Meeting Public Comments

Cherie Mortice [Iowa CCI]

I dont see the benefit of a process that is hugely costly and results in massive concentration of manure collection. The low capture rate doesnt justify the cost of over production of corn that is stripping soil density and requires more inputs to enhance corn production. Lose/Lose.

Susannah Crichton

Please vote NO on this bill! This is not the appropriate solution for the excess manure that is created by factory farms. We have to flush out the root of the problem, the proliferation of the farms themselves. We need a moratorium, not false energy solutions that will not help in the long run.

Jane Alderman

I writing to oppose HF 287. This is not a solution to our state's too much manure from factory farms issue. We need to persue actual solutions which start with a factory farm moratorium.

Thomas Hexter [Poweshiek Soil and Water Conservation District]

This bill should not be passed without a simultaneous passing of the CAFO Moratorium Bill that was proposed today. Many people, myself included, are in opposition to HF287 because it is seen as a way to justify the continued growth of the CAFO industry in Iowa. It as is if those in support of this bill believe that, "oh, if we treat the manure, then there's no problem with factory farms." That is not at all true. There are many other problems with factory farms that make them unsustainable. The main one that I see is that the continued growth of factory farms chokes out other types of farming businesses that will diversify our farm economy. A more diverse farm economy is necessary to the future resilience of our communities. Markets of a single product are inherently weaker and of lower value than if Iowa's farm system were able to have both factory farms and a sustainable meat production system. The problem is that the former limits possibilities for the latter.A CAFO Moratorium would allow other types of farming to have a chance to survive in this state. Once that CAFO Moratorium is passed, then I believe we should allow the use of digesters to treat the manure from the already existing CAFOs. Anything short of this compromise will only further lead Iowa's economy towards an oversaturated pork market that will collapse one day soon.

Pat Bowen

I am writing today to ask your vote against HF287. Do something positive and pass a CAFO moratorium bill that was proposed yesterday. HF 287 is a false energy solution using taxpayers money. The taxpayers did not make this pollution. Make the polluters pay. Polls show 2/3 of Iowans want a moratorium on factory farming. Stop the manure, stop the CAFO's. Do the right thing for the majority of Iowans, not the few who own and operate confined animal operations. Our air and water are precious resources for all Iowans and all people downstream.

Chelsea Wilde

Please do everything you can to stop HF 287 in its tracks. Pouring money and resources into projects like installing manure digesters is pointless and will do nothing but distract from actual solutions. We need a moratorium on new and expanding factory farms immediately, and from there we can take steps to solve the disastrous pollution issues were facing across our state.

Lynn Gallagher

I ask you to oppose HF287. CAFOs are a problem for the environment, human health and animal welfare. We need a CAFO moratorium, not a new false "solution". We need to move away from CAFOs, not support a new industry that depends on them.

Julie Duhn

Please vote 'no' on HF 287. Why must taxpayers always subsidize the unsustainable hog factory business, privatizing profit while socializing risk? Water quality will only worsen and economic development in rural communities will continue to be harmed. Who wants to move to a county where the most plentiful jobs are in the manure spreading business? Not much incentive for young people to stay in rural areas like Hardin County (1.5 million hogs) where big producers basically own the county. Considering the covid pandemic, one cannot and should not ignore the growing threat of infectious diseases that can be transmitted between from animals to humans.

Forrest Carroll

I am writing in support of this proposal, which simply updates the code to include anaerobic digesters as manure treatment systems. The addition of this language must be disentangled from the generic opposition to large scale dairy farming, since this has no bearing whatsoever on CAFO limits given the current alternatives that exist. Treatment of manure through anaerobic digesters is a far preferred method of staying in compliance than the current alternatives of: 1) open feedlot and 2) lagoon aeration. Digesters capture and utilize otherwise wasted methane, which creates a GHG warming effect 34 times stronger than carbon dioxide over one hundred years. Digesters also reduce the potency of odors, the need for water, the proliferation of pathogens, and creates a platform for reducing nutrient runoff. It would be imprudent to deny the addition of this language simply for the sake of opposition to large scale farming practices.