Home | Back

Review of ILRC Model CAFO Ordinances

January 18, 2007

By Kathleen Neal
St. Joe County Quality of Life

Introduction

Several of you have asked me how the Indiana Land Resources Council's 3 model ordinances compare to the new proposed CAFO ordinance for St. Joseph County. I apologize for the lateness of this information, but I have had great difficulty accessing the actual model ordinances instead of just a neat summary. Anyway, here are my conclusions.

Weaknesses of ILRC/State Models

1. Lack public health approach

The state's proposed model ordinances are all land-use ordinances, unlike the SJC ordinance which is a public health ordinance.

2. Not based on science

The model ordinances are based on 3 guiding principles: odor control, reciprocal separation distances so that residences are not built too close to CAFOs and CFOs, and agricultural clauses to be included in property deeds so that future residents may not contest agricultural operations in their community.

The SJC ordinance is principally based on scientific findings regarding the public health effects of hydrogen sulfide emissions and the potential release of contaminants into public waterways, and is not based on odors.

3. Do not account for size of CAFO

None of the model ordinances provide any consideration for the size of the CAFO. In other words, a "small" CAFO of 700 cows, for example, would receive the same considerations, setbacks, requirements as a much larger CAFO of, say, 8,000 or 10,000 cows.

The SJC ordinance is tiered based on CAFO size.

4. Ignore water features

None of the model ordinances provide for setbacks from water features, such as off-site wells, waters of the state, county drains, etc.

The SJC ordinance specifies setbacks from water features.

5. Fail to address design and operational requirements

None of the model ordinances address design requirements, such as lagoon liners, or operational requirements, such as site maintenance, manure application, disposal of dead animals, etc.

All of these issues are addressed in the SJC ordinance.

6. Too broad grandfathering

All 3 of the model ordinances grandfather existing CAFOs, and allow for unlimited expansion of existing CAFOs.

The SJC ordinance grandfathers existing CAFOs, but expansions of existing CAFOs must comply with all aspects of the ordinance.

7. Static setbacks

All 3 of the model ordinances establish some level of residential setbacks, generally between 600' and 900' from the waste management system, regardless of the size of the operation.

Setbacks in the SJC ordinance begin at 800' for the very smallest CAFO and go up to 10,000'.

Mutually Exclusive Approaches

The ILRC model ordinances exemplify three very different approaches to agricultural land use and are mutually exclusive.

Multiple Agricultural Districts

The first model is "Multiple Agricultural Districts." This is what is currently in effect in Elkhart Co. Under this approach a county would perform a thorough assessment of all of its agriculturally zoned land and divide that land into three distinct categories:

1. General agriculture

General Agriculture would include land that is dedicated to long-term agricultural use. Any CFO or CAFO development there would require a "special use" permit from the county. Similarly, any residential development in this category that is not strictly for farm use would also require a "special use" permit from the county, and could not be built closer than 750' from a CAFO's waste management system. All residential development would require the property owners to sign an agricultural clause which would be attached to the deed and would waive any current or future property owner's rights to contest nearby CAFOs.

2. Intensive agriculture

Land designated as "Intensive Agriculture" would be set aside for just that. Residential development would be restricted the same as in "General Agriculture" areas, but here all CAFOs and CFOs would automatically be approved as permitted uses, not requiring hearings or special use permits, except that they would be required to be no closer than 800' from a residentially zoned district.

3. Rural estate

The third category of agricultural land under this approach is "Rural Estate". Residential development would not require a special permit in these areas, and new CFOs and CAFOs would not be allowed to locate here.

Site Scoring System

The second model is based on a "Site Scoring System" to determine where CAFOs and CFOs could locate. Under this approach, a proposed CAFO would not be subject to a public hearing, but would undergo an objective assessment by the local plan commission based on specific criteria.

This model includes recommended setbacks of 600' for residences and 1000' for public, religious and educational use. But these are only recommendations; smaller setbacks would be allowed, but given a lower score. Other scoring criteria include, among other things, expected tax revenues, measures to reduce water use, adequate truck turnarounds, odor abatement measures, and manure application methods. The plan commission would add up the total number of points that a proposed operation would qualify for under this system, and the score would either meet the threshold and qualify, or not.

Any non-farm residential development in an agricultural zone would be restricted and would have an agricultural waiver clause attached to the deed.

Limited Use with Development Standards

The third model is "Limited Use with Development Standards." Again, this approach steers away from special use and specifies that no CAFO will be subject to public hearings. Instead, it requires the CAFO operator to comply with county drainage rules, to obtain a county sewage permit [where applicable], to submit a route plan to the county engineer. It requires CAFOs in floodplains to obtain a certification from FEMA or to build their structures 2 feet above the base flood elevation. It requires a 100' foot setback from the property line and roadways. And it specifies that the maximum residential setback that the county can impose upon a CAFO would be 900' [1000' from a residential zoning district]. These maximum setbacks can be further reduced based on specific odor control technologies. Any non-farm residential development in an agricultural zone would be restricted and would have an agricultural waiver clause attached to the deed.

Resources

St. Joe Valley Greens, South Bend, IN