Rural communities in the U.S. remain at the center of debate about the growing presence of large livestock operations.

South Dakota lawmakers are considering boosting fees that help regulate these sites.

A bill making its way through the Legislature would update the fee structure for concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs. These fees have stayed the same since the late 1990s.

State agricultural leaders say as CAFOs expand, increasing permit revenue would help address gaps in paying for the oversight program.

Angela Ehlers, executive director of the South Dakota Association of Conservation Districts, said funds are greatly needed for technical assistance.

"Are the soils capable of handling the amount of fertilizer being applied?" asked Ehlers. "Is it being applied in the proper manner? So, it's that type of technical assistance. And if we're gonna provide a program, we need to provide the staff to carry it out properly."

The measure comes amid proposed budget cuts for the Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Ehlers said without this program, regulatory work might have to shift back to a regional federal office. Some farm lobbyists say they don't like fee hikes but recognize the need.

CAFOs have become a sore subject in smaller communities, as residents push back over air and water pollution issues.

The tension surrounding CAFOs mostly involves operations with big animal herds. But Ehlers said they also need to regulate smaller sites, which can sometimes avoid regulation.

"One could have 50 head of cattle. Those cattle are standing in the creek all summer long, doing what cows do naturally," said Ehlers. "And smaller CAFOs need the permit fee so that they can guarantee they're not polluting a very special stream that may be the water source for the town just down the road."

South Dakota's secretary of agriculture says there are now nearly 430 CAFOs permitted within the state.

The bill, which has cleared the House and now awaits Senate action, saw a compromise added to ease concerns from farming interests.




get more stories like this via email

A critical decision now rests with Gov. Ron DeSantis, as Florida coastal communities and shellfish farmers urge him to sign a bill permanently banning oil drilling near the Apalachicola River. They see the river as a lifeline for the state's aquaculture industry - and a fragile ecosystem.

House Bill 1143, which passed the Legislature with a single "no" vote in the Senate, would block drilling within 10 miles of the Apalachicola National Estuarine Research Reserve.

Adrianne Johnson, executive director of the Florida Shellfish Aquaculture Association, warned that the region's economy and environment hang in the balance.

"That area is really unique; 75% of our oyster farmers operate across Franklin, Wakulla and Gulf counties, so those three counties that are downriver from the proposed oil drilling site," she said. "So, protecting that water is absolutely critical to the livelihood of our farmers."

Despite a court win stopping one drilling project in Calhoun County, she said unprotected sites still threaten Apalachicola's fragile recovery. Aquaculture in the area sustains an oyster industry that once supplied 90% of Florida's wild harvest before its collapse.

The Apalachicola River watershed supports Florida's emerging shellfish industry, which filters water, creates habitats and sustains rural coastal economies. Johnson said even the threat of oil contamination, such as what happened during the 2010 BP spill, could devastate the region.

"We are confident that the governor is supportive of our rural coastal communities," she said. "Under his governorship, the state has invested millions of dollars into restoring Apalachicola Bay. So really, this bill aligns with those values."

Under Florida's "7-Day Rule," DeSantis must decide on the Apalachicola drilling ban by next Wednesday. The bill automatically becomes law if he chooses not to either sign or veto it.


get more stories like this via email

June is World Oceans Month, and advocates are warning that industrial shipping pollution hurts both oceans and port communities.

At least 31 million people live within three miles of a port, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. That includes thousands of New Jerseyans. Industrial shipping frequently relies on heavy fuel oil, which releases carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides and black carbon into the atmosphere, causing harm to marine ecosystems and port communities.

Altorice Frazier, northeast port campaigner with Pacific Environment, said if the global shipping industry was its own country, it would be one of the largest polluters in the world.

"Global shipping burns some of the dirtiest fossil fuels, like heavy oil, producing toxic air pollutions and greenhouse gases," he explained.

Those toxic pollutants often affect the communities closest to ports, frequently working-class neighborhoods made up primarily of people of color. Shipping pollution causes $265,000 premature deaths and six million childhood asthma cases globally each year, according to the Ocean Conservancy.

One way to cut down on port pollution, Frazier said, is the electrification of cargo ships. Much like electric cars, cargo ships can be electrically powered and charged while at a port. He explained this would cut down on emissions, the acidification of marine ecosystems and the negative health effects on port communities.

"We really want to show where there's funding, there's possible job opportunities," Frazier continued. "There's a gain in this. It might not be in the short term, but in the long term, there is definitely opportunity. And we want to see industry and port authorities work alongside communities and government to really strategize how this is possible."

Frazier added shore power can create jobs and sustain economic growth for communities, while cutting down on pollution and noise.

Forest fires have broken out in parts of New Mexico that state forecasters had already warned would see an elevated wildfire risk this summer due to high temperatures, low snowpack and ongoing drought. At least 25 New Mexico jurisdictions imposed some level of fire restriction this spring.

State Forester Laura McCarthy said the peak of fire season is still a week away, beginning June 26.

"Right after the Solstice, so the days are at their longest, which means the burn periods are at their longest and typically the highest temperatures we experience all summer are in the last two to three weeks of June," she continued.

On Tuesday, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham declared a state of emergency in response to the Trout Fire, which is burning in the Gila National Forest, forcing residents to evacuate. The Buck Fire also has burned more than 57,000 acres in the same area of Southwest New Mexico. The governor has urged localities to ban fireworks and restrict water usage.

McCarthy reminded people that dry conditions can cause a small fire to spread in a split second - whether it's from a backyard grill, a spark caused by welding, or a campfire that appears to be out but is reignited when hidden embers are stirred up by the wind, catching surrounding vegetation on fire. She said there's no "go back" - even if a fire is accidental.

"If you look at every single big fire we've had, there was either a lightning strike or a person behind it,"
she added. "Yes, there is arson, but the majority of human-caused fires are not arson. They are caused by unintentional response and then, it's just too late."

Just three years ago, New Mexico's Hermit's Peak/Calf Canyon fire exploded into the state's most destructive wildfire ever. State lawmakers passed billss in this year's session to address the issue. One establishes a program for wildfire prevention and mitigation, while the other allows for ignition-resistant construction.


get more stories like this via email