JEFFERSON CITY (AP) - The Missouri Association of Counties and a coalition of agriculture and livestock groups have reached a deal on a measure that would limit local control over animal farms.

The agreement, brokered by Sen. Chris Koster, R-Harrisonville, during the General Assembly’s annual spring break last week, trades stepped-up state requirements for fewer county restrictions on concentrated animal feeding operations.

However, environmentalists, some county officials and Missourians for Local Control oppose the plan. The counties and Missourians for Local Control don’t want local governments to lose their authority to regulate such operations. And environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, which generally oppose the large farms, fear state regulations wouldn’t be as stringent, making it easier for the farms to exist.

As filed, Koster’s bill would have eliminated most local control over animal feeding operations and left state regulations as they were. Under the compromise plan, the Department of Agriculture and Department of Natural Resources would create new state standards, which would pre-empt existing county health ordinances. Also, county commissions would be allowed to veto permits for the largest class of feeding operations.

The Senate started debate on the bill yesterday but did not reach a vote.

Koster’s bill would:

● Create an odor-abatement tax credit that can give as much as $10 million worth of tax breaks over five years to help cut down on the smell coming from large livestock farms.

● Establish a review board to oversee state regulations and the tax credits.

● Expand an indemnity fund from $339,000 to $500,000 and allow it to be used for cleanup as well as insurance if an animal feeding operation is abandoned.

● Prohibit nuisance and trespassing lawsuits against farming operations.

● Require buffers between all feeding operations and neighbors and around six of the state’s largest lakes.

Supporters said the compromise measure represented a true effort to find a workable alternative to Koster’s original bill.

"We each had to give up something that, ideally, we would not have had to," said Missouri Farm Bureau President Charlie Kruse, whose organization supports the repeal of county health ordinances.

Kruse said he believes the expanded state regulations, plus veto power over the largest feeding operations, should appease most county commissions.

But at least one county commission said the Missouri Association of Counties was not authorized to make the deal.

Linn County Commissioner Randy Wade said yesterday that the association told commissioners that recommendations approved by members in November would not be changed. Wade said he doubts most county commissions would have accepted the proposed compromise and wants the county association to quit backing it.

"They’re saying the needs of Linn County is the same as Cole County, which is the same as Boone County and Schuyler County," Wade said. "It’s a whole lot like saying the speed limit in Brookfield, Mo., should be the same as in Jefferson City."

Dick Burke, the county association’s executive director, did not immediately return a call seeking comment yesterday.

Rhonda Perry, the program director for Missourians for Local Control, said the compromise relies heavily on unknowns. Because the bill doesn’t spell out the new rules - instead requiring the agriculture and natural resources departments to create them - there is no way to know whether the state requirements would offer more or less protection, she said.

"I think it’s no compromise," she said. "We’re very much opposed to anything that takes away property rights and local control."

She said the veto power is worth little because it is unlikely anyone would try to start a new mega-feeding operation.

Ken Midkiff, president of the Ozark Chapter Sierra Club, said in an e-mail that the new language creating a regulatory review board would leave those likely to support feeding operations in charge of regulating them and prompts questions about enforcement.

Koster said during debate yesterday that over-regulating farming could drive it away.

"Animal husbandry could pick up and move to Brazil or Central America, just as easily as textiles picked up and moved away from South Carolina or manufacturing and industry picked up and moved from Ohio and Pennsylvania," said Koster.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Advertisement