Update: See also Judge: Contaminated wells part of 'massive regulatory failure' (Bergquist, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)
"The DNR operates all of its permit programs to meet all requirements of current laws and rules," writes Michael Bruhn, Director of Policy and External Relations for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, in an November 3 email.
Bruhn writes his comment in an email exchange with Wisconsin clean water activists and Greg Farnham of Juneau, Wisconsin following an administrative law ruling by Judge Jeffrey Boldt in October reading that "massive regulatory failure" at the DNR led to groundwater contamination in northeastern Wisconsin and that the DNR should in effect do its job to prevent continued water contamination by liquid cow manure. (Seely, WisconsinWatch)
Farnham and citizens around the state would like to see more such rulings as well as federal intervention by the EPA, as Wisconsin waters are becoming increasingly toxified by a new form of Big Agriculture and Dairy farming: Concentrated (Confined) Agricultural Feeding Operations or CAFOs.
The DNR has been trying to deflect political and legal blame for the massive regulatory failure, exemplified by DNR's spokesman William Cosh who tried to absolve the DNR even after the ad law opinion was published.
Writes Farnham to the DNR's spokesman William Cosh in a Nov. 2 email: "In my opinion your statements are beyond the pale and further evidence of the mutation of the department [Wisconsin DNR] from a protector of natural resources for the benefit of all citizens of the state to a cabal of the rich, powerful and well-connected agricultural lobbies."
Meanwhile, DNR Secretary Cathy Stepp has taken to talk radio and blogging criticizing the October ruling as "editorializing." (Rowen, The Political Environment)
Writes Farnham to the DNR's Bruhn: "Bill Cosh's attempt to pin the tail of responsibility for regulatory failure on his targeted donkey - the county health department - strikes me as egregiously irresponsible."
Rather it is misguided and dangerous state policy that has resulted in massive regulatory failure -- a failure which is turning our rural landscape into giant septic tanks for livestock manure, polluting our groundwater and adversely affecting the lives of rural residents and the well being of their communities."
The truth is the clean and safe water activists' effect on the November general election—despite widespread popularity of their position—was nil, to the puzzlement of many around Wisconsin.
Writes Don Ystad of Rome, Wisconsin: "(DNR bureaucrats) spin [the Boldt decision] just like the Ag lobbyists. These are supposed to be the people protecting our environment from those who would abuse it. DNR enforcement is down 67 percent in the past four years, 2013 set records for pollution of waterways in our state, and 2014 is on pace to exceed even that."
No source contacted for this piece is considering giving up.
Showing posts with label aerial spray irrigation manure. Show all posts
Showing posts with label aerial spray irrigation manure. Show all posts
Sep 18, 2014
Wisconsin Town to Encircle Proposed Factory Farm Site with 10 Monitoring Water Wells
Updated - The Town of Saratoga in Wood County in central Wisconsin is a sand-laden recreational area that features tourist attractions located right in the middle of the Wisconsin Central Plain or Golden Sands.
Saratoga residents are revolted by the effort of the Wysocki Family of Companies to stick a massive Concentrated Agricultural Feeding Operation (CAFO) in Saratoga that would directly affect five neighboring counties and fear the CAFO will bleed pathogens in liquid cow manure into water aquifers, trout streams and area lakes.
Protect Wood County and Its Neighbors and Rome and Saratoga Friendly are leading the fight, and the Town of Saratoga stands together with these citizens groups as citizens watch property values in neighboring Adams County plummet 20 percent and property values in Wood County remain stagnant.
Wysocki's sock puppet, State Rep. Scot Krug (R-Nekoosa), came under such political heat running for reelection that he had to flip/flop and express opposition to the CAFO (73 days before Election Day) though reportedly Krug was told by Assembly Speaker Robin Voss that James Wysocki, owner and chief financial officer of the Wysocki Family of Companies, said that while Krug's statement of opposition went too far for Wysocki's taste, Wysocki was assured by Voss Krug's wink-wink statement would not present a problem while the Republicans controlled the state assembly and the governor's office.
Voss' office refused to confirm or deny the report.
Saratoga resident, Bruce E. Dimick, reports the Saratoga Town Board "unanimously voted to contract for the placement of 10 groundwater monitoring wells that will encircle the proposed Wysocki CAFO in the Town of Saratoga."
By Bruce E. Dimick
At a well-attended Saratoga Town Board Meeting, the Town Board unanimously voted to contract for the placement of 10 groundwater monitoring wells that will encircle the proposed Wysocki CAFO in the Town of Saratoga. All the citizens that spoke, spoke in favor of the proposal with great passion. No citizen or elected official opposed. The citizens emphasized the need to get the well network in this fall so that baseline data can be gathered prior to any activity by the Wysocki organization. This will provide the town and its citizens with solid data for further legal action in the event that the Wysocki organization moves ahead with its plans and the aquifer that all the citizens of Saratoga depend upon is degraded.
This proposal will be put out to bid, but it is expected to cost something in the neighborhood of $60,000 the first year, and considerably less in subsequent years. The key parameters that will be monitored will include:
Saratoga residents are revolted by the effort of the Wysocki Family of Companies to stick a massive Concentrated Agricultural Feeding Operation (CAFO) in Saratoga that would directly affect five neighboring counties and fear the CAFO will bleed pathogens in liquid cow manure into water aquifers, trout streams and area lakes.
Protect Wood County and Its Neighbors and Rome and Saratoga Friendly are leading the fight, and the Town of Saratoga stands together with these citizens groups as citizens watch property values in neighboring Adams County plummet 20 percent and property values in Wood County remain stagnant.
Wysocki's sock puppet, State Rep. Scot Krug (R-Nekoosa), came under such political heat running for reelection that he had to flip/flop and express opposition to the CAFO (73 days before Election Day) though reportedly Krug was told by Assembly Speaker Robin Voss that James Wysocki, owner and chief financial officer of the Wysocki Family of Companies, said that while Krug's statement of opposition went too far for Wysocki's taste, Wysocki was assured by Voss Krug's wink-wink statement would not present a problem while the Republicans controlled the state assembly and the governor's office.
Voss' office refused to confirm or deny the report.
Saratoga resident, Bruce E. Dimick, reports the Saratoga Town Board "unanimously voted to contract for the placement of 10 groundwater monitoring wells that will encircle the proposed Wysocki CAFO in the Town of Saratoga."
By Bruce E. Dimick
At a well-attended Saratoga Town Board Meeting, the Town Board unanimously voted to contract for the placement of 10 groundwater monitoring wells that will encircle the proposed Wysocki CAFO in the Town of Saratoga. All the citizens that spoke, spoke in favor of the proposal with great passion. No citizen or elected official opposed. The citizens emphasized the need to get the well network in this fall so that baseline data can be gathered prior to any activity by the Wysocki organization. This will provide the town and its citizens with solid data for further legal action in the event that the Wysocki organization moves ahead with its plans and the aquifer that all the citizens of Saratoga depend upon is degraded.
This proposal will be put out to bid, but it is expected to cost something in the neighborhood of $60,000 the first year, and considerably less in subsequent years. The key parameters that will be monitored will include:
- Determine the soil type and any impervious layers that may or may not exist in the borehole. This is key data for any mathematical models used to simulate the effect of the CAFO on our aquifer.
- The shallow wells will vary from 20 to 50 feet depending on location and there will be two deeper wells at 50 - 70 feet.
- All water samples will be tested for pesticides, herbicides, coliform bacteria, total dissolved solids, total organic nitrogen and ammonia.
- In addition all samples will be tested for oxygen demand, nitrate nitrogen, chloride and phosphorus.
- Water depth will be measured every 4 hours automatically.
- Other tests may be added after an examination of the initial proposal by a committee of knowledgeably citizens and professionals.
Solastalgia—Sickness That the Place One Resides and Loves Is Under Immediate Assault
Clean Water Is Under Attack in Wisconsin; EPA Finds CAFO in Violation of Clean Water Act
Water is the lifeblood of the human body. (Mayo Clinic)
Water's vitality and beauty on Earth are equally clear; and water is so obviously interconnected with Earth that this reality is known or felt by most Americans—except politicians and industry.
In Wisconsin, where fresh water is abundant, the attack is getting worse and residents are both angry and uneasy.
Glenn Albrecht coined a term to describe (a sickness inflicted): 'solastalgia,' a combination of the Latin word solacium (comfort) and the Greek root –algia (pain), which he defined as 'the pain experienced when there is recognition that the place where one resides and that one loves is under immediate assault . . . a form of homesickness one gets when one is still at ‘home.’' (Daniel B. Smith, New York Times (January 27, 2010))
We have been running posts here from citizens in Wisconsin whose wisdom clearly exceeds the policymakers—the Scott Walkers, the Scott Krugs, the Stephen Nass types—and the new pollution-friendly Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
---
Thank you for your reply, Representative Nass.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusions, however, based on my 15 years of experience as a lake management district commissioner for Lake Sinissippi and the Rock River.
(1) I'm afraid that reality does not comport that DNR is constantly working to address agriculture's impact on water quality and the environment.
DNR Deputy Secretary Matt Moroney spoke at a gathering of agricultural producers in February 2013 and is on record as stating that DNR is no longer a strong advocate on environmental issues. This regressive policy is reflected in the permissive issuance of wastewater discharge permits to CAFOs without adequate oversight to ensure compliance and an unwillingness to take effective action to enforce laws designed to protect water quality -- witness the egregious discharge violation by farmers that caused one million gallons of liquid manure to pollute the Little Eau Pleine River in Marathon County and which resulted in a trifling fine by DNR of $464!
After the failure of DNR to investigate and deal with manure runoff to the East Twin River in Kewaunee County, concerned citizens requested the US Environmental Protection Agency-Region 7 in Chicago to investigate the matter. The EPA inspector found the livestock CAFO was in violation of three provisions of the federal Clean Water Act.
(2) Nor do I find that DATCP is constantly working to address agriculture's impact on our water resources.
Last October I appeared before the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board and requested the board to investigate failure of the Dodge County Land Conservation Committee to implement its approved land and water conservation plan regarding winter spreading of livestock manure. DATCP denied the board authority to make such an investigation and took no action on its own to deal with inadequate implementation of the conservation plan by the county.
Section ATCP 50.04(3) requires all agricultural producers to have and follow a nutrient management plan to reduce runoff of nutrients to surface and ground water; however, there is no enforcement. Most cropland in Dodge County is operated without a nutrient management plan -- only 33 % of county cropland is under a NMP [Nutrient Management Plan]. Neither DATCP nor our county LCC [Land Conservation Committee] enforce the provision. Jefferson County is the bright spot in the Rock River Valley with 73 % of cropland in a NMP. Dane and Rock counties have even less NMP participation than Dodge County -- Rock is 27 % and Dane is 26 %.
This coming Thursday is a meeting of the DATCP livestock siting technical expert committee. Although a publicly noticed meeting and although there is considerable controversy regarding livestock siting and preemption of local zoning control over CAFO operations by DATCP, no public involvement or comment will be permitted at the meeting. In my experience, DATCP is managed by and on behalf of agricultural producers and as a result public stakeholders are marginalized and their concerns minimized.
(3) The harmful effects of industrial agriculture to our environment, natural resources and public health have been with us since the end of World War II and those effects have been studied in a scientific manner for the past seven decades. I believe there is nothing complex about the required conservation and management practices and governmental regulations and enforcement necessary to protect our land, water and air resources and safeguard public health.
The missing link, in my view, is the political will to take action.
We know the problem and we know what is needed to deal with it -- lack of compliance is the problem and regulation and enforcement are needed. Point-source polluters such as municipal wastewater treatment facilities, factories and industrial operations, etc are required under the federal Clean Water Act to comply with CWA provisions. Non-point polluters such as agriculture, on the other hand, are not required to comply - compliance by the farmer is strictly voluntary - and the job is not getting done.
The TMDL for the Rock River Basin indicates that the two largest contributors of phosphorus and suspended solids to the basin are agriculture and wastewater treatment facilities. Wastewater facilities contribute 26% of the phosphorus and 3% of the suspended solids, while agriculture is the source of 64% of the phosphorus and 89% of the suspended solids (sediment). The state is tightening the screws on our municipal treatment facilities to reduce phosphorus discharges through enforceable mandates, while essentially ignoring the biggest contributor of phosphorus - agriculture.
The US Government Accountability Office issued a report in January 2014 (attached) regarding achievement of objectives of the Clean Water Act. The conclusion is sobering for those of us concerned with water quality:
Because the Clean Water Act addresses nonpoint source pollution largely through voluntary means, EPA does not have direct authority to compel landowners to take prescribed actions to reduce such pollution. In GAO's survey, state officials knowledgeable about TMDLs reported that 83 percent of TMDLs have achieved their targets for point source pollution (e.g., factories) through permits but that 20 percent achieved their targets for nonpoint source pollution.
Without changes to the act's approach to nonpoint source pollution, the act's goals are likely to remain unfulfilled.
(4) My experience tells me that industrial agriculture is not a good steward of our natural resources nor a good neighbor. Good stewards don't pollute their neighbor's well with cow manure, spray liquid manure into the air where the hydrogen sulfide and ammonia drift cause asthma attacks in neighborhood children and elderly, improperly fertilize corn fields to the extent that nitrate levels in drinking water of private wells exceed state health limits, plow next to rivers and streams causing sediment runoff that chokes our waterways, or allow manure spills and nutrient runoff that pollute our lakes, rivers and streams killing fish, closing swimming beaches and causing harmful algae blooms.
I learned that just today a large manure spill (640,000 gallons) occurred in Door County.
(5) Our farming community has demonstrated that it is unwilling to voluntarily adopt conservation practices that would significantly lessen the resource impact and moderate the public health effects of current agricultural operations. In Dodge County alone the USDA NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services) district conservationist has for the past three years sent back to Washington, DC funds budgeted for EQIP (Environmental Quality Implementation Program) conservation practices since there was no demand by county farmers for the program. Everyone is planting ditch to ditch and expanded sizes of dairy herds.
So unless you and our other legislators take the time to truly understand that lack of compliance is the problem and engender political will across the aisle to take corrective action, then I fear your view of a "long term focus" will be reality.
We will continue to kick the proverbial can down the road for the next generation and praise our farmers for being good stewards and complement leaders of DNR, DATCP and DHS on the great job they're doing, while our rural residents drink contaminated water, breathe polluted air and our lakes, rivers and streams turn green and brown.
I very much regret that I have yet to see anyone in Madison willing to help turn this ship around before it goes aground. Perhaps you might be willing to take the lead in developing a political consensus for corrective action. If we can assist in that regard, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Greg Farnham, Coordinator
Rock River Trail Initiative
Hustisford, Wisconsin (Dodge County)
(920) 296-8771
www.rockrivertrail.com
#
Changes Needed If Key EPA Program Is to Help Fulfill the Nation's Water Quality Goals
GAO-14-80: Published: Dec 5, 2013. Publicly Released: Jan 13, 2014.
What GAO Found
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states each have responsibilities for developing and implementing pollution targets, known as total maximum daily loads (TMDL). EPA oversees states' TMDL efforts by establishing in regulations minimum requirements TMDLs need for approval, providing funding, and furnishing technical assistance. States develop TMDLs and generally take the lead in implementing them by identifying pollutants that impair water quality and taking actions to reduce them.
Of about 50,000 TMDLs developed and approved, nearly 35,000 were approved more than 5 years ago, long enough for GAO to consider them long established. State officials GAO surveyed in its representative sample of 191 TMDLs reported that pollutants had been reduced in many waters, but few impaired water bodies have fully attained water quality standards.
The sample of 25 TMDLs reviewed by water resource experts GAO contacted seldom contained all features key to attaining water quality standards. According to the National Research Council and EPA, these features--some that are beyond the scope of EPA's existing regulations--include identifying pollution causing stressors and showing how addressing them would help attain such standards; specifying how and by whom TMDLs will be implemented; and ensuring periodic revisions as needed. The experts found, however, that 17 of 25 long-established TMDLs they reviewed did not show that addressing identified stressors would help attain water quality standards; 12 contained vague or no information on actions that need to be taken, or by whom, for implementation; and 15 did not contain features to help ensure that TMDLs are revised if need be. GAO's review showed that EPA's existing regulations do not explicitly require TMDLs to include these key features, and without such features in TMDLs--or in addition to TMDLs--impaired water bodies are unlikely to attain standards.
In response to GAO's survey, state officials reported that long-established TMDLs generally do not exhibit factors most helpful for attaining water quality standards, particularly for nonpoint source pollution (e.g., farms and storm water runoff). The officials reported that landowner participation and adequate funding--factors they viewed as among the most helpful in implementing TMDLs--were not present in the implementation activities of at least two-thirds of long-established TMDLs, particularly those of nonpoint source TMDLs. Because the Clean Water Act addresses nonpoint source pollution largely through voluntary means, EPA does not have direct authority to compel landowners to take prescribed actions to reduce such pollution. In GAO's survey, state officials knowledgeable about TMDLs reported that 83 percent of TMDLs have achieved their targets for point source pollution (e.g., factories) through permits but that 20 percent achieved their targets for nonpoint source pollution. In 1987, when the act was amended to cover such pollution, some Members of Congress indicated that this provision was a starting point, to be changed if reliance on voluntary approaches did not significantly improve water quality. More than 40 years after Congress
passed the Clean Water Act, however, EPA reported that many of the nation's waters are still impaired, and the goals of the act are not being met. Without changes to the act's approach to nonpoint source pollution, the act's goals are likely to remain unfulfilled.
Why GAO Did This Study
The 1972 Clean Water Act aimed to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters." Under the act, states must establish water quality standards; for waters that do not meet these standards, states must develop TMDLs, which EPA approves. TMDLs set targeted limits for pollutants but are not self-implementing; EPA and states help reduce pollutants by issuing permits for point sources, whereas they provide voluntary incentives to reduce nonpoint source pollution.
GAO was asked to examine the TMDL program, specifically (1) EPA's and states' responsibilities in developing and implementing TMDLs, (2) what is known about the status of long established TMDLs, (3) the extent to which such TMDLs contain features key to attaining water quality standards, and (4) the extent to which TMDLs exhibit factors that facilitate effective implementation. GAO asked water resource experts to review a random sample of 25 long-established TMDLs and surveyed state officials who are responsible for implementing a representative sample of 191 long established TMDLs.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that EPA issue new regulations for TMDL development, adding key features. Further, Congress should consider revising the Clean Water Act's approach to addressing nonpoint source pollution. EPA did not comment on the matter for Congress. The agency agreed with the need to add key features to TMDLs but did not agree to issue new regulations. GAO believes new regulations are needed.
For more information, contact J. Alfredo Gómez at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-80
Water is the lifeblood of the human body. (Mayo Clinic)
Water's vitality and beauty on Earth are equally clear; and water is so obviously interconnected with Earth that this reality is known or felt by most Americans—except politicians and industry.
In Wisconsin, where fresh water is abundant, the attack is getting worse and residents are both angry and uneasy.
Glenn Albrecht coined a term to describe (a sickness inflicted): 'solastalgia,' a combination of the Latin word solacium (comfort) and the Greek root –algia (pain), which he defined as 'the pain experienced when there is recognition that the place where one resides and that one loves is under immediate assault . . . a form of homesickness one gets when one is still at ‘home.’' (Daniel B. Smith, New York Times (January 27, 2010))
We have been running posts here from citizens in Wisconsin whose wisdom clearly exceeds the policymakers—the Scott Walkers, the Scott Krugs, the Stephen Nass types—and the new pollution-friendly Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Waterdog - Tuesday at 5:30 PM in the Milwaukee Journal-SentinelBelow is a reply to Wisconsin State Assembly Representative Stephen Nass (R-Whitewater), contacted by Wisconsin citizen, Greg Farnham.
"If regulatory agencies never go after the non-point sources that are adding 80-90% of the phosphorus to our waterways, our water quality will never improve. They know where the problem is, they just refuse to address it. Until that changes we just have to live with algae blooms on many of our lakes."
---
Thank you for your reply, Representative Nass.
I respectfully disagree with your conclusions, however, based on my 15 years of experience as a lake management district commissioner for Lake Sinissippi and the Rock River.
(1) I'm afraid that reality does not comport that DNR is constantly working to address agriculture's impact on water quality and the environment.
DNR Deputy Secretary Matt Moroney spoke at a gathering of agricultural producers in February 2013 and is on record as stating that DNR is no longer a strong advocate on environmental issues. This regressive policy is reflected in the permissive issuance of wastewater discharge permits to CAFOs without adequate oversight to ensure compliance and an unwillingness to take effective action to enforce laws designed to protect water quality -- witness the egregious discharge violation by farmers that caused one million gallons of liquid manure to pollute the Little Eau Pleine River in Marathon County and which resulted in a trifling fine by DNR of $464!
After the failure of DNR to investigate and deal with manure runoff to the East Twin River in Kewaunee County, concerned citizens requested the US Environmental Protection Agency-Region 7 in Chicago to investigate the matter. The EPA inspector found the livestock CAFO was in violation of three provisions of the federal Clean Water Act.
(2) Nor do I find that DATCP is constantly working to address agriculture's impact on our water resources.
Last October I appeared before the Wisconsin Land and Water Conservation Board and requested the board to investigate failure of the Dodge County Land Conservation Committee to implement its approved land and water conservation plan regarding winter spreading of livestock manure. DATCP denied the board authority to make such an investigation and took no action on its own to deal with inadequate implementation of the conservation plan by the county.
Section ATCP 50.04(3) requires all agricultural producers to have and follow a nutrient management plan to reduce runoff of nutrients to surface and ground water; however, there is no enforcement. Most cropland in Dodge County is operated without a nutrient management plan -- only 33 % of county cropland is under a NMP [Nutrient Management Plan]. Neither DATCP nor our county LCC [Land Conservation Committee] enforce the provision. Jefferson County is the bright spot in the Rock River Valley with 73 % of cropland in a NMP. Dane and Rock counties have even less NMP participation than Dodge County -- Rock is 27 % and Dane is 26 %.
This coming Thursday is a meeting of the DATCP livestock siting technical expert committee. Although a publicly noticed meeting and although there is considerable controversy regarding livestock siting and preemption of local zoning control over CAFO operations by DATCP, no public involvement or comment will be permitted at the meeting. In my experience, DATCP is managed by and on behalf of agricultural producers and as a result public stakeholders are marginalized and their concerns minimized.
(3) The harmful effects of industrial agriculture to our environment, natural resources and public health have been with us since the end of World War II and those effects have been studied in a scientific manner for the past seven decades. I believe there is nothing complex about the required conservation and management practices and governmental regulations and enforcement necessary to protect our land, water and air resources and safeguard public health.
The missing link, in my view, is the political will to take action.
We know the problem and we know what is needed to deal with it -- lack of compliance is the problem and regulation and enforcement are needed. Point-source polluters such as municipal wastewater treatment facilities, factories and industrial operations, etc are required under the federal Clean Water Act to comply with CWA provisions. Non-point polluters such as agriculture, on the other hand, are not required to comply - compliance by the farmer is strictly voluntary - and the job is not getting done.
The TMDL for the Rock River Basin indicates that the two largest contributors of phosphorus and suspended solids to the basin are agriculture and wastewater treatment facilities. Wastewater facilities contribute 26% of the phosphorus and 3% of the suspended solids, while agriculture is the source of 64% of the phosphorus and 89% of the suspended solids (sediment). The state is tightening the screws on our municipal treatment facilities to reduce phosphorus discharges through enforceable mandates, while essentially ignoring the biggest contributor of phosphorus - agriculture.
The US Government Accountability Office issued a report in January 2014 (attached) regarding achievement of objectives of the Clean Water Act. The conclusion is sobering for those of us concerned with water quality:
Because the Clean Water Act addresses nonpoint source pollution largely through voluntary means, EPA does not have direct authority to compel landowners to take prescribed actions to reduce such pollution. In GAO's survey, state officials knowledgeable about TMDLs reported that 83 percent of TMDLs have achieved their targets for point source pollution (e.g., factories) through permits but that 20 percent achieved their targets for nonpoint source pollution.
Without changes to the act's approach to nonpoint source pollution, the act's goals are likely to remain unfulfilled.
(4) My experience tells me that industrial agriculture is not a good steward of our natural resources nor a good neighbor. Good stewards don't pollute their neighbor's well with cow manure, spray liquid manure into the air where the hydrogen sulfide and ammonia drift cause asthma attacks in neighborhood children and elderly, improperly fertilize corn fields to the extent that nitrate levels in drinking water of private wells exceed state health limits, plow next to rivers and streams causing sediment runoff that chokes our waterways, or allow manure spills and nutrient runoff that pollute our lakes, rivers and streams killing fish, closing swimming beaches and causing harmful algae blooms.
I learned that just today a large manure spill (640,000 gallons) occurred in Door County.
(5) Our farming community has demonstrated that it is unwilling to voluntarily adopt conservation practices that would significantly lessen the resource impact and moderate the public health effects of current agricultural operations. In Dodge County alone the USDA NRCS (United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Services) district conservationist has for the past three years sent back to Washington, DC funds budgeted for EQIP (Environmental Quality Implementation Program) conservation practices since there was no demand by county farmers for the program. Everyone is planting ditch to ditch and expanded sizes of dairy herds.
So unless you and our other legislators take the time to truly understand that lack of compliance is the problem and engender political will across the aisle to take corrective action, then I fear your view of a "long term focus" will be reality.
We will continue to kick the proverbial can down the road for the next generation and praise our farmers for being good stewards and complement leaders of DNR, DATCP and DHS on the great job they're doing, while our rural residents drink contaminated water, breathe polluted air and our lakes, rivers and streams turn green and brown.
I very much regret that I have yet to see anyone in Madison willing to help turn this ship around before it goes aground. Perhaps you might be willing to take the lead in developing a political consensus for corrective action. If we can assist in that regard, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Greg Farnham, Coordinator
Rock River Trail Initiative
Hustisford, Wisconsin (Dodge County)
(920) 296-8771
www.rockrivertrail.com
#
Changes Needed If Key EPA Program Is to Help Fulfill the Nation's Water Quality Goals
GAO-14-80: Published: Dec 5, 2013. Publicly Released: Jan 13, 2014.
What GAO Found
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the states each have responsibilities for developing and implementing pollution targets, known as total maximum daily loads (TMDL). EPA oversees states' TMDL efforts by establishing in regulations minimum requirements TMDLs need for approval, providing funding, and furnishing technical assistance. States develop TMDLs and generally take the lead in implementing them by identifying pollutants that impair water quality and taking actions to reduce them.
Of about 50,000 TMDLs developed and approved, nearly 35,000 were approved more than 5 years ago, long enough for GAO to consider them long established. State officials GAO surveyed in its representative sample of 191 TMDLs reported that pollutants had been reduced in many waters, but few impaired water bodies have fully attained water quality standards.
The sample of 25 TMDLs reviewed by water resource experts GAO contacted seldom contained all features key to attaining water quality standards. According to the National Research Council and EPA, these features--some that are beyond the scope of EPA's existing regulations--include identifying pollution causing stressors and showing how addressing them would help attain such standards; specifying how and by whom TMDLs will be implemented; and ensuring periodic revisions as needed. The experts found, however, that 17 of 25 long-established TMDLs they reviewed did not show that addressing identified stressors would help attain water quality standards; 12 contained vague or no information on actions that need to be taken, or by whom, for implementation; and 15 did not contain features to help ensure that TMDLs are revised if need be. GAO's review showed that EPA's existing regulations do not explicitly require TMDLs to include these key features, and without such features in TMDLs--or in addition to TMDLs--impaired water bodies are unlikely to attain standards.
In response to GAO's survey, state officials reported that long-established TMDLs generally do not exhibit factors most helpful for attaining water quality standards, particularly for nonpoint source pollution (e.g., farms and storm water runoff). The officials reported that landowner participation and adequate funding--factors they viewed as among the most helpful in implementing TMDLs--were not present in the implementation activities of at least two-thirds of long-established TMDLs, particularly those of nonpoint source TMDLs. Because the Clean Water Act addresses nonpoint source pollution largely through voluntary means, EPA does not have direct authority to compel landowners to take prescribed actions to reduce such pollution. In GAO's survey, state officials knowledgeable about TMDLs reported that 83 percent of TMDLs have achieved their targets for point source pollution (e.g., factories) through permits but that 20 percent achieved their targets for nonpoint source pollution. In 1987, when the act was amended to cover such pollution, some Members of Congress indicated that this provision was a starting point, to be changed if reliance on voluntary approaches did not significantly improve water quality. More than 40 years after Congress
passed the Clean Water Act, however, EPA reported that many of the nation's waters are still impaired, and the goals of the act are not being met. Without changes to the act's approach to nonpoint source pollution, the act's goals are likely to remain unfulfilled.
Why GAO Did This Study
The 1972 Clean Water Act aimed to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters." Under the act, states must establish water quality standards; for waters that do not meet these standards, states must develop TMDLs, which EPA approves. TMDLs set targeted limits for pollutants but are not self-implementing; EPA and states help reduce pollutants by issuing permits for point sources, whereas they provide voluntary incentives to reduce nonpoint source pollution.
GAO was asked to examine the TMDL program, specifically (1) EPA's and states' responsibilities in developing and implementing TMDLs, (2) what is known about the status of long established TMDLs, (3) the extent to which such TMDLs contain features key to attaining water quality standards, and (4) the extent to which TMDLs exhibit factors that facilitate effective implementation. GAO asked water resource experts to review a random sample of 25 long-established TMDLs and surveyed state officials who are responsible for implementing a representative sample of 191 long established TMDLs.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that EPA issue new regulations for TMDL development, adding key features. Further, Congress should consider revising the Clean Water Act's approach to addressing nonpoint source pollution. EPA did not comment on the matter for Congress. The agency agreed with the need to add key features to TMDLs but did not agree to issue new regulations. GAO believes new regulations are needed.
For more information, contact J. Alfredo Gómez at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov.
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-80
Sep 17, 2014
Citizen Farnham Lied to by Wisconsin State Senate Office of Scott Fitzgerald on Safe Water
 |
| Home of Greg Farnham in Juneau, Wisconsin |
Greg Farnham is waiting to hear from State Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (R-Clyman), and waiting. Perhaps Mr. Farnham should give Fitzgerald's campaign committee some money, this seems to work with Fitzgerald.
Greg Farnham
Waterdown Farms
N5036 St. Helena Road
Juneau, WI 53039-9636
Dear Senator Fitzgerald:
April 15th I met with Dan Romportl and Tad Ottman (legislative aides) to discuss concerns regarding human health risks from using aerial spray irrigation to dispose of manure at intensive livestock operations, a practice that is promoted by dairy and livestock producers and the departments of natural resources and agriculture, trade and consumer protection. I provided them with technical documents regarding public health risks of manure irrigation as well as copies of ordinances of Wisconsin counties and townships that have taken their own actions to restrict manure spray irrigation in an effort to protect the health of their residents.
I asked Messrs. Romportl and Ottman to review the information with you and convey that I find state action in this matter to be irresponsible. I shared with them my belief that the health and well being of our rural residents in CAFO counties have been marginalized by agency leadership at DNR and DATCP. I also find that DHS Secretary Rhoades has demonstrated she is uninterested in the serious public health consequences from manure irrigation and the need to find safer methods to dispose of rapidly growing quantities of livestock manure.
It was my understanding that Messrs. Romportl and Ottman were going to review the information and discuss it with you, and then let me know their recommendations; however, I've not heard from them.
As part of constructive dialogue I'd like to share additional technical information with you that I believe casts an even greater sense of urgency on the need for our state agencies to recognize the serious human health risks inherent in aerial spray irrigation of animal manure and to act responsibly.
Nancy Khardori, M.D., Ph.D., Division of Infectious Diseases, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, is author of "Overview of Potential Agents of Biological Terrorism" available on the university website (http://www.siumed.edu/medicine/id/bioterrorism.htm#a). Dr. Khardori reports that spray aerosols are the most effective means of dispersion of biological weapon systems, with secondary or tertiary transmission of pathogens and toxins person-to-person and via vectors.
Even more chilling is the fact that a number of bacterial agents of bioterrorism are pathogenic microorganisms found in livestock manure (US Environmental Protection Agency). These include:
- •Bacillus anthracis Category A bacterial agent of highest priority. Anthrax can be easily disseminated or transmitted person to person with high mortality. B. anthracis was weaponized by the US in 1954.
- Category B bioterrorism agents of second highest priority include Salmonella species, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Cryptosporidium parvum and Cloxiella burnetti.
- Brucella species Category B bioterrorism bacterial agent causing brucellosis. Easily transmitted, stable to environmental conditions and long persistence in wet ground. Infection by skin contact, ingestion and inhalation of contaminated aerosols. Highly infectious with only 10 - 100 viable cells required.
- Clostridium tetani Category B tetanus biological toxin
- Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B Category B biological toxin from Staphylococcus aureus. This toxin was one of seven agents in the US biological warfare arsenal in the 1960s.
DNR Deputy Secretary (Matt) Moroney spoke at a gathering of agricultural producers in February 2013. He is on record as claiming collaboration between DNR and producers is to facilitate dairy industry expansion. His message at the seminar included statements that DNR is no longer a strong advocate on environmental issues and further that DNR is supportive of manure spray irrigation. These words are from leadership of the agency providing over $300,000 of public money to fund supposedly objective research on manure irrigation by agricultural scientists.
Further, I understand that DNR has arranged for the quantitative microbial risk assessment for human health risk determination to be conducted by a forage research scientist with the US Department of Agriculture, not by medical officials and experts in public health.
Given the overlapping interests in this arrangement, there appears to be significant prejudice in the research plan and health risk assessment and I see little reason to trust the outcome of the DNR project.
I believe there is sufficient concern regarding human health risks to request a moratorium on the manure irrigation project until a more complete scope of work is defined and further that an agency with public health responsibilities and accountability is designated to conduct human health risk assessment.
I'm not anti-farming nor a tree hugger. I believe you know that my wife and I own 400 acres of farmland on Lake Sinissippi. My grandfather was a dairy field man for Nestle creamery in Waterford, Wisconsin, and I have fond memories of riding with him to his farm patrons in the early 1950s. My father was a dairy chemist in the industry. My business career was in international marketing in the dairy and food industries, and in the 1980s I served as a US representative to the International Dairy Federation in Brussels, Belgium.
I don't believe the livestock CAFO concept is sustainable. The costs to our rural communities and residents, our environment, human health, the workers on the farms and the animals themselves are too high -- witness the tragic drowning of 2,000 pigs in a manure pit at a swine CAFO in Guelph, Ontario a month ago.
And I envision serious, long-term problems for our state with the current administration policy of unfettered expansion of dairy and livestock CAFOs. Aggressive promotion of manure spray irrigation by DNR and DATCP is an ill-advised consequence of that policy. We're buried in manure, farm fields are saturated with waste and nutrients, and additional land for spreading is unavailable in many areas.
I believe we can evolve a more balanced approach to farming in this state that places a limit on expansion of CAFOs and instead encourages and supports economic development of farms with sustainable land-use practices and opportunities for our rural young people. I hope you are willing to explore more sensible options for our farm families and rural residents. In the meantime I believe there is a clear need for you to demand responsible action by our state agencies to protect public health from the hazards of manure spray irrigation.
Sincerely,
Greg Farnham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)