Testifying at the Livestock Siting Standards Hearings in March, 2005

Rural Wisconsin needs your help in keeping the country air clean and safe from livestock factory air pollution. Here are some key issues to help you prepare testimony at the public hearings on the Livestock Factory Siting Standards in March, 2005. Click here to find hearing locations and dates.

Proposed Odor/Air Pollution Standards

Livestock factories generate toxic air pollution from
the decomposition of animal waste in large freestall
barns such as these.

Key point:  The Proposed Odor Index is weak, but it’s a good start towards preventing air pollution from livestock factories.

The most significant issue in developing the factory farm siting standards so far has been how the standards should address the odors and air pollution from livestock barns and manure pits at livestock factories.  Odor is typically only a problem with the largest livestock factories in the state, and some agribusiness lobby groups are attempting to weaken or eliminate the rule’s proposed odor standards altogether.  Those groups have claimed that the Proposed Odor Index in the standards over-regulates odors and would stifle livestock factory expansion in Wisconsin. 

However, DATCP has already recognized that the Proposed Odor Index offers more flexibility to livestock operations that the regulatory system in Iowa or the Minnesota “OFFSET” model on which the index is based.  And, MEA commissioned an expert analysis that shows that the Proposed Odor Index may not be effective at controlling odors and in fact, probably underestimates the odors from these operations.  Click here to read a copy of that report and learn for yourself how the Proposed Odor Index may only be a half-measure. 

Even that said, the Proposed Odor Index is a good start towards limiting toxic air pollution from livestock operations in Wisconsin.  Because the Right to Farm law may protect livestock factories from nuisance lawsuits for causing air and odor pollution, the Proposed Odor Index provides the only incentive for livestock factories to actually control their air pollution impacts. 

And, any alternative that weakens the Proposed Odor Index would be as good as doing nothing at all to address the problem.  Wisconsin lags behind neighboring Minnesota and Iowa in controlling odors and air pollution from livestock operations.  Click here to read reports from those states.

Key Point:  “Good neighbor practices” and “reputation of the livestock operation” are irrelevant, not based on science, and reduce livestock factory siting decisions to a popularity contest.

Proponents of the Factory Farm Siting Law stated publicly that the siting standards should be based on science.  We agree, and the law requires that any statewide siting standards should be based on “available scientific information that has been subjected to peer review.”  Wis. Stat. s. 93.90(2)(b)4. 

However, DATCP has proposed to include those requirements to make it easier for a livestock factory to survive scrutiny under the Proposed Odor Index. It works like this:  the livestock factory has too many cows and, according to the Proposed Odor Index, will cause constant air pollution for neighbors.  But, if the livestock factory engages in so-called “good neighbor practices,” such as hosting a picnic for neighbors, then it can still be granted the siting permit despite the air pollution problem that will likely result.  Other members of the livestock industry have suggested that the local government be allowed to consider the “reputation” of the livestock operation. 

Neither the “good neighbor practices” or “reputation” factor meets the law’s requirement that siting standards be based on science.  This is a typical double standard on the part of industry: science is never enough when it is being used to protect air and water, and unnecessary when industry wants to pollute more.  The “good neighbor practices” factor, and any other subjective information, should be eliminated from the siting standards. 

Key point:  DATCP should not allow a livestock factory to obtain “discretionary points” from the local government to meet the Proposed Odor Index and get its siting approval.

Under DATCP’s proposed rules, local governments can also give 30 “discretionary points” to the livestock factory for no reason at all.  The regulations do not create a standard for defining when those discretionary points apply.  There is no requirement that this discretion be based on science, as the law requires.  This discretion will turn the siting approval process into a contentious popularity contest, rather than a reasoned decision-making designed to protect public health.  DATCP should eliminate the “discretionary points” in the final rule as inconsistent with the law and bad public policy.    

Key Point:  The Siting Standards should not allow livestock factories to “bully” neighbors into waiving setback requirements established in the Proposed Odor Index. 

Unfortunately, some Wisconsin residents that have opposed livestock factory expansions have been threatened with retaliatory lawsuits.  In at least one instance, there was an attempt to get someone fired from his job for speaking out against a livestock factory expansion.   

In that light, the problem with the “affiliated residence” provision is obvious: a livestock factory owner could bully you into agreeing to become an affiliated residence so that it can meet the odor index and setback requirements in the proposed rule. This fear is based on past experience of Wisconsin residents.  We are concerned that Wisconsin residents will be bullied into giving up their right to clean air under the proposed rules.  

Standards to Prevent Water Pollution

Irresponsible manure management can have a damaging
effect on Wisconsin's water quality, such as the spreading of
manure on the frozen Yellow River (above).

Key Point:  DATCP should finalize its proposal to require livestock operations and other farmers to apply manure based on the phosphorus needs of the crops.

DATCP is also proposing to require livestock operations and other farmers to apply manure in accordance with an updated nutrient management standard, known as Natural Resources Conservation Standard 590. This revised standard limits the amount of manure that livestock operations can apply on landspreading fields, and the conditions under which they are allowed to spread that manure. 

Manure contains nitrogen and phosphorus, nutrients that are essential for crop growth.  And, if applied properly, in the right amounts, and under the right conditions, manure can be a useful soil conditioner that helps prevent soil erosion, and consequently, water pollution. 

However, manure can also cause devastating water pollution and a threat public health if mismanaged or overapplied on crop fields.  Right now, livestock operations only have to apply manure based on the nitrogen needs of the crops.  Because crops like corn usually need more nitrogen than phosphorus, a livestock operation may end up applying more phosphorus than what crops need.  That phosphorus “binds” to soil particles, and can be carried into surface waters through soil erosion caused by rainfall and snowmelt. 

The phosphorus that helps corn grow is the same phosphorus that causes green, slimy algae to cover lakes and rivers.  And, the more phosphorus that is applied, the more phosphorus will eventually run off crop fields to surface waters connected those fields over time.   This is true even if  a livestock operation prepares a nutrient management plan, if that plan fails to ensure that manure is applied according to the phosphorus needs of the crops. 

If actually implemented, this rule could play a significant role in reducing water pollution from “nonpoint sources” like Wisconsin farm fields.  And, carefully planning the amount of manure that crops need will provide economic benefits for farmers by ensuring that fertilizer is not wasted where it is not needed.  On the whole, this rule helps ensure that manure is an economic and environmental resource for farmers, and not a waste that needs disposal. 

To read a Sheboygan Press article on a recent forum addressing Wisconsin's growing algae problem, click here.