Status of Bill: 12-Member Working Group
Committee: Agriculture
Republicans: Rep. Klemme, Manternach, Johnson; Sen. Angelo, Lundby, Behn
Democrats: Rep. Kuhn, Frevert, Witt; Sen. Kibbie, Soukup, Fraise
Research Analyst: Mary Braun 515-281-6970
12-Member Livestock Bill Major Highlights
- Permit Threshold Lowered. The permit threshold was lowered to determine who has to get a construction permit from the Department of Natural Resources. Under current law, DNR sets the threshold requirement. Under the bill, at a minimum, a confinement feeding operation of at least 1,000 animal units must obtain a construction permit. As an example: currently a permit is needed for finishing hog operations of over 4,167 animals. Under this bill, an operation of 2,500 hogs would need a permit. A small animal feeding operation is exempt from the construction permit requirements and the manure management plan requirements. Small animal feeding operations are defined as 500 animal units or less. The bill converts all regulations from the current animal weight capacity to animal unit capacity. This is being done because it is expected that new federal regulations will be based on animal units. The table below shows how many animals equal 1,000 animal units. Anything at this size or larger will have to have a permit.
Animal Species / Animal
Factor / How many animals = 1,000 animal units
Slaughter or feeder cattle / 1 / 1,000
Immature dairy cattle / 1 / 1,000
Mature dairy cattle / 1.4 / 714
Butcher or breeding swine weighing 55 pounds / 0.4 / 2,500
Swine weighing between 15 and 55 pounds / 0.1 / 10,000
Sheep or lambs / 0.1 / 10,000
Horses / 2 / 500
Turkeys / 0.018 / 55,556
Broiler or layer chickens / 0.01 / 100,000
2. Air Quality. DNR is required to conduct a comprehensive field study to monitor the level of airborne pollutants (defined as hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, or odor) emitted from all animal feeding operations, not just confined animals. Any air quality standard established by DNR must be based on the required separations distances, which are measured from the manure storage structure to a neighbor, school, church, business, or public use area. The plans and programs must be submitted to the General Assembly no later than December 1, 2004. Presumably, this allows DNR to move ahead with their current rulemaking process and plan. It is projected that this year’s Infrastructure Budget bill will have $500,000 for DNR to buy air monitoring equipment.
3. Manure Management Plans, Updates, and Penalties. Current law only requires an original manure management plan from owners of confinement feeding operations and persons taking manure from out-of-state confinement feeding operations to apply in Iowa. The bill requires an updated manure management plan be submitted to DNR for approval for the following year of operation.
Currently, a person who violates a manure management plan is subject to a civil penalty ($5,000). This bill provides that DNR may provide for the invalidity of the manure management plan or the imposition of a probationary term. It also provides that in case of a violation DNR may require the person to amend their manure management plan.
4. Phosphorus. In addition to nitrogen use levels, DNR is also required to establish a phosphorus index in order to determine the manner and timing of the application to a land area of manure originating from a confinement feeding operation. The index must be used to determine application rates, based on the number of pounds of phosphorus that may be applied per acre and application practices. The index is to be based on the field office technical guide as published by the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service, which sets forth nutrient management standards.
5. Producer Fees. The bill provides for a long-term, stable funding source to provide DNR with resources to hire 12 new inspectors to enforce environmental laws that relate to livestock. The bill sets a variable compliance fee (cannot exceed 15¢ per animal unit capacity), which will be paid for by confinement owners who are required to file a manure management plan. The fee revenue is deposited into a compliance account within a new Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund. The account is capped at $1 million. DNR must lower this compliance fee to meet the $1 million cap, if necessary. The producer is required to send the compliance fee annually, along with their updated manure management plan.
In addition to the annual per animal unit fees, the bill also establishes one-time filing fees. A construction permit application filing fee of $500 is established, which includes the cost of their manure management plan. For those non-permitted operations that only file a manure management plan, they will have to pay a one-time $250 application filing fee. These fees are deposited into a general account of the Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund.
All moneys collected will go into the new Animal Agriculture Compliance Fund to be used exclusively by DNR in administering and enforcing animal feeding operation requirements.
6. Local Community Impact Matrix. Under current law, counties consider applications for construction permits and may submit comments to DNR. The bill requires the establishment of a state-developed community impact matrix that the local board of supervisors can use to make an evaluation to DNR on whether a permitted facility should be built in their county. DNR will have final authority on siting facilities. Counties have the option to choose to use the matrix. If they intend to use the matrix, they must notify the state through an approved resolution, and they must use the matrix when considering applications for all permitted facilities. This will allow the counties to investigate and evaluate the sites. The intent of the local community impact matrix is to develop a standard method of assessing sites, based on objective social and economic criteria. DNR will establish the environmental matrix. Both matrices will be used when DNR determines to approve or disapprove a permit.
The county boards evaluation of an application, by the community impact matrix, includes whether the application has received a satisfactory risk rating under the social impact category and the economic impact category of the matrix. Criteria for the community impact matrix may include such things as:
· the applicant’s residential status
· any family farm characteristics
· implemented any good neighbor characteristics
· any violations by the applicant
· the population density and the character of residential development in the area
DNR must analyze an application using the environmental impact matrix. If the board submits an evaluation based on environmental impacts, DNR is only to use these results to the extent that they have a bearing upon the department’s analysis using their environmental impact matrix.
If the board submits results to DNR produced by a community impact statement, DNR can only approve the application if one of the following applies:
· DNR must approve the application if it achieves a satisfactory risk rating according to the evaluation submitted by the county board and the department’s analysis using its environmental impact matrix.
· DNR must review an application that fails the county boards evaluation. DNR must approve the application if the combined total point score produced by the department’s environmental impact matrix and the board’s community impact matrix achieves a satisfactory rating. Otherwise, DNR must review the application by using a master matrix that combines the community and environmental impact matrixes. If the application achieves a satisfactory risk rating according to this master matrix, then DNR is required to approve the application.
The board may contest any DNR decision to the Environmental Protection Commission, and in accordance with Chapter 17A, which provides procedures for administrative hearings.
All the new provisions in the bill become effective when the bill is signed into law. From that point, the bill establishes an interim environmental impact matrix for use by DNR when considering permit applications. The interim matrix, based on risk, is as follows:
(to be replaced with permanent Community Impact and Environmental Impact
matrixes on March 1, 2003, after the rules process)
In conducting the risk analysis, DNR is to award points according to all of the following, as it pertains to. DNR must disapprove an application that scores less than 5 points. / Points
a. A confinement feeding operation structure proposed to be constructed less than 1,000 feet from an impaired water source / -15
b. A confinement feeding operation structure proposed to be constructed less than 2,640 feet from a public use area / -15
c. A confinement feeding operation structure proposed to be constructed less than 5,280 feet, but more than 2,640 feet, from a public use area / -5
d. A confinement feeding operation structure proposed to be constructed less than 2,640 feet from an occupied residence not owned by the confinement owner (neighbor) / -10
e. A confinement feeding operation structure proposed to be constructed less than 5,280 feet, but more than 2,640 feet, from a neighbor / -5
f. A manure storage structure proposed to be constructed with an anaerobic digester, biofilter, impermeable cover, or other similar materials approved by DNR / +10
g. A manure storage structure proposed to be constructed using a straw cover, natural crust, oil sprinkling, landscaping, or other similar air quality control approved by DNR / +5
h. A confinement feeding operation structure proposed to be constructed less than 500 feet from a public thoroughfare (road) / +5
i. A confinement feeding operation structure proposed to be constructed less than 750 feet, but more than 500 feet, from a public road / +5
j. A confinement feeding operation structure proposed to be constructed less than 1,000 feet, but more than 750 feet, from a public road / +15
k. A manure storage structure proposed to be constructed using a secondary containment as approved by DNR / +15
A 9-member Technical Advisory Committee is established to develop the local community impact matrix based on social and economic criteria. DNR is to develop the environmental matrix. Both matrices must be presented to the Environmental Protection Commission at its September meeting, as notice of intended action rules. The matrices must go through the normal rulemaking procedure, including public hearings. The rules are to be effective, and in place, by March 1, 2003. At that time, the new matrices will replace the interim environmental matrix spelled out in the bill.
The 9-member technical committee is made up of the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, Iowa State University, University of Iowa, the Iowa State Association of Counties, the Iowa Environmental Council, the Iowa Farm Bureau, the Iowa Farmers Union and one representative of organizations representing livestock producers, appointed by their organizations. DNR is to provide administrative support to the committee, and the attorney general’s office is to provide legal counsel and assistance.
7. Separation Distances for construction of confinement feeding operations.
AIR QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
Þ The bill basically increases construction distances by 500 feet for new construction of confinement feeding operation structures and the expansion of those operations. The new separation distances from a neighbor, business, school, church or public use area are described in the following table. Current separation distances are in parenthesis behind the new distances. The distances reflect non-permitted sites, mid-size permitted sites, and large permitted sites. The bill reduces the threshold of when a permit is needed so the mid-size distance will include more operations than is in current law.
Anaerobic lagoon / 1,875 feet (1,250) / 2,500 (1,875) / 3,000 (2,500)
Uncovered earthen manure storage basin / 1,875 feet (1,250) / 2,500 (1,875) / 3,000 (2,500)
Uncovered formed manure storage structure / 1,500 feet (1,250) / 2,000 (1,500) / 2,500 (2,000)
Covered earthen manure storage basin / 1,250 feet (1,000) / 1,875 (1,250) / 2,375 (1,875)
Covered formed manure storage structure / 1,250 feet (1,000) / 1,875 (1,250) / 2,375 (1,875)
Confinement building / 1,250 feet (1,000) / 1,875 (1,250) / 2,375 (1,875)
Egg washwater storage structure / 1,000 feet (750) / 1,500 (1,000) / 2,000 (1,500)
Distances for all confinement structures listed above from a Public Use Area; and from a neighbor, business, church, or school within the corp. city limits / 1,875 feet (1,250) / 2,500 (1,875) / 3,000 (2,500)
Þ As is in current law, existing operations are allowed to expand to a certain size based on a number of factors including the separation distances that were in place when they were originally constructed and their capacity. However, in this bill, requirements for the expansion of existing operations is still based on animal weight capacity and not animal unit capacity. The bill provides the same type of exceptions for expansion based on animal unit capacity.
Þ As in current law, very-large operations (referred to as qualified confinement feeding operations) must construct aerobic structures to store manure.
Þ The following separation distance exemptions are repealed:
· The exemption for operations that store manure exclusively in a dry form.
· The 100-foot exemption from roads if plant tree seedlings that will mature into 20-foot stands.
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
Þ A confinement feeding operation structure cannot be constructed closer than:
· 2,000 feet from a surface intake, wellhead, or cistern of an agricultural drainage well or known sinkhole. This is an increase from 500 feet.
· 2,500 feet from a federal or state designated protected wetland (this is a new distance).
· 1,000 feet from a major water source or 500 feet from a water source other than a major water source. This is an increase from 500 feet and 200 feet. However, these distances do not apply to farm ponds or privately owned lakes; or to a manure storage structure constructed with a secondary containment barrier. This is the same as current law.