A Polk County judge last week dismissed a lawsuit filed by a Wisconsin industry group that sought to overturn a community’s regulations put in place to prevent damage from proposed large-scale livestock operations. Judge Angeline Winton’s decision keeps in place the ordinance passed by the Polk County town of Eureka, despite a challenge by a local couple that was backed by the Wisconsin Manufacturing & Commerce trade group.

Eureka, which borders the St. Croix River north of St. Croix Falls, is at the center of a region targeted for new Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), which pose threats to lakes, rivers, and groundwater. The town was part of a coalition of local governments that worked together to develop an ordinance that would require CAFO operators to provide evidence and assurances that their plans to prevent pollution will work.

CAFO opponents celebrated the decision as a win for clean water and local control against an industry that has challenged Wisconsin’s regulation of agriculture in several ways.

“This industry wants free rein to operate outside of any laws,” said Polk County farmer and advocate Lisa Doerr. “We owe many thanks to local leaders in Eureka and around Wisconsin who are willing to protect us.”

The WMC sued last year on behalf of two Eureka residents and taxpayers, Ben and Jenny Binversie, saying the local rules violated state law that preempts what municipal or county governments can do to regulate agriculture. The lawsuit was based on the argument that the town was misspending tax dollars by enforcing the ordinance.

“Taxpayers are unfairly and unlawfully on the hook to pay for the legal fees, administrative fees and inspection fees under an ordinance that is clearly in violation of state law,” said WMC Litigation Center Executive Director Scott Rosenow when the lawsuit was filed.

Wisconsin state law forbids local governments from passing agricultural regulations that are more restrictive than the state, unless the municipality undertakes a fact-finding process to identify science that supports specific rules. Eureka and neighboring towns undertook such a process, and the local ordinance challenged by the Binversies and WMC was the result.

Eureka argued that the Binversies did not have grounds to sue because they have not suffered harm under the ordinance. They do not own any livestock, have not applied for a CAFO permit, no tax dollars have been spent on CAFO permitting, and more.

“Plaintiffs challenge the validity of an Ordinance without alleging that they or anyone else has been subject to the Ordinance and without alleging that they have been harmed as taxpayers,” Eureka’s lawyers wrote. “More steps can be taken by Plaintiffs – they can either apply for a CAFO permit to see how the Ordinance is applied or they can wait to see if someone else applies for a CAFO permit to see if the taxpayers do in fact incur any costs.”

Judge Winton agreed with Eureka and dismissed the Binversies and WMC’s complaint on its merits, and with prejudice, which means it is not eligible to be brought before another court. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to reimburse the Town of Eureka for legal costs.

Eureka is south of Trade Lake, the site of a proposed hog CAFO by a company called Cumberland LLC. The Cumberland proposal originally called for up to 26,000 hogs and 7 million gallons of manure spread on nearby fields each year. A revised proposal was put forth in 2023, which called for about 19,000 hogs, but no further progress has been reported since that time.

Local residents are concerned that Cumberland marked the first of what would be many hog operations in the area. While currently concentrated in Iowa, the facilities are seeking to spread out geographically to reduce disease risk, among other reasons. There have been few specific proposals in recent years, as industry groups have lobbied and sued to weaken Wisconsin’s environmental protections.

“WMC’s lawsuit against Eureka is part of a three-prong strategy by this industry with one goal — no regulation,” said Doerr. “They use lawsuits to intimidate local officials who pass legal ordinances. At the same time, they have a lawsuit challenging any state authority. Finally, their Madison lobbyists are pushing state legislators to ban all local control.”