ICARE Large CAFO Audit Presentation to House Ag: Audio, Slides, & Text

Mar 142011

Below is a recording of ICARE’s presentation of our statistical audit of ISDA’s Large CAFO records to the Idaho legislature’s House Agriculture Committee. The audit shows clearly that Large CAFO operations are polluting Idaho water and soil under the very lax supervision of ISDA. It also shows that Large CAFOs are not being fined any reasonable amount even for egregious violations of Federal and Idaho State Laws. ISDA’s enforcement of the laws of the U.S. and Idaho are not being effectively administered when it comes to protecting Idaho’s water resources or the health of its rural citizens.

To view the slides accompanying the presentation, click here

To read the presentation text, click here

Idaho's Dairy & Beef CAFO Problem

Sep 012010

CAFOs garner a lot of attention due to animal welfare and food safety concerns (and they should); the human impact, however, is all too often overlooked. Today’s Boise Weekly features a story that goes a long way towards remedying that.

Our sincere thanks to Scott Weaver and the Boise Weekly for having the heart & nerve to tackle this political hot-button, and for giving CAFO-beseiged neighbors a chance to be heard.

A pivot at a dairy CAFO owned by Luis Bettencourt sprays manure across a canal and county road. Some Idahoans live with this kind of filth daily.

Jerome County P&Z Rubber-Stamps C Bar M CAFO Expansion

Aug 312010

In spite of objections from at least 6 neighboring families over health concerns, on August 30th 2010 the Jerome County P&Z approved C Bar M’s (aka Ted Miller Dairy’s) application to nearly double its animal units. (To listen to I.C.A.R.E.’s recording of the hearing, click the “play” button on the media player below)

To read the Times-News’ rendering of the meeting (which also calls into question the legality of the “quorum” that made the decision), click here.

The meeting was a farce. The manner in which it was conducted stood in marked contrast to another special use permit hearing immediately preceeding it. At that hearing (on an application to operate a home-based auto-repair shop), the P&Z chairman (Jack Nelsen) made it a point to ask whether there were any conflicts of interest or ex-parte communications; the same care was not taken at July’s C Bar M hearing. Even more telling, the P&Z members expressed a great deal of heartburn over the repair-shop’s potential to become an eyesore– apparently in Jerome County, CAFO cow carcasses and mountains of noxious manure are OK, but broken-down cars are not. The P&Z members must not have a very well-defined sense of IRONY.

When the discussion on C Bar M began, one of the four P&Z members in attendance who was not present at the July C Bar M hearing recused himself, leaving only the Chairman (who is technically NOT a voting member and who also owns a mid-sized CAFO) and two other colleagues at the table. Yet rather than table further discussion and decision until more Commission members could participate, the Chairman– relying on the sketchy legal advice of Jerome County’s Deputy Prosecuting Attorney (Mike Seib)– decided to continue with the hearing.

As the discussion wore on it became painfully obvious that none of the members had reviewed ANY of the documentation submitted by the neighbors and I.C.A.R.E. that pointed out problems with the application itself as well as the siting team report. Instead, they simply took the application at its word, declining to give it any critical attention whatsoever. Adding insult to injury, the attendant P&Z Commission members had the nerve to claim that they were powerless to add any further conditions to the permit– THIS WAS IMMEDIATELY AFTER A HEARING IN WHICH THEY HAD ADDED SEVERAL CONDITIONS TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A HOME-BASED BUSINESS, AND EVEN EXERCISED THEIR DISCRETION TO TIE THE PERMIT TO THE APPLICANT INSTEAD OF TO THE LAND.

To cap it all off, Jerome County’s Planning & Zoning Administrator (Art Brown) provided the Commission with a motion he had written out IN ADVANCE! (Convenient, no?) Again, this was immediately after another special use permit hearing in which the Administrator insisted that the Commission hand-write their motion so that he would have it word-for-word for the county’s records.

The Jerome County Planning & Zoning Commission has demonstrated a blatant disregard for the health & well-being (not to mention Civil Liberties) of the citizens they are supposed to represent.

Hopefully the Board of Commissioners will not make the same mistake.

View Idaho State Department of Agriculture & Jerome County records on C Bar M

Upload your pictures of C Bar M to our photo gallery! Click “browse” and then “upload.”


Gem County Idaho favors CAFO over citizens rights

Aug 172010

Gem County Commissioners, Prosecutor and the Development Services Department refuse responsibility for the protection of the citizen’s public health and safety.

1 – The commissioners failed to act and implement on the CAFO ordinance which was remanded to them by the zoning commission on April 11th 2005 – When asked why they did not implement the ordinance “We had other priorities” per Gem County Commissioners – January 2010.

This action of the Gem County Commissioners and Development Services Department is clear evidence of not prioritizing the concerns of taxpayers and protecting the public health and safety of the citizens in this county.

2 – Development Services and Gem County Commissioners have denied the citizens the opportunity of the required public hearing for the sitting of this CAFO – Per David Hargraves – “ State law takes precedent when there is no county law or ordinance”.

Using the excuse that Gem County “does not have a CAFO ordinance in place” does not excuse the Gem County Commissioners, Prosecutor and Development Services from protecting the public health and safety of the citizens and affording affected citizens the right to a public hearing which impacts their health and safety.

3 – Gem County Commissioners, Prosecutor and Development Services have refused to address the petition signed by 22 citizens (95 %) of the people impacted by Terry Jones animal factory. The Citizens asked for the enforcement of the 1000’ set back and the required public hearing. The petition was given to the Gem County Prosecutor and forwarded to the Commissioners and Development Services in fall of 2009.

As of this day there has been NO FORMAL ACTION from Gem County Officials regarding the PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC HEALTH and SAFETY.

The response from Idaho Deputy Attorney General Kaufman dated March 3rd 2009 states “remedy for a party who is aggrieved by a county or city’s decision under LLUPA is a private cause of action”.
The burden to protect the public health and safety is your responsibility. Gem County Officials continue to disregard the PUBLIC HEALTH and SAFETY of Citizens.

4 – On March 9th 2009 Gem County Commissioners and Development service tried to delete the 1000’ feedlot setback during a public hearing not related to the CAFO ordinance. The attempt to delete the 1000’ setback requirement for Animal Feedlots was met with opposition from citizens and GCC 11-6-5.C was taken off of the agenda .The Citizens of Gem County were denied the opportunity to speak at this public hearing.

This is another example of your blatant disregard to the citizens of Gem County and their public health and safety.

5 – Gem County Commissioners were notified of ground water contamination from Terry Jones animal factory in spring of 2010 but yet the commissioners passed a Confined Animal Feeding Operation Ordinance which reduced the 1000’ set back to 500’.

Gem County Commissioners and Development Services inaction to protect the public health and safety of the citizens is confirmed by not addressing the many written and verbal complaints on this animal factory. It is time to vote the commissioners & prosecutor out of office.

6 – The New Gem County CAFO Ordinance which was implemented in June 2010 allows for an existing CAFO facility to continue and expand its operation despite numerous Federal and State Clean Air and Water Violations.

The Commissioners have the same authority as Gooding County and Power County to adopt an Emergency Ordinance and or Moratorium concerning Confined Animal Feeding Operations in order to protect the public health, safety or welfare of the citizens. But they continue to NOT PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY of THE CITIZENS.

7 – Citizens have asked the Commissioners and Development Services to adopt an Open Burn Ordinance for Gem County. Commissioner Lan Smith responds “We can’t have a new ordinance because it will cost us money”.

GEM COUNTY OFFICIALS HAVE REFUSED TO ACT in PROTECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY of the CITIZENS.

Gem County Commissioners, Prosecutor and Development Services have done nothing to endorse the “county’s commitment to support the goal of public health and safety in those areas that the Idaho Legislature has authorized counties to regulate.”

The Citizens of GEM County do not want the Prosecutor, Commissioners or Development Services written rhetoric. The Citizens of Gem County want ACTION from their elected officials to PROTECT our HEALTH AND SAFETY.

When will Gem County Commissioners, Prosecutor and Development Services PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE CITIZENS?

Picturing America's Diet

Jul 282010

american-average-food-consumption

Compare that to what the folks at Harvard’s School of Public Health’s “Healthy Eating Pyramid”:

Negotiated Rule Making III--Foreword

Jun 082010

In case you hadn’t noticed it on the “Upcoming Events” listing, the Idaho State Department of Agriculture (ISDA) is holding the third negotiated rule making meeting on pathogen drift from dairy waste tomorrow, June 9th from 9am to 2pm at its Boise headquarters (2270 Old Penitentiary Rd.). If there’s any way you can make it to the meeting, please do! ISDA needs to be hearing from those most affected by this issue, not just industry. If you can’t make it, send an email to John Bilderback (john.bilderback@agri.idaho.gov) letting him know your thoughts, and making sure to request that your letter be added to the official rule making record.

It’s been 5 months since the last meeting (we’re not quite sure why…), so here’s an update on what’s being “negotiated” and what we’re expecting. Continue reading »

Chicken CAFO "Dialogue" Fact Check

Apr 082010

On April 8, 2010 Idaho Public Television hosted a panel discussion on Idaho’s most anticipated (or dreaded, as the case may be) California transplants: the Golden State’s recently exiled poultry factory farms (aka confined animal feeding operations or CAFOs). The show’s guests included: Idaho state Senator Tim Corder (R, Mountain Home); the Idaho Conservation League’s (ICL’s) Courtney Washburn; Lisa Kauffman, the Director of the Human Society’s Idaho state chapter; and Ag Tec Waste Management Engineer Matt Thompson. You can watch the show here.

Perhaps more interesting than what was said by any of the show’s panelists, however, was what several of them glossed over, implied, ignored, misstated or misrepresented. These statements and telling omissions include:

1) Matt Thompson’s comment that Idahoans have never tasted “fresh chicken.”
2) Senator Corder’s sober observation that it’s the job of state enforcement agencies to protect ground water and properly regulate the state’s CAFOs.
3) Senator Corder’s remark that “everyone” was involved in drafting the poultry & swine CAFO legislation (S1411) he proposed this legislative session.
4) Senator Corder’s flippant observation that “there are plenty of places in Southern Idaho” where poultry CAFOs could locate and “no one would have to see them or smell them.”
5) Lisa Kauffman’s text-book definition of the difference between “cage free” and “free range” eggs and poultry.
6) All of the panelist’s deafening silence on one viewer’s (ok, that was me) call for sustainable alternatives.

Continue reading »

Pig Business, Chicken Business, "Agri-Business"

Feb 282010

Although Idaho has so far dodged the pig CAFO bullet, several Magic Valley counties are preparing for the onslaught of something only slightly less devastating: chicken CAFOs. Apart from the fact that most chicken CAFOs have moved away from liquid manure systems (and thus sprayfields), the two industries’ production models are the same– vertical integration from animal factory to fork.

In preparing for the poultry CAFOs, Idahoans might want to pay close attention to the alarms– about worker safety and health, community and environmental destruction, independent farm failures and anti-competitive business practices–sounded by British filmmaker Tracy Worcester’s documentary “Pig Business.” If you haven’t heard of it until now, that’s because Smithfield didn’t want you to. Smithfield’s multiple threats to sue the British TV station that aired the film stalled but did not stop its release in the UK; unfortunately, that hasn’t been the case in the US.

Luckily, film insurers don’t as yet act as the gatekeepers to YouTube.

Negotiated Rule Making II

Jan 122010

On January 12, 2010, ISDA held the second Negotiated Rule Making meeting on pathogen drift from dairies utilizing pressurized irrigation systems.

Here’s what happened (you can also listen to our recording of the meeting by clicking the “play” button on the media player above):

  • Participants heard presentations from Johns Hopkins University researchers Dr. Meghan Davis and D’Ann Williams about the public health impacts of industrial dairy waste– including Livestock Associated MRSA, respirable and enteric pathogens, endotoxin, dust and allergens.  They presented via Skype from Barbados (it was a good thing we brought along a tech guy we know or it wouldn’t have happened as ISDA’s IT guy had no clue about how to bypass ISDA’s firewall to set up and record a Skype presentation). Dr. Davis spoke about the threat of antibiotic resistance and livestock-associated MRSA, and Ms. Williams spoke about field research she had done in the Yakima Valley in Washington state (another industrial dairy epicenter) showing asthma-inducing bacterial endotoxin at high levels in people’s homes as far away as three miles from a facility.
  • Participants also heard from DEQ personnel Dr. Jeff Fromm, Rick Hardy, and Mike Cook about the drift modeling and risk assessment methods DEQ uses to regulate industrial and municipal waste. This presentation took up the majority of the meeting as the DEQ representatives wanted to make sure they presented on the science and different scenarios as well as showed what this modeling would look like as applied to dairy waste. The dairy association strongly objected to applying this same modeling to dairy waste without first having an “independent expert” analyze it.
  • The meeting ended in a stalemate, with the dairy association now claiming that it was everyone else who had come to the table in bad faith; that we were supposed to be at the table to negotiate, but that there were no clear “negotiations” going on.

Despite all of the data presented at the meeting, the conclusion was troubling. ISDA has informed participants that we can expect to hear from them at some unidentified point in the future about the plan for moving forward.

CAFO Siting

Dec 152009

According to Idaho Code 67-6529, Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA), local governments “may regulate siting of certain animal operations and facilities” (i.e. CAFOs). Because of this, each of Idaho’s counties have a section of their ordinances that specifically addresses the standards for siting CAFOs in that county.

In theory, this should mean that local governments have a lot of power when it comes to deciding whether or not and how many CAFOs will operate within their jurisdiction. Unfortunately, because of some euphemistic industry-friendly language about “agricultural” land and products in the first paragraph of 67-6529, the limits of that power continue to be contested. The most recent battle on this issue– a dispute between the Idaho Dairymen’s and Idaho Cattlemen’s Associations (CAFO front-groups) and Gooding County– is ongoing.

Approval of a special or conditional use permit for a CAFO is not necessarily the end of the line for local control. Most counties allow “affected persons” to appeal P&Z decisions to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC). Usually, the outcome of an appeal to the county’s BCC is considered a “final action.” If the appeal is not considered a final action, “affected persons” must find out what is.

If, after “all remedies” available “under local ordinances” have been “exhausted,” those “affected persons” are still aggrieved, LLUPA allows them to petition for judicial review. However, the petition for judicial review must be submitted within 28 days of final action and must adhere to the guidelines established in Idaho Code 67-5270 through 67-5279.

Filing a petition for judicial review can be a daunting task. Some counties may provide guidelines, and some may not. ICARE is in the process of commissioning expert help on this issue and compiling a how-to guide to be published on this website. Until then (and after then), your best bet is to contact an attorney and ask if he or she would be willing to provide guidance. We realize this can be an expensive proposition, so we’ll also work on putting up some successful examples to serve as models.

Older Entries
Developed by VERTICES