Success Stories

Going toe-to-toe (or hoof-to-hoof) with Big Agriculture can seem intimidating, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Grassroots activists across the nation have won key victories through cunning tactics and determined organizing. Never underestimate the potential of people power!

We have collected a number of Success Stories that demonstrate how to defeat big meat, egg, and dairy conglomerates when they target your town with industrial CAFOs. Read them to gain valuable wisdom for your own fight!

Click any title to read the full story

1. PERSISTENCE PAYS WHEN VOLUNTEERS PROTECT THEIR PRECIOUS HOMELAND

A 6,500-hog CAFO threatened the well-being of America’s first National River and nearby school. The Arkansas Buffalo National River and the Mount Judea School (made up of 100 percent economically disadvantaged families) (1) were put at risk by massive amounts of hog excrement leaking into the scenic waterways and affecting resident airways.

The CAFO was surreptitiously permitted to begin operations in 2012 in this protected area near the Big Creek tributary to the Buffalo River. The National Park Service found out and notified local and state organizations, the Sierra Club Central Arkansas group, and the National Parks Conservation Association. These groups challenged the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) permit (2). Earth Justice law firm was involved also, but volunteers were critical.

People of the area understood that the Buffalo was designated a national river for “the purposes of conserving and interpreting an area containing unique scenic and scientific features, and preserving as a free-flowing stream an important segment of the Buffalo River" (3). A CAFO did not fit in this homeland and prized recreational area. In fact, it was promptly discovered that the standard notification to neighbors required by law when permitting a CAFO, was absent.

The organizations also uncovered the site-specific misrepresentations and lack of details in the permit that should have been investigated before approval. The CAFO application did not mention the Buffalo River Watershed location, which might have raised a warning to ADEQ. The swiss-cheese-like karst terrain that could allow manure to seep easily through limestone into groundwater should have been researched by ADEQ, as should the area's many caves and swallo-holes that allow CAFO pollutants to flush into the river.

The Buffalo River Watershed Alliance (BRWA) formed in 2013 and hired legal help to communicate expert opinions to ADEQ on the environmental impacts of the CAFO. (4)

Guaranteed small business loans were challenged by several organizations for improper environmental assessment.  All encounters were made in hope of opening the eyes of the state regulator to CAFO harms specific to this national river watershed.  Groups across the state organized fundraising. Birders, paddlers, and hikers wrote letters and made public comments to ADEQ when allowed and even to the CAFOs original contracted hog owner, Cargill. 

The University of Arkansas ag college was paid by the state to form the Big Creek Research & Extension Project research team for soil and water testing. They soon became involved with projects to help the CAFO manage their manure better. The ag college’s  concluding report was followed by a review panel with expertise in hydrology, water quality monitoring, animal waste and soil management who cautioned, “There is a potential, however, that long-term continued application of slurry to pastures in excess of nutrient requirements may contribute to degradation in water quality absence the use of techniques to reduce nutrient availability in the slurry.” (5)

The CAFO owners pushed back on ADEQ who had approved the permit.  Two governors of the state of Arkansas finally became involved in this controversial project where a big hog CAFO was built in an environmentally protected area and strongly opposed by the public. After 7-years of manure and hog production, in 2019 the CAFO ceased operation.

“Arkansas has paid the owners of C&H Hog Farms $6.2 million for their former farmland in the Buffalo River watershed, and the state now possesses the land in the form of a conservation easement. No plans have been announced for the land, but its transfer to the state as a conservation easement – which limits its potential uses – is the beginning of a new chapter for the river’s watershed.” (6)

 

Additionally, University of Arkansas ag college learned something through their years of investigating CAFO manure spreading and karst topography. The Research & Extension division developed a new program: “Buffalo River Watershed Enhancement” (7)

With public attention paid to the erroneous CAFO-siting in the Buffalo River Watershed, the threat was removed. Without public involvement, the above enhancement projects likely would not exist. Volunteers won this CAFO challenge.

  1. Overview of Mt. Judea K-12 School
  2. Buffalo River Hog CAFO Threatens America’s First National River, by Jonathan Hahn, Sierra Magazine, February 24, 2017.
  3. Environmental Factors, Buffalo National River, Arkansas, National Park Service
  4. Letter from BRWA to ADEQ
  5. Response to the External Panel Review of BCRET Final Report
  6. Payment made, state gains hog farm land; Buffalo River’s protection still seen as priority, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, January 7, 2020, by Emily Walkenhorst
  7. Buffalo River Watershed Enhancement Project encouraging landowners to develop ponds, U of A Division of Agriculture, Aug. 2, 2022.

 

2. IS THIS WHAT WINNING LOOKS LIKE?

Sometimes it is the watchful eyes of CAFO neighbors who make complaints to a state regulating agency that gets action. Occasionally, the public using a well-loved river or lake finds the manure pollution. Sometimes, it is the occasional visit by a regulator to a CAFO that finds something wrong in the operations. In the best cases, the CAFO operator would make the call, about which this story is written in 2023. But what ultimate protection does an $8,000 fine provide for our precious water, land, and air?

“An eastern Iowa company that applied more than 1.5 million gallons of manure to a field and contaminated a nearby creek in 2021 did not take steps to stop the contamination after it was discovered, according to state regulators. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources recently fined Cat-Nip Ridge Manure Application, of Lone Tree, $8,000 for the incident. The company was hired to inject manure from a hog confinement south of Bloomfield into the soil of a field in October 2021, a DNR order said. After the work concluded, another company that manages the facility reported that water was flowing from tile lines that drain the field.”
 

"DNR: Company took no action to stop manure runoff", Iowa Capital Dispatch, July 4, 2023.

In every case, our water quality and our environment has already taken a hit because of our complaint-based system of regulation of CAFOs. These manure factories are huge operations that require management skills of a small workforce, control of animals and their excrement, and the field-application of manure.  Concern for environmental impact is up to us.

 

3. CHANGE.ORG AND THE COMMUNITY CHANGED REGULATOR'S AND MEATPACKER'S DECISION

After three public hearings in 2023-24, and a Change.org petition with over 5,000 signatures, Missouri regulators backed off their plan to issue a permit to a meatpacking plant to send their waste onto the fields and into rivers in the area.

“Following public backlash, the Missouri Department of Natural Resources is moving to deny a beef packer’s request to pump treated waste into a southwest Missouri river . . . The plan generated intense public opposition due to pollution concerns, and a Change.org petition to stop the dumping of waste into the river had generated more than 5,000 signatures as of Wednesday.”

"Missouri moves to deny plan to pump treated waste into Pomme de Terre River", Jack Suntrup, Columbia Missourian, Nov 8, 2023.

Although, regulators had the antidegradation science to deny the permit request, they were planning to issue the permit with effluent limits and requirements the facility would need to meet. But the public studied the 350,000 gallons of wastewater that would be discharged into the Pomme de Terre River and rallied to change the state’s direction. There would be no permit and no allowance for the meatpacker to land-apply the company’s waste.

The state decided they needed more information on the company’s proprietary microbe treatment technology. John Hoke, water protection program manager for the Department of Natural Resources, stated, “After taking comments on the antidegradation review and questions regarding the iLeaf technology, we revisited our regulations and ascertained that we did not have sufficient information in the current application to make a decision. Missouri Prime Beef Packers does have an opportunity to help sway the state with a complete and acceptable permit application.

In the end, after the meatpacker and the public had further chance to review the state’s intent to deny the permit, Missouri Prime Beef Packers withdrew their application.

 

4. INFORMED CITIZENS ARE EFFECTIVE ADVOCATES

Application for a CAFO housing over 200,000 broiler chickens was stopped in NE Kansas

Early in 2021 an application was filed for a CAFO to confine 224,000 broiler chickens near the city of Hiawatha, Ks. in the northeast corner of the state near the Nebraska line. This CAFO was to be located near drinking water, and aquifer monitoring wells serving the city and surrounding area. Some 1800 tons of poultry waste was to be exported, in part, to a neighbor of the CAFO operator and spread upon fields located above this aquifer.

The Kansas Chapter of the Sierra Club worked with the Kansas Rural Center and Socially Responsible Agriculture Project (SRAP) to organize and inform local citizens about the threat. The Kansas Chapter prepared the attached factsheet. It was distributed to the local citizens group and also served as the chapter’s official comment to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

On March 29, 2021 we were informed that the application had been withdrawn.

It has been our experience that informing affected citizens with a technical fact sheet gives them more confidence to speak out in opposition. Another big lesson from this experience is the huge regulatory loophole represented by the ability of CAFO operators to “export” or “manifest” their wastes to other entities with minimal information of how it will be handled.


5. CHALLENGING THE DNR CAN PAY OFF - AND DON’T IGNORE THOSE STATE SUPREME COURT RACES!

Does the Department of Natural Resources Have the Authority to Protect Our Drinking Water?
Sep 7, 2021

Can the DNR impose rules that will protect Wisconsinites’ drinking water? More specifically, can the DNR impose limits on numbers of animals in a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, require monitoring of nearby wells, and restrict the amount of water drawn from groundwater? Yes, says the Wisconsin Supreme Court, in two rulings that advance the cause of clean drinking water in rural Wisconsin.

These cases were both basically about whether the DNR has the authority to carry out its mandate to protect Wisconsin’s environment. The Court delivered a setback to Republican legislators who have been trying, through Act 21, to require all specific regulatory actions by agencies like the DNR to be written into state law. In two 4-2 decisions, the Court ruled that the individual actions of agencies like the DNR do not need to be written into law so long as their ultimate goals are, and that the DNR has authority to take regulatory actions in pursuance of those goals.

Citizens casually following the issue can be excused for being confused about who’s on what side, however – because both cases were challenges to the DNR.

 

6. USE THOSE OPEN COMMENT OPPORTUNITIES!

"Farmer drops 'karst country' swine feedlot plan", Jennifer Bjorhus, Minnesota Star Tribune, February 12, 2019.

A Fillmore County farmer who sought to build the county’s largest animal feedlot has withdrawn his permit application in the face of sustained local opposition, marking the end of the road for the proposed Catalpa Ag hog farm.

State pollution officials said Monday that Al Hein informed them of his decision via e-mail, and that it terminates his application.

Hein, the majority holder in Catalpa Ag, wanted to build a piglet operation with nearly 5,000 pigs on his farm near Mabel, Minn., in southeastern Minnesota. The operation would have been managed by Iowa-based Waukon Feed Ranch.

The feedlot ignited unusual local alarm, drawing large crowds at two informational meetings held by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and a record number of comments during the agency’s public-comment period. Area residents and others expressed concern that the 7.3 million gallons of liquid manure the pigs would produce each year would threaten their groundwater. They pressed the MPCA to require a full environmental review of the proposal and said that southeastern Minnesota, with its porous karst geography, was the wrong place for the large operation.

 

7. CITIZENS HOLD THE DNR ACCOUNTABLE

"Company withdraws plan for 10,000 hogs northeast of KC after local opposition, lawsuit", Jonathan Shorman and Kevin Hardy, Kansas City Star, Updated April 14, 2021.

…the site had been caught up in litigation over an emergency rule change DNR enacted that critics said was aimed at smoothing the way for a permit. DNR changed how it defines groundwater near CAFOs to exclude shallow, or “perched,” groundwater. Officials had said the reference was inadvertently deleted during a push to cut red tape under Gov. Eric Greitens and that the proposed change was simply a restoration of the earlier definition.

But CAFO opponents, represented by St. Louis environmental attorney Stephen Jeffery, accused the agency of trying to clear the way for United Hog because opponents said they found shallow groundwater near the site. Jeffery said a judge held a hearing last week but hasn’t issued a decision yet.

 

8. LOCAL RESIDENTS SOUND OFF ABOUT GOVERNMENT LOANS TO CAFO

"Christmas Comes Early for Mason County, Illinois, Residents After Funding Pulled for Proposed Hog CAFO",  Socially Responsible Agriculture Project, December 24, 2021.

Prospective CAFO Fanter Farms applied for a “Beginning Farmer” loan through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s guaranteed FSA loan program.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and the National Historic Preservation Act, FSA must consider the environmental and cultural effects of government-issued loans made through its program.

A multitude of Illinois residents and members of Mason County Concerned Citizens (MCCC) coalition submitted individual and group comments to FSA regarding the potential negative impacts of the CAFO on surrounding communities and beyond.

The comments raised concerns about the potential impact to the aquifer, local infrastructure costs, property devaluation, the Illinois Chorus Frog–deemed “threatened” by the state–and the proven human health risks tied to living near CAFOs.

Some of the comments called out FSA for relying on faulty and incomplete information when it performed an environmental assessment that determined the CAFO would have “no significant impact” on the environment.

 

9. How CAFOs Use the Right to Farm as a Nuisance Defense

All 50 states have enacted “Right to Farm” statutes to protect farmers from nuisance claims related to generally “acceptable” agricultural practices. However, some CAFO (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation) owners or operators may misinterpret these laws, believing they provide broader protections than intended, including for practices that could negatively impact neighbors or the surrounding community.

Current CAFO regulations fail to sufficiently address air and water pollution caused by CAFOs. Thus, even if neighbors are harmed, and they often are, farmers are protected if they can demonstrate adherence to the regulations, even if inadequate.” However, Right to Farm laws do not grant complete immunity from public nuisance laws. As defined in tort law, public nuisance refers to a “condition, activity, or situation that interferes with the use or enjoyment of property” or an activity that “unreasonably interferes with a right common to the general public.” In this 2024 case, a ruling issued by the Kansas Supreme Court spells out a CAFO operator’s ill-conceived presumption and the Court’s finding on personal property rights:

 “No. 125,274 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

K.S.A. 2-3202(a) creates a statutory presumption that agricultural activities do not constitute a nuisance when the statute's several requirements are met. To receive the benefit of that presumption, the nuisance must arise from an agricultural activity, the activity must be conducted on farmland, the activity must have been established prior to surrounding agricultural and nonagricultural activities, and the activity must be consistent with good agricultural practices.”
Read the full decision here.
 

Specifically, in this case, good agricultural practices did not include installing a manure pipeline through neighboring property under the county roadway to the CAFO owner’s fields without a local permit and without the neighbors’ authorization, which was deemed by the District and Appellate Courts as trespass. Spraying animal excrement on the field across from the neighbor’s home, creating an infestation of flies, and interfering with their ability to enjoy their home property was judged to be a nuisance.

The Court went on to say:

“K.S.A. 2-3202(a)'s statutory presumption is rebuttable. Even if the requirements
for invoking the presumption are met, the presumption does not attach when the activity has a substantial adverse effect on public health and safety.”
 

Further:

“K.S.A. 2-3202(b) creates a presumption that an agricultural activity is consistent
with good agricultural practices when it is undertaken in conformity with federal, state, and local laws and rules and regulations.”
 

The Court explained what the CAFO operator tried to do but concluded the Landowner was correct under Kansas law:

“[The CAFO operator] moved for partial summary judgment on both the trespass and nuisance claims. On the trespass claim, [the CAFO operator] argued he needed no permission to lay pipelines along the county road. And if he did, he had the implied consent of the county. [The landowner] insisted that only public utilities could install pipelines in the highway easement without permission from the landowner. And he filed his own motion for summary judgment on the trespass claim. On the nuisance claim, [the CAFO operator] argued that the right-to-farm statutes shielded his conduct from nuisance liability. [The landowner] maintained that the statutory right-to-farm protections did not apply because [the CAFO operator’s] agricultural activity violated the applicable laws and regulations.”
 

The CAFO operator had proceeded to install the manure and water pipes, which offended the property owner’s rights.  On October 7, 1999, the Attorney General wrote an opinion on which the landowner case was built regarding how the county had mismanaged this situation.

“An application for a use permit that would allow the County to learn the particular details of an intended project would, in our opinion, be a reasonable method of making this assessment. Additionally, permission to use the land for an intended project would need to be obtained from the landowner. (Cited herein: K.S.A. 68-544.)”
Read the full opinion here.
 

It is worthwhile to research other state laws regarding the use of Right-to-Farm as an affirmative defense by CAFO owners. Determine if the state defines generally “acceptable” agricultural practices (e.g., “Best Management Practices,” “Good Agricultural Practices,” or “Generally Acceptable Agricultural Management Practices”) and research them. Even if those practices are voluntary, if they have been violated in any manner, it may offer homeowners objecting to CAFO pollution a base from which to consult with an environmental attorney to find relief.