ROCK ELM — Residents and non-residents alike took to the Rock Elm Town Hall to speak at Saturday’s public hearing both in favor and against an ordinance that would impose further regulations on Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The meeting was not for the purpose of taking action, but to hear the opinions on the ordinance from area residents before voting at a future meeting.

In Wisconsin, CAFOs are considered farms with at least 1,000 animal units, a figure based on the weight of specific livestock.

Back in December, Gilman joined Maiden Rock and Isabelle to become the third township in Pierce County to approve an ordinance that brings additional planning and regulations for CAFOs expanding or entering the township.

The framework of the ordinance has been shared between the townships, adding air pollution controls, an infectious disease plan, carcass disposal plan, biosecurity plan, road plan, water use plan, impact on property value analysis, fire response plan and financial bond in case of a factory closure onto current state regulations.

One of Pierce County CAFO Ridge Breeze Dairy’s owners Brad Gerrits spoke against the ordinance, saying there are other solutions that benefit both the farms and the townships.

“I am also in opposition of this ordinance even though it does not directly and immediately affect our operation there,” Gerrits said. “There’s other solutions for this… Good communication with farmers goes a long way.”

Gerrits said he is willing to work with the township as he has with other town chairs to find other solutions that work for both sides. He offered the board to tour Ridge Breeze or contact them with questions or conversations.

Rock Elm resident Jenny Holcomb opposed the ordinance, asking if the township was prepared to review and enforce the ordinance for permit applications, or if it was a “scare tactic” to keep CAFOs out of the township.

“Those expected plans needed for the application process seem quite excessive reading them as a farmer,” Holcomb said. “The sign-off, as a business owner and a farmer, expecting the CAFO applicants to accept responsibility to fully compensate the town for all legal services, consulting services and other expenses seems like a rather blank check to write out.”

Other Rock Elm farmers, like beef farmers John and Patrick Maloney, said CAFO expansion has a negative impact on its neighbors and lowers their property values.

Farmer and 25-year Rock Elm resident Angelica Hollstadt said some farmers in the area are afraid to speak out in opposition of CAFOs.

“I believe Rock Elm is a place where farms of all sizes and kinds are abundant,” Hollstadt said. “Some small dairy farmers are afraid to speak out about their support… They’re not afraid of the board meetings, they’re afraid to be viewed by their neighbors as being outspoken and somebody to vilify."

Hollstadt cited a previous meeting, stating Town Chairman Tim Bates spoke about the oath he took when he was sworn in.

“He said to the board and everybody present, ‘When I took the oath as Rock Elm town chairman, I vowed to protect Rock Elm’s resources and its citizens,’” Hollstadt said, mentioning the rest of the board took the same oath to protect town resources.

Paul Fetzer of Fetzer Farms, a 1,400-cow dairy near Elmwood, recommended the township explore state siting, an alternative to the ordinance. Fetzer is part of the county’s Groundwater Advisory Committee which recently heard a Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Production (DATCP) presentation on state siting.

The livestock facility siting regulations pertain to nutrient management, odor and air emissions, waste storage facilities, runoff management and location of livestock structures. The threshold to be held accountable under state siting is 500 animal units rather than 1,000.

“We’ve been here for almost 60 years, our farm, and haven’t had any concerns and had a lot of good comments from people,” Fetzer said. “From my standpoint, as a CAFO who’s been a CAFO for almost 30 years, I feel like we’re being vilified… We feel like we’ve done the right thing over the years. I feel like Ridge Breeze down here is going to do the right thing. I know they’ll do the right thing, so again, I don’t think the ordinances are necessary.”

Critics of state siting have mentioned that the regulations are outdated, and while updates have been proposed through the regular review process, none have been approved by the state legislature.

Bob Siewert, an area farmer, said many townships are coming up with different rules and ordinances for farmers, asking them to get on the same page to benefit both the residents and the farmers.

Tom Manley of Gilman called for “substantial” regulation of CAFOs at the state level. Manley was a part of the Gilman Plan Commission that approved the ordinance and spoke in favor of its passage in Rock Elm.

“The folks who are in the room trying to convince you that there’s all these layers of regulation from the state are the very same people who are lobbying in Madison to eliminate the [current regulations],” Manley said. “Iowa has essentially no regulation of this industry, and communities all over that state are feeling the impact.

“We’re suffering from a half-century of bad economic policy that advocates for and incentivizes scale and only that,” Manley said. “I’m not the only person in the room who’s old enough to have lived through the farm crisis in the 80s. We’re in the midst of another one, and that is because of the kind of police that incentivizes these big operations and squashes the little guys.”

At CAFO meetings in other townships, county CAFO farmers have mentioned that they feel they are already properly regulated by the state and by the Department of Natural Resources, stating additional planning requirements are expensive for farms and force their hand to grow even larger than they want to.

“No matter what the decision being of the board here in the future, I will continue to treat my neighbors with respect,” 15-year Rock Elm resident Troy Klecker, who opposed the ordinance citing extra governance and enforcement challenges, said

Organizer Danny Akenson, who also attended the meeting on behalf of GrassRoots Organizing Western Wisconsin, said the operations ordinance would address fact-based community concerns and gaping holes in protections from factory farms.

“If existing rules were enough, landowners across western Wisconsin wouldn't have come forward about Ridge Breeze falsely listing their land for manure spreading; 11-acre barns wouldn't be exempt from basic stormwater requirements. Neighbors could know their well wouldn't be contaminated,” Akenson said. “State agencies know full well that their rules don't protect community members enough - that's why they've tried to update them in the past. Unfortunately, lobbyists and special interest groups have stopped them at every turn. Meanwhile, these same lobbyists have been actively trying to remove what little protections are in place through lawsuits and legislation. The Operations Ordinance is the best tool that towns have to work with a factory farm and show that they have plans in place to make sure the community is protected."