Stop Taxpayer Funding of Industrial Animal Agriculture
Background
States offer tax exemptions and abatements for a wide range of agricultural activities. This makes sense the importance of the sector and the low financial margins for farmers, but many of these exemptions privilege industrial-scale agriculture practices over more sustainable methods, despite the risks they pose to local water and air quality, public health, property values, and more.
In particular, many states offer tax exemptions for costs associated with concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), ranging from livestock feed purchases to manure storage and disposal infrastructure. Pasture-based livestock operations, which grow their own feed and do not require manure storage, cannot take advantage of these tax benefits.
Tax exemptions reduce revenue to the state and county, while CAFOs themselves instead put extra strain on local resources, including additional wear on country roads, water use, and potential need for pollution remediation. Iowa has reported a loss of $4.5 million in county revenue due to CAFO property tax exemptions. State policymakers should consider sunsetting tax exemptions that disproportionately benefit CAFOs and instead establish exemptions that incentivize pasture-based livestock operations.
Manure-to-energy projects, also known as biogas, based on anaerobic digesters,[1] have become significant recipients of public subsidies in recent years as the industry has touted biogas as an environmentally friendly climate solution. The truth is that manure-based biogas development relies on the expansion of CAFOs and biogas industry expansion is not economically feasible without public subsidies, particularly when construction and operation costs are taken into account.[2] State policymakers should oppose any state-subsidized efforts to expand biogas production. These operations also should not be included in state renewable energy portfolios or receive tax credits; lawmakers should work to strike any existing manure-to-energy components of a state renewable energy portfolio.[3] The Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) provides funds to farm operations to implement environmentally sustainable practices. CAFOs access millions of dollars of EQIP funds for pollution control measures such as upgraded manure storage,[4] but mitigating manure pollution does not make these facilities environmentally sustainable. EQIP funding is distributed from the USDA through the State Conservationist, advised by the State Technical Committee. Advocates in some states have successfully worked through their state’s Technical Committee to direct EQIP funding to pasture-based farms rather than to CAFOs. State legislators can support these efforts in a few ways: [1] DiFelice, Mia, et al. “We Can’t Let This Gas Greenwash Factory Farms.” Food & Water Watch, 9 Jan. 2024, www.foodandwaterwatch.org/2023/04/12/we-cant-let-this-gas-greenwash-polluting-factory-farms.[2] Held, Lisa. “Are Biogas Subsidies Benefiting the Largest Industrial Animal Farms?” Civil Eats, 20 September 2021. https://civileats.com/2021/09/20/are-biogas-subsidies-benefiting-the-largest-industrial-animal-farms/ [3] Food & Water Watch. 2018, Cleanwashing: How States Count Polluting Energy Sources as Renewable, https://foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/rpt_1807_rpsnationalscores-web4_0.pdf. [4] Starmer, Elanor. Campaign for Family Farms and the Environment, 2008, Industrial Livestock at the Taxpayer Trough: How Large Hog and Dairy Operations Are Subsidized by the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, http://inmotionmagazine.com/ra08/EQIP_report_1208.pdf. [5] Gewin, Virginia. “Why Aren’t USDA Conservation Programs Paying Farmers More to Improve Their Soil?” Civil Eats. Jan. 12, 2021. https://civileats.com/2021/01/12/why-arent-usda-conservation-programs-paying-farmers-more-to-improve-their-soil/
Policy Priorities
- Federal: Federal: Pass the Farm System Reform Act, a bill that would hold corporate agribusinesses accountable for their pollution, enact a factory farm moratorium, and help transition to more sustainable livestock production.
- State: Direct public dollars such as tax exemptions and EQIP funds away from CAFOs and toward pasture-based operations via a resolution to the state conservationist.
- State: Stop subsidizing manure-to-energy projects.
State Examples
- Iowa lawmakers considered a bill (2019 IA HF 186) to remove CAFO manure pits from a property tax exemption.
- In Missouri, as a result of participation by pasture-based producers and advocates, the NRCS State Technical Committee implemented a rule that no new or expanding CAFOs in Missouri are eligible for EQIP dollars,[6] which has reduced EQIP funds going to livestock waste management from 35 percent to 15 percent in recent years.[7]
- New York (2019 NY S 6599) passed a bill that would prohibit waste-to-energy projects from being included in its future renewable energy platform.
- In 2021, Oregon allowed the expiration of a tax credit for manure, which was intended to promote manure-to-energy projects.[8]
[6] Chrisman, Siena. “What Happens to Animal Waste.” FoodPrint. 08 Oct. 2018. Footnote 32. https://foodprint.org
/issues/what-happens-to-animal-waste/#easy-footnote-bottom-32-1324.
[7] Gewin, Virginia. “Why Aren’t USDA Conservation Programs Paying Farmers More to Improve Their Soil?” Civil Eats. Jan. 12, 2021. https://civileats.com/2021/01/12/why-arent-usda-conservation-programs-paying-farmers-more-to-improve-their-soil/.
[8] Hauser, Daniel. “SB 151: Let the Bovine Manure Tax Credit Sunset.” Oregon Center for Public Policy, 22 Feb. 2021, https://www.ocpp.org/2021/02/22/sb-151-let-bovine-manure-tax-credit-sunset/.
Toolkits
Inspired? Ready to dig in on these issues with your rural neighbors? Our practical communications toolkits will help you connect with new communities through common values. The toolkits provide examples on narrative framing, press release templates, sample talking points, and more.
Click here for the communications toolkit on Promoting Fair Economic Competition.