Even when CAFOs legally dispose of animal waste \u2014 usually by spreading it on nearby fields as fertilizer \u2014 the sheer volume of manure can overload local streams and groundwater supplies with nitrates and bacteria, said Adam Voskuil, a Wisconsin-based attorney with the nonprofit Midwest Environmental Advocates. That\u2019s especially problematic in states like Wisconsin, where more than 900,000 residents rely on private wells<\/a> for their drinking water.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere’s a health concern associated with that aggregation of contaminants and its transport into private households,\u201d Voskuil said. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In light of these risks, Polk County \u2014 where Laketown is located \u2014 enacted a one-year moratorium on CAFOs in 2019 to give it time to study the problem and develop a solution. The issue grew more urgent after an Iowa-based company announced plans to build a hog farm<\/a> in nearby Trade Lake, which would house 26,000 pigs and produce 9 million gallons of waste each year. In 2021, Laketown and five other communities formed the Large Livestock Town Partnership to research potential problems with CAFOs and develop a model ordinance that individual towns could adopt to regulate them. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The ordinance requires livestock operations with more than 700 animal units to apply for a permit from the town and pay an application fee. The owner has to share the facility\u2019s plans to prevent the spread of infectious diseases, implement a waste management strategy, contain toxic air pollution and odors, report unusual animal deaths, maintain fire safety, and avoid damaging any nearby water resources, as well as demonstrate that the project will provide a net benefit to the town. The application has to be signed by at least one \u201cqualified and professionally licensed\u201d engineer or geoscientist who has reviewed the proposal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Since Laketown passed its ordinance<\/a> in February and two other towns followed in March, their efforts have faced stiff resistance. On April 13, two dairy lobbying groups wrote a letter<\/a> to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, or DATCP, asking the state to review the ordinances and arguing that the \u201ctowns have clearly ignored current laws, regulations and related review and approval processes.\u201d And late last month, two other dairy associations \u2014 Venture Dairy Cooperative and the Wisconsin Dairy Alliance \u2014 wrote to Laketown directly<\/a>, telling the town clerk that the CAFO ordinance \u201ccontains at least 16 provisions that are preempted by state law and illegal,\u201d including imposing fees and requiring plans for odor prevention.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a statement, DATCP spokesperson Sam Otterson said the department is \u201cgathering information and identifying the issues so that a legal review can determine the scope of Department authority and duty under applicable law and code provisions.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the heart of the conflict is a 2004 law that prevents local governments from enacting stricter regulations for CAFOs than the state standards, which require CAFOs to submit \u201cnutrient management plans\u201d to show how they\u2019ll dispose of their waste, set minimum \u201csetbacks\u201d or distances between these facilities and nearby properties, and establish standards for manure storage. If facilities meet these criteria, towns are required to issue them permits. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Though the law allows exceptions<\/a> if local governments can \u201cclearly show that the requirements are needed to protect public health or safety,\u201d Doerr, who chaired the Large Livestock Town Partnership, said the new ordinances don\u2019t regulate where CAFOs are sited \u2014 only how they operate. Requiring them to have a plan to minimize air pollution, ensure fire safety, and deal with biohazards such as an avian flu outbreak is part of the towns\u2019 police powers and necessary to protect citizens, she and others have argued. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe have attorneys that have looked at [the ordinance],\u201d said Don Anderson, chair of the Eureka town board. \u201cThey helped us formulate it, and are quite confident that it’s within the law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Wisconsin isn\u2019t the only state where local governments are facing off against industry-friendly state regulations for CAFOs. In Missouri, where an industrial hog farm spilled<\/a> more than 300,000 gallons of waste into local streams last spring, a 2019 law bars counties from issuing rules for CAFOs that differ from the state\u2019s policies in any way. Two counties sued to challenge the law<\/a>, which is headed to the state Supreme Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n All 50 states have passed some form of \u201cright-to-farm\u201d laws<\/a>, which protect livestock operations from being sued over \u201cnuisances\u201d like odors or pollution. And within Wisconsin, state officials are fighting to regulate CAFOs even under the scope of their current authority. Late last month, one of the state\u2019s largest dairy farms sued the state<\/a> Department of Natural Resources for denying its request to nearly double in size.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For Doerr and other Laketown residents, legal threats are a consequence of challenging the agricultural industry, which they say is not held accountable for its impact on health and the environment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt’s pretty much our life’s work that we have invested in this farm,\u201d Doerr said. \u201cAnd we really aren’t going to sit here and have them tell us that they’re going to bring in some giant corporations and put a CAFO at the end of our driveway.\u201d <\/p>\n This story was originally published by Grist<\/a> with the headline In Wisconsin, small towns want more regulations for big farms<\/a> on May 3, 2022.<\/p>\n![\"Aerial](\"https:\/\/grist.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/rosendale-dairy-aerial.jpg\")
![\"Lisa](\"https:\/\/grist.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/1200bales-of-hayjune.jpg\")