Royce J. Emerick

Brookings Register, Speakout column
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

Offsets associated with hosting a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) include increases in health costs, schooling costs, traffic accidents, infrastructure repairs and decreased tax assessment of residential property. Brookings County is currently pondering the problem of increased costs for gravel in the townships hosting the eight large dairies already in operation or approved. Schooling costs are expected to increase disproportionately if special education classes such as English as a second language are required. Also, low paid CAFO workers often are not covered by health insurance and these costs default to the local community or county.

A large portion of an initial dairy investment involves non-taxable items including cows and much of the equipment that are considered to be personal property. Real estate taxes paid by the dairies on their buildings seldom exceed those paid by one or two residences that they often displace or discourage from being constructed. Taxes were being paid on the land even before being purchased by the dairies. Therefore, any additional taxes attributed to a large dairy seldom cover the associated costs to the community.

The value of manure-spreadable farmland has generally not been greatly affected by the proximity of a CAFO. However, in all studies that have been identified, with one exception previously noted by Daniel Little in the Brookings Register, the value of residential property based on actual real estate transactions has been lowered. In these instances, residential properties within a two or three-mile radius of a CAFO were shown to be reduced. In an Iowa study, home values were found to be reduced from 10% to 40% depending upon their proximity to the CAFO.

A study by the university of Minnesota Extension Service found that the percentage of local farm expenditures made by livestock farms fell sharply as size increased. Those with a gross income of $100,000 made nearly 95% of their expenditures locally while farms with gross incomes in excess of $900,000 spent less than 20% locally.

Dr. W. J. Weida of the Department of Economics at the Colorado College concludes that after all of the offsets, “Large Dairy CAFOs with concentrated masses of animals neither diversify a rural regional economy nor improve the long term economic health of a region. Instead, the few likely economic benefits come as short term gains to developers and investors and do not contribute to the long-term economic development of the region.”

Large Dairies are being built during a period when milk prices are at record highs. Milk prices per cwt recorded by the Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service, as reported in the Baraboo News Republic for April in each of the last six years, are as follows: $12.65/1999; $11.20/2000; $14.30/2001; $12.60/2002; $11.10/2003; and $20.40/2004. Data from the University of Wisconsin Center for Dairy Profitability and the Minnesota Farm Business Management Program Database have been summarized by George Boody in the Tri-State Neighbor. In year 2002, 500-plus cow operations had an average net loss of $44 per cow. But dairy operations with 51 to 100 cows had an average net return of $141 per cow; 101 to 200-cow herds averaged $122, 201 to 500-cow herds averaged $124. In reference to issues important to area dairy producers, Alvaro Garcia, SDSU Extension Dairy Specialist is quoted in the Tri-State Neighbor as follows: “... we have a high culling rate. That means we need to replace yearly probably 35 to 40% of the herd.” With the highest culling rates being associated with complete confinement dairy operations, the greater efficiency attributed to larger numbers of animals becomes greatly reduced.

What happens to dairies that are built on the basis of $20 per cwt milk prices when production capacity again exceeds demand and the cycle returns to the norm of $11 to $13? Have we forgotten the Dairy Termination Program (Dairy Buyout) of 1986?

Two Dairies Approved in Brookings County

Brookings Register, May 6, 2004

Go to the Original

Two dairies get go-ahead
BY JOHN ANDREWS

* Board of Adjustment holds off action on a third

The Brookings County Board of Adjustment, at its Tuesday night meeting, gave its approval to two dairy operations to be built in Brookings County and voted to delay action on a third due to a lack of information.

The board voted 7-2 to issue a special exception permit to Wim Hammink, who plans to start a dairy in Section 22 of Eureka Township, or about four miles northeast of Bruce. Board members Mike Olson and Randy Jensen opposed the measure, citing safety issues on nearby township roads and the close proximity to another dairy operation. But before voting to approve, the board voted 7-2 on an amendment to the motion calling for Hammink to meet with the Eureka Township Board and First District Association of Local Governments to discuss upkeep of township roads. It also instructs Hammink to plant trees on the north and west sides of the dairy to help control odor. Jensen and board member Layne Saathoff voted against the amendment.

The board also voted 6-3 to issue a special exception permit to Sako vanderMeer, who wants to begin dairying in Section 23 of Argo Township, or about three miles northwest of White. Jensen, Olson and Duane Knutson voted against it, citing the number of dairies in that township already and concerns about water contamination.
Board members then voted 8-0 to delay action on a special exception permit for Melle Kloosterman, who proposes putting a dairy in Section 21 of Trenton Township, about three miles southeast of Brookings. Action was delayed until such time as the board receives more information about the proposed dairy. Board member Darrell Nelson abstained.

All three applications were for Class B Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, which can contain up to 1,400 animal units. The approved dairies now await approval from the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources.

Hammink, speaking for himself and on behalf of Kloosterman and vanderMeer, neither of whom attended the meeting, began what would become nearly four hours of discussion with a short presentation on dairying. Hammink moved to the area from The Netherlands eight years ago and started a 300-cow dairy. That has since expanded to a 1,000-cow dairy. The milk from the new dairy he wants to start will be used by an overseas company to manufacture medical products, he said.

Hammink said dairymen strive to have a safe dairy and safe environment. He addressed concerns some area residents have about the large scale of the operations.

“If you want to have a dairy nowadays, and be successful and make enough money to survive, you need at least 500 cows to do that,” Hammink said. “If we [the state] would add 65,000 cows, which are needed for the milk plant in Lake Norden, we wouldn’t even have 50 percent of the cows that were here in the 1960s, so if we’re talking numbers, we’re way behind numbers from the past.”

He said that over the years, the manure application process has improved. He also said he would be willing to help Eureka Township by defraying some of the cost to maintain nearby township roads.
South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture Larry Gabriel told the standing-room only crowd of more than 75 people at the County Resource Center that it was a privilege to be able to support these dairies. He said South Dakota has the best climate in North America, and possibly the world, for dairy farming. He said milk from these dairies will go to the new mozzarella cheese plant in Lake Norden, the Valley Queen cheese plant in Milbank and to a new Wells Blue Bunny ice cream plant, currently being built in Iowa.

“I think we’ve got a great future here,” Gabriel said. “We’re going to have a market for our milk, and that’s going to allow our dairy industry to flourish.”

Donna Ramsay, who lives in Argo Township near the proposed vanderMeer dairy, spoke out against the operations. She said it’s a quality of life issue for her and for many of her neighbors. She also said she was concerned about runoff into the Big Sioux Aquifer.

“Our only drinking water is contained underneath our land, and we have to protect that,” Ramsay said. “Once our water is threatened, the whole county is threatened, and it will affect a lot more people than just dairy farmers who move in to take advantage of the wonderful climate and whatever else goes on with it.”

None of the dairy sites sits on top of the aquifer.

Residents opposing the vanderMeer dairy cited a concern relating to manure spills because the area slopes downward toward the Big Sioux River. They also expressed worries over road maintenance and the taxation on the rural water source.

Royce Emerick delivered a presentation voicing opposition to the Kloosterman dairy. He said various university studies have shown that surrounding property values tend to drop when large operations such as these dairies move in. He said there are also topographical issues to consider. The elevation of the proposed dairy site is 1,661 feet. The land slopes downward to the southwest corner of the section to 1,602 feet. He showed runoff patterns that indicate any water would flow toward the Scott Kistler and Paul Tuntland residences. Kistler spoke about that possibility, and said he was concerned about the absence of a filter system between the dairy and his farm.

“All of this is going to run right down through my land,” Kistler said, “and I’m the filter strip.”

Bill Du Bois

Brookings Register, Speakout column
July 1, 2004

We have a right to vote on the future of Brookings County. Some envision huge factory farms along what they’re calling the I-29 Dairy corridor.

Flaunting local wishes, the Brookings zoning board has already approved two giant operations and is considering a third. The South Dakota Supreme Court clearly says if a zoning permit changes the direction of a county, we have the right to vote. However, the zoning board refuses to even publish the decision saying if voters don’t like it, take them to court.

South Dakota voters have consistently said they don’t want big factory farms. But the industrial farmers refuse to take no for an answer. The state should be investing in helping small and medium sized farmers and businesses. Instead, they embrace a short-sighted version of economic development that strains existing county resources, endangers our health and destroys the quality of life for neighbors.

In 2001, the South Dakota Department of Economic Development awarded South Dakota Ag Producers Ventures $203,500 for a feasibility study to set up a business “to attract out-of-state dairy operators.” State legislator Joel Dykstra is the Chief Executive Officer. South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture Larry Gabriel is on the Board of Directors. This private company sells start-up packages for $350,000 not includi;j ng the cost of land. According to their website, they offer “FULLY PERMITTED, construction-ready dairy sites,” “LOCAL ZONING APPROVAL,” “long term manure easements,” and “preliminary APPROVAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS.”

No wonder, they’re so insistent that we don’t have the right to vote on zoning permits. Are they really selling out our democracy for a price?

In 2002, two court cases meant voters could interfere with their plans. Residents in Bon Homme and Hutchinson counties collected signatures to put zoning permits issued to large feedlots on the ballot. The Supreme Court ruled citizens have the right to vote on permits.

Factory farmers responded getting the legislature to pass HB 1281 so people couldn’t refer a zoning permit to a vote. Over 25,000 citizens then signed petitions preventing that law from taking effect and putting it on the November 2004 ballot. Knowing they’d lose any vote, the legislature revoked HB 1281 this past February. Some then tried to pass another bill, SB 163, to do the same thing. It would have made zoning permits an “administrative” decision. Translated out of “lawyer-ese,” that meant we couldn’t vote on permits. When legislators found that out, even one of the bill’s sponsors withdrew support. It lost. Still, industrial farmers are pretending none of this happened and we don’t have a right to vote.

Some say the giant feedlots and massive dairy farms have to go somewhere. NO, THEY DON’T. There are healthy ways to produce the food we consume. The hormones factory dairy operations feed their cows have been linked to breast cancer in women, prostrate cancer in men and may even be the reason kids are going into puberty two or three years early. Dairy cows in factory farms are raised under such sickening conditions they must be constantly kept on antibiotics. If overused, antibiotics are less effective when humans get sick and we’re getting antibiotic resistant strains of diseases.

Twenty percent of employees of confined animal operations develop severe respiratory problems. Results are similar for neighbors within 2 miles. Having to block out the stink also takes a toll on mental health. Neighbors have greater depression, stress, anger, fatigue, even confusion. No wonder property values plunge.

We should be able to debate whether we want this to become the I-29 Manure Corridor. While such lends itself to all sorts of colorful slogans for the county, I’m not sure that’s what we want to become. At the very least, we have a right to vote on it.