Despite pushback, lawmakers advance bill to double inspections of Indiana’s confined animal farms

A bill to increase inspections of confined livestock farms advanced Monday despite pushback from multiple Indiana farming groups who argued that additional oversight requirements will come at a cost to producers.

Senate Bill 193 originally proposed annual inspections for all confined feeding operations, or CFOs. Currently, those farms must be inspected by state regulators at the time of licensure, and then once every five years.

Before moving the bill 9-1 to the full chamber, however, the Senate Environmental Affairs Committee amended the bill to require two inspections in every five-year period.

Bill author Sen. Rick Niemeyer, R-Lowell, emphasized that the change would add “just one more inspection” and comes at “no cost” to farmers.

Niemeyer said the proposal stemmed from concerns in his district—specifically within Newton County—about the years-long gap between farm inspections.

“It’s not because the CFOs have a problem in the state. They do not. They’ve had a great track record,” he said. “This is just for the residents that live around there. They had a lot of concerns … to make sure that runoff isn’t getting into the ditches, into the rivers, and areas that maybe it shouldn’t have been in.”

“You always have the smell from these things, that’s always going to be there. The flies and that type of stuff … that’s part of livestock farming. But the magnitude of manure that comes off of these CFOs is a lot—tremendous,” Niemeyer added. “All the bill does is (require) that we have one more look at that during that five-year period … and make sure it’s running right.”

But three of Indiana’s largest farming associations spoke out against the bill.

“Our members oppose any increases in current frequency of CFO inspections at a time when our members are demonstrating high compliance with the regulations promulgated by (the state). Coupled with the current biosecurity risks, this seems to be an unwise mandate for higher levels of inspection at this time,” said Andy Tauer, Indiana Farm Bureau’s public policy director. “This will increase the cost for our members and our farmers, as they do hire consultants to be there and go along with the (inspections). Right now, our farmers are, year over year, seeing a decrease in net farm income, so any additional increase in cost of inspections will further harm members’ fiscal health.”

An added inspection

The latest version of the bill stipulates that additional inspections, carried out by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, or IDEM, can only be used to evaluate farm property already under permit.

“They can look at the manure storage and whatever’s going on with that,” Niemeyer said. “They can’t go into any other buildings … with this process, IDEM can just go (on property) they’ve OK’ed.”

Other inspections—like of milk cleanliness in dairies—are carried out more regularly and are the responsibility of the Indiana Board of Animal Health. Those operations, for example, would not qualify for IDEM oversight, Niemeyer emphasized.

The bill additionally requires IDEM regulators to provide landowners at least 30 days in advance of an inspection. Farmers must be on site while the inspection takes place.

Drake Abramson, IDEM’s legislative director, said the agency “could potentially absorb the workload” created by the updated bill requirement of just one additional inspection within the five-year window.

“However, that depends on how many new permitted facilities may come online,” Abramson said. The state agency was neutral on the bill as of Monday.

Presently, about 20% of all Hoosier CFOs are inspected annually, Abramson told lawmakers. He wasn’t able to provide trend data on CFO violations but said the agency closely monitors “the top 10” violators throughout the state. Documents related to permitting, inspections and enforcement are available for public view on IDEM’s website.

“Usually, it’s a matter of whether they’re upkeeping their lagoons or manure storage structures, that kind of thing,” he said of notable CFO violations logged within Indiana.

Farming groups opposed

Farm groups largely pointed to IDEM and doubled down on the agency’s likely “inability” to ramp up inspections with current staff.

They held, too, that additional inspections will increase farmers’ fees paid to third-party environmental consultants—hired by a majority of CFOs to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations. When inspections take place, those consultants must also be present.

Josh Trenary, executive director of the Indiana Pork Producers Association, said farmers are already vigilant about expensive fertilizer storage and application, negating additional “discretionary inspections.”

“Farmers have to follow the regulations. But why wouldn’t they want to? Because if you’re storing $87,000 worth of fertilizer, you’re going to keep pretty close tabs on it until you can use it for the benefit of your crop. The farmers want to use every gallon of it they can get,” Trenary said. “There’s motivation outside this regulatory construct to make sure the manure containment is adequate and the land application rates are appropriate—so they can cover as much ground as they possibly can. Because the ground they can’t cover, they’re going to have to buy additional commercial fertilizer for it.”

“Many farmers go above and beyond the regulations for this reason so they can get the most crop benefit out of that manure as they can,” he continued.

Trenary maintained that his group is opposed to Niemeyer’s bill and “any statutory requirement for inspection frequency.”

“We feel like it hampers (IDEM’s) ability to employ their resources—especially their inspection resources, at their own discretion — to balance inspecting where the needs are, or the risks are, while still making sure they get around to enough operations every year to receive their grant funding from the federal government,” he said.

Becky Joniskan, president of the Indiana State Poultry Association, noted that IDEM regulators can already visit a CFO at any time to inspect a compliance complaint.

Even so, she said CFO permittees “have a high rate of compliance with their permits, and there are very few instances of degradation of water quality from these operations.”

“IDEM has limited resources, and they need the discretion to use those resources, based on the risk of environmental harm—and not to be required to perform additional, unwarranted inspections, as would be mandated through this proposed legislation,” Joniskan said. “I want inspectors to be available to respond to actual complaints, and assist CFO permittees struggling to comply with their approvals.”

“Poultry farmers recognize manure as a valuable resource, and they manage it as such,” she added. “The additional inspection and focus on CFOs is unnecessary and not a good use of IDEM’s resources.”

No one testified in support of the legislation.