Home | Back

Nothing Left to Support in CAFO Bill

April 24, 2007

By Tom Brown

Governor Daniels, legislators and business interests have turned the CAFO bill, SB431, into an industry bill which centralizes more power in the State. All the protections for local citizens and local control of CAFOs are now gone.

There is precious little left to support in the bill so please ask legislators to oppose the bill and for vote for a moratorium on CAFOs instead.

Rae Schnapp of the Hoosier Enviromental Council (HEC) had this to say to HEC members about the current draft of SB431, the CAFO bill.

"I reviewed this bill over the weekend to try to figure out all the implications. I am not an attorney, but I don't think there is much left in this bill for us to support."

According to Schnapp, the following provisions were removed in the current draft.

The "good character" provision has been watered down as well.

Schnapp is pessimistic about this conference draft bill.

She says, "Overall, I think this has become an industry bill. It is dangerous because it strengthens state control while limiting local power. It allows lawmakers to create the appearance that they are addressing our concerns while maintaining the status quo."

In his analysis, Joe Miller wonders whether St. Joseph County might lose control over its public health policies regarding CAFOs.

"The situation is even worse for St. Joseph County residents. More specifically, if my interpretation of Rae's summary is correct, if this bill is passed in its current form and signed by Daniels, Section 9 would invalidate the St. Joseph County Health Department CAFO Ordinance."

Changes in the bill are happening so fast that citizens are left out of the loop.

Miller warns, "The latest conference version of the bill is NOT online to make a more definitive judgment."

Rae Schnapp is advising HEC members and others to stay in touch with their State Senators and Representatives and push for a CAFO moratorium.

"We may have reached an impasse, but that just reflects the complexity of the issues. It might be an opportunity to reinforce the need for a moratorium. In any case, it is very important to keep letting lawmakers know what we think.

sample email to Senators
sample email to Representatives
summary of SB431 conference bill

Tom Brown is a member of the SJVGreens.

Sample Letter to Senators

(Email addresses for each Senator are included above the salutation in the sample letter provided by Joe Miller. Cut and paste them as needed.)

Conference Comments/Recommendations re SB 431

April 24, 2007

Senator Gard s28@in.gov, Senator Dieg s49@in.gov, Senator Hershman s7@in.gov, Senator Hume s48@in.gov, Senator Paul s27@in.gov

Dear Senators Conferencing on SB 431,

I have recently learned that - as a result of the conference process - all setbacks have been removed, protection for rural residents has been dramatically diminished, the good character provision has been diluted, and a provision has been included (Section 9) that stipulates that a political subdivision ONLY has authority over land use and zoning, etc.

Regarding Section 9, it's unclear to me if the Section would prohibit a county council and county health department from creating and passing its own CAFO ordinance, and regulating CAFOs under health regulations, because neither county councils or county health departments seem to be defined as political subdivisions in Section 1. Maybe one or both is included in Section 5. There's no way to know since the current conference version of the bill is not online.

The provision (Section 10) eliminating the need for a CAFO operator to obtain a construction permit if they obtain an NPDES permit is also unacceptable.

If everything I've indicated above is correct about the current conference version of SB 431, please OPPOSE the bill, and VOTE instead FOR a MORATORIUM on the approval on any new CAFO applications in Indiana until responsible legislation that protects the health and environment of present and future Indiana residents can be crafted.

Please keep me informed on your position on SB 431.

Sincerely,

(substitute your name)

----

Comments and recommendations:

Dear Senators,

As you conference on SB 431, I urge you to consider the following actions:

Thanks for acting on the above. Please keep me informed on the outcome of your conference proceedings.

Sincerely,

(substitute your name)

Sample Letter To Representatives

(Cut and paste the following addresses as needed in your emails to State Representatives. Sample letter provided by Joe Miller.)

Rep Pflum H56@in.gov, Rep Friend H23@in.gov, Rep Goodin H66@in.gov, Rep Cheatham H69@in.gov, Rep. Niegodski H7@in.gov, Rep. Lehe H15@in.gov, Rep Knollman H55@in.gov, Rep Saunders H54@in.gov

Dear Representatives Conferencing on SB 431,

I have recently learned that - as a result of the conference process - all setbacks have been removed, protection for rural residents has been dramatically diminished, the good character provision has been diluted, and a provision has been included (Section 9) that stipulates that a political subdivision ONLY has authority over land use and zoning, etc.

Regarding Section 9, it's unclear to me if the Section would prohibit a county council and county health department from creating and passing its own CAFO ordinance, and regulating CAFOs under health regulations, because neither county councils or county health departments seem to be defined as political subdivisions in Section 1. Maybe one or both is included in Section 5. There's no way to know since the current conference version of the bill is not online.

The provision (Section 10) eliminating the need for a CAFO operator to obtain a construction permit if they obtain an NPDES permit is also unacceptable.

If everything I've indicated above is correct about the current conference version of SB 431, please OPPOSE the bill, and VOTE instead FOR a MORATORIUM on the approval on any new CAFO applications in Indiana until responsible legislation that protects the health and environment of present and future Indiana residents can be crafted.

Please keep me informed on your position on SB 431.

Sincerely,

(substitute your name)

----

Comments and recommendations:

Dear Representatives,

As you conference on SB 431, I urge you to consider the following actions:

Thanks for acting on the above. Please keep me informed on the outcome of your conference proceedings.

Sincerely,

(substitute your name)

Rae Schnapp's Summary of Senate Bill 431

Section 1. Defines political subdivision to include a regional water, sewage, or solid waste district, a local public improvement bond bank, a public water utility, conservancy district, or redevelopment district.

Section 2 and 3. Defines applicant.

Section 4. Defined modification to includes expansion, but not change in species.

Section 5. Further define political subdivision.

Section 6. Limits the definition of responsible party (to exclude corporate owners.

Section 7 and 8. Relieves IDEM of the duty to have a laboratory division.

Section 9. Limits a political subdivision to authority over land use and zoning only.

Section 10. Eliminates the need for a CAFO to obtain a construction approval if they obtain an NPDES permit.

Section 11. Requires the operator to file a Disclosure Statement in NPDES application (excludes corporate owners).

Section 12. Changes fees. Initial application fee will be $4000. (This can be part of bank financing).

Section 13. Allows the department to suspend processing of an application if the an enforcement action is being pursued. Allows the department to deny an application based on a "resolved enforcement action" against responsible party or misrepresentation of facts. Prohibits denial of an application based on pending (unresolved) actions.

Section 14. Adds CAFO to provisions that already exist fro CFOs requiring applicant to self-certify that construction and operation are in accordance with design.

Section 15. Requires manure management plan be submitted to the department once every 5 years including land application areas, soil and manure test procedures (but not test results).

Section 16. Expands technical assistance to CAFOs instead of just CFOs.

Section 17. Establishes an inspection fund and annual fees based on the size of the operation and ranging from $75 to $400 with reduced fees when there are several operations in the same vicinity. IDEM said this should enable them to inspect once every 3 years.

Section 18. The department must spend the confined feeding inspection money for that purpose.

Section 19. Expands board authority from just CFOs to CAFOs as well.

Section 20. Exempts CFOs and CAFOs from other NPDES permit fees.

Section 21. Directs the State Chemist to establish certification for land application of manure.

Section 22. Directs department to establish voluntary certified livestock producer program to recognize compliance, education and participation in animal ID program.

Section 23. State chemist must submit a status report in July 2008.

Section 24. The Department of Ag is directed to "encourage and assist" counties in adopting confined feeding ordinances. These ordinances fail to address land application of manure which often the most contentious aspect of the operation.

Section 25. Applicability.

St. Joe Valley Greens, South Bend, IN