Caledonia Argus

Feedlot exemptions topic at capitol

Posted: 4/29/03

by T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter

Some farmers and environmentalists charged Tuesday, April 22, that proposed legislation will remove the publicís right to petition their government over animal feedlots concerns.

Legislation, carried in the House by Rep. Dennis Ozment, R-Rosemount, exempts 97 percent of state feedlots from petition-driven environmental review, activist claim.

Currently, feedlots between 300 and 1000 animal units can be required to conduct an environmental review if the concerns of petitioners are deemed worthy by state officials.

At least 25 people must sign a petition.

But under legislative proposal, feedlots would be largely immune to petitioning, charge opponents.

Larger feedlots, those housing more than 1000 animal units, automatically must have a environment reviews.

But opponents cite data from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency that just 2.8 percent of Minnesotaís 29,000 feedlots ó some 825 ó are above 1000 animal units.

By example, three hundred animal units translates to 1000 hogs, 6000 feeder pigs, or 300 dairy cattle.

Herman Gabbert, a dairy farmer who has farmed for some 26 years near Foley, argued the legislation was indicative of the support big business receives from lawmakers.

ìEnvironmental reviews have never hurt the family dairy farm,î he said.

Doug Peterson, president of the Farmers Union, said local people should be able to question potential ìbad applesî among feedlots.

ìThe only thing hampering people from living in rural Minnesota is (crop) price,î said Peterson.

Ninety-nine percent of Minnesota farmers have less than 500 animals, he said.

ìThatís scary,î he said of larger feedlots being excluded from petitioning.

Only a small percentage of proposed feedlots are ever subject to petition drives, activists argue.

Accusations that the environmental review process is abused are unfounded, they claim.

In a study conducted by Sara Bertelsen, Hubert H. Humphrey Institute Masterís of Science student, showed 51 petitions for environmental reviews of feedlots were filed over the past five years.

The 52 petitions eventually resulted in ten reviews, according to Bertelsen.

Out of 41 petitions obtained for her study, 38 were signed by at least 25 local citizens.

Only one petition contained a majority of signature from outside the affected area, according to Bertelsen.

Ozment said the new rules on feedlots makes the petition process redundant ó all the petitioners would achieve is a review of data already reviewed through the initial permitting process, he said.

ìIíve been here a long time,î said Ozment, chairman of the House environment and natural resources finance committee.

ìI wouldnít do anything to hurt the environment,î he said.

If people are concerned about environmental issues and feedlots, they should attempt to influence the rulemaking process, Ozment explained.

Theyíre not trying to help big business, said Ozment. Big operations, over 1000 animals, must have an environmental review.

Theyíre trying to help small and mid-sized farmers from being forced in needless and expensive procedural redundancy, he explained..

Some farmers are so cowed by redtape stemming from increasing the size of their herds, they donít even want to try.

And that hurts them financially, said Ozment.

The exemption to environmental reviews is not absolute.

Feedlots located near rivers, lakes, or other environmentally sensitive areas would still need to have one, said Ozment.

Some environmental groups use the feedlot issue as a means of raising funds, he said.

Top of Page