Comments on: Must Read Legislative Debates http://www.kemplog.com/2006/10/12/must-read-legislative-debates/ Life and law in Eastern Indiana Thu, 20 Nov 2008 18:19:58 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Joanna Rinker http://www.kemplog.com/2006/10/12/must-read-legislative-debates/#comment-4031 Joanna Rinker Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:37:59 +0000 http://www.kemplog.com/2006/10/12/must-read-legislative-debates/#comment-4031 IDEM is not protecting the waters of the state. They just passed an application for an 8000 head hog operation to be placed in an 100 year floodplain. According to DNR's own ecological survey in conjunction with the promotion of the Grand Kankakee Marsh Refuge, they state the Kankakee River overflows its banks on an average of 2 years. Yet IDEM allowed this CAFO app to pass with only ONE unidentified soil boring taken in Nov'05 at 60 degrees in the driest year of the last 4 years. This operation will be sitting on the north side of the bank from an already existing waterfowl refuge maintained by Waterfowl USA and to the east and adjoining a waterfowl and feeding refuge under consultation with DNR. This certainly doesn't sound like wise decision making to me. IDEM was even in "consultation" with DNR to be sure they were using the same verbage. The only common verbage that comes to mind is "money-under-the-table". IDEM is not protecting the waters of the state. They just passed an application for an 8000 head hog operation to be placed in an 100 year floodplain. According to DNR’s own ecological survey in conjunction with the promotion of the Grand Kankakee Marsh Refuge, they state the Kankakee River overflows its banks on an average of 2 years. Yet IDEM allowed this CAFO app to pass with only ONE unidentified soil boring taken in Nov’05 at 60 degrees in the driest year of the last 4 years. This operation will be sitting on the north side of the bank from an already existing waterfowl refuge maintained by Waterfowl USA and to the east and adjoining a waterfowl and feeding refuge under consultation with DNR.
This certainly doesn’t sound like wise decision making to me. IDEM was even in “consultation” with DNR to be sure they were using the same verbage. The only common verbage that comes to mind is “money-under-the-table”.

]]> By: Pila http://www.kemplog.com/2006/10/12/must-read-legislative-debates/#comment-3902 Pila Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:41:45 +0000 http://www.kemplog.com/2006/10/12/must-read-legislative-debates/#comment-3902 Thank you for the information. I want to know if any of the candidates would support repealing (or revising) IC 32-30-6-9 and/or support more stringent regulation at the state level. I realize that increased regulation is anathema to some, but IDEM is supposed to protect the waters of the state, IIRC. Why should regulation of operations that have a significant impact on those waters be done on a county by county basis? (Sorry, I'm not supposed to leave comments on your blog.) Thank you for the information. I want to know if any of the candidates would support repealing (or revising) IC 32-30-6-9 and/or support more stringent regulation at the state level. I realize that increased regulation is anathema to some, but IDEM is supposed to protect the waters of the state, IIRC. Why should regulation of operations that have a significant impact on those waters be done on a county by county basis? (Sorry, I’m not supposed to leave comments on your blog.)

]]> By: ethomaskemp http://www.kemplog.com/2006/10/12/must-read-legislative-debates/#comment-3900 ethomaskemp Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:59:48 +0000 http://www.kemplog.com/2006/10/12/must-read-legislative-debates/#comment-3900 Mr. Bell, I think you are right on this. The people in the immediate vicinity need to be involved in the decision making. However, as a factory farm will have an impact on an entire watershed, the issue is broader than just the neighborhood. Likewise, I think the county needs to be concerns with, not only the current conditions on local lands, but the impact of today's development on the property 30, 40, 50 years down the road. This lesson should have been learned in the "post-industrial" era, with many local communities dealing with serious contamination of previous industrial sites, with no one but the taxpayers left to pick up the clean up bill. Mr. Bell, I think you are right on this. The people in the immediate vicinity need to be involved in the decision making. However, as a factory farm will have an impact on an entire watershed, the issue is broader than just the neighborhood. Likewise, I think the county needs to be concerns with, not only the current conditions on local lands, but the impact of today’s development on the property 30, 40, 50 years down the road.

This lesson should have been learned in the “post-industrial” era, with many local communities dealing with serious contamination of previous industrial sites, with no one but the taxpayers left to pick up the clean up bill.

]]> By: Rex Bell http://www.kemplog.com/2006/10/12/must-read-legislative-debates/#comment-3897 Rex Bell Fri, 13 Oct 2006 02:04:18 +0000 http://www.kemplog.com/2006/10/12/must-read-legislative-debates/#comment-3897 That is why I believe local zoning, with reasonable buffer zones between existing homes and CAFO's are the better answer. If a company or individual wishes to start an operation in that buffer zone, it would be up to the people in the affected area. http://dist54lib.blogspot.com/2006/07/on-property-rights-and-zoning.html That is why I believe local zoning, with reasonable buffer zones between existing homes and CAFO’s are the better answer. If a company or individual wishes to start an operation in that buffer zone, it would be up to the people in the affected area.

http://dist54lib.blogspot.com/2006/07/on-property-rights-and-zoning.html

]]>