A pipeline project to transport carbon dioxide captured from ethanol and fertilizer production to a permanent storage site in Illinois is raising concerns about safety and potential damage to surrounding land.

Last month, members of the Illinois Farm Bureau adopted policies supporting a temporary moratorium on the project until the Hazardous Materials Safety Administration can update its safety regulations. They include automatic notifications for pipeline leaks and training for emergency first responders.

Bill Bodine, the Farm Bureau's director of business and regulatory affairs, said his group opposes another condition.

"They expressed concerns about the use of eminent domain for these projects and do not support the use of eminent domain," he said, "and then want to see the developers reaching willing agreements, making some progress in reaching those willing agreements before the pipeline portions of those projects are approved."

Landowners are not willing to give up their land so easily. In 2006, the Illinois General Assembly passed a bill to limit the takeover of private property for private development. However, critics of the legislation have claimed it included exceptions that undermine any benefits to property owners.

Two more pipeline proposals to connect Iowa and Illinois are also being reviewed by the Illinois Commerce Commission, the agency that oversees these projects.

The Hazardous Materials Safety Administration hopes to have its safety revisions completed this year. If this happens, Bodine said, the Farm Bureau would lift its support of a temporary moratorium. But he isn't sure whether these other pipeline projects are on state lawmakers' minds.

"Our legislative session in the state of Illinois begins again in January and usually runs through the end of May," he said. "So, we may see some action during that timeline associated with some of these issues."

Developers say any future pipelines would help farmers by boosting the ethanol industry. The state Agriculture Department has said Illinois uses 274 million bushels of corn to produce more ethanol than any other state.


get more stories like this via email

The last Farm Bill allocated $75 million to reduce feral hog populations around the country but this year, funding has expired, which could be a setback for Missouri farmers.

The Feral Swine Eradication Program focused on eliminating wild hogs in five states and reducing populations in six others. In Missouri, more than 12,000 feral hogs were removed in 2020 and nearly 5,000 last year, a more than 60% reduction.

Kevin Crider, outreach educator for the University of Missouri Extension, who specializes in feral hog issues, said the animals wreak havoc in farm fields.

"When they run out of food sources, or when they're just out looking for food in general, they tend to like to root up fields," Crider explained. "Especially hay fields or crop cover, or crops there on the landscape. Row crops are another big issue that we've had with them, where they go in the corn fields and such and root up the corn fields, soybean fields."

Feral hogs also carry diseases including a bacterial infection, which can be transmitted to humans and livestock. Lawmakers emphasized the future of the eradication program depends on passing new laws and getting money included in future Farm Bills.

Farmers said reducing feral hog populations has also helped restore ecosystems, improve wildlife habitats and lower the risks of vehicle collisions. Crider emphasized how the program has benefited them.

"Obviously, we are tied to the Farm Bill funding for this program," Crider acknowledged. "That would definitely affect our operation. We'll have to wait and see what the final numbers are, on what happens with that funding."

He added Missouri has a $93 billion agricultural industry. Feral hogs first got a foothold in the Show-Me State in the 1990s, when wild game hunting gained popularity.


get more stories like this via email

Advocates for small communities in Iowa are calling on state lawmakers not to pass the so-called "Cancer Gag Act," which they said would give pesticide companies immunity from lawsuits by Iowans harmed by their products.

Iowa lawmakers considered Senate File 2412 last year but ran out of time to act on it.

Caitlin Golle, Community Organizer for the advocacy group Iowa Citizens for Community Action, said lawmakers are already poised to take up a similar measure in the new session. She and the Iowa Cancer Registry think it is the wrong thing to do in a state already seeing high cancer rates.

"In 2023, the Iowa Cancer Registry reported that Iowa has the second-highest cancer rate in the country," Golle pointed out. "The National Cancer Institute reported Iowa is the only state where the rate of new cancers increased significantly from 2015 to 2019."

Pesticides often waft into the air and seep into groundwater. Golle worries giving pesticide manufacturers immunity from lawsuits will add to the problems in rural Iowa, where large animal confinement operations are already polluting ground and surface water with manure runoff. Ag companies said they apply pesticides safely and are always looking for better ways to produce meat while keeping up with consumer demand.

Golle and other grassroots advocates want to see Iowa join a growing list of states refusing to give pesticide makers like Bayer immunity from lawsuits brought by Iowans, who said they have suffered health effects from chemicals like glyphosate.

"Chemicals like glyphosate, or 'Roundup,' are known to cause cancer," Golle noted. "A study published by Frontiers in Cancer Control and Society finds that pesticides may cause cancer on a level equivalent to smoking cigarettes."

The pesticide company Bayer has four registered lobbyists in Iowa compared to other large companies with just one, if any.

Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement held a webinar late last week to mobilize people on the issue before the bill is introduced.

In North Dakota, 2025 could be another year when the state puts out the welcome mat for the livestock industry.

Following task force recommendations, the Legislature will consider updating how much local governments can restrict feedlot operations. The panel was specifically looking at distances allowed between larger livestock sites and homes, businesses and schools.

Doug Goehring, North Dakota's agriculture commissioner, took part in the discussions and argued while the rules would be more relaxed, they are still tougher than those in other states. He said exemptions could be carved out -- moving feedlots back a bit -- by the use of an "odor modeling tool"

"It looks at prevailing winds and information that's collected from different data points, weather stations," Goehring explained. "Counties can actually look at it and determine if the setbacks that are in place are sufficient, or they could actually grant a variance."

Feedlots with large animal herds, sometimes known as concentrated animal feeding operations, are under scrutiny from environmentalists over the effects on air and water quality. State leaders say North Dakota lags behind neighboring states in animal agriculture but some projects have faced local backlash. A Senate bill, based on panel recommendations, calls for reducing the maximum setback distance by a quarter mile in most cases.

Supporters of expanding livestock output said it brings more jobs to smaller towns.

Aaron Birst, executive director of the North Dakota Association of Counties, who sat in on the task force, said it recognized the need but cautioned it cannot outweigh how a local community values quality-of-life metrics and whether they would be harmed by an industry.

"It's not even just concentrated feeding-lot operations. It's any economic development, whether it's oil activity or putting in a large Amazon station," Birst outlined. "Those all, if they want to be successful, have to have local government buy-in."

While Birst acknowledged a healthy balance is desirable, his group has yet to take a stance on the proposed changes. There were similar debates in 2023 when the Legislature narrowed the scope of corporate farm regulations. More broadly, researchers at the University of Missouri found despite what backers of large livestock operations say, their economic strengths do not stretch as far as advertised.


get more stories like this via email