Jo Dexter

A drive down the highway is no longer a scenic experience. The 150 miles of interstate from Cheyenne, Wyo., to Pueblo, Colo., is rapidly becoming a constant sea of homes and commercial buildings—not to mention traffic. Between the 1997 and 2002 ag censuses, Colorado agriculture-producing land decreased over one million acres. Many of these acres have been transformed into bedroom communities. This development trend seems to descend upon many rural areas across the U.S. within a 100-mile radius of great scenery, recreation and a climate that people enjoy. Automobiles have given people the freedom to live farther away from where they work. Additionally, urbanites have a propensity to leave the city’s concrete behind and pursue the American Dream of owning a piece of ground. Traditionally, agriculture, especially family farms and ranches, have been the economic drivers for many of these areas. In several instances, agriculture land has been in families for multiple generations, perpetuating a way of life. Now, the economics are shifting and agriculture is finding itself in a fight to manage growth.

Although socially and economically speaking, it is easy to understand how urban sprawl evolves, the conflicts and issues it creates between industries and government as well as the public is complex. The cattle-feeding industry in Colorado’s Front Range is literally in a battle for survival. It starts with one developer with a lot of money convincing one feedlot operator to sell land and water at what seems like an amazingly high price. Then houses are built and the city people move to the country. The city people are expecting utopia—clean, fresh-smelling air and green grass. The feedlot, vegetable farmer and dairy down the road have operated and owned neighboring land for years. They are in the business of producing food. Disagreements and complaints arise because the odor, dust, chemicals and flies—all part of agricultural enterprises—don’t meet the newcomer’s criteria for their utopian setting.

They are fighting, but can they win?
Miller Feedlots of LaSalle, Colo., just south of Greeley, is a perfect example of what many feeders are faced with when the urban sprawl comes too close.

“We have been operating this feedyard for 40 years,“ said Jim Miller, owner. “Now we have housing developments around us, and some are right across the road.” Miller explained that when developers began looking at the area, he got involved with the county planning commission to protect his property rights. “Why anyone would build houses this close to our feedlot and not expect flies, dust and odor is beyond me,” Miller said.

The local paper was his worst enemy; they even publish a daily odor rating. Miller fought, but lost. Now he receives calls and complaints from homeowners near by, not to mention occasional visits by the county health department and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). According to Miller, “We have gone out of our way to be good neighbors by watering our pens and controlling flies. Someone needs to challenge EPA regulations, health department complaints and planning commission decisions, but it takes a lot of money to take on the government and high priced developers.”

Miller believes that if feedlots in the area continue to shut down, the future of the Greeley Swift packing plant may also be in danger. “The economics of killing off agriculture in this county is something that people refuse to look at. Agriculture employs a large number of people,” Miller said.

Between increased regulations, taxes and property values, Miller faces increased production costs, risks and liability, while forgoing the increasing opportunity cost of selling his land. When asked what he will do, Miller responded, “I don’t know! This is my livelihood, and where I have raised my children.”

Alliances and laws
In 1981, Colorado regulators established the “right-to-farm” act to protect agriculture landowners from nuisance lawsuits by non-agricultural residents in rural communities. Jim Miller, Colorado Department of Agriculture policy director (and no relation to the aforementioned Jim Miller), said the “right-to-farm” act is a policy that enables county governments to mediate community disagreements between agricultural residents and non-agricultural residents. Legally this policy is not very defensible because there are nuisance laws that protect adjoining property owners as well. The “right-to-farm” act has been challenged in other states and did not hold up. It is possible that its existence will discourage some who try to close down feedlots.

The Colorado Department of Agriculture has little jurisdiction over the regulations and growth issues that feedlots are struggling with. They are regulated by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.

“On several occasions, when feedlot operators call the Department of Ag asking for help, the Ag Commissioner works directly with the Department of Health and Environment as a liaison so that issues are worked out in the best possible way,” Miller said. Often the only role the Department of Ag can play is to offer mediation when disagreements arise.

The Colorado Livestock Association is very involved with these issues. Bill Hammerick, CLA chief executive officer, said, “Our number-one priority for urban sprawl issues is to help our members better understand them and become compliant with current regulations.”

Additionally, Hammerick believes cattle feeding operations and housing developments can coexist in many areas. “We are not going to be able to stop reasonable growth, and people usually adapt easier to industry that is already present when moving into an area,” Hammerick said. By continuing to educate non-agricultural residents about agricultural businesses and working at being a good neighbor, many conflicts can be resolved, he explained. CLA works to facilitate education and discussions not only with the public in communities where there is conflict, but in government as well. Specifically, the association provides an environmental assistance program for cattle-feeding operations through a grant from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Additionally, they have a Livestock Governmental and Public Affairs Project that involves members and non-members with legislators and regulators with the purpose of cattle feeding and agricultural education and outreach.

“Livestock producers have to change the way they approach these issues. Public relations and education are necessary in the business today,” Hammerick said.

Economics vs. sentiment
Some agricultural landowners are utilizing a group of professionals specializing in solving and coping with urban sprawl issues. AGPROfessionals, LLC (AGPRO) of Longmont, Colo., is offering services such as issues management in government regulations, nuisance concerns, and community public relations for businesses in need of help. Additionally, AGPRO has a sister company, LANDPRO, that aids in specific zoning, land-use planning, real estate services and more. Tom Haren, professional consultant and one of the company owners, said, “I am estimating that 25 percent of cattle producers in this area will relocate, consolidate or go out of business by the confined-animal-feeding operation (CAFO) permit deadline in March 2006, while numbers of cattle remain unchanged.” Haren says that costs associated with urban sprawl, such as increased property taxes, dealing with nuisance complaints and complying with government regulations, are forcing producers to get bigger, relocate or quit the business. It is simple economics, since costs incurred by the business have to be displaced over a certain number of cattle so that producers can stay profitable. Another factor is the theory of business value versus business risk and liability. According to Haren, at some time these two will converge. Threats from the public, environmental regulations, and land values eventually have cattle feeders questioning their desire to continue in the business.

“Sentiment for the land is a big factor for operators when faced with a decision to sell their place. It may have been homesteaded by previous generations and where they raised their children. It’s tough,” Haren stated.

A former Colorado Livestock Association employee, Haren saw an opportunity to sit down with individual producers and learn their business, as well as develop management plans to solve their problems and meet their objectives.

“In some cases, we write letters, apply for permits, attend town meetings etc., just to keep a producer in business,” explained Haren. “Other operators ask us to develop a plan to sell their land, move their operation to a different location and re-invest their capital gains in commercial real estate.”

Currently there are approximately 250 confined-animal-feeding operations in the state of Colorado. Right now AGPRO services over half the feedlots and dairies in the state. CAFO regulations associated with water quality issues are a large part of their business. “Now we deal with engineers and environmental specialists to gain CAFO permits for our clients. In the future, we may have to deal with air quality regulations and permits,” Haren said. Despite the challenges, their team is successful. AGPRO has obtained, submitted or is working on approximately 65 CAFO permits and has relocated or expanded another 5 dozen or more.

“Ultimately, if it is within our ability, legal and ethical, we will do everything possible to solve a client’s problems and achieve their goals. That is our mission,“ stated Haren.

Tradition vs. change
Is southern California an example of what the Front Range of Colorado may become? One week there is a dairy, and the next it is scraped off and housing is started within feet of a neighboring dairy or cattle feeding operation. It is possible, and feeders will be forced to manage changes because there is no way to prevent it. Tradition is a founding principle in agriculture. Change has always been something fought and not embraced. Despite everything, in an effort to continue a life in the cattle feeding business, many will move east and build another operation, develop water, irrigate and farm the land, creating beautiful green grass and trees while hoping that in 20 years there won’t be another developer who wants to make this nice rural community another urban utopia in the country.