Last week, the Wisconsin State Journal published a set of articles on Wisconsin's industrial animal farms. The reason? It appears some of these farms, also known as Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, have been getting a free pass at the public's expense.
In a number of instances over the past decade, the excess manure created by the farms has contaminated the drinking water in rural areas, causing rural residents to fall ill. It's no accident these events have coincided with increasingly lax regulation on the part of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. And, sadly, with some easy reforms, these incidents likely could have been prevented.
On paper, it would seem that the people responsible for regulating CAFOs—the WI DNR—had a pretty good system in place. All CAFOs above a certain size are supposed to acquire permits to dispose of the vast amount of animal waste they create, and the permits ensure that the farms dispose of the manure safely.
In practice, however, the permit system has failed. As part of their series of articles, the WSJ released an investigation on the CAFO permits, finding that the DNR has inadequately monitored farms' animal waste after handing out permits. Moreover, the DNR has granted permits to every single farm that has requested one, and has failed to revoke permits from farms who break the rules. Thus, inadequate enforcement has made the permits increasingly meaningless.
The solution is simple: increase oversight of the permit system. According to its website, the DNR ""is dedicated to the preservation, protection, effective management and maintenance of Wisconsin's natural resources."" I say, the DNR needs to put its money where its mouth is. One of the biggest reasons the DNR has struggled to regulate the CAFO permits is that the agency lacks sufficient resources. While the number of permit requests has risen greatly, the staff responsible for the permits has stagnated. Adding employees could easily augment the agency's ability to deal with the permits (and create a few jobs, too).
With Wisconsin low on funds and, as always, trying to address a large array of issues, some may wonder how we would pay for these added employees. One of the WSJ articles offers a reasonable answer: increase the fee for the permits. The fee currently stands at a mere $345, composing a tiny fraction of a large industrial farm's overall expenses. Increasing the fee by, say, a couple hundred bucks—heck, even a couple thousand bucks—would do nothing to take away farmers' competitive edge and provide the DNR with a significant increase in revenue. And let's not forget the potential costs of not adequately regulating manure; a fee of one or two thousand dollars costs much less than a lawsuit upwards of $80 grand—both for farmers, consumers and that previously unemployed Wisconsinite snagging a job at the DNR.
To comply with permits, farmers may also want to use excess manure to produce natural gas. This would give farmers extra revenue, reduce the risk of water contamination, and, as a bonus, help Wisconsin meet the renewable energy standard contained in the Clean Energy Jobs Act.
Others have called for the state to shorten the initial permitting procedure and free up time for staff to actually monitor the manure lagoons popping up across the state. Under this proposal, WSJ reporter Ron Seely says ""the state would not be required to conduct an environmental assessment and hold a public hearing if the farm meets certain requirements."" Increased monitoring of permit-holding farms would certainly help. However, considering that the proposal was largely influenced by the Dairy Business Association, a lobbying organization for agribusiness interests, I remain skeptical of the ""certain requirements"" the proposal entails. Given the proposal would largely eliminate environmental impact assessments, it seems more aimed at accelerating the permitting process than protecting rural residents from unsafe drinking water.
And the last thing Wisconsin needs right now is more large-scale industrial animal farms. Wisconsin is becoming famous for its industrial agriculture, but not in a good way. In September 2009, the New York Times ran an article in its Toxic Waters series titled ""Health Ills Abound as Farm Runoff Fouls Wells,"" with Wisconsin featured front and center. Meanwhile, many rural residents are organizing to protest the spread of CAFOs in their communities (one such example is the Crawford Stewardship Project).
While Wisconsin's dairy agribusinesses cite statistics about their contributions to the Gross Domestic Product, I'm left wondering who exactly this increase in GDP benefits. Is it the farm owners? Is it consumers? I have ideas, but I'm not really sure.
I do know, however, that it's not the people getting sick from drinking contaminated water. With many hearings on the issue scheduled in the upcoming months, let's hope the DNR cleans up its act.
Stephen Collins is a student at the UW-Madison School of Public Affairs. Please send responses to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
