by David Archer
Whether it’s the flies, the stench or the dropping property values, many Poweshiek County residents want to make it more difficult for farmers to build large livestock facilities near their houses. Regulations for distances between houses and livestock facilities favor the farmers, they say, and they want more control at the county level over who can build what sort of livestock operations in their backyards.
The issue came to a vote on Sept. 18 when the three-member Poweshiek County Board of Supervisors rejected a moratorium that would have halted building Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) in excess of 1,000 animal units for one year. Supervisors Tom Law and Roger Roudabush voted against the moratorium, and Sandy Moffett voted for it.
The moratorium was designed to give the County Board of Health time to collect data about how CAFOs affect public health before any more permanent measures were taken.
Proponents of the moratorium say CAFOs pose a serious public health risk to nearby residents who have to breathe pollutants emitted from the farms. Exacerbated asthma and heart problems are two of the symptoms that people complained of at a public hearing hosted by the County Board of Health in April, according to AnnaBelle Klenk, a member of the Board.
According to the Sept. 22 Grinnell Herald Register, the moratorium’s supporters also say CAFOs are prone to environmental accidents, and that counties should hold more authority over what type of agricultural buildings are erected.
Opponents say the moratorium would have violated Iowa state law, and that the Board of Supervisors was not the proper place to deal with livestock agriculture issues. Moreover, they say regulating the CAFOs would have infringed on the rights of family farmers who don’t want to relinquish control to the county.
Roudabush, a lifelong hog and crop farmer, said he voted against the moratorium because it would have been too restrictive for family farmers in the county.
Homeowners have been at odds with animal confinement owners across the state recently as farms grow larger and pollution from animal confinements more potent. Poweshiek County is only one of several Iowa counties that have tried to settle the conflict at the level of County government.
Sandy Moffett, a former professor at Grinnell College, spearheaded the issue earlier this year when he asked the county Board of Health to assess how CAFOs affect public health.
After holding two public hearings, the Board of Health unanimously approved the moratorium, citing “potential health concerns,” and passed it on to the County Board of Supervisors. Members of the board said they passed the moratorium to buy time for data collection on the county’s public health.
Complications concerning the moratorium’s legality were cited by some as the principle reason for the moratorium’s failure. Several layers of government have claimed jurisdiction over the same issue leading some people to oppose the moratorium on legal grounds alone.
The County Board of Health claims legal jurisdiction over all public health matters in the county. Accordingly, they claim the authority to pass moratoriums, ordinances and regulations as long as they are “not more stringent than state law,” according to Karen Fried, director of the home-health department at Grinnell Regional Medical Center. These measures are typically passed on to the county Board of Supervisors for final approval.
At the same time, Iowa law states that a county “shall not adopt or enforce county legislation regulating” livestock unless “it is authorized by state law.” So even if the Boards of Health, or Supervisors, passed a moratorium concerning livestock agricultural operations the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), a statewide governing body, reserves the ultimate authority on the issue.
Supervisor Tom Law cited the illegality of the moratorium as the primary reason for his dissenting vote. “The code of the state of Iowa states that board of supervisors shall not make rules concerning animal confinement facilities,” Law said.
In an effort to return some authority to counties, the Iowa State Legislature recently approved a “matrix” that allows counties to review building permits before the DNR rules on them. But the “matrix” is toothless in effect because the DNR can still override any objections by the county as long as the permit meets its own standards.
State law requires between 1,000 and 3,000 feet between CAFOs and residences, depending on the size and function of the livestock facility.
Although Poweshiek County is not home to many “factory farms” some supporters of the moratorium fear that without more local control family farmers, and more humane farming in general, will be forced out of the county.
“I do not really believe in raising hogs in these mega-confinements,” said Roudabush. He said he raises his 1,200 hogs in open-front confinement buildings. Roudabush said he might consider a moratorium that was legal and more favorable to family farmers.
Despite the moratorium’s legal tangles, Moffett said it was a “blunt instrument” to begin with. “It was awkward but it was the only way I knew of to buy us some time, because I think there is some real danger” posed by confinement facilities, Moffett said. “Eventually I think the state will give authority back to the counties,” he added.
Meanwhile, the supervisors will follow a Supreme Court case in Worth County, Iowa in which a county board of supervisors is arguing that counties have a constitutional right to pass ordinances concerning livestock facilities.
Worth County supervisors had passed ordinances relating to livestock facilities but a district judge overruled them citing an Iowa law permitting only the state to regulate livestock and agricultural operations.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Worth County supervisors then Poweshiek County’s Boards can pass enforceable ordinances.
Moffett said he plans to survey public opinion about the issue and wait for the Worth County hearing before he raises the issue on the Board again. “I’m certainly not interested in just letting the issue drop. It’s too important an issue in the county and the state to just let it drop,” said Moffett.
Arts | News | Profiles | Opinion | Sports | Archives | About Us