Correction: In a story on page 70 of the Oct. 31 issue, the Lacombe
County reeve was incorrectly identified as Rod McDermand. McDermand is
a county councillor. Ray Prins is the reeve.
Intensive livestock operations are becoming more common in Western
Canada. Greater competition in the livestock industry, both
domestically and globally, has spurred the need for more efficient
production systems.
And the growing number of hog, poultry, cattle and sheep operations are
placing greater emphasis on issues such as water use, site selection
Read Also
‘I am hopeful,’ Saskatchewan premier says about Chinese trade
While there’s more to be done, Saskatchewan premier Scott Moe says he’s hopeful trade relations with China can be mended….
and manure disposal.
In Western Canada, provincial governments have responded over the past
decade with regulations that encourage investment and attempt to
balance industry interests with public concerns.
In this Western Producer special report, reporter Michael Raine
outlines the processes involved in establishing an ILO in each prairie
province and provides perspectives from industry watchers and
participants about these evolving systems.
Wilson Lovell and his wife may someday build their retirement home on
the hill not too far from their Clive, Alta., grain farm.
They bought the option on the land, with valley views near the Red Deer
River, and began making payments 10 years ago.
But when a weanling hog barn was proposed half a kilometre away and
they found their property inside the “no residential buildings” buffer
zone, their dream home suddenly became a nightmare.
“I’m glad there are intensive livestock operations in Lacombe County.
I’m a grain farmer. I need their business,” said Lovell.
“But when I’m told I can’t use my land for my purposes because somebody
else wants to build something on their farm, well, that isn’t how it’s
supposed to be, especially when I’m here first.”
After enduring what he described as much chaos and municipal fighting,
Lovell’s nightmare ended when the developer of the hog barn chose an
alternate location.
The barn that would have been built in Lovell’s backyard was eventually
constructed 10 km away after a quiet four-month approval process.
But for Lovell, the incident was “an education in how important
municipal rights are.”
Last January, when the Alberta government took on responsibility for
land use decisions pertaining to intensive livestock operations, it
left municipalities and taxpayers with little say about siting and
land-use issues.
“The province now decides who builds and where in Lacombe County,” said
Lovell.
“We are the residents and taxpayers. The province should do the science
and technical specifications. They know more about that than any local
council, but I still think the people of Lacombe County should decide
what can be developed in our backyard.”
Alberta’s move to assume the reins of the intensive livestock wagon is
similar to legislative changes that are taking place in Saskatchewan
and Manitoba.
For decades, intensive livestock operations, or ILOs, had been
regulated by municipal governments, but when the industry started to
grow rapidly in the 1990s and provinces began promoting intensive
livestock operations as the answer to competitive international
commodity markets, investors and opponents started calling for a new
regulatory system.
“Neither side felt they could count on the rules,” said William Brown,
a professor of agricultural economics at the University of Saskatchewan.
“Things had become very unpredictable. One municipality did it this
way. Another, that. Developing an entire industry under that situation
would be (a challenge).”
The systems that regulate ILO development in Western Canada are an
attempt to balance the rights and needs of intensive livestock
developers with those of rural residents, said Brown.
In the past, many municipalities did not have bylaws or development
plans to deal with intensive livestock production.
Municipal governments found their expertise and resources were unable
to meet the demands of an industry that was expanding to include large
investors and producer groups with professional advisors, engineers and
advanced production systems.
“The provinces were getting frustrated,” said Brown.
“Business was getting frustrated. It caused confusion for (local
farmers and other) rural residents.”
This frustration and the patchwork of regulations that existed across
the Prairies led provinces to revisit the way ILOs are approved, sited,
monitored and operated.
In January 2002, Alberta removed regulatory responsibility from the
local, municipal level and gave it to the Natural Resources
Conservation Board, a body that had for years been in charge of
licensing the oil and gas industry.
Saskatchewan made similar moves in 1996 when it placed the issue of
ILOs in the hands of the agriculture department. With ILOs no longer
directly regulated by municipal statutes and the provincial environment
department, Saskatchewan announced a plan to quadruple its annual hog
production to four million hogs by 2010.
With a single government department processing all applications for ILO
development, the process was simplified and streamlined. However, the
province was also criticized for what many viewed as a shift that
favoured industry development and paid little regard to opponents’
concerns.
While Saskatchewan and Alberta allow municipalities the right to be
heard in the debate, the provinces limited the potential for
municipalities to oppose industrial growth.
For example, municipal requirements regarding setback distances, odour
control devices and covered manure storage cannot be more restrictive
than provincially mandated rules.
As well, all three prairie provinces are encouraging municipal
governments to create local land-use plans and designate specific areas
as intensive livestock development zones.
Mel Annand, an agricultural lawyer in Melfort, Sask., and an assistant
professor of law at the University of Saskatchewan, says that despite
the changes, the process in Saskatchewan is still far from exact.
“The greatest difficulty is uncertainty in what projects will be
approved,” said Annand.
“The (Saskatchewan) ag department still has a very large amount of
discretion about what goes ahead and what doesn’t.”
He feels that politics can still play a role in what should be a
decision based on local desires and provincial law and regulation.
Annand also questions the government’s dual role as watchdog and
industry promoter.
“How can you be the proponent and the regulator?” Annand said.
“We need still clearer rules and separation of the environment,
agriculture and business development aspects.
“What we have now is an improvement over the past, but the rules need
even more clarity.”
Clarence Froese agrees with that assessment.
His Manitoba-based company, DGH Engineering, has acted on behalf of
some the largest intensive livestock projects in the West and is
involved in engineering and managing much of the expansion on the
Prairies.
“It has become more predictable,” said Froese. “Investors and local
residents are beginning to have a set of rules they can look at and say
‘I have a good idea what the outcome will be if I am going to build
something or if I am opposed,’ and that is good for everybody.”
Brown and Froese said it isn’t yet clear how the public and the
industry will view the changes in Alberta.
“Alberta’s shift to the NRCB is still pretty new,” said Brown.
“After a year or two, folks will have an opinion about whether or not
it is working. Some may have an opinion already, but it takes some time
to see if it’s working.”
Lacombe County reeve Rod McDermand has already formed his opinion.
McDermand was one of five new county councillors elected in last
October’s local election. He and other councillors are part of what he
admits is a “pro-livestock” local administration.
“Folks in Lacombe were just tired of the fighting these past few
years,” McDermand said.
“They were tired of the meetings. Tired of the debate about intensive
livestock. The debate did make some good local bylaws but it hurt
development in the meantime.”
“I love the NRCB,” he added.
“It’s working. Greatest thing that ever happened to a local council. We
are now consistent across Alberta from municipality to municipality.
And the way the provincial governments are going in the West, we will
soon be consistent from province to province.”
Change is also under way in Manitoba.
There, the final decision about whether and where an ILO can be built
still rests with the local municipality and is generally decided after
a local hearing.
But local hearings can be divisive and harmful to the industry and the
community.
Earlier this year, municipal fights caused the municipal council of
Piney to resign over a proposed ILO development. Piney’s new council is
showing greater opposition to intensive livestock production.
Marcel Hacault, chair of Manitoba Pork, called the Manitoba approval
and regulatory system “concerning and worrisome for livestock producers
in our province.
“People who don’t own our land are telling us how we can make a living
from it. It’s disturbing.”
However, contentious local hearings could soon be a thing of the past.
In August, Manitoba introduced new rules that require municipalities to
create new land-use bylaws. These bylaws, to be completed over the next
two years, are supposed to provide guidance and clarity to developers
and the rest of the community.
Designated ILO development zones must be established in each
municipality. Inside these zones, provincial regulations for manure
handling and setback distances will supersede existing municipal bylaws
that previously permitted or restricted development.
“Manitoba has some municipalities that were easier to establish a
project in than others,” said Froese.
“Some were unrealistically hard. Some were too approving. Today, the
province is performing a technical evaluation on nearly every new
project and that, combined with the bylaw regulations, is starting to
make the process more balanced … but it’s slowing down the
application process as well.
“Across the West it is becoming more predictable on the technical side.
The process is improving. Public perception and acceptance is another
matter … but the industry is working to improve the (public’s)
understanding of the business and doing more … research into the
sociological factors. How people perceive odour, esthetic perspectives
– those are very important to future development, but having the rules
more clearly spelled out, that makes it better for everybody.”
Lovell said he finds irony everywhere in this issue.
“(It’s) ironic that we fight to protect our local rights and the
province helps us by coming in and taking them away,” he said.
“And (it’s) ironic that (Alberta premier) Ralph Klein can preach to
Ottawa about having his local control over Kyoto or health care while
at the same time he tells us that Edmonton can make better local
decisions than we can in Lacombe.”
