|
II
<br />
<br />1999
<br />
<br />APRIL 1999
<br />
<br />AMERICAN
<br />PLANNING
<br />ASSOCIATION
<br />
<br />Confining the Impacts of
<br />Confined Animal Feeding
<br />
<br />By Jim Schwab, AICP
<br />
<br />There was a time was when almost all of the animals that
<br />became meat on our tables were "free range." The term
<br />came into use only after confinement came into widespread use
<br />as a means of production for livestock. In the 1950s, the poultry
<br />industry pioneered the use of production contracts for confined
<br />livestock with specifications provided to farmers by such
<br />corporate processors as Tyson, Perdue, and ConAgra. In the last
<br />decade, concentrated animal feeding operations (C.d~Os) have
<br />begun to dominate the swine industry as well, bringing howls of
<br />protest from environmentalists and family farmers. CAFOs are
<br />also common in the dairy industry.
<br /> Zoning News previously examined the impacts of and
<br />community reactions to hog confinement operations ("Hog°
<br />Tied by FeedJots," October 1996). This issue looks more closely
<br />at regulatory approaches that communldes can use to mitigate
<br />those impacts, based on the findings ora new PAS Report,
<br />Planning and Zoning Jgr Concentr.ated Animal Feeding Operations
<br />(No. 482), due out this spring.
<br />
<br />The Power to Zone
<br />In many states, county zoning enabling legislation has exempted
<br />agriculture from zoning regulations. Because definitions of
<br />agriculture in laws enacted in the 1940s and 1950s did not
<br />envision the feedlots of the 1990s, the current' result is a
<br />political stalemate in which critics of CAFOs are trying to
<br />redefine agriculture so a~ to make CAFOs an industrial use,
<br />whereas the livestock industry is resisting local controls.
<br />
<br /> Consequently, the nation's rural communities form a legal
<br />patchwork of varying levels and types of authority. Unlike many
<br />other areas of local zoning authority, county zoning authority
<br />with respect to agriculture is sometimes problematic. State laws
<br />range from dearly g~'anting such authority (for example,
<br />Minnesota) to dearly forbidding county zoning power over
<br />CAi=Os (for example, Iowa).
<br /> Many of the newer state laws and regulations regarding
<br />CAFOs use some of the same distancing requirements to
<br />minimize odors and pollution as many local zoning regulations.
<br />These state requirements do not obviate the value of local
<br />zoning, which deals with where in the community such facilities
<br />should be allowed to locate, and not just with the question of
<br />how far they must set back particular features, such as
<br />confinement buildings and manure storage, from neighboring
<br />uses. These state requirements may establish a desirable base
<br />level for regulation, but they may not address all the concerns
<br />individual communities may have.
<br />
<br />Staff Capacil~/
<br />Communides intent upon using zoning to control the siting of
<br />CAFOs need to a.~css their ability to implement the regulations
<br />they adopt. How much technical capacity do the proposed
<br />regulations require, and who will supply it? If the task cannot be
<br />handled with exlsdng stuff, what outside assistance is available?
<br />What resources are local decision makers willing to commit to
<br />ensure effective implementation?
<br /> CAFOs are likened to big elephants sitting in small front
<br />yards, posing the classic problem of small communities gearing
<br />up their regulatory capabilities to handle a land use much larger
<br />in scope and impact than those they have previously governed.
<br />Moreover, they seldom provide the revenue windfall necessary
<br />to support any large expansion in planning and zoning. There is
<br />
<br /> -r~,.r.,s.....:,...:~.-~ ..... , , :...-.:,. ,:.:,, ,.~ - . . ......... .-.,..r.-.~ ,., -;.,~:. ,,.~ ~. :~ .... ,
<br />
<br /> ~'~¢~3~:~'7.'v.::.., ~':: '"~B~cklngh~ c0un~, ~rginla~' Setback"Req~i~i'~'(i~~:'
<br /> · ~,7':.:'." =~5~:.' ~ ~ .... ~.:~:;~;.~.~*'~;":<.:'7' '~' . ,: "% ~' ~"; ~ ' '5i?~V.-~ L ~ "L:5~i~'~:':~.~K~· ~%5~'~t~. ':~- 3i~:~:~ '~ '~:~:':
<br />
<br />' [,-. ...... '"., ~s,ng ~elhng -, m A~acent - · Pro~'~-~':t: :.-" ~-~.~.- .and DnnBng .'
<br />
<br /> ~,. Poul~s ....,., :,~..-. 3~.,. :,,~,..=,.~ ,, ~ 150 . ,. 150 ..-.. ,1,~,:.~ ,~-,-.1~.
<br /> [ · · '..,,~.,,,..,~.:,:;'.. '. .... ,,.:~ ~ ...... .. ~; ........ , ........ ;'. ,~; .~p~5~2. ;~.'< .,.
<br /> ~.~..,,:. S~ifi~'"/~'::~:-;'~:~': :... " 1,5~'.(/~':~;:.:~}'~:.~ 1,5~ -- 5~ 2~ ':~,;~5:.'.:; 3,~Z-5% ~DV 2~
<br />
<br />~ -- .~..=~..~ ...... ,.,.,~= , ....... , .... ...? .... ,~ ,,..~ ..... , ........... . ........ , ........... , ...... ,_.
<br />
<br /> ~:~;:" ',. ' , . , .... ". ~': _- ·: L'5',': ';~ ;'i- · '"'~. , 'i:,m .
<br /> ~ ,~! ;z.~ · * ~Isting ~llings aM ~mme~a[ estoNishmen~ not ~ ~ the o~rar~, ' ' "- 7': ;' "~`L' .... ' t--- ~, :~. ;:~; - - -
<br /> ~'~" From znco~ral~ ~: plan~ residential ~u~ivisions, r~iden~al~ ~ dis~i~s, mobile home ~r~', public ~ls, ~urches;'~un~
<br /> ' buildings, ~n~.and ~muni~ recr~fl~.~,'~Mic'~,'~Mic springs, and public water inta~. :...' '.:-:: .~":" .':.; <' '.
<br />
<br />f
<br />
<br />
<br />
|