I love it - these counties (including mine) do NOT want these hog factories, but the state keeps over-ruling the counties and allows them. This county is going at it a different way with Health ordinances - I hope it works.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4788998/14873976.html

NORTHWOOD Worth County OKs livestock facility rules

The Worth County Board of Supervisors has approved new health standards for livestock facilities.

"This is not a hog ordinance, it's a health ordinance," said Chairwoman Bev Pangburn. "I think the supervisors are comfortable with it because we think it reflects the feelings of people in the county."

The county board of health wrote the ordinance, with input from an 11-member committee that included a nurse, a veterinarian and livestock farmers.

Dean Mueller, the county's conservation board director, said the committee "had hoped this might force the state to deal with the issue."

The rules go into effect upon publication and apply to all new livestock facilities. Others have 10 years to comply.

Doug Tempus, 39, a hog farmer from Deer Creek Township, said the ordinance would "keep the big livestock corporations out of Worth County.'"

'"You're just going to push young people like myself away from Worth County," he said, warning that the ordinance would result in lawsuits.

Tempus, who raises 2,800 hogs a year, said his concerns lay mainly with the requirement that employees be tested for pulmonary function and tuberculosis.

"I have a hired man," he said. "With this ordinance, I have to take two hours off every six months for him to come in to the public nurse to get tests."

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Answers

It's a question of whether municipalities (or counties) are allowed (by state or federal law) to adopt a law that is more stringent than the "higher" authority may regulate. In my state, towns may not adopt pesticide ordinances that are more restrictive.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Seems to me that the Constitution allows that the states have rights that are not specifically granted to the Fed.

so, it would be logical to think that the more local you go, the more rights there would be on the local level.

At least, that is the way I see it.

In reference to the health issues, what's a couple hours every six months? The tests should be free. Moreover, this should be required of anyone who handles food for the public consumption. don't you think this would help to cut down on epidemics?

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Barefoot, what I think they are trying to get at is that exposure to hog manure leads to respiratory problems. This was from a study done by the Univ of Iowa (not the land grant ag college in the state) that was totally ignored by TPTB, that showed neighbors of hog lots showed a marked increase in allergies, upper respiratory problems, lung problems in general.

I would bet that if they can "prove" the hog lot a health hazard, they would be able to close it down without state approval and that is what they are trying to do. These hog factory owners know the problems the hog lots cause and they will simply avoid this county.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Barefoot, 'fraid the Constitution doesn't come in to it. It's usually a matter of looking at the federal (or state) statute and/or regulation and seeing if there is anything that includes stricter controls farther down the food chain. Wetlands protection is an area where the federal and state laws do not preclude stricter controls. However, with my pesticide example, it is currently structured on the federal level so that if EPA (I believe) has decided a pesticide is safe to use "according to the label", no longer jurisdiction may insist otherwise.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Barefoot, 'fraid the Constitution doesn't come in to it.

what I meant by that is the fed is allowed a certain amount of control, and then the state is allowed a certain amount, and then the county, then the city, etc.

It's usually a matter of looking at the federal (or state) statute and/or regulation and seeing if there is anything that includes stricter controls farther down the food chain. Wetlands protection is an area where the federal and state laws do not preclude stricter controls.

A good example of what I meant, and better stated.

However, with my pesticide example, it is currently structured on the federal level so that if EPA (I believe) has decided a pesticide is safe to use "according to the label", no longer jurisdiction may insist otherwise.

in the case of a pesticide, as per your example, I would think that any local government would base their controls on the EPA findings. Unless of course there is another source of information/proof that is more, um, shall we say, er, um, more right?

If a local government, say a county, had a study done, and the results of that study showed that certain things were bad, and residents of the county had a similar study done, and the results showed that those certain things were not bad, then a third party would have to decide on the merits of both, and come up with a solution that works for both sides.

This is called letting the feds screw it up. heh heh

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

I'm actually more familiar with my state's pesticide regulations, which is what specifically precludes further local controls. Whatever studies and review are behind the limits set by the state are assumed to be accurate, so the state would probably have to formally change its opinion. Back to my experience on the federal level..., it is truly a morass for EPA to change its mind on pesticide use.

Meanwhile, it may well be that a health ordinance is the way to go in this situation. Zoning can work, too, although there tend to be lengthy periods of grandfathering.

-- Anonymous, May 31, 2001

Purely on a speculative, hypothetical basis, isn't it the case that the locals who object to the stench and pollution have the option of surreptitiously discombobulating the hog lot operation one way or another?

Further deponent sayeth not.

-- Anonymous, June 04, 2001