State Representative Jerry Stern spoke out on a number of issues of importance to his constituents during a legislative breakfast held Wednesday morning at Brody’s Restaurant in Snyder Township.
More than two dozen invited guests joined the 80th district legislator for a question and answer session preceded by a buffet breakfast in the banquet room. After a brief opening statement, Stern fielded questions on a number of issues including natural gas costs, increasing taxes, drug problems and discussed an issue with ties to his long time agricultural background.
Gov. Ed Rendell on New Year’s Eve, vetoed a bill that would limit the authority of local governments to regulate farming – a move criticized by farmers but praised by opponents of “factory farms.”
Rendell said the bill fails to balance the business interests of farmers against the threat of pollution from the runoff of manure and sludge spread on farmland in a “comprehensive and progressive way.” He pledged that his administration would work with interested groups to craft such legislation in 2004.
“We simply cannot address nutrient management issues in a piecemeal fashion,” the governor said in a four-page veto message that spelled out provisions that he considers essential to such legislation.
The vetoed measure, tacked on as an amendment to a bill concerning motor-vehicle offenses, would prohibit local farming ordinances more stringent than state law. It also would allow farmers to sue local governments to invalidate any such ordinance and to recoup their legal fees and court costs.
“The reason for the bill is you had people who moved out to the country-build a house and then all of a sudden a farmer is spreading his product (manure) on the fields,” said Representative Jerry Stern on Wednesday morning.
“All of sudden, those new home owners didn’t like the odor or wells had become polluted,” he said. “We need to look into these issues, but for the most part farmers are very community minded. They are environmentally minded because they have to live off the soil.”
“This bill really restricted the rights of farmers. There are townships around the state that had ordinances dealing with odor issues even trying to limit flying insects,” said Representative Stern.
Pennsylvania farmers do have the right to farm. If you wanted to be mischievous about a local government could go about passing illegal ordinances. The bill was intend to prevent local governments from passing regulations more restrictive tha”n the state.”
The environmental community was labeling hog farms as corporate farms, some hog operations are owned by corporations,” conceded the legislator.
We need to do whatever we can for the farmer the products that need to be produced can be, the environmentalist are exaggerating the whole thing. They are calling it corporate farms or citing water pollution. They are using a couple of example from Perry and Fulton County where there were environmental problems.”
There’s going to be even more of clash between the environmental and farming community,” concluded Stern
The Pennsylvania Farm Bureau criticized the veto, saying that about 60 of the more than 1,450 townships in the state have already enacted ordinances that exceed state laws.
The situation “sets Pennsylvania apart from every other state and creates a calamity for farmers,” said the bureau, which represents more than 33,000 farm and rural families.
“Unless the governor acts quickly and effectively to solve the problem, Pennsylvania’s agriculture, economy and consumers will suffer severe consequences,” said bureau President Guy F. Donaldson.
Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future, which opposed the legislation, said Rendell proved that he is “a true statesman” by vetoing the legislation, which it said was part of a “pressure campaign from agribusiness.”
“He showed great courage against a major political force, and he did the right thing in standing up for the Constitution, the rights of rural Pennsylvanians, the environment and public health,” said John Hanger, the group’s president. “He heard the voice of the people and he responded.”
Rendell said he has instructed his top advisers to contact key legislators and begin working on replacement legislation as soon as possible.
Rendell said he supports the provision in the vetoed bill that would allow farmers to recover their legal expenses if they successfully challenge a local ordinance, noting that the bill also would allow townships to sue farmers to recoup their expenses for defending themselves against frivolous lawsuits.
But he said he would also demand other provisions in any new legislation, including the establishment of minimum buffer zones, where no manure can be applied, for all “concentrated animal feeding operations” and “concentrated animal operations.” He also proposes financial incentives for farmers who need help in creating buffer areas or in obtaining manure digesters and other new technology.
Senate Republicans said last week that a veto by Gov. Ed Rendell of the bill did not meet constitutional muster and should be considered law.
They said that the vetoed bill was not delivered to the House of Representatives, where the bill originated, within the 10 days prescribed by the state Constitution.
But Rendell’s office insisted that the House was legally adjourned, in which case the Constitution directs a vetoed bill to be delivered to the secretary of state.
The veto, signed and delivered Dec. 31, would stand, the administration said.
The question of whether the veto is valid could end up in court, said Erik Arneson, chief of staff for the Senate Republican leader, David J. Brightbill of Lebanon County.
“There is no playbook for this situation,” Arneson said. “The next move is unclear.”
Rendell has said he has directed his aides to work with lawmakers and interested parties to craft a bill that will better balance the business interests of farmers against the threat of pollution from the runoff of manure and sludge spread on farmland.
(The Associated Press contributed to this story.)
