What is a Polluting CAFO Worth?

The Neosho Daily News, January 30, 2006 reports that Land O'Lakes of Arden Hills, Minn has purchased the remaining interest (that it did not already own) in MOARK LLC for $71,000,000. According to the article, Land O'Lakes bought the 42.5% minority stake from Osborne Investments, Inc.

Missouri SB615 (aka 2006 Photo Ban Bill)

The Joplin Independent, January 29, 2006, reported that controversy is spreading regarding SB 615 (aka the 2006 Photo Ban bill) introduced by Senator Bill Stouffer. SB615 is now in the hands of the Judicial and Civil & Criminal Jurisprudence Committee of the Missouri Legislature.

A summary of the bill follows: SB 615 - The act extends the "Animal Research and Production Facilities Protection Act" so that its provisions apply to all agricultural research and production facilities. For example, the act covers agricultural production involving forestry products, horticulture products, and tobacco as well as products derived from livestock and other farm animals [including CAFOs].

The act adds to the list of punishable offenses perpetrated against such facilities: 578.407 1. No person shall commit, attempt to commit, conspire to commit, or knowingly allow to commit, any of the following: (9) ...any photographic, video or electronic image of such objects or the facility.

MO Agricultural Committee says Not This Year

The Kansas City Star, January 19, 2006, reported that Missouri House and Senate agriculture committee leaders, Rep. Peter Myers and Sen. Dan Clemens, conducted a joint hearing Wednesday night, January 18, 2006, where they announced that they would not pursue a measure (called "Livestock Enterprise" legislation) that would have barred local governments from enacting restrictions beyond those of the state Department of Natural Resources. Key legislators want to wait at least another year before deciding whether counties should be allowed to place tighter restrictions on livestock feeding operations than those in place for the state.

In the meantime, Rep. Kathy Chinn and Rep. Peter Myers have asked the Food and Agriculture Policy Reserach Institute to provide documentation of economic and environmental opportunities of livestock and grain agriculture within each county of the state of Missouri. The Hannibal Courier Post, January 20, 2006.

Carla Klein, Chapter Director for the Sierra Club said, “This was truly a victory for the democratic process. Citizens put their elected officials on notice, the corporate lobbyists are not who they work for. Missouri communities come before the wishes of corporate donors.” The Joplin Independent, January 29, 2006.

Shelby County, MO

Shelby County (MO) residents 'call the pervasive odors a public health threat, leading to respiratory illnesses and mood disporders, not to mention plummenting property values.' Shelby County Presiding Commissioner Chuck Wood, said that he is caught in the middle of the county health ordinance debate, "They don't want to limit growth; they don't want a health ordinance, but they sure as hell don't want a hog farm next to them without a say in it." He said that after meeting with legislators in Jefferson City last week, Shelby County will put the health ordinance on hold pending state action. "It's an issue that has to be addressed in rural Missouri."

The Joplin Globe, Sunday, January 29, 2006, Hey What's That Smell: Missouri Counties Struggle to Keep a Tight Lid on Livestock Odors

Highway Signs Work!

Opponents to the MOARK (Newton County) CAFO erected a sign along Highway D, south of Neosho, advertising the telephone number for the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) in order for residents to call and make odor complaints. According to Victoria Lovejoy, a MDNR public information specialist, previously the MDNR averaged six calls per month regarding MOARK odors. Since the sign went up, they have been getting over 30. In December they received 35 complaints. She added that from January 1, 2005 through January 20, 2006, the MDNR received 76 complaints and 70% of those complaints were made after the sign went up. The Sign Works!
The Joplin Globe, Sunday, January 22, 2006, Highway Sign Caused Spike in MOARK Complaints

More Headlines

The article in The Joplin Independent, Friday, January 20, 2006, provides a great summary, photgraphs and chronology of the visit to Neosho by Mr. Clint Barnett of the Missouri Attorney's General Office.

MOARK on Radar of MO Attorney's General Office

Mr. Clint Barnett, an environmental investigator for the office of Missouri Attorney's General, Jay Nixon, was in Neosho (Newton County) Missouri this week to check things out. A spokesman for Mr. Nixon, Mr. John Fougere, said that Mr. Barnett's visit to Neosho was routine, "He was doing routine follow-up to a consumer complaint about odor." The Joplin Globe, Friday, January 20, 2006, reported in a front page article that Mr. Barnett met with opponents of MOARK's expansion project, including Mr. Rick Bussey and Mr. Mark Adams. Mr. Bussey said that "He (Clint Barnett) was down here doing some investigating, meeting people, seeing what was going on. What I got from Mr. Barnett is that he feels his boss will be back down here with him. After the conversations that he had with different businesses and individuals, he has got to come back."

Bussey said that Barnett was referring to Mr. Bill Bryan, deputy chief counsel of the Agriculture and Environmental Division for the Attorney's General Office. He said he initially contacted Mr. Bryan to complain about odor and other problems allegedly affiliated with MOARK's large egg producing operation. He said that he was asking for the attorney general involvement with MOARK, the way the attorney general got involved with odor problems stemming from Renewable Environmental Solutions (RES) in Carthage. Bussey asked them "If you can do that for the people of Carthage, why can't you do this for me and the people who live around here?"

Newton County Health Board

The Newton County Health Board is proposing a 'health ordinance' that would (1) restrict the amount of odor a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) operation could give off, (2) how much animal waste could be disposed, and (3) require fees for operating permits. They define a CAFO as 'an operation at which animals are kept and fed for 45 days or more in a 12-month period, in a confinement area that has less than 50% ground cover of vegetation'.

The Board met Monday, January 9, 2006, at the Newton County Health Department (Neosho, MO). Opponents to the proposed regulation were Farm Bureau and University of Missouri Extension Service. Supporters (about 30 attended the meeting) said that: Farm Bureau has become a pawn of big business and they described the area as becoming an environmental catastrophe because of CAFOs taking advantage of relaxed regulations. Local resident and supporter of the proposed ordinance, Don Bushnell, said that he doesn't believe promises of stricter adherence to state standards will make a difference. "You can put chickens in a gold cage, but they still stink!"

The Joplin Globe, Wednesday, January 11, 2006

Purcell Landfill Ownership Transfer

The Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) has published the procedures for the ownership transfer of the Jasper County Landfill. Because it has been more than 5 years since MDNR isued the original landfill permit, the interested party, Advantage Waste Services (Springfield, MO.), must hire a professional engineering consultant to review the landfill plans. It is also the responsibility of the new owner to hold a public awareness and community input session, for the purpose of soliciting comments from local citizens and respond to those comments.
Anyone with questions regarding the landfill design or the transfer of permit process should contact MDNR's Solid Waste Management Program at 1-800-361-4827 or (573) 751-5401. Questions regarding the storm water permit should be directed to MDNR's Southwest Regional Office at (417) 891-4300. http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr06_010.htm

SWMCALME

Southwest Missouri Citizens Against Local MOARK Expansion (SWMCALME) submitted an affdidavit to the Missouri Administrative Hearing Commission (MAHC) on Tuesday, January 3, 2006, defining their organization as an 'unincorporated association', for the purpose of appealing the approval of the operating and construction permit granted to MOARK on November 1, 2005 by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). SWMCALME is waiting for the MAHC to reschedule their appeal hearing. SWMCALME, on behalf of the 3500 petitioners against the approval of the operating and construction permit, has requested that MAHC hold the appeal hearing in southwest Missouri, and preferably in Neosho, MO.

Let's get behind SWMCALME. They need and deserve our support! You can contact them at SWMCALME, P.O. Box 176, Neosho, MO. 64850, or by e-mail .

Missouri CAFO Updates

1. MDNR Draft CAFO Operating Permit, http://www.dnr.mo.gov/env/wpp/permits/pn/G010000.pdf

2. CAFO's in EPA Region 7, http://www.epa.gov/region7/water/cafo/are_cafos_in_r7.htm

3. CAFO Guidelines and Regulations, http://www.cnmpwatch.com/mo.php

Recent MO Landfill Permits

1. Norborne, 3 miles NE. (Carroll County), Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc (AECI) http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr05_500.htm

2. La Grange, 2.5 miles SW.( County, BFI Waste Systems of Missouri, LLC, a subsidiary of Allied Waste North America, Inc., http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr05_499.htm

3. Sedalia, 3 miles W.(Pettis County), Waste Corporation of Missouri Inc., http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr05_235.htm

4. Buckner, 3 miles N. (Jackson County), Aquila Inc., http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr05_166.htm

5. Wright City (Warren County), Bob's Home Service (BHS), http://www.dnr.mo.gov/newsrel/nr05_096.htm

Purcell (Jasper County) Landfill Battleground

Citizens for Environmental Safety (CES) are gearing up for an Environmental Battle in Purcell (Jasper County) MO. Recently there was an article about Advantage Waste's (Springfield, MO) plans to open a landfill. They already have obtained the 'option to purchase' a 640- acre site, presently owned by Allied Waste Services, Scottsdale, AZ.

This site was identified in 1991 and an application was filed for a permit to construct a landfill, by developers. The permit was issued in 1995 by Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), but had been amended seven times by the developers during the review period. The landfill 'site' was sold to American Disposal Services in 1997. Allied Waste Services, which owns the landfill in Wheatland, KS., acquired an option to buy the Jasper County site in 1998. In 1999, Allied Waste Services moved to acquire the waste hauling company Browning-Ferris Industries (BFI). To win Justice Department approval of the deal, Allied Waste Services ageed to sell some of its operation in areas including Joplin, Lamar and Springfield. BFI owned the landfill at Lamar (Barton County) MO at the time. Under the terms of the anti-trust judgement, the Justice Department said that Allied Waste Services, if it acquired BFI, could not operate landfills at Columbus (Cherokee County) KS and Lamar (Barton County) MO, and continue to own and operate the landfill near Purcell (Jasper County), MO. The Joplin Globe, Sunday, January 8, 2006. http://www.joplinglobe.com/story.php?story_id=219259&c=87

Let's get together and support Joe Heger (Chairman) Citizens for Environemtal Safety and the Purcell area residents. CES will hold it annual meeting at 7:00pm, Saturday, Feb. 4 in Alba, (Jasper County), MO.

Mr. Craig H. Post, President & COO
Mr. Neil Post
Advantage Waste Service, Inc.
2211 W. Bennett St.
Springfield, MO. 65807
417-886-8700
www.advantagewasteservice.com

88.3% Value Diminution from CAFO

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Proximate Property Values, Abstract, by John A. Kilpatrick
The Appraisal Journal, July 2001,Volume LXIX Number 3
http://www.pmac.net/AM/property_values.html

University of Missouri Study:
Following the methodology of the Minnesota study, researchers at the University of Missouri were able to quantify both the average value impact of a CAFO and the impact by distance. An average vacant parcel within 3 miles of a CAFO experienced a value loss of about 6.6%. However, if that parcel was located within one-tenth of a mile from the CAFO (the minimum unit of measure in the study) and had a residence on it, then the loss in value was estimated at about 88.3%.

Summary and Conclusions:
The above suggests that the establishment of a CAFO may result in value diminution to other nearby properties. The amount of the value loss is typically an inverse function of distance (closer properties diminish more), a function of property type (newer, nicer residences lose more), and a function of property use (farm will lose value due to diminished productivity and comparative marketability to other farm lands). While the appraisal profession has only begun to quantify the loss attributable to CAFOs, it is clear from the above case studies that diminished marketability, loss of use and enjoyment, and loss of exclusivity can result in a diminishment ranging from 50% to nearly 90% of otherwise unimpaired value.

John A. Kilpatrick is a partner and senior analyst with Mundy Associates, LLC, an economic, market, and valuation firm specializing in complex real estate matters headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Contact: Suite 200 Watermark Tower, 1109 First Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. (206) 623-2935; fax: (206) 623-2985; email: john@mundyassoc.com.

Model Ordinances for CAFOs

The State Environmental Resource Center (www.serconline.org) has posted these links on their website. These are sample ordinances, concerning CAFOs, which local communities can adopt or modify to fit their needs. They address how to regulate CAFOs, from setback distances to water and air pollution limits.

1. Schwab, Jim. “Planning and Zoning for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.” Chicago, Illinois: APA Planning Advisory Service, 1999. See Appendix B – Sample ordinances.

2. Hanson, Andrew C. and Melissa K. Scanlan. “Model Livestock Zoning Ordinance: The Balance Between Environment, Economy, and Agriculture.” Madison, Wisconsin: Midwest Environmental Advocates, Inc., 2002.

NRDC's Missouri CAFO Contacts

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), lists the Missouri Activist Contacts for CAFOs. They are:

Hobart Bartley
Route 2, Box 2281
Anderson, MO 64831
Phone: 417-775-2844
e-mail: rbartles@netins.net

Rolf Christen
Citizens Legal Environmental Action Network (CLEAN)
Route 1
Green City, MO 63545
Phone: 660-874-4714
Fax: 660-874-4711
e-mail: chrifarm@nemr.net

Scott Dye
Ken Midkiff
Missouri Sierra Club
914 N. College Avenue, Suite 1
Columbia, MO 65201
Phone: 573-815-9250
Fax: 573-442-7051
e-mail: scott.dye@sierraclub.org
ken.midkiff@sfsierra.sierraclub.org

Rhonda Perry
Missouri Rural Crisis Center
1108 Rangeline Street
Columbia, MO 65201
Phone: 573-449-1336
Fax: 573-442-7051

Terry Spence
Family Farms For the Future
RR2, Box 147
Unionville, MO 63565
Phone: 660-947-2671
Fax: 660-947-3873

Natural Resources Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org

Five Local Strategies to Keep CAFO's Out

The Sierra Club lists five local strategies to keep CAFO's out. Here they are:

1. Use the public comment and review process.
2. Organize a Friendly Letter from the Neighbors.
3. Press for County Health Ordinances.
4. Use the "threatened or impaired watersheds" process.
5. Sue them.

For more information about these successful strategies, click the link Sierra Club Clean Water and Factory Farms, Resources.

CAFO's and Sierra Club

Here are some constructive recommendations from the Sierra Club to stop pollution from CAFOs,

1. Place a moratorium on new and expanding factory farms until all existing facilities have Clean Water Act permits and new pollution control rules are in place.

2. Require factory farms to obtain individual, site-specific Clean Water Act permits, including comprehensive nutrient management plans, to provide nationally consistent protections.

3. Mandate full public participation in all aspects of Clean Water Act permitting and enforcement.

4. Ban new open-air manure lagoons and aerial spraying of liquid wastes and phase out existing lagoon/sprayfield operations.

5. Place legal and financial responsibility for waste disposal and cleanup on the corporations that own the livestock animals.

Sierra Club's Clean Water and Factory Farms Reports and Factsheets

MOARK Retains Former MDNR Director

The Joplin Globe, Saturday, January 7, 2005, reports that the former Department of Natural Resource Director, David A. Shorr, has been retained to represent MOARK in its proceedings with MDNR after the company was cited for an odor violation on December 22, 2005. Mr. Shorr is with the law firm of Lathrop & Gage, Kansas City. Mr Shorr served as Director of MDNR under the late Gov. Mel Carnahan. He also served as the Missouri Director of Environmental Quality for former Gov. John Ashcroft.

Mr. Steve Feeler, Chief of Enforcement, for Missouri's Air Polution Control Program, said that Mr. Shorr, had filed on behalf of MOARK, a request that the state extend the deadline to January 31, 2006, for MOARK's response to the violation. The request was granted.

[On December 22, 2005, MOARK LLC was issued a citation by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) for alledged violations of odor emissions after results from a December 9, 2005 test taken by MDNR, came back positive.

The "problem" in question mostly stems from excessive smells originating from the plant's compost facility on Route D. After receiving complaints, the MDNR investigated foul odors near MOARK on November 30, December 2, and again on December 9, 2005. Although excessive odor emissions were discovered during the December 2 test, the results were not admissible because the air sample was taken along Route D in the immediate vicinity of MOARK's composting facility, where the company owns both sides of the highway. Previous litigation forbids testing without the owner's permission.

A subsequent sample, taken on Missouri National Guard property, near MOARK, on December 9, 2005, showed excessive odor emissions. Upon confirmation by the St. Croix Sensory lab in Lake Elmo, MN, the MDNR issued its December 22, 2005 citation. MOARK had 15 days to respond to the allegation. The Neosho Daily News, January 5, 2005]

Missouri Senate and House Bills filed

A review of Missouri Senate and House Bills filed the first week of the 2006 session:
1. Senate Bill 591, Sen. Gary Nodler, modifies the law relating to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) and the penalties for offenses perpetrated by these operations.