Dear Sierrans,

 

The Des Moines Register today says we need to do more to convince our legislators.  See the article at:

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070114/OPINION03/701140317/1035/OPINION

 

Here is one of many letters I have written… maybe you could send one of your own to your favorite (or not) Legislator? ….

 

 

To Representative Donovan Olson, Chair of House Environmental Protection Committee

December 19, 2006

 

Representative Olson,

 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review the documents you provided in your previous email.  If I may take the liberty – I will respond to the local control document in this note, and then, I will reply regarding your other documents in my next note.

 

“Local Control”

 

To give you some background about my perception of the issue, I provide you with a few pieces of information regarding my home county of Dickinson:  1) In the last census, Dickinson County was the only growing rural county in Iowa.  2) Latest data I could find on hogs and pigs sold in Dickinson (which has a declining trend line over time) is $9,000,000 / year.  Latest data on tourism revenues in Dickinson is $173,000,000 / year.  I.e., revenues from hogs are equivalent to only 5% of the revenues from tourism in Dickinson County.  And, 3) Currently, the entire agricultural industry (livestock + crops) employs only 10.9% of those employed in the Spirit Lake laborshed (those residences with a Spirit Lake zip code, which includes much of the unincorporated area of Dickinson).

 

In just the last 2 Environmental Protection Commission meetings, there were appeals to confinement construction permits from Cass, Adair, Calhoun and Crawford Counties.  And I am presently working with folks from Dickinson, Jefferson, Story, Cerro Gordo, Marshall and Palo Alto Counties, as well as Iowa Farmers Unions, Iowa CCI and Sierra Club, who have members statewide. 

 

Iowa is not a one-size-fits-all state.  What might work in Sioux County is inappropriate for Dickinson or Johnson Counties.  We trust local communities to make land-use decisions regarding every other industry, why not industrial agriculture?  Why does the state take such a paternalistic attitude about confined livestock, will the state next tell counties where to place ethanol plants or slaughter houses? And, why the encouragement of industrial agriculture and the bio-economy anyway, why not encourage the tourism and recreational industries, or encourage the internet generation to live and work in rural Iowa while enjoying its “small town” character?  Why not preserve incorporated areas and public use areas from the encroachment of industrial agriculture?

 

Confinements are not ‘benign” facilities.  Confinements generate significant air and water pollution that affect potentially all residents of certain counties.  They contaminate surface, ground and drinking water supplies.  Confinement operators spread hormones, antibiotics, bacteria, excess nitrogen and excess phosphorous on lands, sometimes as close as fifty feet from a person’s doorstep.  Confinements emit over 200 chemicals into the air, causing known health problems, especially to children and the elderly.  Industrial farming changes the social fabric of communities by creating greater income inequality, altering population size and social composition, which affects crime, social conflict, family stability, local class structure, community participation, and local shopping patterns.  Industrial farming brings on the need for greater governmental intervention to address environmental and health problems and services for the poor.  Case studies report the loss of local autonomy, in which communities become increasingly subject to the influence of external business owners whose interests may not be compatible with their own. 

 

I fully support the concept of utilizing zoning to guide decision making for all land uses in the unincorporated areas of the county.  However, I am aware there is also a similar but different approach being considered as well, one that would apply to all counties while still including some state-generated criteria for decision-making.  Rather than using “zoning”, the proposal utilizes the county “home rule” sections of the Iowa Code and authorizes a county confinement siting ordinance based upon statutorily defined criteria.  The criteria in the proposal attached are based on environmental concerns.  I would ask you to consider as well economic development criteria that would allow counties like Dickinson or Johnson to recognize that industrial livestock makes an insignificant contribution to county revenues, but may cause significant damage to primary revenues such as tourism or retail sales.

 

In closing, I respectively state that in addition to this being a “political” issue, it is indeed a “public policy” issue as well as a “social justice” issue.  I understand that the industrial agriculture lobby is powerful and well-funded.  That’s why we worked so hard to bring Democrats into office and obtain majorities in the Iowa House and Senate, as well as a Democrat for Governor.  If Democrats do not stand up for the average person, we will simply withdraw from the political scene, and Republicans will once again take political control.  What difference would it make after all?

 

Thank you for allowing me to express my thoughts,

 

Donna Buell

2608 Manhattan Blvd

Spirit Lake, IA 51360

(712) 336-2103; (712) 339-8004