Democratic leaders made last year--with the enthusiastic support of statehouse Republicans and corporate ag groups. If you care to read more, follow me into the Iowa weeds after the jump.

Bush's parting gifts, part 1

by: desmoinesdem

Tue Nov 11, 2008 at 15:51:44 PM PST

This comes from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition's e-mail newsletter:

EPA Administrator Signs Off on Final CAFO Rule:  Last Friday, as a "Halloween trick" for the environment and public health, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson signed a revised Clean Water Act final regulation for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) permits and effluent limitations.  EPA revised the CAFO regulations in response to legal challenges to a 2003 CAFO final regulation, brought in the case Waterkeeper Alliance Inc. v. EPA by both environmental organizations and the CAFO sector.  

The revision opens a gaping hole in the 2003 regulation by allowing a CAFO, no matter how large, to self-certify that the CAFO does not "intend" to discharge to the waters of the U.S.   EPA ignored the recommendation of the federal Second Circuit Court of Appeals to establish a regulatory presumption that large-scale CAFOs discharge pollutants.  The presumption would have required that a large-scale CAFO demonstrate to regulatory authorities that it is designed and can be operated to avoid all discharges of regulated pollutants.  

EPA also rejected making improvements in technology that reduce harmful bacteria and other pathogens that threaten public health, a problem aggravated by the development of antibiotic resistant pathogens in CAFOs.  The revised rule does include one improvement required in Waterkeeper -- that a CAFO nutrient management plan must be included in a Clean Water Act permit for the CAFO and made available for public review and comment.

EPA is expected publish the revised final regulation in the Federal Register before the end of November. In the meantime, a copy of the unofficial version of the revised regulation is posted on the EPA website. You can also register on the website for a November 19 EPA webcast about the revised CAFO regulation.

SAC will be urging the new Administration to revisit this rulemaking on an expedited basis.

Why am I not surprised that industrial ag profits are a higher priority than the environment and public health?

I hope that the Obama administration will put this on the list of actions to be overturned.  

Corporate ag ally resigns from Iowa environmental commission

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 17:42:20 PM PDT

Sometimes one small step against confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) leads to another.

Over at Iowa Independent, Jason Hancock reports that

A member of the state's Environmental Protection Commission who has been labeled by critics as "pro-factory farms" has stepped down.

Ralph Klemme, a former Republican state representative from LeMars, resigned from the nine-person oversight panel, which is part of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, late last week. He told the Coalition to Support Iowa's Farmers that the commission's "increasing tilt against agriculture" was his main reason to step down.

The commission's recent vote to reject permits for two hog confinements in Dallas County appears to have been a major factor in Klemme's decision.

I was against Klemme's appointment to this commission in 2007 because of his involvement with corporate agriculture groups.

My suspicions were warranted. In a statement welcoming Klemme's resignation, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement recounted his record of looking out for agribusiness instead of the environment:

Klemme voted in May to approve a large hog factory in Greene County that was overwhelmingly opposed by local residents, county officials and local business leaders. He also voted against a common-sense rule that would have limited the amount of manure that factory farm owners could be spread on soybean crops.

Governor Chet Culver should replace Klemme with someone committed to protecting the environment. Otherwise why call it an Environmental Protection Commission?

I am hopeful because several of Culver's appointments to this body have been quite good.

On the other hand, I wouldn't underestimate the clout of corporate agriculture groups that will lobby the governor to replace Klemme with a person who is equally sympathetic to their interests. We saw this summer that agriculture trumped the environment on the task forces associated with the Rebuild Iowa Commission.

Whoever takes Klemme's place on the Environmental Protection Commission, I view his resignation as a healthy sign. The majority of commission members are not willing to look the other way regarding the environmental impacts of CAFOs.

Iowa commission takes one small step against CAFOs

by: desmoinesdem

Tue Aug 19, 2008 at 16:09:14 PM PDT

Iowa's legislature and state agencies have been notorious for doing nothing to address huge pollution problems stemming from confined-animal feeding operations (CAFOs).

But some big news came out of the Iowa Environmental Protection Commission today:

The state Environmental Protection Commission today rejected previously approved permits for two large hog confinements in Dallas County.

The surprise move came after a two-hour meeting in Urbandale at which commissioners said rules drawn up to dictate approval of large-scale confinement permits leave out important environmental considerations and neighbors' quality-of-life concerns.

"There are battle lines being drawn on this, and it creates a political situation that the Legislature cannot ignore," commission chairman Henry Marquard said.

Only a handful of permits have been denied in Iowa, but rarely has one been turned down after it met approval from the Department of Natural Resources and passed a complicated scoring system adopted by counties, including Dallas.

The nine-member commission voted to block these permits on a strong 6-2 vote. I wouldn't be surprised if the matter ends up in court, however.

Noneed4thneed wrote about the controversy over the new Dallas County CAFOs in late July:

The proposed hog confinements would have a total of 7,440 hogs in rural Dallas County, which is the fastest growing county in the state. These confinements will produce as much waste as a town of 30,000 people and it will go untreated.

Earlier this month, Dallas County Supervisors voted against allowing these proposed hog confinements, but in reality there isn't much the local people can do about the hog confinements that will be owned by the out of state company, Cargill.

We need federal legislation to make CAFOs pay for the harm they cause, because our state legislature has shown itself to be unwilling to act to protect air and water quality in Iowa.

But in the absence of federal action, a state law giving counties "local control" (agricultural zoning rights) would at least offer some protection. Some county supervisors would rubber-stamp every proposed CAFO, but others would follow the lead of the Dallas County supervisors.

For all I know, Cargill will sue to reinstate their permits to open these hog confinements. But however this story ends, it's good to see the majority of the Environmental Protection Commission's members doing something to protect the environment.

UPDATE: I learned from the online newsletter of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement that the Iowa Department of Natural Resources recently denied a permit for a different proposed CAFO.

Because of the efforts of CCI members and other local residents, the DNR recently denied a 4,900-head hog factory proposed for southern Appanoose County. The permit application did not meet legal requirements, nor did their master matrix pass muster. Although the applicant for this proposed confinement is a local resident, the 4,900 hogs would have been owned by Cargill. Cargill, one of the largest privately-held corporations in the world, has been behind a number of proposed factory farms around the state, including two proposed 7,440-head hog factories in northwest Dallas County.

Agriculture trumps environment on Iowa flood recovery panel

by: desmoinesdem

Wed Aug 13, 2008 at 17:59:51 PM PDT

I was concerned when Governor Chet Culver put Lieutenant Governor Patty Judge in charge of the Rebuild Iowa Commission and nine task forces to deal with flood recovery. In her previous job as secretary of agriculture, Judge was very close to industrial agricultural interests and did little to promote sustainable agriculture. She is not receptive to environmental and public-health concerns associated with large-scale livestock operations.

Even though Judge has few friends in the environmental community, I kept an open mind about the process, because one of Rebuild Iowa's nine task forces was dedicated to Environmental Quality and Review.