ACRE Legislation Would Help CAFOs Strong-Arm Local Governments
What you can do:Please contact your Representative and Senator and urge them to oppose the ACRE legislation, or any other proposal that would serve to weaken local governments' ability to protect communities from the growing dangers represented by animal factory farms. Click here for letter to send to legislators (.doc format) Pennsylvania’s communities could soon be further handicapped in their ability to protect their residents from factory farm pollution. Governor Rendell is poised to introduce legislation, as part of his ACRE (Agriculture, Communities and the Rural Environment) Initiative, that would establish a panel of political appointees to determine the legality of local ordinances limiting concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs). In December, 2003, Governor Rendell vetoed House Bill 1222, an eleventh-hour measure passed by the General Assembly including a restriction on local government powers to enact ordinances limiting the establishment and operation of CAFOs. Now that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled to let stand his veto of HB 1222, Governor Rendell is following through on the commitment to advance his own legislation satisfying industrialized agriculture industry’s demand for relief from local ordinances. According to administration descriptions, the legislation would establish a five-member Agriculture Review Board (ARB) that would issue a final administrative adjudication on the legality of local ordinances affecting agriculture, where they are questioned by operators. The ARB would consist of the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, Environmental Protection, and Community and Economic Development, and two gubernatorial appointees. The Department of Agriculture would defend, and the Attorney General would enforce, the ARB’s final adjudication. Any farmer would be able to request ARB review of an ordinance. Secretary of Agriculture Dennis Wolff has called municipal restrictions on agricultural practices a “large problem for Pennsylvania agriculture”, and has touted the ACRE proposal as a way to provide relief from burdensome litigation to agricultural operations. Addressing a recent meeting of Westmoreland County township supervisors, Wolff noted, “Through ACRE, our goal is to balance legitimate business interests of the agriculture industry with the environmental and community concerns of local citizens and elected leaders. ACRE will help resolve some of the interface issues that occur when the non-farm community meets production agriculture.” The Pennsylvania Chapter has urged the administration to back away from what we see as a seriously flawed approach to the problem. While the ARB review process is intended to enable communities and agricultural interests to resolve conflicts out of court, that result is very unlikely. In fact, an unelected body would rule on any ordinances that agricultural interests chose to challenge, and local governments would be forced to defend in court their efforts to safeguard their communities. The construct pits one level of government directly against another, as the Attorney General would be charged with enforcing the ARB’s decision. The financial burden for litigation would be shifted onto local governments. At issue is whether local governments will be further constrained from protecting the local environment and public health from the impacts of industrialized agricultural operations. An ARB acting in an advisory capacity could be a benefit to municipalities, providing a review of local ordinances for consistency with Right to Farm Act provisions. An advisory process could actually help local governments stay out of court and keep their costs down, even as they try to protect their citizens and resources from pollution and pursue smart growth strategies. Pennsylvania has a relatively weak system to regulate the environmental and public health threats from animal factory farms. While it is true that minimal improvements in state regulations have been proposed, they fall far short of what is needed. Local governments, closest to their constituents, are last line of defense against the assaults on the quality of life, the lowering of property values, threats to public health, and sustainable family farms. In Pennsylvania, land use planning has been moving, surely at a glacial pace, in the direction of enabling local communities to identify sensitive resources and undertake planning as to protect them. This ACRE legislation, heavily backed by CAFO industry, would push in the opposite direction, giving the upper hand to CAFOs against local ordinances aimed at protecting natural resources and community health. It would also further disadvantage small farmers, making it easier for CAFOs to strong-arm their way into communities, undermining the viability of smaller, sustainable farms. Of course, the long-term and best answer to this problem is to recognize that CAFOs are based on unsustainable practices and that Pennsylvania should not be bowing to their pressure and giving them carte blanche to drive out small, sustainably operated farms and foul our environment. The Right to Farm Act should be amended to be a ‘right to farm responsibly’ law, protecting sustainable farmers from nuisance lawsuits over farm odors. Mega-sized animal factories should be treated as the industrial operations that they are. They should not be afforded “rights” to harm air and water quality and public health. What you can do:Please contact your Representative and Senator and urge them to oppose the ACRE legislation, or any other proposal that would serve to weaken local governments' ability to protect communities from the growing dangers represented by animal factory farms. Click here for letter to
send to legislators (.doc format) Sierra Club® and "Explore,
enjoy and protect the planet."® are registered trademarks
of the Sierra Club. |