​Citizens of Buffalo still waiting on hog farm decision

By Matthew Musacchia

“We’ve been called a lot of bad things” began Randy Coon, “anti-agricultural, anti-livestock…and that’s just not true. We’re not against any of those things. Our fight is with this one individual CAFO.”

Coon was speaking on behalf of the Concerned Citizens of Buffalo. The group was formed last February in in opposition to the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) that is being proposed near the small town of Buffalo, North Dakota, in western Cass County.

While North Dakota is set to vote on Measure 1, which could change state law to allow corporate agriculture, the citizens of Buffalo have already been fighting a proposed facility that would potentially be similar to ones allowed if Measure 1 is approved.

The large industrial hog farm is filing as a Limited Liability Partnership, which means it will not be affected by a vote on the upcoming law. However, the way the process has gone through, and the consequences of having a CAFO near them, have upset and worried many town residents.

Since finding out about the proposed hog farm last January, many residents have been adamant that they do not want the farm and that the state of North Dakota has been keeping them in the dark.

Previous reporting by the Forum of Fargo Moorhead shows that the North Dakota Department of Agriculture had been working with the Minnesota-based Rolling Green Family Farm for almost a year before the first public notice in late December 2015, and open records show that the Department of Health had been working with them at least since September, when the permit was officially submitted.

Although officials from both departments say these practices are not uncommon and within state law, many of the residents of Buffalo feel they should have been notified about such a large project.

Much of the reason for the local opposition comes from health risks associated with such agriculture. Many of those opposed to CAFOs point to strong negative links to personal and economic well-being. Citing these health, environmental, and economic reasons the citizens have strongly come out against the proposal, which they say was pushed upon them without their consent by the company in question and aided by the state of North Dakota.

The permit for the company, which operates under Pipestone Systems, is still being decided on by the state health department, although an official involved in the process estimates this may be brought to a close within a couple weeks.

The issue in question that brought many of the townspeople together is not so much whether a majority of the town wants the farm but whether their fears are unfounded. The residents petitioned the State Department of Health to allow an open hearing in order to submit evidence and research they feel the department may have overlooked. This was allowed, and by the March 17th hearing they said they compiled approximately 1,900 pages of evidence detailing potential flaws in the submitted permit application and plan for the facility. The evidence was based both on their own research and research from doctors, scientists and other experts. They found numerous possible flaws, ranged from the location of the building to the disposal of animal waste.

Derrick Braaten, an attorney representing the Concerned Citizens of Buffalo, felt that the evidence they submitted was well-researched.

“I think that they speak for themselves,” he said “….the industry kind of set up this talking point that ‘well this is just an emotional reaction, you’ve got to look at the science.’ But what the Buffalo community submitted was strongly based in science and logic and experience.”

One piece of evidence, for example, submitted by the Concerned Citizens of Buffalo was an analysis done by doctors and researchers from Johns Hopkins University, who specifically looked at information about the proposed hog farm in Buffalo and noted that they used supporting evidence from “peer-reviewed scientific literature.”

The analysis identified potential problems such as the “spread of antibiotic-resistant pathogens to surrounding communities,” contamination of “ground and surface waters, potentially leading to health impacts” and the releasing of “air pollutants and odors, which are associated health and social impacts.”

Proponents of the farm say that it will help diversify the agricultural economy of North Dakota, and that it will ultimately benefit the town and the state. They argue that those opposed to the project are unnecessarily frightened, and that they have had success elsewhere. Representatives of Pipestone have consistently said that they plan to be productive members of the community, abide by local laws, and will bring money and agricultural opportunity into the state.

Support for the proposed hog farm has been strong elsewhere in North Dakota as well. The North Dakota Farm Bureau, among several other organizations, has perhaps been the most vocal, and submitted letters from members supporting the project. However, most support has not come from the Buffalo community.

Although stopping just short of endorsing the project, North Dakota Agricultural Commissioner Doug Goehring did say that he felt many of the residents should be sure to base their opinions on facts.

“Just being against it doesn’t mean that it’s gonna go away” he said in an interview, “….But that isn’t how the system works.” Goehring wouldn’t comment on whether he believed the resident’s claims were baseless, saying that he didn’t have the portfolio and it wasn’t the Department of Agriculture’s responsibility. He did later add how he believed the process should work.

“If you don’t want it, tell us why. And it can’t be based on emotion.”

Dr. John Ikerd of the University of Missouri, professor emeritus and expert on the effects corporate agriculture, who as previously reported recently spoke in opposition to CAFOs and Measure 1 in North Dakota, formally characterized what he felt was a common narrative when CAFOs entered a community. He felt this model was in place in the events in Buffalo.

“It’s universal…” he said. “Wherever I go where there’s groups like this that are opposing CAFOs. Their stories are always basically the same. They [the companies] come in, promise all these things and they have these adverse impacts on people. And you just don’t have a right to do that…They label these people as emotional and irrational and say they imagine these things, and I sometimes say CAFO operators must have a consultant somewhere who says ‘Find me a group of emotional and irrational people so I can go build a CAFO right in the middle of them.’

“And I find these people that I talk to like that group like the one last night [the Concerned Citizens of Buffalo] to be excellent, very well informed, to be talking to medical professionals and digging out the journal articles, review, research...I don’t find these people to be emotional or irrational at all I find them to be some of the best educated and best informed people that I have come across anywhere.”

Response for comment from local and state politicians has been nearly silent. Only the Democratic-NPL candidate for District 22’s Senate seat, Steven Allard, asserted that the residents’ concerns were valid and that he supported the Concerned Citizens of Buffalo.