SALEM — Negotiations over Oregon’s laws for confined animal feeding operations have veered in a different but not entirely new direction in the Legislature.

Lawmakers are considering a slate of stricter requirements for new or expanded CAFO operations, building on proposals floated several years ago that died in committee.

“It’s a controversial issue, no doubt, but I really believe there are solutions here and I believe we can get there this session,” Sen. Michael Dembrow, D-Portland said.

The latest proposal is a big departure from the versions of Senate Bill 85 that were bandied about for several months in the Senate Natural Resources Committee.

Up until now, lawmakers have largely focused on proposals to suspend issuing new CAFO permits for several years until regulators decide how to modernize the state’s regulations.

The wisdom or fallacy of imposing a moratorium on large CAFOs was thoroughly debated in three earlier public hearings on the bill, but those arguments weren’t rehashed before the Senate Rules Committee during an April 27 meeting.

The committee instead served as a fresh audience for an amended version of the bill, based on proposals from 2019 and 2020, that would scrutinize CAFO applicants more closely rather than totally suspend new permits.

Halting the construction of CAFOs for up to eight years amounted to “a fancy way to kick the can down the road,” so lawmakers decided to change the thrust of the bill, Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, said. “This is a tough issue to solve now, and there’s no reason to think it would be much easier after a moratorium.”

Dembrow said the updated bill intends to draw lessons from the wastewater violations and animal welfare problems at Lost Valley Farm, a major dairy operation near Boardman that was eventually shut down by farm regulators and sold in bankruptcy proceedings.

“It revealed flaws in the system that needed to be fixed,” Dembrow said.

The newest version of SB 85 proposes a multi-step process for CAFO applications, beginning with a preliminary consultation with Oregon’s farm, water and environmental agencies.

Once the CAFO is built or expanded, it would need to pass inspections to ensure wastewater systems work properly before livestock or poultry are brought into the facility.

Another key element would be the water supply plans in which CAFO applicants explain the quantities and sources of water needed to run their facilities.

The requirement would apply immediately to new CAFO permits and would be phased in for existing operations over the next two years.

CAFOs now can pump unlimited amounts of groundwater for their animals without a water rights permit, Dembrow said.

“That’s obviously not true for any other type of agricultural operation, where you need to secure water rights,” he said.

This “stockwater exemption” was established before the state had encountered aquifer depletion problems or massive livestock operations, he said.

Under SB 85, the stockwater exemption would be limited to 12,000 gallons per day for new CAFOs, though they could pump larger amounts if they obtain valid water rights, Dembrow said.

“In an era of water constraints, having secure water is really going be critical for the operation itself and for us as a state,” he said.

The bill would allow local governments to analyze the land use compatibility of new CAFOs and prohibit the facilities within a half-mile of schools, retirement homes or medical care facilities.

New CAFOs would also need to be at least a half-mile away from fish-bearing streams and 100 yards from neighboring property lines.

State regulators would review best management practices for animal welfare at CAFOs and potentially develop recommendations based on an upcoming federal study on air emissions.

The various components of SB 85 are meant to protect neighbors and the environment without being overly burdensome on such livestock facilities, Dembrow said.

“It builds on and improves our system of permitting CAFO operations, he said.

Critics have long pushed lawmakers to adopt tougher laws on CAFOs but their efforts have been galvanized in recent years by opposition to Lost Valley Farm and several large poultry facilities in the Willamette Valley.

Large CAFOs are cast as “factory farms” by critics, who argue lax oversight by federal and state governments has enabled the facilities to harm animals and the environment.

Defenders of these livestock and poultry operations counter that pollution and labor regulations — far from being inadequate — are so stringent they’ve forced family farms to grow to CAFO proportions, owing to the economy of scale.

Though the latest proposal “did involve some serious compromises” among these stakeholders, they haven’t fully accepted the amended version of SB 85, so further debate is likely, Dembrow said.

“This will be a stretch for many,” he said.