Wisconsin has just added more than 30,000 acres across two counties to its protected agricultural lands, advancing its commitment to preserve the state's farming heritage and supporting conservation farming practices.

Agricultural Enterprise Areas are community-driven initiatives aimed at protecting farmland and boosting the local economy.

Wednesday Coye, Farmland Preservation Program manager for the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, said the process is one of two ways Wisconsinites can participate in the Farmland Preservation Program.

"We get to see what landowners identify as areas that are important to their local agricultural communities -- both economically and historically -- and then, also seeing how that interacts overall with the statewide agricultural landscape," Coye explained.

Agricultural Enterprise Area landowners also contribute to conservation practices across the state by voluntarily signing agreements to use their land for agricultural purposes for a set time period and implement environmentally friendly farming methods. In return, they may be eligible for farm tax credits.

The assurance of long-term land preservation also provides farmers with peace of mind for future investments. Coye pointed out the new Delavan Lake Watershed Agricultural Enterprise Area serves to protect land near large lake attractions like Lake Geneva.

"There are a lot of interests there in developing the area but then there's also a lot of interest from their agricultural producers to protect the farmland that's there," Coye observed.

By designating new Agricultural Enterprise Areas, she stressed landowners and community members are taking proactive steps toward preventing development, which could convert land to nonagricultural use.

The latest areas, across Sauk and Walworth counties, add to the state's nearly 2 million acres of Agricultural Enterprise Areas. Wisconsin now has 51 areas spanning 140 towns and the Bad River Reservation.


get more stories like this via email

Indiana farm leaders are pushing back against a bill that would increase inspections at large livestock farms.

Senate Bill 193, sponsored by Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, would require the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to double inspections at Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations for permits.

Josh Trenary, executive director of the Indiana Pork Producers Association, said the department said it will not need more staff but a study suggested otherwise.

"The agency's ability to balance inspecting where the needs are, or the risks are, while still making sure they get around to enough operations every year to receive their grant funding from the federal government," Trenary contended.

Supporters said the bill strengthens oversight and protects water quality, while opponents argued it adds costs and unnecessary burdens on farmers. A Senate committee moved the bill to the full chamber despite concerns from industry leaders and no public testimony in favor of it.

Trenary stated livestock farmers carefully manage manure because they use it as fertilizer instead of costly commercial products. He wants the regulatory program to be efficient.

"We want the regulatory program to run well -- it makes our environmental record look good if IDEM is quickly responding and solving problems before they happen -- that's what we want," Trenary emphasized. "We want them to make those discretionary risk based inspections instead of a blanket statutory requirement."

Trenary argued the proposal creates more regulation without addressing a real problem. He wants lawmakers to focus on better environmental solutions.


get more stories like this via email

North Dakota lawmakers are still sorting out a thorny agricultural issue getting to the heart of local zoning restrictions for animal feedlot operations.

The state is looking to revise standards capping setbacks a county or township puts in place when figuring out how close feedlots can sit near a community.

State agricultural leaders want more livestock production in North Dakota. The recommendations call for reducing distance caps involving smaller sites but to extend allowed setbacks for larger ones, known as concentrated animal feeding operations.

Sen. Paul Thomas, R-Velva, at a committee hearing Friday, acknowledged the growing debate.

"There's a lot of communication from constituents, from agriculture organizations on all sides of this," Thomas observed.

Thomas proposed an amendment to do away with the longer setbacks for the larger feedlots. He argued the current limit of one mile is sufficient. It is unclear what a final bill would look like but Thomas' proposal is likely to anger local residents and environmentalists opposed to concentrated animal feeding operations, which are under increased scrutiny in the U.S. over concerns about air and water pollution.

Opponents had already spoken out against elements of the bill during earlier testimony this session, noting the push chips away at local control.

Jeff Kenner, a farmer from the Devils Lake area, was among those who expressed frustration with the broader pressure applied to townships to welcome feedlots with large animal herds.

"Why try to bully your way and get as close to a town, residence, lake or business (as possible) when there are miles and miles of open land to put animal feeding operations on?" Kenner asked.

Opponents of factory farms said not only are air and water quality affected, local road infrastructure is burdened with increased truck traffic. Backers of boosting livestock output in North Dakota said the state is falling behind its neighbors, while arguing the modern large-scale approach to producing food is needed to meet global demand. They said the bill in its original form strikes a balance between community needs and helping farmers. The amendment was tabled, for now.


get more stories like this via email

Groups working to protect Iowa's air and water rally at the State Capitol this afternoon, against a bill they say would protect pesticide companies from lawsuits if their products make people sick.

Iowa Senate Study Bill 1051, the so-called Cancer Gag Act, "provides defense from civil liability tied to the use of pesticides," as long as their labeling meets Environmental Protection Agency standards - which can be 15 years old.

Iowa Food and Water Watch Central Iowa Organizer Michaelyn Mankel said the measure would essentially change the law to protect pesticide companies from accountability, in a state that's already seeing a "public health crisis."

"We have rising cancer rates," said Mankel. "We're the only state in the nation where incidents of cancer are increasing, and we rank second in the nation for rates of cancer."

The International Agency for Research on Cancer has said that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans," but the EPA says there's no evidence to supports that.

Pesticide makers - including Bayer, which has four lobbyists in Iowa alone - have said they're following current law and need protection from what they deem frivolous lawsuits, and this bill would provide that.

But Mankel said the measure would further erode Iowans' ability to take legal action if they think these products caused health problems.

"This is not a matter of stopping frivolous lawsuits," said Mankel. "It's a matter of not robbing Iowans of the only avenue we have to hold the pesticide industry accountable at a time where we're really suffering."

The rally at the Capitol will begin with an altar ceremony to memorialize Iowans who have died from cancer, many of whom advocates say were deaths related to pesticides.