February 4, 2000

 

Judge Allan W. Klein

Office of Administrative Hearings

100 Washington Square, Suite 100

Minneapolis, MN 55401-2138

 

email: allan.klein@state.mn.us

 

fax: 612-349-2665

 

We need both our environment and food. There is no "either/or" choice. P1, Acres, U.S.A. February 2000

 

re: proposed revision to 7020 rules

 

Dear Judge Klein:

 

I am June Varner, 15498 - 83rd Street, Little Falls, MN. Considering the circumstances it is difficult for the public to comment on the proposed rules. After your decision the revisions are to be reviewed by the legislature and their version is to be presented to the Governor. This is not typical for the administrative process. It is my belief that the final rules are intended to further support corporate agricultural interests; your decision may be irrelevant, my comments are irrelevant.

 

 

I own 380 acres in Morrison County. I used to raise cash grains and grass-based beef but now market organic vegetables. For over twenty years I have watched my neighbors being forced off their land or lose their independence under corporate contracts, seen and smelled the loss of a decent environment because of the cancerous spread of corporate domination of agriculture through pricing and access to markets. I have seen many family businesses in rural towns close their doors when corporate chain stores move into the area selling cheap merchandise at bloated prices, often made with child or slave labor. With those incredible profits advertisers persuade consumers to buy more, more. It is amazing to see our standard of living moving lower and lower.

 

 

I still think that this downward trend can be stopped. I would like your decision to support the return of an environmentally sound, healthy agricultural economy. To do this the final MPCA rules must specifically and clearly establish the objective to stop and prevent pollution. You can decide in favor of a return to independent agriculture.

 

 

There are established precedents for supporting scientific standards which uphold a citizens right to a healthy living environment. In the State of Wisconsin versus Quality Egg, Inc. [104 Wis.2d 506, 311 N.W.2d 650], it clearly states that "the nuisance (of a feedlot) was substantial and unreasonable and did effect the normal use and enjoyment of complainants* life, health and property". It would establish a courageous precedent if your findings were similar. Because the proposed rules are difficult to read and follow I am sure there are very important points that I missed or areas that I have misconstrued, however, my recommendations follow.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

June Varner

15498 - 83rd Street

Little Falls, MN 56345

 

320-584-5165

 

email: estes@fallsnet.com

 

Proposed 7020 Feedlot Rules.

 

 

The state should continue to exempt operations that are not feedlots. For larger feedlots, the state should establish enforceable and enforced air, water and soil quality standards to prevent pollution, require public hearings and payment of fees. I urge you find for the following items:

 

 

1. Pasture operations without a feedlot are still exempt from any registration, permits or fees.

 

 

2. Feedlots with less than 100 au*s (now it is 50 au*s) should also be exempt but meet water quality standards administered by Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), Department of Natural Resources (DNR) or Board of Water and Soil Resources (BOWSER).

 

 

3. Feedlots with 100 au*s and less than 300 au*s should register with the state - no permit, but a filing fee - meet air and water quality standards.

 

 

4. Feedlots with 300 au*s and less than 1000 au*s should get a permit from the state, notify the public, have a state public hearing, pay a fee, meet air, soil and water quality standards [some feedlots with 300 au*s can be considered a CAFO under federal standards and the state should be the agency to verify that.]

 

 

5. Feedlots of 1,000 au*s or more should get a state permit, pay an annual fee, notify the public, have a state public hearing and meet air, water and soil quality standards.

 

 

The proposed rules should be adopted with the following wording to be added or changed.

 

 

It should be very clear that independent family farmers were not and are not a significant pollution problem. Pollution only became a problem when large-scale corporate controlled operations were permitted by the state. As proposed, these rules are an unnecessary burden for independent farmers and the process is made easier for large-scale contract confinement operations. This is NOT the direction our state should be taking if it truly wants to support environmentally sound and financially healthy agriculture, AND the rural economy that depends on local independent farmers.

 

 

What if Minnesota passed a law requiring registration of all people who own guns; would it make sense to require everyone who does NOT have a gun to register, under penalty - unless you were trying to collect a fee from everyone? The state requires everyone who has a car to register, buy a license every year and carry insurance to protect themselves and others from accidental injury. If you have a restaurant and you pose a risk to the public you are immediately shut down; you are out of business until the problem is corrected. This is the type of rule that the state should have for feedlot operations - the bigger you are, the greater the risk is to the public and permit costs to operate should be proportionally higher.

 

 

The current MPCA 7020 Rules include a section, to be repealed, 7020.0400 Animal Feedlot Pollution Control Requirements, which make it clear that these rules are to correct and prevent POLLUTION from operations defined as feedlots; pastures are not considered feedlots. Under the proposed rules "Relating to Animal and Storage, Transportation and Utilization of Animal Manure, note that the word "pollution" is not included. As proposed, the rules appear to require registration of pasture operations that are by definition NOT feedlots. This lacks common sense; collecting and maintaining these records would be an exorbitant waste of taxpayer money and an unnecessary burden on owners of animals who are not a pollution problem.

 

 

The proposed rules have amendments to 7001 [Permits and Certification], 7002 [Water Quality Permits, Payment of Fees, Application Fee ($85) and Annual Fees ($260)]. Different parts of the proposed 7020 Feedlot Rules refer to the requirement for a Permit including 7020.0350 [Registration requirements for Animal Feedlots, Manure Storage Areas, and Pastures], 7020.0400 [Permits and Certificates Issued Prior to Effective Date], 7020.1600 [Authorities and Requirements for Delegated Feedlot Counties]. Funding for administration of the Feedlot program is provided through block grants to delegated counties. Rules should be clear that non-feedlots will not be subject to any filing or annual fees including those in 7001 and 7002.

 

 

7020.0100 Preamble - This section which states * "the agency [MPCA] does not seek to abdicate its mandate to protect the purity of the natural resources of the state of Minnesota" will be repealed under the proposed rules. This section should be retained in its entirety. Enforceable regulations need to be in place to cover confinement feedlots that are a pollution problem. If the intent is to keep livestock out of specific bodies of water, that can be accomplished through adequate funding for NRCS, DNR and BOWSER.

 

 

7020.0250 Submittals and Records - Feedlot operators who do not own the land on which the manure is spread should also make these records available to the public upon request through the proper agency and the agency must develop a database that verifies that there is not a duplication of land application by separate producers and the information is accurate. Pasture operations should be exempt from record reporting requirements.

 

7020.0300 subp 1a. Aboveground manure storage area - "liner" Does this part refer to slurry stores or bermed lined lagoons or both?

 

7020.0300 subp 7. Do not repeal

 

7020.0300 subp 7b Composite Liner - "theoretical" seepage - Seepage should not be acceptable and there should be monitoring and monitored wells.

 

7020.0300 sub 7c Compost - This definition needs to include the natural composting that occurs in a bedding pack or loafing shed and the state should encourage the use of this natural composting process so that farmers are not locked into expensive liquid systems that usually require the hiring of outside manure pumping systems. Operations of less than 300 au*s should be phased into dry manure and composting systems rather than liquid systems, once they are transitioned they could be part of a registration program for 100au's to 300au's without fees. The most beneficial composting occurs when bedding, manure and loafing areas are under cover and managed as dry manure rather than liquid systems.

 

 

7020.0300 subp 8a Construction Short Form Permit. No state public notice/hearing is required to expand within 300au's to 1,000au's. There should be a state public hearing and comment for every new feedlot or expansion with 300 au's or more.

 

 

7020.0300 subp 9. County feedlot pollution control officer - The requirement that a feedlot officer should be knowledgeable in agriculture should not be deleted.

 

7020.0300 subp 9b. Design Engineer - The NRCS person should have some engineering skills if they are going to approve engineering projects.

 

7020.0300 subp 9c. Discharge - It looks like this says if MPCA permits a manure storage area and there is "seepage" it is not a problem. If the "seepage" is a serious pollution problem - does this eliminate any recourse or protection for the public or any agency?

 

7020.0300 subp 13 Interim Permit - An interim permit to correct a hazard can be as long as 4 years and 3 months (sect 7020.0535 subp 5). This allows the hazard to continue without public notice. Most feedlot officers say hazards can be correct within six months; that should be the maximum time to correct a problem.

 

7020.0300 supb 17. Owner - This definition must include the real owner of the livestock. If it is a contract operation the "owner" in fact is the person who controls the supply of the livestock in and out of the facility. If XYZ Corp. supplies the critters and feed, simply pays the operator to feed them, then the owner is XYZ Corp. not the person who is paying for the building. In some cases the contractor is also the owner of record for the manure.

 

 

7020.0300 subp 18. Pastures - Delete perennial from "vegetation cover of perennial grasses and forages."

 

 

7020.0300 subp26. Waters of the State - Any place on any farm or any lawn would be included in this definition of "waters of the state". This wording needs to be clarified to make it less inclusive.

 

 

7020.0350 Registration Requirements for Animal Feedlots, Manure Storage Areas and Pastures. Non-Feedlot operators with 50 au*s [10 in shorelands] or more are also required to register under this section. The registration requirements are the same as for feedlots including inspection, testing and record-keeping. Under the definition of feedlots, pastures shall not be considered animal feedlots. Operations that are not feedlots should not be required to register and all parts relating to this requirement should be removed. The entire portion that requires registration of operations that are not feedlots needs to be deleted along with all related wording. The rules must be clear that non-feedlot operations continue to remain exempt from regulation.

 

 

7020.0400 Permit program - subp 1., subp 3. SW-A permits -The definition of SW-A, Interim A and Interim B permits need to be included.

 

7020.0405 subp1.B.3. Permit required - The MPCA should define "equivalent environmental results" and "alternative operational methods".

 

7020.0405 D subp 3. B It looks like a pasture operation will have to be inspected and file a manure management plan before they can say they do not need a feedlot permit. This provision should be removed.

 

7020.0500 Do not repeal those parts that require public hearings.

 

 

7020.0505 Permit applications and processing procedures - There is no requirement to allow the public to be involved. There should be notification to all local units of governments including townships and all landowners within one mile of the perimeters of the feedlot. Most people do not find out about a feedlot or expansion unless there is a local public hearing under a land use ordinance. By that time, there is little or no opportunity for people inexperienced in local and state government to find out what their rights are and make use of them. They end up angry with their local administrators and neighbors, because Minnesota PCA has not met their mandate to establish clear standards to protect the purity of the natural resources of the state.

 

 

There are no specific provisions to cancel a permit once issued when there is an established record of violations. Without this authority and mandate, large (CAFO*s) violators can ignore permit violations and refuse to correct them. Small feedlot operators (which should be defined as 100-300 au*s) that have a violation should be provided financial and management assistance to transition to Best Management Practices (BMP) including grass-based.

 

 

7020.0505 subp 4.B.1.c. How is the validity of a complaint established. The state should adopt specific and measurable means to quickly identify if there is a problem from odors, gasses, dust, manure runoff, etc. and quickly resolve it with notification to the person making the complaint.

 

7020.0535 subp5 Construction Short Form and Interim Permits - These provisions give the feedlot operator the ability to continue for over four years without any public recourse. Construction should be completed within one year and Interim permits to correct a hazard should be for no more than six months.

 

7020.0700 Procedural Rules and Appeals - This section should not be repealed and should be strengthened to allow the person, persons, agency or governmental body to request an EAW or an EIS without being required to pay for it as it relates to feedlots.

 

 

7020.2000 subp 4. Notification of proposed construction or expansion in the legals (usually four lines) of a newspaper is not adequate, ALL of the people within one mile should be notified and if ANYONE is missed, notification starts all over again. The County Assessors office and the Treasurers office always knows who and where ALL the owners are.

 

7020.2000 Subp5. Government notifications of proposed construction or expansion - This section should include townships.

 

7020.2002 Where are the standards for Air Quality that cover odors and dusts? What about insects and the diseases and problems they cause? The MPCA must not ignore the worst problems for neighboring residents and the environment. They should adopt established standards from other states and countries. The MPCA should also adopt American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE) setback standards for dusts and odors. Regulations should be concurrently developed and adopted MN Department of Public Health (MDH) to resolve these problems.

 

 

7020.2002 The exemptions to the Hydrogen Sulfide rule is just an accommodation for the large corporate operators and should immediately eliminated.

 

 

7020.2003 Water Quality Discharge Standards - There are rules to protect municipal water supplies but none to protect water for people, livestock, fish and wildlife. These water supplies must also be protected. There should be standards that will prevent the concentrated estrogens in various manures from contaminating surface and underground waters because of known reproductive problems.

 

 

7020.2025 Animal feedlot or manure storage area closure - How can this section be enforced without some kind of irrevocable bond and some financial assurance that taxpayers won't have to pay for closure.

 

7020.2100 Liquid manure storage areas - There are no provisions in this section for sites that are located on the aquifer or where the footings will be below the water table. These are the most environmentally sensitive sites. They should not be overlooked or tactfully ignored even if they are already contaminated. There are rules to protect municipal water supplies but NEVER a word about water for people, livestock, fish and wildlife. If a manure pit or lagoon is in the water table, there is no effective way that installing a drain field around the perimeter to keep it from contaminating the water table and neighboring wells.

 

7020.2100 subp3 Design Standards - When does the requirement of nine months manure storage for 1,000 au*s begin; if the feedlot has the capacity for 1,000 au*s or the liquid storage has 1,000 au*s worth of manure in it? Are existing facilities grandfathered in? If not, what is the compliance deadline?

 

7020.2100 subp4 A.5. Design plans and specifications - This part says the operator must record the depth to the regional and seasonal high water table but then what? If the liquid storage would be within the seasonal high water table it should not be permitted.

 

7020.2100 subp4 A.9 Design plans and specifications - A perimeter drainage tile just will not work in some areas to keep the manure pit out of the water table. They may make it look good on paper but it just cannot happen and should not be permitted.

 

7020.2100 subp4 B. Design plans and specifications - In addition to protecting public water supplies, private wells and wildlife drinking supplies should be protected.

 

7020.2100 subp4 G. Design plans and specifications - Earthen basins CANNOT be designed so they are not a significant source of pollution. They must be phased out by encouraging operations under 300 au's to go to dry manure handling and composting with only non hazardous process waste waters going into a lagoon and over 300 au's to go to heavy composite liners. MPCA should evaluate the effects of PVC liners outgassing estrogens, see also 7020.2120 subp4.

 

7020.2125 subp2 C.3. Manure stockpiling sites - With 200 feet to a private well will take only a couple of months for runoff from raw (fresh or uncomposted) manure to reach the water supply in the sand plain areas. Stockpiling requirements must be different for raw and composted manure which should include bedding packs and loafing sheds.

 

7020.2150 Manure Compost sites - This wording is ponderous and is certainly unworkable for the ordinary operation. There needs to be wording that encourages the natural composting that occurs in bedding-based systems like hoop barns for hogs, loafing sheds for cattle and horses which is considered the most environmentally sound way of manure management. We did not need feedlot pollution regulation until animal concentration became a problem because of direct or indirect corporate control. Traditional livestock manure management was or could have been managed effectively through NRCS, BOWSER and FSA programs. Liquid manure handling is not the answer to the pollution problem; dry manure composting with lots of straw or other dry material a better solution.

 

 

7020.2225 Land application of manure. subp1.D. "any person receiving manure" If an operator gives a load of composted manure to a person for their garden, do they have to keep records? Non- feedlot operations and feedlot operators of 100 au*s should be exempt from these rules. Feedlot operations with 100 au*s to 300 au*s should only be required to keep records of where the manure is spread.

 

7020.2225 subp4 A. Manure management plan requirements - If operators with more than 100 animal units shall have a manure management plan, why not exempt from reporting and permitting all operations with less than 100 animal units?

 

7020.2225 subp4 B.3. Manure management plan requirements - The limits for soil phosphorus should not be raised beyond the maximum recommendations by Minnesota Extension because they established the levels where soils would become saturated and runoff would occur. The object of these rules should be to prevent pollution, not just to "minimize" phosphorus transport.

 

 

Repealer. Do NOT repeal parts 7020.0100, 7020.0300 subp 7 and subp 20 B., 7020.0400, those parts of 7020.0500 that require public hearings for feedlots as described in my initial paragraphs items one [1] through five [5], 7020.0700 reinstated with the provision that individual citizens [non-feedlot person] will NOT be charged a fee to appeal a decision.

 

 

END