But last week, even with concerns growing over the environmental impacts of hog farms, the North Carolina Senate unanimously passed a bill that puts the rules process on hold until 2011 -- a display of the mighty political power Boss Hog holds in the state.
The measure now moves to the N.C. House, where its fate is unclear.
The bill's sponsor was state Sen. Charlie Albertson (in photo), the Democratic Caucus secretary who represents eastern North Carolina's Duplin, Sampson and Lenoir counties, an agricultural center where many of the state's more than 10 million hogs are raised. In a recent interview with WUNC public radio reporter Laura Leslie, Albertson -- a member and former chair of the state Senate Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources Committee -- accused the EMC of unfairly picking on hog farmers:
Water quality problems, again, are not caused by swine farmers ... It's just not happening.Unfortunately, that's not true. Agricultural operations, including confined animal feeding operations or CAFOs, are a source of water pollution nationwide, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Hogs produce enormous amounts of fecal waste -- three times as much as humans -- that's stored in giant open-air holding ponds known as "lagoons," which are vulnerable to leaking. The waste is eventually sprayed onto fields, where the nitrogen converts to nitrates, chemicals that move readily into nearby streams and groundwater. Nitrates have been linked to a blood disorder called methemoglobinemia, which is especially harmful to babies.
Animals kept in CAFOs are fed a variety of drugs including antibiotics that also present a threat to the environment. Twenty-two states have reported damage to streams and rivers caused by agriculture, with 20% of that attributed specifically to CAFOs, according to the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production. Health problems have also been documented among people living near hog farms.
In its report released in April, the Pew Commission noted that "one of the most serious unintended consequences of industrial food animal production is the growing public health threat of these types of facilities."
Overruling the rulemakers
North Carolina, the nation's second-largest hog producer after Iowa, is among the states that have suffered serious environmental problems from industrial livestock operations, one of several significant sources of nutrient pollution along with municipal wastewater and urban runoff. Contamination from the state's factory farms has been linked to outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida, a microbe believed to be responsible for fish-killing algal blooms as well as skin irritation and cognitive problems in exposed humans.
In 2007, with concerns mounting over animal waste pollution, North Carolina's Riverkeepers filed a petition for rulemaking asking the state to consider whether it needed to impose monitoring rules for industrial livestock farms. Current law requires the facilities to undergo two inspections a year, but these are strictly visual checks that involve no environmental sampling.
In May of this year, following a process in which all stakeholders got a chance to be heard through comments and hearings, the EMC proposed rules requiring animal waste management facilities to sample water quality three times a year at three sampling sites to be determined by the state Division of Water Quality.
But that didn't sit well with Albertson, who sought to kill the rules. He turned to an existing piece of legislation that aimed to nix state regulation of toxic air emissions in certain cases. That bill was changed to prohibit the EMC from adopting any permanent rules at all until 2011 except in a few limited cases, such as an unforeseen public health crisis. There were as many as 10 rules under consideration at the EMC that would have been affected by this version of the bill.
It was that broad rule moratorium that Albertson got approved by the Senate Agriculture and Environment committee -- a body that has a history of being sympathetic to agribusiness interests. The committee was once chaired by Wendell Murphy, a hog farmer whose Murphy Family Farms are now part of Smithfield Foods of Virginia, the world's largest pork producer and processor. During his time in the legislature, Murphy sponsored and helped pass bills that exempted hog farms from local zoning laws and lawsuits and that gave the industry subsidies and tax exemptions. When Murphy retired from the Senate in 1992, he was replaced by Albertson, then a state representative.
When Albertson's bill was taken up on the Senate floor, several lawmakers with a record of advocating for the environment spoke against the measure. They included state Sen. Dan Clodfelter of Charlotte, who expressed concerns about the bill's impact on rules the EMC was creating to help his city deal with a serious air quality problem. Clodfelter asked Albertson for a narrowing amendment, which Albertson agreed to provide.
Senate insiders say it's customary that when a colleague does what you ask as Albertson did, you in turn support his legislation. That's why even those lawmakers with strong environmental records voted yes on the bill -- even though not all of them wanted to kill the hog farm rules.
But other North Carolina senators spoke in praise of Albertson's bill, with some even accusing the EMC of harboring a "vendetta" against hog farmers.
That lawmakers are so sympathetic to a polluting industry is not altogether surprising considering the enormous clout the corporate agriculture lobby has in North Carolina -- influence that's apparent in Albertson's record of campaign contributions.
Since 2000 alone, Albertson has received $10,200 from the N.C. Farm Bureau, $8,000 from Smithfield Foods, another $7,250 from the N.C. Pork Council, and $5,000 from the N.C. Poultry Federation, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. He's also received tens of thousands of dollars in contributions from individual hog and poultry farmers, include E. Marvin Johnson, owner of the House of Raeford turkey farms, hog farmer William H. Prestage of Prestage Farms and Murphy, his Senate predecessor.
Albertson's hardly alone among North Carolina lawmakers in benefiting from industrial agriculture's largesse: According to a recent report [pdf] from campaign finance group Democracy North Carolina, the N.C. Farm Bureau contributed a total of $222,150 to state candidates and political parties in the last election alone, and the N.C. Pork Council -- which gets funding for its policy advocacy work from a mandatory fee on pork producers -- chipping in another $187,000.
Legislative insiders say there's now an effort underway to keep Albertson's bill from coming up in the House. However, the industry's considerable influence with lawmakers suggests environmental advocates could face a tough battle ahead.
"Hopefully, Albertson's bill will be seen for what it is when it reaches the House, and the EMC will not be bullied by the swine industry and its surrogates," says Rick Dove of the Waterkeeper Alliance.
(Photo of N.C. Sen. Charlie Albertson from the N.C. Senate's website)




I think it is obvious by your article that you are bias in your writting. What happen to objective journalism. One thing that shouldn't change in the South is being truthful and presenting both sides of an argument. The proposed regulations would not accomplish the objectives of cleaning up our waterways, they put a huge cost on an industry that is already hurting financially.
Thanks
August 3, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply
I think North Carolina should change its license plate tag line from "First in Flight" to "First in Hogs and Last in Public Health".
August 3, 2009 2:51 PM | Reply
The last time I checked, environmental PACs gave more money to lawmakers than the pork PAC. You didn't mention that. Wonder why?
August 3, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply
Anonymous -- who comments from an IP address associated with the N.C. Pork Council, by the way -- wonders why I didn't mention that "environmental PACs gave more money to lawmakers than the pork PAC."
I didn't mention that because it isn't true.
As noted, the N.C. Farm Bureau and N.C. Pork Council together contributed a total of $409,150 to North Carolina candidates and political parties in the 2008 election. That same year, the N.C. Conservation Council PAC, the state's leading environmental PAC, contributed $66,250 to candidates and parties, according to the National Institute on Money in State Politics. Add in the Sierra Club PAC contributions, and we're up to $72,300.
As Democracy North Carolina observed in its 2002 report titled "The Power of the Pollution Lobby" [pdf] that looks at this imbalance of influence, "The environmental community will never have the deep pockets of polluters."
I don't know about never, but that's certainly the case now.
August 3, 2009 5:26 PM | Reply
All of your facts, including your math on PAC donations are misleading. First off, the NC Pork Council does not consult with Farm Bureau on their PAC donations so it is inappropriate to lump them together. Farm Bureau represents all agricultural interests - not just pork producers.
Now, if you want to talk about contributions from single organizations, in the 2006 election cycle, the NC Conservation Council gave over $73,000 and the Pork Council PAC gave $62,000. So, your sweeping statements about campaign contributions just don't add up.
You only included facts in your writing that substantiated your own position on this issue. Had you asked any questions outside of your own circle, you would have learned that the North Carolina Pork Council is not behind Sen. Albertson's bill.
You would have learned that the NC Pork Council has participated in the rule-making process from the beginning and our message all along has been the same: We would support a comprehensive approach that looked at all potential nutrient sources in a watershed.
But, we cannot support an approach that singles out pork producers as polluters when all human activity has the potential to affect a watershed.
If water samples are only taken from land surrounding hog farms –as the EMC proposed rule is currently drafted - there are no controls for determining if the nutrients came from that farm or another source such as: a municipal waste sprayfield a half mile up the creek, golf course run-off, run-off from other crops grown with petroleum-based fertilizer, contamination by wildlife, or waste spilling off of a nearby subdivision.
In a letter we sent to the EMC on May 2, 2008, we said that the North Carolina Pork Council (NCPC) “believes that the EMC should take appropriate and effective action to ensure that North Carolina’s waters are protected from the potential discharge of nutrients… Such a program must be focused and designed to produce real water quality improvements and target impaired watersheds taking into consideration all potential sources of nutrients within the impaired watershed, rather than imposing selective monitoring requirements on isolated farms and activities without a showing of any discharge or contribution.”
This letter and all subsequent comments submitted by NCPC are public record.
We believe that that if the groups that petitioned the Environmental Management Commission were truly interested in the health of a watershed, they would support a more comprehensive approach to addressing water quality issues.
Rather, it seems that those groups are only interested in putting pork producers out of business. These unfairly targeted proposed monitoring rules would cost thousands of dollars for pork producers who are already struggling to stay in business. North Carolina’s pork industry provides jobs, pays taxes, and that economic impact is widely felt in local communities and across the state. Our producers are family farmers that operate some 2,200 farms in NC and, prior to the recent economic down-turn, the pork industry provided some 46,000 full time jobs in our state.
But over the past 21 months, pork producers have suffered losses of $661 million and that has resulted in an estimated $529 million in lost income elsewhere in NC.
That’s a lot of jobs lost and a lot of economic hardship.
But its easier to write a story about boss hog and campaign contributions, I suppose.
August 3, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply
Actually, Ms. Whitener, it is your facts that are misleading.
Let's look at the most recent election cycle, 2008. I will do as you suggest and look only at the N.C. Pork Council PAC contributions, excluding donations from other agribusiness PACs and individual businesspeople. According to the National Institute on Money in State Politics, the N.C. Pork Council PAC contributed a total of $176,250 to state candidates in North Carolina that cycle.
That same period, the Conservation Council of North Carolina's PAC contributed $66,250, again according to NIMSP database.
In 2006, as you point out, the Conservation Council's PAC did contribute more to state candidates than the Pork Council PAC. But as you and I well know, that was an outlier year. It also does not account for the considerable giving by individual farmers and others associated with the industry. While pointing to the 2006 PAC contribution figure helps you make your case, you and I both know it does not represent the general state of things in Raleigh, where the hog industry carries enormous clout.
Meanwhile, you say the N.C. Pork Council is not behind Albertson's bill. Yet you acknowledge you support the bill's effect, which is to kill rules that target hog farmers specifically. Your industry's lobbying strategy is clearly a sophisticated one -- no doubt one of the best money can buy.
August 3, 2009 7:23 PM | Reply