[Iowa-dx] A vision for IAGP's future...

[Richard Johnson]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:13:57 -0600, "Green PartyRon"
<greenpartyron@hotmail.com> said:
> Yes, but Rick, can we both not say that actually your
> position and Wendy's position are actually relative to
> each other in the same overall strategy, but in different
> steps?  I ask this in ignorance, but isn't the proposed
> 2000 head hog farm of Randy Lackender, south of
> Iowa City, actually a more local issue than, say, the
> overall problem on a statewide basis?  Granted, he is
> supported by Coalition To Support Iowa's Farmers
> (CSIF), which would tend to make it a state-wide
> issue, but how many "unaffected" NIMBY people in
> other counties would say, "As long as it's over there
> in the wilds of Johnson County, and not here, let them
> do what they want?"


Until you consider the issue of groundwater runoff and subsurface water
contamination, which can affect people quite a distance away from the
source of the pollution.  This is an issue that hit home some 13 years
ago when our new school, with its new wells (just 2 years old at the
time) were discovered to have high levels of coloform bacteria.  To
correct this we had to install a chlorination system of similar size to
the one used in Grandview, and we had to have a person on staff who was
trained in operating a municipal water system.  It is believed that the
contamination that spawned the bacteria bloom may have originated in
Washington County, some 15-20 miles WNW of us.

Having spent the past 6 years on the Restoration Advisory Board at IAAP,
and having seen what groundwater pollution can do over time, I am a firm
believer that there needs to be a solid bedrock of legislation, with
appropriate enforcement, so that folks in one county do not suffer
because of a neighboring county's lax laws.  If a county wishes to have
tougher standards than the state, go for it.  But there will be a
minimum standard to insure quality water for EVERY Iowan...even those
who reside miles from the CAFO.


>=20
> It seems to me that by what Wendy says in her web
> site, that the local issue must be raised for that very
> reason, as well as the survey by the Des Moines
> Register in 2001 that "found that 71 percent of
> Iowans want local control" over the issue, because, in
> that case, it is an issue which only initially affects the
> population in only about a twenty mile radius -- note
> that I say "initially", because that proposed "feed lot"
> confinement has not yet been built.  The intention,
> as I see it, by Wendy is to "nip the problem in the bud"
> where it is not so noticeable before it gets established
> to the general public, and to do that, local support is
> necessary.

I cannot disagree that the issue is definitely a local one in its
initial impact.  However, as someone who lives downriver from Iowa City,
I am affected by their laws regarding discharge into their river.  I do
not want to come back to this issue in 15-20 years and see that the
actions in one county required everyone in a neighboring county to move
to a rural water system.

Part of this issue involves education.  We need to educate the public in
how groundwater moves, how aquifers work, and how contamination migrates
generally from west to east, or from WNW to ESE in this state.

>=20
> But, additionally, our Green Party platform highlights
> the idea of grass-roots participation in Democracy.  To
> me, that represents the awareness that Democracy
> is not a confederacy, but rather is a coalition of local
> decision-making.  Where issues apply on a larger scale,
> that is a different jurisdiction, and the cumulative
> viewpoint on issues that effect larger ranges of the
> population warrant greater representation, however,
> that representation still comes from the local grass-roots
> public, and not the "Top-Down" tyranny such as we see
> in Iowa City's City Council and the Republicommunist
> control over our national congress.

There are a number of issues where this model works well, and where this
model is truly the only correct approach.  However, there are times when
a higher level of government authority must intervene to insure that all
residents in the larger area are protected equally.  Again, I do not
want to see a portion of our state become a CAFO ghetto due to the power
and influence of a few local lobbyists and the scare tactics of a
corporate farming interest.

I would offer this brief summary of the work done at IAAP on cleaning up
the contamination from that plant.  Note that in 2001 some 30 residences
(all of the residences SE of the plant in the contaminated area) were
moved to a rural water system at the Army's expense (with the homeowner
paying the monthly fee after that).

http://www.thehawkeye.com/features/IAAP/breaking/b4_0211.html


Now consider that the components in manure from CAFOs that is spread (in
many cases too heavily) on cropland are far more water soluble (and
therefore far more mobile) than the heavier components found at IAAP,
and you begin to see just how badly a concentration of CAFOs in a county
might affect the water supply several counties away.

Also, there is the matter of pharmaceuticals in the manure.  This report
is from a study done by the U of Iowa, and it should raise concerns
about ANY area in our state that might become a CAFO ghetto.

http://www.ehponline.org/members/2006/8837/8837.pdf


>=20
> I hope I am not getting nebulous.
>=20

Not at all, and thank you for responding.  I support completely the idea
of grassroots, local control of issues that affect a locality.  I hope
you can understand how I see CAFOs as being an issue that does not limit
its hazards to one locality.

Rick

--=20
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different=85