Sustain Rural Wisconsin Network Letter to DATCP December 8, 2010
Four Policy Issues

On behalf of Midwest Environmental Advocates, Sustain Rural Wisconsin Network, and the majority of citizens who spoke on the Siting Law at the public comment sessions around the state of Wisconsin, we would like to reiterate four policy issues that need to be more closely examined by the board as part of the review of the Livestock Siting Rule.

We are hopeful the recommendations of the Technical Committee will strengthen the Siting Rule, but there are still areas of citizen concern beyond these technical issues. In order to address these, we respectfully request the Board consider initiating the following actions:

1. Protect Local Groundwater- A policy revision of ATCP 51 would present an excellent opportunity for DATCP to incorporate parameters for groundwater protection standards into the Siting Rule. The Siting Law does not allow local governments to enact more stringent local standards, and yet does not take into account fundamental local differences. For example, neither DATCP nor DNR have to date taken effective measures to abate contamination from CAFOs to groundwater in Karst regions of the state. DATCP needs to reevaluate the policy of restricting local regulatory control in areas where karst impacts the effects of CAFO development on aquifers.

Allowing communities to employ stricter standards in karst areas is critical. The framework can be easily incorporated from existing Wis. Stat. § 160, which identifies criteria to be used when establishing a “design management zone” for groundwater quality, including: Soil type, depth and permeability; Type, depth and permeability of bedrock; Mobility of contaminants; Depth, direction and velocity of groundwater and other hydrogeologic factors;
Based upon this existing framework, and calling on a committee of scientists, DATCP can create a viable and effective groundwater standard that meets both the Siting Law mandates to be “protective of public health” and “designed to balance the economic viability of farm operations with protecting natural resources and other community interests.”


2. Create real “uniform state standards”- Although the Siting Law has been successful at prohibiting unique local regulation of CAFOs, it has not replaced these with “uniform state standards” as intended by the legislature because it is not universally applied. Instead, only about a third of Wisconsin’s land base is covered by a local livestock siting ordinance – the remainder has no regulation in agriculture areas for siting factory farms. We encourage the Board to initiate a study to understand why the law has not been more broadly adopted, and from this initiate policies to correct this.


3. Understand Socioeconomic Impacts -DATCP and Wisconsin officials need to base decisions on siting of large livestock facilities on correct information of the impact these facilities have on smaller nearby farms, community infrastructure, local property values, employment, immigration policy, and other socioeconomic impacts. We ask the Board to initiate studies through the “Legislative Reference Bureau” regarding these important economic and social issues surrounding CAFO’s impact on rural communities in Wisconsin.


4. Address Public Health Risks – Intensive, confinement livestock agriculture has been shown to increase human exposure to toxic air pollutants such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide; water-borne pathogens, toxic chemicals, heavy metals; and treatment-resistant bacteria.
We ask the Board to instruct DATCP to begin a partnership with the Wisconsin Department of Health to fully assess public health risks posed by large livestock facilities; and based on these finding to incorporate standards to protect neighbors and farm workers that go beyond “odor control” into future technical rules for ATCP 51.