The Gary Post-Tribune has run a long series of articles calling IDEM to account for its varied short comings. Gitte Laasby continues this process today, covering the BP Plant permit:

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management refuses to answer certain questions about the timing of a public hearing on BP’s air permit.

Among them: Who at IDEM was responsible for ignoring state law and providing inadequate notice of the hearing?

As the Post-Tribune revealed in April, IDEM’s chief of the permits branch of the Office of Air Quality, Matt Stuckey, e-mailed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in January to ask how long was the required notice. He was told state law applies.

State law specifies it’s 30 days, but IDEM scheduled a hearing with 18 to 20 days notice.

Now IDEM won’t say who at the agency made the call to ignore state law.

Link.

Well, I’ve been out for a week, so let’s catch up:

First off, as Doug Masson says, VOTE!

On the CAFO Front, the PEW Center’s long-awaited report came out last week, the PDF is here: report. Big agriculture has been criticizing the report for months before it was released. From the looks of the report, they have cause to be concerned. . . .

Union County is looking at CAFO regulations more carefully in light of local uproar over a new dairy: Pal Item coverage.

Meanwhile, Randolph county is stuck in navel gazing mode while CAFO’s proliferate across it: Will Fourth Randolph CAFO Committee Make a Difference is the title of a piece in the Star Press by Joy Leiker:

The creation of this latest committee was announced Monday as commissioners gave reports on areas they had been asked to study in January, the same day they approved a CAFO moratorium. Following legal challenges, the moratorium was lifted two months later after the county conceded it never had the legal authority to impose a moratorium in the first place.

This group, like at least two others in the past, will include both proponents and opponents of CAFOs, specifically, representatives of Farm Bureau and Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Randolph County. But this new committee also will include a county commissioner.

“We’re not going to reach an agreement just sitting here,” Commissioner Kathy Beumer said, noting that a commissioner should join the discussion, and negotiations, since ultimately a county ordinance will need commission approval.

Last week Ms. Leiker reported on CAFO’s role in local politics: CAFOs Rule Randolph Commissioners Race.

IDEM clears backlog of 263 wastewater permits, nets award from the EPA:

IDEM received a two-gold-star award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, one of eight states in the nation. IDEM received the award for addressing the historical permit backlog and prioritizing issuing permits. The goals were achieved two years in a row, in 2006 and 2007.

(Post-Tribune). The lesson - crank the permits out.

In Michigan, the Sierra Club won a victory at the Michigan Court of Appeals:

The case, Sierra Club Mackinac Chapter v. Department of Environmental Quality, dealt with large farming entities known as concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, and the manner in which the DEQ issues permits for the use of manure as a fertilizer. There are 198 CAFOs in the state of Michigan, facilities where farmers raise and feed thousands of pigs or cows at a time, or upwards of 100,000 chickens or more. Such facilities generate an enormous amount of manure and farmers often try to reduce the amount they have to dispose of by using that manure as fertilizer on nearby pastures and farmland.

(Michigan Messenger story by Ed Brayton). The decision agreed with the Club’s contention that the public has the right to access not only the original proposal in the permit process, but also the Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan (CNMP), so the public can see what the farms are doing with the manure.

Also in Michigan, check out the Michigan DEQ’s Statement of its Case against mega-dairy Vreba-Hoff filed last month. In it, the DEQ lists several violations and lists thousands of dollars in fines the environmental enforcer is seeking against the dairy for alleged violations of a prior consent decree.

The Union of Concerned Scientists just release a report raising issue with the way Congress has streamed billions of dollars into the pockets of big agriculture concerns - leading directly to the bloom of factory farming around the nation. The report, CAFOs Uncovered: The Untold Costs of CAFOS, claims that the federal farm bills have shifted the true costs of these mega farms to local governments and communities who have to deal with the byproducts:

Misguided federal farm policies have encouraged the growth of massive confined animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, by shifting billions of dollars in environmental, health and economic costs to taxpayers and communities, according to a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). As a result, CAFOs now produce most of the nation’s beef, pork, chicken, dairy and eggs, even though there are more sophisticated and efficient farms in operation.

“CAFOs aren’t the natural result of agricultural progress, nor are they the result of rational planning or market forces,” said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist in UCS’s Food and Environment Program and author of the report. “Ill-advised policies created them, and it will take new policies to replace them with more sustainable, environmentally friendly production methods.”

The PEW report is due to come out next week.

The Star Press Reports today:

About 600 gallons of hog manure entered Martindale Creek when a hose broke Tuesday as Goldsboro, N.C.-based Maxwell Farms was land applying manure to a farm field.

The incident was reported to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management by Maxwell at 9:17 a.m. Maxwell constructed a dam to prevent the manure from spreading downstream.

“Some made its way under a bridge at U.S. 36 near Modoc,” said IDEM spokesman Barry Sneed. After being contained, the manure was removed from the creek by a vacuum truck.
“They did a great job of responding, so it did not have an impact,” Sneed said.

Asked whether Maxwell faced a fine over the incident, Sneed said, “i doubt it because they were so responsive. It was just an accident — equipment failure.”

Seth Slabaugh.

Word was that local anti-CAFO activists and local farmers were going to sit down and come to an agreement on proposed CAFO rules for Randolph County. That was a few years ago, but several CAFO’s later, a moratorium and a retreat from a moratorium and there are still no real CAFO rules in Randolph County.

Where does the “bipartisan” group stand? Well, this month county commissioners have heard a proposal from the Farm Bureau and a counter proposal from Rachel Carpenter, a member of Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Randolph County (ECCRC):

ECCRC members are focused on the environmental affects of the hog industry, and the group includes residents from all corners of Randolph County.

In the suggestions submitted by Farm Bureau and ECCRC, the two biggest issues are lot sizes and setbacks.

The ordinance rejected by the county earlier this year provided for a 40-acre minimum for CAFOs and CFOs. The Farm Bureau wants to cut that in half, while ECCRC wants to maintain the 40-acre minimum.

With setbacks, the Farm Bureau wants to go back to the original Area Planning Commission ordinance, which included a 1,000-foot barrier between a CAFO and home, or other protected use. At the last minute before the ordinance’s approval in late December, that setback was increased from 1,000 to 1,320 feet, a move farmers opposed, saying it dramatically cut the total acres available for CAFO and CFO development.

ECCRC wants to maintain the 1,320-foot distance, but measure it from property lines, rather than from a neighboring home, as has been the plan.

Commissioners took no action on either plan.

Star Press, Joy Leiker, reporting.

I generally leave the coverage of new Indiana Appellate decisions in the capable hands of Marcia Oddi over at the Indiana Law Blog, but I wanted to highlight an appeal dealing with a CAFO issue that Marcia covered last Friday. I think you can see some of the challenges facing both the farmers and the surrounding property owners through a case like this.

Robert & Melinda Sexton, Stephanie & Craig Flinn, David & Gail Helt, et.al. v. Jackson County Board of Zoning Appeals and members, et.al. is an Indiana Court of Appeals decision that reversed a decision by Judge William Vance in the Jackson County Circuit Court.

Judge Vance found that the petitioners did not have proper legal standing to challenge the BZA’s granting of a permit for construction of a CAFO in the county - an important issue - because they were able to show that the granting of the permit would cause them a loss of property value. The court said:

Here, the issue is the operation of an 8,000 hog CAFO—the odors associated with such an operation alone presents a much different set of acts than the setback variance.

The petitioners had called a former township assessor at the hearing before the BZA, and he said:

The first thing that has to happen if this hog operation goes in, is the neighborhood value will have to be lowered from a good to a fair or a poor. . . . [T]here’s some houses like Flynns [sic], Bowmans and Jerry Marsh’s, David Helt’s there’s some of them that the Sexton’s house, there’s two of them there that are pretty new houses, Steve Bowman’s sister just built a new house up there. I wouldn’t be surprised if they wouldn’t drop 30 percent, I don’t think it would be out of the question. So the property values will decrease in this area.

The appeals court found this sufficient to establish standing to sue. The second issue asserted a peculiar violation of Indiana’s open door law (IC 5-14-1.5-1, et cetera):  The petitioners claimed that members of the BZA started mumbling during the hearing - keeping the public and the recording devices from picking up on what was said. The trial court did not consider this 20 minutes of blank tape (sound familiar) issue, and the appeals court held that they should have.

At this point, the decision of the appeals court will not become final until May 18, 2008, and before that time either party might ask the court to reconsider the decision or seek to send it to the Indiana Supreme Court. If the decision does become final, the case goes back to Judge Vance for reconsideration.

One lesson from this case is that these things can grind on for a very long time: The original BZA hearing occurred on October 11, 2005, so 2 and a half years later, folks are still waiting to see what will happen with this CAFO.

Yesterday, the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production released a survey of state laws governing factory farming, a survey prepared along with the National Conference of State Legislatures. The survey is the warm-up for the release of the much-anticipated full report from PEW. From the pres release:

The survey highlights the patchwork of regulation from state to state, and in many cases, a complete lack of regulation in areas that are essential to protecting public health and the environment.  While many states do have regulations beyond federal requirements, it is clear that the regulation has not caught up with the CAFO model of food animal production.  Kentucky, for example, is contemplating whether or not to even continue regulating CAFOs.  And other states, like New Mexico, have limited policies on animal feeding operations and rely on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to regulate CAFOs in their states. What is actually being done to regulate CAFOs within the EPA delegated states is obscure.  South Dakota refused to respond to the survey and Mississippi responded only minimally.  It should be noted that all information requested from state agencies is supposed to be available to the public.

The Pal-Item put up an featured editorial today: A State Role for CAFOs. Not only does the title not make any sense, the opinion piece misses the point of much of the local outcry over CAFO’s. I would boil the errors down to 3 big ones:

Taking the 3rd point first, I have said again and again, when you meet the folks who are upset with a CAFO, you generally find out it is people who are closest to the big farms. These people tend to be rural folks who have lived out in the country for decades - if not generations. Many of them have farmed and farm themselves. The picture of CAFO opponents as uninformed city folks is used to to undercut the complaints: “You just don’t understand farming.” This is far from the case. I have worked with dozens of Indiana residents fighting factory farms and this picture is just not true.

The most offensive claim along these lines comes with this sentence: “Environmental activists have every right to imagine farming under a more romantic, 19th century ideal. But does that drive us any closer to actual policy?” So people who are concerned with ground water contamination, clean air and healthy streams and rivers are automatically Luddites?

The editorial argues for state level CAFO control and says that state policy makers should rely on science, specifically, research from Purdue, a predominant ag school. But why should local communities trust the state to protect the quality of life (and property values) of its citizens after the last 4 years of CAFO promotion by the state? Further, what advice would you expect to come from an Ag school about CAFO regulation? Why wouldn’t we want our state policy makers to hear from scientists who study ground water contamination? Watershed protection? Air quality and health?

What policy makers need to do is throw aside the “emotional” claims about the “right to farm” and face up to the full impacts of factory farming. Only once you consider the needs of all citizens and the environment they live in in relation to these mega farms can sensible policy be made.

The Madison Courier has a piece up today from Peggy Vlerebome covering state democratic races, from the presidential campaign to the governor’s race. The piece quotes Jim Schellinger and Jill Long Thompson, the 2 democratic candidates for governor. The piece claims that it is not only the interesting presidential nomination fight that is attracting Republicans to the democratic primary, but CAFO backlash:

Not everyone in the audience was a Democrat. Several local people who usually vote Republican were there, such as Jae Breitweiser. She said it was her second Democratic Party annual dinner and that she has voted back and forth between parties.

One issue that seems to have figured in to that is confined animal feeding operations, a hot topic in Jefferson County, as several veterans of the CAFO conflicts were at the dinner. Both Democratic candidates for governor mentioned CAFOs.

Schellinger said he would “crack down on the CAFOs.”
“This isn’t farming,” he said. “This is industry, and it should be regulated as industry.”

Long Thompson said she would “make sure they are in compliance with the law, and I think we need to strengthen legislation.”

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear is the title of the May Vanity Fair article by Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele. The piece tracks the company’s grip on the seed business and its move into the milk business through rBGH.

Continuing it’s focus on IDEM, the Gary Post-Tribune asks if the agency’s failure to fill the position of environmental liaison for the last year is hampering citizen access to information about the agency: Vacant IDEM post inhibits info flow, some activists say.

World trend against CAFO’s? Ben Block with the Worldwatch Institute says consumer backlash is changing some minds in the world of big Ag: More Companies Discontinuing Farm Animal Confinement.

Bill Richmond reports in the Winchester News-Gazette on the Monday evening candidates forum held by the Randolph County Farm Bureau. About 100 people listened to the candidates talk about the big issues, and it looks like CAFO’s are it, for Randolph County. Some quotes from the article:

Noel “Bud” Carpenter (Republican): “People are dearly concerned about CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations). I know our commissioners are looking into it and I hope they have something in place soon that will make people happy.”

Stephen Welch (Republican): “The five main issues facing the county are: to complete the courthouse construction which will be underway shortly; CAFOs - we’ve got to figure out a way to live together and control them;

Gary Friend (Republican): “I’ve expressed my opinion about large livestock farms,” he said. “I’m not anti-CAFO, but I would like to see some controls and regulations at the county level. I would do whatever I can to prevent irresponsible operators from coming in from out of state.”

Troy Prescott (Republican): “We all know the main issues are CAFOs, the courthouse and county ditches and roads.”

Larry Dungan (Democrat): “I think the main issue is CAFOs. I would like to see local government get together and impose some rules.” Dungan said he is in favor of greater setbacks for such operations.

Alright, enough pigs, now the important stuff:

Indianapolis Colts 2008 Schedule, actually, this page displays all AFC team schedules for 08.

And, for the true fan, here is the Colts schedule in a CSV file - import it into your calendar and you’ll be set for the season: colts_2008.CSV (right click, “save link as”).

The Pal-Item’s Union County reporter, Pam Tharp, attended a plan commission meeting Monday and found about 100 citizens concerned of the new CAFO dairy going in on US 27:

A standing room-only crowd of about 100 packed into Union County Health Center’s waiting room for the meeting on new livestock ordinances. When all the chairs in the building were filled, the board moved its chairs back against the wall and the public moved its chairs forward to create more standing room at the rear of the room.

Link. The residents pushed for a 120 moratorium, but plan commission members were reluctant to act in light of Randolph County’s recent retreat from theirs. Locals commenting included an old friend:

Liberty resident Nick Fankhauser also asked for a moratorium.

“I appreciate our local farmers because they do follow the rules. I don’t want them to have to compete with outside companies that don’t,” Fankhauser said. “It’s interesting the new dairy announced it was coming after you announced this meeting.”

A Randolph County Resident showed up to give an experienced perspective:

Randolph County resident Allen Hutchison, who lives within 2,000 feet of the 1,650-cow Union-Go Dairy painted a different picture of life next door to a CAFO. The dairy had a manure spill in the creek, but IDEM didn’t immediately test the creek’s contamination level, he said.

Hutchison said he’s kept daily records of manure odors. Friends don’t stay long when the wind shifts, he said.

“The stench out of that place is bad. There’s more days I smell it than I don’t,” Hutchison said. “We’ve even smelled it at Wal-Mart seven miles away. We appealed IDEM’s (issuing a) permit. That’s still in court.”

Today’s installment of the Gary paper’s critique of IDEM concludes:

The attempt to withhold the list, when other states released their versions to the public, says much more about the attitude at IDEM than it does the actual open record. It’s just another in a series of political moves:

– IDEM hastened the permitting process for BP’s air emissions.

– IDEM officials refuse to fill the environmental liaison role.

– Easterly insists the primary goal of IDEM is raising the average wage of Hoosiers.

– Finally, the failure of the IDEM to realize that withholding public documents isn’t just illegal, it also undermines the agency’s credibility.

But you don’t hear a word from the governor. After all, his minions at IDEM are doing his bidding.

Voters should remember this come November.

Link.

The ethical treatment of animals under existing legal frameworks is the narrative of on online symposium up this month from the Michigan Law Review through First Impressions. You can read snips online or download the papers in PDF form.

Here is Neil D. Hamilton, the Dwight D. Opperman Chair of Law and Professor of Law & Director, Agricultural Law Center, Drake Law School; Chair, Agriculture Law Section of the Association of American Law Schools, from his piece, One Bad Day: Thoughts on the Difference Between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare:

The lawsuit pitting the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals against the New Jersey Department of Agriculture brings into sharp focus the issue of animal rights versus animal welfare that has been dividing animal activists, farmers, and society for decades. On one side are proponents of animal rights—a set of rights articulated by humans but granted to animals to govern how we treat them. For many believers this includes the right not to be owned and certainly not to be eaten. On the other side are proponents of animal welfare—also a set of human derived standards governing how we care for animals under our control. Animal welfare concerns are reflected in laws prohibiting cruelty and criminalizing certain abusive behavior. The debate as illustrated in the New Jersey litigation involves conflicting perspectives on what duties (or rights) we owe animals and on who should decide, using what standards.

Greenfield republican senator Beverly Gard, a long-time friend of big agriculture, faced off against her primary challenger Terry Michael - a deputy township assessor in Fishers - according to New Castle Courier Times reporter Matt Hrodey. The 2 tussled over many issues, including CAFO’s:

Speaking specifically to Henry County, Michael promised to call for an immediate moratorium on all confined feeding operations (CFOs) to wait for proper inspections and a decline in the “saturation” of the Indiana pork market. “The smaller farmers who have relied on this for their lives are losing money,” he said.

Decisions on land use, Gard argued, shouldn’t be handled by the state. “Those decisions should be local decisions,” she said. That would leave CFO moratoriums up to county government, a move the Henry County Commissioners considered in 2007 but opted against.

Link. Gard served as the chair of the senate Energy and Environmental Affairs Committee and presided over the death of 3 CAFO bills in the last session, including Allen Paul’s bill (Link to prior coverage).

Gitte Laasby at the Gary Post-Tribune says IDEM is sitting on the list of Indiana waterways it rated “impaired” for 2008. The list was due to the US EPA on April 1st, and although IDEM says it submitted the list, the list is not a public record until the federal EPA approves it:

The list is a public document, said Tom Anderson, executive director of Save the Dunes Council.

Agency: Report is coming

“The intention of our Office of Water Quality is to provide the list when U.S. EPA final approves it,” IDEM spokeswoman Amy Hartsock wrote in an e-mail.

She said the “list of impaired waterways currently posted on the IDEM Web site is the most recent version available to the public. The version sent to U.S. EPA by April 1 is undergoing review and will be finalized once U.S. EPA provides comment. Individuals, groups, and government officials have expressed an interest in the final list, and we will post the U.S. EPA-approved version on the IDEM Web site when it becomes available.”

The list contains rivers, streams and lakes considered impaired for mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), E. coli and lack of biodiversity. The state was met with resistance when it proposed taking the Grand Calumet River off the list, saying it has the necessary insects and fish.

The federal agency by Thursday still hadn’t received Indiana’s list from IDEM, according to EPA Region 5 spokeswoman Phillippa Cannon.

Link. The article notes that many other states do release their lists to the public when they are submitted to the EPA: “Our constituents expect it to be available for their review and use,” said Linda Oros, spokeswoman for the Ohio EPA.

UPDATE: Now the Gary Post-Tribune is reporting that IDEM has reconsidered. Laasby reports:

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management will release the 2008 Impaired Waters List it submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency after all, IDEM Commissioner Tom Easterly said Friday. “After reading your story this morning I asked staff to provide the draft 303(d) list that IDEM sent to U.S. EPA,” Easterly wrote in an e-mail to the Post-Tribune. “I apologize for the confusion and commit to working on the communication problem that caused this delay.”

Troubled old-time large scale pork producer, Muncie Sow Unit in Delaware County is facing what might be a final stand off against IDEM.

The problems at the operation have been longstanding. I think we can see 2 things out of this story: First, we can see the impact on smaller scale hog operations of Gov. Daniels’s effort to court large scale hog operators to the state - basically creating a hog glut that cuts the prices and kills off the smaller guys. Second, we can see ITEM in action - here taking 3 years to enforce an order on a manure lagoon:

On Feb. 25, an inspection of Muncie Sow Unit, 17123 N. Delaware County Road 350-E, found that manure in a 12-million-gallon lagoon was again less than two feet from overflowing, according to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management.

Last month, Valerie Tachtiris, a deputy attorney general, filed a motion asking Delaware Circuit Court 1 Judge Marianne Vorhees to order Jacobus Tielen, 39, to appear before her and explain why he was not in contempt for violating a restraining order issued by the judge three years ago.

In a lawsuit filed June 8, 2005, IDEM accused Tielen of knowingly or intentionally failing to maintain at least two feet of freeboard in the lagoon as required by state law. Criminal charges were filed against Tielen on Oct. 12, 2005, dismissed on April 4, 2006, and refiled the next day. The criminal charges remain pending.

“There has been no intentional disobedience of the court’s order that could justify contempt sanctions,” defense attorney Todd Janzen told Vorhees in court documents.

In late 2007, Muncie Sow Unit “succumbed to mounting pressure from the farm’s creditors” — feed provider Matthews Feed & Grain and mortgage lender Kokomo Grain Co., Janzen explained.

Link (Star Press Article by Seth Slanaugh).

The Pal-Item’s Pam Tharp has coverage of a community meeting held yesterday in Union County. The group heard from clean water advocate Barbara Sha Cox, and expressed their concerns about the announcement of the dairy CAFO going in in the northern part of the county:

Most attending Thursday’s meeting live near the dairy proposed for Green Meadow Farms on U.S. 27 North, but the entire county’s at stake, said Patterson Road resident Brian Seals. “We’re very upset. We saw them drilling holes and heard rumors the property was for sale,” Seals said. “Greed has taken over.”

Clifton Road resident Lora Snyder said the manure from the big dairy could be spread anywhere in the county, not just on the north side of the county. Resident Tom Carr had a county hydrology map that showed the county doesn’t have an abundant water supply. Dairy cows require a lot of water for drinking and for washing milking equipment. Some residents are worried about the dairy’s impact on their wells.</P.

Union County resident Krista Carr, who is the Lewisville postmistress, said the Henry County megadairy located a mile from the post office doesn’t go unnoticed. “Besides the smell, you wouldn’t believe the nasty big flies,” Carr said. “They’re all over the door and they come in with people.”

Officials touted the economic impact of the megadairy on Monday, but Cox said most CAFOs don’t buy feed locally. Local dairy employees in Lewisville have been replaced by immigrants who live in company-owned houses in town, Carr said. Tourism is important to Union County, which has two state-managed lakes, but a proliferation of CAFOs could impact their water quality and the area’s esthetics, Cox said. She urged the group to bring watershed information for the lakes to Monday’s meeting.

Link.