Posted on 02/14/2003 9:59:06 AM PST by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Some environmentalists are criticizing Iowa's attempt to develop uniform rules for approving or rejecting large farm operations, saying the rules are too lax compared to those in other states.
The rules — known as the ``master matrix'' — leave the door wide open to businesses that would raise thousands of hogs or millions of chickens under one roof, critics say.
``They don't have to take seriously local concerns,'' said Susan Heathcote, research director for the Iowa Environmental Council. ``The local folks don't have the right to say no.''
The rules, set to take effect March 1, will be used by counties in deciding whether to recommend state approval of new factory farms holding 2,500 head of livestock or more.
Proposed farms must score at least 50 percent to win a recommendation from county officials. That collective score must include at least 25 percent scores in three important areas: water quality, air quality and community impact.
Counties that adopt the system could still oppose a farm if there is local opposition, but if the farm's proposal scores at least 50 percent overall, the state likely will approve it.
The matrix was almost a year in the making. The concept was approved by the Legislature, and the criteria were developed by a committee of environmentalists, farmers and state and local officials.
``There's still a fear that this isn't going to be adequate partly because there's no requirement that producers address the fears most important to the community,'' said Heathcote, a member of the committee.
North Carolina, which trails only Iowa in pork production, has already wrestled with a similar debate. In 1997, over concern of rapid growth of factory farms, North Carolina enacted a moratorium on new construction or farm expansion unless the farms had advanced technology to cut down on odor and pollution.
Other states have taken similar steps to control the industry.
Minnesota law requires costly and time-consuming environmental impact studies from companies that want to build factory farms. Nebraska voters approved a constitutional amendment to ban corporate farming in 1982.
Officials in one Missouri county, upset by a hog manure spill, ordered the company to take its hogs and get out. In South Dakota, counties have adopted zoning requirements that make it nearly impossible for factory farms to move in.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources officials say the matrix gives Iowa counties more power in deciding how and where hog confinements will be built.
``The matrix is a vehicle that actually requires producers to go over and above what the state law is, to go above and beyond legal requirements,'' said Wayne Gieselman, head of the agency's environmental protection division. ``Hopefully, it will address some of the local concerns.''
Curtis Meier, president of the Iowa Pork Producers Association, thinks otherwise.
``I really don't think it is going to make any difference. I don't think the matrix is going to stop anyone,'' he said.
In fact, it will cost farmers more to build under the new rules, something big corporations can absorb more easily than family farmers, said Meier, who raises about 140 sows in southwest Iowa.
Counties with strong local opposition to factory farms are expected to appeal some of the permits issued under the matrix, Gieselman said.
``You're going to have some counties that are really going to have some vocal folks opposed to this kind of agriculture,'' he said.
Still, many of the matrix's strongest critics are saying the system needs to be given a chance.
``It will help, but will it be enough? The only way to know is to give it a try,'' Heathcote said.
Funny how private property works that way.....
Try living near one of these factory hog farms - private property is one thing, spreading a stink miles downwind is another. I have no problems with large-scale farming, but they should adhere to basic conservation rules such as reasonable odor control and manure management to avoid contaminating groundwater - and neighbors have a right to input to make sure that these guidelines are being adhered to.
Funny how private property works that way.....
Oh really? Have you ever heard of the concept of externalities in economics?
If you own property adjacent to an unregulated factory pig farm, the operation of that farm very easily decrease the value of your property. For another example, perhaps you would like someone to open a topless bar next door to your house. You might think I am being far-fetched, but in Houston unless a neighborhood has deed restrictions, your neighbor could do just that.
If someone were to build an apartment complex or residential development housing an equivalent number of people to a factory pig farm, one would be required to build connections to municipal sewage systems or even build a sewage treatment facility to handle waste water. I seriously doubt a large residential development would be allowed to build outhouses in each home owner's back yard.
Actually the problem is that the owners of large scale hog farms are violating the property rights of their neighbors. Their actions are destroying the property values of nearby land.
Perhaps Mr. Okie can help you with that problem.
Cool, stumbling distance home.
The problem with relying upon government to resolve political claims on the use of commons is that it is a power sufficient to control the use of private property. That power to control then becomes political power for sale. Needless to say, the consequences all too often refect that rather corrupt motivational architecture.
Further, the POSITIVE externalities don't even enter into the regulatory equation. The property owner thus ends up facing a single sided system and is unable to weigh competing considerations on an objective basis.
Want an answer that balances competing risks without flushing unalienable property rights down the socialist drain?
Natural Process: That Environmental Laws May Serve the Laws of Nature.
People moving out of the cities want a bucolic haven to live in so they move out to the country and then complain when the things that have been going on in the country for generations continues.
Large-scale factory farms are relatively new. And IMO it's simply not healthy to the animals, to neighbors and to air and water quality to have so many animals in one place.
However, absense of government leads to abuse of smaller property owners. So a balance must be struck, and education of people regarding how to balance governmental and private interests. So easy to say, however, but so hard to accomplish, because, as you say, some wannabe Napoleon invariably steps up to feed his ego on the power latent in the process.
I would largely agree with your statement. The problem is many of these hog operations have refused to deal with their negative externalities without state intervention. State intervention tends to be much less flexible than private contracts.
First of all, I don't think that follows. What I have observed is that larger concerns LOVE socialsim at every level and scale of government because it is they who buy the political favors and possess the economies of scale by which to afford the bureaucratic overhead and benefit from differntial enforcement and I have run the numbers to prove it.
So a balance must be struck, and education of people regarding how to balance governmental and private interests. So easy to say, however, but so hard to accomplish, because, as you say, some wannabe Napoleon invariably steps up to feed his ego on the power latent in the process.
I suggest that you read the book rather than speculate. I think that the system I propose works out a little differently than you might expect: Because every circumstance is individual and unique, the sheer complexity of managing competing uses of each individual property actually favors the smaller landowner. It's too much data and too many decisions for centralized planning, whether corporate or civic, much as it is with an economy although to a greater degree.
I don't own property near a farm anymore. Factory farms are a pretty recent phenomenon. In most cases, it is the factory farm that is the newcomer. Prior to the practice of feeding antibiotics to farm animals, it would have been impossible to sustain because of the risk of infectious diseases killing large numbers of them.
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who buy property next to farms or airports and then complain about noise and or other externalities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.