Stop Taxpayer Funding of Industrial Animal Agriculture
Background
States offer tax exemptions and abatements for a wide range of agricultural activities. These include exemptions for costs specifically associated with CAFOs, such as manure storage, giving CAFOs a tax advantage over pasture-based livestock operations. Tax exemptions reduce revenue to the state and county, while CAFOs themselves put extra strain on local resources, with 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.[1] State policymakers should consider sunsetting tax exemptions that disproportionately benefit CAFOs and implement exemptions that incentivize pasture-based livestock operations.
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,[2] but mitigating manure pollution does not make these facilities environmentally sustainable. EQIP funding is distributed from the USDA through a state conservationist, advised by a technical committee of stakeholders. State policymakers could pass a resolution encouraging the state conservationist to direct all EQIP funding to pasture-based livestock operations to avoid subsiding CAFOs with public funding. State policymakers could also work to ensure impacted communities or pasture-based producers are seeking appointments to the state technical committee,[3] which oversees the distribution of EQIP funds. Manure-to-energy projects are rarely economically feasible without public subsidies, particularly when construction and operation costs are taken into account. Additionally, they require an enormous volume of manure in order to operate. While manure-based biogas is touted as being environmentally sustainable, its development actually relies on CAFO expansion – which is definitely not sustainable. In fact, manure-to-energy projects are generally a way for CAFOs to externalize costs of productions onto the public. Further, since they are not renewable energy sources, they should not be included in state renewable energy portfolios or receive tax credits. State officials should work to strike any existing manure-to-energy components of a state renewable energy portfolio.[4] [1] Hodne, Carol. The Iowa Policy Project, 2005, Concentrating on Clean Water: The Challenge of Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, http://www.iowapolicyproject.org/2005docs/050406-cafos-sum.pdf. [2] 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. [3] 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/ [4] 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.
State Policy Priorities
- Direct public dollars such as tax exemptions and EQIP funds away from CAFOs and toward pasture-based operations.
- 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,[5] which has reduced EQIP funds going to livestock waste management from 35 percent to 15 percent in recent years.[6]
- New York (2019 NY S 6599) recently passed a bill that would prohibit waste-to-energy projects to be 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.[7]
[5] 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.
[6] Gewin, Virginia. “Why Aren’t USDA Conservation Programs Paying Farmers More to Improve Their Soil?” Civil Eats. Jan. 12, 2021. 2021,https://civileats.com/2021/01/12/why-arent-usda-conservation-programs-paying-farmers-more-to-improve-their-soil/.
[7] 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.