Counties: Henry CountyMFP Tags: Indiana CAFOs, Indiana CAFO, CAFOTopics: HealthTypes: Opinion
Letter to the Editor: CAFOs in Henry County
The County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Zoning Appeals have shown an apparent disregard for the health and economic welfare of the citizens of Henry County as reflected in decisions beginning in 2006 with CAFO (factory farm) development, and continuing with the Blue River Ethanol debacle. A timeline of events and decisions relating to CAFOs follows:
1. At the July and August meetings of the Planning Commission in 2006, the members voted to allow three CAFOs to be built in the county. This was done without regard to the evidence submitted detailing the negative effects of factory farms to health and the environment. The Planning Commission also disregarded the objections from the overwhelming majority of citizens present and refused to table the decision in order to take time to consider the information presented.
2. At the August meeting, the Planning Commission voted to ignore the part of the Henry County Development Code, updated March 5, 2004, which states that confinement feeding operations must be set back a minimum of 2000 feet from a residential use. At this point a group of concerned citizens began legal action to enforce the code.
3. In September the County Commissioners appointed a six-person committee made up of members representing a variety of views concerning CAFOs. The group was charged by the County Commissioners to make a list of suggestions that would protect non-CAFO farmers and rural residents from some of the problems arising from CAFOs. Please note that each time the committee suggested a regulation that might cause a change in the Development Code, the Zoning Administrator told them it would be much too involved to change the code. By January of 2007, the committee had submitted a list of recommendations to the Zoning Administrator, who was to submit it to the County Commissioners. Committee members never received copies of a final report, so the group as a whole has not had a chance to review and approve any final document. Whatever the commissioners may or may not have read at this point does not represent the consensus of that group.
4. On February 20, 2007, Ball State University wrote its findings about the economic effects of the hog production industry in Randolph and Jay Counties. These studies showed that large scale hog production is “almost irrelevant to the economy” (http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007707060342), and that many other types of businesses that could come into the counties instead would be more economically beneficial.
5. In a decision filed on June 14, 2007, Judge Mary Willis ruled that the 2000 foot set back rule in the Development Code is clear and that confined feeding operations must adhere to it (Cause No. 33c.01-0610-PL-0018).
6. At the June 28, 2007, Planning Commission meeting, the planning commissioners began making plans to change the Development Code to remove the 2000 foot set back rule that provides protection for residents, especially those with homes in the country. Remember, this is the same code that would be “much too difficult to change,” according to the Zoning Administrator. Discussion followed about how quickly the protective language could be removed and submitted to the County Commissioners so that construction could continue.
At no time have the County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, or the Board of Zoning Appeals shown any concern for or understanding of the well-documented problems associated with large-scale confinement feeding operations. The County Commissioners have yet to make any response to the recommendations put forward by the committee they appointed. Now the apparent plan is to remove whatever small protection our county zoning ordinances had previously allowed.
It is time for the county officials to look to the health, environmental, and economic problems caused by factory farms in every state where they have proliferated. The officials need to represent the welfare and will of the vast majority of its citizens--not the interests of “vertically integrated corporate organizations that make money buying from themselves.” (Weida, Qtd by Slabaugh in Muncie Star Press, July 9, 2007).
Signed,
Sally Wilson
- Email this Story
- 601 reads




Technorati Tags:
Post new comment