Large livestock farms would face additional environmental scrutiny under proposed bill

Watching the hearing on HF4698 in the Minnesota House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee Wednesday afternoon, I was struck by the utter confidence in Altura Republican Steve Jacob's opposition to the bill and his utter support for very large dairies.

As the Session Daily article below notes, Jacob claims that "Winona County used to be first in dairy production and now is fifth, he said,"  attributing this decline to a 1500 animal unit cap in Winona County.

I wondered about that factoid. While I couldn't find out where Winona County ranked in 1998, the 2009 and 2016 Minnesota Department of Agriculture's Dairy Industry Profile listed Winona County as second, while MinnWest's June is National Dairy Month: Here's a snapshot of Minnesota Dairy placed Winona County in third place in 2023.

In Dozens of Minnesota dairy farms folded in November, alarming farm advocates, reported for the Star Tribune by Christopher Vondracek, Winona County appears to be in fourth place by dairy permits, though it had gained one permit, according to the click-on map online. 

Perhaps Winona County sank to fifth since November 2023--Bluestem will have to check out the details going back to 1998.

By the way, while the hearing focused on dairy farms, the law would cover all operations with over 10,000 animal unitx.

From Session Daily:

Large dairy farms would face additional environmental scrutiny under proposed bill
By Margaret Stevens

When it comes to dairy cows, 10,000 is a very big number, Rep. Kristi Pursell (DFL-Northfield) told the House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy Committee Wednesday.

Dairies that large are 10 times bigger than what were considered large operations in the 1980s when environmental regulations around farm operations were being enacted, she said. 

And Pursell believes the state needs to update its processes to manage consolidation in the dairy industry with fewer farmers running bigger and bigger farms.  

“It doesn’t seem quite right that operations with 1,000 animal units and 10,000 animal units are subject to the same environmental reviews,” she said. “The scope of the project needs to match the level of investigation.”  

To that end, Pursell sponsors HF4698, which would trigger a full environmental impact statement for operations larger than 10,000 animal units. The bill, as amended, was laid over by the committee.

Rep. Rick Hansen (DFL-South St. Paul) compared operations that large to a small city with regards to the resources used and waste produced.

Large animal operations go through an environmental review process – generally taking a few months ­– which could trigger an environmental impact statement. The latter process could take a couple years, include environmental and social impacts, and have community involvement.

The bill would require the Environmental Quality Board to amend its rules to perform an environmental impact statement for animal feedlots of 10,000 or more animals.

Opponents say the proposed legislation would provide no additional environmental safeguards – permitted facilities are already required to have zero discharge. Requiring an environmental impact statement would only add significant delays and significant expense, said Daryn McBeth, representing the Minnesota Milk Producers Association.

Rep. Steven Jacob (R-Altura) described what he saw in Winona County after it enacted a ban on large diary operations, which then either fragmented or left the county. Winona County used to be first in dairy production and now is fifth, he said.  

The result of the bill would be that cows will leave Minnesota and go to other states, he said.

Jacob also argued efficiencies of scale, such as county feedlot operators having an easier time enforcing rules at one operation instead of 10.

Here's the Minnesota House Information Services YouTube of the hearing. Bluestem appreciated Minnesota Farmers Union President Gary Wertish's testimony in support of the bill.

Photo: Holstein dairy cattle feeding. Cole Burston Getty Images/via Scientific American.

Related posts

• Why is California funding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) dairies in Minnesota?
• Minnesota farms are consolidating and other takeaways from the Census of Agriculture
• The New Lede: Cancer in the corn belt sparks actions to fight farm chemical contamination
• In amicus brief, five ag groups ask to weigh in on ruling that blocked Daley dairy’s expansion plans
• Will MPCA's Clean Water Council recommend unconstitutional use of Legacy funds for mitigation of nitrate contamination of wells??
• State's southeastern Minnesota drinking water fix: grab donuts, coffee, and lobbyists, oh my
• Agency soup: MPCA, DNR, MDH & Ag release "Preventing fish kills in MN driftless region"
• Minnesota nitrate pollution update: raise fertilizer fees to help pay cost of nitrate pollution
• Land Stewardship Project applauds court’s support of Winona County; launches ‘Story Center Powerline’ initiative for rural residents
• Minnesota district court rules against Winona County dairy expansion; owner will appeal
• Agweek Special Report on Rural Health: 10% of MN private wells pose a health problem 
• This is fine: update on MN state agencies' response to EPA letter on karst country nitrates
• Following emergency petition regarding nitrate contamination in SEMN karst region, EPA sees further action needed to protect public health
• On ‘Cancer Road,’ a group of southeastern MN families ask if nitrate exposure is to blame 
• Eleven environmental groups petition EPA on nitrate pollution in Southeast Minnesota wate
• Strib scrutinizes MN Department of Ag action on nitrate-related Groundwater Protection Rule
• Nitrates in Southwestern Minnesota water: 'Do not give the water to infants' in Ellsworth
• Commentary from MinnPost: Can the state control nitrates in Minnesota waters?
• Minnesota Department of Health isn’t properly enforcing drinking water law, and kids will suffer
• is far from over 
• Packed house at Newburg Township on using local control to protect community, karst 
• All citizens are equal, but one thinks he's more equal: massive hog farm shareholder* seeks to prevent August 2 Newburgh Township meeting
• Jean Wagenius: For climate and clean water, state agencies need Walz to lead

If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.

Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.

I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6