KANSAS

• Nineteen counties have voted in public referenda to keep out corporate hog farms, but corporations are finding ways to skirt citizen opposition.
  
  
• A state law passed in April 1998 to toughen hog farm regulation fails to adequately address odor problems and bars counties from passing tougher environmental regulations than the state's.

Until 1994, Kansas' anti-corporate farming law¹ had effectively kept most industrial swine operations out of the state. The situation has changed. Under a 1994 state law, county commissioners were given the option of welcoming corporate hog factories into their borders through passage of a resolution approving them.² State leaders were so anxious to attract this industry that they expedited permitting for Seaboard Farms, Inc.,³ one of the fastest growing pork producers in the nation. The state also granted the corporation the right to issue $9.5 million in tax-exempt bonds to help the company build its manure lagoons.⁴

In 1994 and 1995, county commissioners passed resolutions allowing Seaboard Farms to set up shop in four counties in the southwestern corner of the state -- Stanton, Morton, Grant and Stevens. Initially, Seaboard faced no local opposition to its factory hog farms. Residents now say they were not aware of the environmental and economic havoc that could result from having a half million hogs in the neighborhood.⁵ Since Seaboard's arrival, residents have complained of the terrible stench and the pollution threat posed to their drinking water by vast quantities of hog manure.

It did not take long for other Kansas counties to object to factory hog operations, once they saw the effect that Seaboard had on the quality of life in these first four counties. Under the 1994 law, citizens can veto a county commission resolution approving the operation of corporate hog and dairy farms. The resolution is subject to a protest petition, for which citizens have 60 days to gather names. If protested, a referendum on opening county borders to corporate farms is put to vote on the local ballot. So far, 19 of the 21 counties that have held referenda have rejected corporate hog farming by resounding margins -- a 72 percent majority altogether for the counties voting "no" on corporate hog farms.⁶ Kansas is one of the few states that has allowed their counties to vote out corporate hog and dairy operations.

However, environmental activists fear that major pork producers will successfully skirt local opposition by contracting with independent farmers to grow their pigs. Already, Seaboard has applied to the state for permits to build 11 large "contract farms" in the western part of the state, totaling some 200,000 hogs. The largest single operation would raise 43,000 hogs.⁷

Pollution Problems

Most large cattle and hog operations are concentrated in western Kansas, the state's most arid area.⁸ The western half of the state is entirely dependent on groundwater for its drinking water.⁹ According to Craig Volland, an engineer and technical advisor to the Sierra Club and Stewards of the Land, feedlots and other agricultural activities are contributing to the depletion of the water table through their use of water. Hog facilities require vast quantities of water to wash out hog barns and water the hogs. They also require water to maintain a minimum level in the animal waste lagoons due to high evaporation rates, to dilute the saline content of lagoon waste making it suitable for application to crops and finally to grow crops to absorb the animal waste.

In addition, there is a question about whether the state's groundwater can tolerate additional pollution threats on the scale posed by large hog farms. According to a 1994 study, 24 percent of the private drinking-water wells in Kansas are already contaminated with nitrates above the drinking water standard of 10 parts-per-million (ppm).¹⁰ The source of contamination is undocumented.¹¹

Even though there is little or no water quality monitoring at hog facilities, the hog industry claims hog factories don't pollute groundwater. However, in June 1997, a geologist at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) found highly contaminated groundwater at a site where a 9,000-head hog confinement facility had previously operated. The groundwater was overloaded with nitrates. The geologist found 138 milligrams of nitrates per liter, which greatly exceeds the 10 milligrams per liter health standard.¹²

The potential for hog waste to pollute drinking water is also a concern for Wichita and south-central Kansas, where half a million people rely for their drinking water on the Equus Beds, an underground water supply the size of Rhode Island. State regulations allow hog manure lagoons to leak up to a quarter of an inch a day. That means 1.2 million gallons of wastewater a year could seep out of a one-acre lagoon into the aquifer, according to Mike Dealy, who directs the Equus Beds Groundwater Management District.¹³ In Kansas, lagoons used to store hog manure and urine are often four to eight acres and can be as large as 13 acres.¹⁴

Large hog confinement facilities have spurred numerous citizen complaints about odors and flies. Particularly noxious odors emanate from hog factory farms using anaerobic wastewater lagoons. The bacteria in these lagoons, which thrive on a lack of oxygen, generate hundreds of compounds that stink. Some citizens living near these waste lagoons complain that they are unable to conduct normal outdoor activities much of the year.¹⁵

The twelve major river basins in the state show evidence of pollution, including fecal coliform bacteria from animal confinement areas and low dissolved oxygen from nutrient/organic pollution from livestock.The state's 1998 water quality assessment reported that intensive animal confinement operations are a major source of water pollution.¹⁶

Regulatory Climate

State water pollution control permits are required for CAFOs with a capacity of 300 to 999 animal units if they are deemed to represent a significant water pollution potential.¹⁷ Federal Clean Water Act (NPDES) permits are required for all facilities with a capacity of 1,000 animal units or more.¹⁸ Voluntary registration or "certification" is available for facilities under 300 animal units.¹⁹ Regulations cover public notice, site assessments, plan review, lagoon and storage basin construction standards, separation distances, guidelines for wastewater application, dead animal disposal, facility inspections and require no discharge.²⁰

In 1998 the legislature passed a law (HB 2950) aimed at strengthening regulation of hog factory farms. However, its strengthening effect was only modest. Weaknesses remain regarding groundwater monitoring, separation distances required between hog factories and residences or private wells, manure lagoon seepage standards, verification of crop yields and nitrogen uptake, and assurance that operators will have the financial ability to clean up facilities once they close them.²¹

A little-noticed provision of HB 2950 torpedoed efforts by Seward County and any other counties that were working on strenghtening regulation of CAFOs to a tougher standard than the state's. The provision lists at least a dozen areas, including water pollution control and permitting, in which county governments are not allowed to alter what is in the state's regulations.²²

The provision took activists by surprise, who said it was inserted quietly toward the end of the legislative session. "The state legislature seems intent on preventing citizens from having a say on this matter through their local governments," commented Sierra Club technical advisor Craig Volland.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment does not generally require that animal feedlot operations (AFOs) monitor the quality of the groundwater around the operation.²³ As a result, only between 20 and 30 (almost all are cattle rather than swine facilities) of the 4,000 regulated AFOs located in Kansas monitor their groundwater quality.²⁴

Kansas contends with serious odor problems from hog farms as well as odor and dust from cattle feedlots.²⁵ In recent cases, sprinklers have been required at cattle facilities to help keep down the dust.

The state's recent attempt to tackle hog farm odors in its 1998 hog farm regulation bill falls far short of the mark. The most common way to address the odor problems is the requirement of a setback -- a separation between the livestock facilities and homes. Before 1994, setbacks were defined as being 5,280 feet for a facility of 5,000 head or more.²⁶ In 1994, the legislature reduced that to 4,000 feet for facilities with more than 2,500 head.²⁷ In 1998, the state legislature passed a new law increasing the setback size for swine operations to 5,000 feet for 9,300 head or more.²⁸ Unfortunately, the new rule is still weaker than the pre-1994 rule. In addition, the secretary of KDHE can waive a setback, "if there is no substantial objection from a neighbor." However, the law does not define "substantial." The state legislation also requires an odor control plan, "but there are no enforceable standards aside from separation distances."²⁹

The state recently beefed up its inspection of swine facilities.³⁰ However, an audit conducted by a state legislative committee last year found that nearly half of the facilities had not been inspected according to that schedule.³¹ In January 1997, when the audit was completed, the state had only eight full-time field staff to inspect 4,000 operations. In response to the weak enforcement revealed by the audit, the state has since added more staff. Now the state has 20 field staff.³² Under the law passed this year, the state also incorporated a mandatory inspection schedule into regulations.

In addition, the audit found that four out of ten complaints were improperly handled and that 32 of 36 feedlots reviewed had at least one violation.³³

Local Control

A major battle is shaping up over plans by Seaboard to build a new packing plant in the city of Great Bend³⁴ that would slaughter four million hogs a year, double what is raised in Kansas. Seaboard plans to supply half its plant's meat requirements -- some two million pigs -- through contract factory farms within 150 miles of Great Bend.³⁵

In addition to the strain imposed on the housing and roads of Great Bend by a plant of that size, the proliferation of factory farms supplying Seaboard's plant would pose a serious threat to environmentally valuable areas nearby. These include the Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife Area and the Quivira National Waterfowl Refuge, both of which serves as a key stopping place for migratory waterfowl, including endangered Whooping cranes. Seaboard claims it will avoid situating farms near the wildlife area and waterfowl refuge, but citizens remain concerned about the effects of nearby factory hog farms.

This spring the Great Bend City Council withdrew its support of the Seaboard Farms hog processing plant. Four new members of the council were elected in the spring of 1998 as anti-hog write-in candidates and won their seats by 60 percent of the vote.³⁶ Despite this decision and the obvious sentiment of the voters, Seaboard appears to be moving forward with its plans for the plant, saying it will site the plant somewhere in surrounding Barton County. The company has not announced a specific site yet.

Another battle involves an attempt by Murphy Family Farms, the nation's largest pork producer, to bring their swine operation into Hodgeman County in western Kansas.³⁷ The county has voted in a public referendum not to allow corporate hog farms into the county. But shortly after the referendum, Murphy Family Farms announced it was moving ahead anyway with its plans to construct an 11,000-sow operation in the county. Murphy claims it fits under the definition of a family farm. Murphy Family Farms is a family-owned corporation. Environmentalists contend the state's anti-corporate farming law was never intended to offer protection to the largest pork producer in the country or to industrial-scale farms. A Hodgeman County citizens' group, Families Against Corporate Takeover (FACT), has sued Murphy to prevent the corporation from locating in the community,³⁸ and a judge recently found that FACT had sufficient standing to pursue a lawsuit.³⁹

In a recent development, Murphy Family Farms announced that it has put on hold its plans to create two large hog farms in western Kansas -- one originally planned for Hodgeman County and a 22,000-pig operation in Lane County. A corporation spokesman said the decision was primarily a response to the current hog market's sinking prices and oversupply of hogs.⁴⁰ However, Murphy's opponents say the battle is not over. "We still have a legal battle with Murphy's regarding whether they really are a family farm in the state of Kansas," commented Richard Ford, a farmer active in FACT.⁴¹ In June, Governor Graves issued permits to Murphy for the two factory farms, but Lane County citizens are still contesting Murphy's permit in their county.

Primary interviewee for this chapter:

Craig S. Volland
Sierra Club
Stewards of the Land
c/o Spectrum Technologists
P.O. Box 12863
Kansas City, KS 66112
Phone: 913-334-0556
e-mail: hartwood@gvi.net

Notes

1. Senate Bill 554, Kansas Statutes Annotated 17-5904.

2. Kansas Statutes Annotated 17-5908.

3. Letter from Ron Hammerschmidt, Acting Director, Division of Environment, Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) to the Secretary, KDHE (February 21, 1995).

4. Mike Hendrix, "Hog Farms Slip through Tax Loophole," Kansas City Star (January 13, 1996).

5. Jean Hayes and Steve Painter, "Hog on the High Plains," Wichita Eagle (June 23, 1996).

6. Kansas Rural Center, Rural Papers (December 1997).

7. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, printout of applied for and issued permits (August 5, 1998).

8. Kansas Department of Health and Environment map showing location of CAFOs;Legislative Division of Post Audit, State of Kansas, Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee, "Reviewing the KDHE's Efforts To Protect Water Pollution Caused by Confined Livestock Feeding Operations" (January 1997).

9. Kansas Department of Health and Environment Groundwater Quality Monitoring Network, 1993 Annual Report.

10. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Bureau of Environmental Health Services, Kansas 1993-94 Private Water Well Survey.

11. Legislative Division of Post Audit, State of Kansas, Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee, "Reviewing the KDHE's Efforts To Protect Water Pollution Caused by Confined Livestock Feeding Operations" (January 1997).

12. Doug Doubek, Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Limited Site Investigation Gjerstad Cattle Co., Dodge City, Kansas (June 11, 1997).

13. Jean Hayes, "Risk to Water and Economy Drives Hog Battle," Wichita Eagle (October 11, 1998).

14. Personal communication between Rebecca Knuffke and Craig Volland, Spectrum Technologists (November 19, 1998).

15. Letter from Lelia and Don George to Governor Bill Graves (January 30, 1998); fact sheet, Citizens for a Healthy Environment, Seward County, Kansas.

16. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Bureau of Environmental Field Services, The 1998 Kansas Water Quality Assessment, 305(b) Report (April 1988).

17. Kansas Statutes Annotated 65-171.d.

18. Kansas Statutes Annotated 65-171.d.

19. Kansas Statutes Annotated 65-171.d.

20. Kansas Statutes Annotated 65-159 et seq. and Kansas Statutes Annotated 65-1178, 65-1199.

21. Kansas HB 2950 (May 1998), K.A.R. 28-18; Design Standards for Confined Livestock Feeding Operations (November 1993); Spectrum Technologists, "Final Analysis of HB2950" (May 1998).

22. Walter Rubel, "State Law May Nix Task Force Rules," Southwest Daily Times (October 7, 1998).

23. Craig S. Volland, "Critique of the Kansas State University Lagoon Research Project," Spectrum Technologists, Kansas City, Kansas (August 1998); from legislative testimony and Kansas Department of Health and Environment documents.

24. Testimony by Don Carlson , Kansas Department of Health and Environment to Kansas Legislature (February 1998).

25. Letter from City of Larned, Kansas to Kansas Department of Health and Environment (April 22, 1997); personal communication between Craig Volland and several citizens in Larned and Dodge City.

26. Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Design Manual, Confined Livestock Feeding Operations (November 1993).

27. Kansas HB 554 (1994).

28. Kansas Statutes Annotated 65-171.d.

29. Kansas HB 2950, Hog bill.

30. Legislative Division of Post Audit, State of Kansas, Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee, "Reviewing the KDHE's Efforts To Protect Water Pollution Caused by Confined Livestock Feeding Operations" (January 1997).

31. Legislative Division of Post Audit, State of Kansas, Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee, "Reviewing the KDHE's Efforts To Protect Water Pollution Caused by Confined Livestock Feeding Operations" (January 1997).

32. Personal communication between Craig Volland of Spectrum Technologists and State Representative Laura McClure (June 9, 1998).

33. Legislative Division of Post Audit, State of Kansas, Report to the Legislative Post Audit Committee, "Reviewing the KDHE's Efforts To Protect Water Pollution Caused by Confined Livestock Feeding Operations" (January 1997).

34. Susan Thacker, "New Great Bend City Council Withdraws Support for Seaboard," The Hutchinson News (April 21, 1998).

35. Jim McLean, "Great Bend Vote Reverberates in Statehouse," The Topeka City-Journal (April 10, 1998).

36. Susan Thacker, "Write in Takes Seats in Great Bend," Hutchinson News (April 8, 1998).

37. Eric Swanson, "Fact Files Lawsuit," Dodge City Daily Globe (December 31, 1997); Anne Marie Bush, "Judge Meeks Rules Fact Can Proceed with Law Suit," Dodge City Daily Globe.

38. Eric Swanson, "Fact Files Lawsuit," Dodge City Daily Globe (December 31, 1997).

39. Anne Marie Bush, "Judge Meeks Rules Fact Can Proceed with Law Suit," Dodge City Daily Globe.

40. Mary Clarkin, "Market Stalls Murphy Plan for Hog Farms," Hutchinson News (October 8, 1998).

41. Mary Clarkin, "Market Stalls Murphy Plan for Hog Farms," Hutchinson News (October 8, 1998).