Last December, the Kansas Department of Agriculture and agribusiness interests laid out their plans for growing animal agriculture in Kansas by opening the state to the highest bidders. Repealing the corporate farm law to allow entities like Seaboard or Tyson- style corporations to come in and set up mega swine, poultry and dairy facilities was the centerpiece. But there was a package of bills aimed at recruiting confined animal feeding operations to the state by loosening facility siting laws, easing threats from potential nuisance suits, and offering tax breaks to certain agricultural entities.

   SB 191 and HB 2404 -- identical bills-to repeal restrictions on corporate farming were derailed at the last minute, and redirected to an interim study for summer and fall. Current corporate farming restrictions apply only to the Seaboard and Tyson type corporations, not to family farm corporations. Under existing law, a Seaboard-type corporation must have a county commission resolution or a positive vote of residents to be allowed to build a swine operation in a county.

   Since this provision was added to the law in 1994, there have been some 20 counties in Kansas that voted against these swine operations. There have not been any county votes to block corporate dairies. Greeley County reversed course two years ago and revoted on their restriction. Seaboard is currently building a facility to house 100,000 to 132,000 hogs there.

Currently western Kansas is home to 21 large, corporate owned or licensed hog feeding complexes holding 20,000 to 80,000 mature hogs in counties that chose not to keep them out. Only separation distances to the nearest residence regulate odors from hog CAFOs. The required separation distance is only 5000 feet no matter if the operation holds 9400 hogs or 132,000.

   SB 191 essentially would have repealed the right of counties to vote on these corporate swine facilities. Corporations of any kind would be welcome in any county along with the potential pollution and low wage employment. It was opposition to repealing the local control option at the county level that finally slowed the bills down.

   The Kansas Department of Agriculture, the Kansas Farm Bureau, the Kansas Livestock Association, and Kansas Pork Association supported the repeal. KRC, Kansas Farmers Union, and Kansas Sierra Club testified in opposition to the bill, raising questions about the environmental impact, the economic benefits, and the loss of local control.

   However, other bills in the package to grow animal agriculture in Kansas sailed through. SB 168 expands the 'right to farm' in Kansas, amending the law relating to the protection of farmland and agricultural activities from certain nuisance actions. It amends the law so a farmer or rancher can plan on 'reasonable' expansion and not be bothered by non-agricultural claims, as long as all applicable local, state, and federal environmental codes, resolutions, laws and regulations are complied with. It puts a cap on the damages that may be claimed, limiting damages to the reduction in the fair market value of the claimant's property caused by such nuisance. This expanded right can be sold or be inherited. No numbers were offered on the extent of nuisance lawsuits in Kansas.

   Substitute for HB 2207 tightens a loophole in the siting of CAFO's. The bill continues the requirement that any confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) with an animal unit capacity of 300 or more must register with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. The registration will lock in the tract of land where the construction will occur and the separation distances from neighboring residences. It essentially locks down the separation distances so neighbors cannot begin construction in order to interfere or stop the CAFO or expansion. The assumption is that the CAFO will be constructed within 18 months but an additional 18 months can be granted.

   The effort to repeal the corporate farm law is far from over. The opposition from within their ranks surprised supporters, but they will be active in the Interim Study this summer and fall ensuring that they get the expert testimony they need and pushing for a different outcome next year.

Kansas Farmers Market Promotion Act SB 120 Passes

   This bill establishes a central registration of farmers' markets in Kansas through a voluntary registration with the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA). It will be used to encourage and promote farmers' markets across the state. There will be no charge for registration and the law requires the Kansas Secretary of Agriculture to maintain a list of all registered entities for dissemination to the public. This change will also allow KDA to apply for any federal, state, local, private grants or funding opportunities that will assist in the creation or promotion of farmers' markets in Kansas. The bill also provides limited liability for farmers' markets.

Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Protected

   On Tuesday March 19, the House Energy and Environment committee voted to table HB 2241 which sought to roll back provisions of the renewable portfolio standard (RPS). The RPS basically established percentages of energy to come from renewable sources by certain deadlines. A diverse group of opponents to the bill underscored that the wind industry has become an important economic force.

The wind industry is responsible for over 13,000 jobs, and landowners receive over $13 million in annual lease payments. Time and again, the committee heard or received testimony telling them that changing or abolishing the RPS would jeopardize future investment dollars and job growth. They listened this session, but next year may be another battle to support renewable energy against oil and gas supporters.