MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case that could determine whether a municipality can hold farms to higher water-quality standards than the state requires.
The case is the first to test a Wisconsin law governing the expansion of livestock farm operations. It pits a large Rock County farm against a town that blames its water-pollution problems on manure generated by the farm's 2,900 cows.
At issue is a 2004 law that sought to make farm regulations uniform across the state. The Livestock Facility Siting Law created standards for local governments to follow when granting permits for new and expanding livestock operations.
In 2006, Larson Acres Inc. applied for a permit for its existing facility in Magnolia, a small town of fewer than 1,000 residents about 30 miles south of Madison. At the time, the farm had 1,000 cows. It has since nearly tripled that number.
The town held a public hearing where its experts said they evaluated water quality near Larson's current operations and found elevated nitrate levels in a nearby creek and local wells.
The town still granted Larson's permit but with conditions. For example, Larson had to allow the town to conduct monthly water-quality tests on its land. The farm also had to follow certain crop-rotation strategies to reduce nitrate buildup.
Larson appealed to the Livestock Facility Siting Review Board, which is run by the state's agriculture department. The board struck down a number of the Magnolia-mandated conditions, saying the town had exceeded its authority.
That led to five years of back-and-forth court rulings, with a lower court siding with the town and an appeals court reversing the decision in favor of the board.
The state's high court is now being asked to weigh in. The question is whether the siting law can prevent a town from holding a farm to higher environmental standards than the state mandates.
The justices pointed out Wednesday that the statute points out a need for uniform rules. It says the law must be predictable so farmers who want to expand their operations know precisely how the regulations apply to them.
"Isn't that desirable?" Justice Patrick Crooks asked.
Glenn Reynolds, an attorney representing the town, agreed it was. But he said the statute didn't intend to take towns completely out of the equation.
"The purpose of the statute was not to eradicate local authority," Reynolds said. "... There's not uniformity of the Wisconsin landscape. Local authorities know their water better."
But Eric McLeod, an attorney for Larson Acres, said a town can still introduce its own water-quality regulations, just not in permit-granting process.
"There are other legal mechanisms to address water-quality issues," McLeod said. For example, the town can monitor the water for nitrates, and seek a preliminary injunction if pollution levels exceeded certain limits.
A farmer who lives a few miles from Larson Acres told The Associated Press after the hearing that McLeod's logic was ridiculous. Dela Ends, an organic farmer, said it makes more sense to have high water-quality standards from the outset, than to wait for a water supply to be polluted and then seek remedies.
"You tell me, doesn't that make sense?" she asked.
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson asked McLeod about the degree to which towns should be allowed to impose conditions. McLeod repeated that towns already have other legal options outside of the permitting process.
McLeod said his concern in this particular case was that the Town of Magnolia wanted the right to test water on Larson's private land, even though it hadn't proven that Larson's farm caused any pollution. The farm owners had a right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty, he said.
But Dela Ends' husband, Tony Ends, said the state also has a responsibility to keep its citizens safe. He said any municipality — especially one with a recent history of polluted wells — should have the right to impose reasonable conditions to protect public health.
"If anybody told me my business, my income, was a threat to health and safety I would do something else for a living," said Ends, who spoke to the AP by telephone Tuesday. "Or I would try to bring my business around to a place where it didn't harm people."
