SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Officials with the Illinois Department of Agriculture (IDOA)

and Illinois Pork Producers Assoc. (IPPA) responded to a Farm World article from

March 22, “Illinois Group Wants Binding County Board Decisions on CAFOs,”

that an state-based environmental group might soon announce a state legislator

will adapt the group’s recommendations for confined animal facility operations

(CAFOs) into a bill.

 

While speculation that the Illinois Citizens for Clean Air and Water’s (ICCAW)

CAFO reform recommendations may enjoy the support of any Illinois state

legislators was not confirmed, Warren Goetsch, deputy director of the IDOA,

and IPPA Executive Director Jennifer Tirey offered opinions on why current

regulations governing registered livestock barns under the 1996 Livestock

Management Facility Act (LMFA) continue to serve the public satisfactorily.

 

“Once any legislation is proposed, we will review it and decide what steps need

to be taken,” said Tirey. “As for the way the current LMFA is written, we feel like

it already provides a good balance between allowing our livestock producers

to thrive in the state of Illinois, as well as protecting the environment.

 

“Now that more of our producers are raising their animals indoors, we understand

that causes some more unknowns. We, as a pork producers’ association, are

working to educate more consumers and more residents about how we raise our

animals and why we raise our animals the way we do.”

 

ICCAW is seeking legislation that would allow county boards to issue binding,

thumbs-up or -down recommendations to the IDOA regarding the siting of any

proposed swine barns to be located in their jurisdictions.

 

The group’s reform recommendations include expanding setback standards for

barns from surface water as currently defined by the LMFA.

 

In addition, ICCAW is asking that all CAFOs in the state be registered with the

Illinois EPA and a modernized database be established.

 

Goetsch, who served as IDOA chief of environmental programs from 1991-

2015, finds the group’s demands for state legislation requiring stricter setback

regulations and IEPA registration for CAFOs to be somewhat vague and

redundant.

 

In effect since May 1996, he said the LMFA has met its goals in helping producers

adhere to environmental regulations by greatly limiting the likelihood

of uncontrolled releases, odor problems and other environmental impacts.

 

“I think the setback distances have provided us with an opportunity to avoid

problems in terms of populated areas and proposed new facilities. The waste

management planning requirements in the statute have helped producers do a

better job of land application, ensuring that manure being spread is being done

at agronomic rates,” Goetsch said in defense of the LMFA.

 

“The certified livestock manager program included in the law gave an avenue

for producers to continue to be upgraded on new technologies and new

utilizations. All these things have been very positive for the industry, and I think

sometimes the ‘anti’ groups maybe don’t give enough credit to the statute for the

positive impacts it’s had on the industry.”

 

Goetsch made the following comments on the various aspects of ICCAW’s CAFO

recommendations. On county board binding resolutions, he said, “I would

ask what would be the criteria a local unit of government would be using. One

thing the crafters of the (LMFA) 21 years ago intended was decisions on facility

siting be made on sound science, and not emotion.

 

“It sometimes can be difficult for a local unit of government to make a sound

science decision because of the kinds of resources they may have available, as

compared to what the state has. I can’t imagine how a local unit of government

would be stressed faced with that same decision-making.

 

“We value the county boards’ recommendations. Many times we don’t have

the boots on the ground to be aware of some of the nuances of a particular

site. The information county boards and (public meetings) provide is very valuable

to us when we gather all the information necessary to make a final determination.”

About setback distances: “The devil is in the details. If you want that added

to the LMFA, you have to provide more detail: What is surface water? Is

it the perpendicular distance from the closest point of the water source to the

proposed facility? There are setbacks to all kinds of things in the statute, whether

it is the construction of the facility, whether it is the spreading of manure,

there are setbacks sprinkled throughout the statute.”

 

On CAFO registration: “That has been a criticism for a long time. We have the

locations of every facility that has been proposed, approved and constructed

since 1996. There is the federal Premise I.D. program through USDA, which

maintains a database protected under federal law to be used only for health

emergencies.

 

“The IEPA has the locations of CAFOs as defined under the Clean Water Act

and the CAFO rule, for facilities permitted in Illinois. Under the LMFA, the locations

are available through the Freedom of Information Act. As for any CAFOs

constructed before the LMFA, I’m not sure what the purpose of a comprehensive

list would be.”

 

Tirey pointed out that compared with pre-LMFA days, the livestock industry

and producers have embraced community involvement and, in many cases, literally

opened their barns and business practices to scrutiny by neighbors, public

officials, media and consumers.

 

“With biosecurity issues, you can’t bring everyone into the barn. But when

we have open houses for new barns constructed following the rules of the

LMFA, we are doing everything we can to encourage the local communities,

legislators and anyone interested in seeing how the barn looks inside to come

to these open houses with their questions,” she said.