Kpaul over at the Muncie Free Press is getting into full swing in his coverage of CAFO’s in East Central Indiana. Applying his journalistic talents, he showed up at the recent Monroe County BZA meeting with audio and video recorders in hand. Today he posted some video clips of the discussion that resulted in the delay in the BZA’s decision on the 4,000 head hog CAFO that I discussed earlier this week (A CAFO Delayed, A CAFO Defeated?).

The consultant (Kari Keller-Steele) working for the farmer told the BZA that the IDEM permit appeal filed by Elwood Concerned Citizens has not immediate impact on the validity of the permit: The group could have requested a stay of the implementation of the permit, but did not. She also claims that the group received a deficient filing notice from IDEM, telling them their appeal needed to be supplemented to meet the appeal requirements. Kpaul has audio and pictures from the meeting up as well.

While you are over there, be sure the check out Cathy Goins’s editorial on the Elwood CAFO. She gives 13 good points, including

• I agree people should be able to use their property. My family has worked as hard as any other family to build our future and secure our investment in this area. We also have a right to enjoy the fruits our hard work. However, because of emissions and pollution from this facility, to say nothing of the smell, I will not be able to use my property as I want. It will not be a healthy place for my grandchildren to play. I will not be able to enjoy my yard. I may not be able to sell my house. Do I not have the same right to use my property how I wish? I promise my choices will not create an unhealthy environment or cause potential devaluation in someone else’s property.

• A recent letter and a Herald Bulletin piece indicated that Mr. Jarrett has agreed to cut his operation from 8,000 to 4,000 hogs to comply with the neighbors concerns. I find this interesting, since he has not been in any contact with us regarding negotiations. The fact is, it sounds generous of him, however, once he has the zoning for the first building, there isn’t much in place to stop him from building a second, third, or more.

Link.

No articles up yet, but I have it from a good source that the judge (Robert Reinke) considering the challenge to the primary election race for circuit court judge in Franklin County heard evidence and rendered a decision this afternoon. Despite some reported irregularities (like 30 more ballots than signatures on the rolls in 1 precinct), the judge accepted the report from the election commission and denied challenger Troy Warner’s motion for a new election. I have not heard the specific legal argument Troy was employing in his challenge, but the standard for a special election is that some type of error or malfeasance makes it impossible to determine the winner.

I guess we’ll here if there will be an appeal.

UPDATE: The Pal-Item has the story up now: Link. Apparently, Troy’s petition for a special election was filed 52 days after the election, long past the 14 day cutoff in the statute, so the judge denied the petition on that ground. The election is not decided yet though, as the judge must consider the fate of 111 challenged ballots.

Marty Lucas over at Big Eastern has a piece up about the current path available to property owners faced with a CAFO in the neighborhood. Definitely worth heading over for a read:

At common law, a landowner could protect his neighborhood by a nuisance action against a problem causing landuse. A recent amendment to Indiana law has stripped us of our rights to object to a factory farm for nuisance. [See Ind.Code 32-30-6]

If you’re concerned about CAFOs, I strongly suggest you lobby your legislator to return to you your common law rights to object to nuisances from neighboring landowners. Right now there’s not much of a viable option for people to object to a CAFO that’s stinking them out of house and home. Until this becomes a political issue that results in individual rights to take real action, it’s only going to get worse.

A key problem with the CAFO permitting process is that persons opposing the issuance of a permit can’t really prove that the CAFO will harm them, because the harm hasn’t happened yet. Once the CAFOs in operation, IDEM’s not likely to revoke their permit, and the fact the property values are trashed by the odor is ‘outside their jurisdiction’.

Marty reflects on the common thread in this CAFO issue: The state government has worked diligently, and largely without major media coverage, to pave the way for Indiana to become the nation’s CAFO capital. This despite the experience of North Carolina, and northern Texas, where community leaders were ultimately forced to call a time out, after the overabundance CAFO waste caused too much contamination of the waterways.

The way was paved first by turning the state’s administrative agencies into CAFO promoters, then by limiting people’s ability to hold factory farms accountable once problems arise. Although there may be a lawsuit under the federal Clean Water Act that determine’s that IDEM’s permitting process is not sufficient to attain compliance, I think Marty is right  in that the most viable solution is political action, both at the state house, and in local ordinances to control CAFO growth.

Of course, the local approach is limited when it comes to water quality. There is nothing, for example, that Wayne County can do about the fact that its upstream neighbor to the north, Randolph County, has been selected as the epicenter for large hog producers.

News from Justin Schneider with the Herald Bulletin:

A lawyer representing Elwood Concerned Citizens announced Tuesday that the group had appealed the permit of a local farmer to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) during a meeting of the Madison County Board of Zoning Appeals.

That information was enough for the board to pass a motion of continuance on the matter until the July 25 meeting.

Link.

This is the 8,000 pig CAFO proposed by farmer Rick Jarrett in Elwood, later modified to 4,000 in response to critics. According to the Madison County BZA attorney, this is the 3,724th appeal filed with IDEM in 2006. Madison county is a rarity in that it has independent local standards for CAFO’s  including minimum acreage requirements and set backs.

On other CAFO news, Grant County has followed through and set up a committee to study whether to impose local standards, and "activist" John Street, who opposed the placement of a CAFO in an area with abandoned oil wells, was one of the appointees. Link (Chronicle-Tribune).

Over in CAFO science, the Agronomy Journal reports on a study that focused on alternative uses of CAFO byproducts (manure) as CAFO’s have generated "excess amounts of manure." Link. The solution, put it on wheat fields.

Bob Hedges of the Wall Lake Association gets good coverage in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette over the plan to put a 3,250 head mega-dairy in LaGrange County, just about a mile from Wall Lake and its aquifer: “Where this proposed dairy is is the absolute worst place in the county it could be situated,” he said. Link. 

The story also covers an 8,000 head hog operation going in over in Wabash County, where local residents are worries about the impact on nearby Salamonie Reservoir and ultimately the Wabash River. This has some in the county looking for a moratorium on CAFO’s until tighter local regulations can be put into place, including the person who lives across the street from the proposed CAFO:

[Sharon] Adcock, a licensed animal rehabilitator, owns four baby cows and a horse, but she said they don’t create the same amount of pollution as 8,000 hogs.

“We accept farms,” she said. “Eight thousand hogs is not a farm. It’s a factory.”

Again, the focus of the opponents to CAFO’s in this circumstance is a role for local oversight of large scale animal farms. IDEM’s role is limited to the discharge of manure under the NPDES permitting process. Thereafter, IDEM has 15 inspectors across the state to look after the 2,200 confined feeding operations, plus all the land fills, junk yards and other industries with discharge permits. IDEM does not specifically monitor well water quality, nor does it have any role in air quality around CAFO’s.

Justin Schneider has a big article up on the Herald Bulletin on the hog CAFO coming before the Madison  County BZA at 9:00 A.M this Tuesday for a special use permit. The farmer, Rick Jarrett, started with plans for an 8,000 hog operation, but scaled it back to 4,000 in response to critics:

Tom Austin, superintendent of Elwood Community Schools expressed his concerns that an expanded CAFO would mean a further devaluation of the tax base which has already given Elwood the highest school tax rate in the county.

“I’m not an expert on farming, but I do know a lot about school finance,” Austin said. “In my ongoing stewardship of the finances of our school corporation, I feel this operation will only lead to the further devaluation of our school tax base.

Link.

The supporters on this operation, including consultant, Kari Keller-Steele, focused on the positives:

“The thing that’s hardest to combat is the bad image of what can happen,” Keller-Steele said. “Most of the things I heard were, ‘What if this happens, what if that happens? What if the creek is contaminated?’ Nobody can predict the future. Mr. Jarrett runs a top-quality operation right now. In his methods of application he has done all the right things.”

An EPA press release announces the issuance of a proposed rule for comment regarding the NPDES permit process for CAFO’s. According to the release, the proposed rule:

• Provides for greater public participation in connection with nutrient management plans. Applicants would have to submit a nutrient management plan with their permit application. Permitting authorities would be required to provide public notice and review of the plans, and include them as enforceable elements of the permit.
• Clarifies the selection of best conventional technology for fecal coliform bacteria.
• Clarifies that under the exemption established by the Clean Water Act, CAFOs land applying manure, litter or processed wastewater don’t need NPDES permits if the only discharge from those facilities is agricultural stormwater.

You can read the proposed rule, and find out where the EPA will be conducting public hearings (the nearest place is Ames, Iowa) on the rule change here.

Carol County commissioners heard from resident pushing the body to adopt a moratorium on issuing building permits for CAFO’s in the county, until new rules can be put in place, coving a whole host of issues, including water and air quality monitoring, can be passed. This is in response to a move by Vreba Hoff to install a huge dairy: Commissioners hold debate on mega-Dairy. No decision, just lots of talk, so far, but lots of people showed up for the meeting Monday night, and the result was a 4 hour meeting.

So, Marcia Oddi at the Indiana Law Blog, takes a dig at the Pal-Item for its story yesterday about local attorney Steve Rabe’s victory in a civil case before the Indiana Supreme Court. Marcia notes that the decision was handed down almost a month ago and chide the paper: News travels slow in Wayne County. 

I do not consider a court decision that has little practical impact to be breaking news, so I think the paper is alright on this one.

I have a bigger issue with an article in the Pal-Item today: Report: Firm did racial profiling. The article covers the decision of the Richmond Human Rights Commission to continue the investigation of a local temporary employment firm. If you read the article, you will see that the allegations are scandalous with the "n- word" spread around quite frequently.

The editor of the paper explains the decision to use the actual derogatory language the firm is accused of employing in the article on this blog: The "N" Word.

I do not have an issue with the paper using the actual language in the charge, but I do have a problem with the paper’s consistency. The editor spent a lot of time last month carefully setting out the paper’s position on printing stories including the name of someone who is under investigation, but has not been charged with a criminal offense. They will not print the names, or so they say. The editor proudly defended this position here, here and here.

I agree with this policy. If your name is spread in the paper in connection with a crime before charges are filed, there is nothing you can do in your own defense. There is no meaningful venue for your to establish your innocence. Once the charges are filed, you can plead not guilty and demand a trial.

So what about the decision of the Pal-Item to run the name of the local firm accused of discrimination and the name of the owner of the firm? The local civil rights commission is not charging the firm with anything yet. In fact, officials said they are still very early on in their investigation. What the commission did was vote that there was probable cause to believe that the allegations are true, and to continue the investigation. Hence, there is nowhere the firm and its owner can go and contest the charges. All they can do is deny the allegations to the paper (which they did) and then sit back and wait for the charges to come. All the while, the reputation of the firm and the owner fester under the weight of these terrible allegations.

Sure to be a more common headline, as time goes on. Warren County Dairy under investigation:

A blown circuit breaker in a dairy barn has been blamed for a manure spill that left dead fish along an 8.5-mile stretch of Mud Pine Creek and Big Pine Creek early this week.

Officials from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management still are assessing the damage to the Warren County streams after thousands of dead fish were discovered late Monday.

Link (West Lafayette Journal-Courier).

No matter how sophisticated the system for handling manure is, no system is failure proof. Added to this is the near complete lack of independent standards for construction of manure handling systems. Even in a highly regulated activity, like a chemical refinery, with engineers and scientists on staff, accidents still happen. What happens to these new, highly acclaimed manure handling systems once they are installed, and in operation for a few years? Is there a testing requirement? Do the operators need training or a degree?

Manure is often promoted as a "natural" product as CAFO’s move in. Some manure, in isolated applications, is a fairly harmless fertilizer. A friend recently gave us a couple of loads of horse manure for a garden at home, and we were certainly grateful. But like just about anything else, too much manure in one place will cause harm. That is what happens at a confined feeding operation: lots of manure in one place. The local impact of a manure spill will be isolated and short term. The concern becomes the cumulative impact of increased leaching of manure into the water systems of the state.

Henry County currently has about 11,500 hogs. If 3 new CAFO’s move forward with plans to construct facilities there, that population will increase to about 35,500:

Halcomb Farms of Spiceland, Tim and Matt Chapman of Springport, and Symons Creek Swine of Straughn each sent the county a notice of intent to build a CAFO to confine 8,000 pigs at three separate locations.

All three operations would produce finishing pigs on contract for North Carolina-based Maxwell Foods. Maxwell has bought a feed mill in the Wayne County community of Hagerstown and applied for or already obtained permits to build CAFOs in Randolph County for 57,600 nursery pigs and 17,526 sows

Link. (Star Press)

The article also has a report from Randolph County resident, and CAFO opponent, Wendy Carpenter:

Wendy Carpenter, one of the directors of Environmentally Concerned Citizens of Randolph County, spent this past Saturday at the Hoosier Environmental Council’s state conference. The keynote speaker was economist William Weida from the non-profit GRACE (Global Resource Action Center for the Environment) organization, which opposes the spread of factory farms.

"He said that Iowa, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, and North Carolina have strengthened their regulations, so they’re coming here now," Carpenter said. "They’re looking for the place of least resistance, and we’re one of them. We’re no resistance. We’re inviting them in."

One of Gov. Mitch Daniels’s goals is to double Indiana’s pork production.

"What’s happening in other states is massive pollution problems," Carpenter said. "One reason pollution is a huge problem is it leads to negative health effects. Consolidation is another concern. The more consolidated the industry becomes, the less responsive it becomes to local communities."

North Carolina imposed a moratorium on construction of new hog houses in 1997 because of manure-management concerns.

In gagging local response, the Star Press talked to a golf course manager near a proposed site who is concerned about the smell, but the reporter (Seth Slabaugh) also talks to the family which is bringing the CAFO in. Matt Chapman notes that the move to a CAFO is to enable his family to generate enough income for another generation of the family to support themselves on the farm:

Our current operation nets enough for one family to live on. As far as me staying here, and my brother having a chance, we need to look elsewhere, and this enterprise presented itself to us.

From the Pal-Item, some CAFO news. First, they discuss the open house the Sltstein’s held at their dairy in Randolph County last week, but they also note that a pig CAFO is seeking a permit from IDEM for a swine finishing facility in Union County (at the corner of Snowden Road and CR 200). Link .

The paper also has more questions on Kelsie’s dairy, continuing to add details to a story that does not add up.

Back on to CAFO’s for a moment, head over to Wabash County and read the recent thoughtful post by Lutheran pastor and sustainable farmer, Jeff Hawkins: Enough:

My question recognizes two competing visions for the future of Wabash County. One is the vision based on more CAFOs, which sees a future of more and more angry neighbors filled with suspicions. Regardless of law, regulations, or purported economic benefits, those living near a CAFO will always be suspicious of the CAFO as the source of harm to the neighborhood. At the same time, CAFO operators will always be suspicious of their neighbors as the source of persistent complaints. As the number of CAFOs increase—as does the number of new families moving closer to them (due to hoped-for county development)—contentiousness increases.

The second vision sees more small, beautiful farms near which people want to live. These farms do not produce commodities to be sent away, but instead produce food to be consumed locally.

Outside of Indiana: Idaho enacts first ammonia rule in nation for dairies:

By July 1, operators of roughly 40 Magic Valley dairies need to file for an air quality permit with the state. The new rule comes after about 18 months of negotiations between state officials, members of the Idaho Dairyman’s Association and the Idaho Conservation League. It applies to any dairy confined animal feeding operation, or CAFO, that emits 100 tons or more of ammonia annually.

Finally, check out the letter to the editor in the Pal-Item from Centerville resident, Alan Williams. Mr. Williams spent some time looking over the 990-PF submitted by Hayes Arboretum from 2004 (a publicly available document) and has some good questions about spending decisions at the facility in the year before it decided it needed to sell off its frontage on US 40 for a retail development. Link.

There is an interesting discussion in the comments to my midwife posts (read here and this post) about the legal status of unlicensed midwives in Indiana. So called “direct entry” midwives practice arts aiding women in traditions that go back before written history. Many feel that the government has no role in regulating the activities of these midwives, but that’s not how government works.

Actually, Ms. Williams is a certified professional midwife, meaning that she was certified by the North American Registry of Midwives. But there is no recognition of such a designation in Indiana Law.

In reality, traditional non-licensed midwives operate in a legal gray area in Indiana. Typically, since they do not have offices or advertise, they are under the radar of state officials, operating on word of mouth, and in the privacy of people’s homes. Their activities come to light when there is a problem, as in the Williams case, where a child died in birth.

The article I cited yesterday on the Williams case (link) notes that some state at least recognize non-licensed midwives, limiting them from actually delivering babies. Indiana does not cover this issue.

Instead, Indiana’s regulatory scheme says, in effect, a “midwife” is a licensed midwife, and “practicing midwifery” is the performance of activities by a licensed midwife. This circular definition does not tell us what, if anything, an unlicensed midwife can do. You can read the whole nursing code, which regulates the licensing of midwives, and you will not find an answer to that question. (Indiana Nursing Licensure Laws and Regulations, A Compilation from the Indiana Code and Indiana Administrative Code. PDF). The use of the word “midwife” does not resolve the issue. If we instead call unlicensed midwives “female’s assistants” in Indiana, haven’t we escaped the regulations entirely?

So, the activities of an unlicensed midwife are left to be governed by Indiana’s general medical licensing statute. Indiana Code (IC) 25-22.5-8-1 says it is unlawful to practice medicine without a license. IC 25-22.5-8-2 says it is a class D felony to practice midwifery without a license. IC 25-22.5-1-1.1 defines the “practice of medicine” in extremely broad terms, including holding oneself out to the public as being engaged in:

1. the diagnosis, treatment, correction, or prevention of any disease, ailment, defect, injury, infirmity, deformity, pain, or other condition of human beings;
2. the suggestion, recommendation, or prescription or administration of any form of treatment, without limitation;
3. the performing of any kind of surgical operation upon a human being, including tattooing, except for tattooing (as defined in IC 35-42-2-7), in which human tissue is cut, burned, or vaporized by the use of any mechanical means, laser, or ionizing radiation, or the penetration of the skin or body orifice by any means, for the intended palliation, relief, or cure; or
4. the prevention of any physical, mental, or functional ailment or defect of any person.

Certainly the “treatment” of and “other condition of human beings” would seem to cover a midwife helping a woman with a pregnancy, but this provision is so broad, I would probably be practicing medicine by telling a client to take an Advil for a headache. (aside: Did I practice medicine when I cut the umbilical cord for my son?). The practical effect of such a broad provision is to give the regulators complete discretion as to what to prohibit and what to let slide. The problem with this is that we do not know if something will be unlawful until the regulators come out and say it is.

I assume that the regulators would not stop a mother from telling her daughter things about her pregnancy to help her out. I also assume that, if someone became known as being knowledgeable about pregnancy issues, and friends and neighbors called on her for advice with their pregnancies, the state would not treat this as the practice of medicine. But where is the line in the sand? What specific actions of a midwife are the practice of medicine? Is it the payment of compensation? The statute does not mention that. If so, are volunteer unlicensed midwives legal?

After reading through all of this, I guess I would have to agree with the contention that Indiana law is unclear a to what an unlicensed midwife can do in the State of Indiana.

Bill Engel with the Pal-Item has a good article up today on Wayne County’s Economic Development Corporation (EDC), and the paper’s struggle to get access to documents out of that agency. The Pal-Item is seeking document related to the Kalsie Food & Dairy project, and the EDC said no.

The paper took the matter to Indiana Public Access Counselor, and received an opinion to the effect that the EDC is a public agency and is required to comply with Indiana Public Access Laws. The EDC thinks this is wrong:

In reviewing an informal opinion from the Indiana Public Access Counselor, EDC attorney George Sowers said that he doesn’t believe the EDC needs to file an annual audit with the Indiana State Board of Accounts and, therefore, does not fall under the Indiana Public Access Laws.

Sowers argued that the EDC is not a public agency, but “an independent contractor,” hired by Wayne County to bring jobs here.

Link. The County says that there is an exception in the public access laws for the EDC:

“I think it’s very appropriate (the EDC) comply to an audit and to the open meetings law,” [county attorney Ronald] Cross said, “but I think the Public Access Counselor’s opinion is too far reaching. If everything were to be public it would literally put the EDC out of business in terms of economic recruitment and development.

The paper notes that, at least in 2004, 98% of the ADC’s million dollar plus budget came from government funds, and that the State Board of Accounts treats any agency that spends at least $100,000 in government money with at least 50% of its budget coming from government sources as a public agency, subject to the state audit requirements.

The EDC says that the way it does business requires it to be able to enter into confidential agreements with companies considering locating in the county, as business do not typically want to make such preliminary considerations public.

In other EDC news, Mary Sell apparently took a trip up the the headquarters of Kelsie’s Food and Dairy, only to find the site listed in the company’s corporate filings occupied by a real estate business. At least the owner of the company, Ray Witmore, was in fact at the real estate office. Witmore reportedly told Sell that the company is still planning to install a facility in Wayne County, but would not commit to a timeline.

In fact, Witmore said that his project had been delayed because of previous stories run in the Pal-Item about the facility. Check out Sell’s story, here.

Some comments on CAFO’s are up today across the state:

Mary Ellen Davis of Randolph County tells the Pal Item that serious questions should be answered before operations are permitted to go forward:

Will the farmers be penalized for improper manure application if they let the CAFOs put too much manure on the land?

What will happen to the local hog operations? Will they just go out of business?

When CAFOs come into our county, will they have negative impacts to our communities?

I feel that we, as taxpayers, need to know where this is heading. All sides need to be addressed.

Link.

Up in  LaGrange County, Barbara Hedges says her the location of a mega-dairy a mile and a half from her "dream home" on the lake has created a nightmare:

We cannot let something like this happen that can potentially do grave harm to so many for the large financial benefit of a few. Even with the best management practices, we cannot be guaranteed that our health will not be jeopardized or our groundwater and wells polluted with the placement of this CAFO at this location.

She urges the local authorities to adopt rules to assure that local concerns are addressed in the CAFO approval process. Link  (Journal-Gazette)

Finally, Brownfields has a new piece on the recent CAFO tour up in Randolph County:

Giving the public the opportunity to learn about management practices and the role of farmers today is important, says Tom Chalfant, President of the Randolph County Farm Bureau. “All of these dairy and hog farms are owned by individuals. They partner with large corporations in different ways to make it happen, but they are also local farmers who are tying to make a living.”

Chalfant explained that in order to bring family members back to the farm, many farmers must find ways to expand their businesses that are both profitable and safe for the environment. He said that people tend to be misled about modern agriculture but learn otherwise when seeing a farm first-hand.

As an update to this post, the Indy Star reports today that the midwife (Jennifer Williams) has decide to accept a plea:

Jennifer Louisa Williams, 54, Bloomington, will not go to prison, but instead agreed to a year’s probation and to not practice midwifery or medcine during that year, according to Shelby County Prosecutor R. Kent Apsley.

Link.

The article mentions the lawsuit she filed against the attorney general seeking to clarify Indiana law regarding midwives, but does not indicate whether the suit will be maintained by Ms. Williams.

For broader coverage on this issue, I recommend you head over to The Mommy Blawger, a site I discovered when she posted a comment to my last post on the subject.

No permits will be issued to confined feeding operations wanting to locate in Grant County for up to six months as officials look at changing how the large-scale farms are regulated.

The Grant County Area Plan Commission voted Tuesday not to issue permits before a standing room only crowd at its Tuesday night meeting.

The decision comes at a time when several local residents are upset with a mega dairy going in near the town of Van Buren:

“This proposed CAFO, we believe, is in a bad location, less than one mile away from the town of Van Buren,” Commissioner Jeremy Diller said. “We need to look long-term as a county about how we want to deal with that.”

The plan is to use the moratorium to study the issue by way of a committee. The same reader also forwarded the text of a letter read at the meeting, allegedly by a representative of the Grant County Farm Bureau:

Grant County Farm Bureau, Inc. has been concerned for some time over agricultural zoning in Grant County. The end result of any zoning changes should lead to good public policy.  In the long run, criteria should enable the APC and BZA to address citizens concerns through performance standards.  We understand our commission members and citizens concerns over trying to apply 1970’s zoning standards to today’s community.  We agree there are unrealistic expectations and would like to offer solutions that take into account today’s reality and allow for future growth with protection afforded to all.

That sounds like a good piece of common sense to me.

1. Waking with the sun and biking for an hour on the back roads before the morning commuters start tearing around. Waking with the sun now means, it’s time to get into the office, so my bike stay in the garage. I could ride in the evening, but then my kids are awake (as are the teenage drivers).
2. Eating dinner before 8:00 p.m. I know its our fault, but it just seems too early to sit down to eat. The kids are still playing. I am doing something in the yard. It’s not time for dinner.
3. Because of the above: having my youngest son stay awake through dinner.
4. Watching my kids catch lightning bugs in the backyard. The bugs are still there, but by the time they come out, the kids are in bed. 
5. Living between 2 local TV and radio networks (Indianapolis & Dayton) made it easy to catch your shows in the summer: If you missed it the first time, it would “replay” on another channel an hour later.

Who knows, maybe I’ll like it in the Winter more.

With about eight million dairy cows in the U.S., potential revenues to the dairy industry from carbon credits could exceed tens of millions of dollars annually as the greenhouse gas market grows. Dozens of farmers have already applied to enroll in ECC’s carbon credit program, joining with other farms to take early advantage of this new source of revenue.

Jim Jensen, ECC’s VP of Business Development, meets with dairy farmers regularly to discuss the growing opportunities. As he puts it: “American farmers can be great stewards of the environment; they deserve to be recognized for the actions they take to reduce global warming. Cash for carbon credits is a great place to start.” Farmers interested in ECC’s carbon credit program should contact Jim at (814) 235-1623 or jjensen@envcc.com.