SALEM — Critics of large confined animal feeding operations seem ready to accept tougher standards for new facilities instead of a years-long moratorium originally considered by Oregon lawmakers.

Though the bill no longer aims to halt new CAFO permits, the state’s major farm organizations remain opposed to the additional restrictions proposed for such livestock operations.

Steeper barriers to building or expanding CAFOs aren’t necessary to protect rural communities or the environment, according to opponents of Senate Bill 85, who suspect its true goal is “bleeding out” animal agriculture.

“You can call it not a moratorium, but it’s so restrictive that it’s going to lead to a moratorium,” said Brandon Hazenberg, a dairy farmer from St. Paul, Ore.

Animal advocates and environmental nonprofits are waging a regulatory war on livestock production, intending for the cumulative burden to scare off future generations of farmers, he said.

“This is about pressuring livestock operations with the hopes they can’t stay in business,” said Megan Cozart, whose family raises poultry near Dayton, Ore.

Plans for expansive new chicken barns in the Willamette Valley have recently stiffened resistance to CAFOs, which had already suffered a black eye due to wastewater violations and other problems at a major dairy near Boardman, Ore.

An early version of SB 85 would have stopped construction of the largest tier of CAFOs for up to eight years, giving regulators time to consider overhauling the rules for such facilities.

Lawmakers steering the negotiations recently abandoned that idea, concluding it was just “a fancy way to kick the can down the road,” and have instead proposed more rigorous planning and inspection requirements for new CAFOs.

New CAFOs would have to be built at least 100 yards from neighboring property lines and could be disallowed within a half-mile of schools or fish-bearing streams under the bill’s most recent amendment, which was discussed during a May 4 meeting of the Senate Rules Committee.

New facilities could pump no more than 12,000 gallons of groundwater per day without a water rights permit, imposing an unprecedented cap on the state’s “stockwater exemption” that supporters claim is justified by declining aquifers.

“Right now the only sector that is entitled to limitless groundwater for their purposes is the sector we’re addressing here,” said Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland.

Organizations that supported the CAFO moratorium have largely stuck by the bill, endorsing the new strategy with varying degrees of enthusiasm before the Senate Rules Committee.

Supporters called the bill an imperfect step in the right direction, or at least a welcome departure from the status quo.

They argued that it’s not unduly burdensome on livestock operations, since existing CAFOs are mostly “grandfathered in” under the current rules. While new operations would face groundwater restrictions, they’d be able to surpass the 12,000-gallon daily limit with a valid water rights permit.

“Nobody is talking about an absolute cap on water use, just water use without a permit,” said Brian Posewitz, staff attorney for the Waterwatch of Oregon nonprofit.

Some proponents pushed back against the notion that SB 85 is motivated by the desire to end animal agriculture.

“Farmers are not a monolith on this issue,” said Alice Morrison, co-director of the Friends of Family Farmers nonprofit.

Local growers share the concerns of neighbors who worry about the water impacts of massive new poultry operations, said Ivan Maluski, a farmer near Scio, Ore.

“Just know there are livestock producers who support this bill,” he said.

The purpose of SB 85 isn’t to drive livestock production out of Oregon, but rather to protect small farms from getting “destroyed” by large-scale out-of-state agribusiness, said Astrid Doornenbal, a dairy farmer near Scio, Ore.

“We are not against farming. We are not against CAFOs,” she said. “Dear friends, we are not against you. We are on the same side.”

Apart from the philosophical goals underpinning the bill, opponents said the legislation is both too broad and overly prescriptive.

Regulations for CAFOs have traditionally been specific to water quality, but SB 85 would introduce rules for water quantity and local land use control, said Lauren Poor, the Oregon Farm Bureau’s vice president of government and legal affairs.

“As it relates to Oregon water law, the bill is duplicative,” she said. “It creates confusion for water users as to which statute would apply in a given situation.”

Beef cattle producers complained the bill would effectively punish their industry due to controversies over the Boardman “mega-dairy” and the Willamette Valley poultry facilities.

“The bad thing about this bill is it lumps us all together,” said Diana Wirth of Klamath Falls, Ore. “We don’t operate the same.”

Restrictions for CAFOs under SB 85 would discourage the establishment of new feedlots in Oregon, ensuring that beef cattle will continue being shipped out of state for feeding, said Todd Nash, president of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association.

“Please don’t do any more harm to an industry that is already minimalized,” he said.