Commentary: In farm-related Oregon policy, words matter

Published 10:15 am Wednesday, February 4, 2026

Calling family farms ‘factories’ does nothing to protect water quality, it only poisons public discourse, Farm Bureau leader writes

If you were ever to meet my friend Carol, it would become immediately evident the immense pride she has in her family’s small dairy farm on the Oregon Coast. Carol’s family has spent generations caring for their land and their cattle. When conditions allow, their cows spend time on pasture, and during inclement weather they are sheltered in a barn. Carol beams when she talks about her herd, and she is equally as proud when she sees others enjoying the dairy products her family produces.
Just like other livestock operations across the state, Carol’s farm is regulated by the Oregon Department of Agriculture. She follows nutrient management plans, implements practices to ensure manure is managed responsibly and kept out of waterways and works closely with regulators to stay in compliance. This is what stewardship looks like on the ground.
That reality stands in stark contrast to a Jan. 20 commentary written by Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen, which paints Oregon agriculture, including family farms like Carol’s, as careless industrial polluters. I’d like to offer a different perspective — and some much-needed clarity.
Words matter. Terms like “factory farm,” claims of manure being “dumped,” and size comparisons to “Olympic swimming pools” are not regulatory language or scientific measurements. They are rhetorical jabs used to provoke outrage and obscure the reality of how Oregon’s livestock producers are regulated, monitored and held accountable.
Late last year, the Oregon departments of Agriculture and Environmental Quality proposed the renewal of a permit governing how livestock operations manage manure and nutrients. This process is rigorous and grounded in science.
There is no legal or regulatory category called “factory farm.” Oregon regulates Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) based on animal numbers, site conditions and environmental risk, not on arbitrary notions of scale. Regardless of size, these multi-generational family farms are producing food for millions of Americans while operating under some of the most stringent environmental regulations in the nation.
The Jan. 20 commentary describes a system where manure is labeled as “waste” that is “dumped”, when it is a valuable and tightly regulated agricultural input. Manure replaces synthetic fertilizer, improves soil structure, plays a key role in regenerative and organic agriculture and is used under state-approved nutrient management plans. Oregon CAFO permits prohibit discharges to surface water, require setbacks and buffers, limit application rates to crop needs and mandate extensive record-keeping.
The repeated use of dramatic statistics — such as converting manure volumes into “Olympic swimming pool” equivalents — may provoke a reaction but offers little meaningful insight. By the same logic, Oregon’s dairies could easily be described in terms of their benefits: producing enough food each year to supply millions of Americans with milk, cheese and protein while supporting thousands of jobs and generating hundreds of millions of dollars in rural economic activity. Scale alone is not evidence of harm; rather it reflects the efficiency required to feed a growing population.
Claims that permitted livestock operations are the cause of Eastern Oregon’s nitrate challenges ignores research showing that contamination is a multi-source legacy issue. Septic systems, shallow aquifers and long-past land use decisions all play a role. Many current CAFO permit requirements were adopted specifically to address these concerns, and modern farms are far more regulated than those of previous generations.
Assertions that Oregon’s proposed permit lacks basic safeguards also misrepresent existing protections. Storage structures are regulated based on engineering standards and site-specific risk. Application restrictions account for soil conditions, weather and proximity to waterways. Violations are enforceable through inspections, penalties and corrective actions.
Monitoring and transparency are not absent, nor are regulators letting agriculture “off the hook”, as claimed. In 2024, 330 Oregon farms required a CAFO permit. That same year, the Oregon Department of Agriculture conducted 604 site inspections of permitted CAFOs and non-permitted livestock operations.
Oregon’s livestock producers are not faceless corporations. They are families who live on the land they steward, drink the same water as their neighbors and depend on clean soil and water for their livelihoods. They also provide essential food, stable jobs, wildlife habitat and economic opportunity in rural communities that are too often overlooked, yet frequently targeted.
Debates about environmental protection should be rooted in good faith, not caricatures and loaded language. Calling family farms “factories” does nothing to protect water quality, it only poisons public discourse. Oregon’s CAFO permit renewal should be guided by science and balance, not charged and misleading narratives that undermine the very people who help feed us.

Angi Bailey is president of the Oregon Farm Bureau Federation, Oregon’s most inclusive agriculture organization. More than 6,500 Farm Bureau member families raise all of Oregon’s 220-plus agricultural commodities, from hops to hazelnuts, cattle to cranberries. Originally published by Oregon Capital Chronicle.