CAFOs at issue; Sen. Nodler: ‘I am

not leaning toward voting for the bill’

By Wally Kennedy

wkennedy@joplinglobe.com

Supporters of local control over large animal farms hope a newly brokered version of Missouri Senate Bill 364 will not come up for a vote before the end of the legislative session.

The substitute bill, crafted during the Legislature’s spring break last month, offers increased state requirements over concentrated animal feeding operations in exchange for no county restrictions.

The bill also offers some protection to the state’s federally managed lakes, such as Table Rock and Stockton, in that CAFOs would not be permitted within five miles of them. No protection was offered for state historic sites and state parks such as Roaring River, where local residents are opposing a 65,000-chicken CAFO.

State Sen. Gary Nodler, R-Joplin, said last week: “I have received support for the legislation from the Farm Bureau leaders in Jasper County, but I am also aware that rank-and-file members are not necessarily in favor of that bill.

“I doubt a majority of my constituents support that bill. Of course, they could continue to negotiate and come up with a future compromise. But, as this is stated now, I am not leaning toward voting for the bill.”

He said the issue is more contentious in Southwest Missouri than in any other part of the state because of increasing urbanization and the growing concentration of CAFOs in the region.

Opposing interests

The Senate started debate last week on the substitute bill but did not reach a vote after two hours of discussion. It has been placed on the informal calendar, where it could be brought up at any time for a vote.

Rhonda Perry, program director for Missourians for Local Control, which opposes the bill, said there may be not be a vote.

“We feel there are a significant number of senators who do not want to have to vote on this, and that it is too late for a compromise from all the parties,” she said.

Perry said senators are reluctant to vote on the bill because a vote against it would be perceived as a vote against agriculture while a vote for it would be contrary to what “thousands of farmers and property owners across the state” want. She said the bill needs to be killed, and that work should begin now “to pull together a group of all of the vested interests in this issue.”