The Falke Farm Decision Case

Part of the Minnesota River Decision Cases (other cases available)
View Teaching Note for this case.

Introduction: Emotions Run High

1. "The Falkes are predators when it comes to livestock!"
   
   
2. "The flag of the Falkes should be the dollar bill, not the American flag!"
   
   
3. Kari Falke and her husband, Kurt, were both exhausted after the County Commissioner’s Board meeting. Angry comments made against them, such as those above, had been emotionally draining. The Falkes were planning to build a hog finishing facility on land they owned about eight miles east of the small southern Minnesota town where they lived and farmed. The conditional use permit they needed to begin work on the site had been approved at the Commissioner’s meeting, but only after a highly charged hearing at which some neighbors voiced strong opposition. Still, fall was approaching, and the Falkes were eager to get started on construction before winter.
   
   
4. In the larger scheme of things, Kari knew the neighbors and others opposed to their expansion would not stop the project, although they would continue to try. As long as the Falkes followed the permitting process to the letter, the project would continue to go forward. But Kari did have to shop at the store, attend church, and work with some of these same people who opposed the finishing operation. Their comments still hurt her, even if they were not effective at halting the project.
   
   
5. At the hearing, a neighbor near the proposed site had jumped to his feet and shouted, "These 5 buildings Falke is asking for now will become 10 and then 20. He is only 100 feet away from a drainage ditch. Why isn’t he building on his own home farm? He says it is because he doesn’t want to have to haul manure, but he is going to have to haul feed to the feedlot. What’s the difference?" The Falke’s proposal did include five finishing buildings with a capacity for 960 head in each building. The population of each building was expected to turn over 2.5 times per year, so 12,000 animals would be raised each year. The hogs would be brought in young, at around 40 lbs. each, and grown to full size. The Falkes planned to use the services of an integrator who would actually own the animals. Integrators typically provided the animals to the finisher and sold them when grown, giving the finisher a guaranteed fee for raising the hogs. One of the Falke’s goals was to own their own animals someday.
   
   

6. Several people were upset by the size of the operation. Kari remembered the statements made at the hearing.
   
   
7. "Do we really need more pork? It just lowers the price so exporters can export more. It is a low paying, hazardous industry. I have lung problems just from working in my own barn. We also have to ask ourselves if we really want more large, corporate farms versus small, independent farms."
   
   
8. Another resident of the township also spoke up: "There are more important issues here than economic development. These mammoth facilities are putting small farmers out of business. Plus, small farmers buy locally. I don’t know that Falke would do this."
   
   
9. "It’s not where we raise the food that’s the problem, it’s how we raise the food," said yet another resident.
   
   
10. Even some hog farmers had opposed the expansion, implying that the Falke’s operation would drive them out of business. "There are 18 hog farmers in [our] township. They average about 1,000 hogs per site per year. The Falke’s site can produce 14,000 to 18,000 hogs per year. It will double the hog production of the township."
    
    
11. Kari thought back to their rationale when they decided to expand their hog operation. She and Kurt had four children and wanted to use the income from the facility to help put them through college in a few years. This operation was also intended to provide Kurt and Kari’s retirement income. It was difficult in today’s economy to be successful, full-time farmers and Kari was proud of their success. She wanted to be able to work full-time on the farm. The expansion would allow her to do that since she was to be the principal manager for the new facility. Kurt’s main job would remain with their 1,500 head beef cattle and 3,000-acre corn/soybean operations in partnership with other members of Kurt’s family.
    
    

12. At the hearing, some people expressed concern about the amount of manure projected to be produced by the Falke’s operation. They worried that too much would be produced to be handled effectively. One person addressed the issue at length. "Eleven parcels have committed to accepting manure from the proposed site," he said. "Only two of the owners actually live on the land. Falke’s agreement with these owners states, ‘this agreement is good until canceled.’ He could get canceled at any time. Then what does he do with that manure?" He pointed out that people might cancel due to a number of reasons, including pressure from their neighbors; a realization that they didn’t know what they were doing when they signed; and concern about increased compaction on their fields that might result from manure-spreading operations. He went on to propose what would happen if the Falkes lost some of their manure contracts, "Falke is paying $5 per load and bidding wars will occur when people cancel. Their options will be to buy or rent more land to spread manure. He can buy mine for $10,000/acre, just what any other corporation, like a shopping mall, would pay to come in there. The agreement should be for the life of the feedlot and should attach a 30-year easement to the abstract of the properties in question."
    
    
13. Later in the hearing, Kurt addressed this issue. He said, "The spreading agreements I have with the 11 parcels are worded according to what is required by the county and the MPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). Land in [this] county doesn’t turn over rapidly. I think these owners will be around for a while.
    
    
14. "Also," Kurt continued, "crop farmers want the manure as a way to lower their cost and increase profits. The fertilizer value of the manure is worth twice what the spreading cost of the manure is."
    
    
15. Kari felt that they were well prepared for the amount of manure the proposed site would generate. Each of the five proposed finishing barns would have a concrete manure pit that had the capacity to hold 13 months’ worth of manure. The contracts with nearby farmers allowed them to spread manure on 1,060 acres (Exhibit A), twice the 529 acres needed for the amount of manure they would produce. The soils of the area were mostly deep loam and clay loam with good infiltration. Kari thought the manure was better for the soil than chemical fertilizer.
    
    

Not in My Backyard!

16. The site under consideration hadn’t even been the Falke’s first choice, a fact that Kari thought showed they had gone out of their way to accommodate their neighbors’ concerns. The first site chosen was not prime farmland, not near running water, and had paved roads on two sides. Also, it was located on a hill with vegetation that could serve as a visual and odor buffer zone. After they filed for their permit with the MPCA, Kurt and Kari met with the neighbors. The neighbors strongly objected to use of this original site. They felt it was too close to other houses and that odor would be a problem. Also, they expressed concern over the effects of the feedlot on the water quality of a nearby marsh. Because of these concerns, Kari and Kurt pulled the application and selected a second site one mile farther east. The Falke’s neighbors said they would not object to the alternative site. However, some of the neighbors subsequently filed for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) (Exhibit B) on the second site. An EAW would investigate the potential impact the site could have on the environment, including water quality.
    
    
17. The Falke farm had been identified as a "river-friendly" farm by the Minnesota Alliance for Crop Residue Management, a coalition of government agencies, agricultural organizations, and private firms to promote crop resource management practices that protect soil and water (Exhibit C). Located in the Minnesota River Basin, the site under consideration and the contracted manure-spreading land were within a few miles of two different rivers and a small lake (Exhibit B). Kari was certain there was nothing debatable about the second site with respect to its effect on water quality. Water from the marsh near the first site didn’t flow near the new location. Furthermore, the MPCA, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), naturalists, and others all looked at the second site and found it wasn’t necessary to conduct an EAW.
    
    
18. Although the second site was still accessible to good manure-spreading land, it had been their second choice for several reasons. It was classed as prime farmland and would have to be taken out of production, plus it didn’t have the paved road access. Only gravel roads served the second location, and they would require maintenance and construction to accommodate extensive truck traffic. One Township Board member at the county hearing said, "We shouldn’t expect taxpayers to foot the bill on the road to this site. It costs $600-700 per mile for gravel and blading to maintain and improve that road. Just building this site is going to destroy that road."
    
    
19. Kurt had several ideas for handling manure that could help reduce the amount of wear and tear on the road. Also, he had offered to pay a $2,500 bond to the township for current and future road improvements. The township felt this wouldn’t be enough and asked that he pay an additional amount to cover road maintenance. Kurt reminded the board at the hearing that the road is public and used by others. A County Commissioner said, "How would the township’s rules apply to other farmers? You can’t treat one road user different from another. Is it a public road or not? If I have to pay to maintain it, do I have special privileges on it?"
    
    
20. In the long run, Kurt and Kari felt the township and the county would benefit financially from their operation. They would hire a full-time employee to help with the operation, and would provide business for the local veterinarian and feed companies. They also felt they were producing a local "value-added" product (pork) and a market for corn and soybean farmers in their area. At the hearing, another hog farmer had come to the Falke’s defense by stating, "The Falke’s buildings will bring in $1,504 to the county, $364 to the township, and $2,230 to the school district in taxes each year."
    
    

Who Regulates the Air?

21. The most emotional comments at the hearing came from people who talked about the odor that they felt would be generated from the proposed site.
    
    
22. "The people who live next to this site need to breathe!" said one man. "This feedlot will take away their lifestyle. They will have to move because of the odor."
    
    
23. Another woman jumped to her feet and declared, "I live 600 feet from a feedlot and the odor is there! Big operations don’t smell like small ones. I’ve lived next to a small hog farmer and never smelled anything. The residents of the township were here first and have the right to determine use of the land!"
    
    
24. A local activist pitched in, "Who regulates the air? MPCA does not look at air quality issues. It is the county’s responsibility to ensure air quality for its citizens."
    
    
25. In reality, Kurt and Kari’s operation would be located almost six times farther from the nearest neighbor than the 500 feet required by the county feedlot ordinance. "How far is far enough?" Kurt had asked aloud at the hearing. "We’re building in A-1 prime ag land," thought Kari. "Where else would you put a feedlot like this? Our current operation gets phone calls whenever it smells in town, whether it’s blowing from our direction or not. When Kurt was growing up this was unheard of. Fewer and fewer farms are out there. . . . The airport is in Richfield. If you move to Richfield, you can’t ask them to move the airport because you don’t like it. The airport is there. It’s the same with prime ag land. This is the place where food is raised."
    
    
26. A member of the Township Board had commented at the hearing, "A 500-foot setback from the next residence is not enough. Ninety percent of the people in the township are against feedlots in general. There are currently no confinement feedlots in the township. The density of the hog population is what concerns people now." Total livestock numbers in the township had been in a steady decline for decades.
    
    
27. Kari and Kurt were frustrated with the leadership in their township. The Township Board appeared to be giving in to pressure from the neighbors. When Kurt met with the Township Board in August, they said they needed some time to consider doing their own zoning because the residents wanted it. The Township Board then passed a moratorium on all new livestock operations with more than 300 animal units. Kari felt that although the Township Board had tried to disguise the moratorium by adding other restrictions on things like junkyards, it did appear to be aimed at stopping expansion of their operation. Kurt and Kari had filed for a temporary restraining order against the moratorium. Based on the Illegal Access law, which prevented zoning regulations being made against a single individual or operation, they felt the township could be stopped from halting their operation. Now neither the Falkes nor the township could do anything until the situation had been resolved through mediation.
    
    
28. Kurt felt that the trends in raising livestock were moving toward operations of the type and size that they planned. He said, "It seems that livestock operations in the area are struggling to maintain a steady industry, while feedstuff production steadily increases. Does the public want a livestock and diversified family farm industry in the Minnesota River Basin where we can monitor environmental concerns? Or will we ‘wash our hands’ and have the industry move to areas that are less regulated?"
    
    

29. Kari reflected on what an ordeal it had been trying to get this expansion project approved. She wondered how much more public opposition she and Kurt would face now that the county had granted them a conditional use permit. In making their decision, the County Commissioner had said, "If you remove emotion from this issue, the Falkes meet or exceed all the requirements of the feedlot ordinance." He commented that the current county feedlot ordinance might not be perfect, but it was "all we’ve got to go by."
30. It was an emotional issue for many people. While she had little doubt that they would go ahead with their plans, Kari wondered if it was really worth the emotional and social costs she and her family were paying in the process. "When I get home," Kari thought, "I’d better take down the American flag in our front yard - just in case."

• Plot Map of proposed site and contracted manure spreaing sites
• About the EAW
• The River-Friendly Farmer Program

Part of the Minnesota River Decision Cases (other cases available)
View Teaching Note for this case.