The stormwater pond at the Emerald Sky Dairy in St. Croix County that was polluted after a 2016 manure spill. A new survey finds that waste produced in the St. Croix River watershed is as much as if more than 3 million people lived there. (Wisconsin DNR photo)

The waste produced by livestock in the St. Croix River watershed is equivalent to 3.25 million more people living in the region, according to a study conducted by a retired University of Iowa professor on behalf of local clean water activists. 

The study, conducted by Dr. Chris Jones, who studied water quality and agriculture at Iowa, totals the number of beef cattle, dairy cows, hogs, chickens and turkeys across the river’s watershed in Minnesota and Wisconsin, calculates the amount of waste those animals excrete in terms of nitrogen, phosphorus and solids. It also  projects  how many  humans it would take to produce that much waste. 

“Some of these nutrients from the manure get into our streams, we know that,” says Jones, who has authored a book about the effect of factory hog farming on the water in his home state. “And so, since the waste is not treated, and since the distribution of it on the fields is not very regulated … this volume of waste certainly makes the river and its tributaries more vulnerable to nutrient groups.”

In recent years, western Wisconsin has become the site of the state’s most intense fights over factory farming. Most of the state’s largest farms, known as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), have been in the eastern part of the state. But large agricultural companies have been working to expand factory farming operations across western Wisconsin’s Driftless Region and the St. Croix watershed. 

That effort to expand has sparked a growth in local opposition. A number of communities have worked to pass local ordinances regulating how and when a factory farm can be built or expanded within their borders. Industry groups have filed lawsuits to block those efforts. 

Community members have also worked to stop or change permitting decisions by the state Department of Natural Resources for the expansion of factory farms. 

“I think it’s very important for citizens to realize that the counties and other local governments retain some power in being able to zone their land for the construction of these CAFOs because, as I said in Iowa, when the counties lost control, that’s when the big expansion occurred,” Jones says.

Despite local opposition, CAFOs have continued to grow, causing increased amounts of nutrients in the local water systems. Runoff and manure spills have caused massive fish kills in local streams, beaches have regularly been closed due to excessively high levels of pollutants and the groundwater — the sources of drinking water for most rural residents — has been found to contain high levels of nitrates. 

The St. Croix River has been part of the National Park System as a Wild and Scenic River since 1968 and listed as an “impaired water” by the Environmental Protection Agency since 2012. 

According to Jones’ study, most of the livestock within the watershed is raised on the Wisconsin side of the border. The waste created by just the livestock in Barron County is equivalent to 1.7 million extra people. The livestock waste in St. Croix County is equivalent to 911,000 more people.

The population of Barron County is about 46,000 and of St. Croix County is about 96,000, according to U.S. Census data. 

Jones says it’s within the capabilities of the regulating agencies and university systems in both Minnesota and Wisconsin to calculate the exact number of livestock the watershed is capable of enduring. He says they should do that, because the industry won’t. 

“This is an approach the state should think about in regulating these areas on a watershed by watershed basis, based on what we assume they can endure,” he says. “And that ought to be done for the Saint Croix to protect it.”

He doesn’t expect the St. Croix River’s designation as a national waterway by itself to influence the agriculture industry to change its practices.

“We have evidence here in Iowa, but any special status that the streams have is not going to affect decision making on the ag side, it’s just not,” Jones says. “So the state’s got to try to get in front of this and get their arms around it, because once the horse leaves a barn, it’s too late.”

Senate leaders are bending to bipartisan opposition and softening a proposed ban on state-level regulation of artificial intelligence. (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

Editor’s Note: This story has been updated to reflect the fact that Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn backed off her own proposal late on Monday.

Senate Republicans are aiming to soften a proposed 10-year moratorium on state-level artificial intelligence laws that has received pushback from congressmembers on both sides of the aisle.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas developed a pared down version of the moratorium Sunday that shortens the time of the ban, and makes exceptions for some laws with specific aims such as protecting children or limiting deepfake technologies.

The ban is part of the quickly evolving megabill that Republicans are aiming to pass by July 4.  The Senate parliamentarian ruled Friday that a narrower version of the moratorium could remain, but the proposed changes enact a pause — banning states from regulating AI if they want access to the $500 million in AI infrastructure and broadband funding included in the bill.

The compromise amendment brings the state-level AI ban to five years instead of 10, and carves out room for specific laws that address rules on child online safety and protecting against unauthorized generative images of a person’s likeliness, often called deepfakes. The drafted amendment, obtained and published by Politico Sunday, still bans laws that aim to regulate AI models and decisionmaking systems.

Blackburn has been vocal against the rigidity of the original 10-year moratorium, and recently reintroduced a bill called the Kids Online Safety Act, alongside Connecticut Democrat Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Senate Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. The bill would require tech companies to take steps to prevent potentially harmful material, like posts about eating disorders and instances of online bullying, from impacting children.

Blackburn said in a statement Sunday that she was “pleased” that Cruz agreed to update the provisions to exclude laws that “protect kids, creators, and other vulnerable individuals from the unintended consequences of AI.” This proposed version of the amendment would allow her state’s ELVIS Act, which prohibits people from using AI to mimic a person’s voice in the music industry without their permission, to continue to be enforced.

Late Monday, however, Blackburn backed off her own amendment, saying the language was “unacceptable” because it did not go as far as the Kids Online Safety Act in allowing states to protect children from potential harms of AI. Her move left the fate of the compromise measure in doubt as the Senate continued to debate the large tax bill to which it was attached.

Though introduced by Senate Republicans, the AI moratorium was losing favor of GOP congressmembers and state officials.

Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, Jerry Moran of Kansas and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin were expected to vote against the moratorium, and Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said during a congressional hearing in June that she had changed her mind, after initially voting for the amendment.

“I support AI in many different faculties,” she said during the June 5 House Oversight Committee hearing. “However, I think that at this time, as our generation is very much responsible, not only here in Congress, but leaders in tech industry and leaders in states and all around the world have an incredible responsibility of the future and development regulation and laws of AI.”

On Friday, a group of 17 Republican governors wrote in a letter to Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson, asking them to remove the ban from the megabill.

“While the legislation overall is very strong, there is one small portion of it that threatens to undo all the work states have done to protect our citizens from the misuse of artificial intelligence,” the governors wrote. “We are writing to encourage congressional leadership to strip this provision from the bill before it goes to President Trump’s desk for his signature.”

Alexandra Reeve Givens, President and CEO of tech policy organization Center for Democracy and Technology said in a statement Monday that all versions of the AI moratorium would hurt state’s abilities to protect people from “potentially devastating AI harms.”

“Despite the multiple revisions of this policy, it’s clear that its drafters are not considering the moratorium’s full implications,” Reeve Givens said. “Congress should abandon this attempt to stifle the efforts of state and local officials who are grappling with the implications of this rapidly developing technology, and should stop abdicating its own responsibility to protect the American people from the real harms that these systems have been shown to cause.”

The updated language proposed by Blackburn and Cruz isn’t expected to be a standalone amendment to the reconciliation bill, Politico reported, rather part of a broader amendment of changes as the Senate continues their “vote-a-rama” on the bill this week. 

The November Farm Foundation® Forum, Growing Together: Trends and Transformation in U.S. Agriculture Labor, highlighted some of the findings from a recent multi-day symposium that explored the future of the U.S. agricultural workforce. The symposium, held by Farm Foundation and the Economic Research Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, aimed to convene a network of researchers and stakeholders to engage in productive discussions focused on farm labor issues. The primary goal was to strengthen and enhance ongoing farm labor research.

This forum highlighted the critical importance of farm labor to the competitiveness of US agriculture, particularly for labor-intensive commodities like fruits and vegetables. The discussion was moderated by Michael Marsh, president and CEO of the National Council of Agricultural Employers, and featured panelists: Philip Martin Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Davis; Andrew Padovani, senior research associate with JBS International; and Alexandra Hill, assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

The Forum covered a wide range of topics, including wage rates and competition, legislative and regulatory challenges, litigation and legal actions, mechanization and labor alternatives, and economic and demographic trends.

Numerous Issues to Consider

One point brought up was that there has been no significant agricultural labor reform since 1986, making it difficult to address current labor issues. Farmers must also contend with many new regulations, including those related to wage rates and worker protection. The impact of the Adverse Effect Wage Rate and competition with countries like Mexico was also discussed.

One solution to rising labor costs is a push toward mechanization, which brings about its own set of questions around adaptation to this change. In some cases, robotic harvesters are not yet fast enough or inexpensive enough to replace human hand pickers, but the gap may be closing fastest for crops like apples.

The H2-A program was also a large part of the discussion. The use of H-2A workers is increasing, but the program’s costs and regulatory requirements are significant. The anticipated impacts of the incoming administration on the potential for ag labor reform was also briefly discussed during audience question and answer session.

Overall, the Forum underscored the urgent need for comprehensive agricultural labor reform to ensure the sustainability and competitiveness of US agriculture. The discussions highlighted the complex interplay of wage rates, regulatory challenges, and the need for mechanization and alternative labor sources.

The two-hour discussion, including the audience question and answer session, was recorded and is archived on the Farm Foundation website. 

The post Farm Foundation Forum Underscores Need for Comprehensive Agricultural Labor Reform appeared first on Farm Foundation.