Supreme Court to hear water quality case (UPDATE)

Listen to this article

By DINESH RAMDE
Associated Press

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court was set to hear arguments Wednesday in a case that could determine whether a municipality can hold farms to stricter water-quality standards than the state requires.

The case is the first to test a state law governing the expansion of livestock farm operations. It pits a large Rock County farm against a town that blames its water-pollution problems on manure generated by the farm’s 2,900 cows.

At issue is a 2004 Wisconsin law that sought to make farm regulations equivalent across the state. The Livestock Facility Siting Law created standards for local governments to follow when granting permits for new and expanded livestock operations.

In 2006, Larson Acres Inc. applied for a permit for its existing facility in Magnolia, a small town of fewer than 1,000 residents about 30 miles south of Madison. At the time, the farm had 1,000 cows. It has since nearly tripled that number.

The town held a public hearing where its experts said they evaluated water quality near Larson’s current operations and found elevated nitrate levels in a nearby creek and local wells.

The town granted Larson’s permit but with conditions. For example, Larson had to allow the town to conduct monthly water-quality tests on its land. The farm also had to follow certain crop-rotation strategies to reduce nitrates buildup.

Larson appealed to the Livestock Facility Siting Review Board, which is run by the state’s agriculture department. The board struck down a number of the Magnolia-mandated conditions, saying that the town had exceeded its authority.

That led to five years of back-and-forth court rulings, with a lower court siding with the town and an appeals court reversing the decision in favor of the board.

The state’s high court is now being asked to decide whether the siting law can prevent a town from holding a farm to higher environmental standards than the state mandates.

The town has said the law wasn’t intended to diminish a local government’s authority to protect its water quality. Larson counters that the appeals court used a well-established interpretation in its reading of the siting law.

Michael Larson, the general manager of Larson Acres, said the law was intended to create standard guidelines across the state. Allowing different municipalities to tack on additional conditions amounts to townships interfering with a private business, he said.

“We feel we know what’s best for our business, for the environment, for our cattle,” said Larson, 48. “We want to follow all the laws. We just want a standard set of guidelines, so before we spend millions of dollars to expand our business we know what the rules are ahead of time.”

That argument didn’t sit well with Tony Ends, 57, an organic farmer whose property is adjacent to Larson Acres. He said the permitting process is flawed, and that any municipality — especially one with a recent history of polluted wells — should have the right to impose reasonable conditions to protect public health.

“If anybody told me my business, my income, was a threat to health and safety I would do something else for a living,” Ends said. “Or I would try to bring my business around to a place where it didn’t harm people.”

Dinesh Ramde can be reached at [email protected].