Iowa court says county can't
create hog farm ordinances
Hunbolt County board chair says it's an 'erosion of home rule authority'

The Supreme Court of Iowa said recently that Humboldt County did not have the authority to enact ordinances regulating large-scale hog farms.

The court, on March 5, said "the ordinances are invalid because they are irreconcilable with state laws. They do not merely set more stringent standards than state law in the regulation of confinement operations; they revise the state regulatory scheme."

The decision in the case, Goodell v. Humboldt County, eats away at county home rule authority, according to the county board's chairman.

"It gets to be a democracy issue," said Harlan Hansen, who chairs the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors. "I'm concerned about the erosion of county home rule authority," said Hansen, a retired hog farmer. "From that viewpoint, it's a disaster."

David Vestal, general counsel for the Iowa State Association of Counties, said ISAC officials were "shocked and dismayed" at the court's decision.

"They did a lot more here than strike down four ordinances in Iowa," he said. "The dissenting opinion asks 'what is there left for counties to do?' Not very damn much."

In his dissenting opinion, state Supreme Court Justice Bruce Snell said "the majority has drained the vitality from home rule."

Snell went on to say that counties are unique and so require unique laws. "Land contours, soil types, drainage efficiencies, population centers, rain levels, even air currents, vary from locale to locale," Snell wrote. "Characterizing a subject as having statewide importance does not lessen the impact of problems encountered locally. That is the message embraced by the citizens of Iowa in adopting the home rule amendment."

Snell also said that "an express preemption statement of unambiguous language would determine the issue, if that is the will of the Legislature."

Apparently, that's just what the Iowa Legislature plans to do.

The Iowa House narrowly passed a bill earlier this month that says counties cannot pass ordinances regulating large-scale hog farms. Now, it is being considered by the Senate.

The bill would:

• Prohibit a county from adopting county legislation regulating agricultural operations.
• Increase separation distances for newly constructed facilities.
• Increase indemnity fund fees.
• Require all facilities over 200,000 pounds to submit a manure management plan. Requires the plan to be approved by the Department of Natural Resources.
• Prohibit the construction or expansion of an earthen manure storage basin between July 1, 1998 and July 1, 2001.
• Allow a county board of supervisors to appeal a decision made by DNR in regards to an animal confinement facility permit application.

"In a way, I'm glad Humboldt County tried [passing ordinances]," said state Sen. Wilmer Rensink, who chairs the Iowa Senate Agriculture Committee and is manager of the bill in the Senate .

Rensink, who hails from Sioux County, says the brouhaha involving Humboldt County has opened the door to resolve the issue. He said if county officials in Iowa, the largest hog-producing state in the nation, each tried to pass hog ordinances in their own counties, it would lead to "divisiveness" throughout the state.

Rensink said the proposed legislation isn't all bad for counties, though. He said there is the possibility of making a role for Iowa counties to work with the state Department of Natural Resources on the siting of large-scale hog farms.

Clean water action plan targets animal waste pollution

President Clinton announced the details of a five-year program to clean up the nation's polluted waters. The "Clean Water Action Plan" primarily targets non-point sources of polluted runoff, which EPA officials say is the key source of contamination in U.S. rivers, lakes and streams.

In its first new proposal under the action plan, EPA announced on March 5 that it would attempt to regulate pollution from large animal feedlots or livestock impoundments, generally referred to as "concentrated animal feeding operations" or CAFOs.

EPA would gradually tighten restrictions on CAFOs over the next seven years, expanding the number of feedlots that will be required to obtain permits and requiring operators to develop plans to dispose of waste properly and be subject to expanded enforcement inspections. The proposed regulations are expected to affect more than 6,000 facilities.

In a separate plan, EPA outlined a strategy for stepping up enforcement at CAFOs, targeting those located in high-risk watersheds that violate their existing permit conditions, are discharging without a permit, cause significant harm to the environment, or are unwilling to achieve compliance in a timely manner.

The new plan will also focus on the Clean Water Act's emergency authority to allow EPA to take emergency action against smaller facilities that are currently unregulated, but that present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health.

Finally, the plan calls on state environmental agencies to inspect within three years all CAFOs that are the subject of citizen complaints, are located in priority watersheds or near surface waters or located in watersheds with high animal feedlot density. All other CAFOs, included unpermitted facilities, are expected to be inspected within five years.

If approved by Congress, the $2.3 billion requested by the Administration to implement the plan would be the largest federal commitment to clean water since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972.

The package would provide more money to states to manage nonpoint source runoff and would make grants available to farmers who agree to make improvements.

The text of the Clean Water Action Plan is now available online from the EPA at http://www.epa.gov/cleanwater.