to read: very detailed paper on CAFO economics and if they make sense at all, from srap
legal tools
Nuisance Lawsuits
example: Patricia Mcllrath vs. Prestage Farms of Iowa
- stench of 2000 hog cafo created a stench so bad that Mcllrath couldn't even open her window
- she won $450k. $100k for loss of past enjoyment, $350k for loss of future enjoyment, $62.5 for diminution of property value.
- however, courts almost always rule in favor of the CAFO
- for example, supreme court of iowa Factory Farms#Garrison v. New Fashion Pork ruled against the complaining party, another farmer who complained of:
- overflow of pig manure
- foul order
- water contamination
- "Right to farm legislation": legitimate state interest in protecting animal agricultural producers
- imagine though, if a hog farm opened up and started
Why is the EPA rejecting tougher legislation? The EPA is rejecting calls for tougher regulation of large livestock farms, promises more study | PBS News
Right to Farm Protections
Some smell from a farm is one thing. Cows mooing. Tractors going. Not even being able to open your window because the stench is so bad, and having hog feces sprayed on your house and pathogen laden hog manure in your groundwater running off into your land seems like an infringement upon: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
We are sacrificing the happiness of a few unfortunates who live in rural areas for the sake of cheap pork for all.
But subsidies. Compare prices of factory farmed pork with grass fed pork. Then compare nutrients / satiation of each. Disease burden of eating factory farmed pork offsets price cost.
Garrison v. New Fashion Pork
[P]laintiff has not designated any expert to testify about the nitrate levels or specifically about the issue of causation. Even if the Court allows each of plaintiff’s proposed experts’ testimony in its entirety, plaintiff cannot link the nitrate levels in the water tests to misapplication of the manure. Plaintiff’s proposed experts discuss manure management plans and soil drainage issues, but the Court finds no expert testimony in the record linking defendants’ alleged overapplication or misapplication of manure to higher levels of nitrates in plaintiff’s water tests.
Plaintiff has also not established a baseline to show that the nitrate levels are occurring at a higher rate than before defendants started spreading manure or at a higher rate than would be expected to naturally occur. Without an established baseline or metric there is no evidence that the nitrate levels are occurring at a higher rate attributed to runoff from defendants’ fields.
Relevant laws are 657.11.2: https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/code/657.11.pdf
Garrison moved to strike the defendants’ affirmative defenses, arguing section 657.11(2) and section 657.11A(5) are unconstitutional as applied to him under the inalienable rights clause of the Iowa Constitution and that section 657.11A(3)’s damage cap is unconstitutional on its face and as applied.
if someone pollutes your water, you don't have the right to protect it unless you own it??
claim fails because he lacks the requisite exclusive possessory interest in the water flowing across his property,