HCS HB 352 & 494 -- LIVESTOCK AGRICULTURE

SPONSOR:  Myers (Guest)

COMMITTEE ACTION:  Voted "do pass" by the Committee on
Agriculture by a vote of 19 to 1.

ANIMAL RESEARCH AND PRODUCTION FACILITIES

This substitute prohibits any person, except any state or federal
regulatory agency or any law enforcement agency, from
photographing, videotaping, or otherwise obtaining images from a
location within an animal facility that is not legally accessible
to the public without the express written consent of the animal
facility.  Any documents, photographs, video tape, or images
obtained from a location within the animal facility are not to be
subject to the Sunshine Law.  Persons who violate this portion of
the substitute are guilty of a class D felony.

The substitute also prohibits any person from intentionally
releasing in any animal facility any pathogen or disease that has
the potential to cause disease in any animal or threatens human
health or biosecurity.  Persons who violate this portion of the
substitute are guilty of a class B felony.

The definition of an "animal facility" is expanded to include
barns, buildings, or other structures which are part of any
animal farming operation, business, or organization engaged in
legal scientific research or agricultural production.

The Director of the Department of Agriculture is given the
authority to initiate a civil action in the circuit court of the
county in which a violation of the provisions of the substitute
occurred.

CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS

The substitute repeals all provisions of Chapter 640, RSMo,
Department of Resources, relating to concentrated animal feeding
operations and reenacts the provisions in Chapter 644, Water
Pollution, with the following changes:

(1)  The Missouri Clean Water Commission is to promulgate rules
regulating the establishment, permitting, design, construction,
operation, and management of class I concentrated animal feeding
operations;

(2)  Regulatory or local controls imposed by any form of local
government concerning the establishment, permitting, design,
construction, operation, or management of any class I or class II
concentrated animal feeding operation must be consistent with the
provisions of the substitute, except that local governing bodies
with the recommendation and approval of the respective local Soil
and Water Conservation District may impose stricter controls if
they are based on empirical peer-reviewed scientific and economic
data that clearly document the need and cost-effectiveness for
the more restrictive provisions;

(3)  Any corporation or cooperative engaged in farming will not
be eligible for any state tax credits, deductions, state grants,
loans, or other financial or economic assistance, unless a family
farm or family farm corporation receives the same assistance.
Agricultural processing or food processing facilities are not
restricted by the provisions of the substitute; and

(4)  The requirement for a class IA, class IB, or class IC
concentrated animal feeding operation to give notice of
application to the county governing body and adjoining property
owners within one and a half times the maximum buffer distance
for the size of the proposed operation is repealed.

LOAN GUARANTEES

Currently, the Missouri Agricultural and Small Business
Development Authority issues certificates of guaranty covering a
first loan guarantee up to 25% of an Agricultural Business
Development Loan.  The substitute increases the guarantee to up
to 50% of a loan.

The substitute also decreases from 40% to 20% the immediate
redemption amount of the outstanding loans guaranteed by way of
the Agricultural Product Utilization and Business Development
Loan Guarantee Fund.

FISCAL NOTE:  Not available at time of printing.

PROPONENTS:  Supporters of House Bill 352 say that animal rights
groups use pictures obtained covertly in animal facilities as
propaganda against the animal industry.  These pictures may be
used in the planning and execution of acts of terrorism against
animal facilities.  The animal agriculture antiterrorism
provisions are of critical importance given the current world
political situation.

Supporters of House Bill 494 say that ordinances promulgated by
county health departments and adopted by local governments based
on fear, myth, bad information, and emotion are limiting animal
agricultural production in Missouri.  Sixty percent of net farm
income in Missouri is derived from animal agriculture.  The
Governor's Task Force on Agriculture recommended discouraging
local governments from imposing additional restrictions on
concentrated animal feeding operations.

Testifying for House Bill 352 were Representative Guest; Missouri
Pork Association; Missouri Federation of Animal Owners; Missouri
Dairy Association; Missouri Pet Breeders Association; Poultry
Federation; Jim Foster; Missouri Cattlemen's Association;
Missouri Farm Bureau; Paula Moore; Nick Wilmesher; Elizabeth
Limbach; Ruth and Roy Milan; Cheryl Sides; Bev and Gary
Wilmesher; and Cathy Griesbauer.

Testifying for House Bill 494 were Dale Whiteside, former State
Representative; Missouri Cattlemen's Association; Department of
Agriculture; Missouri Pork Producers Association; Kathy Chinn;
and Missouri Dairy Association.

OPPONENTS:  Those who oppose House Bill 352 say that the bill is
unnecessary, violates freedom of the press, and makes whistle
blowers felons.  The bill interferes with federal, state, and
local law enforcement as well as federal and state regulatory
agencies.  The bill does not require criminal intent for persons
to be in violation.

Those who oppose House Bill 494 say that they want to retain
local control of concentrated animal feeding operations and want
statutory requirements for notification of expansion or placement
of concentrated animal feeding operations to remain in place.
Smell, water pollution, lowered property values, and health
issues were cited as reasons for local governments to retain the
right to impose requirements stricter than those imposed by the
state.

Testifying against House Bill 352 were Missouri Press
Association; Human Society of Missouri; Missouri Alliance for
Animal Legislation; Sierra Club; American Society for the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; Terry Spence; and Nick Smith,
Missouri Animal Control.

Testifying against House Bill 494 were Margo McMillan; Missouri
Association of Counties; Terry Spence; Bryce Oates, Rural Crisis
Center; Catholic Diocese of Jefferson City; Farmers Union; Brent
Sandidse; Lowell Schachtseik; Sierra Club; and Winston Simpson.

Roland Tackett, Legislative Analyst

Missouri House of Representatives
Last Updated July 25, 2003 at 10:11 am