Posted on 01/29/2005 5:29:25 PM PST by SJackson
A proposed odor index has Wisconsin Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Board members treading on thin ice regarding livestock-siting regulations they sent to hearings earlier this month.
It's difficult to criticize the comprehensive livestock-siting rules package, which was created after an exhaustive effort by an advisory committee, technical panel, legislators, state agency officials and many others. There's no doubt that the Wisconsin livestock industry has come to the table like never before to try to address the issue.
But there is still a snag in the proposed rules that will most certainly be a problem when the debate picks up steam at public hearings in March. It's the good neighbor component of the odor index - designed to make it easy for well-run, established livestock operations to get approval to expand.
The good neighbor issue surfaced after dairy-group leaders did the math on some current large operations. The odor index would be calculated by the number of animals on the farm, best management practices used and the farm's distance from neighbors.
When plugged into the formula, several existing operations failed the test. In other words, if those farmers were to go to a local government for approval to operate a dairy farm, they would have been turned away because of their current practices.
The idea of good neighbor points surfaced to make it easier for existing operations to meet siting standards. A local government could award up to 50 points on an odor-index test if the farmer had been a good operator and had not been the subject of past complaints by neighbors.
When the livestock-siting legislation was proposed nearly two years ago, state Agriculture Secretary Rod Nilsestuen said the rules were necessary to make livestock siting more predictable for expanding producers and new operations. He said the goal was to remove subjectivity and establish a framework of clear, fact-based standards.
Those goals make sense. Arbitrary good-neighbor points don't fit into that line of objectivity.
As soon as a local government gives extra points to Farmer A, then Farmer B will be after those same points, whether he or she has been a "good neighbor." Once the arbitrary points become part of the equation, the odor index is no longer scientifically defensible.
At a Jan. 12 DATCP Board meeting where the rules were approved to go to hearings, many who spoke on the proposal criticized the good-neighbor points plan. State Rep. Debi Towns, R-Janesville, who is a dairy farmer, expressed her opposition in a letter to the board.
"The mere fact that agency representatives had to invent the good neighbor point system to get some of Wisconsin's best real-life producers to pass the smell test should tell us that we are on squishy ground," she said in the letter. "The fact that a producer's livelihood and millions of dollars of investment could rest on whether or not you host the best summer picnic or whether you get enough points for giving your neighbors peanut brittle at Christmas is at best silly and at worst insulting."
There's no doubt odor is an important component of livestock-siting legislation. Odor undoubtedly is the No. 1 complaint from neighbors of large livestock operations.
But if existing operations that aren't problems can't pass the sniff test, then perhaps the odor index isn't written properly. Rather than hurrying to develop a faulty odor plan to fit into the livestock-siting proposal, perhaps more time should be spent developing an odor index that doesn't need an arbitrary good-neighbor point system.
The idea behind livestock-siting rules was to help local governments make decisions based on facts instead of emotion. The good-neighbor proposal would bring emotion back into the picture.
Local governments need a rule that makes their job easier, not harder. The odor index needs a major overhaul if it is to become part of the livestock-siting legislation that will go into effect next fall.
If you're going to have an odor index (is that a potential 1000 post thread) neighbor points are cleary ripe for corruption. On the other hand for your stink score, who better to ask than your neighbor?
your list?
Hate to tell them the squishy ground that they are on is probably the reason for the odor being talked about.
I wonder how many neighbors complain while they are in their back yards bbqing beef? If farmers keeping selling their land for home tracts and ranchers go out of business where will our food come from?
Good way for the neighbors to make some easy money. "Pay me $1000 or I'll complain about the smell and you lose 50 points". Sure it's extortion.
The supermarket, of course
I don't think I need a sarcasm tag here because SOME people believe this.
Or how about the competition wanting to get rid of you?
Call in a bunch of complaints untill you reduce operations to a level they are happy with.
Similar things happened to the local rendering plant here in Sacramento. The plant has been there for 80 some odd years but now a developer decided to build down wind of the plant. They made the plant put in oder control filters etc.
>>Arbitrary good-neighbor points don't fit into that line of objectivity.<<
This reminds me of developers building homes closer and closer to the airport land until they close it down because of the noise.
Hasn't anyone ever thought about common sense?
Don't build your damn high class rest home next to the 100 year old milk farm because it's out in the in pretty countryside!
City folks need to get slapped upside the head more often. Their brains go stale!
Putting an apartment building next to the railroad tracks is another trick city council members seem to love. That way they can hire 10 more people to handle noise complaints.
We need more grannies in government. They're too hard to fool!
We could have used some on the board that aproved this development.
BTTT
There are established protocols for establishing dilution thresholds by which to set objective specifications for odors on a substance by substance basis. They have a good record.
BTT!!!!!
I haven't seen the purposed chart or the point values assigned to each 'issue'. So it's difficult to comment.
Do I believe in "Good Neighbor Points"?
Yes.
Just remember this. A lousy farmer could 'buy' all the Good Neighbor Points available and still not qualify for a permit if his operation was emitting unacceptable levels of Hydrogen Sulfide and/or Ammonia.
There is more to this story than is being told in the story above. I'll reserve my opinion until I have all the details.
farmfriend, I didn't ever think I'd see the day when I'd say this, but please add me back onto your ping list. I am quite busy and don't always have time to reply or participate in your threads, but I sometimes miss the Ag threads because they don't seem to be very active.
Hugs to you, B4.
Sure I'll add you. I sometimes wish that I had created separate lists instead of just one. Maybe I'll break down and do that one of these days. You know, in my spare time. LOL!
two lists would be a great idea when you can find time to do it.
When I asked to be removed from your list it was because you had so many pings it was filling my ping box when I was far too busy to read them all, and it made it difficult to follow the things I was deeply involved with at that time.
Thanks for adding me back in. If it gets too busy I'll have to ask to be removed again.
It's not as high volume as the immagration list but still very high volume. Happy to add and remove as needed.
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.