Illinois: Where Hog Farming Dollars Trump Environment and Human Health

Illinois is a hog farming state. If you live in more rural areas of Illinois, you probably know at least one hog farmer. Having grown up there, I directly know at least three, with at least one of these operations being a CAFO -- run by members of my own family. Only Iowa, North Carolina, and Minnesota are home to more hog farms (and hogs) than Illinois.

So given the numbers and the pull of Illinois' pig farmers and its trade group, the Illinois Pork Producers, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by the story I just learned of this morning. Two and a half years ago, in a rural area near Springfield, a farmer was preparing to start an operation in which he would raise 3,750 pigs for slaughter at a time. Neighbors objected. And they were dismissed. And now the court has ruled that they owe the hog farmer damages.

There certainly aren't a great number of animal advocates in rural Illinois, but the number of people concerned about their own health and the health of their children when it comes to animal farming is increasing, and hog farms, in addition to being horrible places for the pigs, are environmental disasters that threaten the health of everything and everyone nearby. We don't even have to get into all the details; one image alone should be disturbing enough: massive manure lagoons the size of a football field (or in some cases, the size of several football fields). The pollution that inherently comes along with hog farms is grand-scale.

So again, concerned citizens objected and, in April 2007, filed suit as the Rochester Buckhart Action Group to block the construction. And here's what happened:

The group obtained a preliminary injunction to block construction, but the appellate court ordered the injunction dissolved and, in a later ruling, said Young is entitled to seek damages from RBAG.

“A party should not be able to throw up a legal roadblock in the path of another’s business without the adversely affected party having the opportunity to seek financial recourse if it is found to have been wrongfully impacted,” the appellate court said.

Young, who has since begun operating the hog farm under an agreement with the Cargill Corp., is seeking damages of $294,000, according to court documents.

The group is appealing to the Illinois Supreme Court, asking the court to "clarify the circumstances under which a public interest group, seeking to vindicate public rights, may be exempt from an award of damages" and arguing that the appellate court ignored "Supreme Court precedents regarding wrongful issuance of a preliminary injunction and what must occur for damages to be awarded," but it is apparently unlikely that the court will agree to hear the case.

But let's go back to that frustrating appellate court decision. My jaw dropped a little as I read references to the "adversely affected party" and the "wrongfully impacted." The court's concern for the farmer is touching. Who the judges think is most adversely affected in this situation would be laughable if it weren't so damn infuriating and against logic. The group didn't just "throw up a legal roadblock in the path of another's business" for kicks. This isn't just any business. Young and his good pal Cargill didn't set up a comic book store next door. What the business is -- and the damage it will cause -- matters.

Will Young and Cargill be paying damages for the environmental and health-related havoc it is, and will be, wreaking? Will the court be so determined to demand compensation for the wrongful, adverse impacts Young and Cargill are forcing upon the water, land, air, and the nearby humans?

This sort of ridiculousness always discourages me. Even when the most adversely affected beings -- the thousands of pigs mutilated, confined, and killed -- are left out of the discussion entirely, even when we're talking about harm caused to humans, the supposed "rights" of animal agribusiness still trump all.

---
Photo of a North Carolina operation by Flickr user friendsoffamilyfarmers (we'll leave my thoughts on the term "family farmer" for another day)

H/t to the Animal Law Blog