In May, a CBS News reporter asked the Illinois Department of Agriculture if there were bird-flu-positive dairy herds in Kane County, only to be told the department “doesn’t have any role in this testing” and was directed to the state’s health department.

But an internal email from Connie Austin, the public health department’s veterinarian and deputy state epidemiologist, revealed disagreement.

“I just want to reinforce that IL Dept of Ag should be the source of information about positive dairy herds as they would be coordinating the testing/getting results from USDA etc.,” she wrote to high-ranking agency members in the public health department.

The reporter’s email request came nearly two months after the first reported case of bird flu in dairy cattle.

Because bird flu poses a risk to both animals and humans, state departments of agriculture and health have overlapping roles. However, records and emails obtained by Investigate Midwest show the two agencies in multiple states often disagreed on who was responsible for testing and whether confirmed cases should be publicized. Emails also showed that officials within state agriculture agencies disagreed on how to investigate suspected cases. 

Avian influenza, also called bird flu or H5N1, first appeared two years ago among commercial and backyard poultry. In March, the virus was found in U.S. dairy cattle. Since then, more than 330 dairy herds and 36 people have been infected with the virus, according to the Centers for Disease Control.

While the risk to the general public remains low, according to the CDC, the total number of human cases of H5N1 nationwide has grown significantly in the last month, having more than doubled this month. 

Bird flu cases in cattle have been found in at least 14 states, and local agencies often dictate testing requirements, the dispersal of protective equipment and how warnings and guidance are issued to dairy farm operators. 

Asked about the May emails that showed disagreement between the two agencies, the Illinois health and agriculture departments issued a joint statement, saying the statutory responsibilities of the agriculture department are “to surveille, respond, identify, contain, and eradicate the disease from the affected herd or flock. Outbreak response pertaining to human health, exposure, etc. is conducted by IDPH.”

However, similar disagreements and confusion were found in other states. Investigate Midwest’s review of emails showed: 

• State officials in Michigan decided not to notify the public of a suspected case earlier this year and grew frustrated when local officials intended to alert their community.
• In Illinois, few farms have requested personal protective equipment, and a state advisory board on livestock diseases has not met in years.
• Wisconsin officials did not have a plan for issuing guidance in Spanish, the dominant language for most dairy farm workers in that state.
• Some state health officials were at odds with how federal agencies were dispersing information and the lack of unique guidance between dairy farms and poultry farms.

Dr. Rosemary Sifford, chief veterinary officer for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, told Investigate Midwest that compared to years of experience with the virus in poultry, the explosion of bird flu in dairy cattle caught states off guard. Sifford works with federal and state agencies to track and prevent the spread of the virus across the country.

“We just haven’t had that kind of experience on the dairy side,” she said. 

Michigan officials disagreed on publicizing second dairy herd outbreak 

On April 8, a veterinarian with the Michigan Department of Agriculture & Rural Development alerted her bosses to an outbreak in Montcalm County, in the central part of the state. The agriculture department had issued a press release about the first outbreak 10 days earlier, on March 29.

But the state vet, Nora Wineland, said that was not the plan this time. “We do not have plans for a specific press release about this finding,” she wrote in emails obtained by Investigate Midwest through a public records request.

The next day, Joseph Coyle, one of Michigan’s top epidemiologists at the Michigan Department of Health & Human Services, pushed back. 

“Our feeling is that a proactive vs. reactive media statement is warranted,” he wrote. “Of course, the farms could not be named and (the state health department) and the (local health department) would work with (the agriculture department) on the content of the media statement.”

Over the next two days, state officials had a series of calls, which are not described in the emails. Ultimately, state agriculture officials would lead on messaging. 

On the afternoon of April 11, the state agriculture department released its statement. It did not mention that a second dairy herd had an outbreak. Instead, Tim Boring, Michigan’s agriculture director, said farms “must act now to heighten and tighten biosecurity measures to contain the spread” of the virus. State health officials did not release a press statement.

However, hours later, a health department spokeswoman, Lynn Sutfin, emailed her agriculture counterpart, Jennifer Holton. The local health department responsible for Montcalm County — the Mid-Michigan District Health Department, which also serves two other counties — had prepared a public guidance related to bird flu and was going to announce local herds had tested positive.

“Don’t shoot the messenger,” Sutfin told Holton. “Deep breath.”

Holton appeared blindsided. “My understanding that was no longer the case,” she replied. “So, I am surprised there is a planned news release for tomorrow.”

An email exchange between Michigan health and agriculture officials over plans to publicize a positive case.

On April 12, the local health officials published their guidance on their website. The locals’ guidance had similar information as the agriculture department’s release the previous day, and it urged those working with dairy herds to take precautions. It also said that “two herds in Michigan” had tested positive.

In a joint statement to Investigate Midwest, Sutfin and Holton said there was a miscommunication that was quickly addressed. The discussion was about “ensuring … clear, consistent and correct information was getting out on a rapidly evolving animal health emergency,” the statement reads.

“During the rapid response to the growing outbreak, commitment to providing clear and consistent information to Michigan’s farming community and residents was always the priority,” the statement continues. “There was a bit of a misunderstanding on the local health department level, (the state health department), and (the state agriculture department) that was quickly and effectively cleared up.”

Liz Braddock, the health officer leading the Mid-Michigan District Health Department, is not included in the email thread. She said having the agriculture department involved changed the usual lines of communication.

“It didn’t come out right away that there was an animal industry (involved), so maybe that’s the miscommunication,” she said in an interview. “(Avian influenza) was new to our area and we wanted to make sure that those in the community knew what avian flu was and they were not getting any misinformation or misguidance because we had seen that happen with past pandemics.

“It was an odd way at the beginning,” she continued. “We were unfamiliar with animal industry law, and (the agriculture department is) a part of animal health, and we are human health. … It became better.”

Around this time, Braddock said, her health department started having weekly calls with officials from the state agriculture department. All local health departments in the state were eventually invited to the weekly calls, she said.

The next month, as the number of dairy herds testing positive for bird flu rapidly increased — 27 herds had tested positive by mid-May — Michigan agriculture officials argued over whether and how to respond to a possible case of the virus, records show.

On Friday, May 17, agriculture officials were tipped off that a state employee suspected a cow in southern Michigan might have died from the virus. According to the state’s data, four dairies had tested positive for the virus on just that day. 

Wineland, the state veterinarian, asked if a dairy inspector could contact the farm. 

“I thought we had a plan to have dairy inspectors call to check in and that there would be a generic script they could follow,” Wineland responded. “That’s what I was thinking at this point. Is that plan still in the works?? Sorry if I missed the update on that plan.”

RE_ HPAI Ingham County (Reported Case)_Redacted

Tim Slawinski, the state agriculture department’s bureau director of Food Safety and Animal Health, which oversees dairy inspectors, disabused her. 

“Our plan has evolved and does not have them asking about whether there are sick cows,” he responded. 

The farm could submit samples to the Michigan State University veterinary diagnostic lab, which is not associated with the state, if they suspect bird flu, Slawinski recommended. 

Boring, the state agriculture director, agreed, writing in an email that the agency doesn’t need vets chasing down every call. He suggested an agency official walk the producer through how to send samples to the lab.

“I do take these reports seriously with our growing sense that this disease is underreported,” he wrote. “I find it very plausible there are dead cows from (bird flu) on non-identified farms today.”

Asked by Investigate Midwest about the email chain, Michigan’s state agriculture department said the tip was handled correctly. 

“While a dead animal is not an unusual occurrence for (state agricultural) staff to hear about, we always want to make sure to handle appropriately and expeditiously and during the HPAI outbreak in dairy cattle there were reasons to quickly determine not only the validity, but if this was actually related to HPAI and be able to take immediate action on this reportable disease,” the state agencies said. “This tip was followed up on and determined to not be HPAI-related within a short timeframe. It also underscores the importance of working with a local veterinarian.”

As of Oct. 14, 38 dairy herds have tested positive for bird flu, according to the state agriculture department. At least two people in Michigan have tested positive for the virus, according to the CDC.

Survey reveals gaps in Illinois bird flu readiness;  Illinois Cattle Disease Committee has not met 

In April, the CDC asked that all states update their bird flu plans. In September, the Illinois Department of Public Health internally shared the results of a survey of the state’s local health departments to determine their capabilities and needs if bird flu was found within their counties. 

The survey found the majority of local health departments that responded to the questionnaires could set up adequate ways to test for bird flu and get treatment to anyone who tested positive within two days. However, less than a quarter of hospitals and clinics said they had space available where symptomatic workers or families could isolate while infected.

In a statement sent to Investigate Midwest, a spokesperson for the IDPH said: “In the event of a public health emergency that overwhelms an LHD’s (local health department’s) capabilities, state or federal assistance could be requested by the LHD.”

According to the University of Illinois, there are 423 dairy farms in Illinois. Sixteen farms were selling raw milk as of mid-April. 

“That is a practice that is always discouraged, but even more so now,” said public health veterinarian Connie Austin, according to notes sent out by the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign. “Farmer workers (sic) need to step up their PPE including gloves, goggles, boots, head covers, N95 masks and aprons.” 

But as of Sept. 5, only one Illinois dairy farm near Rockford has requested personal protective equipment for five employees, which included protective face shields, N95 respirators, polyethylene aprons and disposable gloves. 

It took the agency 10 days to fulfill the request.

The spread of avian influenza would also seem to be a relevant time for the state’s little-known Cattle Disease Committee to gather, as its role is to meet in the “event of a disease outbreak or other significant disease situation.” The state’s director of agriculture, Jerry F. Costello II, is the only person who can convene the 18-person board. 

However, the Cattle Disease Committee has not met this year. 

The state’s Advisory Board of Livestock Commissioners also has not met since 2021. According to public records, 53% of the positions on the advisory board (15 out of 28 positions) are vacant. That accounts for every governor-appointed position except for Dave Thompson, a representative of poultry breeders, and Jane Zeien, a representative of sheep breeders. 

The Illinois Department of Agriculture is in the process of appointing new members to the  Advisory Board of Livestock Commissions, according to an IDOA spokesperson. The state’s Cattle Disease Committee has not met because “meetings shall only occur in the event of a disease outbreak or other significant disease situation,” according to the spokesperson.

Majority Spanish-speaking dairy workforce left out of Wisconsin’s initial response plans

The Midwest’s largest dairy-producing state has not had a confirmed case of bird flu in dairy herds, but as the state’s agencies prepared for potential outbreaks, inter-department breakdown often got in the way.

Emails show leadership within the health department division responsible for dealing with communicable diseases were unclear on answers to questions regarding the size of the state’s dairy industry, where the state’s farms were located, if they should be contact tracing for the virus, and the availability of PPE.

Department of Health Services employees also asked leadership about the need for Spanish-language communication plans, which weren’t an initial part of the state’s response. A DHS employee wrote that they would be “supportive of creating a Spanish-speaking comms plan,” but weren’t sure how to incorporate it into already established communication plans. 

Wisconsin DHS did not answer specific questions about whether the agency had Spanish-language communication plans early in the onset of the bird flu crisis.

The majority of dairy workers in Wisconsin are Hispanic and speak Spanish, according to UW-Madison research. 

When members of the state’s dairy industry reached out to DHS about guidance in May, the health department was still waiting on guidance from the state department of agriculture. 

In a statement provided to Investigate Midwest, Wisconsin DHS said it has been meeting with its agricultural counterpart from the outset of the bird flu crisis. A spokesperson with the department said it has had to react to new information from federal partners and other states, as well as communication plans that cast a wide net.

“Part of our routine work in a public health response is working with partners uniquely suited to help reach communities and get information to people who need it from sources they already trust, and it appears these records reflect that important work,” the agency said, referring to the emails reviewed by Investigate Midwest. 

Colorado cases spike as lead epidemiologist questions PPE protocol 

Over the summer, Colorado saw a spike in bird flu cases in dairy cattle. From early June to August, the state had 60 new cases, nearly one each day.

However, the state was still dealing with its bird flu outbreaks among poultry and how the two industries differ.

In a July email, Dr. Rachel Herlihy, the state’s leading epidemiologist, said she disagreed with how the federal government was communicating different PPE guidelines.

“I feel that OSHA and other federal agencies need to clarify that there are risk differences and exposure differences on dairy farms and poultry farms,” she wrote. “PPE guidance should be distinct for the two settings. Face shields are definitely not adequate during poultry culling.”

Three poultry workers in Colorado were confirmed with positive cases in early July. According to a report obtained through an open records request, the state’s ag department witnessed and was involved in a mass culling of poultry at a commercial poultry operation in Platteville, Colorado, in mid-July.

Colorado agriculture department employees praised the efficient communication among state, local and federal officials who were present at the culling event, according to the records.

“Numerous USDA people communicated to me that they aren’t used to having a state department of ag be such a collaborative partner like the (Colorado Department of Agriculture) has been for this incident,” one employee wrote. “The (poultry operation) employees also conveyed their appreciation for the assistance they have received during this HPAI crisis.”

This story was originally published on Investigate Midwest. Investigate Midwest is an independent, nonprofit newsroom whose mission is to serve the public interest by exposing dangerous and costly practices of influential agricultural corporations and institutions through in-depth and data-driven investigative journalism.Visit online at www.investigatemidwest.org.

State agencies initially struggled to coordinate bird flu response, records show is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

Marenda Porter’s new home in Ledgeview, Wisconsin, seemed like the perfect fit for her family of four children. The growing suburb outside Green Bay was a tight-knit community with nearby land for her kids to explore and space for a large garden. 

Then there was a knock on the door. 

A few days after moving in, concerned neighbors informed her that Ledgeview Farms, a large dairy farm behind her home, was planning to expand, which included building a manure pit to store millions of gallons of waste next to the subdivision.

Over the next several years, Porter began noticing manure runoff in the creek her kids would play in. Originally from rural South Dakota, she had been around farming her whole life, but this felt different.

“We don’t even want to think about health consequences because it’s out of our control, unless we were to pick up and move away,” she said. “But at this point, it’s just not feasible for us to do that.”

Residents, including Porter, openly complained about the farm’s operations and the risk associated with a waste pit near their homes. The town denied the farm’s permit application, saying the expansion would violate a newly updated town ordinance. 

In late 2023, the farm responded with a lawsuit against the town.

The legal fight between the large dairy farm and the city government is an example of a growing trend in the nation’s Dairyland. As Wisconsin dairy farms get bigger and municipal and state governments impose new restrictions in response, the dairy industry is increasingly fighting back through the court system. 

Many of the dairy farms that have sued municipal and state governments are represented by Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, a national law firm that helped craft state statutes to weaken local control over agriculture.

Since 2018, large Wisconsin dairy farms have filed 13 lawsuits against municipal and state governments, according to an Investigate Midwest analysis of court records and state permitting data for concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs.

Dairy farms with roughly 700 or more milking cows are considered CAFOs, requiring a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit.

“The trend does seem to be moving up, particularly for CAFOs and state agency-based litigation. The local municipality-based litigation tends to rise, as well,” said Adam Voskuil, a staff attorney at the environmental law firm Midwest Environmental Advocates. He does not represent either party in the Ledgeview Farms lawsuit.

The count only reflects the subset of CAFO conflicts that made it to the court bench: Farms settle many cases with municipalities or state agencies beforehand, sometimes after an appeal or public hearing. Farmers also settle legal disputes with municipalities after filing a notice of claim.

“As data comes out that shows the effects of (CAFOs on) groundwater contamination, local governments and the state government start responding with the authority that’s been given,” Voskuil added.

While the overall number of Wisconsin dairy farms has declined by nearly two-thirds over the past 20 years, the farms that remain have grown bigger. 

The state’s dairy industry is estimated to be worth nearly $46 billion, according to University of Wisconsin-Madison research. Most of Wisconsin’s dairy is used to make cheese.

“Demand for dairy products overall, both United States domestic and export demand, continues to grow,” said Charles Nicholson, an agriculture and economics professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.  

Larger farms mean more cattle. More cattle means more waste and runoff problems for nearby communities, especially in areas of population growth. Livestock waste runoff has been linked to various public health problems such as cancers, infant deaths and miscarriages. 

In its lawsuit over the town’s permit rejection, Ledgeview Farms claimed it had a right to farm and use its facilities as it was before the town’s ordinance changed. Farm owner Jason Pansier declined an interview with Investigate Midwest, as did his attorney.

Ledgeview attorney Larry Konopacki said the town has a responsibility to protect various — and sometimes competing — interests, such as the growth of a large dairy farm and the growth of a residential area.

“Frankly we have very limited tools to use because, in Wisconsin, we’re a very pro ag state,” he said.

Years of legal battles

In 2017, Ledgeview Farms applied to build a new manure pit that would hold upwards of 13 million gallons of waste, a move that would allow the farm to increase its herd size.  

Porter and her neighbors were worried about the impact of increased waste near homes and bodies of water. Even then-Green Bay Packers head coach Mike McCarthy, who lived in the area, expressed concern.

The once-predominantly rural town of Ledgeview had become a hotbed for suburban cul-de-sacs and housing developments. The town’s population increased by a third from 2010 to 2020, topping 8,800, according to U.S. Census data. 

The five-county region also had the largest share of CAFOs in the state. The buffer between residential neighborhoods and industrial dairy farms was shrinking.

The town board denied Ledgeview Farm’s permit application to build a new manure pit.

The state’s Livestock Siting Review Board, circuit court and court of appeals all sided with the town’s decision to deny the permit. The farm appealed to the state Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case. 

In 2021, the farm opened a manure pit in the neighboring town of Glenmore, where it now transports some of its Ledgeview waste. Glenmore zoning administrator Ben Schauer said the pit is in operation and can hold upwards of 20 million gallons of manure.

In addition to denying the permit, the town of Ledgeview ordered the farm to maintain its herd at or below 1,000 animal units and to bring the farm operations into full compliance with state and federal law.

Herd size has been a contentious issue for the farm. 

During the permitting process for the manure pit application, Ledgeview Farms declined to provide the town with its herd numbers. In response, the town received a warrant for town inspectors, accompanied by the county sheriff’s office, to carry out an inspection. 

But the farm’s owners refused to let town officials take a head count, according to a town memo obtained by Investigate Midwest. While refusal to comply with the warrant could have led to an arrest, town officials eventually asked the sheriff to leave without making any arrests. 

In a recent wastewater permit application to the state, Ledgeview Farms said it had just under 2,000 cattle with plans to have more than 3,000 within five years, according to records from the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 

The Wisconsin DNR declined to comment on legal cases between dairy farms and local municipalities. 

In its most recent lawsuit, Ledgeview Farms argued it should be allowed to operate as it currently does because its large, free-stall barn was built before the town’s ordinance reducing the cap on herd sizes.

“Prior to 2017, the Pansiers had in place facilities that allowed them (to have) — and in fact did have — several thousand cows in their facilities,” said Eric McLeod, attorney for Ledgeview Farms, referring to the farm owners during a July 12, 2024, oral argument in Brown County court.

Town attorneys argued in July that the judge should throw out the lawsuit on the basis that the farm was operating illegally prior to the 2017 ordinance.

“The record demonstrates that this is a bad-acting farm,” said Ledgeview attorney Matthew Fischer. “They’ve violated basically every environmental state and federal rule. It’s not surprising that the town wants to stop these violations.”

Neighbors of the farm have seen these violations firsthand.

Porter said she’s witnessed overspreading of manure on nearby fields and found runoff from the farm in her yard. She said neighbors have moved out because the waste and odors were overwhelming. 

“We almost never open the windows because it stinks so bad,” she said.

Litigating for the industry

At the July oral argument hearing, a dozen members of the Pansier family packed the rickety, wooden benches of the small Brown County courtroom. A handful of Ledgeview officials sat on the other side of the room while Ledgeview Farms attorney McLeod said clashes between large farms and suburban residents had become common practice.

“I’ve handled many types of these disputes concerning large dairy farms, and they always arise in the context of when folks build residential developments adjacent to existing dairy farms,” he said. “What happens is the folks who built the homes in rural areas often find that they don’t like living next to a farming operation.”

Litigating these disputes has become a major business for Wisconsin attorneys like McLeod. 

In a review of lawsuits filed by CAFO permit holders, Investigate Midwest found the majority have been litigated by the national law firm Michael Best & Friedrich LLP.

Michael Best has five offices across the state and is a member of the Dairy Business Association, American Dairy Alliance and the Wisconsin’s Food and Beverage Business Network. 

Their attorneys helped create the Wisconsin Livestock Facility Siting Law, which CAFO critics said created industry-friendly standards and prevented local governments from explicitly preventing the expansion of agriculture facilities. 

David Crass, who has worked for Michael Best for over three decades, drafted the Wisconsin Livestock Facility Siting Law, which passed in 2004. Crass was working for the Dairy Business Association, a registered lobbying organization of dairy producers and farmers, which lobbied for the creation of the law.

The passage of the Wisconsin Livestock Facility Siting Law, which went into effect in 2006, “marked a major turning point for the state’s dairy industry — and a signature moment for our agricultural practice, which remains highly attuned to our clients’ issues and needs in the legal, regulatory, and social climates where they operate,” according to the law firm’s website.

Crass and the Michael Best law office did not respond to a request for comment. 

Michael Best attorneys have also routinely defended farm operators against fines for violating city permits and local pollution ordinances, Investigate Midwest found in its review of lawsuits.

McLeod, the attorney for Ledgeview Farms, formerly worked for Michael Best, where he represented a large dairy farm in a 2004 legal battle against a rural town in one of the first instances of the law being used in court. 

McLeod, who currently works for Husch and Blackwell, declined an interview request with Investigate Midwest. 

On the other side of the state, more business groups have become invested in similar legal battles. 

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, the state’s largest business association, recently sued the town of Eureka over an operating ordinance that restricted the operation of CAFOs.

“If we allow local governments like the town of Eureka to violate the law, we’re going to endanger and potentially kill a vital aspect of our state’s economy,” said Scott Manley, WMC executive vice president of government relations, in an announcement of the lawsuit. “These farms already have a mountain of regulations.”

WMC represented dairy industry groups in a lawsuit against the state’s DNR last year. Venture Dairy Cooperative and the Wisconsin Dairy Alliance argued that the department overreaches by requiring CAFOs to have wastewater permits. The case was dismissed. The groups did not respond to a request for comment. 

This wasn’t the first time industry groups attempted to deregulate how the state runs its wastewater permitting for CAFOs. In 2017, the Dairy Business Association sued the DNR, claiming the department’s change to runoff management was not practical or science-based for Wisconsin farmers. The association settled with the agency that same year and was represented by Michael Best attorneys in the lawsuit.

The Dairy Business Association declined an interview with Investigate Midwest. 

Matthew Sheets, a policy organizer for the Land Stewardship Project, a Minnesota-based sustainable agriculture nonprofit, said municipalities often want to enact controls over CAFOs that cause health or environmental concerns in their community, but the fear of lawsuits and legal battles creates a chilling effect. 

“It’s a reinforcement of the idea that if you are large enough and if you have enough money to bring a lawsuit against a municipality and you have more money than they do, they’re going to not want to step in your way,” he said.

A version of this story was originally published by Investigate Midwest.

Wisconsin dairy industry fights back as towns seek to curb CAFO growth is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.