|
no easy remedy to this dilemma, but a wise approach would be
<br />to keep local land-use regulations simple enough to be
<br />enforceable yet strict enough to be effective. That balancing act
<br />can be achieved only by asking hard questions from the outset
<br />about what is or is not realistic, and the extent of the
<br />commitment the community and its leaders are willing to make
<br />to address the problem.
<br />
<br /> Agriculture Use Districts
<br />The starting point for zoning provisions dealing with animal
<br />feedlots is where they belong. Most counties with zoning
<br />allocate large portions of their unincorporated area to
<br />agricultural uses. In many states, farming virtually defines what
<br />constitutes a rural area.
<br /> But should CAFOs be allowed wherever agriculture is
<br />allowed? The livestock industry may say yes, but many
<br />neighbors are saying no. One solution offered by consultants
<br />James Duncan and Associates in a sample ordinance prepared in
<br />1996 for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture is to divide
<br />agricultural uses into "limited" agricultural and "general"
<br />agricultural zones. The former is strictly for crop production
<br />and lighter agricultural purposes and allows no livestock
<br />production. The latter includes large-scale agricultural uses and
<br />feed.lan. The advantage is that this gradation allows some
<br />stepping down of the intensity of agricultural uses, whicfi also
<br />allows planners to achieve greater separation of residential and
<br />heavy agricultural us=. The concept is similar to that used in
<br />industrial zoning, where communities often create separate light
<br />and heavy industrial zones.
<br /> This approach also allows planners to identify the areas most
<br />suitable for heavy agricultural uses and least sensitive to the
<br />problems presented by CAFOs. It is probably not desirable to
<br />have districts exclusively devoted to confined feeding uses
<br />because total concentration is ecologically unsound. In view of
<br />the need for scientifically sound distribution of the nutrient
<br />content of animal manure on cropland, it is better to distribute
<br />feedlot uses among large enough acreages of cropland to absorb
<br />the manure generated. While manure can be hauled to other
<br />locations for incorporation into cropland, forcing producers to
<br />transport it very far is probably not wise public policy because of
<br />the added tralefic and the potential for multiplying complaints
<br />about odors.
<br />
<br />Separation sfandczrds
<br />There are three reasons for imposing separation requirements on
<br />feedlots in zoning ordinances: odors, air pollution, and water
<br />pollution. Odors are ofi:en the biggest magnet for criticism of
<br />CAFOs, but air and water pollution deserve equal attention and
<br />may entail more severe long-term consequences.
<br /> Establishing separation distances is one way to allow for odor
<br />dispersion. These should be based on the most common adverse
<br />circumstances, keeping in mind that, while the weather may
<br />change, the facility remains immobile. Odors ixe nor a unitary
<br />nuisan'ce. The odor plumes of various compounds deteriorate at
<br />varying measurable rates over distances, so that some dissipate
<br />within inches of their source and others, such as skunk odors,
<br />may travel for miles. Livestock odors are very complex.
<br />Separation distances should be established to allow a reasonable
<br />diminution of odor plumes under those circumstances most
<br />conducive to their dispersal downwind.
<br /> Many communities are treating the size of the operation as a
<br />variable. There is not a direct correlation between the numbir
<br />of livestock and the intensity of odor, due largely to differences
<br />
<br /> . Chatha:m County, North Carolina, "-.'
<br /> ~.. Setback Requirements for Swine Farmi'-
<br />Animal'WaSte Management S3s~rn "; : .:;.
<br />Design Capacity {SSLW*~.'x 1000_ lbs.)i: Sell=ack Distahce {in feel"}
<br />
<br /> 400-599 . 2,500
<br /> -:~ 600--1;0s0 ;~ .... ~. 3,500
<br /> 7' ' ~2 '5-....
<br /> . 4,500
<br /> .:. 1,081-1,750 2;: , , .... :.:i. :,5 .... ... :--
<br />i ,~ ' >l,750_ . '. ' ' ' ' ~:~'-.5,500,-..
<br /> ]:. . ·
<br />
<br />: ' *Dbm exJiiinfl r~sJdences 1hal
<br /> nut, lng ho~s, child ~'re ~n~, offi~s,
<br />
<br />: ins~i{uli~, ~ern~nt ~ildi~s, o~ place of ~lic osmmbl~; .' . "·
<br />~ ..... · ..~' .:.. '..
<br /> · ~ .... - ,~. ' ..'-:':~:'7~ .... :..~,~..'=--:e~ ': ~ _'~.~ ..... .~.
<br />
<br /> in the management of the operations. Nonetheless, it stands to
<br /> reason that, as a general proposlrlan, Farger operations are likely
<br /> to have greater odor levels, and that increasing separation
<br /> requirements as herd sizes increase is a reasonable regulatory
<br /> response.
<br /> Chatham and Randolph counties in North Carolina take this
<br />approach, but their ordinances address swine farms only. The
<br />Buckingham County, Virginia, ordinance, passed in October
<br />1997, differentiates such distances according to the type of
<br />livestock being raised. While they are not included here, it
<br />should be noted that Buckingham County has definitions for
<br />"intensive" livestock operations specific to the type of livestock
<br />being raised.
<br /> A community that wants to encourage certain best
<br />management practices could provide incentives by decreasing
<br />separation requirements for producers who adopt proven
<br />means of reducing odors, such as covering lagoons or, better
<br />yet, substituting concrete-lined pits for lagoons, using
<br />injection of manure into soil instead of open spraying, and
<br />employing recommended ventilation systems for animal
<br />confinement buildings. However, such incentive-based
<br />standards ought only to be incorporated into the ordinance
<br />after adequate consultation with qualified agrlcultural
<br />engineers to ensure that they will reliably accomplish their
<br />intended purpose.
<br /> Setbacks can also be applied to the spraying of animal waste
<br />on fields. This has no connection to the size of the operation
<br />because there are practical limits to the application of manure
<br />on any specific piece of cropland. Therefore, this should be a
<br />single distance, such as 500 feet from residences, wells used for
<br />human consumption, nursing homes, child care centers, office
<br />buildings, and similar edifices identified in the Chatham
<br />County ordinance.
<br /> Air pollution is a distinctly different problem from odors.
<br />Compounds that may cause concern about air pollution may
<br />not even appear in odor plumes or produce odors at all, and
<br />odor-causing compounds may not be of serious concern with
<br />regard to air. It is also a mistake to confuse the measurement of
<br />individual compounds like hydrogen sulfide with the totality of
<br />odors emanating from confinement facil.ities. Compounds like
<br />ammonia may travel some distances before returning to ground
<br />level in precipitation, contributing to the formation of acid rain.
<br />Because of the traveling capacity of most of the significant air
<br />
<br />
<br />
|