FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: March 28, 2007

CONTACT: Becky Grisham, Missouri Corn Growers Association, (573) 893-4181 or (800) 827-4181

MAJOR COMPROMISE REACHED ON MISSOURI FARM AND FOOD PRESERVATION ACT

The coalition of agricultural organizations supporting Senate Bill 364, the Missouri Farm and Food Preservation Act, has reached a major compromise with the Missouri Association of Counties (MAC) on a substitute bill that both groups can support. The legislation could be brought up for debate this week in the Missouri State Senate.

As introduced SB 364, sponsored by Senator Chris Koster from Harrisonville, would protect farmers from unjustified lawsuits and limit the regulation of agriculture to the state and federal levels. The substitute version of SB 364 still contains both provisions; however, added to the legislation are several other changes that would limit the state's largest animal feeding operations, set up a process for county input, increase setbacks in certain cases, and create incentives for using best management practices and odor control techniques.

"The coalition of 19 agriculture organizations supporting this bill appreciates the willingness and desire of MAC to work together to find common ground on this legislation so vitally important to the future of agriculture in Missouri," said Charles E. Kruse, president of Missouri Farm Bureau. "We initiated discussions with MAC even before SB 364 was introduced, and Senator Koster should be commended for his leadership in bringing both sides together to work out our major differences."

In addition to protecting farmers from unjustified lawsuits and regulations, the following 10 new provisions were added with the substitute bill:

1. No new Class 1A (the state's largest) concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) in any county unless approved by the county commission.
2. Increased setbacks for new CAFOs not designated as a Managed Environmental Livestock Operation (MELO).
3. New MELO best management standards to aid in the neighbor and community acceptance of CAFOs.
4. County health ordinances regulating CAFOs remain in effect until MELO standards are developed and then the county ordinances would expire
5. Creation of a CAFO Review Board with authority to review and have input on the Department of Natural Resources' livestock facility permits and develop the MELO standards.
6. Increased state regulations for new livestock facilities greater than 650 animal units.
7. Increased setbacks from specified lakes for new CAFOs of any size greater than 650 animal units.
8. Increased size and expanded use of the livestock lagoon indemnity fund.
9. Authorization of state tax credits to address issues such as odor control abatement and infrastructure improvements.
10. Grandfather in existing CAFOs which would still be required to comply with state and federal regulations protecting public health and the environment.