When is our land, not our land?

[farmers_son]

Emrald1: I am not disagreeing with what you are saying. But you are not presenting the entire story, just the government point of view. And in case you think I just fell off of the turnip wagon I have been involved one way or another with every board or agency you have mentioned in this thread, as a intervener, board member or having been part of the development process.

The difference between board members of these quasi judicial boards such as the NRCB and the EUB versus judges is the judges cannot be replaced by the Minister of Justice unless there is some very gross misconduct while the NRCB and EUB board members indirectly serve at the pleasure of the Minister. They therefore are not at arms length from the Minister or the department.

To be clear, I make a big distinction between what the EUB does and the NRCB does. The EUB does approve private industry for-profit projects that involve the eventual taking or threat of taking by expropriation of farmers land at far less than true market value so companies like Atco and Direct Energy can make obscene profits while overcharging domestic consumers for electricity and exporting our energy to the U.S. Having taken part in EUB hearings I know first hand that the entire process is a bit of public relations effort to justify the project. I also know there the EUB has two sets of standards, one for rural residents and another for urban residents. If enough voters are affected the project does not proceed.

I fully understand the reasons the NRCB was given the mandate to approve ILOs. The interest of the local residents was different than the interest of the provincial government. In simple terms, for the most part, local residents were concerned about mega intensive livestock operations being built in their area. The issue was mega farms versus family farms. The family farm lost.

You ask “Who would you feel should be responsible for regulating the oil and gas sector and other industries if not boards such as the above.” I do not think that is the point I was trying to make, that some other agency or board should be responsible. I was trying to point out that these boards are not objective evaluators of projects, they do not operate at arms length from government and certainly the rights of individuals are trampled when they are in conflict with interests of government.

But since asked how things might be different I think it comes down to local control and jurisdiction of issues that directly influence local residents. You have pointed out your experience on municipal council. Everything the municipality does could be done by the province. In fact the municipality operates at the pleasure of the province. When you ask who else should control these decisions the answer must be one of the levels of government, municipal, provincial or federal. Regarding ILOs it was the local municipal government who made those decisions but the province and supporters of mega farms were dissatisfied with the decisions being made at that level so the province took responsibility away from municipalities.

To take the larger view the question really is who should be making strategic decisions regarding the face and future of agriculture in this country.

[farmers_son]

several inaccuracies in your post farmers_son. These Board members do NOT exist at the pleasure of any particular Minister of the crown.
In order to rescind the Order in Council appointing members of both the EUB and NRCB and likely the EAB and other such boards there must be debate on the legislature floor. If one particular Minister in his or her wisdom wanted to get a board member turfed they would have to justify it to caucus, cabinet etc. so to say that Board members exist at the the whim of any particular minister is wrong.


Secondly, the province did assume responsibility for citing confined feeding operations, and did take away the responsibility from municipalities. At this time there are perhaps half a dozen municipalities that are still not happy with the results. The rest are glad to be rid of the responsibility because of the lack of adequately trained staff on board to deal with the technical side of these applications.

Prior to AOPA coming into effect municipalities approved feeding operations, and many of the conditions were not enforced, even those concerning monitoring wells around lagoons etc. In some cases the operator had not obtained a water licence even though it was a condition on a municipal permit several years prior to AOPA !!! Now in order to obtain an AOPA approval water licences just be obtained.
In order to receive an approval under AOPA conditions must be met prior to animals entering new or expanded facilities which are inspected prior to final approval being given.

To say that the family farm lost in this process is again very wrong. The vast majority of confined feeding operations in this province that have expanded or newly approved since January 1, 2002 are, in fact family farms not large corporate ones. This can be substantiated by reviewing the approved applications which are public documents. Family dairies, smaller scale hog operations, poultry operations, small feedlots etc. are still for all intents and purposes family farms.

When you compare the huge feedlots that existed prior to the legislation coming into effect with the ones that have been approved it is difficult to rationalize your statements about family farms having lost. Many large scale hog operations were approved by municipalities prior to AOPA coming into effect as well, particularly in the Peace region. Many of the larger hog operations owned by corporations have family farms on contract with feeder barns etc., so there is are many opportunities for family farms to become involved vs their having lost !!

In the Peace region, many family gran farmers are selling their product to the larger scale operations which provides them with a regular customer without having significant transportation costs to market their grain, so its difficult to see how those family farms have lost in the new process.
Usually when an large operation is being considered, they have a line up of local farmers wanting manure spread on their lands, which significantly reduces fertilizer costs etc.

[farmers_son]

wanted to add that I am not presenting the government point of view. I have seen the legislation evolve and realize that one regulator for any industry is better than 68 sets of rules across the province for the same industry.

[farmers_son]

And I might add that I simply pointing out that the EUB and the NRCB are provincial government agencies that operate in the government’s interest and serve government policy. Please do not confuse the judiciary with provincial agencies and board, they are different animals. The topic of the thread was when is our land not our land. The answer is when these boards and agencies say it is not our land.

While you are obviously a stout defender of the NRCB and that is fine, there will always be a point to be made, the point I was trying to make regarding the EUB, that it might be in the public’s best interest to place a higher regard on property ownership. It is my opinion, my opinion only for what it is worth, that agencies such as the EUB are too quick to brush off landowner concerns for the larger “public interest” which no one should mistake for anything other than the government’s interest.

This thread has touched upon some very big issues which are not going to be solved here. I have been concerned for decades about issues of property rights and expropriation of land. There is nothing wrong with a private citizen questioning government’s lack of regard for landowners when it comes to pipelines and power lines being forced across producers land. The NCRB is another issue and as you pointed out some municipalities are still concerned about the decision making being moved to the province so any concerns I might express should not be construed as being totally out of the mainstream. The issue here was how best to see agriculture move forward and expand. I think the issue could have been handled differently. You say it is better to have one set of rules than 68. I think the point that was missed was that the 68 rules were trying to find a solution to the problem of mega farms (and mega farms are a problem), while the one rule brushed off those concerns. I believe it is a problem when provincially a mere handful of operations decide they are going to raise the all hogs and finish the all cattle in this province. Again just my opinion…

The issue of what constitutes a family farm is a very big topic. I think it is not so much what is a family farm but how big does a family farm have to be to make a living. Assuming government has a strategic plan for agriculture, and it does, how big should a hog barn or a feedlot have to be to be competitive. Does it have to be a multi million dollar operation or should it be something smaller. And when I say the family farm lost I guess I need to define that as a family farm with less than $10 million in assets. While I take it you are near the #2 other parts of the province have very real concerns over rural depopulation and the issue of farm size is a real concern. If we keep having to get bigger to survive then there are fewer of us, no way around that. I think that is a problem.

But I digress. My larger concern is pipelines and right of ways across farmers land and expropriation of their property.

[farmers_son]

farmers_son please do not read into my comments my staunch support for anything other than regulating industries with the public good in mind.

I find it interesting that you would think that 68 sets of rules ( or no rules as the case may be because some municipalities did not require feeding operations to have a municipal permit) were better than legislation that holds all sectors of the livestock industry to a higher environmental standard than ever before. The vast majority of large and small feedlots that make up our cattle feeding industry were approved under the municipal system.

If you take time to check out the approvals on the NRCB website you will note that a SIGNIFICANT number of them are for new components to existing colonies. eg: adding a broiler barn, expanding a dairy operation etc., which will be required to be constructed to a higher standard than most of the existing facilities. Dealing with applications for mega operations ( there were two that were applied for prior to the AOPA legislation coming into effect) posed a huge problem for municipalities and resulted in some excellent municipal councillors choosing not to run again due to the stress associated with dealing with all the issues surrounding these applications. I, for one, commend the provincial government for having the guts to take this issue on by pulling all the stakeholders together to arrive at a solution to how the industry can expand in such a way as not to compromise people or the environment. It is a new process, which I am sure has had its rough spots but as a former elected offical I can certainly see it is for the best.

One thing that should be clear is that if municipalities do not want any confined feeding operations or want them only in specific areas of their municipality they have only to identify that within their municipal development plans. If you read AOPA you will see that municipalities are considered directly affected on all applications regardless of size, so the land use decisions are still at the local level.

I am confident that if you ask any MLA in this province regardless of what party they are from they will be adamant that the expansion of the livestock industry cannot be allowed to happen at the expense of the environment .

As far as the oil and gas industry is concerned it does involve a lot more issues than the livestock industry or non energy projects, and I certainly can see your points with respect to losing control over your own land.

[farmers_son]

farmers_son, I too, am very concerned with the loss of rural population. The lack of water in some areas of the province is one issue. Recently I spent a few days in the Peace region and many of the rural families rely on dugout water for personal use. A pipeline is being proposed to take water from areas that have an abundant supply and pipe it to more remote locations . Some of the rural municipalities in the peace have no town or village within their boundaries and are miles from a hospital. Keeping people in these areas is a challenge, particularly if they have an opportunity to sell off their land and relocate.

One initiative that has recently been taken by AAFRD focuses on the Rural Development aspect. A committee chaired by MLA Doug Griffths of Wainwright is involved in stakeholder meetings to better understand what is needed to revitalize rural Alberta.

Larger farming units certainly mean less people living in an area in most cases, but in a free market system people can sell their land when they choose. I often wonder why some operators feel they need to continually expand. One of my neighbours had to get to the magic number of 200 cows, he got there then BSE happened so now he is at 260 cows. He farms over 4000 acres and is 71 years old. When he isn't making hay or silaging, or calving cows he is repairing or building something. Makes no sense to me whatsoever but his kids say its what keeps him healthy and interested in life !!!!

[farmers_son]

Would those same MLA’s express similar concern that expansion of the oil and gas industry cannot be allowed to happen at the expense of the environment?

You say “but in a free market system people can sell their land when they choose.” I think the point of this thread is we do not live in a free market system. Government directly or through various agencies and boards places restrictions on the ownership of your land. Therefore the question is asked “when is our land not our land”. It is not a free market system and there is no use pretending it is. And although I understand your viewpoint I would remind you that you are arguing in favour of government regulation, in particular provincial government regulation regarding ownership and use of private land.

I tried to contact the NRCB yesterday for information regarding the role municipalities now have in matters concerning the NRCB but there was no one available to answer my questions. A problem with government agencies the Friday before a long weekend.

Doug Griffiths is doing some good work on rural issues. We will have to see if the government adopts his and Luke Oullettes recommendations.

I would not consider your neighbour with 4000 acres and 260 cows to be a large operation. When you ask why is he still farming it probably has little to do with the acres or the cows but his children who I presume are farming with him.

[cakadu]

It is very true that ag development i.e. farms getting larger does not necessarily translate into rural development for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the fact that fewer people own more of the land and those that are bought out tend to move away, hence rural decline. The gist of the report that you talk about is that there are 4 pillars to the rural economy - access to basic health care, education, commerce and recreation - all of which are tied to a person's individual ideas on what "quality of life" is for them.

The point of this thread was the fact that even though we own the land, we are not free and clear to do what we want with it and in fact in some cases i.e. power,oil and gas are left essentially powerless to have any say in what happens.

The discussion on the various viewpoints of our quasi-judicial boards has been enlightening, which has been an added bonus.

The fact remains that even though we as individual landowners are trying to do what we feel is best for the land and the environment that we can seemingly control, it can all be for naught if the "big boys" come calling.

There is that old Joni Mitchell song about paving paradise, putting up a parking lot and not knowing what you've got 'til it's gone.

[cakadu]

Linda, in some instances what we do with our land and how we run our farming operations large or small is dictated by the urban population vs government telling us what to do on our land.

The AOPA legislation for instance would be much stronger than it is if some urban centres and some health regions had their way. They see agriculture as a polluter right along with other industries. We know that rural Albertans are outnumbered by far by urbans and our rural voice in caucus is diminishing with each election and each redrawing of electoral boundaries. When the AOPA legislation was being developed all stakeholders were at the table: AAMD C; AUMA; Health Regions, Environmental Groups as well as the livestock industry. There was a lot of compromise but in the end the legislation was something that all stakeholders could live with.
I used to see cattle operators wintering their cattle on the creeks and rivers, in the spring the water would run brown. As a producer it made my blood boil, put a black eye on our entire industry and certainly gave the impression to those who weren't informed that all cattle producers polluted the creeks and rivers of the province.
I read about feedlot operators that are very pleased with themselves when they can short circuit the regulations they agreed to follow and know that if more of them do this, it will mean even more stringent rules for the industry.

The right to do what we want to on our own land is a misconception. Any development we wish to do must be in accordance with municipal land use by-laws, municipal development plans etc. I think we are all wise enough to know that we have constraints on what can happen on our land and likely have had since the beginning of time.


farmers_son, if you are interested in learing what the municipalities role is within the AOPA legislation you can find out that information in the AOPA legislation itself or by picking up a copy of the 2004 Reference Guide for AOPA at any county office.
It cites the role of municipal governments as:
Being invited to provide input into all applications within their boundaries, and to develop land use plans that identify where new and expanding confined feeding operations would not be compatible with current or future land uses. eg: municipalities can include buffer zones around hamlets, towns, villages, country residential subdivisions, park and recreational facilities where cfo's are not an appropriate land use. Any application that is inconsistent with municipal zoning will be denied by an NRCB Approval Officer.
Municipalities do not have input into technical issues on applications as per the 2004 amendments to AOPA.
Municipalities are encouraged to provide historical input into an application and when an application is filed with the NRCB it is provided to the municipality the same day. This fixes the MDS ( minimum distance separation) from the proposed facility. Once the application is complete and all information is in front of the Approval Officer so they can commence making their decision they provide all information contained in the application to the municipality for their comments. The municipality may request a road use agreement with the applicant to be part of the conditions on the approval, or they may request a road haul agreement designating what roads are appropriate for hauling silage, livestock etc. to the facility.
I am aware of numerous public information meetings held over specific CFO applications that are attended by NRCB staff to provide information on their process etc.

The changes in municipal councils over the past two elections means that there are a lot of elected officials that aren't familiar with the legislation and it is my understanding that the NRCB has representatives meeting with municipalities ongoing to ensure that a two way communication is in effect. In fact, from what I am told the NRCB is much more willing to communicate with stakeholders at a higher level than the EUB is.

[farmers_son]

I agree when you say “The right to do what we want to on our own land is a misconception” and with Cakadu “The point of this thread was the fact that even though we own the land, we are not free and clear to do what we want with it and in fact in some cases i.e. power,oil and gas are left essentially powerless to have any say in what happens. “

I would add the point I made before that the public interest is for all intents and purposes the government interest. The way it is is not the way it has to be and in fact is not the way it is for other sectors of the economy. If it is in the public’s interest to expropriate a farmers land for a pipeline for which he/she is paid a minimum token fee then why would it not be in the public interest to expropriate the oil companies gas and oil as well to ensure that the needed product reaches the public without needless expense and inconvenience. Unfortunately the answer here is because the government would not consider such a move to be in its best interest; excuse me, the public interest.

And while it is OK for the city dweller to drive stinky cars and pollute the rivers lord help any farmer who wants to build a feedlot. The feedlot is only a source of pollution because it is the minority that have feedlots. If the majority had feedlots it would not be a source of pollution. The hog barn stinks because only a few have hog barns and they hire few workers. If the hog barn hired 1000 workers it would no longer stink. Or if everyone had a hog barn it would not stink either.

It really is unfair.