|
Hog Watch Manitoba News April 2004 |
|
|
As
property rights slide, odours rise As property rights slide, odours rise Fri 23 Apr 2004 Last Friday, in a national "day of action" against factory farming, rural Canadians denounced the giant feedlots, mega hog barns and concentrated poultry operations that increasingly threaten their health and well-being. While demonstrators in Saskatchewan and Ontario called for provincial moratoriums on the hog industry's expansion, activists in Alberta and Manitoba cut to the heart of the matter, insisting on local control over the siting of livestock operations. Their demands point to an often-overlooked fact: In robbing Canadians of their property rights, heavy-handed provincial legislators have brought us factory farms. Nowhere has the disempowerment of individuals and communities been clearer than in New Brunswick, where Friday's protests focused on Metz Farms 2 Ltd, an enormous pig farm outside Sainte-Marie-de-Kent, near the province's eastern coast. The farm, established four-and-a-half years ago, is among the country's most controversial. Housing 10,000 hogs at one time -- 30,000 over the course of a year -- it produces 24 million litres of liquid manure annually. Whether stored in the farm's 90-by-90 metre lagoon or sprayed on nearby fields, the manure smells. Local residents describe the odours from the Metz 2 farm as "unbearable" and "nauseating." Some complain of breathing difficulties, tearing eyes and sore throats, others of being kept from their gardens. Still others worry that the smells drive tourists away. Local residents, who are also concerned about the air and water pollution often associated with manure, have worked relentlessly to persuade provincial politicians to shut down the operation, organizing motorcades and rallies, occupying government offices and gathering thousands of names on petitions. The province defends Metz 2, noting that it has respected the acts and regulations governing it. That defence is hardly reassuring, given that the province does not regulate odours. In any case, both the government and the opposition have made it clear that they would rather shore up the farm with subsidies than shut it down. Not so long ago, Metz 2's fate would not have rested with the province. This essentially local dispute would have been resolved by the parties directly involved through discussion and negotiation. If that failed, through the courts. For centuries, courts resolved conflicts between farmers and their neighbours by applying the fundamental principle, "use your own property so as not to harm another's." While farmers had rights to use and enjoy their property, they had responsibilities not to interfere with their neighbours' ights to use and enjoy their property. Courts generally deemed such interferences nuisances and issued injunctions against them. Of course, courts did not find all unpleasant farm activities to be nuisances. Courts rarely enjoined minor or temporary irritants or those offensive only to unusually sensitive people. And they tended to permit activities that they considered reasonable -- especially those in keeping with the character of the neighbourhood. That said, courts rarely sanctioned severe odours. New Brunswick's courts were no exceptions. In 1985, a New Brunswick court heard a case concerning a pig farm in Charlo. Twenty-five neighbours objected to the recently expanded farm's unbearable stench. Children could not play outdoors; families could not barbecue, air their laundry or even leave their windows open. Some complained of nausea, others of sleeplessness and stress. The court, determining that the odours constituted a nuisance, awarded damages and said that it would have issued an injunction had a fire not already shut down the farm. Appalled by the decision, New Brunswick's farmers demanded protection, and the government of the day lost no time in providing it. In just seven months, provincial courts could no longer defend citizens' age-old rights to live undisturbed by agricultural nuisances, thanks to the Agricultural Operation Practices Act. As long as they did not violate a land use control law, the Health Act or the Clean Environment Act, farmers would not be liable in nuisance for odours, noises or dust. Last year, the provincial government, nervous about the conflicts between Metz 2 and its neighbours, proclaimed an even broader Agricultural Operation Practices Act, expanding the list of protected nuisances to include vibrations, light, smoke and other disturbances. It established a government-appointed board -- with four of its six members recommended by farm organizations -- to mediate disputes between farmers and their neighbours. Although citizens dissatisfied with the board's conclusions technically retain recourse to the courts, then agriculture minister Rodney Weston explained, "they don't have a leg to stand on." Sadly, New Brunswick's Progressive Conservatives are by no means the only provincial politicians to have robbed rural residents of their rights in order to protect unviable farms. So-called "right-to-farm" acts have become the rule across Canada in recent decades. The acts vary from province to province but share several features. All permit pollution levels that the common-law did not. All shift important costs of farming operations from farmers to those living downstream or downwind of the farms. And all take decision making out of the hands of those directly affected and place it in the hands of a central authority. The costs to the environment, to human health, and to social peace have been enormous.
Family
pig producers slam 'factory farms' The group said they want a moratorium on intensive hog operations until the environmental, health, economic and social implications are adequately addressed. Protester Sandy Schorr has been fighting a large-scale barn proposal for the Moosomin area, where she has a family ranch with cattle, goats, pigs and chickens. Schorr said there are health and pollution concerns associated with intensive operations that government should be heeding. The large-scale barns also threaten family farms, she said. "One way to bring back people to Saskatchewan is to bring back the family farm. Young people can come out to Saskatchewan where the land is the cheapest and buy a quarter and raise free range pigs and they can make a living on 100 sows," Schorr said. "We don't need 3,000 sow barns." The Saskatchewan Beyond Factory Farming Coalition was just one of the groups taking part in a national day of action. Saskatchewan Agriculture has in the past maintained that the province has tough environmental regulations and hog barns are here to stay. Some coalition members are expected to meet with government next week. The Saskatchewan legislature has gone to the hogs. A group of farmers calling themselves the Beyond Factory Farming Coalition, showed up in front the building today with a pen full of five piglets to make their point. They're protesting government policies surrounding factory hog farms. Ken Sigurdson (SIG'-urd-suhn), a grain farmer who has been fighting the establishment of a factory hog farm in the Rural Municipality of Livingston, says that large operations threaten both the environment and animal health. He would like to see a moratorium on the development of factory farms and a return to single-desk hog marketing to help small farmers stay in business. A spokesman for the agriculture department says both the environment minister and the minister of agriculture plan to meet with the group next week.
FOUL launches protest in Falher Rick Froese A small but visible group of about 20 Smoky River rural residents opposing factory farms and supporting family farms gathered in front of Dunvegan MLA Hector Goudreau’s office in Falher last Friday to demonstrate their displeasure with the Province of Alberta government’s policy and position supporting factory farms. Residents from throughout the region, and one from as far away as Fairview converged on the MLA’s office for the event hosted by Friends of an Unpolluted Lifestyle (FOUL), a group of property owners in the Municipal District of Smoky River who formed FOUL last fall to strengthen their forces to express their opposition to the Province of Alberta having complete control in locating and regulating confined feeding operations and intensive livestock operations. However, the MLA was in Grande Prairie for the day as guest speaker to unveil the new logo for the new promotion of Branding the Peace, a commitment he made several months ago, Goudreau toldthe Express. “We were pleased with the turnout for a first-time event and we received much support from the people we talked to,” says Tony Flowers, president of FOUL. “I would say that about 90 per cent of the people we distributed information to support our position.”After municipalities had control over regulating these farming operations, the provincial government established the Natural Resources Conservation Board (NRCB) in 2002 to regulate these operations. “We know the feeling is high, and the only way to change this is to do it politically,” says Flowers.He says that the current regulations for large livestock operations are inadequate. ms, we want them in a way that does not pollute water, ruin neighbours’ lifestyle, and the facilities are operated in a sustainable manner,” says Flowers. After the hog industry has left the community, he believes local residents will be left to clean up the mess. “We believe the industry of large hog operations is a short-term industry, about 20 years, and we feel that after they’ve left, we as residents and municipalities will be left with the mess to clean up.” On the other hand, FOUL supports the agriculture industry to sustain and develop the local economy. “We realize we need as much industry and agriculture to increase prosperity in our region,” says Flowers.“However, hit-and- miss businesses like large hog operations have no benefit to the region.” Opposition growing across Canada Public awareness and opposition to large livestock operations is growing across Alberta and Canada, FOUL promotes. “We want to raise public awareness of the negative impact associated with factory farms,” says Denis Sauvageau a director of FOUL. “Evidence of that is the avian flu now ravaging the poultry industry in the Fraser Valley in British Columbia.” Beyond Factory Farming Coalition links residents across the country The event was held nationally under the organization Beyond Factory Farming Coalition, based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, a coalition helping to connect concerned citizens in the struggle againstfactory farms. “We’re hoping to persuade provincial and federal governments to consider more-acceptable ways of producing meat product,” says Sauvageau. “We have to go back to family farms.” “We have to stand up and be noticed, to try to minimize the effect of factory farming in our region……and support family farms and maintain our current good quality of life in this region,” he says. Research by FOUL justifies concerns by residents south of Girouxville the past two years that the economical, environmental, and social effects of factory farms are detrimental to this region, says Sauvageau. FOUL board members express concerns Following the protest, several FOUL members expressed their views in a prepared statement. “The health and environmental hazards surrounding factory farms are far more important than the minimal financial gains for the local economy,” says Sauvageau. “We want Mr. Goudreau and our provincial government to wake up to the fact that laws must change to clearly separate factory farms from family farms,” says director and past-president Lucienne Pitre. “Factory farms are also exempt from property tax, a fact many residents don’t know.” “We must put pressure on elected officials to consider the negative health and social consequences of factory farms in our rural regions,” says treasurer Sylvianne Tardif. “Alberta needs to put a stop to this by imposing a moratorium.” “I don’t think anyone should be forced to live in such an unhealthy environment and that rural residents must be prepared to preserve their quality of life,” says director Diane Lefebvre. Members also point out that local operations lack water to fight fires from spreading to crops or forests, an emergency-response plan, nor require an environmental impact study prior to development. Concerned residents urged to send letters to federal and provincial agriculture ministers FOUL distributed printed information about the detriments of factory farms and the benefits of family farms, and encourages residents to send a prepared letter to Alberta Agriculture Minister Shirley McClellan and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Minister Bob Speller. With no postage required, the letter states: “I support livestock production by independent family farmers to ensure they have a fair livelihood, live in healthy rural communities, and produce meat in a socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable way.” “But your government funds, policies, and programs that promote industrial livestock production, which puts family farmers out of business, pollutes the land, air, and water, brings conflict to communities and produces meat of a health and taste quality that many people question.” “We need an agriculture system that protects our health, environment, and family farms.” “I am calling on you now to stop using our tax dollars to prop up factory farming,” the letter concludes. Beyond Factory Farming Coalition promotes livestock production that supports food sovereignty, ecological sustainability, human and animal health, local sustainability, community viability, and informed citizen and consumer choice. “People across Canada are fighting to defend their food and their communities,” states a brochure printed by the coalition. Factory farming, with its mega hog barns, giant feedlots, fish farms, and battery chicken operations, is harmful to family farmers, workers, the environment, rural communities, animals, and food quality, states the brochures. Further, the coalition explains the factors in both factory and family farming. Factory farming – pollutes soil, air and water; requires few low-paying and unhealthy jobs; routinely feeds antibiotics; keeps animals in inhumane conditions; is operated by large corporations; is an industry that uses rules designed for family farms as a way to avoid regulation and taxation; and has expanded due to provincial and federal government support. Family farming – is done by family members who provide the majority of their farm’s labour, management, and capital; suffers under policies that favour factory farms; forms the economic, social, and cultural base of healthy rural communities; has long-term commitment to healthy land, air, and water quality; and can produce environmentally-friendly certified organic, free-range, grass-fed, natural and pastured meat. “Family farming would provide all the safe, healthy, affordable meat Canadians need if we make it a purchasing priority, and if we stop the growth of factory farms,” states the brochure. FOUL continues to invite more concerned residents to become members of the local group. For memberships or for more information, phone president Tony Flowers
(324-3597), vice-president Norm Lagace (837-8278), treasurer Sylvianne
Tardif (323-4493), secretary Linda Pitre (323-3231), or directors Diane
Lefebvre (323-4824), Gerry Noel (925-2297), Lucienne Pitre (323-4293),
Roland Garant (925-2366), Gilles Sylvain (837-3531), Denis Sauvageau (837-8290. Pig
farmers in Alberta are dropping in number Canada is the world's number 1 exporter of pork, shipping 2.5 times more meat than the beef industry. Exports to the United States, mostly of weaned piglets, surged 35 per cent in 2003 to 7.3 million (about seven per cent of U.S. production), from 2001, but feed and freight costs are prohibitively high for many smaller operations in Alberta. The fatal combination of high feed grain prices, several years of drought, utility bills doubling, and softening pork prices has squeezed margins so thin the province lost 250 producers last year, bringing the total number of hog farmers to 1,550. "There are huge strains to equity with no offset programs from the government," says Paul Hodgman, assistant general manager for Alberta Pork Producers. Diversified farms such as Hutterite colonies, which produce 25 to 30 per cent of Alberta hogs, can spread losses over different operations, and larger producers are doing well. There are enough slaughterhouses, including federally inspected processing plants, and consumption of pork is up this spring. However, pork producers must find ways to become more efficient, starting at the bottom of the food chain with barley, Hodgman says. Already, two-thirds of Canadian piglets are shipped south of the border to take advantage of lower priced, corn-fed feedlot operations in the U.S. High-yield barley would help reduce Canadian costs per hectare, but the Canadian Grain Commission will not license grains that can't be visibly distinguished from malt barley, he says. The imminent threat of export duties on live Canadian pigs to the U.S. increases the financial strain, making consolidation within the industry necessary to achieve economies of scale. But industry rationalization -- the term for cuts and closures -- is a bland phrase that doesn't reflect the pain of throwing in the towel, says Jack Moerman, chairman of Alberta Pork Producers. "The industry is unfortunately losing small operators because financially they just can't make it," he says. "It's become a high volume, low margin industry." Moerman is phasing out his participation in hog farming after 30 years running a 300-sow operation just outside Edmonton. He's optimistic about the overall industry regaining strength, and noted sales have climbed since February, but says "we have a bit of an Achilles heel by being so dependent on the U.S. market." The U.S. hasn't closed its border to pork as it has to ruminants because of mad cow disease. But in early March, the U.S. National Pork Producers Council petitioned Washington to impose countervailing and anti-dumping duties against live Canadian hogs and piglets. U.S. pork producers contend Canadian government programs are unfairly subsidizing the industry, and that Canadians are dumping live animals on U.S. markets for less than the cost of production. The petition demands duties ranging from five to 20 per cent be imposed as early as June 1. Insiders says a first hearing with the International Trade Commission on March 19 wasn't positive for Canadians, but the situation could improve. In the meantime, February prices exceeded production costs for the first time in 18 months, but "we have a tremendously long way to get back from where we were," Hodgman says. Dina O'Meara is a Calgary freelance writer Re:
Bill 40 Now, some government-appointed official, who may not live anywhere near the proposal, approves or denies an application based on so called "technical" information. The result is that most applications are rubber-stamped and the neighbours no longer have an avenue to voice their concerns and are further alienated from the process. Although this may be just what the government ordered - a path of least resistance for the livestock industry to expand, it has, in many cases,destroyed the sense of community as well as negatively impacted the environment. I strongly urge you to stop Bill 40 before it causes the problems it has in Alberta. We have listed a few specific cases where the Natural Resources Conservation
Board (NRCB) has failed to fulfill the promises made when they took over
the responsibilities of CFOs and has instead expanded the livestock industry
at all costs. Natural Resource Conservation Board (NRCB). Alberta's old system with municipalities approving the siting of Intensive Livestock Operations now called Confined Feeding Operations (CFO) was far from a perfect system but it was much better than the new provincial Natural Resource Conservation Board (NRCB). Under the old system the decision makers were accountable to the people that elected them. Community members/neighbours had a say on CFOs that were being proposed for their area. The decision makers could use common sense when it came to the approvals. A number of municipalities had taken the provincial guideline known as the "Code of Practice: for the Safe and Economical Handling of Animal Manures", improved on it to suit the conditions that existed in the area. In a number of cases it was the municipalities with the high concentrations of CFOs that had the strictest rules. The large corporate factory farms were opposed to these different rules in different municipalities and they wanted a province wide set of rules so they could set up in any municipality without having to meet different rules. Now with the provincial Agricultural Operation Practices Act (AOPA) and the NRCB granting the approvals the corporate factory farms got their wish, weak province wide rules, with a biased approval process. The first thing that gives this away is the name of the decision makers, Approval Officers. The decision making process has two types of applications: 1) Registration 2) Approval. These two classifications are based on the size of the operation. For example, a hog feeder operation with 3299 or less hogs is a Registration; anoperation with 3300 or more feeders is an Approval. Operations that are classed as Registrations, until recently, did not require any public input. As long as they met technical requirements, they were given approval. Now however, they can APPLY to have their concerns heard. This does not mean that they will be granted a hearing; they are only allowed to apply for one. In regards to the Approval category, neighbours within a limited radius of the operation can APPLY to have their concerns heard. Again, this does not mean that they will be granted a hearing.Under AOPA as long as the producer can get an engineer to say that it would be possible to build the operation at the proposed site it will most likely be approved. Alberta Agriculture minister Shirley McClellan stated that producers needed a set of rules that would protect them. The public and the environment should also be protected from operators that are not following the rules. However, there are no fines that can be imposed without going to Court. "Enforcement orders" are handed out, if the producer is willing to comply then there is compliance, but if they are not, nothing will be done other than another enforcement order given or an extension of the time line for compliance being granted. Enforcement officers are not even allowed to enter a barn due to bio-security. The NRCB is a law unto them. When the rules are going to go against an operation being approved, they change the rules. They have used proposed changes to the regulations as if they were already law. When AOPA was put in, the Provincial Authority stated that municipal input would form a large part of the decision-making process. However, the opposite has occurred. Municipalities who have provided supporting documentation that a proposal should not be located in an area have been totally ignored. Instead of the municipality's concerns being heard, the applications are approved by the NRCB anyway. The NRCB has also taken it upon them to relax conditions that were put on development permits by the elected municipal governments. Some examples of how the NRCB process has not worked: 1) A beef feedlot in the Didsbury area had a development permit from the municipality for a 2500 head feedlot. Complaints were filed with the municipality prior to the NRCB takeover that there were more than the permitted 2500 head. Little was done at this point, as the NRCB was soon to take over control of Enforcement. After January 1, 2002 a complaint was filed with the NRCB. An Enforcement Order was issued that they were to reduce their numbers to the permitted 2500 giving them several months to comply. The feedlot operator then applied for an expansion to increase the number from 2500 head to 18,200 head. When the date for reduction of animals came, the animal numbers had not decreased, so a time extension was granted. If the expansion were approved, the enforcement order would become null and void. When the time extension had expired and no decision on the expansion had been made, another time expansion was given. At the end of this time extension, numbers still had not been reduced and the decision on the expansion was not granted. Shortly after this date a decision was made and the expansion was DENIED. A request for an NRCB Review board Hearing was granted and a stay on the Enforcement Order was also granted. However, the NRCB Review Board approved the expansion with a reduced pen floor thickness than what was required by the Regulations. They stated that the reason for this was an amendment to the regulations. This amendment had not even been passed into law at the time. The approval was appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeals, "Leave to Appeal" was granted. Before the case could be heard, the Legislature made changes to the regulations so that existing operations would no longer need to upgrade existing facilities when an expansion was granted. This may render the appeal on this operation of no use. 2) A hog farm in Ponoka County had applied to the County on a number of occasions for an expansion, but they had been denied every time. According to the County, the operation was too close to the town of Ponoka. The expansion was then applied for through the NRCB. The application was given to an NRCB office out of the area. The County stated that the operation was too close to the Town of Ponoka and that the land between the town and the hog operation was slated for annexation by the town which would put the hog operation within the radius of the town where CFOs would not be permitted. However, even though the County had stated that this proposed site was unacceptable, the NRCB Approval Officer approved the operation. The Directly Affected Persons in the area requested a Review Board Hearing and the request were denied. It was stated that the Approval Officer addressed all of the concerns. 3) A hog operation in the County of Ponoka that was approved by the County had a condition put on the approval requiring that a concrete pad be constructed to store solid manure. This concrete pad was never built and the solid manure was stock piled on the site. A complaint was filed with the NRCB that the concrete pad had not been built and that manure was being stock piled there. The NRCB Enforcement Officer went out and the producer said he would haul the manure away and not stockpile it anymore. The NRCB then took the concrete pad out of the conditions that were put on by the elected municipal officers. Below this stockpile area is an intermittent stream that runs off the land. The producer continues to stockpile the manure in this location. When a complaint is filed the NRCB Enforcement Officer goes out and tells the producer to haul the pile away and nothing further is done. 4) A 3000 sow-farrow barn and 4 - 2500 wean barns were proposed in Vulcan County. The County approved the application with several conditions. The opponents appealed the decision to the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board. The application was withdrawn from the County and submitted to the NRCB. The Approval Officer approved the operation with conditions. An NRCB Review Board Hearing was requested and granted. The NRCB Review Board approved the operation and more conditions were included. The operation was being built in stages, when the sow barn was completed an Open House was held. Immediately after this Open House, hogs were in the sow barn.Several months after this, NRCB Enforcement Officers visited the site, 16 of the 31 conditions were not met. Some of the conditions will now be impossible to meet as baseline guides were to be taken prior to the operation being put into use. Shareholders own this operation, managed by Elite Swine, which is a subsidiary of Maple Leaf Foods. An Enforcement Order was put on the operation and time extensions granted to comply. 5) Bentley/Bacon Acres has been a long time problem. The hog facility has created an odor problem in the Town of Bentley. The NRCB, Alberta Environment, and Alberta Agriculture have all tried to do something about the toxic gases. A new technique of using bio-filters was tried and the owner has tried various methods but all have failed. The Agriculture Minister called for an Agriculture Peer Review Committee to take a look at the situation. Two of the committee members have to be hog producers as this is a hog operation. The other member is who ever the Agriculture Minister chooses. The Committee met with the citizens from Bentley to address their concerns. The concerns of the people from Bentley were not addressed as the people were told they were obsessed with the odors (toxic gases) and the operation was operating in a fine fashion. All this did was make it so the people of Bentley could no longer complain about the odors (toxic gases). At a meeting with the NRCB in Calgary in December 2003, we were informed that upon inspection by the NRCB, 90 percent of the new operations that had been built were in non-compliance after construction with their approval. What we hope to have demonstrated through these examples is that the NRCB has let down the people of Alberta. An intensive livestock operation can be engineered to look great on paper in any location, BUT that doesn't mean that that is the best location for such an operation. Stripping away local control leads to the fast tracking of livestock
operations, improper siting, and the destruction of community cohesiveness.
Once again, we urge you to cease forcing this legislation through. Thank
you for your time. Lisa Bechtold, Big Governments Take Power From Small Ones In Economic Matters Provincial and state governments across North America are contemplating and sometimes passing legislation that restricts the ability of lower governments to make land use decisions. In Wisconsin, for example, the state legislature has introduced the Livestock Facility Siting Bill. Under this bill, the state Department of Agriculture would write rules for siting and expanding livestock facilities. A village, town or county would then have to use those rules. Local governments also would be barred from stopping large facilities, except in special circumstances. In Wisconsin, as in many rural areas of North America, controversy has arisen over the construction of intensive livestock facilities, including mega-dairies, feedlots and hog barns. In response to pressure from rural residents, local governments have sometimes used their land-use bylaws to prohibit, or to impose rules and regulations on intensive livestock facilities. The new act would create a standard set of rules that local governments would be forced to use. Similar battles and similar laws are happening in Canadian provinces. Manitoba recently introduced Bill 40, a bill to amend the Manitoba Planning Act. The bill, according to the government, is intended to provide "consistency to land use decisions". Like the Wisconsin legislation, it would reduce the powers of municipal governments over intensive livestock operations (ILOs). Critics have lined up on both sides of the bill. The National Farmers Union maintains that local governments should have ultimate authority in matters around siting. It claims the new rules will prevent municipal councils from regulating "matters concerning the use, application and storage of manure". The NFU says it would also "open up local governments to lawsuits if a corporation felt they were inappropriately applying such rules". Manitoba Pork, on the other hand, claims the "government only went half way in introducing provincial standards in guiding local land use decision-making. This simply invites further inconsistencies between neighbouring rural municipalities." Saskatchewan's Association of Rural Municipalities recently set up a committee "to identify impediments to rural economic development within the existing municipal structure, legislation or policy and to make recommendations for change." According to SARM President Neal Hardy, "Our goal is to create a regulatory environment that doesn't hinder economic development in rural Saskatchewan." If the committee report finds areas where change is necessary, the logical outcome would be provincial legislation that forces some uniformity of regulations on municipalities. It's obvious there are conflicts between the way different levels of government see their responsibilities. Municipal governments, by their nature, allow local input into decisions that have large local impacts. Provincial and state governments like to think they represent the broader and more objective view. There is a degree of truth in both sides, and a degree of problem. For example, in the case of intensive livestock operations, municipalities may be lobbied hard by residents over decisions to allow an ILO to build in their jurisdiction. Provincial governments, in turn, may be pressured by corporations to override the authority of municipalities on the grounds that they are too close to the situation to be objective. While provinces may see the benefits of economic developments, they are less concerned about the drawbacks. Saskatchewan's rural municipalities have long defended their right to be sovereign in their own territory, so any changes that affect their powers could be a hard sell. Nevertheless, some of the municipalities are so small that the criticism they can't be objective may be correct. If the province's solution to that problem is to take away some municipal powers, it should be asked if the solution is the right one. If RMs are too small to exercise their authority appropriately, you can either take away their power or change their structure. Given the track record of Saskatchewan's RMs, the former might be less difficult. However, the latter would leave more power at the local level. ILOs will always be controversial, for many reasons. One of the reasons is that governments have failed to properly address the problems they create. As citizens, we sometimes have to accept some inconvenience for the greater good. If I live in northeast Regina, the smell of the oil refinery and the occasional bit of ash raining from the sky affect my quality of life. The refinery is also a huge economic driver in the city's economy. But if the paint on my car is ruined by the particles from the sky, my government auto insurance will pay me. The larger society bears some of the cost. If a hog barn is built next to my farm and affects my quality of life and property value, I can't go to Saskatchewan Government Insurance and be compensated. I can't go anywhere because government legislation protects the hog barn. If governments would address this issue of liability, some of the opposition to ILOs would decline. To date, governments across North America have chosen denial as the major means of dealing with it. Municipal governments then sometimes take the cautious approach of protecting residents from the problems in the first place. The province or state responds by taking away municipal powers. There has to be a better way. One plus for SARM's committee is that it proposes to take the bull by the horns before the province does. Now, it needs to listen to both sides of the arguments, not just the side with the money, or the side only seeking to protect its turf. Good luck! Paul Beingessner Farmers'
Group, RMs concerned by changes to Planning Act Farmers and several rural municipalities are preparing to fight the provincial government's planned amendments to the Planning Act regulating new livestock operations. Members of the National Farmers Union along with several RM representatives, presented a submission to the province yesterday that contained the details of their concerns regarding the proposed amendments which were announced last month. The group argues the changes will have implications for the environment, construction of large scale hog barns and the power of municipalities. "Somebody has to step forward to bring attention to the fact that this legislation will take away the (RM's) right to make decisions," said Terry Pugh, the NFU's executive-secretary. The group's 15-page paper objects to several of the changes being made to the Planning Act, including the creation of a "one size fits all" approval process for livestock operations, the opening up of local councils to court action by applicants and enhancement of ministerial discretion. The NFU also questions the environmental viability of the Water Act and points out the mpending amendments will remove power from local councils, especially when it comes to issues surrounding industrial hog farms. Pugh hopes the provincial government will consider the NFU's proposals and rethink current policies in regards to the hog farms and the Planning Act. "We would like to see a real step back from the Manitoba's government push to bring in industrial hog farms," he said. "I think once people really understand the ramifications, they will oppose the legislation." Intergovernmental Affairs Minister MaryAnn Mihychuk believes there is wide support for the bill and much of the concern raised over the proposed legislation is due to a miscommunication."It's unfortunate, I think there's a lot of misunderstanding and inaccuracies in the documents," she said in response to the NFU submission. "The Association of Manitoba Municipalities approved the bill. We're going to send out more information to all our RMs." Mihychuk believes the bill not only enhances the government's commitment to the environment, but also strengthens the power of rural councils. "I don't think they're losing power," she said. "They're gaining power. They will be able to decide (such things as) livestock limits and where farming will be." But that's not the view of some municipal leaders as they begin to study the proposed changes to the legislation.Ed Stroeder, reeve for the RM of Westbourne, takes issue with several amendments the government is pushing. "There is room for improvement in this bill. There are some areas of concern," he said. "We can't impose any restrictions on storage facilities. We don't have options anymore on this." Pointing to the fact RM representatives are usually in the best position to understand pressing local concerns, Stroeder believes the government is playing an underhanded game of politics to grab more power. "I think this is a veiled effort at bypassing local authority," Stroeder said. "It's wrong, I disagree with it and I think the local councils are going to pay for it." Skeptics
fear province won't act on new water laws A provincial plan to "roll back the clock" on development that threatens water resources is sparking skepticism in both environment and agricultural lobby groups. The plan -- which would see new legislative powers to remove or alter residential, commercial or agricultural development that threatens water at the source -- has been applauded by environmentalists. However, there are lingering concerns that the NDP government will not follow through with its promises even if new legal powers are enacted. "The intent of the legislation is great but it's hard to say if government is going to be accountable to do what they said they want to do," said Glen Koroluk, spokesman for Hog Watch Manitoba, an environmental lobby group opposed to the expansion of the livestock industry. Koroluk said the Lake Winnipeg basin, which will contain numerous so-called "no-go zones" that will restrict or prohibit development, is already rife with septic fields, landfill sites, industrial plants and factory farms which are compromising water quality. The cost of altering or removing these water quality threats could be astronomical, which begs the question of whether the province has the fortitude to proceed with such a controversial plan, he said. Also, the province has shown little interest in curtailing intensive livestock operations through planned amendments to the Planning Act, Koroluk said. Hogwatch believes the proposed changes ould make it more difficult for individual communities to oppose large livestock farms, he added. The Water Protection Act was touted by the NDP government as the toughest legislation of its kind in Canada. The bill tabled earlier this year was an enabling act, which would be fleshed out with specific powers and regulations later this year. No-go zones The water legislation has been accompanied by a high-profile initiative to protect Lake Winnipeg from nutrient pollution. Williamson said many of the no-go zones will be located within the enormous Lake Winnipeg drainage basin, which stretches from eastern Saskatchewan to northwestern Ontario and south to North Dakota and Minnesota, and which encompasses all of southern and central Manitoba.Poorly treated municipal waste water, and run-off from agricultural lands that use liquid manure as fertilizer, have been identified as two of the most pressing issues that need to be controlled in the basin. Ian Wishart, vice president of Keystone Agricultural Producers, said livestock and grain producers have been unfairly portrayed as being the biggest contributors to the nutrient pollution in the Lake Winnipeg basin. Studies from various sources have described the agricultural sector as responsible somewhere between 17 and 30 per cent of all the nutrients choking Lake Winnipeg and other bodies of water, Wishart said. And while the new legislation may have the power to remove a particular development from a no-gozone, it is possible for most agricultural producers to limit their impact on the water table, Wishart said. Some of these measures, including the creation of buffer zones to separate agricultural land and water sources, may require financial compensation from the province, he said. The Association of Manitoba Municipalities has not yet developed an opinion about the powers in the new legislation. AMM president Stuart Briese said his group is occupied with the Planning Act amendments and has not yet studied the water legislation. dan.lett@freepress.mb.ca Farmers must take control over controversial phosphorus The bad news emerging from recent research into how farmers manage phosphorus in manure is that they will have to make changes if they want to prevent a valuable nutrient from becoming a contaminant. The good news is there are things they can do. Phosphorus has only recently stepped into the limelight as a troublemaker when it comes to protecting water quality in Manitoba. The role this nutrient plays in causing excessive algae growth that chokes the life out of freshwater lakes and streams has put it on the hit list for politicians. But this happened years after a rapid growth spurt in the livestock sector. That left researchers and the regulators playing catch-up trying to generate the data needed to implement manure regulations without unduly harassing an industry that's considered an important economic driver in the province. Initially, regulations were drafted mainly on the basis of nitrogen. But researchers have known for some time that the ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus in manure was out of sync with the uptake by crops of those nutrients. In other words, various crops consume more nitrogen than they do phosphorus by ratios ranging from about four to one for canola to 10 to one for a crop like soybeans. So applying manure to meet a crop's nitrogen requirements will over time build up phosphorus levels in the soil to the saturation point, which is when runoff becomes an issue for water quality. Of particular concern is the application of hog manure to grazing land, a practice widely promoted in recent years as a way to boost pasture production for the province's rapidly expanding cattle sector. While the manure produces lush, rich pasture, the animals grazing it dump almost as much phosphorus back onto the land as they consume, which over time leads to an unsustainable buildup. "Many of Manitoba's soils are sufficiently low in phosphorus that they can accommodate a modest amount of manure phosphorus," says a recent study by University of Manitoba researchers Don Flaten, Ester Salvano and Ed Tyrchniewicz. Their research was commissioned by the Manitoba Livestock Manure Management Initiative. "However, our study shows that phosphorus is frequently applied in excess of crop removal. Since soil does not have an infinite capacity to retain phosphorus, this surplus could eventually pose a threat to water quality." When these researchers conducted a case study, which examined what would
happen to the land base required for manure application on typical Manitoba
farms if phosphorus regulations used in other jurisdictions were applied
here, the results were sobering. In practical terms, that has huge implications for livestock operators because of the sheer cost involved with transporting large volumes of liquid manure longer distances. However, some farmers are already switching to the feed supplement phytase for hog rations, which increases the pig's ability to use the phosphorus in the grain, reduces the amount of phosphorus supplements and which reduces phosphorus output by as much as 40 per cent. One research study also found grinding feed particles to a smaller size reduced phosphorus excretions by as much as 12 per cent. Elsewhere in the barn, they can curb water use, which reduces the volume of manure and transportation costs accordingly. Out in the field, farmers can rotate their grazing and forage crops so that every second year or so, phosphorus is removed in the form of hay that is fed to animals elsewhere, preferably on a patch of ground that is short of phosphorus. They can plant crops that consume relatively higher rates of phosphorus, such as canola and alfalfa. And if they aim for high yields in their overall crop management strategy, farmers increase the amount of nutrients consumed. So it seems farmers have a choice. They can employ a range of management strategies that will tend to put more money in their pockets, or they can cringe and bear the cost of impending regulations. Laura Rance is associate editor of the Farmers' Independent Weekly. She
can be reached at 792-4382 or by e-mail: lrance@fiwonline.com
THE National Farmers Union urged the province yesterday to dump proposed changes to the Planning Act that they say rob municipalities of control over hog-farm development. "We feel this is some of the most draconian legislation introduced in the province in a long time,'' said NFU regional co-ordinator Ken Sigurdson, after he and a group of about 25 rural residents met with representatives from the province yesterday. "The changes facilitate further corporate industrial expansion of hog factories in Manitoba and take decision-making powers away from the rural municipalities." Under the current act, individual RMs convene a conditional-use hearing to consider hog-barn proposals and to allow the residents of the area to voice their opinions on the project. Under proposed changes to the act, the conditional-use hearing will be eliminated, but local RMs will still have the ability to approve or deny a proposal for an intensive livestock operation in their area. The difference, said Intergovernmental Affairs Minister MaryAnn Mihychuk, is that under the new act, RMs will have to justify why they are denying the request and will need to establish consistent policies on livestock development. Mihychuk said the changes will ensure each livestock operation proposal is dealt with fairly and in accordance with existing rules in each RM. "The bill is important because at the present time there have been cases where the final-minute decision is perhaps not based on logic or up-front planning. It's been a random crapshoot on what's going to be approved or not approved," she said. "You don't decide those things at the last minute at the hearing because you don't like the applicant or something else that may not be defendable." Sigurdson said the new act paves the way for developers of intensive livestock operations to take RMs to court if their construction request is denied. Mihychuk agreed that increased litigation might be a result of the new act, but said that will be the case only if the RMs do not establish a consistent development plan based on science, not ideology. Under the new act, RMs will have the power to block all intensive livestock operations. But, Mihychuk said, they won't be able to discriminate on the basis of species. If an RM determines it will not allow large hog barns of over 200 animals in the area, then it will also have to restrict other livestock farms -- like cattle and chickens -- to the same size. Sigurdson said changes to the legislation will allow the minister of Intergovernmental Affairs to reject any bylaw passed by a rural municipality. In addition, he said, RMs will lose any regulatory control over the storage, application or use of manure. Ruth Pryzner, a councillor in the RM of Daly, located near Rivers, said the new act gives too much power to a provincially appointed technical review committee. She said it's the review committee that will determine if livestock operation proposals meet environmental codes and should be approved for the area. "They will determine what is relevant and reasonable,'' she said. "Before, council could impose any conditions they wanted based on what they heard from the people regardless of what the technical review said." Mihychuk said RMs will not be bound to adhere to recommendations of the technical review committee, but will need to justify their decisions to deny requests deemed appropriate by the review. The changes to the Planning Act have passed first reading in the legislature. Mihychuk said she hopes the new act will be proclaimed in January. At that point, the RMs will have two years to create their individual livestock operation development plans. leah.janzen@freepress.mb.ca
|