Extension Communications
3614 Administrative Services Building
Ames, Iowa 50011-3614
(515) 294-9915
PLAIN ECONOMIC SENSE
For release after Feb. 15, 1999
Column 368
National Survey Results on State Animal Industry Structure Policies
By Mark A. Edelman
Extension Public Policy Economist
Iowa State University Extension to Communities
Preliminary results from a national survey on how states regulate livestock confinement feeding operations indicate several states have developed policies on providing incentives to promote such operations. Only a few states, however, have focused their policy efforts on prices and marketing of livestock.
The survey questions were a part of a national effort to develop a policy information data base on state confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs). A 15-member task force representing all regions of the nation designed the survey. A 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 for the question responses in some states due to non responses for questions judged to be beyond the scope of expertise of the respondents.
Of the 35 states providing a survey response, five states indicated that they prohibit corporations or other entities from ownership of farmland or animals under confinement. Three states indicated they impose restrictions on packers owning or contracting livestock supplies.
No states indicated laws requiring packers to publicly report contract prices for livestock. No states indicated laws restricting packers from providing price premiums or long-term minimum price contracts for large suppliers of livestock.
Eight respondents indicated their state had specific laws designed to encourage or limit innovative business arrangements for CAFOs such as marketing alliances, closed cooperatives and networking entities.
Thirty-one of the 35 state respondents indicated their state had some form of nuisance suit protection provided for some or all CAFOs. Eleven states indicated that a state or local moratoria have been previously enacted. Ten states indicated that state government authorized local option referendums or preemptions on local authority to regulate CAFOs. Seven states indicated exemptions for CAFOs and/or land applications of manure from local zoning authority.
Six states indicated specific laws regarding "takings" by government or by neighbors. Seven of 35 states provide or require mediation processes in conflicts between CAFOs and others. In regard to environmental compliance incentives and cost sharing programs, 21 states provided their own cost sharing programs to encourage environmental compliance over and above the federal programs. Eight states reported special tax incentives/disincentives for expansion of CAFOs. Four states reported evidence of reductions in property tax assessments by local jurisdictions on residential property in close proximity to CAFOs.
Regarding allocation of the federal Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) funds, 30 states reported allocation of some funds by USDA-Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) defined priority areas, 26 states reported allocation of some funds by NRCS defined statewide resource concerns, 14 states reported allocation of some funds by limiting size of eligible livestock operations and seven states reported other allocation methods.
Survey respondents in 20 states indicated their state had recently initiated a policy research/outreach program designed to facilitate state and local policy decisions.
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.