Extension Communications
3614 Administrative Services Building
Ames, Iowa 50011-3614
(515) 294-9915
PLAIN ECONOMIC SENSE
For release after Feb. 8, 1999
Column 367
National Survey Reports State Animal Confinement Policies
By Mark A. Edelman
Extension Public Policy Economist
Iowa State University Extension to Communities
Preliminary results from a national survey of animal confinement policies shows the diversity among states in the approaches they use to regulate confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs).
The survey instrument was designed by a 15-member task force from across the nation. An extension contact in each state was asked to contact university colleagues and state agency staff with appropriate expertise to respond to the survey. The effort is sponsored by the USDA-Cooperative State Research Extension and Education Service (CSREES), Farm Foundation of Chicago and Extension Services in 12 states, including Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Ohio and Wisconsin.
The project is a work in progress containing results from 35 states as of Feb. 2. The summary tally below may under-report incidence of provisions in some states due to non responses for questions judged to be beyond the scope of expertise of the respondents.
The first question of the survey gathered evidence as to the level of controversy regarding CAFOs. Results showed 31 of 35 states indicate CAFOs are controversial in their state, 30 of 35 states indicate increased incidences of conflict and attention in the media, 19 of 35 states indicate legislation was proposed during the past year, 17 of 35 states indicate court action involving confined livestock operations and 13 of 35 states indicate new ordinances or policies passed by local jurisdictions.
Swine, dairy and poultry were the species of livestock identified and ranked first, second, and third in level of controversy by the respondents. Beef and turkeys were ranked the least controversial.
When asked about the level of government involved in CAFO policy administration and enforcement, 33 states said state agencies were involved, 16 states indicated county government was involved, seven states indicated town or township government was involved, five states indicated other (federal) agencies were involved and four states indicated sub-state regional agencies were involved.
Based on these findings, it can be said that state governments in nearly all of the reporting states are involved in policy administration and enforcement, while local governments are involved in about half of the responding states.
When specifically asked whether livestock facility location or site selection requires an approval or permit from any government entity, the responses indicated that 27 of 35 states have state agency approval, 18 of the 35 states have local agency approval, four states indicated no government approval of sites and one state indicated that it has federal approval of CAFO sites.
The tally of responses indicted that CAFO separation/set-back requirements are imposed by state government in 23 of 35 states. For site approval, physical/geological tests are required by state government in 22 of 35 states. Public notices/hearings are required by state government in 20 of 35 states for site approval. State agency site visits are required before site approval by state government in 17 of 35 states.
Responses indicate that manure management plans are required in 26 of 35 states. Nutrient standard or other limits which restrict manure application are imposed in at least 24 states. Eleven responding states require state approval of facility design plans or other criteria for manure management structures. Sixteen of the 35 responding states require groundwater monitoring wells under some circumstances. Ten have specific requirements for controlling flies or insects. Eight states impose odor standards such as the number of objectionable days per year.
Surface discharges from manure systems are legally allowed for some circumstances in 20 states. However, 31 of 35 states indicate penalties are imposed for illegal discharges from manure systems.
Responses from 19 states indicate fees are assessed by state government during the approval process. Six states impose bonding/financial assurance requirements to pay closure or clean up costs. Training programs are required for manure management/applicators in 10 states.
The 35 states represented in the results include Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia from the South; Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon and Washington from the West; Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and South Dakota from the North Central Region; and Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Pennsylvania from the Northeast.
Specific questions and responses by state may be accessed on the world wide web at http//cherokee.agecon.clemson.edu/confine.htm.
Edelman is a professor of economics and an extension public policy specialist at Iowa State University.
ml: isupes
Extension programs are available to all without regard to race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability.