Hog farm protesters make Buffalo River floaters aware of pollution issues

Law and Odor: How to Take Down a Terrible-Smelling Hog Farm

A couple of attorneys have sniffed out Big Pork's legal weak spot.

undefinedBy Bridget Huber

Mother Jones May/June 2014 Issue

From the stage in a packed, noisy auditorium in Fairfield, Iowa, Richard Middleton peers theatrically into the crowd. "I know we've got some of you folks here," he calls. "And I just wanted to know if any of you have the courage to raise your hand and say hello."

The audience hoots and whistles as Middleton, a waggish, middle-aged attorney from Savannah, Georgia, pauses for effect. He's looking for a lawyer for the agribusiness giant Cargill who's been seen taking notes at his events. But tonight, no infiltrators come forward. Middleton shakes his head. "Not a damn one! Let me tell you something, folks: All I wanted to do was see if you'd accept service on a lawsuit. Because we're coming!" The crowd goes wild.

Middleton has traveled to Iowa to speak with potential clients: people who say that living next to massive hog farms is ruining their lives. Over the past decade, Middleton and fellow lawyer Charlie Speer have made a name for themselves by taking on some of the meat industry's biggest players and winning big damages for their clients. They do it by zeroing in on the industry's Achilles' heel: stink.

To date, the pair has filed cases against milk, meat, and egg producers in nine states, and they have won at least $32 million in jury awards, plus millions more in settlements. Last summer, they began filing suits on behalf of more than 4,000 North Carolina plaintiffs who live near farms raising hogs for Smithfield Foods, the world's largest pork producer. In Iowa, the nation's top pork-producing state, they've signed up more than 500 clients.

America's livestock produce about 500 million tons of manure each yearundefinedroughly three times more than the country's human population. On hog farms, that waste is typically held in euphemistically named "lagoons" or underground pits and then sprayed onto cropland or injected into the soil. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not regulate manure odor, nor do most states. Many do specify how close hog farms may be to homes, but Middleton and Speer argue that those rules don't protect people from the powerful stench that can deprive them of their right to use and enjoy their own property.

To give me a sense of just what that means, Deb Chance, a Middleton and Speer client in Batavia, Iowa, shows me her calendar for late 2013. She says her house, a log cabin with a red metal roof, was overrun with the raunchy, rotten-egg smell of hog manure for days at a time. September 9, her birthday: "Hog smell all day." November 1: "Worst hog smell yet!" December 25: "Merry fuckin hog smell Christmas!"

Chance spent 14 years improving her land with her husband. Their daughter picked a spot where she planned to one day build her own house. But everything changed when one of the 12 neighboring hog operations reached full capacity last fall. Now there are days when all the family can do is come inside, slam the door, and cry.

"Their intent is to destroy modern livestock production. Oh, and make millions in the process."

"It's like being held prisoner," says Elsie Herring, a Middleton and Speer client from Wallace, North Carolina, who has been dealing with hog stench for years. The odor means her family can no longer enjoy sitting on the porch, having cookouts, or even hanging laundry on the line. "We were here before the pork industry even came in here, so what about our rights?" she asks. "It's as if we have none."

Odor nuisance suits are nothing new. In 1610, William Aldred, a Virginia colonist, successfully sued his neighbor for "erecting a hogstye so near the house of the plaintiff that the air thereof was corrupted." Speer carries a copy of jurist Sir Edward Coke's report of the court's decision in his briefcase.

Yet Middleton and Speer's legal approach has some new twists. They don't seek injunctions, only monetary damages. They'll file repeated nuisance suits against farms that don't clean up their act: Some clients have successfully sued the same operation three times. And they go after not only local operations, but also the deep pockets at the top of the food chainundefinedthe big companies that contract with the farmers.

To agribusiness companies, that makes Middleton and Speer ambulance chasers and carpetbaggers. Don Butler, a spokesman for the Smithfield subsidiary Murphy-Brown, told me, "Their intent is to destroy modern livestock production. Period. Oh, and by the way, make millions in the process." (Middleton and Speer take cases on a contingency basisundefinedif they prevail, they get paid.)

Middleton has a long history as a plaintiff's lawyerundefinedhe got his start in asbestos litigation. But Speer used to be on the other side, defending landfill companies against environmental suits. That changed in 1996, when he represented a group of small farmers who complained that a massive hog operation was fouling their air and water. That case didn't sit well with some of his firm's corporate clients, so in 2000 he quit and teamed up with Middleton. "I'm a conservative guy, fighting for regular folks," says Speer, a lifelong Republican. "This is about private-property rights."

In 2010, Middleton and Speer won their largest jury award to dateundefined$11.5 million for 15 neighbors of Missouri operations raising hogs for a Smithfield subsidiary. When the verdict was announced, the company threatened to leave the state. The following year, the state changed the law to limit repeat suits and cap damages in farm nuisance suits.

Since 2005, at least six other states have passed measures that could stymie stink suits. Some of the bills are similar to model legislation written by the American Legislative Exchange Council, the organization known for promoting pro-business bills drafted behind closed doors.

"If the government were doing its job, my firm wouldn't exist," Speer says.

Local communities in at least 16 states have also been stripped of their ability to impose rules on farms that are tougher than state guidelines. As for federal regulation, the EPA doesn't even know where all of the nation's 20,000 large, confined feedlots are located, never mind how much they may be polluting. "If the government were doing its job, my firm wouldn't exist," Speer says.

Speer acknowledges that stink lawsuits aren't the ideal way to address air and water pollution from factory farms. But as long as the industry has a stranglehold on state legislatures, he explains, this strategy is one of the few things that works. "We can't shame them and we can't reason with them," he says. "The only way to get their attention is to go after their profits."

Back on the Buffalo

By Mike Masterson

Posted: May 25, 2014 at 2:05 a.m.

Arkansas' Buffalo River was the first named national river in the United States, but its waters might be in danger. Locals and environmental groups were shocked at the end of 2013 when the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) allowed an industrial hog farm to set up just six miles from the river. Today, a battle between the farm and its opponents continues as protests, water quality research, and behind-the-scenes conflicts emerge.

C&H Hog Farms will house 6,500 pigs to supply pork for the Cargill food processing company. Supporters of the farm say that hog farms have existed near watersheds with no impact on their waters. ADEQ director Teresa Marks told the New York Times that some of the farm's waste could reach the Buffalo River, but she was not concerned about environmental harm.

Supporters of the river are not convinced. Representatives of public interest groups assert that the farm is an economic disaster. According to a letter released by Earthjustice, C&H received a federal loan of $3.4 million just to construct the farm. Among other stated concerns are water contamination from hog waste and fertilizer, as well as general environmental degradation. "I'm just afraid of the stink," local Jewell Fowler told the Times.

"When this first started, they sent a petition around: 'Sign this paper if you don't want to swim in hog poop on the Buffalo,'" C&H co-owner Jason Henson told OzarksFirst.com. "I woulda signed the paper myself." The Hensons insist they have followed every regulation required for a permit, but activists have now taken up this issue as one of the main problems with C&H.

In February, representatives of public interest groups released a more detailed letter accusing ADEQ and C&H of faulty and expensive research that allowed the hog farm permit to go through. C&H claimed they had access to 17 parcels of land on which to dispose of waste, but farmers who owned three of those fields wrote to indicate they had never granted that permission. That skews the results of a government-funded research project that allowed C&H to obtain their permit in the first place. C&H received loans of more than half a million dollars just to make up for these errors, the groups say. "The people of Arkansas … have been seriously misled," says Ozark Society president Robert Cross.

Two independent research groups are now tasked with keeping track of the farm's impact. Earlier this month, the Big Creek Research Team, led by a professor at the University of Arkansas, released a quarterly report that measured as much as 8,500 colonies of E. coli bacteria per 100 milliliters of water. The ADEQ regulates a limit of 400 colonies per 100 milliliters.

This doesn't necessarily incriminate the farm, however. Researcher Andrew Sharpley said these readings were likely due mostly to high rainfall and flooding, and it's impossible to pinpoint a single source for the E. coli. The team's next step is to use a "dye trace" study to watch how quickly and where groundwater from the farm flows into surrounding areas.

In the midst of all this, Buffalo River received an Active Trails grant from the National Park Foundation to fund projects that will restore, protect, and create land and water trails around the river.

May 24, 2014 
JASPER, AR (KNWA) - The Buffalo National River holds a special place in Arkansans' hearts, and when a factory hog farm was built less than six miles away, concerns of contamination drew a huge outcry.

Now, two teams of scientists are working to protect the water quality of one of the Natural State's biggest attractions.

"There's a lot of passion about keeping this river the first scenic river and keeping it pristine," says Andrew Sharpley, a professor from the University of Arkansas Agriculture Department. "There's a lot of pressure on the state to keep it pristine."

The truth of how the C & H Hog Farm may or may not impact the Buffalo River watershed isn't clear, but the battle between the farm and its opponents is raging.

"We're being attacked by the media daily, and the majority of the people is not interested in the truth," says co-owner Jason Henson. "When this first started, they sent a petition around, 'Sign this paper if you don't want to swim in hog poop on the Buffalo.' I woulda signed the paper myself."

Jason Henson is a co-owner of the hog farm, and says he's operating within state laws. Two lagoons on the property hold the animal waste, which is eventually spread across nearby fields.

"These fields have been fertilized for years and years," Henson says. "We have rules and regulations on how much we can put out, and when we can put it out, and how we can put it out."

Van Brahana is worried the state laws are stacked in favor of big agriculture, and ignore the underlying geography of the area.

"The argument that we followed all the rules, that's a true statement," he says. "The fact of the matter is though, from a scientific standpoint, those were weighted strongly in favor of factory farming."

Brahana, a recently retired hydro-geologist from the University of Arkansas, says porous, permeable limestone sits under a thin layer of soil. The formation allows water to quickly move underground, and to unexpected places.

"It goes down and into the rock," he says. "Because it's underground, we can't see exactly where it is."

He's gathered a group of volunteers to conduct a dye tracing study, to find out how long it takes for fluids to travel from this spot near the farm, to Big Creek and the Buffalo.

"We want to have an assessment that this particular facility has a degree of safety built in, so that we don't contaminate the people who live downstream," he says. "It will allow us to determine where the output sources are so that when we put monitor stations in, we can be very precise."

The Hensons aren't happy to see Brahana anywhere near Newton County.

"We believe that they are doing a biased study," he says.

Sharpley, and his team from the Agriculture Department are also monitoring the water quality around the farm, at the state's request.

"We are measuring above and below the farm on Big Creek," Sharpley says. "It's a beautiful place, and the more you are out here, the more you see the importance of this river to the local community."

Automatic samplers collect water when it rises, and the team drilled holes in 3 of the 17 fields where Henson will spread the waste.

"We're monitoring that, and we also have some wells up around the lagoons to see if there is leakage because there was concern about that," Sharpley says. "The principal behind his application plan is he's putting enough of the nutrients on when the soil is dry enough, that the plants are going to soak those nutrients up and there's no excess. In reality, this is what we're hoping to see."

Sharpley says the strategy should give a warning if the management plan isn't working.

"Once it's in the creek, it's an issue and it's too late," he says. "Hopefully, the way we're doing things, we might be able to see before it actually gets there."

Sharpley has also been accused of bias.

"We were asked to do this, and although we're the division of Ag. we kind of represent every stakeholder in the state," he says. "We're staying totally impartial in what we are doing to have the science tell the story."

Van admits he may have a personal bias, but says it won't affect his results.

"As a scientist I try to describe things very accurately so that meaningful decisions for the general public can be made," he says. "Andrew will do some work. I will do some work and we'll cross reference and that's the way science works."

Although Henson doesn't trust Brahana, he says he will listen to science, even if it means changing his operation.

"We're nine generations of living in this area," Henson says. "We of all people want to make sure that the environment is not hurt at all."
 

http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2014/04/27/manure-spraying-under-scrutiny/
Environment, Health & Welfare
Manure spraying under scrutiny

New method of dispersing waste can damage landscape, disrupt lives


By Ron Seely
Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism
Scott Murray did not want to leave the home in rural Juneau County where he and his family had lived for more than 20 years. But with the house surrounded on three sides by manure irrigation systems, life had become a nightmare.
“It even got into the walls of our home,” Murray said of the liquid manure spray that drifted onto his property from the Central Sands Dairy across the road. “It was an ammonia smell. It hurt so bad even to breathe.”
In 2011, the Murrays sold their house and moved.
The buyer?
Central Sands Dairy.
“And it’s a good thing,” Murray said, “because my property wasn’t worth a nickel.”
Life for the Murrays, along with other Wisconsin families, has been disrupted by the relatively rare practice in Wisconsin of using water irrigation systems to spray liquid manure on farm fields.
Now the issue has taken on new urgency as more large dairy farms consider using the practice. A work group formed by the state Department of Natural Resources and run by the University of Wisconsin-Extension is completing a study and beginning to weigh whether to toughen regulation of manure irrigation. Its initial report is due out by fall. The practice is regulated under current law with restrictions on spraying too close to homes and wells.
Some research suggests that the plethora of chemicals and pathogens found in liquid manure can have serious health impacts, ranging from respiratory disease to potentially lethal antibiotic resistant infections. Opponents fear wider use of manure irrigation will increase the risk of human illness and drinking water contamination.
Critics also question the ability of the DNR, relying mostly on citizen complaints and self-reporting by the huge dairies, to adequately regulate a practice that has already been shown to pollute waters and drive people from their homes.
Such concerns have prompted officials in Wisconsin’s Adams County to pass a moratorium against the practice.
It is also an issue elsewhere in the country.
In Minnesota, according to the Wisconsin DNR, 10 counties prohibit manure irrigation.
“We’re getting more and more requests in the department to use the technology.” – Andrew Craig, a Department of Natural Resources water resources specialist working with the manure irrigation group
In North Carolina, 95 percent of the swine farms use manure irrigation. Fish kills and pollution prompted state officials to ban the practice on new or expanding CAFOs, and farms now must follow much more restrictive regulations. In Michigan, a company shut down its mega-farms after violations and lawsuits related to the flawed use of manure irrigation.
Applying liquid manure to fields using pipelines and farm irrigation systems is less expensive than trucking manure and applying it with traditional land-spreading rigs. Proponents also say it is less likely to pollute because it allows for more precise application of manure, which provides necessary nutrients to the soil. And runoff is less likely when manure can be applied when crops are in the field, they say.
Currently, 14 of the state’s industrial-sized dairy farms, also called Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, use manure irrigation, according to the state DNR.
That number could rise dramatically. Wisconsin has 258 dairy farms categorized as CAFOs.
“We’re getting more and more requests in the department to use the technology,” said Andrew Craig, a DNR water resources specialist who is working with the manure irrigation group.
The issue is tied inextricably to the controversial spread of CAFOs across the Wisconsin landscape. The farms produce overwhelming amounts of manure and have angered and frustrated nearby residents who feel they have little control over the growth and operations of the industrial farms. Cattle on Wisconsin farms produce as much waste each year as the combined populations of Tokyo and Mexico City, according to calculations by Gordon Stevenson, a retired former chief of the DNR’s runoff management section.
The DNR advisory work group is examining studies of manure irrigation, weighing the still-uncertain science of potential impacts. The group’s role is advisory and carries no legal weight but the panel could eventually recommend best management practices or changes to regulations.
But, in the meantime, the DNR continues to grant approvals for CAFOs to use manure spraying, once even exempting an applicant from current regulations, according to a legal challenge. Critics doubt the work group will ban the practice, given that the push to expand it is coming from big agricultural interests.
“I get the feeling that it’s just a matter of how we’re going to do it, not whether it is going to be done,” said Lynn Utesch, a member of the work group who runs a small farm in Kewaunee County and is a vocal opponent of CAFOs.
Maximize the benefits

In one of the most controversial permits, the DNR approved the use of manure irrigation by Ebert Dairy Enterprises in Kewaunee County. With a recent expansion, the dairy will generate and spread or spray more than 55 million gallons of liquid manure and wastewater a year on fields.
“Admittedly, on its face (manure irrigation) sounds like a bad idea. It’s an issue people make up their minds about before they know everything about it.” –Ken Genskow, associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
According to a legal challenge from 10 Kewaunee County residents, the DNR exempted the operation from safeguards in current law, including a rule that prevents spraying on fields with soils that are too shallow. Craig denied that such exemptions were granted. He argued that soil depths on the fields in question are adequate and that exemptions were not necessary.
Ken Genskow, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who chairs the work group, said it is focusing closely on the issue of manure irrigation rather than broader CAFO issues. He said the group is committed to a thorough, objective review, weighing benefits and potential health and environmental impacts.
“The trick with this,” Craig added, “will be to maximize the benefits and minimize the problems.”
“Admittedly, on its face it sounds like a bad idea,” Genskow said of manure irrigation. “It’s an issue people make up their minds about before they know everything about it.”
Genskow said he has come to appreciate some of the benefits of the practice, including the ability to better control the application of manure.
This is actually the second incarnation of the study group. It was reorganized by the DNR last year after critics complained that the first panel was stacked with CAFO operators and other supporters of manure irrigation. The new 18-member panel, which has been meeting since July, includes scientists, public health officials, agronomists, CAFO operators and their critics, such as Utesch.
The study group includes Kenn Buelow, dairy manager and part owner of Holsum Dairies, two CAFOs in northeastern Wisconsin near Hilbert. Holsum was named a 2012 winner of the U.S. Dairy Sustainability Awards. Buelow said the farm favors center-pivot manure irrigation because it is cheaper and better for the environment.
Because manure is piped to the irrigation units, the use of large trucks that damage roads is unnecessary, Buelow said. He also noted that manure can be applied to growing crops during the growing season instead of being spread on bare fields, reducing the chances of excess manure running into streams and seeping into groundwater.
“I think there are a lot of benefits for water quality,” Buelow said.
The danger of over spraying

But critics and even some proponents of manure irrigation say the practice can threaten water supplies. A 2007 report from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension that was generally favorable toward center-pivot systems said this was a major concern.
“Though most center pivots are capable of applying water at rates similar to land applicators,” the authors found, “the temptation to use the system to supplement rainfall with liquid animal manure could result in over application of manure.”
Rick Dove, an environmental activist who belongs to a conservation group called the Waterkeeper Alliance, fought the use of manure spraying in North Carolina for years. He said the spray units there were being used by hog farmers even when fields were saturated.
“It couldn’t be absorbed,” Dove said of the manure. “There was no place for them to spray, yet they were spraying everywhere. We had terrible fish kills.”
Part of the problem stems from the lake-sized CAFO storage lagoons that are sometimes filled near to overflowing with the liquid manure from thousands of animals. This creates pressure on operators to find uses for the waste. Noted the Nebraska report, “some producers regard manure distribution as a ‘waste disposal’ problem rather than distribution of a valuable resource.”
The lagoons come with their own problems. A rupture of one such lagoon in North Carolina spilled more than 20 million gallons of liquid manure into the nearby New River, killing millions of fish.
In Michigan, where manure irrigation is used on both dairy and pig CAFOs, excessive application has been a recurring problem, according to Lynn Henning, an anti-CAFO activist.
Henning, who was awarded the prestigious Goldman Environmental Prize for her efforts to force more oversight of big farms, spoke to the Wisconsin manure irrigation study group at its April meeting. She said several of Michigan’s large-scale farms have been cited for over application of liquid manure while using manure irrigation.
In one instance, according to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, the Vreba-Hoff dairies were cited in 2008 and 2009, including 707 instances over 128 days where the farms irrigated waste at concentrations more than twice the amount allowed.
Henning said manure irrigation has caused so much damage that she would advise banning the practice, something Craig said the DNR would prefer not to happen. Henning recommended operator certification, testing of irrigated manure for chemicals and pathogens, and required groundwater and well testing in areas near the irrigation units.
Buelow, the Wisconsin CAFO operator and work group member, agreed that excessive application can be a problem. “That’s really an operator thing,” he said. “It’s easier to throw a switch and keep applying. That’s probably why it happens.”

Another form of manure irrigation involves using a single nozzle system such as this one. Courtesy of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Managing manure

For Scott Murray and his family, being surrounded by Central Sands Dairy’s manure irrigation systems proved too much to bear. The smell and the ammonia from the liquid manure was so bad that his son refused to bring Murray’s grandchildren to visit.
“He said, ‘Dad, I’m not bringing the kids over here anymore,’ “ Murray recalled. “And we had to move because my grandkids are my life.”
Like Murray, Diane Miller lived across the street from Central Sands Dairy in Juneau County, not far from the city of Nekoosa. Miller and her husband, Ray, lived in the home for years before Central Sands Dairy was built on the site of a former vegetable farm.
Life changed for the Millers after the arrival of Central Sands in 2007, along with its thousands of cows and large manure storage lagoon. Miller recalled a smell almost too powerful to endure.
“We had so many flies it was like that scene from ‘The Exorcist,’ ” Miller said. “The dog couldn’t lay out on the porch.”
The problems mounted. “The manure would cover our mailbox,” Miller said. “I had to cancel our newspaper because I’d go out to get it and it would be wet and discolored. … I like to take walks but you learned how to time your walks. You can’t use your property, can’t hang out clothes. You can’t barbecue.”
Miller said she spoke with the DNR about the problem but the over spraying continued. Three years ago, she gave up and moved. Like Murray, she sold her home to Central Sands Dairy when the farm offered to buy the house.
In a Nov. 18, 2011 internal memorandum, Terence Kafka, a DNR water resource specialist, confirmed that the agency had received numerous complaints from 2008 to 2010 about over spraying by Central Sands Dairy. Staff confirmed Central Sands was spraying too close to homes and private wells.
Craig said Central Sands was not cited for the violations and said the farm has since corrected the problems.
Jeff Sommers, an owner and general manager with Central Sands and also a member of the manure irrigation work group, declined to comment on the complaints from Murray and Miller about the farm’s manure irrigation practices.
But Sommers defended the farm’s continued use of manure irrigation. He said it now uses a biodigester that reduces the level of phosphorus and pathogens in the manure. He also said the farm follows a nutrient management plan, required of all CAFOs, that prevents over application.
“We do a good job of managing our manure,” Sommers said.
Sommers said manure irrigation allows operators to spread applications over the course of the growing season and “allows us to apply at the right time and in the right amount and with the least impact to the environment.”
Human health risks

While farmers such as Sommers tout benefits, others worry about public health risks from airborne manure.
Those concerns are high on the list of topics on the manure irrigation working group agenda. In fact, the DNR is paying $338,000 for a two-year study of risks related to drifting manure from the irrigation units.
“We’re putting our money where our mouth is,” Craig said.
The research is being conducted by Mark Borchardt, a microbiologist with the federal Agricultural Research Service, and Rebecca Larson, a researcher at UW-Madison. Borchardt said researchers are conducting field trials to study the spread of several manure pathogens that can make people sick, including E. coli, salmonella, cryptosporidium and giardia.
Borchardt said the study has three stages. First, it will measure the levels of pathogens at various distances from the irrigation unit. Second, a computer model will track dispersion of the pathogens, taking into account variables such as wind speed, temperature and sunlight. Finally, the pathogen concentrations will be plugged into another computer model that helps scientists assess the risk to humans.
The pathogens, Borchardt said, die as they travel away from their source, killed by sunlight and warmer temperatures. Even letting manure sit in a lagoon for a certain period of time kills some pathogens.
“We’re talking about micro-organisms here, not dust particles,” Borchardt said. “They can die very quickly.”
The research will be used by the manure irrigation work group to consider whether current rules undefined a restriction on spraying within 500 feet of residences, for example undefined are adequate.
While the work group will have new and precise science to make decisions related to pathogens and drift, other air quality problems such as ammonia and hydrogen sulfide as well as odor are not being dealt with as thoroughly by the panel, according to critics.
“That’s not the central focus of our work group,” Craig said of air quality issues other than drift and pathogens.
One problem is that much of the scientific data regarding CAFOs and air quality is inconclusive and incomplete. Borchardt, for example, said the drift and pathogen studies his group is conducting are the first of their kind.
In a March 27 letter to Kewaunee Cares, an anti-CAFO group, researchers from the John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, wrote that “the relationships between intensive livestock operations, air quality, and the health of rural residents are poorly understood.” The letter cited these “data gaps” as reason for more stringent reporting and monitoring by the industrial farms.
Some observers also question the DNR’s ability to exert adequate oversight of manure irrigation. They say it lacks the manpower and authority to make sure that manure spreading plans are followed, irrigation units are operated correctly, and setbacks and other restrictions are followed.
But Craig said the agency’s inspection staff is back to its full force of 11 after months of being down three inspectors. He added, however, that the enforcement process remains largely complaint driven.
It is a system that arguably failed Diane Miller, whose complaints resulted in minimal enforcement action against Central Sands Dairy. She is happy now to be resettled, far away from the dairy in Nekoosa, though her husband, Ray, has since died of cancer.
When Miller thinks of him, she thinks of the house in the country where they lived for so many years. She misses the happier days there.
“It was our home,” she recalled. “It was where I lived with my husband. But it was unpleasant for me to live there anymore.”

This story is part of Water Watch Wisconsin, a project examining water quantity and quality issues across the state. The nonprofit Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism (www.WisconsinWatch.org) collaborates with Wisconsin Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Television, other news media and the UW-Madison School of Journalism and Mass Communication.
All works created, published, posted or disseminated by the Center do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of UW-Madison or any of its affiliates.

Editor’s note, published April 30, 2014: Christa Westerberg, a Madison attorney who provides legal services to the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, has represented residents challenging the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources’ handling of manure irrigation. Westerberg provided the Center with publicly available information about the practice. She did not provide the Center with legal services or participate in the writing or editing of this report.



Water Watch Wisconsin

This story is part of the Water Watch Wisconsin project. The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Wisconsin Public Radio, Wisconsin Public Television and The Capital Times are examining the quality and supply of Wisconsin’s water.
On Television

Center reporter Ron Seely discusses this story on Wisconsin Public Television’s Here and Now.
On Radio

Center reporter Ron Seely discusses this story on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Central Time.

E. coli levels high in waters near hog farm
By Ryan McGeeney
Posted: May 7, 2014 at 4:40 a.m.
 
The environmental research team tasked with collecting data near a Newton County hog farm released its second quarterly report late last week, noting several temporary elevations in bacterial levels in nearby waterways.

The Big Creek Research Team, led by Andrew Sharpley, a professor of soils and water quality at the University of Arkansas, is a project of the university's Division of Agriculture. It was devised by several state legislators last year to respond to growing public concern regarding C&H Hog Farms, the first large-scale, swine-concentrated animal-feeding operation to receive a Regulation 6 permit inside the Buffalo National River watershed.

The farm, which is permitted to house approximately 2,500 sows and as many as 4,000 piglets at a time, is located in Mount Judea near Big Creek, about 6 miles upstream from its confluence with the Buffalo National River.

The research team began deploying equipment to gather water and soil samples in late 2013. In early February, the team published its first quarterly report, which outlined both its research strategy and its plans for establishing baseline data.

Sharpley and his team placed monitoring equipment on three of 17 grassland fields surrounding the farm's 40-acre production facility. The 17 fields cover about 630 acres, upon which the farm operators are permitted to spread the millions of gallons of manure produced annually by the hogs inside the facility.

The team is monitoring soil, surface water and groundwater for the presence of nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus; dissolved oxygen; and bacteria such as E. coli, which is associated with pathogens found in animal waste.

The report features weekly sampling results from both the first and second quarters, collected at four points along Big Creek, both upstream and downstream from the farm and production facilities, and from a spring located approximately half a mile east of Big Creek in Mount Judea.

Although most of the reported measurements were within state limits established by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, several instances of very high levels of E. coli were detected during weekly sample collections. Environmental Quality Department Regulation 2, which governs water-quality standards throughout the state, sets acceptable levels for minerals, nutrients, bacteria and other substances in surface and groundwaters in Arkansas.

According to the regulation, levels of E. coli should not exceed 400 colonies per 100 milliliters of water in "primary contact waters," which are waters used for recreational activities such as swimming or canoeing between May 1 and Sept. 30. Limitation guidelines for waters between Oct. 1 and April 30 are considerably higher: 2,000 colonies per 100 milliliters of water, using a single-sample technique.

On Oct. 1, one sample taken downstream from C&H Hog Farms registered 2,620 colonies per 100 milliliters; on Nov. 6, a sample taken from the spring east of the creek registered more than 8,500 colonies, and another sample taken upstream from the farm registered more than 4,000 colonies.

Sharpley said most of the elevated readings were attributable to high rainfall and flooding events, when runoff across an entire area sweeps large amounts of matter into waterways. Although much of the public criticism aimed at the farm has focused on concerns that such rain events would ultimately flush manure byproducts into the Buffalo National River no matter how well-executed the farm's nutrient-management plan, Sharpley said that because high levels of E. coli were detected both upstream and downstream of the farm, it was impossible to pinpoint a single source of the bacteria.

Chuck Bitting, the natural resource program manager for the Buffalo National River, said water samples he has collected from Big Creek and below the creek's confluence with the river over the past several months also have shown periodic increases in E. coli that have been much higher than samples taken from other comparable streams in the area during the same time period.

"A real high number [of E. coli bacteria] doesn't bother us," Bitting said, noting that what concerned him about some of the recent samples was that they presented high bacteria counts with very low levels of dissolved oxygen.

"That indicates to us that there's a lot of biological oxygen demand, probably a lot of biological activity, like algae."

Bitting said the low dissolved-oxygen rates were unusual because the samples were taken during and after rain events, when high levels of turbulence in water typically results in higher-than-average levels of dissolved oxygen.

According to the quarterly report, the Big Creek Research Team is not yet monitoring for dissolved oxygen in waterways but plans to begin installing the necessary monitoring equipment this quarter.

According to Regulation 2, at least 25 percent of eight or more samples taken between May 1 and September 30 must exceed the state's E. coli standards before a waterway is considered "impaired" by bacteria.

Sharpley said the research team will begin working with the U.S. Geological Society to analyze stream and groundwater data this quarter, as well as beginning "dye trace" studies, something critics of the farm have pushed for in the past year. Because much of Newton County, including the Mount Judea area, sits on a karst geology, any contaminants that infiltrate groundwater in the area may move very fast and in unpredictable directions.

Dye trace studies are sometimes used to identify the path of groundwater in a particular area by introducing a small amount of dye with a unique radiological signature into a well, sinkhole, or other portal to groundwater, and reporting on where the dye reappears in other water bodies.

Although several environmental-activist organizations that have spoken out against the Environmental Quality Department's decision to issue a permit to C&H Hog Farms have asked that dye trace studies be conducted through the hog farm's slurry ponds -- the two open-air lagoons that contain hog waste before it is applied to the surrounding grasslands -- Sharpley declined to say exactly where the researchers might insert the dye.

"If I give you answers, they'll be immediately criticized by someone else, so I think we better decide amongst ourselves," Sharpley said.

The report also addresses the need for long-term funding for the study to be effective. Although the state Legislature appropriated more than $340,000 from the Arkansas Rainy Day Fund to initiate the study and to fund the research through its first year, the report says that "additional funds" will be needed to pay for sample collection and analysis for a full five years, which is considered the minimum amount of time needed to determine the long-term effects on waterways in the area.

The quarterly report can be viewed and downloaded at http://arkansasagnews.uark.edu/CH_Quarterly_Report_Jan-March_2014.pdf.

NW News on 05/07/2014

NOTICE OF TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN PERMITS
The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission (APC&EC), pursuant to its authority under Arkansas Code Annotated, Sec. 8-4-202, et seq., has imposed a temporary moratorium on the issuance by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality of any new permits or coverage for medium or large confined animal operations (CAOs) and concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) for swine in the Buffalo River Watershed (BRW). The action was taken at the APC&EC’s regular meeting April 25, 2014. The APC&EC minute order adopting the moratorium takes note of the historic importance of the Buffalo River, as well as its location in a region with sensitive geologic and hydrologic issues, and includes a finding that the proliferation of large and medium CAOs and CAFOs in the BRW “...will pose an unnecessary risk to the public health, safety and welfare....” The moratorium may remain in force for up to 180 days from the date of the APC&EC’s action. While the moratorium is in effect, the APC&EC’s rulemaking process also will be underway for proposed revisions to APC&EC Regulations 5 and 6 to impose a permanent ban on new medium and large CAOs and CAFOs in the BRW. In a separate action at the April 25, 2014, meeting, the APC&EC voted to initiate its rulemaking process for a third-party proposal to amend Regulations 5 and 6 to establish ban on new medium and large CAOs and CAFOs in the BRW. For the purposes of the moratorium, a medium or large CAO or CAFO is considered to be one with either 750 or more swine weighing 55 pounds or more, or 3,000 or more swine weighing less than 55 pounds. The BRW is considered to be the area within the United States Geologic Service’s Hydrologic Unit Code 11010005. The moratorium does not prohibit the ADEQ from issuing permit renewals or permit modifications for medium or large CAOs and CAFOs in the BRW that have an active permit as of the date of the moratorium’s adoption. Nor does the moratorium prohibit the ADEQ from issuing a new or modified permit for any medium or large CAO or CAFO in the BRW with an active permit as of the date of the moratorium’s adoption as long as the approval would not increase the number of swine currently permitted in the BRW. The moratorium will expire on October 22, 2014. Final actions of the APC&EC may be appealed in accordance with provisions in APC&EC Regulation 8. Copies of various documents associated with the adoption of the moratorium, the third- party rulemaking proposals to amend APC&EC Regulations 5 and 6, and the current version of APC&EC Regulation 8 can be found on the APC&EC/ADEQ website at: www.adeq.state.ar.us.
Published April 30, 2014 Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission
ARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL Medium and Large Swine AND ECOLOGY COMMISSION CAFO/CAO - Moratorium
MINUTE ORDER NO. 14
-~
PAGE 1 OF '1.
The one-hundred and fifty (150) mile Buffalo River flows through the Ozarks in northwestern Arkansas. The upper 15.8 miles of the Buffalo River are part of the Nation's wild and scenic river system under the federal Wild and Scenic River Act, 16 U.S.c. § 1274(a)(135). The lower one-hundred and thirty-five (135) miles of the Buffalo River, including the River's back waters, riparian zone, and adjacent wetlands, are included in the national park system administered by the National Park Service. 16 U.S.c. § 460m-8 to 460m-14. The entire one-hundred and fifty (150) mile length of the Buffalo River is listed in the National Park Service's Nationwide Rivers Inventory that potentially qualify as wild, scenic, or recreational river areas.
The Buffalo River's watershed is located in a karst region. Karst geology is comprised of an abundance of limestone. Limestone is typically porous rock that can form pathways resulting in rapid discharges into nearby ground and surface water resources.
The Buffalo River's watershed provides habitat for numerous species of trees, plants, birds, game, and aquatic life. It is estimated that more than seven-hundred and fifty-thousand (750,000) people visit the Buffalo River, and the Buffalo National River Park area, to fish , float, swim , hike, camp, and engage in other recreational activities.
On November I, 20 II, the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality ("ADEQ") issued National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit ARG590000. General Permit ARG590000 applies to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO 's) that are located in the State of Arkansas. General Permit ARG590000 covers any operation that meets the definition of a CAFO. The Arkansas Pollution Control and Ecology Commission also permits confined animal operations pursuant to Commission Regulation No.5.
Swine CAFOs and swine confined animal operations have a propensity to produce large amounts of manure and wastewater annu ally. The manure and wastewater from a swine CAFO and swine confined animal operations are typically land applied. Because General Permit ARG590000 does not distinguish between karst regions and other regions of the State, and because Commission Regulation No.5 and General Permit ARG590000 do not expressly limit swine CAFOs and swine confined animal operations from being established in the Buffalo River's watershed, the Commission finds that a proliferation of medium and large swine CAFOs and swine confined animal operations in the Buffalo River's watershed will pose an unnecessary risk to the public health, safety and welfare which requires a change in existing rules and an immediate moratorium on the establishment of any new medium and large swine CAFOs and medium and large swine confined animal operations in the Buffalo River's watershed over the next one-hundred and eighty (180) days. This moratorium will allow for the initiation, and potential adoption, of rule changes that will prohibit future medium and large swine CAFOs under Regulation No. 6 and medium and large swine confined animal operations under Regulation No.5 from being established in the Buffalo River's watershed.
ARKANSAS POLLUTION CONTROL Medium and Large Swine AND ECOLOGY COMMISSION CAFO/CAO - Moratorium

MINUTE ORDER NO. 14
-~
PAGE 1 OF "1
For the purposes of this moratorium, a medium or large swine CAFO or confined animal operation is a CAFO or confined animal operation with either seven-hundred and fifty (750) or more swine weighing fifty-five (55) pounds or more; or three thousand (3000) or more swine weighing less than fifty-five (55) pounds. For the purposes of this moratorium the Buffalo River's watershed is the area within the United States Geologic Service Hydrologic Unit Code 11010005. The Commission enacts this moratorium pursuant to its authority found at Ark. Code. Ann. § 8-4-202 et seq., and the Director of ADEQ shall not issue any new permits or provide coverage under Regulation No. 5 or Regulation No. 6 for medium or large swine confined animal operations or CAFOs for the next one-hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of the adoption of this minute order.
This moratorium does not prohibit the Director from issuing a permit renewal or permit modification for a medium or large swine CAFO or confined animal operation with an active permit as of the date of the adoption of this minute order. This moratorium shall also not prohibit the Director from issuing a new permit or permit modification under Regulation No.5 or Regulation No.6 for a medium or large swine CAFO or confined animal operation active as of the adoption date of this minute order, as long as any new permits or permit modifications will not increase the number of swine currently permitted in the Buffalo River's watershed.

Factory Farms Under Fire for "Manure Spraying"
By Lindsay Abrams, Salon

02 May 14

o here’s what factory farms are up to these days: They’re using commercial sprinklers to spray animal manure over fields. That’s right undefined they are literally spewing a bunch of shit into the air.

The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism reports <http://www.wisconsinwatch.org/2014/04/27/manure-spraying-under-scrutiny/> on the growing (yes, it’s growing) practice:
Life for the Murrays, along with other Wisconsin families, has been disrupted by the relatively rare practice in Wisconsin of using water irrigation systems to spray liquid manure on farm fields.

Now the issue has taken on new urgency as more large dairy farms consider using the practice. A work group formed by the state Department of Natural Resources and run by the University of Wisconsin-Extension is completing a study and beginning to weigh whether to toughen regulation of manure irrigation. Its initial report is due out by fall. The practice is regulated under current law with restrictions on spraying too close to homes and wells.

Some research suggests that the plethora of chemicals and pathogens found in liquid manure can have serious health impacts, ranging from respiratory disease to potentially lethal antibiotic resistant infections. Opponents fear wider use of manure irrigation will increase the risk of human illness and drinking water contamination.

Critics also question the ability of the DNR, relying mostly on citizen complaints and self-reporting by the huge dairies, to adequately regulate a practice that has already been shown to pollute waters and drive people from their homes.
“Admittedly, on its face it sounds like a bad idea,” Ken Genskow, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, said. “It’s an issue people make up their minds about before they know everything about it.” Genskow and others argue that spraying manure is both cheaper and better for the environment. But in North Carolina, where 95 percent of hog farms subscribe to the practice, state officials were compelled to step in and impose bans and stricter regulations after it led to fish kills and other pollution problems.

The above-mentioned Murrays, it should be noted, made up their minds because the liquid manure spray was entering their home. “It hurt so bad even to breathe,” Scott Murray told Wisconsin Watch.

In The Bull's Eye - Our Environment in Cross Hairs Teresa Turk Guest Writer letter in Arkansas Democrat Gazette