Public meeting on proposed CAFOs slated for Thursday in Pierce City
For those who are unable to attend the meeting in person, DNR is also accepting written comments through Friday, May 30, sent to cafo@dnr.mo.gov.
This in-person public comment meeting is to discuss and provide a permitting regulatory framework for the draft permits on five facilities to be built in Newton County near Wentworth and Pierce City and four in Lawrence County near Verona or Monett.
The Missouri Coalition for the Environment, a grassroots group raising awareness of concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, said it's trying to spread awareness of this meeting to make sure the public knows about the kind of farming operations coming close to their homes.
'This opportunity for public comment comes in the wake of the 2025 Missouri legislative session, in which the Senate Agriculture committee chair Sen. Jason Bean, Republican from Southeast Missouri, refused to schedule a hearing for a key bill that would have given local county commissions more leeway in regulating CAFOs,' the Coalition for the Environment said in a news release. 'This bill, SB 400, was introduced by Senator Tracy McCreery, Democrat from St. Louis County, and would have reinstated the authority of local health boards and county commissions to pass ordinances that impact agriculture. Missouri Legislators revoked this local control in 2019 with the passage of SB 391, which stated that county commissions cannot 'impose standards or requirements on an agriculture operation' more stringent than statewide regulations. Since then, there has been an expansion of CAFOs in the state.'
The coalition said hosting an in-person hearing for multiple CAFOs at once is an unusual move by the DNR.
The MCE said not all agricultural operations are equal and CAFOs create undue burdens for the surrounding community. Environmental health costs include excess nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus running off into surrounding waterways, contributing to toxic algal blooms and aquatic dead zones.
'It is unjust for communities to bear the health and property costs of CAFOs without an avenue for recourse,' said Melissa Vatterott, the MCE's director of policy and strategy. 'Communities should have the chance to work with their local government to put practical parameters in place as to where and how these facilities can operate.'
More information is available at https://dnr.mo.gov/water/business-industry-other-entities/sites-interest/southwest-mo-concentrated-animal-feeding-operation-cafo-facilities.
Documents concerning the CAFOs that will be subject of this meeting can be read at https://dnr.mo.gov/document/southwest-missouri-concentrated-animal-feeding-operation-cafo-facilities-public-hearing-agenda-may-29-2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
23 minutes ago
- USA Today
Republicans are afraid of Mamdani in New York. That's a good thing.
Republicans think Zohran Mamdani will turn NYC into a socialist mecca because they forgot what a functioning government looks like. We're a few months out from New York City's municipal election, and Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani is still the frontrunner in the mayoral race. It's a positive sign for progressives who want to see democratic socialists transform the party. In a July poll by Zenith Research and Public Progress Solutions, Mamdani received 50% of support while the rest of the candidates trailed behind. Former Democratic governor Andrew Cuomo, who is now running as an independent, received 22% of support, followed by Republican Curtis Sliwa at 13%. Current Mayor Eric Adams, who is also running as an independent, received just 7% support. Mamdani may be polling well, but his path to victory in November is anything but smooth. There are already five anti-Mamdani PACs that have formed since the primary, backed by business moguls and real estate tycoons who warn that the Democratic nominee would be bad for the city's economy. He's also having to answer for some of his previous posts about 'defunding the police' and comments on Israel. Republicans criticizing Mamdani for 'defund police' comment are hypocritical The biggest criticism of Mamdani has come from his previous comments about the New York City Police Department. In the wake of George Floyd's murder in 2020, Mamdani posted to X that the NYPD was 'racist, anti-queer & a major threat to public safety' and called for defunding the force. Mamdani has also proposed creating a Department of Community Safety separate from the police department, which would respond to mental health calls. But the Democratic nominee is attempting to distance himself from these previous claims, calling the posts 'out of step' with his current stance on public safety. He recently met with the family of Officer Didarul Islam, one of the four people killed in a recent shooting in Midtown Manhattan. Republicans criticizing him seem more than willing to ignore the way President Donald Trump pardoned Jan. 6 rioters who attacked police officers, or his own criminal convictions. But he is the "law and order" president, for sure. And the GOP is the "law and order" party, right? Voters are increasingly agreeing with Mamdani on Gaza Another criticism from the right is that Mamdani is too critical of Israel. Fox News recently resurrected a clip of Mamdani from a 2024 panel where the mayoral candidate claimed, 'Israel is not a place, it is not a country.' Mamdani seems to be taking these attacks to heart. He recently said he would not use the phrase 'globalize the intifada,' and would also discourage others from using it. Mamdani had previously refused to condemn the phrase. On the other hand, Mamdani's criticisms of Israel proved to be popular with voters in the Democratic primary. A poll from Data for Progress and the Institute for Middle East Understanding Policy Project found that his 'support for Palestinian rights' was important for 96% of his voters, while his 'willingness to criticize the Israeli government' was important to 88% of his voters. Opinion: People are starving in Gaza. Why are we so comfortable just letting that happen? While conservatives are trying to attack Mamdani for his previous stances on Israel and his sympathy for the Palestinian people, it doesn't seem like it'll work. Democrats should listen to their voters, not conservatives, to know how to approach this issue. Only 8% of Democrats support Israel's actions in Gaza, according to a recent Gallup poll, while 71% of Republicans support it. Some Republicans are even breaking with the party to denounce mass starvation in the region, including Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Georgia, who recently called the crisis a "genocide." Republicans are afraid of what Mamdani stands for. Good. Mamdani won the primary largely thanks to his mobilization of young voters. It worked out for him: voters under 40 made up 40% of early voting turnout. Now, the question is whether they'll turn out for the general election. I'm hopeful that they will. I have personally seen the way my generation has reacted to Mamdani's campaign. There is a palpable excitement reminiscent of Barack Obama's first run for the presidency, an excitement fueled by the idea that the Democratic Party can change, in spite of itself. Opinion: Zohran Mamdani rallied Gen Z voters. We can't abandon him now. The reasons conservatives are criticizing Mamdani are the reasons people my age voted for him. We believe in moving funding from the NYPD into areas like mental health care and community building. We support Palestinian rights. We want to see that working-class New Yorkers can remain in this city. We see taxing corporations and the wealthy as a good thing. Some may call these things unrealistic, and they may have a point. There's no way New York City becomes a socialist utopia if Mamdani is elected, since he must work with the city council, state and national governments to achieve many of his campaign priorities. But his very election could signal to the Democratic Party that they should run to, not from, progressive politics. Mamdani's path to victory is not an easy one. He will continue to face criticism from the right throughout the next few months. But if polling is any indication, he's still likely to be the next mayor of the largest city in the United States. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter, @sara__pequeno
an hour ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
It's Trump's economy now. The latest financial numbers offer some warning signs
WASHINGTON (AP) — For all of President Donald Trump's promises of an economic 'golden age,' a spate of weak indicators this week told a potentially worrisome story as the impacts of his policies are coming into focus. Job gains are dwindling. Inflation is ticking upward. Growth has slowed compared to last year. More than six months into his term, Trump's blitz of tariff hikes and his new tax and spending bill have remodeled America's trading, manufacturing, energy and tax systems to his own liking. He's eager to take credit for any wins that might occur and is hunting for someone else to blame if the financial situation starts to totter. But as of now, this is not the boom the Republican president promised, and his ability to blame his Democratic predecessor, Joe Biden, for any economic challenges has faded as the world economy hangs on his every word and social media post. When Friday's jobs report turned out to be decidedly bleak, Trump ignored the warnings in the data and fired the head of the agency that produces the monthly jobs figures. 'Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can't be manipulated for political purposes,' Trump said on Truth Social, without offering evidence for his claim. 'The Economy is BOOMING.' It's possible that the disappointing numbers are growing pains from the rapid transformation caused by Trump and that stronger growth will return — or they may be a preview of even more disruption to come. Trump's economic plans are a political gamble Trump's aggressive use of tariffs, executive actions, spending cuts and tax code changes carries significant political risk if he is unable to deliver middle-class prosperity. The effects of his new tariffs are still several months away from rippling through the economy, right as many Trump allies in Congress will be campaigning in the midterm elections. 'Considering how early we are in his term, Trump's had an unusually big impact on the economy already,' said Alex Conant, a Republican strategist at Firehouse Strategies. 'The full inflationary impact of the tariffs won't be felt until 2026. Unfortunately for Republicans, that's also an election year.' The White House portrayed the blitz of trade frameworks leading up to Thursday's tariff announcement as proof of his negotiating prowess. The European Union, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia and other nations that the White House declined to name agreed that the U.S. could increase its tariffs on their goods without doing the same to American products. Trump simply set rates on other countries that lacked settlements. The costs of those tariffs — taxes paid on imports to the U.S. — will be most felt by many Americans in the form of higher prices, but to what extent remains uncertain. 'For the White House and their allies, a key part of managing the expectations and politics of the Trump economy is maintaining vigilance when it comes to public perceptions,' said Kevin Madden, a Republican strategist. Just 38% of adults approve of Trump's handling of the economy, according to a July poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs. That's down from the end of Trump's first term when half of adults approved of his economic leadership. The White House paints a rosier image, seeing the economy emerging from a period of uncertainty after Trump's restructuring and repeating the economic gains seen in his first term before the pandemic struck. 'President Trump is implementing the very same policy mix of deregulation, fairer trade, and pro-growth tax cuts at an even bigger scale – as these policies take effect, the best is yet to come,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said. Recent economic reports suggest trouble ahead The economic numbers over the past week show the difficulties that Trump might face if the numbers continue on their current path: — Friday's jobs report showed that U.S. employers have shed 37,000 manufacturing jobs since Trump's tariff launch in April, undermining prior White House claims of a factory revival. — Net hiring has plummeted over the past three months with job gains of just 73,000 in July, 14,000 in June and 19,000 in May — a combined 258,000 jobs lower than previously indicated. On average last year, the economy added 168,000 jobs a month. — A Thursday inflation report showed that prices have risen 2.6% over the year that ended in June, an increase in the personal consumption expenditures price index from 2.2% in April. Prices of heavily imported items, such as appliances, furniture, and toys and games, jumped from May to June. — On Wednesday, a report on gross domestic product — the broadest measure of the U.S. economy — showed that it grew at an annual rate of less than 1.3% during the first half of the year, down sharply from 2.8% growth last year. 'The economy's just kind of slogging forward,' said Guy Berger, senior fellow at the Burning Glass Institute, which studies employment trends. 'Yes, the unemployment rate's not going up, but we're adding very few jobs. The economy's been growing very slowly. It just looks like a 'meh' economy is continuing.' Trump's Fed attacks could unleash more inflation Trump has sought to pin the blame for any economic troubles on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, saying the Fed should cut its benchmark interest rates even though doing so could generate more inflation. Trump has publicly backed two Fed governors, Christoper Waller and Michelle Bowman, for voting for rate cuts at Wednesday's meeting. But their logic is not what the president wants to hear: They were worried, in part, about a slowing job market. But this is a major economic gamble being undertaken by Trump and those pushing for lower rates under the belief that mortgages will also become more affordable as a result and boost homebuying activity. His tariff policy has changed repeatedly over the last six months, with the latest import tax numbers serving as a substitute for what the president announced in April, which provoked a stock market sell-off. It might not be a simple one-time adjustment as some Fed board members and Trump administration officials argue. Trump didn't listen to the warnings on 'universal' tariffs Of course, Trump can't say no one warned him about the possible consequences of his economic policies. Biden, then the outgoing president, did just that in a speech last December at the Brookings Institution, saying the cost of the tariffs would eventually hit American workers and businesses. 'He seems determined to impose steep, universal tariffs on all imported goods brought into this country on the mistaken belief that foreign countries will bear the cost of those tariffs rather than the American consumer,' Biden said. 'I believe this approach is a major mistake.' Josh Boak And Christopher Rugber, The Associated Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
