Title
Resolution - A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mansfield, Texas, Adopting a Report Prepared by the City Health Officer in Accordance with the Texas Agriculture Code, Title 8, Chapter 251, Section 251.0055, "Limitations on City Governmental Requirements Applicable Within Corporate Boundaries"; Making Certain Findings as Required by Chapter 251 of the Agriculture Code; Providing for the Incorporation of Premises; Finding that the Meeting at which this Resolution is Passed is Open to the Public as Required by Law; And Declaring an Effective Date
Requested Action
Adoption of the City Health Officer Report in accordance with the Texas Agriculture Code, Title 8, Chapter 251.005.
Recommendation
Adoption of the City Health Officer Report in accordance with the Texas Agriculture Code, Title 8, Chapter 251.005.
Description/History
The State of Texas Legislature adopted House Bill (H.B.) No. 1750 during the 88th Legislative Session (Regular), accomplishing the following:
1. Made small amendments to the expand the definition of “agricultural operation”;
2. Made the limitations on city regulations apply to all “agricultural operations” located within the City, rather than those annexed in the future; and
3. Expanded the requirements for a City to adopt any “governmental requirement” that applies to an “agricultural operation”.
Most notable of this new legislation is that a City “may not impose a ‘governmental requirement’ that applies to ‘agricultural operations’ located within the city unless” the City meets the expanded requirements of the Act. These expanded requirements were introduced by adding Section 251.0055, requiring city governmental requirements within corporate boundaries to support all requirements with a report by a City Health Officer.
The expanded definition of “agricultural operation” includes the raising or keeping of livestock and poultry, of which the City of Mansfield Code of Ordinances addressed in its regulations at the time of the adoption of this Act.
Section 251.0055(a) of the Act allows a City to impose a “governmental requirement” on an “agricultural operation” provided that:
i) there is clear and convincing evidence that:
(a) the purposes of the requirement cannot be addressed through less restrictive means; and
(b) the requirement is necessary to protect persons who reside in the immediate vicinity or persons on public property in the immediate vicinity of the agricultural operation from the imminent danger of: explosion, flooding, an infestation of vermin or insects, physical injury, the spread of an identified contagious disease that is directly attributable to the agricultural operation, the removal of lateral or subjacent support, an identified source of contamination of water supplies, radiation, improper storage of toxic materials, crops planted or vegetation grown in a manner that will cause traffic hazards, or discharge of firearms or other weapons;
ii) the governing body of the city makes a finding by resolution, based on a report, that the requirement is necessary to protect public health; and
iii) the requirement is not otherwise prohibited by this section of the Act.
Of final significance, the Act prescribes that prior to making a finding by resolution, as required, the City must obtain and review a report prepared by the city health officer or consultant that:
1) identifies the evidence of the health hazards related to agricultural operations;
2) determines the necessity of regulations and the manner in which agricultural operation should be regulated;
3) states whether the manner of regulation will restrict or prohibit a generally accepted agricultural practice listed in the manual prepared by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension; and
4) if the regulation prohibits a generally accepted agricultural practice listed in the manual prepared by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, the report must include an explanation of why the report recommends a manner of regulation that will restrict such a generally accepted practice allowed.
Justification
In order to address the updated state law requirements, the Department of Regulatory Compliance began its review of the current ordinance language. The current regulations for livestock and domestic fowl (poultry) keeping were largely based on zoning, which would no longer be permitted under state law. Additionally, the regulations required livestock owners to apply for a livestock permit, to be renewed annually.
To meet the scope of the Act, the Department of Regulatory Compliance, upon adoption of this report by resolution, will amend its current ordinance regulations to remove the zoning designation restrictions for the keeping of livestock and domestic fowl. The annual registration requirements instituted via livestock permits will remain in effect, however the authority for Animal Care and Control to deny or revoke said permit is removed.
Regarding amendments to the keeping of fowl provisions, the permitted quantity of fowl allowed on residential properties will no longer be calculated based solely on lot size, but on the minimum distance between domestic fowl housing and primary residential structures. Additional language is added regarding domestic fowl containment, requiring that the animals not be at-large at any time. The regulation prohibiting the keeping of roosters is amended to allow them on poultry farms. The regulations prohibiting the keeping or maintaining of fowl within 100 feet of a private water well remained unchanged. Lastly, the amendments provide new and clarified requirements specific to how food, manure, and other animal wastes are treated, prepared, stored, and disposed of.
Each manner of regulation was identified in the report for individual consideration of the necessity of the requirement, the evidence of the health hazards associated with the requirement, and an analysis of whether it would restrict or prohibit a generally accepted agricultural practice; and if so, why the City still supports its implementation. The Department of Regulatory Compliance identified Rebecca St. John, M.P.H., R.S., the Consumer Health Supervisor, as the City Health Officer to advise on the report.
Major concerns identified throughout the report are the increased risk of the spread of zoonotic diseases, which can spread from infected livestock and poultry to persons and even other animals. While there is evidence that at-large poultry and livestock can cause accidents, damage to property, and other potential physical injuries, the risks of contagion were considered one of the highest priorities in mitigating risks. Livestock and poultry are known carriers of zoonotic bacterium like Campylobacter, Salmonellosis, Avian Influenza, and E. Coli. All these pathogens are known to cause illness, with children and the elderly presenting an at-risk population in which more severe illness or even fatality can occur.
The annual registration of livestock via permit mitigates the risk of the spread of contagious disease, as well as the prohibition of livestock at-large, by providing a mechanism through which the City can reduce its potential liability for the health and safety of its residents during an incident. These permits provide Animal Care and Control Officers with the necessary information to identify the owner and property to which the livestock should be returned efficiently and quickly when responding to an incident.
It should also be noted that the mitigation of physical harm and spread of zoonotic diseases due to animals being at-large also protects other, separate agricultural operations from the risk of becoming contaminated and suffering potential losses in products and animals. The Department of Regulatory Compliance considered this, although separate from the specific language of the Act, as an important factor in consideration. This is due to the “Policy” of Chapter 251 of the Texas Agriculture Code, which outlines the intent of all its regulations: “Food security being essential, it is the policy of this state to conserve, protect, and encourage development and improvement of agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products…”. The City’s proposed regulations support equitable protection of agricultural operations from the health hazards posed by neighboring agricultural operations.
The potential risks of the spread of identified contagious diseases directly attributable to the agricultural operation also inform many of the regulations posed in the keeping of fowl section. As noted earlier, the permitted quantity of fowl allowed on residential properties will no longer be calculated based solely on lot size, but on the minimum distance between fowl housing and primary residential structures. The minimum distance requirements prevent the overuse and overcrowding of residential poultry operations, where evidence shows that infected animals shed pathogens within their environment, including their housing, feeding containers, equipment and tools, in water troughs, and through their waste. These pathogens can be washed over into neighboring residences during rain events, especially in conditions in which there is insufficient separation between the agricultural operation and adjacent residential structures. (It should be noted that these concerns are also addressed regarding the contamination of water sources and stormwater systems; mitigating risks through the prohibition of keeping domestic fowl within 100 feet of a private water well.) The report also provided evidence that setbacks of enclosures (coops) is further supported by the Texas AgriLife Extension manual as a generally accepted agricultural practice, as improper lighting and ventilation can reduce fresh air circulation. This can directly impact the humidity and temperature levels inside enclosures, where poor environmental conditions create circumstances which are favorable to increased pathogen production.
Other regulations whose purpose is to protect the public health from the spread of contagious diseases are those regarding the proper storage and disposal of food and animal waste, although from different carriers. The Department of Regulatory Compliance also considered the impacts of agricultural operations on its urban wildlife population, which may be attracted to uncontained domestic fowl, unsecured animal feed, and improperly stored or disposed animal wastes. Without these regulations, the City could see an increase in its nuisance wildlife population, such as coyotes, raccoons, and foxes, which can endanger local small pets and spread additional zoonotic diseases to other animals and residents. These unmitigated conditions can also attract vermin and insects, of which many like mice, rats, and flies are known carriers of pathogens which can endanger public health. The same concerns are also considered in the findings of the report which show that agricultural operations can lead to more stormwater runoff that has the potential to increase mosquito breeding sites, which could become linked to increased West Nile Virus in the local mosquito populations.
One of the final mechanisms through which contagious diseases can spread is through the consumption of infected animal products. To mitigate these risks, the Department of Regulatory Compliance maintains its regulation prohibiting the sale of domestic fowl meat byproducts. As the report finds, the activity of selling contaminated products only increases the speed and distance the pathogen spreads, increasing the risk of illness and outbreaks. The department is also confident deferring to the findings and warnings of the Texas Meat and Poultry Act, which states, “It is essential in the public interest that the health and welfare of consumers be protected by assuring that meat and meat food products distributed to them are wholesome [and] unadulterated.” The city’s regulation does not prohibit the consumption of fowl meat by-products for personal use, but instead intends to reduce the risks of exposure of the public as a whole to potentially contaminated products which can cause illness, injury, and in some cases, death.
One of the final health hazards addressed in the regulations is threats of physical injury due to keeping roosters in residential agricultural operations. As mentioned previously, this provision is actually expanded, eliminating the complete prohibition of roosters without restriction. This regulation is expanded to allow roosters on poultry farms, which are agriculturally zoned and principally devoted to the raising of poultry for commercial purposes. The intent of this amendment is to balance both the needs of agricultural operations, such as large-scale commercial poultry production, with the imperative of the City to mitigate risks to the public of physical injury caused by attacks from roosters. Balancing these interests must be considered when, as is evident in the report, there are documented cases of roosters causing various injuries, sometimes with serious consequences, and even instances which led to fatality.
In review of the report and advice from the City Health Officer, all the evidentiary sources and justification provided were found to meet the requirements imposed by the Act. The report cites research, studies, and findings from over 20 data sources that the Department of Regulatory Compliance believes to be credible, including the Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine, local and regional public health departments, and various academic journals.
Further reviews of the report were sought by third-party contributors which are separate from the City. Feedback, critiques, and suggestions were solicited from four independent reviewers and incorporated through ongoing iterations of the report. These reviewers included: Shaye Atwood, M.Ed., Jerry Knight STEM Academy Principal and Agricultural Leadership Coordinator for the Mansfield Independent School District; Carine Moura, M.B.A., Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of Texas Health Hospital Mansfield; Dr. Laura Phipps, Dr.P.H., M.P.H., C.P.H., R.S., Clinical Associate Professor for the Department of Kinesiology Public Health Program and Faculty Affiliate of the Multi-Interprofessional Center for Health Informatics of the University of Texas at Arlington; and Lysianne P. Dube, MSN, FNP-C, Family Nurse Practitioner. The department finds that these reviewers represent various disciplines that relate directly to agriculture, public health, and the medical practice industry.
Funding Source
N/A
Prepared By
Nicolette Ricciuti, Director of Regulatory Compliance
Department of Regulatory Compliance
817-276-4264