House OKs study on reducing confinement odors
By Charlotte Eby Journal Des Moines Bureau | Posted: Friday, April 18, 2008
DES MOINES -- The Iowa House approved a five-year study on ways to reduce odor emissions from livestock confinement operations, but stopped short of finding the nearly $23 million that would be needed to fund it.
Rep. Nathan Reichert, D-Muscatine, who led debate on the bill, said it would sponsor "boots on the ground, pragmatic research" by Iowa State University on ways to reduce livestock odor.
"This bill just simply seeks to bring us together so that we can have our neighbors being able to have better relations in rural Iowa," Reichert said.
The House approved the measure on a 66-34 vote.
Critics argue the study is an attempt to stall the implementation of new air quality standards.
The odor study has been strongly opposed by Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, a group that has pushed for several years for stricter controls on livestock confinements.
Rep. Mark Kuhn, D-Charles City, also criticized the idea of continued study.
"This bill before us today offers little but false promises to act sometime in the future," Kuhn said. "The people of Iowa and the livestock industry deserve more. The state of Iowa needs solutions, not study. The state of Iowa needs results, not a report."
Rep. Dave Deyoe, R-Nevada, said previous odor studies haven't focused on the things this study would, including other types of livestock besides hogs.
"This study will actually look at what can producers do to try and reduce odor, specific strategies, different technologies," Deyoe said.
He said he is disappointed lawmakers haven't yet found the money for it yet. The legislation would not go into effect unless money is specifically allocated for the project.
Gov. Chet Culver set aside $1 million in next year's budget proposal to begin the study.
After approval in the House, the bill now moves to the Senate for consideration in the final days of this year's session.
Charlotte Eby can be reached at (515) 243-0138 or chareby@aol.com.
Rep. Nathan Reichert, D-Muscatine, who led debate on the bill, said it would sponsor "boots on the ground, pragmatic research" by Iowa State University on ways to reduce livestock odor.
"This bill just simply seeks to bring us together so that we can have our neighbors being able to have better relations in rural Iowa," Reichert said.
The House approved the measure on a 66-34 vote.
Critics argue the study is an attempt to stall the implementation of new air quality standards.
The odor study has been strongly opposed by Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, a group that has pushed for several years for stricter controls on livestock confinements.
Rep. Mark Kuhn, D-Charles City, also criticized the idea of continued study.
"This bill before us today offers little but false promises to act sometime in the future," Kuhn said. "The people of Iowa and the livestock industry deserve more. The state of Iowa needs solutions, not study. The state of Iowa needs results, not a report."
Rep. Dave Deyoe, R-Nevada, said previous odor studies haven't focused on the things this study would, including other types of livestock besides hogs.
"This study will actually look at what can producers do to try and reduce odor, specific strategies, different technologies," Deyoe said.
He said he is disappointed lawmakers haven't yet found the money for it yet. The legislation would not go into effect unless money is specifically allocated for the project.
Gov. Chet Culver set aside $1 million in next year's budget proposal to begin the study.
After approval in the House, the bill now moves to the Senate for consideration in the final days of this year's session.
Charlotte Eby can be reached at (515) 243-0138 or chareby@aol.com.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
