|
An alternative (or supplement) is to insist on best management
<br /> practices by conditioning permits on the use of predictably more
<br /> effective technologies. Throe may cost more to the producer, but
<br /> the jurisdiction itself, in enacting the ordinance, must decide what
<br /> premium it places on facilitating the economic viability of large
<br /> feecllots versus the welfare of the community. As a matter of
<br /> effective regulation, it is probably simpler to require up front that
<br /> the CAFO use, for instance, either a covered lagoon or a concrete-
<br /> lined storage pit than to spend time measuring odors while leaving
<br /> the choice of manure stot~age mechanism to the applicant5 Likewise,
<br /> restricting the conditions and seasons for manure application on
<br /> cropland, as well as persuading the operator to use soil
<br /> incorporation methods, like injection rather than spraying, would
<br /> be less taxing on the jurisdiction in terms of time spent on
<br /> enforcement.
<br /> Groundwater contamination is less visible than other
<br /> problems, and thus requires special attention. Whereas odors
<br /> generate complaints quickly, neighbors tend not to notice
<br /> contamination of groundwater until it is too late. Chatham
<br /> County addresses this problem through a provision that
<br /> provides for sampling of all operating wells on swlne farms twice
<br /> a year by the county's environmental health specialists, with the
<br /> samples tested by state-certified laboratories. Only if the farm is
<br /> already required to be tested under some other law, regulation,
<br /> or contract, and copies are provided to the county health"
<br /> department, is the farm otherwise deemed to have met the
<br /> requirement.
<br />
<br /> Moratoriums
<br />Five states (North Carolina, Missouri, Mississippi, Georgia, and
<br />Kentucky) currently have moratoriums in effect on permitting for
<br />CAFOs. Another, in Oklahoma, expired last year with the passage
<br />of new legislation. Communities too may be able to buy time by
<br />putting proposals on hold until they can complete the planning
<br />neces.mry to draft appropriate regulations. However, even in states
<br />where counties and townships have zoning power over feedlots,
<br />they may not have the leg-a~ authority to enact a moratorium. Last
<br />year, the Nebraska legislature declined to enact a measure that
<br />would have allowed communities to enact interim controls over
<br />CAFOs if they did not already have zoning.
<br /> The valid p'urpose of a moratorium is simply to delay new
<br />development for a reasonable period of time in order to allow
<br />government the opportunity to review a challenging situation
<br />and draft appropriate regulations. Moratoriums are not a
<br />backhanded way of banning certain kinds of development. They
<br />cannot be used in the absence of some active intent to adopt
<br />more permanent regulations regarding the object of the
<br />moratorium or interim controls. It would also be wise before a
<br />community enacts a moratorium on CAFOs to check state
<br />statutes and case law regarding county and municipal authority
<br />to use such devices.
<br />
<br /> Sub~pfion~ ~c a~Jlablc ~or $5~ (U~.) and S75 (fo~ign). Fnnk S. So. ~tive Dir~on
<br /> ~lliam ~ ~e~, Dir~or
<br />~.ingN~ ~ p~ at ~ Jim ~ ~ M~ DatUm ~mm S~n ~n~
<br /> B~ ~n, J~me ~ Fay ~lni~ ~jay J~, M~ ~ M~ Mot~.
<br />
<br />~p~ght O1999 by~ed~ Pl~ning ~atlon, 122 S. Mi~i~n A~., Suhe
<br />~i~go, IL ~3. ~e ~erimn Planning ~iafion al~ hu o~c~ ~t 1776 M~m
<br />
<br />~1 ~n ~ No ~ of~h publimfion may ~ ~u~ or ut~ in ~y
<br />m~. d~mnlc or m~, induing pho~p~ng, ~ng, or ~ any info.at,on
<br />~d r=d~ ~, ~ou~ ~ion in ~fing ~m ~e ~mn P~ning ~a~lon.
<br />Prin~ on r~ p*~r, including 5~70% te~cled
<br />and 10~ ~s~nsumet ~te.
<br />
<br />4
<br />
<br />/ O-2_
<br />
<br />Lagoon Closure
<br />One final issue regarding regulation of CAFOs needs attention.
<br />The appropriate closure of manure storage facilities should
<br />generate interest from planners because of its potential negative
<br />impact on future land uses. The biggest potential problem
<br />involves lagoons, but other storage facilities should not escape
<br />notice. Allowing them to become rural brownfields is too high a
<br />price to pay for whatever economic development CAFOs may
<br />bring. It is already a prevalent problem in states like North
<br />Carolina, where the costs of publicly funded cleanup are
<br />mounting year by year. It mounts to compromising the not-so-
<br />distant future for the sake ora questionable present gain. In
<br />view of the trend toward contract production, the potential for
<br />bankrupt or financially strapped farmers to walk away from
<br />their problems is a serious threat to the environment of
<br />hundreds of rural communities. However, performance
<br />guarantees can be made a part of the permitting process through
<br />the use of any of several financial assurance mechanisms,
<br />including surety bonds, insurance, and self-insurance.
<br />
<br />Call for Information
<br />The Planning Advisory Service is looking for examples of
<br />new zoning and land-use definitions of emerglng land uses
<br />and concepts. Examples include: infill development, urban
<br />growth boundary, extended stay hotel, and power center.
<br />A compendium of these new definitions will appear in an
<br />upcoming issue of Zoning New;. Please respond to
<br />Michael Davidson, Research Assoclate, APA; 312-786-
<br />6352; fax: 312-431-9985; e-mail:
<br />mdavidson@plannlng.org.
<br />
<br />ZONING NEWS' BRIEFS
<br />
<br /> Right-to-Farm Laws in Jeopardy
<br />In February, ilar U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a landmark
<br />decision issued in September 1998 by the Iowa Supreme Court, .
<br />which invalidated that state's "right-to-farm" law granting
<br />exemption from nuisance suits by neighbors for farmers organized
<br />in agricul .t3tral districts. The law, like those in other states, did not
<br />protect farmers from suits regarding violation of state or federal
<br />environmental laws or from acts of negligence.
<br /> The case arose out ora challenge by neighbors of a 960-acre
<br />district approved by the Kossuth Count3' board of supervisors
<br />following application by a group of farm owners. The suit
<br />sought declaratory judgment to find the law unconstitutional as
<br />a raking of their private property through an involuntary
<br />easement. The Iowa Supreme Court, noting that it was fully
<br />cognizant of the potential fallout from its decision, agreed with
<br />the neighbors and struck down the state statute in Borman v.-
<br /> Board of Supervisors for Kossuth County, No. 192/96-2276
<br />(filed September 23, t998).
<br /> Because of the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal, challenges may
<br />arise to other right-to-farm laws, which exist in all 50 states.
<br />Newspaper articles in states heavy with confinement operations,
<br />such as North Carolina, have reported concerns among
<br />producers about the status of the protections offered by statutes
<br />in their own states. The case can be found online at
<br />www.judicial.state.ia.us. Jim Schwab, AICP
<br />
<br />
<br />
|